Loading...
2001-07-11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 11, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER CATHERINE LA BOMBARD ANTHONY METIVIER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 70-99 GREAT ESCAPE ADOPTION OF SEQRA FINDINGS JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll call tonight’s meeting to order. The first part of the meeting is consider adoption of the Draft Findings Statement. Chris, I’ll turn it over to you and give us maybe a brief update where we are, the changes we’ve made. MR. ROUND-Sure. Since our last meeting, there were several suggestions to revisions of the Findings Statement. We also ask that Planning Board members provide us with any additional comments, as of July 5. We received those comments on July 5. July 6 Stuart actually prepared a ththth revised Findings Statement. That was transmitted to you by e-mail and Larry mail, and you have that tonight. We just have put in front of you the final version, and that contains probably three or four small, minor changes. Stuart’s going to walk you through what those changes are. They’re just changes in wording, and I know that there are going to be probably two or three of you that have questions about how your comments were incorporated or not incorporated into this particular draft, and Stu will walk you through that. Mark Schachner also provided comments. His most recent comments were yesterday. Those have been incorporated into this version, and so Staff, Town Counsel, and Consultant, all have, this version contains all those changes, and what we feel is a Finding’s Statement that is going to be acceptable to the Board, but that’s to be determined by you tonight. STUART MESINGER MR. MESINGER-Thank you, Chris. In reference to comments received by the Planning Board, we received comments from Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro. With respect to Mr. Vollaro’s comments, subsequent to the version that we gave you, if you go to Page 8, reviewing that with the applicant, you’ll see that there’s two colors on your draft. Blue is changes that were made in the copies that you received, and red are additional. MR. MAC EWAN-My copy is black and white. MR. MESINGER-My apologies. MR. MAC EWAN-So 20% gray and 15% gray? MR. MESINGER-I don’t know which is which. At any rate, if you look at the very first Finding on Page 8, the ii Finding, the suggestion is to just re-word Mr. Vollaro’s change to read, it would read, the applicant shall be required to take necessary precautions to protect the porosity of the paving systems, and then add, and/or to use stormwater filters, strike “which will preserve the porosity of the paving system, and then go on to oil water separators. Is that not what you want? MR. VOLLARO-It makes sense to me. MR. MESINGER-I think the English works a little better. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MESINGER-So strike “which will preserve the porosity of the paving system”, the second time, and then add and/or in front of “to use stormwater filters”. The rest of Mr. Vollaro’s changes were incorporated. With respect to Mr. Strough’s changes, there were sort of three general categories. There were a couple which we’ve incorporated, and I think that he’ll see those there. There were a couple of sort of global comments, with respect to enforcement, that I’ll touch on in a moment, and then there were a couple of suggestions with respect to adding conditions that would limit the operational hours of the Bobsled ride, or otherwise limit the hours of operation rides, and it was my impression at our last meeting that the Board had decided not to incorporate conditions that would limit hours. That after much discussion you had decided that you were going to incorporate conditions that were based on the sound levels. They were either problems or problematic. So, John, I did not include those two changes, because they weren’t consistent with my understanding of what the Board had said. Obviously, you’re free to convince them otherwise or to make your case, in the event that I misread the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I agree with you. That was the consensus. MR. MESINGER-Then to move on to Mr. Schachner’s suggestions, you see, in several instances, beginning on Page Three, we have struck out the word “environmental”, down toward the bottom of the page, in a couple of cases, and added the word “SEQRA” and this is simply to make it clear that what we’re doing here is a SEQRA review and not any other kind of review, and that change is found throughout the Ordinance. I would then direct your attention to Page Five, and this is the first of the changes, or actually, let me go to the bottom of Page Four. You had, at our last meeting, had asked us to try to re-word the language, with respect to enforcement, and that’s done in two shades of gray, our original attempt to do that, followed by Mr. Schachner’s comments. This language, it’s our understanding that the applicant has agreed to this language, so that there are no issues there. Okay. So, you’ll see at the bottom, at the beginning, “The Town may takes measures to mitigate the problem or remove the source, if the Great Escape fails to do so”. So that leaves into your hands the ability to mitigate or remove, if the Great Escape fails to do so, either on its own or pursuant to the submitted mitigation plan, and then we’ve added, the Great Escape shall reimburse the Town for its reasonable mitigation and/or removal costs. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that satisfactory to you? MR. COLLINS-Sure. MR. MESINGER-Basically, the same set of language then appears again on Page Eight, which was the second instance of attempting to re-word the language. Again, we have language about the mitigation plan, the Town may take measures to correct, and the Great Escape shall reimburse. So it’s the same set of language in two places, you’ll recall last time. The last change that I want to bring your attention to appears on the last page, Page 18 of the Findings, where we’ve added a clause called “Applicant’s Disclosure”, and basically it requires the Great Escape to affirmatively disclose the Findings to any successor in interest, and provide written certification. The issue obviously being that if somebody else comes along and buys the Company, they don’t know that this is out there. So there’s a protection to the successor. So these would be binding on the successor to the Great Escape. I think all the other changes you’ve had an opportunity to review, and we’ll entertain any questions you might have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does the applicant have anything they wanted to add at this point? MR. LEMERY-We had one issue, Mr. Chairman. MR. MESINGER-I’m sorry. There were several other typos that the applicant pointed out to me that I don’t think that we need to go through tonight, and I just wanted to make that. Let me touch on the Karner blues. I do want to touch on that. You’ll see on Page Six there’s an addition, with respect to the Karner blue butterfly and the Frosted Elfin butterfly habitats. We had received a letter from the significant habitat people a couple of weeks ago saying, hey, essentially this is my translation. Hey, what’s up with the Karner blue butterfly habitat, we think there’s some on this property. We’ve had, in the Final EIS, what the applicant had said to us is that in fact that habitat wasn’t on the property. We asked them to go back and look again to confirm and verify that. They did so. They’ve written us a letter. We added this sentence here to specifically address that concern. The letter is right here. MR. SCHACHNER-Is the letter part of the document or not? MR. ROUND-It’s not a part of the document. The referral to this particular organization made and it wasn’t identified. So there’s not new inventory information. There is inventory information as a part of the Draft and the Final EIS. So there is no concern about this. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) MR. MESINGER-And I immediately had the same set of issues, but I think that the way the document is written, the document relies on the earlier survey, and their subsequent survey found nothing different. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. MESINGER-Okay. Sorry. MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, my name is John Lemery, Counsel to the Park in connection with this Impact Statement. Our only issue has to do with, I hope I’ve got the right page, Page Number 14, Paragraph H, Visual and Lighting, Paragraph Number Four, there was added language, to the extent that no lighting, including emergency lighting, will be allowed above the tree line. MR. VOLLARO-I have that as a correction. I was the one involved with that. I think that should be excluding emergency lighting. MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I think this is a typo. MR. LEMERY-I’m not sure if that’s so, Mr. Vollaro, but. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MESINGER-Well, let me address it. You guys brought this to my attention. I did not make the change because I wasn’t sure that it wasn’t consistent with your intent. It wasn’t so much a typo. I just wasn’t entirely sure of your intent with it, honestly, and I said, bring it up. Mr. Vollaro’s saying, no, that was your intent, and if the rest of the Board concurs, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It was definitely my intent, when I discussed it with them, that that should exclude emergency lighting. So I would recommend the word “excluding” replace the word “including”. MR. MESINGER-And as long as you have the ability to review emergency lighting in site plan review, I’m fine with that, too. You just don’t want to end up with something that you don’t want to end up with. MR. MAC EWAN-Agreed. That was our consensus. MR. LEMERY-We’re fine with that, other than that change, which we appreciate. We’re content with the Findings Statement and we appreciate all the hard work that everybody put into it and hope that you’ll accept it and make these Findings. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Comments? John? MR. STROUGH-A couple of things. Well, it’s different pages now. On Page 12, I’m the one that submitted this, actually, Warren County is the one that had it in their recommendations. On Page 12, the Planning Board concurs with the comments of the Warren County Planning Board and finds that the applicant shall inventory and preserve large trees at the perimeters of parking lots. For the purpose of this Finding, a large tree is one with a diameter of over 16 inches at breast height. Well, that wasn’t my addition. MR. MESINGER-No, that was my addition. Because I think you need something that defines a large tree, and my understanding is that that was not in the Warren County Findings. MR. STROUGH-No, it wasn’t, but then again we generally are talking about the buffer area, are we not, and 16 inches is rather substantial, and I was wondering if we couldn’t agree to something a little less than 16 inches in diameter. How about 16 inch circumference? But I just don’t realize there’s that many trees at 16 inch diameter on Project Park Area B, or actually C, Park Area C, I mean, the parking lot area. MR. MESINGER-The guidance that I can give you here is that it’s, I don’t know what was obviously in the Warren County Planning Board’s mind when they made their recommendation, and I’m not sure how to guide you, not knowing the specifics, you know, not having walked that land myself. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s true. That’s why I kind of left it open, for both parties to kind of come to an agreement and negotiate which trees should probably be left in the buffer. I think the intent, on behalf of the Warren County Planning Board, if they don’t mind me speaking for them, is to try 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) and leave as much of the natural vegetation up there as possible, especially the bigger stuff, to make it, you know, sometimes you bulldoze things down, and you plant vegetation. It’s going to take 15 years before it makes a significant visual difference. MR. MESINGER-One way you might get at that, then, would be to delete the size condition and say that the Finding would require that the applicant submit an inventory of large trees as part of its site plan review, and that they’ll be reviewed in site plan review, because I think, you know, none of us know what’s out there specifically, and you’re going to need to look, and you’ll probably want to look at it. I mean, I agree with you, John, that is probably the intent and the purpose. So you can probably get at it that way and simply require that the site plans include an inventory of large trees, and define a large tree as something smaller, and you guys decide then what to preserve and what not to. MR. STROUGH-Well, what’s the rest of the members think on that issue? I don’t want to move forward unless I have some kind of support. MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone satisfied with what’s in the document, or change it? MR. VOLLARO-I think that this might be a site plan review issue that, you know, are we going to go out there and do one of these with a tree? I think that maybe we ought to take a look at the actual site and determine if there are any trees worthy, on that site, of being retained. Is that basically what your position is? MR. STROUGH-Well, could we drop the last sentence and just leave it as it is, and then the applicant and the Planning Board will work it out when it comes to site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-I think I’d be more inclined to want to do that, just omit that last line. MR. VOLLARO-“For purposes of this Finding”, starting with that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I think that that’s too specific. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. All right. Next issue, have you got any other issues, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes, one other issue. MR. LEMERY-Well, we’re not agreed yet, that that’s. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not at that point where we’re going to. MR. COLLINS-It’s the last sentence, what you want to eliminate? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, “For purposes of this Finding, a large tree is one with a diameter of over 16 inches…”. MR. VOLLARO-Who’s going to go out there with a micrometer? MR. MAC EWAN-I think what the Board is saying is that they don’t want to pin it down to that. However, they do want to leave it open. The question is how many trees really you’ve got out there over 16 inches to begin with. We’re going to get caught up on so many minute details here. I think we’re losing sight of the big picture. Anything else, John? MR. SCHACHNER-Craig? Before you leave that, I mean, I just threw a sentence together that Stu and I just went over. You can think about it, if you like. The sentence could read, For the purpose of this Finding, a large tree inventory shall be submitted with any site plan application, if required by Planning Staff, for consideration during site plan review. No magic to it, but it’s a thought. MR. COLLINS-Could you read that again, Mark? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I literally just wrote this. You could try a last sentence that says, For the purpose of this Finding, a large tree inventory shall be submitted with any site plan application, if required by Planning Staff, for consideration during site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-I like that one even better. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s a condition that the LA Group will love. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) MR. LEMERY-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a consensus up here? MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s better. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That sounds better. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, done. Next issue? MR. STROUGH-The next issue, still, we’re back to sound, and let me ask Stu a question. Now, Stu, we’re using the L-90 figures, basically, as our threshold figures. Is that correct? MR. MESINGER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Now, I know this probably, you’re not going to have a ready answer for this, but this has been something that’s been bothering me since the onset. Let’s say that we’re dealing with a, let’s say a 12:30 a.m. time, and let’s say the threshold L-90 level, as determined in the Twicwood area, I’m not sure what it is, but let’s just say, for example, let’s say it was 40. Now that’s a 30 minute reading, and what if there was a ride that was producing a spike of let’s say nine decibels, and that ride occurred only three times during that one half hour period. So, we’re talking almost a 10 decibel spike occurring just three times during a 30 minute period. How would that affect the L-90 reading? Would it raise it five decibels? MR. MESINGER-It might or it might not. I mean, you’re right, there’s no way I can answer that. MR. STROUGH-Well, see, that’s been my concern all along, is that we could be in a situation where we do have a very annoying, intrusive noise occurring infrequently, but occurring, and if we can’t get a handle on it, visa vie the methods that we’re using, so I continuously had a problem with that, and I don’t know if I have Planning Board support to go any further, and I’ve also had the issue of A weighting versus C weighting, but, you know, I just don’t know how to grapple with that issue, and in my e-mails, you know, I expressed the same kind of feelings, that I have this concern. The only way I think that we can remedy that, and I’ll go back to a couple of weeks ago, is take a look at the L- max levels that are occurring in that 30 minute period, and also consider those in a judgement, but I haven’t gotten anywhere with that. MR. MESINGER-No, you haven’t. MR. STROUGH-All right, nor does it look like I’m going to get anywhere with that. All right. The other, I got a call, a phone call today, this afternoon. I was in the garage working, and it was some guy, I forget his name, but he lived in Twicwood, and he said, you know, last night there was a noise going on, and this was 10:30 or so p.m., and, you know, the roller coaster, the screaming and the Bobsled, can you do anything about it. I said, well, I’m just one of seven people, and he said he did call the Great Escape and register a complaint, and I said, well, it’s tough to get a handle on this, I said, but the Bobsled might be an issue that, you know, until you get a mitigation plan in effect, possibly we could ask the applicant to voluntarily limit the hours of operation of the Bobsled, until we get the mitigation plan in effect. For example, how about 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends? No Bobsled after that time? I’m looking for something voluntary, because, do you know what I’m talking about? Was there a noise situation last night? MR. COLLINS-Well, first of all, John, we have voluntarily shut the Bobsled at six o’clock for the past three years. Six o’clock. It does not run past six p.m. MR. STROUGH-So it wasn’t running last night? MR. COLLINS-No. Now, I did have an employee event last night, but, you know, that certainly wasn’t any noise. MR. STROUGH-Well, the Bobsled wasn’t running? MR. COLLINS-Six o’clock is when the Bobsled closes, and it’s posted and has been posted for the past three years now. This is the third season, that it closes at six. So I did that voluntarily and have done it voluntarily. So, I know what you’re talking about because I’ve done it, but I got the same call, and when people say the Bobsled’s running at 10:30 at night, it’s not. It doesn’t go past six. I don’t run it during the Gala when we do the Gala. That doesn’t operate, one of the rides that we don’t run. So I voluntarily keep that one down. MR. STROUGH-All right, and I appreciate that, John. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) MR. COLLINS-No problem. MR. STROUGH-But I also have to look at this as if the Great Escape were sold tomorrow, and if we had another buyer. So we can seal the deal, as far as I’m concerned, because I’ll give you all the credit in the world. You’ve made a lot of movement here in a lot of different places, and I’d just feel a little bit more comfortable if we could, say for putting some kind of time limitation on the Bobsled that you would agree to, and that the Planning Board would find, they would be comfortable with. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to interject here. This was discussed two weeks ago, hours of operation, we put it to the Board. The majority said no, they didn’t want to go through it, so let’s move on to something else. MR. STROUGH-Well, this is true, I guess. Well, let me just take a quick look. I didn’t think I’d get anywhere with that, but I gave it a shot. I’m pretty happy with the report. I have to say that, you know, there’s a lot of good things, the stormwater controls, the porous pavement, and the Planning Board review over everything that’s going to be happening in the future, I’m saying this for the benefit of the public, really gives us a pretty good handle on a lot of different things. Maybe, you know, I’m not 100% satisfied with it, but then, you know, who would be, and I just looked through and those, basically, are my concerns, and I made as much headway, I think, as I could on the noise issue, but there are site plan reviews and everything else. We will have future reviews on site plan issue. So I’ll let my other Planning Board members speak their piece. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think I had any comments, other than maybe some kind of nit picky kind of things. I noticed on Page Four, for example, there’s a great big, huge, long paragraph that in the earlier draft was broken into two paragraphs. I don’t know if you want to get into picky things like that. I mean, I would certainly agree with John that I think the biggest concerns that I’ve had through this whole process is the noise and also the visual impact, and that’s why at the prior meetings I had asked questions on the maps and asked for the additional impacts maps that were provided by the applicant. I appreciate and understand what John was saying about a spike three times within a half an hour, but I also, on the flip side, have a hard time imagining or understanding what kind of an operation would be going on at the Great Escape that would have a 10 minute cycle, and I really believe that the noise controls that were put in place would help to dampen anything, I mean, if the Bobsled were to be operating after 10 o’clock, I think it would spike the noise above five decibels, and then the Great Escape would have to do something to mitigate that, but I’m also not a scientist or an engineer. So I’m not as comfortable and certainly not an expert in understanding what dbl’s are and what the L-max readings really represent, but I guess, having said that, I really don’t have any specific comments to add to the draft. We could sit here all night and talk about some minor language changes until I would feel comfortable, but I think that’s really the spirit of what we’re trying to do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I have a couple of things. Something I think we should get straight with the public here, is that we received the letter, and this person was concerned about a timeframe in which the pedestrian bridge would be built, and the ring road and all that, and I think that it should be put on the record, if people haven’t gone through this Final Findings, that there is a timeline and should it not be adhered to, the Planning Board has the right to maybe put a moratorium or something on construction of some new rides. So the Great Escape is within a certain timeframe for the constructions that they’re proposing. I just wanted, unless I’m wrong, I just wanted to make that vocal right now, and another thing is, my daughter works at the Great Escape as a high diver. She’s not employed by the Great Escape. So I don’t think I have a conflict of interest here, but I think this should be also said. I asked her this morning, and I made her answer me four times. Do you hear the Bobsled, no, mom, I don’t. Are you sure, Jane? Yes, I’m sure, I do not hear that Bobsled, and she said, and I told you last summer it was closed down. I said, now you’re in the Park where the high dive is. The Bobsled is not, no, she said, it’s kind of in the middle of the Park. I said, yes, I’ve been there many times. She said, I do not hear that Bobsled during the day, and she said I know that the people in Twicwood hear it, but I don’t hear it, and I listen for it, and I don’t hear it. So I just thought I’d put that on the record, too, and as far as I’m concerned, I think the Great Escape’s done a great job with these Findings, and I don’t have any issues with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t really have anymore to say on it. I would say to John, if you have a spike of 10 db, one every 10 minutes, L-90 will not change. Will not. MR. STROUGH-That was my concern. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and the other side of the coin is exactly what Chris described. He can’t, nor can I, imagine what would happen at the Great Escape to give me a 10 db increase every 10 minutes, in some repetitive fashion, and I don’t see that either. So on balance, I took Section 4.1.2, which is the New York State DEC Noise Impact Program Policy Statement, and read that over several times, thought, by the way, it was a very well written piece. One of the better ones, I’m going to keep this, by the way, when this is all said and done, because this really puts is very succinctly and very clearly, as to how DEC monitors noise. I thought it was well done. So that’s just a statement I have. With respect to Catherine’s statement, concerning how long things take place, one the Great Escape exceeds a threshold of noise or any other implication, there is now, once that happens, then I think the mitigation then goes into effect at that time. It’s not that they’re going to come out tomorrow and build a bridge across Route 9. When the traffic gets to a point, that’s my concept here. If it never, if you never get to a million five, or a million, or nine hundred thousand, you’re not just going to go out tomorrow and build a bridge, until the mitigation gets to the point where you know you need the bridge. MR. COLLINS-The bridge is specific in here. It says two years. MR. VOLLARO-Two years. MR. COLLINS-Or no approval. So, if for some reason we didn’t build it, then there wouldn’t be any approvals after two years. MR. LEMERY-The bridge is planned, and the bridge engineering and design work will start. That is definite. That’s a definite. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I had the concern, but the majority of the Board disagrees with me, the noise and the hours of operation, but all in all, I think they’ve done a very good job, and I think they’ve taken everything into consideration, and I have nothing else. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I just have one thing, maybe, for Stu. The letter was addressed to us today regarding noise levels at the Northway. We’ve talked about this in the past, as they construct the back road, they are going to leave the hill to mitigate noise to the east side of the Northway. If you find that the noise does become, you know, so great that it increases decibel levels, what mitigation can we do at that point? MR. MESINGER-This is not written that they would be responsible for that mitigation. The way this is written is that they’re responsible for essentially doing a one time reading, which will look at, is there going to be a more than five decibel increase, after they have done their re-grading, and if there’s not, we don’t think it’s going to be anywhere close to that. We think it’ll be very, very low, but if there was, then they’d be responsible for mitigation. We don’t think you can hang them up for something that might happen 10 years down the line because of increase in traffic on the Northway. So if that were to happen, then somebody else is going to have to take responsibility for it, at least the way this is written. MR. METIVIER-Okay. So I feel better that that was addressed. Besides that, I’m pleased with everything. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments you wanted to add? Staff? I’ll move for adoption. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion to adopt the fourth draft, and I want to be very specific about this, Stu, and the fourth draft of 7/3/01, with its enclosed changes. Now, we don’t have a draft, I thought we would have something called a fifth draft, but we don’t. MR. MESINGER-This is, I agree with you. You need to be very specific, and probably the way to do it is to refer to the language that’s on the top, in the top left header, beginning “C drive, Windows Desktop” That’s the master draft right now, and I would refer to it that way. MR. VOLLARO-All right. It’s not exceptionally visible on mine, but. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) MOTION TO ACCEPT THE GREAT ESCAPE FINDINGS STATEMENT DATED JULY 11, 2001, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption seconded by Chris Hunsinger: And there’s a correction on Page Eight (8) and that correction is a correction to the draft of 7/3/01, and it reads under Water Resources, C4 ii, and the change is that the applicant shall be required to take the necessary precautions to protect the porosity of the paving systems, and/or to use stormwater filters, oil/water separators or other similar technologies in association with the stormwater management system. In other words, we’re deleting, “which will preserve the porosity of the paving system”. Another change, Paragraph Four, shall read as follows: “The Planning Board concurs with the comments of the Warren County Planning Board and finds that the applicant shall inventory and preserve large trees at the perimeter of the parking lots.” And the final sentence to read, “For the purpose of this Finding, a large tree inventory shall be submitted with any site plan application if required by Planning Staff for consideration during site plan review.” Page 14, Under H, Visual and Lighting, Number Four, shall read as follows: “The Planning Board finds that it shall reserve to itself the right to review during the site plan review stage the color and lighting plan of any ride that falls within 20 feet of the height limit, in any of the three height zones specified in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Figure B-1. No lighting, excluding emergency lighting, shall be allowed above the tree line. Duly adopted this 11 day of July 2001 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JOHN C. LEMERY, ESQ. ZONE: RC-15/LC- 42A LOCATION: GREAT ESCAPE AMUSEMENT PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ATTRACTION KNOWN AS THE SKY COASTER WITHIN THE EXISTING AMUSEMENT PARK. THE AREA TO BE DISTURBED IS APPROXIMATELY 1,604 SQ. FT. NEW USES IN RC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 6-99, SP 62-98, SP 26-98, SP 75-96, SP 14-90 M, SP 70-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/9/01 TAX MAP NO. 36-2- 3.1 LOT SIZE: 247.96 AC. SECTION: 179-21 JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There was a public hearing on June 19, and there’s still one open tonight, on th July 11. th MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, Staff notes, or fill us in. MR. ROUND-This application has been in front of you, or you had this application now for two months. We re-sent our Staff notes to you for this particular meeting. They’re dated June 19, and th there’s a July 11, 2001 meeting notes scratched. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 17-2001, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, Meeting Date: July 11, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes the Sky Coaster, a new ride within the Great Escape Theme Park. The ride replaces the Sky Lab and disturbs some existing paved surfaces and cable grass in this area. There will be a separate fee that is paid at the entrance of the ride itself. Site Overview The ride utilizes three large poles and a cable system to swing one to three riders for about 300 +/- feet in an arc pattern. The largest pole is at 175 ft., and supports the harness system and the third pole at 165 feet is considered the launch pole. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The applicant has indicated that the new ride will not generate new traffic specific to this ride. The access is through the park main entrance that accesses all rides to the park. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The construction of the ride will be done in a manner to incorporate the existing stormwater structures on the site as needed. Due to the ride’s location in an area that was previously graveled/paved no new stormwater is generated from the construction of the ride. There will be some grading east of the Bavarian Palace; erosion control methods should be shown on the plans due to the grading. There is a note that indicates some area will be seeded with a lawn mix, but no new landscaping will be installed. The plan indicates a fence around the ride but does not identify the height of the fence. The applicant has indicated the ride will be seen from areas outside the park. The ride does not need to be lit per FAA standards. The ride will be painted a color to blend in with the existing natural environment. The narrative also indicates that the ride will not generate noise due to mechanical friction, but will generate noise from screaming patrons. They have indicated the noise generation will be insignificant outside the park. Areas of Concern or Importance The ride does not exceed any of the thresholds outlined in the DGEIS requiring additional SEQR review. The plans were forwarded to Chazen Companies for review and comment. Suggestions Staff would suggest the plans be revised to show erosion control methods and the height of the fence. The Board may also request additional landscaping be added.” MR. ROUND-It does displace some existing rides that are on the site. So there is minimal disturbance. It’s basically a replacement of some existing rides, reconfiguration. Stuart Mesinger’s firm also provided you with some notes on this. A balloon test was flow at, and the Planning Board did make a site visit. The balloon was flown at the height of the structures that were proposed. Staff and Planning Board members did take a site visit, and did visit the monitoring locations that were identified in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The balloon, in our site observations, validated that the structures are not visible from those locations, and those are the Glens Falls Country Club, a location along Glen Lake shoreline, and then an area on Route 9. It is visible directly from Round Pond Road, because that’s where the location is sited. There are some minor site improvements which include a fence around a structure. The Board may want to examine how that appears to the Round Pond Road area. We have talked about lighting. In our judgement, this ride falls under the thresholds that have been established in the Findings Statement that has been adopted. So we would recommend that no additional SEQRA review is required. You have to look at this ride, come to that judgement, and I think the applicant will make a presentation to further clarify the application. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. JEFF ANTHONY MR. ANTHONY-Good evening. My name is Jeff Anthony, and I’m a principal of the LA Group, and thank you for having us here tonight. First off, the ride that we’re proposing, the Sky Coaster, as discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement, occurs in Park Area A, or the area we’ve all agreed to being the area that will continue to become the attractions area at the Great Escape. So, just for orientation purposes, I’d like to point that out for you. I think what I’d like to do is flip this page, well, this is the existing site as it is today. This area, delineated by that line, is the area where Sky Lab occurs. This is the circus tent right here, which is in existence, Bavarian Palace, the dressing room for the water park, and right now what’s in here is the old Sky Lab which has been removed and it’s a deleted ride from the Park because of its lack of use. There is a combination of paved areas, lawn areas, a little retaining wall, and that’s about all that’s in that part of the Park right now. It’s about, I believe, the whole area is 21,000 square feet within that delineated area. The ride itself, let’s go to that first. The ride itself is a prefabricated structure, which consists of two poles that are 175 feet tall with a harness structure that supports a cable, and that, in turn, is fastened to a 165 foot tall pole, which the harness is raised to, to allow rides to swing from. That’s the essence of the ride. Three steel poles, basically, and a loading platform to load the harness area, and that’s the structure itself. Someone will be loaded on to this. Three people could go on this ride at one time. They’ll be raised up to the 165 level. They’d be delayed for a second or two, and then let swing free to swing like a pendulum. I’ve seen this ride before down in New Jersey, on the Boardwalk. It’s quite exciting to watch. I wouldn’t want to ride it, but it’s quite exciting to watch. It’s a neat right. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s an honest testimonial. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) MR. ANTHONY-Well, I’m kind of chicken of heights, basically. I’ll admit that to you right now. So that’s the ride itself. Let’s go to the site plan for where it’s going. In looking at the proposed site plan, the colored area is where the ride will be located. This bar here is the structure which has the two 175 foot poles, with the cross beam between them, and there’s a loading platform where people can be strapped into these harnesses, so they could be hauled up. This pole right here is the 165 foot pole, which they would be pulled up to, and this yellow line represents the swing of the pendulum of where they would be riding. So they’d ride just like pendulums, back and forth, until they slow down and stop. Over in this corner, there is a paved area, and they call it a ticket booth, because this is a pay for ride. This is not something you get in your general admission when you go to the Great Escape. There would be a charge, and then there would be a queuing area here for people waiting, and this would be paved, and then there would be a little gravel walk to get to the harness area or the loading area, and that’s basically the only new construction on the site. We’re not going to remove any of the other paving or remove any of the other grass on the site. There is some other miscellaneous blacktop removals here, and so there is a switch off with some paved versus grass and grass versus paved areas to accomplish the ride, but that’s basically the site plan. Now, the site will be secured with a perimeter fence. There is some fencing in place. Some new fencing will be added, and the fencing will be in the neighborhood of four feet high, to match other fencing that’s in place at the Great Escape, at other rides in the vicinity. I could tell you right now that in looking at the zone of height, or the visibility map that was established during the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement phase of the project, the ride does fall within the parameter, so that the 175 feet poles are within the 200 foot zone and the 165 foot ride is within the 175 foot zone. So they fall below the zones that were established in the Environmental Impact Statement which was just approved tonight, and so if you have any other questions, unless John and John have any other comments they’d like to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we get into questions from Board members, could you please describe how this ride functions? I’m kind of, I’m not really following you here. I’m at a loss as to what the second pole is to serve for. I mean, is that like a winch system on there or something? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, do it again. MR. COLLINS-The fliers will be harnessed in a body harness, and when you go out to the attraction, you actually are on a platform that will raise you up, okay. It’ll raise you up to the cable, all right, and up to three fliers at a time can be hooked to this cable. You can fly, single, double or triple. They hook you to the cable, the platform lowers, and then the winch winches you back to the 165 foot tower. Then you have a rip cord that you will release. They’ll give a signal, a light will flash from the ground, that they pull the rip cord, and if they don’t, we’ll release it for them, and then they swing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So if they come off, this is the one tower, and this would be like the V, and you would come through here? MR. COLLINS-You’re swinging, but you’re connected to the A Frame. You’re pulled back to the single tower, and then you swing underneath the A Frame. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. COLLINS-It’s about a two minute ride. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you come from here, then you just swing back and forth like that? MR. COLLINS-Correct. So you don’t go up 175, you go up 165 feet, and you dive straight down. It’s a free fall ride. It’s intense. There’s no question about that. You go to about six feet off the ground. So it’s a free fall of about 150. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you one more question. Are our fire trucks equipped to get to the height of this, should this ride malfunction and you need to get people off it? Is our current fire apparatus? MR. COLLINS-The system, it’s got an emergency lowering system that gets the people to the ground. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but what if somebody gets to the top and then decides? MR. COLLINS-They can release the cord any time they want. That’s, they have the ability to, if they’re going up 10 feet, and they’re panicking and they want to get out, they can pull the rip cord and it’ll drop them right down. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) MR. MAC EWAN-But if they went up in tandem with two or three people on the ride, all of them, whenever the rip cord’s pulled, they all go, right? MR. COLLINS-Yes. That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When they’re up at the tippy top, can they decide to not go at that point? MR. COLLINS-We can manually lower them as well, and that has happened. I mean, if there’s somebody that’s so panicked that don’t want to go, it can manually be lowered. That’s the emergency system. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. I guess I was curious about the color, but a comment was made that we don’t have to worry about that. My question to you, I mean, you’re trying to attract people to the Park with rides, and I would certainly be interested in glitzy, glamorous colors for some of the new rides that you’re going to be putting in. So where do you draw the line with that, as far as? MR. COLLINS-This one, the tower’s white. So, this is not, like I said, this is a paid attraction. So, with it being an extra charge, trying to get people to do it may not be as important. So that’s why it’s just plain white. MR. METIVIER-I mean, back there in the Bavarian Palace area, you can barely see anything in the Park. As a matter of fact, I actually had this lady following me the other day ask me how to get to the Great Escape, and I said follow me, and she had no idea she was there. It was the strangest thing, because I told her it was right there. She kind of looked around, but I mean we all know it’s there. So I really, over on this area, don’t feel it’s, you know, I think you’ve done a great job with kind of enclosing everything. So I don’t have any problems or issues with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Just a comment. Using your Findings Statement, and when I was looking at this, assuming that this statement was going to be approved, and looked at Figure V-1, which is the Visual Threshold Map, and then trying to determine whether or not, I know you know, but I need to know, whether this ride is in the 175 to 185, or it’s in the 200 foot. I couldn’t correlate V-1 with this drawing too well. I don’t know if anybody’s tried to do that or not, but it was difficult to do. In the future, the acid test is going to be whether a lot of these things pass the threshold, and you’ve got to be able to identify what the thresholds are. MR. COLLINS-Right. Bob, for future reference, what we can do is draw the zone lines on the blown up version of the site, because what you’re seeing is a shrunken down version of what is a survey map of the Park. So you can see the two of them. We’ll do a better job of delineating the line where it is. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d prefer, seriously, that you have it back up on the board so the audience can see it, and also so we can get you on tape. You’re going to need to have that microphone with you. MR. COLLINS-This right here, if you can see it, is the circus dome. Okay. This is where the Sky Lab sat, which is in the 200 foot zone here. So the tower at 175 is actually right on the edge of the 200 foot zone, and then the draw back tower will be back here, in the 175 zone. So we’re, you know, under the 200 foot zone, and we’re under the 175. So really we could, if it needs to shift over this way a little bit, you’d be in the 175 zone, which is what it hits, but right now it’s in the 200 foot zone. MR. VOLLARO-I guess all future applications kind of ought to look at these envelopes we’ve created and maybe just have a, so when we review them we can say that they’re within the envelope. You will tell us that, and we will try to confirm that from our own. MR. COLLINS-Right. We will make sure we delineate on the blown up version of the site plan the lines. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thanks, John. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, in the Staff notes there was a question about the fencing that would surround the ride. Would any of that fencing be visible from outside of the Park? MR. COLLINS-Right now you have six foot barbed wire fence. That you would still see. That would be Park perimeter fence. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. COLLINS-But New York State mandates size of ride perimeter fencing, and that’s what would be inside that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. COLLINS-So you wouldn’t see the ride fencing from outside the Park. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the reason I asked is since the fencing would only be visible from within the Park, I really didn’t have a preference for what the fencing would look like. You said it would be consistent with existing fencing. So that’s acceptable. MR. COLLINS-Yes. It’ll be a wrought iron fence, a nice, decorative wrought iron fence, on one side, and then cyclone fencing, or whatever you call that type of fencing, on the water park side, which is not visible to the guests. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, originally the only real concern I had was the visual impacts and with the Findings Statements and all the other documentation, you’ve shown that that’s not an issue. So I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Thanks. Now, we’ve talked about this ride before, last week, and I did my own analysis of it, and it seems to be that, you know, there shouldn’t be much of an impact, if any, to the Twicwood people, given the height of the vegetation there, and that would be during the summer months when there are leaves on the trees, etc. During the winter, it’s almost a quarter of a mile away, and being that the structure is not substantial, I would say that would not be a substantial visual effect there, and I do understand that the swing direction of this is in toward the center of the Park, in other words, the screaming, the pole where they’re going to be dropped off, and the screaming will be directed towards the center, as opposed to the other way, which I thought was a big plus, and like I said before, I’m kind of looking at this, visually, as an earmark or a reference for other things that might be forthcoming, good or bad, you know, and so I’m kind of looking favorably for it in that sense, and so that’s about all that I’ve noted right now, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? Any comments? Staff? MR. ROUND-We would ask, if the Board entertains approval, that they do identify those zone lines on the plan that’s submitted for filing, so that we can verify that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I have one question, I guess, and it’s a question for Staff. There was some concern in Staff notes about erosion control methods, and I’m not too clear what Staff was driving at there. I’ve looked at the grading and I don’t, do you know what your concern was? I can’t see it. I can’t find it on the drawing. MR. ROUND-There’s a typical note that’s added, and I don’t know that, these are Laura’s notes. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s talking about where it says the steep contours to the southwest corner, southeast corner. MR. VOLLARO-John, do you recognize that as the? MR. COLLINS-Yes, it’s the existing hill that goes up into Splashwater Kingdom. That’s got a retaining wall there now. So there shouldn’t be any change in that. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) MR. VOLLARO-It has a change a retaining wall, okay. So I didn’t understand what Staff was driving at. MR. COLLINS-Okay. As far as the amount of, we may actually add more grass area underneath the ride, because it’s more attractive than looking at, if there’s pavement underneath it. So we probably will remove the existing pavement underneath it and plant grass. It’s just, aesthetically, a better look. MR. ROUND-There’s a note, I think the LA Group is familiar with it, that we typically require that New York State Soil and Erosion Control Guidelines being in place during construction activities, and that’s all that they’re looking for is a boilerplate. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Is that it? MR. MESINGER-How is it lit? MR. COLLINS-It would have emergency lighting on the top, and, you know, the platform, the loading platform is lighted, to make sure they can hook them up correctly. MR. MESINGER-And what does the emergency lighting consist of? MR. COLLINS-It would come on in case the emergency system got activated, which is the winch had to lower them back down. MR. MESINGER-But in daily operations, at night there’s no lights at all on top? MR. COLLINS-Yes. It adds to the thrill. MR. MESINGER-I’m sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other final comments? Any other questions, comments from Board members? Does anyone want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2001 THEME PARK, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 17-2001, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC proposing construction of a new attraction known as the Sky Coaster within the existing amusement park. The area to be disturbed is approximately 1,604 sq. ft. New uses in RC zones require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: SP 6-99, SP 62-98, SP 26-98, SP 75- 96, SP 14-90, SP 70-99. Tax Map No. 36-2-3.1, RC-15/LC-42 A zoning and WHEREAS, the application was received 4/25/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/9/01: 7/11/01 Staff Notes 7/3/01 Notice of Public Hearing 6/27/01 Meeting Notice 6/19/01 Staff Notes 6/6/01 Meeting Notice Undated PB from P. Didio 5/15/01 E-mail from K. Angleson to M. Ryba 5/15/01 Staff Notes 5/9/01 Warren Co. Planning – Approved with condition 5/8/01 Notice of Public Hearing 5/2/01 Meeting Notice 4/30/01 S. Mesinger from C. Round – transmittal of application materials 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/11/01) WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 5/15/01, 6/19/01 and 7/11/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. There’s no need for site specific or private specific SEQRA review because the proposal falls within the thresholds previously approved as part of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Duly adopted this 11th day of July, 2001 by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-Do you have a prepared resolution? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, from May. It’s dated May 15. th MR. SCHACHNER-Can we see one? We need to know what it says about SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s based on the fact that there’s no changes to the original SEQRA findings. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and that’s not what it should say. What it should say, and what I’m going to suggest any application from this time forward that falls within the threshold, part of your motion, if you approve, part of your motion for approval should state that there’s no need for site specific or private specific SEQRA review because the proposal falls within the thresholds previously approved as part of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. That’s language that should appear in any motion for approval for this particular attraction and for anything else that fits that language. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted, and the motion’s amended to reflect that. Do we have a second? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll second. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. It’s been a long process. Any other business? MR. ROUND-We do have several extra copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. We do have draft copies of the Findings that are available, but they do not contain the changes that were made at tonight’s meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. No other business? I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 14