The URL can be used to link to this page

11-26-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 2019 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-2019 Barry & Jacqueline Lashinsky 2. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.8-1-39 Site Plan No. 63-2019 10 Dunham’s Bay Road, LLC 10. Special Use Permit 3-2019 Tax Map No. 239.20-1-4, 252.-1-67 Site Plan No. 73-2019 Tim & Kathy Bechard 14. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-53 Site Plan No. 75-2019 Landcrafter, LLC 17. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-58.1 Site Plan No. 76-2019 Landcrafter, LLC 19. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-57 Site Plan No. 67-2019 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 21. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVIEW. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE, ACTING SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL VALENTINE JOHN SHAFER STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT DAVID DEEB CHRIS HUNSINGER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board thth meeting for Tuesday, November 26, 2019. This is our second meeting for November and our 24 meeting for 2019. Because of the number of people here tonight, please note the location of the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency these are your exits. If you have an electronic device or cell phone, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off. We have one Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM VOTE FOR ADOPTION OF 2020 MEETING CALENDAR MOTION TO APPROVE CALENDAR YEAR 2020 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we move to our regular agenda. The first item, the first section of that agenda is tabled items. The first item under tabled is Barry & Jacqueline Lashinsky, Subdivision Modification 6-2019. TABLED ITEM: SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2019 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY. AGENT(S): MATTHEW F. FULLER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: MOON HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION “IMPERIAL ACRES” (APRIL 1990). THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN REVISED TO SHOW EIGHT LOTS WHERE SEVEN LOTS ARE RESIDENTIAL AND ONE LOT IS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN UPDATED IN REGARDS TO GRADING AND ADDING BASINS. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FURTHER REVISED TO ADDRESS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH ADJOINING PROPERTIES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 17-1989, AV 90-1989. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 23.7 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.8-1-39. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MATT FULLER & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. Reminder this is an eight lot subdivision where seven lots are residential and one lot is for the stormwater and the revised plans they have the boundary line adjustment with the neighbors and a revision for the grading and erosion plans. They have indicated that they’ve reduced some of the basin areas to minimize tree clearing and steep slopes, and then in reference to additional tree plantings, they’ve added some additional tree plantings along the basin between the neighboring property where the basin is located at the road entrance. MR. TRAVER-Correct. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record Matt Fuller with Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell in Lake George. I’m here with Brandon Ferguson with EDP for Mr. and Mrs. Lashinsky. So just to kind of follow up on where we were when we last left off, Laura did note, I’m going to use the pointer here, but one of the original, Lot Three up above the two houses that are down on Moon Hill we talked about, you can just barely see them on the blown up map here and it’s on your survey map but there’s two retaining wall encroachments so what we did is went back, proposed, worked with the neighbors due to a boundary line adjustment, the Cavaliers, their property is right here, and so in exchange the Cavaliers will convey this piece right here and our clients, the Lashinsky’s, will convey this, and they will also release this 30 foot wide drainage easement that we talked about before. When we get to the stormwater plans, one of the comments from one of the neighbors last time was whether up on this Lot One area if we could create more of a football look, try to squeeze that back towards the back. We’ve done that, and we did talk last time, too, about the, so previously it kind of ate up this part of the property here, but now with the boundary line adjustment and just in response to some of those comments, we have brought it more into an oval shape. As part of the early comments you remember the emergency discharge is now directed towards the road. So the swale will run along the road, to keep it away from the lower properties here, and we did have, some of the comments we did have a discussion about, you know, is there anything that we could do with the lower retaining basin. We did go back and look at that again and unfortunately we can talk plantings and things, but if you’ve been out there now the leaves are gone you really get a sense of sort of like you can see thorough most of the off season here, but we did provide a planting schedule last time and we don’t really have a lot of ability to move that. The topography coming down here, you’d essentially end up with two. So if you cleared that off and cleared this off you’re going to end up with more clearing. So it wasn’t a lack of desire. It wasn’t disregarding the comment of the neighbor there, but I think that’s the best balance we can do here with everything we’ve worked on. So I think, unless there’s a question, I think that really hits on the highlights. MR. TRAVER-I understand the updates have been, the Town Engineer has looked at them and there doesn’t appear to be any issues from the engineer so we’re all set there. MR. FULLER-Yes. There are no further comments. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I do want to thank you for making those concessions and going back and working with the neighbors and redesigning. I know it wasn’t a cheap way to go but I think in all fairness it makes it a little bit more appealing. MR. FULLER-Yes, one thing on that note, too, there was some discussion on the no cut line and showing that stuff and obviously up on the upper drainage basin parcel you can see we pulled that back, too, so that vegetation up on the hill it’ll be up on the neighbor’s property at that point where we did the boundary line adjustment but we’re not proposing it in that element there at all. MR. VALENTINE-So do the retaining walls remain as they are? MR. FULLER-They are. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public comment on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to give comment to the Planning Board on the Barry & Jacqueline Lashinsky project? Yes, sir. We have one public comment. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JEFF GRENIER MR. GRENIER-Hi. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. GRENIER-Jeff Grenier, 738 Moon Hill Road. Thank you to the Board for keeping the hearing open and taking the time away from your personal lives to be here. I’ll be quick. I know there’s a lot more pressing business behind us getting ready to come along so I’ll be quick. I’m hopeful, I’m still hopeful that this project, I know we’re kind of dragging our feet a little bit it seems on my end. I’m just hopeful this will get resolved in a timely manner. So thank you for your patience. Back to the comments quickly just on this right here it says, and I think Mr. Fuller stated that he was going back towards the road and I’m not an engineer but it appears as though it’s going back to the corner of my property and just a concern I would have just to start. MR. TRAVER-Sure. You should know that the engineer will be reviewing this project to ensure that no stormwater leaves the site. MR. GRENIER-Perfect. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That’s an emergency discharge, but we’ll have him explain that. MR. GRENIER-Perfect. Thank you. First I’d like to talk about the comments made the last time. I know I can’t really rebut after this but I just want to touch on that quickly by counsel. Basically he said that how can I as a homeowner with a cleared lot make judgment on he or his client for clearing any land. I don’t know if anybody recalls that or not, but basically I’d like to go on record by saying that in 2015 my wife and I bought the property. It was as is. It was excavated and cleared and we have no control over that. Since then we brought in truckloads of topsoil, grass seed, planted 20 trees, 125 or more flowers and other vegetative things in an effort to improve the neighborhood and the environment. Making the statements made kind of seem unfair in my book. Also my idea was rejected to have the stormwater on the opposite side of the roadway, kind of over in that area there. Due to the acre restrictions and I believe the sloping restrictions as well, it would be my understanding that whoever bought the lot would in substance buy the stormwater making it one less thing that would have to be maintained by the Town. The land in question seems unusable due to the sloping and different things. It seems like a win/win for everybody in this scenario. In regards to this meeting, I’m skeptical about the mapping presented on Page Number Four. I know that they stated that they added more trees. I don’t know if I have that copy. MR. TRAVER-That should be available on line at queensbury.net. MR. GRENIER-Yes, I do have it. It just doesn’t seem like that’s anything more than what was shown last time. So one thing I’m a little skeptical of, it shows the tree, and up in the legend it states that the trees are about four or five feet in height. I believe that’s all root ball and all the way up. It seems a little bit exaggerated from my perspective. It doesn’t really show the impact on the environment, so on and so forth. For example the trees are, the diameter matches the size of my shed. So if you look at here, that’s my 10 by 12 shed there and they look like they’re that or even more. So it just seems a little bit much for the planting. MR. TRAVER-So you’re assessment is that the trees are larger than what is stated in the plans? MR. GRENIER-Yes, basically, yes. I still believe that there’s some way to implement this stormwater system. I think the majority of the large dramatic changes proposed in the neighborhood, which that would directly affect myself and my family, we’ve accepted them and the understanding of Mr. Lashinsky and his wife Mrs. Lashinsky’s goals. Sometimes I feel frustrated that I voice my concerns only to have the other half say they’ll look into it, and at the next meeting nothing seems to be resolved. In previous meetings counsel has stated that they’re attempting to be neighborly and so on. Well I don’t believe it is really neighborly to come into a neighborhood and ask an established existing resident to transform his lot which is currently peaceful and quiet like most RR-3A lots would be and basically turn it into a corner lot, a corner lot surrounded by increased traffic, stormwater basins, emergency overflows and the development of a road beside the house up to seven families or more that closely parallels my property and goes above, quite a distance above in the back of the top of my property overlooking it. I suggest if 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) the engineering firm could show on paper a stormwater system on the opposite side of the proposed roadway, I know they stated that’s not logical, I still just don’t understand it. That’s all. MR. TRAVER-Well much of it, and we’ll ask the applicant to explain that, but generally speaking it relates to the engineering of how they make the system work and this proposed change, much of the change, is to improve stormwater. Stormwater was a problem at this location prior to this modification and is now enhanced and has been reviewed by the Town Engineer and found to be a workable solution. MR. GRENIER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So not to say it’s the only way to do it. MR. GRENIER-Sure. Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-And we will ask the engineer to go review that. MR. GRENIER-Yes, that’s fine. It seems reasonable to ask this because most of the lot is sloped and there’s a lot of roadways and driveways or retaining walls throughout the property. It seems like something maybe that could be engineered where a retaining wall was made of some sort to have a catch basin on the bottom on the opposite side which wouldn’t effect really anybody at that point and that would be owned by the future landowner. As a secondary option also shown on paper what it would look like if there was a stormwater basin that ran parallel to the shoulders of the proposed roadway as counsel and the engineering firm have previously stated that there’s adequate sandy soil, so much that they eliminated the drywell proposed down here. I see similar signs of this on Moon Hill Road itself as you make the bend if you’re coming from Bay Road as you’re bending down going toward the lower half of Moon Hill Road on the right, excuse me, on the left side. There’s already dug out and there’s already rock in there. I believe that’s for drainage. It doesn’t seem to be any issue. I just wonder if that would be something that is logical to consider to have drainage just off the shoulders. MR. TRAVER-That’s not on this project. You’re talking about something you saw on another project? MR. GRENIER-Well, I’m just referring to another thing that I’ve seen on the roadway. So I’ve seen it on Moon Hill Road itself and then also on Aspen Drive which is our neighbors to the northeast. They also have rocks and things. MR. TRAVER-I would ask, too, if you would wrap up your remarks because we have a three minute time limit. MR. GRENIER-Yes, I’ll hurry it along. I’ll cut it short. Thank you. Overall I think this would eliminate the unnecessary clear cutting of trees and help establish and maintain a buffer between properties. I also suggest that the necessary removal of trees for the proposed roadway that far more and bigger than indicated mature 10 foot or higher trees be planted in multiple staggered rows on both sides of the proposed roadway as it intercepts Moon Hill Road. So on this side here kind of maybe further down and also over there, and then also as indicated as it comes up here. So basically what I’m looking for is mature trees, not five foot trees that aren’t going to make an impact for a very long time and also have trees, the couple of trees that he has here, kind of have them back there as well in staggered rows. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We can inquire about that. MR. GRENIER-And I think beyond that, that’s all I have. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MR. GRENIER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. Laura, are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I’d ask the applicant to return to the table. So you heard that public comment. Much of it related to stormwater, theories about alternatives methods of managing stormwater on this site, and some comments regarding the landscaping. Do you have any response or comments? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. FULLER-Yes, I’ll have Brandon chime in on the engineering behind the stormwater, but, Mr. Chairman, to your earlier comment, you know, as you said, this was in an originally approved subdivision and I was going back and pulling out the plans, just as he was commenting there, and if you go back to the old plans, I know that we submitted them with our application, Sheet 3 of 7, the clearing that was down near Mr. Grenier’s lot, just far more invasive than we propose. So again to the point that, you know, we really are, not that you can’t make things the best that you can, I think we’ve gotten it. We made it much better than what was originally allowed as per these plans, and that was really the goal of my clients. They could have done it, but we understood that certainly the, Mr. Cavalier’s property, that 30 foot stormwater, that would not help anybody. It would have just completely disrupted their property. I get that hat doesn’t impact Mr. Grenier, but you know that’s clearly a neighborly thing to do is to go to the cost to engineer this thing. So I understand the comment of why we don’t make it the best we can. I think we’ve gotten there, but I also note, I mean the encroachments are from the retaining walls from his parcel, and we are fixing that, and that could have been restoration and the lawyers would have made a lot of money and we’d have had a lot of upset neighbors, but instead to my clients’ credit they went through the cost with Mr. Cavalier of getting a survey done, proposing boundary line adjustment. Brandon can get to all the technical comments, but I really believe we’ve done the best job we could. MR. FERGUSON-So the stormwater down here, the roadway, the reason I put it on that side of the road was because that’s an existing kind of flat, low lying area that already takes some drainage off of that site. Going to the other side of the road, the proposed road, the topography is a lot steeper and would result in a lot more cutting of trees and grading onto that proposed existing Lot Two and I know he was talking about the Lot Two owner could own that stormwater, taking stormwater off the Town road, that would be something that would be owned and maintained by the Town, not by the individual lot owner, and also the lot area of that Lot Two being almost exactly two acres right now and cutting into that lot with a stormwater basin would put it under the three acres required. As far as planting, that height, I think they’re hemlocks we propose planting. They’re a relatively fast growing tree for that size and we plant two large trees. They don’t grow that quickly because their root system doesn’t establish that well. MR. TRAVER-And mature trees are rather difficult to deal with. MR. FERGUSON-They’re very difficult to deal with. Dealing with something this size I think is a reasonable size for this. It’ll grow fast enough. They’re going to be almost a staggered look along the frontage and along this property line, and I know he’s planted some trees as well along that area. MR. TRAVER-Correct. Any additional questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Those trees are five to six feet in height. Correct? MR. FERGUSON-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And you say you added more trees? MR. FERGUSON-What we did was we didn’t actually add more trees. What we did was show where existing vegetation will remain within the right of way. Anything within the right of way in that area between our two lots wouldn’t really be cleared out, and there’s some interesting vegetation in that area that would remain. MR. FULLER-Yes, if you remember you guys, it was a good comment. We had picked up that, down in here we didn’t carry around the bubble I guess shaped areas of where we’re not clearing because this dark line here would be the edge of the Town right of way and obviously we would leave that in that area. MR. FERGUSON-And that’s more brushy growth right there in the edge of the right of way as well. Once you get onto the lot and there’s taller trees without low lying branches like this time of year you can see right through them. MR. MAGOWAN-So how far are those trees apart from each other, I mean around the stormwater basin? The scale says one to thirty. MR. FULLER-These are reduced. MR. MAGOWAN-But on the reduction I really can’t scale it out. MR. TRAVER-You’re wondering the distance between the trees? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-Right, and I don’t have anything on my big ones here, and you do have them in a straight line and you talked about staggering. So I guess what I’m asking, you know, five to six feet, now is that above the ground or is that with the ball? MR. FULLER-I think that’s from ground height, not the ball. MR. FERGUSON-That’s from ground height. Yes, that doesn’t include the ball in the five to six feet. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and you show them in a straight line and you talked about staggering them, but if we can offset them, you might, if you could add some more by offsetting them. MR. FULLER-We could show that on the final plans. That’s not a problem. MR. MAGOWAN-And then the same up on the back hill, on the other side of the football. MR. FULLER-Kind of stagger them. MR. FERGUSON-Just kind of stagger them. MR. MAGOWAN-On the football drainage basin. MR. TRAVER-Now if we’re asking them to increase the number, I need to give them a specific number. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s why I was asking how many feet. See it doesn’t, this is just a reduction of the big one. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, I don’t remember offhand exactly how far apart they were. Let’s see, that is about 60 feet through there along his property line. MR. FULLER-Think about it. If you stagger them, there’s five shown, if you stagger that’s four, four more in that spot. MR. MAGOWAN-Six on the bottom, and then. MR. FULLER-You think about it, if you just leave those, one, two, three, four, five that are there along the property line and just stagger four in between them, that’s essentially what you’re talking about. Right? MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I was thinking the road, too, but all right. In all fairness, yes, one, two, three, four, all right, four along that and another one up top. MR. FULLER-I think I have that. We can show that on the plans. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. So four more to stagger the row. MR. MAGOWAN-Four, five. That would be five. Four down at the bottom and one up top. MR. FERGUSON-We’ll call it staggered in between the proposed five. MRS. MOORE-You have Stormwater Basin One and Stormwater Basin Two. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay, yes. Stormwater Basin One. Four at Stormwater Basin One and one up at Stormwater Basin Two. I understand them wanting to have it on the other side, but after taking a closer look at it, and like you said I agree, it would be more disturbance and really this is kind of like the lowest point. MR. FULLER-Yes, you can’t pump stormwater. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. Well you could if you had to, but you don’t like to. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? This is an Unlisted action so we do need to look at SEQRA. One of the main purposes of this application is to actually 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) improve the stormwater. So I’m not seeing environmental impacts. I’m seeing the opposite, but I need to poll the Board. Does anyone have concerns regarding SEQRA on this application? Okay. MRS. MOORE-Prior to doing that, you need to close your public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. We’ll close the public hearing and proceed to the SEQRA resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQRA DEC. SUB. MOD # 6-2019 LASHINSKY The applicant proposes to modify an existing subdivision “Imperial Acres” (April 1990). The application has been revised to show 8 lots where seven lots are residential and one lot is for stormwater management. The stormwater management has been updated in regards to grading and adding basins. The project has been further revised to address lot line adjustment with adjoining properties. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2019 BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-And next we can look at the Subdivision Modification, and we have a couple of conditions on there. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB. MOD. # 6-2019 BARRY & JAQUELINE LASHINSKY A subdivision application has been made to modify an existing subdivision “Imperial Acres” (April 1990). The application has been revised to show 8 lots where seven lots are residential and one lot is for stormwater management. The stormwater management has been updated in regards to grading and adding basins. The project has been further revised to address lot line adjustment with adjoining properties. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 08/27/2019 and continued to 11/26/19. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2019 BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following where the property owner is responsible for the following: Condition # 1: Four additional trees at Stormwater Basin 1 Condition # 2: One additional tree at Stormwater Basin 2 th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we’re going to look at Old Business. 10 Dunham’s Bay Road, LLC, Site Plan 63-2019 and Special Use Permit 3-2019. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 63-2019 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2019 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE II. 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD, LLC. AGENT(S): MATTHEW FULLER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE AN EXISTING MARINA. WORK IS PROPOSED TO THE MAIN BUILDING TO INCLUDE WORK ON FIRST FLOOR WITH RECONFIGURATION OF ENTRY AND SOME INTERIOR CHANGES. SECOND FLOOR INCLUDES CONVERTING A PORTION OF THE BUILDING TO AN OPEN DECK LOUNGE AREA, UPDATING OFFICE AREA AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SHOWROOM. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR PARKING, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND STORMWATER. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SITE INCLUDE THE BOAT STORAGE BUILDING AT 6,913 SQ. FT. AND THE MARINA BUILDING AT 2,747 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 14,631 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 12,858 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CEA AND CHAPTER 179-10 SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CLASS A MARINA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BOTH 163-2015 DOCK, 2014-303 DOCKS, 96082-4747 ROOF OVER DOCK, SP 28-90- 19945, SP DISC. 19946. WARREN CO REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA, LPC. LOT SIZE: 13.96 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-4, 252.-1-67. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065, 179-8-010 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant received their variances at the Zoning Board of Appeals the other evening and my highlights are in reference to lighting and signage. The applicant and I had talked and they have updated their lighting information. So I now have all that information and they have updated their signage and we’re still waiting for a signoff from engineering. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Good. Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. FULLER-Thank you. Again for the record, Matt Fuller with Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell for 10 Dunham’s Bay Road. I’ll kind of walk through the updates. We were just here last week. Went to the ZBA. The ZBA granted variances. Probably not surprising the big topic of discussion was parking. The ZBA granted us the parking variances, but we also had a discussion about the road, the old road that’s there and what not. MR. TRAVER-Were there any changes in your plan based on your review with the ZBA? MR. FULLER-No, there were not. MR. TRAVER-It’s the same plan we reviewed? MR. FULLER-It is. It’s identical. Yes. We did submit back to Chazen yesterday responses to their engineering comments. We don’t see anything on there that’s unworkable. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and it’s conditioned on signoff. MR. FULLER-Yes. I don’t have any, there were no changes. I’ll just walk through maybe for some of the people that weren’t here. So this is the old, obviously Dunham’s Bay Marina. The old Sea Ray on 9L. So currently that’s the facility that’s there now. The proposal is to remove part of this roof structure that’s here. It’ll have a deck structure there. Unfortunately for those of us that live on that side of Town it’s not going to be a public facility. If anybody knows the Freedom Boat Club model it’s kind of a timeshare is probably the best analogy. You buy a membership and that allows you the use of one of the Freedom Boat Club boats. It’s nationwide so if you own a membership in Lake George you can go down to Florida and different places. So it was originally over at the Beckley Boats on the west side of the lake. Matt O’Hare and his wife bought this property last year and we’ve been a year working on plans, designs, and engineering to really renovate what is a tired facility. We’re removing the current entrance and replacing it with an ADA compliant entrance, adding an elevator. The internal Club model which will be the second floor is really a Club lounge for Club members and there are some private dock rentals. So private dock renters would be able to use it, but it’s not an Algonquin or Boathouse or something like that that you or I are going to be able to pull up and have something to eat, but those are the renderings. That’s kind of the 9L side. There’s not a lot of changes there. There was one discussion. So these couple of windows somebody caught, I think it was at the Zoning Board, or it might have been, at the Zoning Board meeting. These two windows were early in design. You’ll note in the actual schematics that are the drawings that they’re gone. The bathroom’s in this area. So the windows that are actually there are higher, you know. MR. TRAVER-So instead of four windows on that there’s two. MR. FULLER-Exactly. With two smaller ones up a little higher. MR. TRAVER-And that’s going to be reflected in your final plans for the Town. MR. FULLER-It’s in the plans. It just didn’t make it to those computer pictures. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. MS. WHITE-There’s still four. It’s just two are going to be the smaller. MR. FULLER-Small, yes, they’re up higher. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. FULLER-The bathroom kind of windows. MR. TRAVER-There’s still four, they’re just bathroom size windows. Okay. MR. FULLER-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. FULLER-Hopefully when all is said and done that’ll be the view. Obviously we’ve got some work to do with the Park Commission because the property line is right about in here on this deck and runs down 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) along the bulkhead. So we’ve got some Park Commission work to do but they don’t want to h ear from us until we’ve gotten through you guys. MR. TRAVER-Understood. This is SEQRA Type II. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to discuss this with the Planning Board? I’m not seeing any takers. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any follow up questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Is there a maximum membership for the facility? MR. FULLER-That’s a very good question. So it’ll be driven, ultimately, by the Lake George Park Commission permit. We have facility limitations, right, parking and things like that as well. So right now there are 12 authorized memberships because the Park Commission doesn’t have an actual definition for this. They consider it a rental. It’s not a rental. Right now it’s 12. We have an application that’ll be pending to the Park Commission. We applied last year for 20. That was a rise from six that was at Beckley’s. It was successful this summer. They sold more memberships. So the goal is to convert it this year from 12 to 20. We’re obviously also limited by the number of slips. So every time we add a membership slip it decreases a private rental slip because there’s only so many boats we can legally have on the docks. So to answer you, yes, it will top out based on the number of boats that are allowed in the Park Commission permit and parking and facility limitations. MR. SHAFER-Thank you. MR. DIXON-I have a quick question. The existing entrance right now, to the right of it it looks like you’ve got a stormwater basin, but it looks it routes out to the lake. Is that going to be addressed? MR. FULLER-I’m pretty sure that that one is out in the municipal right of way, the one you’re talking about. MR. TRAVER-I remember talking about it last week. MR. FULLER-Yes, that one we don’t touch. MR. DIXON-No, this one, if you go to the picture of your front entrance, the current front entrance, right there. So the image on the left there, to the right of the door and recessed back in there, it looks like, I don’t want to call it a culvert, but it’s a drainage line, and it looks like it’s emptying out. There’s a large pipe coming out the left side of the building aimed directly at the lake. So when I was walking the property I honestly don’t know what it’s doing because I walked through the building, but it gives me the impression that it’s draining. MATT O’HARE MR. O’HARE-Is it under the entrance? MR. DIXON-It’s between the boat. So it’s right down in this area, just to the right. MR. O’HARE-Everything’s getting all re-built anyway. MR. TRAVER-And that wouldn’t be permitted today. So if it’s there, it’s going. Right? MR. FULLER-Yes, so this whole, you can just tell by the size and layout, this is being removed. So yes, it will encroach into that for sure. MR. TRAVER-That’ll be addressed. MR. DIXON-Thank you. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Anything else? I think we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 63-2019 SUP # 3-2019 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to update an existing marina. Work is proposed to the main building to include work on first floor with reconfiguration of entry and some interior changes. Second floor includes converting a portion of the building to an open deck lounge area, updating office area and improvements to the showroom. Project includes site work for parking, pedestrian access and stormwater. The existing buildings on the site include the boat storage building at 6,913 sq. ft. and the marina building at 2,747 sq. ft. footprint. The existing floor area is 14,631 sq. ft. and proposed is 12,858 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA and Chapter 179-10 Special Use Permit for Class A Marina shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/26/2019 and continued the public hearing to 11/26/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/26/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 63-2019 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2019 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD, LLC; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. O’HARE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Let’s see. Next we have Tim & Kathy Bechard, Site Plan 73-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 73-2019 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE II. TIM & KATHY BECHARD. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3 NORTH LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,359 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 2,731 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE PROJECT SITE IS ON A CORNER LOT AND SITEWORK INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 51-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-53. SECTION: 179-6-065. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant received their variances for Floor Area and their setback relief and that was a unanimous vote from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thanks. Welcome back. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design representing Tim & Kathy Bechard regarding this Site Plan Review application. MR. TRAVER-So we looked at your application and you went to the ZBA. Were there any changes in your project as a result of your discussion with the ZBA? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. TRAVER-Do you have anything to add this evening to your comments on the project? MR. MAC ELROY-Not really. It’s pretty straightforward. It’s a tear down and re-build of a new single family residence, new wastewater, stormwater system that doesn’t exist currently so it’s some improvement certainly to the site. MR. TRAVER-Yes, very good. We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on the Bechard application? I’m not seeing any hands. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have two written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Mr. Brown. “I am a neighbor to Tim Bechard’s A-Frame house and my wife and I have no objections to the variances requested to construct a new home. Thank you, Jeff Lejuez 6 Cherry Tree Lane”. And then I have another one. “As a neighbor of the Bechard’s on Assembly Point, I am writing in support of their proposed building project at 3 North Lane. All of the required variances seem reasonable to me. Regards, John E. Kelly, III” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any other written comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is also a SEQRA Type II. So no additional action under SEQRA is required. Are there any follow up questions or comments from the Board? MR. SHAFER-Just one. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, how many bedrooms did you use to calculate this septic? MR. MAC ELROY-Three. MR. SHAFER-Three bedrooms. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 73-2019 TIM & KATHY BECHARD The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,359 sq. ft. (floor area) home to construct a 2,731 sq. ft. (floor area) home with an attached garage. The project site is on a corner lot and sitework includes a new septic system, permeable driveway and stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area ratio (FAR) in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/26/2019 and continued the public hearing to 11/26/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/26/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 73-2019 TIM & KATHY BECHARD; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater, n. traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by Stephen Jackoski. Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) NOES: Ms. White ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next application is Landcrafter, LLC, Site Plan 75-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 75-2019 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE II. LANDCRAFTER, LLC. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 704 GLEN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION TO ADD 1,523 SQ. FT. OF NEW PAVEMENT FOR INTERCONNECT WITH 708 GLEN STREET. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 11,975 SQ. FT. FOR BUY LOW AND OTHER COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. PROJECT INCLUDES A STORMWATER BASIN AND MANAGEMENT AREA. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE OR BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AMENDMENTS TO A COMMERCIAL SITE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-2013, SP 20-2002, SP 79-2010, SB 4-2002, SB 7-2002, AV 53-2019, SP 76-2019 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE: 1.07 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-58.1. SECTION: 179-9-120. JOHN CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, this is the 704 Glen Street application. MRS. MOORE-704 received their variances for permeability and there was no other requirements or requests for variances. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura, and this is also a SEQRA Type II. Welcome back. MR. CARR-Glad to be here. MR. TRAVER-Any changes to your plan after your discussion with the ZBA? MR. CARR-No, I don’t believe so. MR. TRAVER-For this part of your project. MR. CARR-No changes for 704. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? This application also has a public hearing. Is there anyone here that wants to discuss the Landcrafter, LLC Site Plan for the 704 Glen Street project with the Planning Board? I’m not seeing any takers. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-It’s a SEQRA Type II as I stated. If there are no other questions or comments, I guess we’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 75-2019 LANDCRAFTER, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a site plan modification to add 1,523 sq. ft. of new pavement for interconnect with 708 Glen Street. The existing building is 11,975 sq. ft. for Buy Low and other commercial businesses. Project includes a stormwater basin and management area. There are no other changes to the site or building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, amendments to a commercial site shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/26/2019 and continued the public hearing to 11/26/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/26/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 75-2019 LANDCRAFTER, LLC; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater (Stormwater management description provided for 708 and 704 under site plan 76-2019, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-You’re all set with Part A if you will. And we can move on to Site Plan 76-2019 also Landcrafter, LLC. This is for the 708 Glen Street project. SITE PLAN NO. 76-2019 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE II. LANDCRAFTER, LLC. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 708 GLEN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 7,145 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR COMMERCIAL USE – I.E. RETAIL, BANK, FAST FOOD, OFFICE, FOOD SERVICE, ETC. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW ENTRYWAY FEATURE, DRIVE-THRU AND NEW INTERCONNECT TO ADJOINING PROPERTY AT 704 GLEN STREET. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REUSE OF EXISTING SITE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WITH NO SITE PLAN IN LAST SEVEN YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 113-1989, SP 69-1989, AV 54- 2019, SP 75-2019 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE: .47 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-57 SECTION: 179-3-040 JOHN CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, so 708 they received their setback variance and in reference to the new façade changes to the front and the side and the drive thru proposed. They did not receive a variance for parking. So the parking is limited to the 20 spaces. They can do retail to retail because that was the previous mattress supply was a retail. They could put a new retail business on this site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right. So the parking was an issue. We sort of discussed that last week that it was pretty tight. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TRAVER-So that mainly impacts the tenants that you’re likely to have and the nature, right? MR. CARR-Right, and again at the ZBA they were concerned with not knowing exactly what the tenant was going to be and how it would work. We’ll just save that for another day. MR. TRAVER-Yes. There’s a lot of history in that particular location. MR. CARR-It makes sense. Understood. MR. MAGOWAN-You can always put up a parking garage. MR. CARR-That’s it. MR. TRAVER-You’ll probably need one before long. MR. CARR-I’ll get the approvals for that first, though. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Please. MR. TRAVER-All right. So with those changes, I’ll ask members of the Board if they have any additional questions for the applicant. No? This project also has a public hearing scheduled so I’ll ask again in the audience is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board for the 708 Glen Street project? I’m not seeing any. Are there any written comments with this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is also SEQRA Type II. So no additional action under SEQRA is required. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 76-2019 LANDCRAFTER, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 7,145 sq. ft. building for commercial use. Project includes new entryway feature, drive-thru and new interconnect to adjoining property at 704 Glen Street. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, reuse of existing site for commercial purposes with no site plan in last seven years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/26/2019 and continued the public hearing to 11/26/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/26/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 76-2019 LANDCRAFTER, LLC; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: k. topography, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-Good luck. The next application on our agenda is Site Plan 67-2019, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 67-2019 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED – REVIEW OF PAST SEQRA. GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC. AGENT(S): CT MALE ASSOCIATES, FRANK PALUMBO. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC. LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW RIDE “ADIRONDACK OUTLAW” LOCATED NEAR “DESPERADO PLUNGE” – REMOVING AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR THE NEW RIDE. THE NEW RIDE IS TO BE 165 FT. IN LENGTH/HEIGHT. PROJECT INCLUDES RIDE CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ENCLOSED ENTRY AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 6-2014 SUPER NOVA RIDE, SP PZ 23-2015 GREEZED LIGHTNIN RIDE, SP 5-2017 BONZAI PIPELINE RIDE; SP 15-2018 PANDEMONIUM RIDE; SEVERAL MORE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 237 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040. CHARLES DUMAS & FRANK PALUMBO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-I’ll go over some of the information that the Board and Staff requested last time. So in reference to the building they did identify the portion of the Dan McGrew building that’s going to be 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) removed and a portion of the ride will be in that location, and also explains the restroom area will also remain that’s closest to The Desperado Plunge and that includes sort of a canopy and the other area that’s being removed from the Dan McGrew, that area will be replaced with a false façade, building, and then in reference to the queue lines, there’s going to be a new arrangement to the queue line. We discussed that last time that there is, in reference to a mechanic booth where the ride operator will stand and operate that ride. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. DUMAS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-I think when we last met, when we looked at this new ride application, we left agreeing that we had a bit of homework to do. I know a lot of us, I was not involved when the 2001 GEIS plan was put together. It was a partnership between you and the Town. So I’ve been doing a lot of reading, studying of that, and it’s quite an impressive document. I was impressed with the amount of work that was involved in creating that document, and there were 130 written comments, 31 agencies and organizations contributed to it, 640 contributions from public comment to create that. So that is our starting point as we sit here as the existing understanding effective 2001. One of the interesting things in your new information is that you mentioned that you had, when you reviewed I guess the programming features of the ride, that the lighting could be shut off at the point where the ride was at its highest point, and I noticed that, one of the things that I noticed in the 2001 Findings Statement is that there could be no lighting other than emergency lighting above the tree line, visible above the tree line. So I don’t know, are you aware of that? MR. DUMAS-Yes. Let me just, maybe for the record, re-introduce myself and the folks here. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DUMAS-My name is Charles Dumas. I’m an attorney. I’m with the law firm of Lemery/Greisler. I represent the applicant. I have with me representatives of The Great Escape, Danielle Smith who’s the Project Manager, Joe Martinez the Director of Facilities and Frank Palumbo from C.T. Male engineering firm. Yes, When we were here last time you asked if there were any mitigation measures that could be taken and we’ve looked into that. Lighting is one of the elements, and it is possible to disable lighting that would be above the tree line and one of the suggestions that I was going to make, frankly, as a condition of approval, were you inclined to approve the application, would be for, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, to have a test of the lighting against the night sky, and disable the lighting that would be visible in the night sky. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s interesting. I am reminded again that we are guided, as we begin this evening, by the 2001 agreement, and that states no lighting other than emergency lighting, and that’s what the sentence, that’s how it begins and how it ends. That’s where we’re starting. MR. DUMAS-Above the tree line. MR. TRAVER-Above the tree line. Correct. It also adds that within 20 feet of the threshold, which I believe in this area is 135 feet, the Planning Board has some regulatory ability, within 20 feet below that threshold, of the lighting and colors of the lights that’s in there as well. MR. DUMAS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-But I had a couple of sort of basic questions. Knowing that this threshold, if you will, has been here now for 19 years and you’re presenting this ride, I wondered how many rides did you look at that didn’t exceed the threshold for this? I mean you mentioned that you wanted to draw people to that area of the Park. It sounds like a good business plan to me. I was curious about how many possible rides that you could use to attract someone to the Park. So I kind of went on line not really knowing what I was doing at rides that are available, and there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them, and many of them are smaller or less tall further away from this threshold. This is obviously above the threshold. I just wondered how many of those did you consider? I mean you must have known when you saw the stats on the ride that it was going to be above this agreed threshold from 2001. How many did you look at that didn’t violate that threshold? MR. DUMAS-Well, actually I’d like to just make a couple of comments to try and bring the discussion back to center a little because there’s been an awful lot I think portrayed publicly that’s a misunderstanding of how the GEIS was intended to be used. The thresholds that were established were just that. They were 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) study limits, and that’s different. This isn’t a zoning ordinance. It’s different than a restriction, and the idea that somehow The Great Escape is violating a restriction is just not accurate. MR. TRAVER-No, I agree. There’s a process that addresses that in the Findings Statement that this Board wrote with your assistance back in 2001. I don’t mean you personally, but your organization, and I looked at, I don’t know if you have it before you or with you, but o Page 3 of the Environmental Impact Statement, and again this is the Final, the SEQRA Findings Statement adopted July 1, 2001. If you look at Page 3, Number 3, titled How the GEIS Will Be Used, if you’ll look down it talks about where a threshold is proposed to be exceeded, then a supplemental SEQRA review will be required. MR. DUMAS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Is that what you read? MR. DUMAS-Yes, I read that. MR. TRAVER-All right. So historically, my experience on this Board with The Great Escape has been that rides and changes that you are proposing do not exceed those thresholds and therefore no, because of this agreement, no SEQRA review is required, but I’m reading this, and you’re right, it’s not a violation, but it does apparently, if I’m reading this in front of me correctly, it does trigger additional SEQRA review. Do you understand it that way as well? MR. DUMAS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-And I think to your point, Mr. Chairman, taking a look at the FGEIS, Page 2, I’ll repeat what I read at the last, the public hearing, at times it may be necessary to locate a tall structure that is possibly in excess of the study height of a particular zone. In those circumstances further visual analysis and in parenthesis duration of view, visibility and mass of the structure may have to be completed to determine if the amount of the structure above the tree line will be substantial. MR. TRAVER-Right, and that’s the SEQRA part. MR. DUMAS-Yes, and so when we were here last time we agreed that there would be additional study. We’ve undertaken two measures in that regard, one was floating a balloon, and in my view that was not a successful enterprise because the wind was flapping the thing back and forth. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DUMAS-So, you know, the development team came up with the idea of putting a crane in the air with a mad basket to approximate the size of the gondolas that would be at that level for a short duration. I think the utility of the study is the fact that this was a leaf off condition. The ride is proposed to be used only in a leaf on condition, and a very short duration during that period of time. So in terms of the study, you know, C.T. Male will provide additional testimony this evening to indicate what it found and it’s conclusions that it reached. MR. TRAVER-And you just made an interesting remark. Did I hear you say that this ride will not be used when there are any leaves on the trees? MR. DUMAS-No, it will be used in a leaf condition. MR. TRAVER-The opposite of no leaves. You’re right. So then I understand what you’re proposing as a ride will not be used when there are no leaves on the trees. MR. DUMAS-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. MR. DUMAS-I think it’s helpful. MR. TRAVER-If I could ask the public, please, if you want to have a conversation, please leave the room. We want to try to proceed in an orderly way here. Okay. So the threshold triggers the SEQRA review, 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) and I know that you have conducted additional photographs. I think that they have been in the media. You have submitted them to us and so on. Maybe we should take a look at those. MR. DUMAS-I’d like to turn it over to Frank Palumbo. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe any of the pictures that we took were in the media. Just to make that point clear. We have provided the Town with photography that was done. What I want to do, though, is, because you, though, because you did a pass before the updated visual analysis. So I want to go through the steps of how we generated that, which I believe all the members have before them. MR. TRAVER-We do. MR. PALUMBO-Laura, if you could go to the original view shed map. So the first aspect to just refresh how the study was done, what we tried to do and the way we formulated our report was to follow the methodology of what had been done previously, and while that’s loading, the main reason why I put up the site plan here, certainly if Board members have any questions regarding that, but just items that we had talked about last time. This is the line that is 135, 175. All right. So I just want to make that point, and the elevations of this whole area are the same. So what happened with the original design, original study, was that, so this is an exact replica of what was in the original study. That area of the lake and shoreline was considered for a 200 foot structure at .2. That was in the original document. The study used two points, and what they, as the gentleman had mentioned during last meeting’s public comment, that that is relatively close. I want to talk about the relatively close. From our ride, that point is approximately 200 feet. To give an idea of also the distance from our ride to the Condor, which is in the 175, is 187 feet. What happens in this area is that the slope from this end down near where the wetland is goes up. So as they went from that point down towards the Condor and other parts in that direction, the slope was going up, and that’s why from that point, and originally what they did from that point was use cross sectional analysis to form that area that they showed for a 200 foot structure. So what we did and what I think that the document guided us to saying that this would be used as a management tool for the Board in studying, the next one would be the 50 foot. So that study that they had used was a 200 foot high structure and 50 foot average height of the trees wherever they had those areas of trees between them. So from our ride point right there we did those series of cross sections, which was very much the same methodology, and because we had moved that far, that 200 feet approximately, shifts the vantage point a little bit, starts to get into the higher parts of the slope right here and so that blue area which was slightly larger is now this area in red, and if we go to the next one, Laura, which is the 75 foot height, over 20 years or so, 18 to 19 years, there was assumed tree growth. We didn’t just assume the tree growth. The LIDAR information that is now available to us is more accurate for the ground at that slope and we can also pick off treetops from that information. So that, using a 75 foot average tree height, lessened that area further on the lake and the shoreline. I’ll also point out that line right there is the one and a half mile radius that was used in the original study. The study used that premise of the how the distance effects the view that you would have. So at that point we had decided that, and the Board helped us and the public helped us, decide we have to do the test. We have to do the balloon test. We at tempted, too windy, as Charles had just mentioned, put the crane up. So what that does is that helps us validate the cross sections, and they work hand in hand. Laura, if we could go to, well first the combined map just to see which one it is there, the overall view shed, showing the three areas that were, how the change of location, the change of the slope and the change of some of the tree cover help to limit and diminish the amount of area that can be seen. We also found that this, if you recall from the last meeting we had raised the drone at the site and shot it at 165 feet and saw a portion of the lake. What we were trying to do with the cross sections was trying to develop how much was that portion of the lake. We feel very confident in this analysis and were brought back to further confidence when we had the crane up in the air. Now the crane had a balloon tied to the top of the boom, that strand of string eight feet eight inches long. The balloon was a thirty inch balloon. That was raised up first to the height of the 164 for the balloon. It was used in the crane operator. We have a statement from the crane operator. MR. TRAVER-They have a read out. MR. PALUMBO-Right, a read out so that we’re not playing any games with this. It’s validated, and we had the balloon at the top of the boom. So you didn’t see the boom and you could hardly see the balloon. I know some of the Town staff was out there and we weren’t just witnessing this on our own. So, Laura, so what we ended up with is that area is the presumed area of primarily being able to see. I’m not making the statement that there are not the certain localized areas because trees can have small gaps in them, you know, that just the right vantage point, but this is an overall context and the same context that was 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) used in the original study. So, Laura, if we could go to the drone video. While that’s loading, what we did was we had a drone operator at the boat launch area on that side of the lake and he was able to get out and cross the zone that we were looking for to see when the areas would come in and go out of view. We just did a sample of the drone. So this is in that area that we were showing, and it’s towards the forward end, so closest to the lake or to the shore. MR. DIXON-How high up off the water was the drone? MR. PALUMBO-The drone was up initially at 10 feet. We were originally planning on going at five feet, but because of some of the propeller action over the water we had to raise it up, and that is another reason that we stayed toward the front because if we needed to take from the top of the ride down through that point it would extend back towards the shoreline, and we did also some at 20 and 30 feet, but this is the image at that distance, okay. There’s no blow up to this. It’s just the drone image. It’s the equivalent of a 35 millimeter camera. Okay. The boom is higher than what you saw in some other photos that were blown up. You see the basket right at the tree line. You see the boom higher and you see the balloon higher than that. The balloon at that point is approximately at 192 I think is what we had in the report. Because the basket was hanging down 20 feet from the top of the boom and that panel that you may have seen has the boom registered at 184 feet, 20 feet. So at 184 then you add on that extra for the balloon. So we did not do anything to that image, and the difficulty of seeing anything is, I think, obvious under the standard view. MR. TRAVER-From a drone. MR. PALUMBO-From a drone at 10 feet. So putting a human in a boat is you’re at a mile and a half. You’re really not going to see that much more detail. You have to zoom it in. SO what we did with our report is one of the things that you have n there are the original photographs that were done. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-And you see in those original photographs those arrows pointing to what is extremely difficult to see as the balloons but they were able to point out where they could see the balloons. Some of those were at the maintenance yard which is farther over. So as I mentioned the point where the .2 was originally done you go another 200 feet over to the maintenance yard, which is then going more across the wetlands area where there’s lesser trees or lesser amounts of trees. The maintenance yard was clearly much more visible, but the two balloons that they flew at the Screamin’ Demon were visible and that’s what they showed and that’s the distance and the image that was in the original report. MR. SHAFER-What elevation were the balloons? MR. PALUMBO-The balloons at that, in that image were 165 and 200 at the Screamin’ Demon. All right. So that’s what they saw and that’s where they started to connect their balloon test with their cross sectional test. They state that in the document, which, just to, was an interactive analysis of balloon test and topographic analysis, and then a very important part that they say after that is therefore a single intermediate work product cannot be interpreted in isolation. You can’t just say that .2 is the only place that you do cross sections from. What that was leading towards as a management tool as stated in there is that when you have a ride in that height you study from that point. I think we have shown an awful lot in our report that shows how we have made the parallels with the original study. MR. TRAVER-But you’re not suggesting that these 31 agencies and organizations and 640 comments and so on that lead, among other things, to the establishment of this particular threshold that we’re currently talking about which is the visibility threshold from that 135 foot level, you’re not saying that’s based on this one photograph? MR. PALUMBO-No, no, no. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-But with respect to the views from Glen Lake, there’s a series of photographs that were in this report, this original report, some of them from Route 9, some of them from the golf course. MR. TRAVER-Those contributed to the establishment of those thresholds. Right? I have, I believe this is from the Findings Statement, and it talks about the thresholds under Visual. The analysis you speak of in part, and this is under Visual and Lighting, Page 14 of 18 under H. The GEIS includes analyses of locations 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) in which tall rides could be placed in the Park without resulting in substantial adverse impacts. Are you reading that? MR. PALUMBO-I’m not sure. I don’t have the document right in front of me. MR. TRAVER-Page 14 of 18 in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement SEQRA Findings Statement, and this is from July 11, 2001 as adopted by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. Under H Visual and Lighting, and they’re basically talking about how all of this information that we’re discussing was combined to create and justify what that threshold is and what it was a barrier between. In other words it’s a threshold between what and what, and they’re saying in here as of 2001 it’s a threshold that could be read to be interpreted as a threshold between substantial adverse visual impact. MR. PALUMBO-It was a threshold designed so that you could do evaluation of anything that would be not within that threshold particularly, so it was meant to be somewhat elastic. That’s why I said that it should not be interpreted in isolation, that doing actual studies n actual locations of the ride with the known trees and slopes and everything else between you and the viewpoints is the method that you would use. MR. TRAVER-Well I certainly agree that from 2001 to today this GEIS could be supplemented. There’s no question that things have changed since then and that’s one of the. MR. DUMAS-I think that’s what we’ve done. MR. PALUMBO-Right. We’ve done a report that. MR. TRAVER-You’ve added information but it’s outside what the current standing agreement is. In other words we’re going by this. In the absence of supplementing this, this is what we have. Right? Do you disagree? MR. DUMAS-Well it’s not really a disagreement. The GEIS was designed to be elastic. It developed a process that was to be. MR. TRAVER-Well it’s elastic in the sense that it does say that if the threshold is exceeded. In other words all this work was done with all of these agencies and people and yourself and the Town involved to establish these thresholds. However, if the thresholds, if we’re proposing to exceed the threshold, there’s a process, SEQRA, that we go through, right, to do an environmental impact. MR. PALUMBO-A SEQRA process does not have to be an entire environmental impact statement. The issue here that we’re dealing with, and I know there are some other issues. I know residents have talked about sound and we’re prepared to talk about those, but it does not mean you have to re-create. You have the small version there but you know that these documents were two volumes thick. MR. TRAVER-Yes, a tremendous amount of work. MR. PALUMBO-I think what we are clearly dealing with here and I think the Staff had even responded in their Staff Notes in terms of what they thought were the elements, is primarily the visual, and what we have done is given you a visual analysis of that ride at that location. MR. TRAVER-Well I agree that the visual is certainly a starting point because that was certainly the current information that we had. In other words we haven’t really done studies on noise. We don’t really know what. MR. PALUMBO-No but we have. We have done those studies. MR. TRAVER-For this ride at that height? MR. PALUMBO-We’ve done the studies on it. So the one thing, if they did not come in with a ride, they still would have been mandated to do the sound study and the traffic study. We do those every two years. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-So if no ride were done for the last five years, ten years they still would have been doing those studies. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-But that is different if they weren’t exceeding the threshold. MR. PALUMBO-Right. So we haven’t exceeded the thresholds, but regardless of any other action that they do, those studies have to be done every two years. So you have a continuum of information that’s going on that. What you don’t have. MR. TRAVER-This is a ride that doesn’t exist yet. So we have to look at what the potential impact is of this proposed new ride. There hasn’t been a sound study. There hasn’t been. MR. PALUMBO-Right, but it does not need, what I’m saying is SEQRA does not necessitate re-doing a Supplemental GEIS. MR. TRAVER-Well I’m not sure we know that answer to that yet. We’re still evaluating. MR. PALUMBO-I’m just saying, and I know you have an attorney and I know Charles can talk to it, but you’re SEQRA study for this ride could include this visual study as part of your SEQRA analysis, just like you do on so many of your projects. Somebody submits the EAF form and any supplemental data. Consider this supplemental data, just like you do on other projects. It does not necessitate doing an entire document under that same math. MR. TRAVER-Well I agree there’s not been a determination that any, we haven’t made a Positive Declaration. So obviously we’re not at that stage, but if I might, I’d like to reach out to the Counsel and Mr. Schachner if you would assess where we’re at in our discussion thus far in terms of our starting point being the existing GEIS 2001 and we did ask them to do additional visual studies, which they did. We haven’t really gotten into a detailed discussion of exactly what the impact of visibility is. There seems to be some agreement about at least the fact that there is some visibility from the most recent study. It seems to me at some point where we’re at is what is the impact of that current visibility, but my understanding is, in sort of starting that is the existing, the jumping off point if you will as we look at this is we have another recent applications from the Park is the 2001 GEIS and therefore those thresholds, and they’ve stipulated I believe that the threshold, the visual, we haven’t talked about the others really, but certainly the visual threshold because of the height has been exceeded. MR. SCHACHNER-Is proposed to be exceeded. MR. TRAVER-Is proposed to be exceeded. Right, thank you, and therefore my interpretation, and I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but my interpretation is that triggers this Board to consider additional SEQRA review, which then goes into another whole, may or may not lead to an EIS or a Supplemental EIS. We’re not at that point yet, but I believe we’re at the point where we have to discuss this new ride as exceeding the threshold as established by the 2001 and conducting environmental, doing the SEQRA review based on the Environmental Impact Statement that was submitted in the most recent information. MR. SCHACHNER-If that’s a question I think the answer is clearly affirmative meaning yes. For what it’s worth, I don’t think the applicant disagrees with the notion, and unfortunately I’m going to have to sort of nitpick a little bit, but I think that’s the best way to counsel the Board here. I don’t think the applicant disagrees with the notion that it’s incumbent upon the Board to conduct new/additional SEQRA review of the application because if for no other reason the proposal is to exceed the previously established threshold. Here’s the nitpicky part. The applicant believes that that additional SEQRA review either does not, should not or perhaps cannot, from my standpoint it doesn’t matter which one they think, either does not, should not or cannot lead to requiring them to conduct or prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and I think that’s the point that Mr. Palumbo was just making. He didn’t use those words, but he said something like, he did use the word necessitate. I remember. He said this does not necessitate creation of a new, and he went like this to show the thickness of many Environmental Impact Statements. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-That statement is factually and legally correct. You are not obligated to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. If you do require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement I think that this gesture is a little misleading because you would presumably not be going back to Square One. MR. TRAVER-Right. It would be a supplement. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and it would be a supplement based only on the issues that you feel need further review. So I would respectfully suggest that it’s probably going to be more like this than that, but that’s not really important. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-One thing you said, Mr. Traver, that I’m not sure I understand is you said you don’t think we’re yet at the point to decide whether to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement or not. I’m not sure why not, meaning I’m not sure why we’re not at that point yet. MR. TRAVER-Well I’m not sure that the Board, I haven’t discussed with the Board the most recent visual studies. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So we would have to discuss whether or not, despite the threshold being exceeded, under SEQRA and with the new information we have, what is the impact? Is the impact significant enough to warrant a Positive Declaration or a Negative Declaration. MR. SCHACHNER-Good point. Well put. MR. TRAVER-Negative Declaration, then we have updated information. If it’s determined that the impact is significant or potentially significant then we could issue, should the Board support it, a Positive SEQRA Declaration and then we would get into the situation where they would say we believe, because of the 19 years that have passed, that we can supplement the old 2001 information and in effect come up with a 2019 Environmental Impact Statement. Is that? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s largely correct. It would be a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, not a brand new from Square One Environmental Impact Statement. It would be limited only to those issues that you believe need further environmental review. MR. TRAVER-And that would be through scoping. Correct? MR. SCHACHNER-A scoping is actually not required for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, but it can occur. It’s perfectly appropriate for it to occur. I don’t think it will be, my sense is it will not be a mystery to the Board, the applicant or the public if you decide to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. It sounds like that would likely at least include further analysis of the visual issue. Maybe it would require further analysis of some other issues that I haven’t heard about yet, but at least it would require further analysis of the visual issue. The only point I was making, or trying to make was I’m not sure, I mean I think you are, if you’re not at the point of deciding whether to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement I think you’re darn near that point, and if you decide, and I just want to mention for the benefit of the Board, the applicant and the public, if you decide to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, then the applicant, which I clearly think you have the right to do, I’m not saying the obligation, but I’m saying the right, then that document, upon its preparation and acceptance, must be, not may be, must be subject to public comment period and you would typically have your public hearing as well. So I’m saying this partially for the sake of efficiency. That’s an important threshold determination for you to make. If you decide you’re going to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement you might just consider the notion that I’m sure many, many, many members of the public are here to offer comments this evening, and a public hearing was noticed. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-So we owe them the obligation tonight if they want to speak. If you make the threshold decision to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, they’re not may be an opportunity to speak during that process, there must be an opportunity to speak during that process. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. SCHACHNER-Just from the standpoint of avoiding some potential redundancy. MR. TRAVER-And the public would also, and again I’m being a little hypothetical here, but if we were to discuss scoping, and to that end, one of the questions that I would have for you because I’m not sure it’s an appropriate item for scoping, but one of the questions I have is that one of the things that’s notably 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) about the visual impact is as the applicant has reported and as we’ve seen in their updated information the trees are taller. Right? So that lessens impact, but in the back of my mind I’m thinking well they’re also 19 years older. So do we need, would something like what is the life span of this tree, what species is it, is the top 50 feet of it likely to get blown over? If we’re relying on these old trees to block, have a significant impact on reducing, that’s the mitigation if you will, and it’s a living thing that has a life span and subject to damage as we all know that we live around here. What kind of information would be appropriate for scoping to say, realistically what should we, how valuable is that mitigation, is it an old tree? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s a perfectly valid concern. There are licensed arborists and other experts who know, who have detailed knowledge about tree life spans and longevity and likelihood of falling and the rest of it. Perfectly appropriate because apparently the tree height is one of the elements of mitigation, perfectly appropriate. MR. PALUMBO-Mr. Chairman, can I just ask Mark one question on the process? MR. TRAVER-You may. You just have to pay his bill. No, I’m sorry. Go ahead. MR. PALUMBO-So, Mark, we submitted a Site Plan application and inclusive in that was a SEQRA form and we came to a public hearing for the Site Plan. We heard the comments from the Board and the public at that public hearing and the Board clearly directed us go and do this visual analysis. They also asked us for additional information on the lighting and the sound. So I understand that this was part of an EIS and the thresholds were established there, but the Chairman referenced a Positive Dec which of course they have the right to that, but what I’m asking you is if they continue to review or have our document reviewed and find that it is substantially done in a manner accepting of common industry standards or we think we’ve exceeded some of that, why would they have to go to a Positive Dec? Why could they not treat this as they do many of their projects where they want supplemental information to the SEQRA form which is a very common situation? MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want me to try to answer that question? MR. TRAVER-Please. MR. SCHACHNER-If I understood the question correctly, here’s my answer. If the Board identifies, in other examples we have literally hundreds of applications here in Queensbury every year. Many times the Board requires supplemental information. That’s what you mentioned. MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Typically in the vast overwhelming majority of those situations when that supplemental information is submitted, it demonstrates to the Board’s satisfaction that there are no potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. If the supplemental information that this applicant submits demonstrates to the Board that in your opinion as the Lead Agency that there are no new potentially adverse environmental impacts, you could, I have never said in anything I’ve said here so far, that you must require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. I merely said you can require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. MR. TRAVER-That’s my understanding. MR. SCHACHNER-So the short, so trying to be less marble mouth, the short answer to the question is if the Board feels that there are no new potentially significant adverse environmental impacts you are not required to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. On the flipside, if you identify, and you, yourself, Mr. Chairman, very articulately and eloquently used the word potentially significant. Remember you said significant then you said potentially significant. That was a very appropriate adjective or adverb. MR. TRAVER-I try to pay attention in your classes. MR. SCHACHNER-Very good. Thank you. So if you, as a Lead Agency, identify potentially significant adverse environmental impacts beyond those originally identified in the GEIS some 18 or so years ago, which clearly this would be beyond those identified because it’s physically above the threshold, then you would have not only the opportunity but the responsibility, in my opinion, and I think it’s pretty clear, you would have the responsibility to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and, you know, honestly that’s what SEQRA review is about. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Applicants don’t always love SEQRA review and applicants sure don’t love it when an Environmental Impact Statement is required or a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is required, but that’s the purpose of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. So the last part of my response is it’s extremely clear to me, this is extremely clear to me. If you decide to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement I think you’re within your rights to do that. Again, not telling you you must do that because that would never be my place. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PALUMBO-So, that being said, what I’d like to do, you asked for this visual study. MR. TRAVER-We did. MR. PALUMBO-And we have provided it, and what I’d like to do is at least complete for the Board that information, and the public as well. MR. TRAVER-Please do. MR. PALUMBO-So those were the images and you can see what they look like. Laura, if we can go to, first the image that we have of, we have dots where the still shots were taken. If you can pull up your, it might have been one of the last things that I. MR. TRAVER-That looks like Osprey Point. I’m not 100% sure. I guess it doesn’t really matter at this point. MR. PALUMBO-Drone Photo Location Map. The photos are in that same. Mr. Chairman I don’t know the name of all the points. MR. TRAVER-I don’t either. I know that one because I’m interested in birds and I happened to be paddling around out there. I didn’t even know it was there and all of a sudden they were screaming at me. I was too close to the nest I guess. MR. PALUMBO-So what we did in this, so we had the drone fly and go to a stationary point, and the reason that that was done is because when you take a still shot it gets automatically GPS located. We know height. We know location, and as I said, we focused on the front area of that, and there are also two things to consider. The lake, which is public, and the residences which are on the shoreline. And in this public zone here where people would be out boating, recreating, we took and, as I said the first thing you saw was the drone flight that went across and forward here so that you could see above that shoreline. If those photographs are in. MR. TRAVER-Actually the drone you said you launched from the. MR. PALUMBO-We launched from over, and they have to be able to see it. So that’s where they were. So that’s where they got. So you can see at this point here we were at both 20 foot high and 30 foot high, different times that we had. This one was before the full height. This one was after the full height was raised. So each of those, those were the locations where we took the photos from, the still shots, and those still shots, if you can go to the first one, similar to the other report that did use some, they used a still shot and then they used zoom shot. MR. TRAVER-And this is the camera aboard the drone obviously. MR. PALUMBO-This is the camera aboard the drone, and so what we’re doing is showing the area of where that is from the still shot, and then we zoomed in. Then we go to the next one. So if you go back to the top for a second. Is that the one we were looking at? So this was at 10:21 on that day at 10 feet above the water and that’s what the image is. You can see the tree line and you can also see the tree line behind it, and that’s another factor in terms of you asked us to review the DEC assessment methodologies which is primarily set for their review of things that affect their public, their parks and so on. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. PALUMBO-But one of the things that they said was that there is a differential between whether or not there is a background to that as compared to something, we know this is a spindle ride. If the spindle right was up in the open air that you would see it more. So then, Laura, if you can pan down. So that was the zoom. Every zoom that we did, although Laura just zoomed it in more, every zoom that we did pointing right to there was at 200%. MR. TRAVER-And this is also from the camera that’s aboard the drone. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-And this point was taken from more towards the northwest side of the lake. So the angle that we’re seeing, the boom, and that is the entire boom. That’s not the basket. It’s very difficult to see the basket, but the basket is down at the tree line, and this is the point where, there’s a point here and that’s one slope and that’s the other slope that I was talking about earlier. So these trees which are closer and on points of the lake are actually doing more of the shadowing on that shore and most of those residences are looking out this way. Okay. MR. SHAFER-What’s the elevation of the balloon in that photo? MR. PALUMBO-The balloon in that photo, what time was this one? MR. VALENTINE-10:21. MR. PALUMBO-I actually think this was at one of the points when it was being raised, but, Laura, I think it was 10:40 that I had in the report that we raised it up. So if you can go to one of those. MR. TRAVER-And while she’s doing that I have, I guess it’s kind of a technical question. It’s been my experience and I do some photography and I have a drone. It’s not as sophisticated as this one but it does have a camera aboard, and I notice it’s a matter of my common experience, there’s a substantial difference between what the drone sees and the human field of view and what my eyes see. MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. TRAVER-So do you have a comparison or can you discuss these photographs relative to what a human being would see in that same location? Because it would be quite different. MR. PALUMBO-So my understanding of this, from a dialogue with a professional photographer, is that the 35 millimeter is not your standard eye. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PALUMBO-About a 50 to 55 millimeter, slightly wider, is giving you more of the field of view. What it’s not doing, it’s not making that thing that’s a mile and a half away from any closer. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PALUMBO-And we all have different eyes. All right. So that is the general character of what you’re looking at, unzoomed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-Every zoomed photo, and we don’t have to do this with each one because we have technically submitted this, but every one of the zoomed photos that in your reports we zoomed equally, 200%. So you see exactly and, you know, by the time we started zooming that any further we started getting to where it was unpixilated. MR. TRAVER-As it relates to the fact that it’s a drone camera. MR. PALUMBO-Right, and we also thought that the 200% was again we’re going where my eyes can’t go from that point, and I don’t know that anyone else’s could. If you’re a photographer and you’re out on the lake and you’re using camera equipment and you’re saying that’s going to be intrusive, but that’s the nature of the photography that you’re seeing. Okay. There is also, Laura, if you can go back to the one 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) that had the map with the drone photos. I want to give a little evidence of the nature of that, how much trees grow, trees die, yes. They don’t usually die in mass. There’s a whole mass of trees out there. MR. TRAVER-Well, with respect, we’ve had incidents where they don’t necessarily die of natural causes. You could have a blow down. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, and I guess the only point there, if that happened, the 135 foot ride that is in that zone could also been seen. MR. TRAVER-Perhaps. MR. PALUMBO-So, I think it’s that map there. MR. TRAVER-I’m also not sure, while she’s doing that, I’m not sure, maybe I missed it. Did I get an answer to the question of how many rides you looked at that would not violate the threshold? MR. PALUMBO-No, no. The ride was a chosen ride by the client. MR. TRAVER-I understand that. I understand that it’s the ride that you have chosen. My question was how many, before you chose that one, how many did you look at that were less than the threshold? MR. PALUMBO-I don’t know that any were. I mean I think this was the ride that was chosen. MR. TRAVER-But that’s certainly information that you could get for us, how may were looked at. Because I know I went on line, I was curious. I didn’t even know that you could buy them and come to find out they’re for sale, and there are hundreds and hundreds of them. I just wondered. MR. PALUMBO-But while we’re trying to find this one, this one here. So what we added to this one, that isn’t in your report but I wanted to point out. With the LIDAR that told you we can get ground and we can get the top of trees. What we were able to do is, you see those two trees in the two pines that are standing up. They’re the ones closest to the ride. MR. TRAVER-I saw in your printout you colorized the, well go ahead. You’re going to explain it. MR. PALUMBO-So those two pines are right there. We were able to specifically locate those. One of those pines is 113 feet high. That is why you’re seeing it. Even though it’s actually on a down slope that’s why you’re seeing those pines and you’re seeing them right next to our ride in a few of those photographs. I’m not suggesting that that pine is going to be there forever blocking the view, but I just wanted to identify that that’s, when you look at those photos, those pines have been specifically located and identified as to their height. When you look behind those and you see the other trees, they will give you the context of what’s happening at the height, and when you look at the photograph that you can see the basket in those treetops with leaf off where they are, that basket is at the 164 foot height at the bottom of the basket. So what you’re seeing is the bottom of the basket is at 164. It is in the top of the tree line. There is evidence that we have put together that shows that it is in the top of the tree line. The information is just better available to us than they had at the time they did the study in 2001. MR. TRAVER-Right. I’m not sure there were even drones in 2001. MR. PALUMBO-Well not just the drones, but the LIDAR topography. We know that the accuracy of that is far, far greater. We can see the differences between the original USGS. It’s not that the ground has moved. It’s just that the aerial information using the LIDAR gives you a better context of what that is. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely, and in my research and preparation and looking at the Final GEIS, I mean that’s why there’s a mechanism for updating this because things do change over time. MR. PALUMBO-And I know the public has yet to speak on what they think of my study and they have photographs and they’re going to be presenting that, but the technical information and methodology, they support each other. Not only did we use the same methodology that was done in 2001, which it used to support its Findings but noted that it was not all conclusive. That that line, they did not present that that line was exact. They suggested that you do the additional studies. MR. TRAVER-When you say that line, you’re referring to the threshold? MR. PALUMBO-The threshold line, between the 135. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-The language is very clear in terms of above or below the threshold, in terms of SEQRA. MR. PALUMBO-The language in the Findings Statement that you may have right there, but there is also a body of text that supported that Findings Statement. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes. MR. PALUMBO-And in here, in our report we reference those. So that it states how, and right here the part that I was talking about accuracy, they say the elevation in the Park is known to be plus or minus one foot. That’s because an actual survey was done of the Park, a two foot contour survey. MR. TRAVER-So you’re suggesting that we should consider that the elevation that they refer to as the threshold for these different zones is actually a variable value? MR. PALUMBO-It’s variable enough to do the study that the original report was suggesting you do. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-All right. It was not intended to be it’s only 135 feet. It was not. The information is in the body of the text of all of the studies. MR. TRAVER-But are you suggesting that this threshold could be off by 22%? MR. PALUMBO-Which threshold? MR. TRAVER-The threshold establishing the zone where you want to install this ride above the threshold. MR. PALUMBO-The portions of the threshold, and, yes, in this particular case, that’s what I’m saying. MR. TRAVER-By as much as 22%? MR. PALUMBO-Yes, but, Mr. Chairman, I’m not saying that just like, oh, yes. The information is in the study. You can review it. The Staff can review it. It’s there. You see the images. MR. TRAVER-Well, again. MR. VALENTINE-You just said this was a field survey. MR. PALUMBO-No. So, Mike, thank you. Let me finish. The same report said elevations outside of the Park is known to within plus or minus 10 feet vertically. That’s because they used in that, the important area is that treed area as we’ve just been talking about. The topo there, Mike, you know the old USGS topo. That was plus or minus the contour interval, 20 foot contour intervals. MR. TRAVER-I think we’re still using 1984. MR. PALUMBO-Right. This was not my statement. This was in italics in your report. That is what was said in the original document. MR. TRAVER-In the 2001 document. MR. PALUMBO-In the 2001 document. MR. TRAVER-So it’s not your statement but it’s all of our statements. MR. PALUMBO-Right. Correct. It was the accepted document because it was the best available information they had at that time. We have better information now. We have the two foot and it’s the two meter panels that are used for the LIDAR, and that gives you the two foot level of accuracy down to as much as 12 centimeters. MR. SHAFER-Question. The base of the ride, what is the difference in elevation between the two approaches? Do we know that? MR. PALUMBO-Between the approach. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. SHAFER-What that spot would have been in 2001 with 20 foot contours versus what the LIDAR says the elevation is today. How much accuracy are we talking about? MR. PALUMBO-Thank you. That’s a good question from the standpoint of how did they derive this line. So if we had this spot, what would it have been at that time. MR. SHAFER-Or if you change the line today, with modern technology, where does that line fall? MR. PALUMBO-Right. So we could do that, but what I would have to do, just like they said in the report, to do it for specific information, I could move the ride within the 135, and show you how much more becomes, if I move this ride to the .2 that was in the original report and did the same cross sections, using the same information, you might, you might see that upper 30 feet. What we’re showing you is that from the exact location, you are at marginal seeing because all the leaf is off. The ride is run when leaves are on, that that basket is just visible. All right. So we did the study for the actual specific ride. It’s a very good question. We had thought about that, but had I put the ride right at the point that I was describing that was in their study, it might have shown that at that area that was true, but you can see how the line tails off. That point was somewhere over here. MR. TRAVER-And you’re not proposing that. MR. PALUMBO-Well, we’re proposing to do what the Board would ask us to do as long as we can keep moving forward and answering your questions. We don’t want that to go on forever, but I think what I’m saying is we have analyzed this point and we’re very confident with the information that we provided to you. MR. VALENTINE-I think, John, were you going to the question of that there’s a possibility with more accurate information of the line itself moving? MR. SHAFER-And the threshold changes. MR. VALENTINE-That’s what I think you’re saying. MR. PALUMBO-Right. So if we did that what we would be doing is saying okay we’ll do a certain amount of evaluations, because you know from the last meeting we were quite honestly confused as to how this went through here. Okay. The 175, 135. This is at the same elevation as the Condor. Well what it was, and we flew the drone up, when we came at the last meeting, we flew the drone up at 165, we admitted that you could see a portion of the lake. Over at this point, at 175 you can see about the same amount of the lake that we see from 165 here. So even though that ride is on the side of 175, it is just noticeable at that point, similar to what we’re saying about the 165 at this point. We’re actually talking 164. We’ll split that hair. MR. TRAVER-That’s interesting, and I would like, if I may, to show a view of the ride that I found that represents, Laura, could you call up that, actually The Great Escape that is the advertisement for people to take the ride. That I think shows a different perspective. It shows not from Glen Lake but it shows how you are actually presenting to the public what they would experience as they take that. There it is. Okay. Down just a little bit, Laura. Now that looks to me, if you look behind where the word Outlaw is, that looks like the Fen down there and to the right, directly below the basket, that sure looks like Glen Lake to me, and the first time I saw it, when I saw it I said is that Lake George out there? That can’t possibly be right. MR. PALUMBO-Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you there’s nothing scientific about that photo. There is nothing. MR. TRAVER-I’m just saying I have no idea where it came from. MR. PALUMBO-Obviously it’s a marketing image to show the Outlaw, to show people on a ride, and they put a backdrop of it. MR. TRAVER-I understand. MR. PALUMBO-We’re bringing you technical information and it’s substantive. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Absolutely, but I hope you can appreciate, you spoke earlier to the concern and the public comment, and I hope you can appreciate that for folks that do not have access to all these application papers and your studies and so on, someone might mention to them, hey, they’re proposing a new ride at The Great Escape. Well let’s go to the website and see what it looks like. This is what they’re going to see. If you could scroll down just a little bit further, Laura, to the language there, and I think that, it’s hard for me to read here, but it says, You’ll fly over the Adirondacks at over 50 miles per hour with breathtaking views from the highest vantage point on the property. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So, yes, I’m not saying this is a, I don’t know if it’s an actual photograph that somebody took maybe from a drone or something, but this is what you’re presenting on your website, and when I saw it, I don’t know why I didn’t think of it sooner, but I thought, I wonder if they have anything on the website, and there it is. So I just thought that that would be one bit of information for you this evening. You might want to have a few words with your PR department. MR. PALUMBO-I think I’ll leave that to Joe and Danielle. It is PR. It is selling a future ride. I have to stand by the technical information that I feel has been done. MR. TRAVER-As do we. MR. PALUMBO-One last thing that I wanted to leave you with because I know there’ll be other questions and I do want to talk about sound as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-In the document it talks about the duration that something is in view. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PALUMBO-So we, and this is what we had said was, yes, when the ride is straight up and they’re loading at the bottom, that ride will be, there’s the 160 elevation, all right, and you’re just above that. MR. TRAVER-That’s like four minutes, right, that they’re loading? MR. PALUMBO-So the loading entirely takes four minutes. All right. I believe, Joe, Danielle, is that four at each end or two at each end? The length and duration that the loading takes place. DANIELLE SMITH MRS. SMITH-It’s four minutes. MR. PALUMBO-Each gondola or one gondola? MRS. SMITH-Each gondola. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. So that would be up there for four minutes, all right, with what’s above my finger being seen. All right. Very small amount. They load at the bottom, this comes back down. They load. That takes four minutes. The ride runs for 90 seconds. What we did was we took that 160 elevation and the arc of the ride, and when the ride is moving it’s at 50 miles per hour. The duration that that, it’s 38 feet, horizontally, that that ride is up at that apex. MR. TRAVER-If I remember there’s four seconds or something like that. MR. PALUMBO-No, not even that much. MR. TRAVER-I thought I saw that figure. MR. PALUMBO-It might have been for the total ride to loop around because. MR. TRAVER-It couldn’t be that quick or you’d lose people, four seconds to go 360 degrees. It would be something out of a science fiction movie. MR. PALUMBO-It’s a high intensity ride. Fifty, about fifty miles an hour you’re traveling 73 feet per second. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I know at 60 you’re going 90 feet per second. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. PALUMBO-The point at which the ride is above the 160 is for 38 horizontal feet. You’re going through that in .5 seconds. So if you take one half of the ride, this remaining level which is actually longer because I just took the distance on the straight line, not the arc, is 154 feet. That goes through in 2.1 seconds. So you were out of view 2.1 seconds, in view .5 seconds. Four fifths of the time. MR. TRAVER-And in view four minutes every 90 seconds. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. So we do have a point where it’s there, but then when the ride is going it’s moving through that point. The other factor of that is that the ride is oriented towards the lake. MR. TRAVER-Right. So it’s actually going to seem to be going up and down. MR. PALUMBO-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-And the leads me, if I could interrupt where you’re at and ask Mr. Schachner. This is a purely hypothetical scoping question. I’m a bit of a mad scientist as I think you know and this occurred to me this weekend when I was sitting in my living room awaiting a snowstorm or something and I had just put food out in my birdfeeder believe it or not. So I’m sitting in my living room and I’m watching the birds and I went to get up to do something and all the birds scattered. I sat back down again and they came back after a short time, and I’m wondering, in terms of a ride, not that’s steadily visible, not that’s obviously not there at all, but one that’s sort of Jack-In-the-Box, sort of appearing and disappearing, appearing and disappearing. Would potential impact on wildlife of that kind of movement, as with my cardinals, be a scoping, potentially a scoping? MR. SCHACHNER-The only part of that that’s a legal question, and that’s all I’m here to provide is legal guidance, is could you reasonably include that as an element of further inquiry in either further SEQRA review, short of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the answer is, yes, you have a lot of discretion. I haven’t the faintest idea whether there’s validity to the concern or not, but it would be a fair inquiry to ask in either context, either further SEQRA review short of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or part of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. MR. PALUMBO-Mr. Chairman, I would just ask this, in the context to be honest and have that dialogue. So if the ride was in the 175, would it really be any different for the birds? We could put this ride in a 175 zone. MR. TRAVER-They might be different birds. They might not be birds, and I don’t even know if it’s going to have an effect. I just noticed it. MR. PALUMBO-What I’m saying is we’ve established that the Park has the right to do rides like this. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. I’m looking specifically at the environ where there’s a potential for this to be interacting with birds that it’s not interacting with now. That’s, I guess, for example in the Fen, in the Glen Lake area. I don’t know if you’ve ever kayaked up into that area. There is a significant amount of wildlife, some relatively rare, and I have no idea. I just wondered if there’s any potential impact there. I don’t know. MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me. I’d just chime in a little bit on this one. Mr. Chairman, you are right, I believe, because the wind turbines up north that they were going to put up on Nantucket and everything else, there was a bird study and they move a lot slower. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, you’re right. I’m not sure it’s the same kind of study. MR. MAGOWAN-But, you know, that moves at a lot slower rate than 50 miles an hour. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Thank you for that. I’m sorry. Go ahead. MR. PALUMBO-Similarly when you’re comparing apples to apples, having seen some of those blades go up, the blades are significantly larger. So slower, larger, faster, smaller. So the last point you had asked about was some sound. So what we know is that the ride produces a decibel level of 80 at 50 feet from the ride. There’s specific design techniques to keep the sound in amongst the ride. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-And that’s from the passengers I assume. Right? MR. PALUMBO-You mentioned at the last meeting, people asked about music and stuff. So there’ll be stuff happening there, but that is all directed down toward the ground. Directly at the ground. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Because the people we saw in your promotional picture sure didn’t look like that sound was directed at the ground. MR. PALUMBO-No, no. I’m saying the technical sound system. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-But the ride has been tested and has had that at 50 feet away from it 80 decibels. To give you an example, much lower than a lawnmower. Sound diminishes. Every time you double it goes down six decibels. The receptor point in the Ramp Pole study that was included in the original packet as the study that was required, which every year does three test points and one of those is over at Glen Lake. That distance, by the time we calculate 50 to 100, 200, 400, 800, the distance there brings that decibel, if none of those trees were there, because the trees and the slope, the mound between us, do act as a sound barrier. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely, especially the trees. MR. PALUMBO-Without that, by the time we get over to that receptor point, we are at near equal or lower than the ambient that was part of the study. So it’s not, this ride is not adding to the sound over there. So we’ve provided that information and we’ve provided the entire visual study. It’s based in fact and it’s based in math. MR. TRAVER-One question, a question that I have, and maybe it’s the last question I can think of right now, but the mitigation of the vegetation that has grown in the 19 years since the GEIS that we’re currently working from, what percentage of the mitigation of visibility of the ride do you project is vegetation? A percentage in other words. MR. PALUMBO-I would say that. MR. TRAVER-If the vegetation were removed, what would the visibility be like? And I know that’s speculation. MR. PALUMBO-The only way I can equate it for you, again, apples to apples, oranges to oranges, the ground level is the same whether you’re doing the 135 or the 165. You take away the trees and, you know, both of those are going to be highly visible. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-The ground is not doing that much. I would say that the study point, that .2 ours would be less because the slope is going in this direction. All right. So if that was what they used. MR. TRAVER-The sub ground above the base. MR. PALUMBO-Right. So if that was what they used as the primary point for analyzing the 135 feet, and then they double checked it with the balloons just as we did, you move to, in that direction towards our ride and then the Condor, the slope is going up with that, but the fact of the matter is the trees are, and they are a major mitigator of the view, and they were at the time in 2001. MR. TRAVER-And one of the trees that’s a big mitigator of the views you said was 100 and some odd feet tall. MR. PALUMBO-No, I don’t want to be making a mischaracterization. I wanted you, when you looked at those pictures, if you could spot those trees, we know those two pines are right in the same lines of sight as our photographs. MR. TRAVER-Because of the LIDAR. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. PALUMBO-Because of the LIDAR. Well, and because we were able to find them specifically. So like an infrared, it’s not like the mass of taking heat, but it’s light bouncing off it, all right, and so those two trees being the tallest out there had a different color on that. So that’s how we were able to find them. MR. TRAVER-And they were green I think in the color print. MR. PALUMBO-No, actually we didn’t use the same colors because we had already used some other colors there, but they actually come up as an orange on the LIDAR. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-And it was so clear where they were and then because the LIDAR was also done when there was very, very little leaf on the tree, and when you’re up at that and you look down, you can really see through the sticks of the trees, and you can see the ground and you can see two very prominent evergreen trees. I was only pointing them out as to the fact that we can calculate the height. When something is so obvious we can calculate the height of it, and those were two that were very obvious and they also happen to be right in the line of sight from all those vantage points that we ran from the photographs. So it was really to give an aide, to show that’s where we’re looking, and when you look there you do not see a lot. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-Laura, we sent, I don’t know if you pulled it up from the e-mail, the one that Danielle sent tonight. So our side of the equation here is saying that the image that you saw in the paper was one that showed the boom height and the balloon and the basket, and I appreciate the photograph because whoever did it and zoomed in that well, you can see that yellow basket, but I think it was misrepresented in terms of what was at what height. We know that the basket was at the 164 elevation. People saw a balloon way up higher. So what we did was we took that same photograph and edited out the boom. That is the yellow basket by itself with that tree that I was talking about, one of those two trees right there. So depending on what the angle of the photo is, and I believe the photo was taken from a land point right back at that mile and a half point. MR. TRAVER-So you’re saying this is what the ride would look like with just the basket but with no supporting boom arm on it. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. Because there is no supporting boom when the ride is in place. MR. TRAVER-Well isn’t the basket attached to? MR. PALUMBO-The basket is the gondola at the end. MR. TRAVER-Which is attached to a boom. Is it not? MR. PALUMBO-No. So when I’m describing the boom, the boom of the crane. MR. TRAVER-You’re talking about the crane. MR. PALUMBO-The crane. That had to go up higher in order to hang the basket at the point. MR. TRAVER-So I guess my question is the ride that you’re proposing is not going to be carried around and around by the crane, but it is going to have a boom attached. MR. PALUMBO-The gondola basket that I’m talking about, Mr. Chairman, is at the end here. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PALUMBO-This is going through. You are, that’s why we’re showing that. The basket is right at that tree line. The tree line has no leaves on it. That basket is what you’re going to see. You’re not going to see, at the high point. MR. JACKOSKI-So you’re telling me a five to eight inch leaf from that far away is going to obscure an existing basket? MR. TRAVER-We don’t know the answer to that because we don’t have pictures. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. PALUMBO-No. What I’m saying is what you can see. MR. JACKOSKI-But what I’m saying is in your own logical mind, a five to eight inch leaf, that big, and I see that tree line, it can’t discernably add that much height to those trees which is old growth, right, so you can’t really see through those trees to the basket, whether they’ve got leaves on them or not. You can’t see the arm of the ride. MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-So I’m kind of confused as to how these leafed out conditions are going to obscure that height more. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you for asking the question. I’ll clarify. So what I’m saying is what you see at that fringe, that edge, when you zoom in at some of those photographs, I’m saying what you see when you zoom in is you see the actual twig tops there. All right. So they’re going to be with leaf on. So I’m not saying that it’s going to obscure the whole basket. I’m not saying that, but what I am saying is that anything below that basket, the trees that you’re looking at now are already obscuring it, and the leaves are only going to do more, and the ride is operational during the, because it’s, if it was moving around and the area in front of it were just the white of the trees, you might see the colors a little more. With the leaves on the tree you’re going to have full obscuring. MR. JACKOSKI-I get it. The depth of that forest is pretty deep. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, the bottom of the basket is at 164. Thank you. So that basket, what you see of it is already above the 164 line. MR. TRAVER-So what’s the top of the basket at in height? How tall is the basket? MR. PALUMBO-It’s supposed to be for a man, woman, worker in there safely. So it’s got to be up at this. MR. TRAVER-You’re talking about the crane basket. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, the crane basket. MR. TRAVER-I was thinking of the ride. Okay. MR. PALUMBO-So you asked questions. I think we provided you a lot of technical information and it supports what we were saying all along. There’s no question in my mind, what I’ll close with is you would not see this at 135. You would not see this at 145, 155, and you are just barely seeing it at the 164. Just barely. So whatever the study did before that labeled this area in the 135, it was probably one of those points where had you done more analysis you probably would have shaped it around there. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s a hypothetical. What we have is what we have, but I understand what you’re saying. MR. PALUMBO-Right. I’m just saying if somebody were to say well the trees didn’t grow that much. You can’t see it. So we’re saying well part of that was that the trees have grown. So the fact of the matter is you cannot see that any more than what you see right there at the bottom of the basket, and you’re looking at it from over a mile. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-Can I ask the question in color. Is that a required color? JOE MARTINEZ MR. MARTINEZ-That’s the color that was chosen. MR. SHAFER-Any flexibility? MR. MARTINEZ-I can check into that, to find out what stage the ride is at this point. MR. SHAFER-That’s pretty visible. That color is pretty visible. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Do we have other questions, comments from members of the Board before we go to a public hearing? MR. DIXON-I’ve got a quick question. A lot of what we’re discussing is all about the height. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. DIXON-Located in the Park, if you were located exactly where you want to today, if you were to excavate more to drop the height down, I mean is that a possibility? MR. PALUMBO-It is certainly one that we could explore. Because we’d only have to go down a few feet. We had not been thinking that way, only because of the tightness of things, but I think all things being equal we can probably do that. We probably can. MR. TRAVER-It might be a mitigation measure. MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. DIXON-The other question that I have that. MR. PALUMBO-And the only reason I didn’t want to say absolutely we can do it is I just don’t know all of the underground situations and the soil characteristics., We are planning, once we, if we get Site Plan approval, that’s when we’ll do our geotech analysis and our final information for utilities and stuff, but it is definitely something we can look into. MR. DIXON-And just so I am perfectly clear. On your drawing up there, I think that’s the same one that I have, underneath the steps you’re showing probably a concrete pad. So is that all underground? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. DIXON-None of that is above ground? MR. PALUMBO-Yes, and we explained at the last meeting there’s a hydraulic lift for the stairway. So when the people load there’s the outside circle here. This is the safety circle of the ride. So when you load that then falls down with the hydraulic lift after the people are in the ride so that they aren’t coming around and having somebody with long legs get too close to that. So that, what you’re seeing there is probably the catchment area. That concrete right there is probably the catchment of the ride and the hydraulic lift. MR. DIXON-Thank you. I was just concerned it was going to add anything to that. MR. PALUMBO-No, no. And under your premise, that would get down lower. MR. JACKOSKI-If you don’t mind for a minute I’m going to switch the view shed to the other side of the highway. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-How much higher is this ride now proposed to be than the Condor? MR. PALUMBO-The Condor is at 110. MR. JACKOSKI-The same elevation on the property. MR. PALUMBO-The same elevation, but it will still be, you know, so it’s up on the hill. It’s higher than the Condor, but it’s not higher than the Sasquatch. So there is already features out front that eclipse the height of this. MR. DUMAS-And that at rest is 85. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. PALUMBO-Yes. Thank you, Charles. During all off hours this sits at 85 feet, this does not sit straight up. So at any time, winter, I know the last time people were saying they didn’t want their view of West Mountain, you know, West Mountain where you can see through because there is a point where you can see through, you would see the top of the Mountain with the lifts and the lights and everything up there. In the winter this will be down. On off hours this will be down. We do not have to have it up and have a light on it for aerial protection at this point because it is down lower. So thank you for mentioning that. MR. VALENTINE-Down, you mean horizontal? MR. PALUMBO-Horizontal. MR. TRAVER-Horizontal, yes. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, in rest it’s in this position. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments, at this stage? MR. MAGOWAN-I have one. Back on the sound, your sound, is that with people in it or is that just the sound of the machine? MR. PALUMBO-No. My understanding was that was sound testing done with people in it. That is my understanding of the information that was given to me. MR. TRAVER-Anything else before we go to public comment? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chair, in reference to earlier discussion you were discussing about significance for additional environmental review, are you still in that review process as explained previously? If you do a Supplemental there’s a whole other set of public hearing process. MR. TRAVER-I don’t think that we have, to make that determination we have to do essentially the Part III. Correct? MR. SCHACHNER-You’re referring, for everyone’s benefit, to the Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form, and the short answer is no, not correct. You’re not conducting SEQRA review from the get go, in other words initial SEQRA review of this proposed action. You’ve conducted exhausted SEQRA review over a decade ago. The question now is whether there are new, potentially significant adverse environmental impacts not previously analyzed in the original Generic Environmental Impact Statement. You do not need to, you could use an Environmental Assessment Form to conduct that inquiry, but you’re not required to. So I think what Laura, what Staff is asking was sort of what I was asking earlier which is typically sooner rather than later as SEQRA Lead Agency you would make the decision of whether potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, new ones, have been identified, in which case you would typically, and responsibly should, require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. I think Staff’s point was if you’re going to do that, same as I was saying about an hour ago, if you’re going to do that, there will be another opportunity, and actually a larger opportunity, there will be a longer public comment period because the SEQRA regulations require a longer public comment period, and you would also have a public hearing at that time. So if you want to open a public hearing and hear public comments now you can, but there’s significant redundancy to that if you decide you’re going to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. I think that’s what I tried to say an hour ago. I think that’s why Staff asked the question. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that drives whether or not this Board feels there is potential for significant environmental impact? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Well, what do Board members feel? We know from the one comment in the summary where it talks about the reasons for the, and the applicant is not completely agreed with that interpretation but where they talk about the visual impact and the threshold and so on, that visual and lighting, and I should ask, too, do Board members want the Findings Statement to look at for review at this stage? I mean an actual hard copy. Because I have one, Laura has at least a couple of copies if you want to look at what I’m referencing, Page 14 of 18, H., Visual and Lighting, Number One. If you like I can just read it to you. This is just one of the things that I picked up from the Findings Statement, and I’ll just 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) read it. it says the GEIS contained analyses of locations in which tall rides could be placed in the Park without resulting in substantial adverse impact. For the purpose of the GEIS, substantial adverse impact as defined as not having significant visibility above the surrounding tree line when viewed from Glen Lake, the Glens Falls Country Club or surrounding residential neighborhoods. So in 2001 they basically said the potential, what I’m understanding when I look at this is the potential for a substantial adverse impact is set by that threshold. In this case it’s 135 feet. But we also have the new information provided by the applicant. So what we would be doing is not stating that there is significant environmental impact, but whether or not the potential exists for significant environmental impact. MR. SHAFER-But at the last meeting we asked them to go back and come back with additional information on lighting, sound and visual, and they’ve done that. I guess the question is what else, I can’t think of anything else to ask them to do. The issue of significance is ours. MR. TRAVER-Exactly, and what Staff and Counsel are pointing out is they’re suggesting that we consider that, at that point, that this is a point we could go to public hearing and take additional comment, but if we feel that the potential is here for potential adverse environmental impact, then if we make that determination, then that provides an opportunity to get potentially we could talk about scoping in terms of what types of questions might impact. We could talk about mitigation options, some of which just came to light tonight. The public would have an opportunity, potentially, these, I don’t know I guess that’s a question for Counsel. Would the 31 agencies and organizations involved in this original thing have an opportunity to comment? MR. SCHACHNER-Under SEQRA regulations all involved agencies would b=e notified of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. That’s a pretty long list. There can’t possibly have been that many technically legally involved agencies, but there could be a sub category of what are called interested agencies. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it says organizations. There are some that are probably non-profits and so on. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So those are not agencies, but those are parties that absolutely can be notified of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement should you go that route. MR. TRAVER-And potentially that list could be derived from, if they still exist, form the 2001 Statement. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And then they may have, as well as the public, might have information that they would provide that either could be additional information that they have researched for potential scoping recommendations that would then drive. MR. SCHACHNER-If you seek scoping input on a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. You can seek that input. You’re not obligated to seek that input, but you can seek that input. MR. TRAVER-Understood. And that scoping, again, would be something like for example that one tree there that’s partially blocking that basket, how long is that going to be there, that type of thing, approximately. MR. SCHACHNER-Scoping is identifying issues to be discussed in an Environmental Impact Statement or a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. It’s not required for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement but it’s certainly not prohibited. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well I guess maybe at this point it would be appropriate to sort of poll the Board, I guess. Are people feeling that there’s the potential for significant impact? Jamie, you think yes? John? MR. SHAFER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. Brad? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Other than the data they’ve provided, given what they’ve already provided, I don’t know what else they could provide. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Well the question isn’t whether or not the applicant would necessarily provide information but whether or not there would be other information that would be relevant to, there might be other environmental impacts that we don’t. MR. SHAFER-I can’t think of any so I’m no. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You’re no. Brad, you’re yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Jamie, you’re a yes. What do you think, potentially. MR. DIXON-I’ll make a comment first of all. So first of all, full disclosure which I didn’t mention earlier on, I have a teenage son who works for The Great Escape. There’s no conflict whatsoever. As far as this goes potential, yes, I think there is potential. MR. TRAVER-Potential. Okay. MR. VALENTINE-I would say just based on the use of the word potential that there is that possibility. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Steven? MR. JACKOSKI-So I think that what they’ve already identified is, I don’t think there is any more potential. I think it is there. MR. TRAVER-So you agree that there’s potential for significant adverse impacts. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s already been identified, yes. MR. VALENTINE-That’s how I would phrase mine, the same way. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well then it sounds like, do we make a motion or how do we codify that? MR. SCHACHNER-If I’m understanding what you’re seeking to codify, the answer would be affirmative, yes. Somebody would make a motion that the Planning Board as SEQRA Lead Agency feels that you’ve identified or there have been identified potentially significant adverse environmental impacts not previously analyzed and therefore you’re going to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. I think that’s what I was hearing. If that’s what I was hearing then that would be done by a motion, second and a vote. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And then what about the, that would set the calendar running for some of the follow up aspects of that. Right? MR. SCHACHNER-Not exactly because first there’s an open-ended aspect which is the applicant’s preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-You should also, if, and let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves, but if you decide to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, you should also decide whether you’re going to engage in any kind of formal scoping process or simply ask the applicant to address the issues that you’ve already identified and list those issues. Either one is fine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. PALUMBO-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to go to that point. In a normal process you would ask is there a potential impact. When you go down and check off those SEQRA Part III as you had mentioned before, you say is there a potential impact. Is it small, moderate, or significant or large? And then you’d ask has it been mitigated, and I think that you have evidence before you in terms of how we’ve attempted to mitigate it. One other potential mitigation that we could come back with would be the suggestion of the Board member, see if we could lower it. So going to an Environmental Impact Statement and setting a course in process that isn’t going to go any further. The gentleman made the point. We have answered the questions that you’ve asked. We’ve shown you what is technically there. If you wanted to take to 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) the next meeting to say you want to have somebody do more of a technical analysis, that you didn’t want to leave it to yourself. The information has been provided. MR. TRAVER-Well thank you for that advice. We may get to that second step his evening, I’m not sure, but first, are you working on a draft resolution? Okay. MR. DIXON-I’m trying to come up with something here. MR. TRAVER-So we would say as an example that motion to recognize that the Planning Board feels that there’s potential significant adverse environmental impact and. MR. SCHACHNER-New, add the word new. MR. TRAVER-New potential environmental impact and is requesting Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. MR. SCHACHNER-You could do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Start with that. MR. DUMAS-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a process question at this point? MR. TRAVER-Let’s get through this motion and then we’ll talk again. I want to get this first. MR. DIXON-So we’re discussing motion to recognize the Board has identified potential environmental. MR. TRAVER-New potential. MR. DIXON-New potential. Are we leaving significant in there or new environmental impact. MR. SCHACHNER-Potentially significant adverse. You should include all those words. MR. TRAVER-Potentially significant adverse environmental impact, and is requiring an environmental impact statement. MR. DUMAS-Mr. Chairman, before you vote, could I just ask a question, sort of a process question? Because I think it’s germane. MR. TRAVER-Quickly, yes. MR. DUMAS-Do I hear the Board members saying, do I hear you saying if the ride were located in the 175 zone that you would entertain that without an additional Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement? MR. TRAVER-Well you’re talking, then you’d be talking about a different application. MR. SCHACHNER-With all due respect, that doesn’t strike me as a process question. That strikes me as a substantive question about what the Board might or might not think if they re-located the ride. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that would be a different application. MR. SCHACHNER-Or at least a substantially modified application. The applicant clearly has the right to submit a substantially modified application, but, A, that doesn’t strike me as a process question, and, B, I don’t think it’s fair to ask the Board to speculate on what might happen if there were a modified application. MR. TRAVER-I agree. Thank you for that. MR. PALUMBO-Mark, the one reason that it was possibly a process question is that at the last meeting the same question was asked of us from the Board. Could you move it as a mitigation, and so that’s why we’re asking if we showed, in this process, the ride in a different location, could it be handled under the application and as an alternative that the Board asked us at the last meeting. It’s on record. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That doesn’t change my answer one bit, but I would say this, it doesn’t strike me as a process question. If the Board follows through on the proposed motion, that sure sounds like one of 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) the most important aspects of an Environmental Impact Statement is analysis of alternatives. That sure sounds like an alternative that could be analyzed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. MR. TRAVER-Could I ask a real process question? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Could I ask my Acting Secretary to read the motion so we can vote on it? MR. SCHACHNER-Now that’s a process question. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Go ahead. MR. DIXON-I have a motion to recognize the Board has identified new potential significant adverse environmental impact and is requiring a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. MR. SCHACHNER-So here’s my picky question. Did you say impact or impacts plural? MR. DIXON-Impact. MR. SCHACHNER-So unless you’re limiting it to one, you might want to add an S to it. MR. TRAVER-Should make it plural. Yes. Okay. So just add an S. And I’ll ask the Acting Secretary to read it again. MR. DIXON-Thank you for bearing with me. RESOLUTION RE: SUPPLEMENTAL EIS SP # 67-2019 THE GREAT ESCAPE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a new ride “Adirondack Outlaw” located near “Desperado Plunge” – removing an existing building for the new ride. The new ride is to be 165 ft. in length/height. Project includes ride construction and construction of enclosed entry area. Project includes landscaping and stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE BOARD HAS IDENTIFIED NEW POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND IS REQUIRING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, th Seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2019, by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on the motion? Yes, sir. MR. SHAFER-What new potential significant environmental impacts has the Board identified tonight that hasn’t been provided? MR. VALENTINE-That was my question. MR. TRAVER-Well the visual certainly. We don’t know what, I spoke about the potential impact that vegetation would have. We haven’t talked about whether we would want to do any kind of scoping yet but that would be immediately after this. MR. SHAFER-So you think there’s visual impact analysis? MR. TRAVER-Potential MR. VALENTINE-Yes, but he said there’s new, new from. MR. TRAVER-Potential new impact. MR. SCHACHNER-Just so it’s clear, it’s new from, what you’re looking at is the increment from, new from 2001, not, the notion would be whether there are new potentially significant adverse environmental impacts not analyzed in 2001 or previously in SEQRA review, not new from the most recent submission. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Right. Where there old threshold standard was established. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-So does that mean we’re saying what was submitted subsequent to 2001 is not relevant? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think it means that at all. I think it means if you act on the motion as it’s been introduced, I think it means that you feel that the new information has lead you to identify new potential significant adverse environmental impacts that were not analyzed in 2001. MR. SHAFER-Back to my point before. Last meeting we asked the applicant to come back with additional information on three topics. So I’m back to the question, what new potential significant adverse environmental impacts have we identified that they haven’t already answered? MR. TRAVER-That’s what this process would expand upon, and we haven’t talked about scoping yet, but I have some thoughts on scoping. Let’s, why don’t we vote on the motion. We have a motion. I did not hear a second. MS. WHITE-I seconded it. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. Jamie, you seconded it. All right. Maria, can you call the vote for us, please. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Shafer ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the next question is, would now be an appropriate time, particularly with questions about what new impacts there might be, to decide whether or not, let me take a step back. I apologize for my unclear question. My first question is, if we were to decide that we wanted to do a scoping process, does that scoping process necessarily lead to results of that process? In other words can we say we want to consider scoping and suppose when we do that and we get all the public impact and we looked at all the potential for scoping, we decide that scoping is either not identified or not necessary. Would that be all right? MR. SCHACHNER-Sorry, I don’t understand the question. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well I raised the question about, for example the couple of things that I thought about. One was the impact, because so much of this mitigation that is there now is dependent upon the lifespan of the forest, I asked that. So that, to me, is a scoping question because we don’t have that information but we can get it. The other question I asked and we haven’t gotten information from these 31 organizations and the public and so on, but I was wondering about the impact on wildlife if any. So those were a couple of things that I thought about in scoping that might not normally be addressed with just a visual and sound and so on. So, that being the case, would it be appropriate to advocate that we do a scoping process? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s entirely up to you as the SEQRA Lead Agency. You have the discretion to go through a scoping process but not the obligation. Just remember if you do, it’s often said, in court cases about SEQRA review, it’s often said that the most important aspect of an Environmental Impact Statement is analysis of alternatives. So you’ve already mentioned, and even the applicant has mentioned a couple of alternatives that you might want to make sure that those are included in the scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. MR. TRAVER-So it might be appropriate for us to wait to discuss a potential scoping until after we’ve received a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Supplemental Impact Statement. MR. SCHACHNER-That doesn’t make sense because scoping defines, scoping sets the parameters of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Because I know mitigation is also part of that Environmental Impact Statement and you had said something about the scoping might be impacted by what they might propose to mitigation. So that’s why I was wondering if we should, if it would be all right to wait and see whether, not make a decision on scoping until we see what their Draft. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess I’ll phrase it a little bit differently, and I apologize for using the SEQRA lingo. I’m not a big fan of legalese, but there’s a lot of SEQRA lingo here. SEQRA, I should have said at the beginning for the benefit of the public, being an acronym for State Environmental Quality Review Act, the name of the State Statute. You can, if the applicant feels it understand what you’ve identified as potentially, new potentially significant adverse environmental impacts and wants to say to you, let us go prepare the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and then you can review it then for completeness, you could do it that way, or you could, as SEQRA Lead Agency, say we want the scope, scope being essentially the table of contents, parameters of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to include at least these elements. You can go either way on it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And that process wouldn’t’ have to be concluded tonight. If we were to decide to do that, hypothetically we could decide to do that tonight, and then that table of contents would be decided through a separate process, right. In other words we would get input from the public as far as scoping items, the table of contents. We would get potential input from these agencies possibly that contributed to the original document, or, no, would we have to list all those things tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-There’s no obligation to complete scoping tonight. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-If that’s your question, there’s no obligation to complete scoping tonight. MR. TRAVER-Because I understood when I browsed the SEQRA Handbook that there was a some sort of a process for determining what the scoping, the table of contents would be. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, but you were likely browsing the SEQRA Handbook not about Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements. You were likely browsing it about Environmental Impact Statements in general. I’m guessing. MR. TRAVER-You’re probably right because it was probably about one o’clock in the morning sometime in the last. MR. SCHACHNER-Well the reason I’m saying that is because I happen to have the SEQRA Handbook with me. MR. TRAVER-I suspected you would. MR. SCHACHNER-And I’m reasonably familiar with it and it doesn’t say much about scoping in reference to Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements, other than that it’s not required, not required doesn’t mean can’t be done. It just says not required. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-It is required for Environmental Impact Statements from the get go, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Now a follow up question to that would be the opposite. If we do not, if we don’t require scoping, is the applicant’s response limited to what was only in the original application? In the words, would they not be required to report on the tree issue that I raised or the wildlife issue that I raised? MR. SCHACHNER-Well you’ve mentioned that. It seems like you’ve asked the applicant to include that in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement so it seems to me that as SEQRA Lead Agency, if the applicant chooses not to include that information in a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement you will likely not accept the Draft as complete. That’s the purpose of telling the applicant what things you want to see in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. You’ve mentioned several, and presumably the applicant will incorporate those or you will not, it’s up to you as the SEQRA Lead Agency to accept the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as complete, once it hits the issues you want it to hit. There’s no secret to the two issues that you’ve just mentioned and the 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) applicant is here represented by counsel and a competent project team and they know that you want to see discussion of those issues. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Now for their sake I have I guess almost a fairness question, and that is if tomorrow night at one o’clock in the morning I come up with some other concern about potential environmental impact and they walk away thinking, okay, we’ve got what we need for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and then it comes in and it’s not in what I didn’t talk about tonight. I can’t require them to then add it because I never asked for it and I didn’t think of it until later. That’s what the whole scoping thing as I understand it. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s essentially correct. It’s not fair to make it a moving target for an applicant. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s why if you want, as SEQRA Lead Agency, you can either tonight or sometime soon, again in fairness to the applicant, either tonight or sometime soon, come up with an actual written description, a scope, of what you want to see in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. You’re not obligated to do that but that’s certainly a very fair and reasonable way to proceed. MR. TRAVER-And in order to do that we would have to invoke a scoping, we would do another motion to say that we were going to do a scoping? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know that that requires a motion, but you could convene a scoping session at a next Planning Board meeting if you like. You could convene it at a special meeting. There’s not much magic as to how that process has to happen, but you are correct that in fairness to the applicant it’s not fair to the applicant, any applicant, to make it a moving target. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. So if we were to, and that would give the public an opportunity as well if we were to say have a special meeting for them to consider potential adverse environmental impacts and bring that information to a meeting and help us or give us their input in terms of drafting that scope, that table of contents. MR. SCHACHNER-Who’s they? They who? MR. TRAVER-The public, interested organizations. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You are certainly allowed to get public input on scoping if you wish to do so. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean you also can have a public hearing tonight. It was properly noticed. It’s a little redundant but you can certainly do it if you want. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So I guess I will then ask the Board again how does the Board feel about having a, let’s say a special meeting where we would invite some of our partners from 2001that helped developed this one particular threshold that we’re talking about, help us, give them an opportunity to review the latest information and ask them to come to a, and the public, ask them to come to a special meeting to give us input on what they perceive to be what the applicant should be looking into in terms of potential adverse environmental impacts that would be scoping. MR. SCHACHNER-And just so you know, the name for that would be a Scoping Session. MR. TRAVER-A Scoping Session. Okay. So how do you feel about that? MR. SHAFER-Well, scoping would be done by the Board with public input. MR. TRAVER-Right. Exactly. MR. SHAFER-I’m not sure what those other agencies would contribute with their lack of knowledge of the application and details. MR. TRAVER-Well they would have an opportunity to study that and they may not, they may say you know we don’t have any input and some of them may not even exist anymore. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. SHAFER-Or do they get the scoping after we prepare it? MR. TRAVER-Then they wouldn’t have an opportunity to contribute. They may be aware of issues that we’re not aware of because of the special nature of their organization. MR. SHAFER-We may need a civic center with the public and Board and all of those agencies. MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s why we get the big bucks. We’ll have to figure that out, but we’re not there yet. Brad, how do you feel about doing a scoping process for the community to help us? MR. MAGOWAN-Well I think in all fairness, you know, so we’re not chasing and pushing, that we ought to have a scoping plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. John? MR. SHAFER-Yes, I’m comfortable with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Jamie? MS. WHITE-I’m okay with it. MR. TRAVER-Steven, scoping? MR. JACKOSKI-I’m comfortable with scoping. I’m just hoping that we can allow at least two or three key people in the audience to speak this evening. MR. TRAVER-Yes, absolutely. So yes on scoping. Michael? MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So it sounds like the Board is in favor of doing scoping. How do we enact that? Is it just noted in the minutes? MR. SCHACHNER-Well there’s a bunch of notice requirements under the SEQRA regulations. So there’ll be publications and notices filed and the like, but if you’re going to have a scoping session, schedule a scoping session. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we could do that tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-If you like. MR. TRAVER-Okay. It might, to be merciful to Laura it might be more sensible to as her to make some recommendations for when we do that, if we don’t absolutely have to do that tonight, and then notice it. We have a window to notice this Scoping Session? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think you do because scoping is not required for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, but I think in fairness to the applicant you should do it sooner rather than later. MR. TRAVER-Yes, yes. So we should set a date this evening, then. Okay. Laura, I’m sorry. MR. MAGOWAN-Thursday. MR. TRAVER-Thanks a lot. MR. SCHACHNER-If I could, let me just ask a question. Remember I’ve said now several times scoping’s not required for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement but it’s clearly, I don’t think there’s any argument that it’s prohibited. When scoping is conducted on an initial Environmental Impact Statement, usually the applicant submits a draft scope for the Lead Agency to review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s usually the process. That’s what’s envisioned by the SEQRA regulations. Then the Lead Agency provides a copy of the draft scope to all of the involved agencies, etc., etc. So if you 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) want to do this by the book as if it were an initial Environmental Impact Statement then the next step would actually be to ask the applicant to submit a draft scoping document. MR. TRAVER-And that might be an advantage to them because they could probably identify those issues including the two that I mentioned this evening fairly quickly. Right. Okay. How does the Board feel about that? Asking them to come up with an initial list and then, what, we would notice that to the public, we’d make that list available to the public and the interested agencies and then they’d have a window to respond. Okay. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, if we had specific things, so when I voted yes I had a specific item that I felt was an impact. MR. TRAVER-Potential impact? MR. DIXON-Yes. So how do we get that indicated? MS. WHITE-And Steve had one as well. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, notify the, I would say we would notify the applicant that would be a scoping thing. That’s something that we want to follow up on. So let them know that you’re recommending that they include that in their draft scoping document. So you can do that right now. MR. DIXON-So since we were talking visual impact, about where this slide actually was taken there is a, as far as I know it’s a nesting pair of Osprey. I don’t know what the impact is to it. So those are the items, that’s really my biggest impact. MR. TRAVER-The ride impact on the Osprey? MR. DIXON-Yes, if there’s any impact. Do they Osprey fly over that way? I’m not concerned about them being over that way, but seeing things above the tree line, I don’t know, is it going to scare them away? MR. TRAVER-Well that kind of goes to my thing with the cardinals at the bird feeder. It’s a question about what is the biological impact of this thing appearing. I don’t know if there is any, but that’s certainly a valid scoping question. And then there was somebody else? MS. WHITE-Steve mentioned the focus of the visual has been on Glen Lake, Glen Lake. There’s a lot of other areas that could potentially be impacted I think is what Steve was saying. I’m paraphrasing. MR. JACKOSKI-On the other side. MS. WHITE-Yes, the other side of the Northway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. WHITE-There are other areas that could potentially. MR. SHAFER-I raised the question of color. They should address color. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right. So would that take the form of a motion? MR. SCHACHNER-It can. MR. TRAVER-Would you recommend that we make it a motion as part of the process. MR. SCHACHNER-Discussing those issues? MR. TRAVER-Asking the applicant to create a draft scoping document. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-All right. And then I think once we do that we can do public comment. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, in with that scoping, can we also do alternate place. Can we add that? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Well that’s mitigation, and I think the applicant is likely to already, if they wish. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean in our world that’s not mitigation. That’s alternatives. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Alternatives. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a very important part of an Environmental Impact Statement including the supplemental is provide alternatives, analyze alternatives. MR. TRAVER-Is alternatives. MR. MAGOWAN-So that would be already in there. MR. TRAVER-That would be most likely in there. MR. DUMAS-To that point, could I have a word? MR. TRAVER-Well, one second. We’re just in the middle of this motion. We’ll get through this and then, yes, you can have a word, and then we’ll go to public comment. So, Counsel, I have a draft motion if you’d like to review or comment on it. Motion to require the applicant to create and provide to the Planning Board a draft scoping document for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Okay. All right. Then that’ll work. MR. DIXON-All right. I’ll give this one a try. RESOLUTION TO REQUIRE DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT SP # 67-2019 GREAT ESCAPE MOTION TO REQUIRE APPLICANT TO CREATE AND PROVIDE TO THE PLANNING BOARD A DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. th Seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2019, by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any comments on the scoping motion? We’re going to ask the applicant to give us a draft and they can list what they feel they think is appropriate and what they’ve heard tonight and then we’ll elicit, we’ll send that out to the public and to interested, other interested parties and then come up with a scoping document and then they’ll finalize their Draft Environmental updated Environmental Impact Statement and that will not go all the way back to Square One, but it will supplement what we already have, to bring us up to 2019. MR. SHAFER-Real quick, to your comment about one o’clock in the morning ideas, Do we get those back to the applicant through Laura if we come up with an idea? MR. TRAVER-No, that would, we would discuss that when we have our Scoping Session. MR. SHAFER-And that would be after we get the document back. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. So any other comment before we vote? Maria, could you call the vote for us, please, on the scoping. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you had something you wanted to say. MR. DUMAS-Yes. I’m a little confused about, you had mentioned the idea of alternative location would be part of the evaluation that the Board would make under a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. However, the GEIS provides that if the ride is located in a zone that allows for that within the 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) threshold then no further SEQRA evaluation would be required. So I’m not sure how one bleeds into the other basically. MR. TRAVER-Well that would be an alternative . Right? MR. SCHACHNER-Two part answer, if I understood the question. I don’t think the Board said, I think you misstated the Board’s earlier comment. I don’t think that the Board said that it would make a decision based on alternatives which is I think what you just stated the Board just said, but if the applicant, and if I’m misunderstanding the question, please correct me, if the applicant is asking if he were to re-locate the proposed facility or the proposed attraction to a different zone, I don’t mean zone in the context of a zoning district, but an area that did not, or that fulfilled the height requirements of the 2001 Generic Environmental Impact Statement, then you’re absolutely correct. There’s a substantial likelihood that no further SEQRA review would be required. That’s the basic, the basic purpose of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement is to establish thresholds which if they’re not exceeded in the future means that no further SEQRA review is required. That’s entirely possible. That would be a significant modification of the application, but the result of that significant modification would possibly be no SEQRA review at all. MR. DUMAS-Thank you. That answers my question. MR. TRAVER-Now I’m going to dare ask another process question. We spoke earlier about public comment. We know there’s people that came tonight prepared and are looking forward to making public comment. You mentioned that it would be redundant because there would be opportunities for public comment as we proceed with this review. I would like to take public comment tonight, and I think you said that that’s fine. I guess I would like to sort of reach out to the audience in the context of where we are now versus where we are when we got here. If we could take public comment, but because it would be redundant and we don’t have all the information because we don’t know what the draft scoping document is, we don’t know what the Draft new Environmental Impact Statement might be. We don’t know what alternatives the applicant would come up with, what I would like to I guess ask is would people be willing to make some public comment tonight, but not necessarily have everyone that signed up I hope on the clipboard in the back of the room give us public comment tonight. How does the public feel about that? All right. Well, why don’t we, if the Board is comfortable with that, why don’t we move to public comment, and I’m not trying to limit it in any kind of official way, but in the interest of time and process, and with that we’ll open the public hearing and I’ll ask the applicant to give up the table. MRS. MOORE-At this time there’s 16 individuals that requested to speak, and I’m curious if all 16 wish to speak, and that’s what the Board chooses to hear. I also have 59 letters. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, I mean, presumably they signed up before we finished this, where we’re at tonight, but that’s up to them. We will certainly take public comment. I don’ t want to restrict public comment. My comment was just an idea of a suggestion rather than some kind of condition. So who’s first on the list. MRS. MOORE-So if I read off individual’s names, I have Paul McPhillips has signed up. MR. TRAVER-Paul McPhillips. Are you Mr. McPhillips? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL MC PHILLIPS MR. MC PHILLIPS-I’m Paul McPhillips and I’m the President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. MR. TRAVER-Welcome. MR. MC PHILLIPS-And first and foremost I’d like to thank everybody here tonight for their patience and for coming and there’s people from Twicwood and from Courthouse Estates here. So thank you for your patience. By going through this process everyone will have an opportunity to speak up and say, and have some input. So I think that’s great, and I would just like to say one other thing. We can argue a little bit about drone camera technology or amateur photograph and what’s blown up, but what I would like people to look at is if you look at these pictures you’ll see there’s no doubt the bottom of that basket is above the tree line and leaves are not going to grow any higher. In fact I’ll leave it. Everybody’s in a hurry to get home. MR. TRAVER-Could I ask, Laura, can this be added to the public record, these photographs? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That’ll become part of this whole. MR. MC PHILLIPS-I’ll leave it at that. Thank you very much. Thanks everybody for coming out tonight. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-And Mr. Paul Derby. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Derby. Evening, sir. PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. First I want to thank you for moving forward with the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. I think it’s reasonable to do that. So I just had a bunch of points. I just want to make a few of them briefly. There’s so many questions in addition to kind of what you’re talking about here that are associated with this site. We know that we’re going to see it. They’ve said that and I think I would add to the discussion, what about motion and sight? So you have this spindle going around at 50 miles an hour. What is the effect of the motion, not just the sight. MR. TRAVER-And I think I, I’m sorry to interrupt, but I think I got into a little bit of that when we talked about scoping in terms of, you know, just a matter of practical experience in watching the animal life around my house that, you know, when I move up and down, up and down they tend to react to that. Even though they know they don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them, every night after work I put out food for them and they still run when I bump up and down. So, yes, that was one of the things that I think was one of my one o’clock in the morning things was the effect of that motion and that’s a very valid point and I know that the applicant will be addressing that in their draft scoping and in the Environmental Impact Statement. MR. DERBY-Okay. There’s still questions about light pollution, and if you read the document from their engineers very clearly it says that they can turn the lights off along the arm. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. Say that again? MR. DERBY-It says they can turn the lights off along the arm of the ride. It doesn’t say anything about turning the lights off on the gondola, around the gondola or under the gondola. MR. TRAVER-The document from 2001, I think I started the meeting with this very early on, because the applicant had submitted information in their recent submission that indicated that they had discovered that they were able to program the computer that runs the light system so that it would be turned off when the arm is straight up. I found in the document that there are no lights other than emergency lighting allowed in the basket, and that the Planning Board has the ability to control the lights and the color of lights from 20 feet below the threshold. In this case that would be 115 feet all the way up to the 165. MR. DERBY-Right, and I don’t know if I’m right, but when I look at the ride, there were lights along, there’s like a handle that goes around the gondola, and there are lights on that handle. MR. TRAVER-That’s right. Yes. MR. DERBY-That’s not the arm. So I just want to be clear, I don’t know if I’m right or not, if those lights are off on the arm. It’s a potential issue. MR. TRAVER-In the current Environmental Impact Statement that’s not allowed. Those lights would not be allowed on the ride, and the applicant has I believe acknowledged that. MR. DERBY-Okay, and then there are still questions about the noise pollution. I didn’t see the noise study so I don’t know if it came in today. I thought I read every document that came through, but I didn’t see any information on that, but they can’t rely on their annual studies because those are past looking and they don’t include any information on the source, type or level of noise on the specific ride. So you did identify that and I think that’s an issue, but we also need to think about the noise above the tree line, and so that is the potential impact. That’s different than the other rides. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-But like your other statements, and I imagine some of the other public comment we’re going to get tonight. That I think is perhaps a scoping issue where we specifically are asking for environmental impacts related to fill in the blank and you’re saying noise above the tree line. So as I understand the process and, you know, in this process we get all these table of contents I think as Counsel had called it. One of those table of contents could very well be potential noise impact above the trees. We put all that together through your input when we announce a meeting. We look at the draft document that the applicant is going to produce in a draft scoping document, then we reach out to all the other people potentially that were involved back in 2001 and we say hey, we’re going to update this and here’s this application. Do you have any questions. Is there any scoping information that you would recommend that we investigate, and then that creates the list which then goes back to the applicant and they respond and add it to the environmental impact statement and then I believe the process then would be we get a draft of that environmental impact which would include all of the scoping. We make that available and we do more public comment and then we do a final, as we did in 2001, not I, that’s a small “W” because I wasn’t involved, but we then do a final impact statement which would be similar, if not the same, as the one in 2001, but with potentially different parameters. MR. DERBY-Okay, then let me just ask you a process question because I don’t want to take up a lot of your time. So I think you’ve asked the applicant to create a Draft scoping document. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DERBY-And then you’re going to have a Scoping Session. MR. TRAVER-That’s right. MR. DERBY-And the public will be able to see the draft document before the scoping and then come in and say well what about this, what about this. MR. TRAVER-Exactly right. That’s the purpose, the whole purpose of that. MR. DERBY-Okay. Then I won’t take up any of your time. MR. TRAVER-That’s why I inquired about that scoping process early on and then later once we decided that we wanted a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Because it seemed to me, even though it was just me, these thoughts rattling around in my head, that a scoping process might well be a good investment if we’re going to go through a Supplement. I mean let’s try to get as much information as we can so that maybe we can go another 19 years without having to do this again. MR. DERBY-And I agree and I thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I have Mr. Wally Hirsch. WALLY HIRSCH MR. HIRSCH-I’ll pass pending what they have to say next meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Ms. Charlotte Potvin. CHARLOTTE POTVIN MS. POTVIN-I’m with Wally. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. MRS. MOORE-So I have Ms. Pam Cembrook PAMELA CEMBROOK 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MRS. CEMBROOK-Laura, I know you pulled up that website from The Great Escape. I’m Pamela Cembrook. I have residence at 121 Birdsall Road on Glen Lake. What was shocking to me was the video that they were advertising. I don’t know if you got to see it, but this will show the ride in action. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I did look at that, although I didn’t ask that it be shown tonight because I assumed that this was, because it was a ride in another location. I wasn’t sure how relevant it was. My main concern was the view shed. MRS. CEMBROOK-Right, and with this video you’ll hear screaming and this ride is going, with the screaming and the ride and you hear the advertiser and above spectacular Adirondack views. They are advertising this as having views above the treetops. For them to tell you that that basket is below the tree line, they’re not going to have views of the Adirondacks then. So they are misleading us, and I don’t like that. I don’t trust them. So I’m very concerned about what’s being done. MR. TRAVER-As are we. MRS. CEMBROOK-And I grew up on this lake. We have family on this lake. We enjoy this lake. It’s my children’s paradise. We built a home here. Queensbury they have wonderful guidelines, strict guidelines for building. I came before you building my house, and it’s great. We need that because we need to protect the lakes. We need to protect the environments. People come up here to enjoy the Adirondacks. Yes you’ve got an amusement park that you can go to. I want to go to that, be there. I don’t want it in my backyard. I don’t want it in my front yard. So thank you for what you’re doing. I really appreciate this. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I have Ms. Linda Clark. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. LINDA CLARK MS. CLARK-Hello. Linda Clark. 3 Benmost Bur Lane on Glen Lake. I’m not going to read my statement to you tonight but I would like to submit my statement as part of the record and I would also like to know, could you possibly tell us how many other letters have been submitted prior to this meeting so that we know what the. MRS. MOORE-So there has been 59 letters submitted. 58 of them are in opposition and one letter had requested additional review. MS. CLARK-Okay. That’s what I wanted to know. MR. TRAVER-And we don’t actually know, again, trying to be fair to the Town, there may be some in transit that we don’t know about because I know this has been an effort since this issue came about. MS. CLARK-Will these letters be considered once you decide how you’re going to proceed? Will all these letters be part of that review? MR. TRAVER-They are already part of the record and public hearing is for that purpose and scoping is another sort of level of that where we’re not only asking for public comment, but we’re asking for public participation, and that’s one of the things that I’m interested in doing because we think, I think that I have some questions and concerns about what the potential impact might be, but I think that there’s information that I don’t know that could be things that we need to look into and I would like to do this maybe once every 19 years and not do it on a regular basis. So I think if we could update the Environmental Impact Statement and do the best job we can to make sure we’ve checked all the boxes and we’ve tried to figure out what the heck are the potential impacts and checked into all of them and worked with the applicant to come up with an update to this, I think I would feel good that we had done that. MS. CLARK-Well I appreciate what you have, the direction in which you’re going. It seems as though you’re being as transparent as you possibly can be and I look forward to working with you on that. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MRS. MOORE-Mr. John Cembrook. JOHN CEMBROOK MR. CEMBROOK-Thank you very much, folks. I’ve changed my comments. I wrote a great letter to read tonight but I’m not going to read it. MR. TRAVER-Could you just state your name for the record. MR. CEMBROOK-Yes, sorry. My name is John Cembrook. My wife Pam just spoke. We have a home on Birdsall Road here. During that whole presentation, and even the ones before, the items on the docket that you covered tonight, gave me quite an appreciation for the complexities and the judgment required by this panel to make decisions every week, every month going forward. The prior presentation by the management team and attorneys of The Great Escape Six Flags, I’m reminded of a Mark Twain quote, you know, and it’s lies, damn lies and statistics, right. I would ask you as you go forward, I suspect that team is going to move that ride. I suspect that team is going to put it in the 175 foot zone and we’re going to have a different conversation, but I would remind this group if I could, my father-in-law Don Milne, with Paul Derby and others on Glen Lake, wrote that document some 18, 19 years ago. I’d ask you to think about the intent of that document, the intent of coming up with a limit at 135 feet, at 175 feet, whether it’s plus or minus seven feet, nine feet really doesn’t make that much difference. What matters is the protection of the environment, sound, light, etc. We have the potential now for noise to bounce off treetops and hit the lake. I suspect many of you have been out on the lake in a quiet moment. We have quiet moments in the afternoon. Conditions are always variable. Have you ever heard a whisper on the lake from across the lake? We hear it. The folks that kayak, that get on a public launch, they hear it. The folks that fish in the mornings and afternoons when this ride will be up and running and working, will add to an already noisy environment. The Great Escape moved the ride called Rolling Thunder and re- named it something or other. It’s still rolling thunder. We hear it and the conditions are variable. So please do, I’m going to stop now. Please just honor the intent of what Don Milne, grampy, what he and Paul and others did 20 years ago. It took two years to write. There was a lot of work that went into that, and it’s not a fairy tale. It’s filled with scientific fact. So thank you for honoring it tonight. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for your comment. The only thing I would like to add in response is I have been, I think it’s 12 or 13 years now on the Planning Board. I’ve dealt with a lot of applicants. In my opinion the gentlemen from The Great Escape are not lying. They may be omitting some information that maybe none of us have or, you know, you could disagree with some of the suppositions that they’re making, but I do not believe that they’re misrepresenting or deliberately lying about what they’re saying. MR. CEMBROOK-So if I could comment on that. I did hear a couple. There was a question from the gentleman on the left about the sound, and there were evasive answers around 80 decibels, and is that with two people, four people, eight people? Were they screaming at the top of the ride. Please use your commonsense. If this Board is asked to review this ride in the 175 zone or again at the 135 with supplemental, there will always be an orientation to tell a narrative that’s related to their intent. Right? If we go and excavate five feet to get this ride below the eyeball threshold of what the treetops are today, does that really deal with the intent of the original agreement which was to also keep noise down? I would answer to you no, I would say no, it does not. MR. TRAVER-Noise is part of the impact that will be studied. MR. CEMBROOK-It is. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. CEMBROOK-It is indeed. I hope to be back. I drove here four hours tonight to be here tonight for the meeting as did maybe other people, left a business meeting, but it matters to us. I would end with this. There’s a lot of passion here. There’s a lot of capabilities, a lot of energy and we have a lot of resources to bring to bear on this particular situation. So we’ll be heavy participants. MR. TRAVER-And we’re trying to make sure that you have the opportunity to do that. MR. CEMBROOK-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I have Erin McNeil. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Is there an Erin McNeil? That person may have left, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have Ed Kelly. MR. TRAVER-Ed Kelly? Okay. MRS. MOORE-Ron Kuhl? RON KUHL MR. KUHL-No. I’m not going to speak. My comments were based on the GEIS. I will ask one question, though. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Please sit at the table and state your name for the record. MR. KUHL-My name is Ron Kuhl. I’m at 31 Dineen Road. Now do you have the results of the noise test? MR. TRAVER-We have some, yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Some means you don’t have them all. Were they performed on an existing ride? MR. TRAVER-We don’t know if we have them all. That’s part of the process that we’re expanding upon now. MR. KUHL-Do they have this ride installed somewhere else and is that where they tested it? MR. TRAVER-They do. MR. KUHL-Okay. Mark, could you answer a question for me? MR. SCHACHNER-Only if the Board wants me to. MR. TRAVER-I would like to hear the question. MR. KUHL-If they want to move it to a height appropriate area, would all of this go away or would they still have to do the EIS? MR. TRAVER-If they move it to underneath a threshold that’s established by the current Environmental Impact Statement then no SEQRA, State Environmental Quality Review Act review would be required because that was all investigated back in 2000 and 2001 when this document was created. MR. KUHL-But you just passed a motion for them to do an EIS. MR. TRAVER-That’s based on the application in front of us, which includes exceeding that threshold. MR. KUHL-Okay. Yes, you agree? MR. SCHACHNER-100%. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Have a nice Thanksgiving. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you, too. MRS. MOORE-I have Natalie Canterbury. NATALIE CANTERBURY MS. CANTERBURY-Hi. MR. TRAVER-Hello. MS. CANTERBURY-My name is Natalie Canterbury and I live on Canterbury Drive which is directly behind Six Flags. Due to the nature of the way things went tonight I’m not going to say everything I wanted to say a good amount of it, if you don’t mind. I graduated in May with a degree in biology and a degree in 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) psychology, and during my undergrad years as a field technician I participated in numerous ecological internships where I traveled to different parts of the world to collect data. Now I’m a field biologist and most of my recent project was a trip to the Costa Rican rainforest and there I studied spider silk and worked with the DEC so I’m very serious about what I do and very passionate about what I do. MR. TRAVER-Do you have much experience in limnology? MS. CANTERBURY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. CANTERBURY-So basically I worked with a doctorate professor at my college and I assisted on a project analyzing various types of maple trees and broad leaf trees to find environmental factors and through this project it was my job to learn nearly everything there is to know about the anatomy of the broad leaf tree and where I live behind Six Flags is located within the premises of the eastern forest which consists of a mix between conifers which are the trees like spruces and pines, and broad leaf trees which are maple trees, oak trees. MR. TRAVER-Deciduous trees. MS. CANTERBURY-Yes. So basically the broad leaf trees reach a mature height of about 40 to 50 feet and an overall maximum height of 60 to 75. Based on my expertise and knowledge of the area I live in the trees behind my home are a little over 80 years old and stand about 70 feet tall. Broad leaf trees like maples and oaks grow about five feet per year in the first five years of life and reach their maximum height of 65 to 75 feet after about 30 to 40 years. Therefore the trees that currently block our view of Six Flags have already been brought to maximum height and have been at maximum height for about 20 years. By the terms of the Environmental Impact Statement which was made about 20 years ago there’s a 115 foot limit which we have all discussed with a 25 foot waiver on how tall the rides can be in the section of the Park in which the Ghost Town resides, and they’re above the tree line. All in all the answer I believe is simple in that it just doesn’t make any sense to breach this barrier, both because of the history and just the general situation. They’re not going to grow any taller. MR. TRAVER-My concern was actually they would begin getting shorter because they’re going to get old. MS. CANTERBURY-Yes. As they say that they firmly believe in what they are reporting is correct information I strongly believe, in my expertise which, even though I may appear as young, I’ve been a lot of places and I’ve done a lot of things. I have a pretty vast education and I don’t think that these trees are going to get any taller and I don’t think that, you know, a motion should be passed to allow them to put this ride here. MR. TRAVER-I would, with your expertise, I’m hoping that you’re going to be contributing to the scoping process because I think you might be able to contribute to that part of the discussion that addresses the forest and the percentage of vegetation that’s relied upon to mitigate the visual impact of the ride and maybe some suggestions as to how that intervening forest could be studied to determine the likelihood over different scales and time periods where that visual impact could change potentially. MS. CANTERBURY-Yes. Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-And we’re not doing that tonight. MS. CANTERBURY-I do have small concerned and I’m a little disappointed, I know we’ll have another meeting. It’s just that I’m actually moving pretty soon and getting a third degree. So I was really hoping that this meeting would take place before I move at the beginning of January. I’m coming back, but for a year and a half I’m getting a nursing degree. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well you can participate remotely. MS. CANTERBURY-Okay. You don’t think that this meeting will happen before January? MR. TRAVER-Well we happen that it will happen sooner. We would like to move ahead with our agenda, and I know the applicant would like to get this resolved, and so it’s not entirely in our control, but we will certainly move forward with the process as soon as we reasonably can with the information in our hands that we need. It’s just a matter of scheduling a meeting. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MS. CANTERBURY-I’m just hopeful. MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood and like I say you don’t need to be present to win. You can certainly contribute to comment. All of the information is going to be on the Town website so you can keep track of all of the information as it comes in, all of the scoping documents, all the rest of it. You can contact Laura. You can submit written comment and the photographs, text references, whatever you like, anything that you feel would be of assistance to helping us with this project to give us at least another 19 or 20 years of having an updated Environmental Impact Statement and that the applicant and we can rely on that you stay within these limits, we don’t have to go through this again. That’s really our goal. MS. CANTERBURY-Awesome. Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, and good luck with your next degree. MS. CANTERBURY-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I have Lorraine Stein. LORRAINE STEIN MS. STEIN-I’ll hold on to my comments. MR. TRAVER-They’re going to wait. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Lisa Doster. LISA DOSTER MRS. DOSTER-I’ll be very brief. Lisa Doster, Ash Drive. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Welcome. MRS. DOSTER-So we talked about Ospreys. We have majestic eagles now. We have otters, we have great fishing. There’s a tremendous amount of wildlife. The loons have just recently returned. That’s a big, big sign. DEC refers to the common loon as the spirit of the northern waters and it recognizes the symbol of unspoiled wilderness. The National Wildlife Federation states the loons depend on clean water and lakes and are sensitive to the effects of pollution and human disturbances. The returning of the loons is a sign of a good, healthy lake environment. I guess we’re doing something right and I’m hoping we’ll be able to keep that balance and not upset the applecart. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. DOSTER-You’re welcome. MR. TRAVER-Could I ask you a question? MRS. DOSTER-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-I would ask the same of you, because you seem particularly keen on some of the wildlife species that are found in that area, if you would, again, with scoping and with comment, you know, keep in touch with the documentation as it comes in. You’ll be aware of when the discussion on scoping, what is that table of contents as Counsel referred to it and if you have specific questions regarding some of the species that you mentioned, that’s important to note, because again our goal is to do this once, to do it efficiently, get it done and then be able to move on with a document that’s going to stand on its own for hopefully a long time. MRS. DOSTER-Right. This isn’t just an impact on us humans. MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you. MRS. DOSTER-Wonderful. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I have Marylou Moynihan. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MARYLOU MOYNIHAN MS. MOYNIHAN-Fifty words or less. My name is Mary Lois O’Connor Moynihan. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MRS. MOYNIHAN-We’ve been on Glen Lake for 65 years. We’ve seen lots of changes. Right now I can see the top of the bungee cord and I just don’t want to see anything else behind that one tree that could be hit by lightning. That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I have James Ogden. JAMES OGDEN MR. OGDEN-I, too, appreciate everybody’s time. James Ogden, 17 Fitzgerald Road and 11 Fitzgerald Road as well. We’ve been on the lake a long time and yes we’ve seen a lot of changes. The interesting thing, and I think someone mentioned this earlier, with the audible studies that are done with decibel meters and all those other things. When are they done? What’s the impact and what’s the environment that th you’re getting that? Sixty decibels on the 4 of July weekend on the middle of the lake is not big of an impact. Sixty decibels on a Tuesday morning at 10 o’clock is a much different impact. MR. TRAVER-Wind, humidity, there are a lot of factors with sound. We know that and I know that the applicant does, too, because they routinely do sound studies for various purposes and for various things and again that’s part of scoping. Noise impacts are, there are aspects of the Glen Lake environment that are unique and if we need to explore sound impact on the various faces of that environment that are unique to Glen Lake well then that’s part of the scoping process. MR. OGDEN-I also find it interesting that all of these amusement parks across the country put in their bids to put in the latest ride in the fall. MR. TRAVER-Well we ask them to do that. MR. OGDEN-But we ask them to do the permitting, but they also do it in an untimely fashion. MR. TRAVER-No, no, I meant our love of these parks is what drives their business model, and they’re doing this because we ask them to. I mean the reason they’re doing the Outlaw ride is because, and they talked about that in their first meeting is that, you know, they’re watching their numbers and people have an interest in going to this other part of the Park and they want to put a new ride in to help people appreciate the Park that much more. MR. OGDEN-I understand that. My point was that they’ve shut down the Park now . So any sort of new information or current information that we could derive is put off until Labor Day, Memorial Day when they open back up? Memorial Day when they open back up. I’m not sure what their schedule is. I haven’t been there in a good number of years. MR. TRAVER-And I would just add, and maybe it’s speculation, but at this point I believe that all or most of the information that we need to process this, to finish this review, would be available whether the Park is open or not. MR. OGDEN-I would disagree, and to your credit, you mentioned earlier we don’t want to say that they’re interpreting their information incorrectly. MR. TRAVER-No, I just said they’re not lying. They may be interpreting information incorrectly. We may be interpreting information incorrectly. It’s a process. MR. OGDEN-I disagree with that at 10 o’clock in the morning drinking coffee in my boathouse, that they’re impact and their next rollercoaster ride doesn’t get heard on my dock, and I’d open up the invitation to the Board, the group, come sit on my boathouse on any week day and listen to everything going on at The Great Escape, but thank you very much for your time. MR. TRAVER-Well thank you for the offer. I hope that you will participate in the scoping process because your suggestion may be one that we will take you up on. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. OGDEN-Yes. All right. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-That’s the end of the list of public commenters. So obviously there’s the 59 letters. As I explained there’s 58 of them that are in opposition and the one that is. MR. TRAVER-And are they substantially the boilerplate letter that the Association was advocating that people submit? MRS. MOORE-That’s my understanding. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can you put one of those letters, I guess I’d ask Counsel for an opinion, but would it be permissible to read one of the letters, add all of them to the record, but read one of the letters as a sample and then read a list of the people who’ve all submitted that same letter? MR. SCHACHNER-If it’s the same letter, sure. Remember you have no obligation to read the letters aloud and all of the letters are now part of the public record. If it’s literally a form letter that might be helpful to people but. MR. TRAVER-They’re the ones, they created it. MR. SCHACHNER-Then I don’t know if it’s helpful or not. MR. TRAVER-All right. So maybe then if that’s permissible then maybe we will not read them at least tonight but they’re included in the record so they’re available to us. MR. SCHACHNER-They are absolutely available. They are part of the public record. Any letters that have been submitted in response to a public hearing are part of the public record, and this has nothing to do with tonight’s meeting. You never have an obligation to read them aloud at any meeting. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you for that. MR. VALENTINE-Can I make a request? Laura, can you take one of the boilerplate letters and just e-mail it to us so we can see them? MRS. MOORE-Yes. RUSS CANTERBURY MR. CANTERBURY-Can I make one quick comment? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I haven’t closed the public hearing. Sure. MR. CANTERBURY-Russ Canterbury. Canterbury Drive. On the issue of the visibility and the conversation of when this is going to be visible, the four minutes, the ninety seconds and so forth, so if I understood this correctly, and I’m not sure it was portrayed this way, out of every nine and a half minutes you’re going to see a box sitting there. One at the bottom, one at the top loaded, then it turns. So basically during all the hours of operation for fundamentally eight out of ten minutes that’s going to be sitting there. Whatever’s visible is going to be sitting there visible and it’s going to be twirling the rest of the time. MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure, at this hour, that I can do the math. So I’m not sure if those numbers are exactly correct, but, yes, during the period of operation and certainly, you know, the applicant would hope that it would be in operation during the hours of the Park, you know, the Park runs, let’s go through this. So the Park, the ride runs approximately 90 seconds. Then it stops and I guess the people get out and then it runs for 90 seconds and then the other car gets out and new people get in. So that would be the, as proposed, that would be the cycle. MR. CANTERBURY-Basically. Most of the time that’s going to be sitting there while they’re loading up, loading those four minute segments. MR. TRAVER-With 90 seconds. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. CANTERBURY-Other than the 90 seconds. MR. TRAVER-And during the 90 seconds it’s apparently going to be jumping up and down when you’re looking at it on the end of the access. MR. CANTERBURY-That’s all. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that we did not have? I guess not everybody signed up. Yes, sir. MARK PRENDEVILLE MR. PRENDEVILLE-I’d like to speak. My name is Mark Prendeville. I live on Ash Drive. Two things I’d like to say. Number One, on some of his pictures they were taken behind where my house is with all the trees that have a lot of high trees. I don’t think he should count any trees that aren’t on Great Escape property because they have no control over when those trees are coming down. Anyone could do logging in back of Canterbury Drive. They don’t own all that property back there. They can’t say those trees are going to stay there with the leaves. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and to your point one of the questions that was raised earlier was, because of the high percentage of vegetation that is the mitigation for the proposed ride, one of the questions, and I think it’s going to relate to the scoping, is what is the potential for losing some of those trees either through storms or, I didn’t specifically mention logging, but whatever we can, as part of the scoping process we’re going to look at what are the potential threats to that view shed because of loss of vegetation. We heard from a young lady that talked about maturity and all that kind of thing. So hopefully we will be looking at all that. MR. PRENDEVILLE-And second I’d like to say, Om Gawa Wana Karga Munge Simba – Jungle Law Says No Shoot Animals. For 40 years I listened to that from Jungle Land. So when he says that I am not going to hear 20 people screaming on a ride with rock music blaring, I think he’s very wrong. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that. Yes, ma’am. BARB SCHRADER MS. SCHRADER-Barb Schrader, Fitzgerald Road. I just wanted to comment on two things. One, he talked about sound and how it diminishes over space. He did not address that over water it does not handle the same way. Any topography is going to affect that. I think somebody alluded to with the whisper. MR. TRAVER-Sound traveling through different environments, it is altered by that environment in different ways, but what he was talking about wasn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of physics, the laws of physics. So fundamentally he’s correct, but you’re also correct. MS. SCHRADER-I just want to keep everything in perspective. He was very smart in the way he was explaining things, in terms of sound, in terms of distance, and the same with the photos. We have photos that show much more visible, as I think Paul or somebody showed you some of the photos, much more visibility. If I sit down here and take a photo looking up at you versus looking down at you, you know, there’s a million way I can make that exact same reality look very different, and I just want to make sure that everybody keeps everything in perspective. Because whether we’re a mile and a half away or within that period or across the lake, my cousin lives exactly on the opposite side. Other than what’s blocked by the islands, she can see homes and their lights and all of that at the ends. Okay. So this three mile you can’t see it. I mean it’s only about three miles long, but I think anything within that still has that visibility and those of us who are closer really have a lot of visibility. I just want to make sure everyone keeps that in perspective. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. Yes, sir. I see a hand raised in the back. BILL MANSMANN MR. MANSMANN-Good evening. Thank you for taking the time to listen to public input at this point. My name is Bill Mansmann. I live off of Chestnut Road. Everything I’ve heard tonight kind of validates the 2001 GEIS that was put in place. Everything that was put in place in terms of deciding in this part of the Park they can put a ride 175 feet. In this part of the Park they can put a ride 135 feet, and so the fact is I think that in terms of updating that GEIS, you should just simply re-affirm what it already says. Thank you. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening that wants to give comment to the Planning Board this evening before we move on? I’m not seeing any hands. One last time, anyone else for public comment this evening? Okay. Then we’ll end the public hearing for tonight but we’ll be leaving it open , right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Your applicant’s still in the back. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I know, but we’re going to be leaving the public hearing open throughout this process. So no more public comment tonight. The applicant can return to the table. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. MR. DUMAS-I’m not sure why the public hearing would be left open. You’re going to have a scoping process. After the scope is determined a draft statement would be compiled and that would be subject to public comment. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DUMAS-Why would you have the public hearing continued? MR. TRAVER-Laura, I guess I would defer to you or to Counsel. Is it not appropriate for us to leave the public hearing open? MR. SCHACHNER-Neither appropriate nor inappropriate. I mean the attorney’s statement is factually correct. There’s no, there’s going to be further opportunity for public comment. You can leave this one open, you can close it, that’ll be another one. Either way is perfectly appropriate. MR. TRAVER-But it doesn’t have any impact on how much comment people have or when they give it? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t see how it would. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-I would prefer if you closed the public hearing. We’ve completed a chapter for this application. There’s another chapter then that would go forward. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. SCHACHNER-The only reason that the Board typically leaves it open, if I’m not mistaken is the application, while now subject to a requirement for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is still subject to Site Plan Review. I think the public hearing that was open tonight may be on Site Plan Review and, contrary to what the applicant’s counsel just stated, you’ve not completed that chapter. MR. TRAVER-That’s correct, and I suspect that there’s also written comment that we haven’t received yet that’s in the process. I don’t know if that’s impacted by closing the public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-No. The written comment would still be accepted as part of the public record, but again it’s definitely your practice to keep a public hearing open until you’ve completed whatever the function is. MR. TRAVER-It is. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the function for which this public hearing was opened was Site Plan Review and again, not to beg the question again, but clearly you have not completed the chapter of Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay, and then unless the other Board members disagree, that would be up to me as Chair whether I leave it open or not? Okay. In that case I’ve announced that it’s going to remain open. So I will leave it that way. MR. DUMAS-Okay. Just one final comment. I appreciate the Chairman’s comments in response to allegations that we’re a bunch of liars. We are not. We have provided science and we have provided 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/2019) credible information from the Park, and from what I’ve read in letters and e-mails, each person has said we don’t want to give our neighbors a hard time, and I’m not sure, if this is not a hard time, if having integrity impugned is not a hard time, then I’m not sure exactly what is. So I’ll conclude my remarks with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And in response I would just say that when I heard that public comment I felt that I needed to I guess represent to the public my interpretation of how you behaved this evening, that it was professional and there was no intentional dishonesty, but I would do the same thing with regard to the public comment when they said, you know, that you’re lying. I’m not really sure that that literally is what they meant. I think that they, I suspect that what was going through their mind was really more of a they were concerned that perhaps you were misrepresenting some of the information that was there. It really doesn’t matter. I think, you know, I believe that the public hearing and the public in general, as well as yourself, helped us conduct this hearing in a very effective way tonight, and I’m really quite, actually quite pleased with the way that it’s gone. I think that that will likely continue. I’m sure that you will respond to the challenge of helping us figure this out in a very professional, timely way, and I think the public will continue to be interested and motivated to help us do the scoping and looking at the draft review consider carefully whatever you come up with, and I’m very optimistic and hopeful that that’s the way we’ll proceed going forward. MR. DUMAS-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MS. SMITH-Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Take care. Thank you. Do we have any other business before the Board this evening? MR. MAGOWAN-Are we voting on the calendar? MR. TRAVER-We did that already at the very beginning. It was a long time ago. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourned. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26, 2019, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 61