Loading...
2004-01-20 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETNG JANUARY 20, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 18, 2003: NONE November 20, 2003: NONE November 25, 2003: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, NOVEMBER 20, AND NOVEMBER 25, 2003, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-I have a question on November 18 I’d like to add. I just need to clarify th something on that before I vote. The 11/18 minutes on Schermerhorn, the motion on November 18 included a requirement that the applicant would provide a density calculation that would th include Lot 36. Lot 36 is going to be, I think, when we’re going to talk to Mr. Centerbar tonight, isn’t that, is that Lot 36? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It is. Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because that Lot 36 was included in the density calculation for purposes to see what the density might be on Lot 36 if Mr. Schermerhorn purchased that lot. Is that correct? MR. HILTON-That’s my understanding, that we asked for something to include 36, in the event that that is developed in the future, as a future phase of this, of that subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right, on that basis, I’ll second Mr. Ringer’s motion. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 1-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RON & JILL BARTON AGENT: FRANK DE NARDO ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 74 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK. BOATHOUSES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD IN THE WR-1A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 19-89, AV 36-89, AV 37-89, SP 11-92, AV 16-92 APA, LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-23 LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-2004, Ron & Jill Barton, Meeting Date: January 20, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 1-2004 APPLICANT: Ron and Jill Barton are the applicants for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 900 sq. ft. boathouse over a new 640 sq. ft. dock. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 74 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a short form EAF. PARCEL HISTORY: The most recent Planning Board review of any project at this location was in 1992 for the construction of a single-family residence. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 900 sq. ft. boathouse on top of a proposed dock. The boathouse appears to meet the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - This application is being presented to the Planning Board as an Expedited Review item. The boathouse, as shown on the site plans, appears to meet the dimensional and setback requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Really quickly, the applicant proposes to construct a boathouse on a proposed dock. The boathouse appears to meet the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This is an Expedited Review item. The applicant has requested waivers from providing 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan and landscaping plan, and upon further review, although this is listed as a SEQRA Unlisted action, we’ve determined that it’s a Type II action. So no further environmental review is required. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. DE NARDO-Good evening. Frank DeNardo for Ron and Jill Barton. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about the application, please. MR. DE NARDO-The customers would like just to redo their dock, make it wider, two slips with a boathouse on top. There’s a preexisting dock there right now. We’re increasing the square footage by 54 feet, I believe, of the dock itself, 48 feet, I’m sorry, and the sundeck up on top. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just have one on the 48 feet. That’s looking down at the dock and that 48 feet represents the stairs, I assume? MR. DE NARDO-The 48 feet is when the dock is being spread apart. Right now it’s got an existing of 592, and we’re spreading the dock out. So we’re adding 48 feet to the center of it, square footage. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got a couple of line drawings here. I thought that 48 feet was adding the stairs to it, because that turns out to be 48 foot, the stair, looking at the plan view of the stairs. That’s what I thought that 48 foot was. MR. DE NARDO-The 48 feet was to the dock itself, not the boathouse. MR. VOLLARO-I can’t put my finger on it on this drawing, I can tell you that, on the 48 feet. I mean, I looked at the drawings pretty carefully. They’re very simple line drawings, and I don’t see where that 48 feet comes in. That’s just a question that I had. MR. DE NARDO-Okay. You have the preexisting dock, 12 foot slip. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got this drawing here. MR. DE NARDO-Okay. On the layout drawing this way. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, which one of that, is that, one, two or three? MR. DE NARDO-That would be, you have the one that’s narrower and you have one that’s wider and angled. It would be the angled dock, sitting within the setbacks. MR. MAC EWAN-Our Sheet Two, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Our Sheet Two, yes, I see it, all right. It’s wider than Sheet Number One. MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and it’s that width is an extra 48 feet? MR. DE NARDO-Yes. The back side along the seawall, that ramping in the back there will be another 48 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-Another 48 feet. Okay. Thank you. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) MR. DE NARDO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. METIVIER-I have a confession to make. I brought you to the wrong house. Remember when we were looking at Gigi’s house and you made a comment to the house to the right, that only had the dock, and that it might be obstructing her view? That’s the dock. So actually it’s. MR. MAC EWAN-The house to the right. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. METIVIER-So that’s good, because we had concerns about that view there. So I apologize. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. METIVIER-Bad driving. I messed up. Any other questions from Board members? Anything you wanted to add? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2004 RON & JILL BARTON, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Site Plan No. 1-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: Ron & Jill Barton SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Frank DeNardo Zone: WR-1A Location: 74 Bay Parkway Applicant proposes the construction of a covered boathouse/sundeck. Boathouses require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board in the WR-1A zone. Cross Reference : SP 19-89, AV 36-89, AV 37-89, SP 11-92, AV 16-92 APA, LGPC Warren Co. Planning: 1/14/04 Tax Map No. 226.15-1-23 Lot size: 0.25 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: January 20, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received 12/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 1/16/04, and 1/20 Staff Notes 1/14 Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation 1/13 Notice of Public Meeting 1/3 Meeting Notice & courtesy marker sent 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has identified this application as eligible for inclusion in the expedited review process and has placed the same on this Planning Board agenda as such and, WHEREAS, The Planning Board hereby confirms that this project is acceptable for expedited review and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been conducted and the public in attendance and the Board members in attendance have been polled regarding this matter and, WHEREAS, the application has been found to be in compliance with the required SEQRA regulations, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that WHEREAS, the application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following comments: 1. Granting of all requested waivers 2. Strike the first sentence on Page Two of the resolution regarding the SEQRA. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, , Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 24-2003 SEQR TYPE II MODIFICATION C. CHRIS MACKEY AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 15 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN IN ORDER TO CONVERT AN APPROVED BOATHOUSE TO A BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK WITH STAIRS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 4-03, AV 5-03, SP 46-99, AV 78-99 APA CEA, LGPC TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-6 LOT SIZE: 1.31 ACRES SECTION: 179-4 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This is a modification of a previously approved site plan for a boathouse. The applicant proposes to extend the roof deck of the boathouse six feet and construct a stairs for access. The applicant has requested several waivers, including stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan, landscaping plan, and the application, the proposed extension appears to meet the dimensional and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design representing Chris Mackey. As George had indicated, this is a project that had a previous approval for a dock structure, roof structure over the dock, and that was obtained last May, and as the owner got closer to construction, he revised his thinking and wanted to extend the roof 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) coverage over the entire dock, thus requiring about six more feet in length, and wanted to at least provide for the opportunity of having a deck, roof deck situation in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. MAC ELROY-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Is this a Type II? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure you guys know what you’re doing up here. I think we can just move this. MR. MAC EWAN-No questions? Does someone want to move it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ll move it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2003 C. CHRIS MACKEY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Site Plan No. 24-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: C. Chris Mackey SEQR Type II Agent: Dennis MacElroy Zone: WR-3A MODIFICATION Location: 15 Wild Turkey Lane Applicant proposes modification of a previously approved site plan in order to convert an approved boathouse to a boathouse/sundeck with stairs. Cross Reference: AV 4-03, AV 5-03, SP 46-99, AV 78-99 APA, CEA, LGPC Tax Map No. 239.15-1-6 Lot size: 1.31 acres / Section: 179-4 Public Hearing: Not required for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received 12/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 1/16/04, and 1/20 Staff Notes 1/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has identified this application as eligible for inclusion in the expedited review process and has placed the same on this Planning Board agenda as such and, WHEREAS, The Planning Board hereby confirms that this project is acceptable for expedited review and, WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that WHEREAS, the application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following comments: 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) 1. Granting the waivers requested 2. There are no changes in the original SEQRA findings. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Dennis. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLANS SITE PLAN NO. 2-2004 SEQR TYPE II ERNEST CENTERBAR ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 626 UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT IS SEEKING SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN AGRICULTURAL USE, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 16’ X 20’ BARN FOR THE KEEPING OF TWO (2) HORSES. AGRICULTURAL USES IN THE S R-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 47-89, AV 47-89 TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-3 LOT SIZE: 60.53 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MICHAEL HOFFMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 2-2004, Ernest Centerbar, Meeting Date: January 20, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 2-2004 APPLICANT: Ernest Centerbar is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking site plan approval to allow an agricultural use, including the construction of a 384 sq. ft. barn for the keeping of two horses. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 626 Upper Sherman Avenue. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned SR-1A, Suburban Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a Type II action. No further Planning Board action is required. PARCEL HISTORY: This property was most recently part of Subdivision 7-2003, a 36-lot subdivision proposed by Richard Schermerhorn. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking approval for the construction of a proposed barn for the keeping of two horses. As part of the plan, the applicant has indicated that an existing barn will be removed from the property. Plans for the new barn show two fluorescent lights to be placed on the barn. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Landscaping Plan - 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) No lighting information, such as wattage and foot-candle levels, for the lights on the new barn has been provided by the applicant. Although the barn is located some distance from the proposed lots that are part of SB 7-2003, what impacts will this proposed Agricultural Use have on the surrounding residential properties? While considering potential impacts, if any, on the adjacent residential properties, Staff has two primary questions: Will the horses be kept in the barn and or fenced in area at all times they are on the - property? How will animal wastes be handled, and where will they be disposed of?” - MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes, or is seeking approval for the construction of a barn and the keeping of two horses, which is an agricultural use listed in our Zoning Ordinance, and as part of the plan, the applicant proposes two fluorescent lights to be placed on the barn. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management, grading and landscaping, however no lighting information, such as wattage or foot candle level for the lights has been provided. The barn is shown located some distance from the proposed lots of Subdivision 7- 2003. I guess the question would be, what impacts, if any, will this use have on those residential lots. Will the horses be kept in the barn and the fenced in area at all times and what kind of sanitary treatment, I guess, will be in place for the horses, and again, just trying to gauge, or get some understanding from the applicant what the impacts of this use will have on the surrounding properties, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. HOFFMAN-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. HOFFMAN-Michael Hoffman, representing Ernie Centerbar. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us a little bit about the proposed project. MR. HOFFMAN-I’d like a barn for a couple of horses, and they’ll be in the barn all the time, and the corral around it. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, Rich, we’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-I have no questions. There was some question we did have, though, I might as well go into it. This is adjacent to the newly approved subdivision, correct? But this is a separate, distinct parcel of land, not to be, at this point in time, not to be necessarily, there’s no real reason to care about that subdivision, other than maybe the impact it may have on the proposed new development. Is that correct? MR. HILTON-Well, I think that’s the primary concern or question, as to, if there are any impacts on the newly created residential lots. This lot was shown on the subdivision map of 7-2003. It was the remaining lands that are being kept in Mr. Centerbar’s, under his ownership. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and how big is this parcel? MR. HILTON-Sixteen, seventeen acres, I think, offhand. MR. HOFFMAN-Seventeen. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Seventeen, and this, there’s no intention for this to ever be purchased down the road as part of the residential developments? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is, I think. MR. SANFORD-No, no. That’s one of the things we weren’t clear on. MR. HOFFMAN-No, there’s no intentions at this point. MR. SANFORD-Right. I think the other land is. MR. VOLLARO-No, the 36, this Lot 36 was used to, if my memory serves me correctly, to calculate the density for the entire project. In the event Mr. Schermerhorn was to purchase Lot 36, our density calculations said that’s how many lots he could have on that, how many lots he could have on that. MR. HILTON-Well, the applicant presented a density calculation with Subdivision 7-2003. That included this property, as if it were to be developed as an additional phase. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILTON-This is kind of getting off topic of this application. Staff had some comments on that density calculation. We didn’t quite see the density the same way, but I think this remaining lands of Mr. Centerbar was used to calculate density, like I said, should this be developed in the future, but I think the representative here has said that there are no immediate plans for that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there may not be any immediate plans, but I think that the fact that we got into using that property to calculate the density meant that there may be something downstream on Lot 36. MR. SANFORD-The bottom line is, though, we perhaps shouldn’t have even entertained that argument back then on that other application, in that this has no bearing on this particular application in front of us, okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Fine, I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions, other than the barn is built. Everything is there and the horses are there. I mean, this is an after the fact situation, but I don’t have a real problem with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing would be the Staff notes, the animal waste, I know horses can smell and with the residential subdivision going up next to it, I’m not even sure how to say to properly manage the waste to keep the odor down. That may be an issue down the road. MR. HOFFMAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I wouldn’t even know how to. Any thoughts on that? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-Well, my only thought is that, they’re there now, and if Schermerhorn wants to build that subdivision next to this, to me, it’s the builder’s choice. It’s the old story of the pig farm, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, okay. MR. VOLLARO-If he wants to build it there, then let him build it there. Then he’s got to sell those units. That’s all. The way I see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-The Schiavone subdivision is on the other side of this, to the west of this. So there’s going to be Schermerhorn Subdivision, Schiavone Subdivision, if that ever gets approved, and then the horses in the middle of the two new housing developments, and there’s no, I mean, you’ve got the power lines right there. I just seems natural that those horses are going to be ridden up and down those power lines there, and the two housing subdivisions, one already approved, another one pending, there could be a lot more homes in there, and I just don’t know if it’s the place to have a horse barn and animals or horses in there. So I’m just not sure, in my mind. It’s not a question, but an observation. MR. VOLLARO-Make a nice country, the subdivisions a nice country look, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. I completely agree with Bob that, you know, people are going to see horses driving in. There shouldn’t be a problem after the fact, not the horses driving in. Horses don’t drive, but as they’re driving in to the subdivision, well, it’s true, they don’t, that, you know, they’re going to see the horses. So I really don’t have a problem with that, at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-How long have you had the horses there? MR. HOFFMAN-They’ve been there probably three or four months. MR. RINGER-You didn’t know you needed the approval? MR. HOFFMAN-No. Mr. Centerbar, it was like a, started out to be a cover for the horses, only half a barn, because he was going to rebuild the old barn, and due to the expense and time, he didn’t realize that he would need a permit, he would be just replacing the old barn, and in the spring he plans on having that taken down and taken away. MR. RINGER-He can have one horse per five acres, and then one additional horse for each two acres. So conceivably he could have about eight horses here. If we approved this, would this approval be for just the two horses or a year or two down the road, if he put two more horses in, would he have to come in for more approvals or how would that work? MR. HILTON-The use itself is listed as a site plan review use for this zone. So I think anything above and beyond what’s being considered here tonight, although the acreage may be there, I think would require site plan review. MR. RINGER-But then somebody would have to monitor, you know, once he gets it up, and he’s got approval, who’s going to say if he’s got three horses, four horses, or five horses? MR. HOFFMAN-He has no intentions of having any more than the two horses he has in there right now. MR. RINGER-I just have a concern about all the new homes going in around there. It’s just a concern I have. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-What would be the criteria that we would need to know if this was like a grandfathered use of some kind? Because he used to raise pigs on this property, prior to having the horses here. MR. SCHACHNER-Two issues. One is it the same use, and number two, has it been discontinued? Remember we have a discontinuance provision. In other words, the use can’t be discontinued for is it a year or 18 months, I can’t remember? Eighteen months. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d say he had pigs right up there until the middle of the summer, didn’t he? MR. HOFFMAN-Yes. It was quite a while. MR. MAC EWAN-The middle of this past summer. MR. SCHACHNER-So then the other issue is for a Zoning Administrator determination as to whether it’s the same use. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s an agricultural use, right? MR. ROUND-I think by the fact that the application is here, that the Zoning Administrator has determined that it isn’t a continuance, and I don’t think the applicant has challenged that opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-I think you were asked the question, how do you plan on disposing of the animal waste? MR. HOFFMAN-Well, it would have to be hauled away. MR. MAC EWAN-What are your plans for it. I mean, do you have plans to dispose of it, or what were you going to do? MR. HOFFMAN-Right now, no. Right now it’s more or less used as fertilizer. MR. SANFORD-It can’t be compost? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? It’s difficult, especially with the housing development going in. All right. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Do we want to discuss this a little bit? MR. SANFORD-I’m comfortable with this, Craig. I don’t think there’s a big deal here. In a way, I mean, I think it would add a little charm to a residential area. Seventeen acres is a lot of land for a couple of horses. I don’t see it as an issue. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I don’t have a problem with the horses being there, but I can see the (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-It’s 75 feet to the closest property line. He’s 475 to the power lines, but he’s even farther than that to the Schiavone subdivision. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-He’s nominally about 500 feet off, Craig. I just don’t see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it, then. MR. VOLLARO-I think Mr. Sanford had an idea to help out with this odor and so on, if that’s what you folks are wrestling with. You could make a compost pile out of it, and that’s one of the things you could use with composting. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I guess I look at it from the standpoint of how do you, if it’s made a condition of approval, how do you enforce it? MR. VOLLARO-You can’t. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the way I look at it. MR. VOLLARO-So, I would move the resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2004 ERNEST CENTERBAR, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 2-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: Ernest Centerbar SEQR Type II Zone: SR-1A Location: 626 Upper Sherman Avenue Applicant is seeking site plan approval to allow an agricultural use, including the construction of a 16’ x 20’ barn for the keeping of two (2) horses. Agricultural uses in the SR-1A zone require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: UV 47-89, AV 47-89 Tax Map No. 308.7-1-3 Lot size: 60.53 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: January 20, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on Dec. 15, 2003; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/16/04, and 1/20 Staff Notes 1/13 Notice of Public Hearing 1/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on January 20, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Ringer ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-Just so Mr. Centerbar knows, if he wants to stable more horses on the site in the future, it would require modification before this Board. He’d have to make an application and come back. MR. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HOFFMAN-All right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 SUPPLEMENTAL EIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2-2004 GREAT ESCAPE AGENT: LEMERY GREISLER, LLC ZONE: HC-1 LOCATION: 1213 ST. RT. 9, 1227 ST. RT. 9 APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED A SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE GREAT ESCAPE, WHICH ADDRESSES THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 200-ROOM HOTEL AND INDOOR AMUSEMENT CENTER. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5, 4 LOT SIZE: 6.40 AC., 4.06 AC. JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, just so the public understands what we’re going to do tonight, we’re going to hear a brief presentation by the applicant. There’s no public comment. There’ll be no questions asked by the Board because we don’t have a full application in front of us yet, and we will pass, hopefully, a resolution tonight that will just indicate our objective to be Lead Agency status again. Staff notes. Anything you want to add? MR. ROUND-No. We’re going to see a presentation by the applicant and then I think at the conclusion of the presentation, we’ll walk you through the review process. I know some of you, some Board members are new, and we’ll try to bring you up to speed on how this relates to the previous project and contrast that, and I think we’ll let the applicant speak at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Whenever you’re ready. MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, Planning Board, my name is John Lemery, Lemery/Greisler. We’re Counsel to the Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, and HWP, LLC which is a new LLC wholly owned subsidiary of the theme park which has been formed for the purposes of the development of the what will hopefully become the new 200 room hotel and indoor water park to be located west of the theme park and to the north of the Coach House, and tied in to the Coach House. I just want to introduce the people who are here tonight who could answer any questions you might have. We recognize this to be a brief presentation. Having filed a Supplemental Impact Statement with the Planning Board on December 15, and th I’ll talk to you a little bit about what we think is involved in that, the people who are here represented tonight who are part of this project are the architectural firm of Harris & Bridges, who are the architects who’ve been engaged by the development company to develop the hotel and indoor water park, BBL Construction Services, which is going to be the contractor. BBL is a 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) large regional firm and has extensive experience in building hotels. Right now they’re engaged up here in building the Warren County Jail, and they’re construction managers for the Glens Falls Hospital. The Aquatic Development Group out of Cohoes, New York, represented tonight by Ken Ellis and Bruce Quay, have designed a large number of water parks throughout the country. Six Flags is the largest operator of water parks in the country. The LA Group, which is familiar to everyone, which is doing the stormwater management and the site design work, and D.A. Collins Construction Company, a local construction company, longtime area resident, represented tonight here by Tom Longe and Bill Donnelly, who will be doing the site work and the other infrastructure work necessary for the facility. With your indulgence, in July of 2001, the theme park, the Great Escape, for those of you who are new to the Board, completed a Generic Environmental Impact Statement with the Town, which was the result of actually a several year effort among the Planning Board members and the theme park operators in connection with an overall plan for the development of theme park on the land that it owned, both on the east and the west side of Route 9. The Impact Statement, the Findings Statement that was made ultimately by the Town provided for the approval of up to a 200 room hotel, to be located on the west side of Route 9, north of the Coach House, to be tied in to the Coach House restaurant. If you’ll recall at the time there was also the SEQRA approval for, I think it was a 60,000 square foot recreation, rather a county convention facility, tradeshow facility, which the Park had donated the land to for the County, the County of Warren elected not to go forward with a County facility, and those plans were dropped. This project will be roughly 30,000 square feet less than what was originally approved by this Board, in connection with the original hotel. Just to give you a little bit of a brief update as to what’s transpired since the original Impact Statement was filed with the Town, the sewer line is now being constructed along Route 9. In fact they’re working now at the Park site. This past summer the Great Escape gave the Town an easement to locate the pump station, which is going to serve the entire sewer district, in effect the parking lot at the Great Escape so the Town will be locating a pump station there and that’s in the process of construction. The theme park will be tying in to the sewer line when the line is completed and is up going through the Park. The company is working with NiMo in connection with the electricity on the east side to put the new grid in. It will all be underground and it will provide for a 345 KV line into the Park to service the existing facilities in the Park. This past summer a couple of new attractions were added, which were able to be serviced by NiMo. The west side of Route 9 is not tied in to that and is not part of that and will be serviced by the one ten, which there’s ample provision for. The new facility will be serviced by Town water. We’ve provided, with the Supplemental Impact Statement, a letter from the Water Department providing that there is ample water supply within the Queensbury Water Treatment Plant to provide both potable water for the hotel and for the water for the indoor water park. The wastewater will be part of the sewer system so the entire facility will be tied in to municipal services. When the Impact Statement was filed, there was some discussion about the pedestrian bridge, that this Board gave us in effect a delay and a waiver to construct a pedestrian bridge to be delayed until the sewer line went through, the major reason being that the footings for the bridge have to be moved because the sewer line is basically impacting both sides of Route 9. The bridge, the construction of the bridge will start in the Fall of 2004. It would be completed for the opening of this facility, assuming the approvals are made, and the Town sewer department people, Mr. VanDusen, the people have agreed to construct a line as best they can through the, through June 15, 2004, delay it then until September 1, and then st finish it after the Park season. So if it’s not completed in front of the Park for the Park season, they’ll delay it until after, and that’s part of the agreement that was reached between the theme park and the Town. The Supplemental Impact Statement provides some changes which I’d like to detail very briefly to you. The Park, this facility, this hotel and indoor water park which will be described to you in detail by John Collins and the other participants who are building it, will require some waivers from this Board and will be requiring two variances from the Zoning Board. After the Impact Statement was filed, and the Findings Statements were made, in 2001, the Town passed the Route 9 Guidelines. The Route 9 Guidelines provide that a building height within the Route 9 Corridor can’t exceed 35, two stories or 35 feet. In addition, the Route 9 guidelines provide that a building should be 100 feet back from the I-87 right of way, and Route 9. This meets the Route 9 guidelines. The Route 9 is 75 feet back from Route 9 so there’s no variance or a waiver required there, but we would be asking this Board for a waiver of the Route 9 guidelines as it relates to both the height of the hotel and water park which is at its 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) height at 65 feet, and we’re 80 feet from the Interstate 87 right of way. All of the buffers which were required by this Board as part of the Impact Statement are maintained. We’re just 20 feet closer to the Interstate 80 interchange right of way than was proposed in your new guidelines. The zoning code for this district provides for a 40 feet height of a building. The hotel, if built at grade, at 40 feet, would be higher, as far as the view shed is concerned than this facility will be because this facility is dropped into the site, and so at its height it’s lower than what would be permitted if we built a 40 foot building at grade on the site. The reason that we have to have a 65 foot height in the water park is to provide for the, I’ll call it the Paul Bunyan kind of dump bucket that’s in there for the children. It has to be that high and it has to be that high also to handle the slides and the rides that will be fully described to you by Ken Ellis of the Aquatic Development Group. We can’t make it lower than 65 feet. We were very specific with the people who designed this, that this facility could not be visible anywhere from the three critical areas that surround the Park. You cannot see this facility anywhere from Glen Lake. You cannot see it from Twicwood. You cannot see it from the Courthouse Estates. It’s not visible. It’s visible as you go north on Route 9 in front of the Park. Once you get past the Park, none of that, those trees will come down. That’s all part of the Route 9 right of way. You can’t see it from Route 9. You can see it from the Northway. There’s a point of reference that you can see the facility from 87. You can’t see it either on the other side of the, you can’t see it from the other side of the Glen Lake, rather the Meadow Run. So, we’re going to need an Area Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to get to the 65 foot height of the hotel. It’s a four story, 200 room hotel. It’s been designed such that it will provide for family suites. It’s a family suite hotel and indoor water park. The other provision we’re going to be asking this Board for is a Special Use Permit, which is, and all, everything we’re doing here is within, permitted within the zone, but the other thing we’re going to be asking the Board for is for permission to have a Special Use Permit, to treat the water park as an activity center. It’s not intended that the water park, the indoor water park would be available to non hotel guests, but there may be periods of time, if the occupancy levels are down, where we’d like to make it available to area residents, and in order to do that, we’ve determined that we would need a Special Use Permit from this Board, but that’s not what’s intended. Hopefully, based on the projects we’ve done, we think this facility will have a huge impact and will be filled virtually most of the time. Particularly during the winter. We filed the Generic, the Supplemental Impact Statement. We have had two series of comments back from the Planning Department and the Engineers who were involved in the first Impact Statement. The Town Board retained the Chazen Group, who were involved in the original Impact Statement. They’ve been retained by the Town Board to deal with the Supplemental. We’ve had two series of comments back from Stu Messinger and his group. We’ve answered those, and to our knowledge we’ve completed the Supplemental Impact Statement and it’s up to this Board to determine whether, in fact, it is complete to your satisfaction or there is more information that you require. So we’re hopeful that within the next several days you can look at that and make a determination that the Supplemental Impact Statement is complete. There are no other issues, I don’t think, that are of concern here, other than those we’ve raised. We’ve provided all the visuals. I will say, also, that during the past summer, as is required by the Planning Board, we filed with the Town the traffic report and the noise studies so they were done and filed as per your requirements. So, so far as we know, we’ve been meeting your requirements every year since the Findings Statements were made. With that, I’d like to turn it over to John Collins, who’s the Vice President and General Manager of the theme park to talk a little more about the economics, what’s involved, what he sees for the region and how this might have a substantial impact on our economy. MR. COLLINS-Thank you, John. Obviously John covered a lot of material, and I know, Craig, you had said you want to keep this short, so is there anything you want us to cover in particular, or just continue on like we are? MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever you want to cover, John. MR. COLLINS-Okay. As John mentioned, this is a pre-approved site. We got approval in 2001 to build a 200 room suite hotel and a convention center. The new hotel and water recreation area will help to grow tourism in the region. It’s going to be, as John mentioned, a year round resort. It will add about 60 full time jobs, and it will contribute more than a million and a half in 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) new sales and bed tax revenue to the County. Currently there is no similar hotel property in the region. This hotel, it’s not designed to compete with other properties. We have some fantastic properties. It is designed to compliment the existing attractions we have, the development that’s gone up at Gore Mountain, the wonderful new Lake George Forum, West Mountain, the Civic Center, all those activities, this will fit in very well with those. As you can see, it’s got a great Adirondack theme. We’ve really spent a lot of time in the design work to make sure this fits into the area, and we think everybody will be real pleased with the look of this. We can get into, this is in the Empire Zone, as you’re probably aware, and Meg O’Leary will talk a little bit about that. So Meg is with Lemery & Greisler. MEG O’LEARY MS. O’LEARY-Basically, I have a very short present to make about the Empire Zone. Essentially, our property is already physically located within the boundary of the Warren County Empire Zone, and we do plan, in the next couple of months, to go before the Warren County Zone Administrative Board and apply for certification, so that we can then receive what we would, because we’re going to invest so much money in terms of infrastructure, building, construction, as well as job creation, we anticipate that we will qualify for the full range of Empire Zone benefits, so it would be the, if anyone is familiar with how the Empire Zone benefits work, they would be both as a Certified Zone Business as well as a Qualified, QUEAZY, Qualified Enterprise, Empire Zone Enterprise, QUEAZY for short, and basically in terms of the Planning Board, probably your concerns, I would think, with the Empire Zone would just boil down to wondering what benefits, will the benefits in any way affect Town, local or County tax revenues, and the short answer is, no. Essentially the Empire Zone benefits are structured, so that they are basically triggered through, or you receive them through your New York State Income Tax. So that won’t affect any of the local sales tax revenues or the real property tax revenues, and I can answer any specific questions you might have after the presentation, but that is kind of the short of it all. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. COLLINS-Thank you, Meg. As John mentioned, the primary purpose of the water park is an amenity to the hotel guests. This concept of a water resort got its start I’d say about 10 years ago, in an area called the Wisconsin dells, which is outside of Milwaukee. They needed to do something to extend their seasons. They didn’t have the benefit of the wonderful ski centers that we have in our region, and so that they decided that creating a reason for the people to come up to the resort in the wintertime would be critical, and they found that these water resorts increased occupancy rates by 26%. It also increased their winter traffic by three times. We think that this would be a wonderful addition to this region. As I had mentioned with the wide variety of winter activities, with our falls and the Fall Foliage tours, and obviously in the spring when the ice comes out of the lake. This has definitely got year round benefit for the region. MR. LEMERY-Ken Ellis is President of the Aquatic Development Group. Ken, could you tell the Board about the history of these indoor water parks. By the way, the entire facility is inside, so there is no outside activity at all conducted here. It’s all within the building. KEN ELLIS MR. ELLIS-Thank you, John. As John Collins mentioned, the indoor water park concept got its birth in the mid west, and probably about six or seven years ago, and over the last two or three years, it has grown considerably outside of the Wisconsin dells. The concept of the hotel and a water park amenity is working and being successful in places like Kansas City, Milwaukee, Sandusky, Ohio, Travers City, Michigan, areas that aren’t necessarily year round tourist destinations like we have here. We’ve been in the water park business, well, we’ve been in the aquatic business for 40 years, the water park business for 20, 25 years. It is the, I guess the latest growing trend in our business, and if we get inquires about water parks, it’s easy three to four to one hotel developers, operators, wanting to learn about the hotel water park concept. It’s a 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) tremendous area with the Lake George Region and the Warren County and the location of the facility. Do we want to go into any of this here, or do we want to wait for the hotel presentation or tie it together? MR. LEMERY-I think you ought to talk about what’s in there, so people have an idea of what’s in the facility. MR. ELLIS-The water park is about 32,000 feet or so of indoor space. It’s attached to the hotel which Jim Bridges the architect will explain how that works, but basically it’s an amenity for the 200 rooms. It’s an interior space, and what we’ve tried to create is a family experience. As John Collins mentioned, it’s a family suite hotel. The rooms are scaled so a family of three or four could comfortably fit in a single room, with that in mind, the amenities that are planned for the water park are family driven. You come in to the space, and we’ve tried to add some multi layering in a space, so it doesn’t feel like you’re just in a plane of 32,000 square foot flat recreational area. The first attraction you see when you come in to the water park component is a lazy river. A lot of you are familiar with the lazy river. It’s about 600 feet long. You sit in a tube and you float around at two to three feet per second of a pace. That allows kind of a bridge connection over the lazy river into the center of the space. We’ve got a couple of very unique components that we’re planning in the water park. As you come in to the right, there’s a product called the flow rider. The flow rider is a component that will actually allow people to, you can see it up in the corner here, boogie board and actually surf in place on a sheet of water, totally unique to this area. The closest one is probably Orlando. Not a huge space component, takes up a nice corner of the park, but it really fits in with the skiers, the snowboarders, the teenagers, the skateboarders, they’ll love it. That’s located up in the top part of the facility here. As you look to the left, you look over at a large multi level play structure that actually you can link from the lower level and the mezzanine level, similar to maybe the Paul Bunyan that you’ve seen over here, tipping buckets, a lot of activity, water slides, age group, you know, six to sixty, or more. You cross the bridge, you look to your right, the Tod area, the toddler area, you know, the three or four month to three or four year old, very nice protected area. Parents can come on in, lounge, watch the younger children play. Next door to that, some slide complexes. Enclosed slides, use them year round. One of the unique products is this green slide here which is a family raft ride, where four or five people can ride in one raft ride together, ride together as a family, a couple of tube rides, inner tubes, singular, double tubes. There’s some images here that we can look at closer if you’d like, of some examples of what this will look like in the facility. The facility will have a theme. It will match the Adirondack theme of the hotel property, exterior lobby as well as the interior of the park. There are some mezzanine areas for seating from overlook, some food service, activity pools. What we’ve tried to do is put as much entertainment value as possible into the allotted 32,000 feet. As far as how does this compare to other facilities, out there, it isn’t the largest, but I have to say it probably has the most diverse mix of entertainment. So it will be a very attractive facility for people to come use. MR. SANFORD-Some of those are outside of the building, I take it. MR. ELLIS-The slides, you enter the slides from inside the building. They’re enclosed. You go outside the building and then back in. One of the main reasons is the space, the 32,000 or so feet of this space. If you put a lot of the water slides inside, we take up a lot of the floor space and area, and could maximize the pool space and lounge area. So we’re using the area between the ring road and the building to where the slides are located. I guess, you know, you could see it on the site plan and the section. So there is the buffer, the ring road section of the slides, we’ve kept them very tightly wrapped, close to the building, and then they enter and exit and go through the building walls. MR. RINGER-What’s the capacity? MR. ELLIS-The capacity is based on a 200 room product, you know, so a 200 room hotel, three to four people, I don’t know what your average hotel. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) MR. COLLINS-We have a sister hotel at Darrien Lake and they’re suites and they average about four and a half. So you’re looking about anywhere between 800 and 1,000 people would be at the hotel. MR. ELLIS-This facility is designed to, that’s also why we’ve done some mezzanine and other bump outs for added lounge capacity. MR. RINGER-So that could hold 1,000 people in the water slide area? MR. ELLIS-Yes. It would be comfortable 700 to 1,000 people. You’ve got to remember, they also have, the people that are using this, they’ll have their hotel room. So they tend to go play, use the activity, and then, you know, go on and do other things. So it isn’t as traditional as someone wants to lounge there for four, five, six hours a day. So the guests do move through the facility. MR. COLLINS-Right. You have a lot of, obviously, they’ll be doing things, summertime at the parks, at the lake. So you’ll have in and out activity pretty much throughout the day, but the theoretical capacity is to meet the, you know, if everybody at the hotel were to use it at one time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. COLLINS-Thanks, Ken. We do have our architects that can talk a little bit about the design. JIM BRIDGES MR. BRIDGES-As you can see from the rendering, we’ve tried to incorporate the traditional Adirondack architectural elements. We have a stone base half log siding cedar shakes, green asphalt shingle roof. The exterior incorporates some log structure, full balconies. There won’t actually be balconies, but we’ve incorporated a railing system to help break up the exterior, multiple gable roofs. On the elevation here, and at the corner of our perspective sketch here, you can see how the exterior of the hotel wraps around the corner and blends in with the exterior of the water park. We, again, use a stone base, board and batten siding, some cedar shakes, and then this is the area where you mentioned the slides, the slides go out and back in to the building. The architectural details will come in to the interior, sort of an idea of how we might incorporate that into a lobby, again, timber detailings, a stone fireplace, much in keeping with the architect of the region, but I wanted to bring your attention to this one section. We talked about the 65 foot height. The maximum 65 foot height is established at the grade of 332, which is the existing Coach House, and the grade then steps up to the front of the hotel another story. So that the majority of the hotel facing the entry and Route 87 is actually 55 feet high, with a maximum of 65, where the grade drops off at the Coach House side. MR. COLLINS-And as John had mentioned, as far as the visual impact, and that’ll, obviously you’ll get more detail as we get into the process, the hill on Route 9 that, as you’re passing by the Coach House, as you’re going north to the left side with the pine trees on the top, that will be the visual barrier for Route 9, the hotel and water parks on the other side of that, the Route 87 side of that. So the majority, if not all, that hill will remain, and then we’ll have to grade down to the site that we’re talking about. So it’s actually, if we were to build a 40 foot structure, or whatever’s approved on top of that, this is actually, I believe, 15 feet lower than if we did that on its own. Do you want to hear from the LA Group or is that, would you like anymore information? Because they’re going to talk about the site. RUSS PITTENGER MR. PITTENGER-Good evening. I’m Russ Pittenger with the LA Group. It’s not that I don’t like these pictures, but I want you to have access to the site plan. The site plan, as you may or may not know, here is the Coach House restaurant existing, with our service that’s going to be 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) located adjacent to that. This is the hotel wings. The water park is here with the slides. This ring road that was part of our original plan to feed the parking lots for the Great Escape will be constructed as part of this project so that access to the hotel will be from this entrance road off of Route 9 which is approximately across from the Glen Lake Road. Our project entails constructing this road, related stormwater devices for the drainage of that road. We reach a grade of approximately 442 here at the main hotel drop off and entrance lobby. The existing sand hill comes through and falls away, and it’s our intention to remove that back to the property line, maintain the existing trees in the DOT right of way, retain that with some riprap or perhaps some walls, but this is a fairly aggressive slope to pull this back so that we can provide parking for the hotel at a count of approximately one per room for guests, about 30 for staff, and then replace some parking in here that we would raise the grade up for the Coach House Restaurant. The creation of this building pad for this hotel and water park generates a large amount of excess material. So we’ve included, as part of this project, in a phased approach, to raise up, to spoil that excess material on these lots that were intended for construction for the Great Escape parking, that would then feed in to the pedestrian bridge that would eventually go on. So what we’ve provided in a set of site plan drawings that we recently submitted, but are available for your review when we come to you for site plan, are stormwater plans that, where we’re actually, since we’ve reduced the net amount of roof, and the paving from our original stormwater plans, we’ve provided a design of the system whereby we’re impounding the water, percing the water in. So we have a stormwater treatment plan proposed. We were very careful with the, when we originally looked at the prospect of this building and the visual effect of this on the surrounding residences and Glen Lake, we flew a balloon at the Coach House Restaurant and took photos and also studied it for map analysis, and identified that at that height that we did have a small view shed out in Glen Lake toward the northeast portion of the lake, and what we asked the architects to do is to ratch it down, that roof height, until we got to a point where we had a very little opportunity for view through the existing trees. We have some, we also studied these, and this is a rough graphic where we took an aerial photo and then placed the building in there in a 3-D perspective to kind of give an idea on how this sets. Here’s the water park, the hotel, and our proposed spoil areas where we’re going to build up these parking lots and the hotel parking behind, and how that relates to the existing arrangement, and view opportunities for I-87. This is a photo taken from approximately in this area of the parking field looking toward the Coach House restaurant. This is the existing view. This is our representation, a photo representation of taking the architectural elevation and placing that in the photo of what that net change will be in the character of that view, and as John mentioned, that the visibility that we’re primarily concerned about, or the only real views you have of this project are as you come along 87 there is a shot here where there’s no trees. We have views of it. There will be a view immediately across, there’s some thin trees in here, and even though we’re envisioning providing buffer planting here, there will be an opportunity for view directly from the northbound lane. This is very screened here with existing vegetation and grade, but coming up Route 9, you will have a view into it this way, but we’re fairly confident in our map analysis and our field analysis, that the project site here, as you look from the bike path, there’s an existing, there’s existing vegetation in here, and there’s also quite a bit of grade that as, when we flew the balloons, you could just see it floating at the top of these trees in here, and that by ratching it down, we could get to the point where it would not be visible from the lake. We have also considered, and we wanted to make the Board aware, that we’re concerned about and aware of our construction phasing. We’ve put together a plan that really describes how we envision constructing this, in conjunction with the operations of the Great Escape park, and upon approval, we would like to get working on that this spring, excavate for the hotel, move the material into the first parking lot, stabilize that for the summer, while construction continues on the hotel, in the fall, as the park becomes, closes up. Then we would have an opportunity to complete this excavation work and then build the part across the stream, that gives us an opportunity to do some more design on our bridge connections, and to keep the park in operation. MR. COLLINS-Thank you, Russ. That concludes our presentation, and if you have any questions. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Can you just go over what your anticipated timeline is, you know, you’re looking to hopefully break ground in, what, June? MR. COLLINS-Yes, early spring, you know, and understand that, you know, we will be here talking about this project, and so we would like to have this for our 2005 season, which gives us about a 12 month construction window, which is doable. MR. MAC EWAN-That coincides with the completion of the pedestrian bridge. MR. COLLINS-For 2005. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, what are we looking at for timeline from Staff to review this and completeness and getting the packets in the Planning Board’s hands? MR. ROUND-I guess Stu’s here now. We can talk a little bit about the process. Just what’s gone on to date, as John and John said previously, the applicant submitted a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and the first step for us as a Board, in reviewing this, is to determine whether it’s complete to start the public review process, and Chazen Companies has taken its initial draft, generated a long list of comments, applicant has since submitted a second draft. We developed a shorter series of comments. We think, tonight, that the applicant’s going to present us with a third draft, that if it’s consistent with the direction that we’ve given them, that we, from a technical standpoint, believe is complete, but that’s your judgment. You need that document in hand, along with those comments, to make that review. For us to give you dates, it’s very much a process driven type of project. For us to give you hard and fast dates, I mean, I think the applicant can attest, we’ve turned things around in a very timely basis. Our objective is to give you the information you need, and it’s really a function of your capacity to go through the review process. Once you have this document in hand, the first formal action would be to declare the document complete and start the public review process. At that time, we also need to, we propose to conduct a SEQRA public hearing, a public hearing presentation on much of the same information you see here tonight and collect public comment. At that same time you also establish a written comment period. There’s a statutory requirement that it’s at least 10 days after your public hearing, and then the applicant would prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement trying to address the comments that are collected through this process, you know, collecting comments of the Board itself, are there alternatives that we haven’t talked about? Are there alternatives that we haven’t talked about? Are there, is there more information that you need to make the decision, yes or no, on the project? At the conclusion of the EIS process, as you’re familiar, you issue SEQRA Findings, and that’s the way you incorporate project changes, mitigation, conditions that are going to help the project be the best project in the public’s eye and the Planning Board’s eye, and at the completion of Findings, then you actually issue your formal approvals. You would be looking at, as the gentleman said, a variance request. So it would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief from the Zoning Ordinance, and so, again, to give us dates, I think I was quoted in the paper that it’s an aggressive schedule. We’re working to try to satisfy everybody’s schedule, both from a construction standpoint, and the public’s, you know, the public process where they need to have enough information and make decisions that’s in the community’s interest. MR. MAC EWAN-The third draft, which I’m assuming they have here tonight, are you going to review that to make sure that you’re satisfied with your last round of comments before you distribute it to the Board, or what? MR. ROUND-Yes. Stuart, I don’t know if you’ve received that as of yet, but. STUART MESSINGER MR. MESSINGER-I suspect I’m looking at it, but, no. MR. ROUND-Yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) MR. LEMERY-It’s right here. MR. ROUND-Yes. We will. What we’d like to do tonight is give you that. We have copies of the site plan, some supporting information in the site plan, the stormwater management report, etc. We don’t want to overwhelm you with all this information because a lot of it is technical in nature. Maybe it’s good to back up and just talk about how the supplemental process works. Stuart, maybe if you would just jump into that and say, well, why a Supplemental EIS? You know, how is it different than the EIS process previously, and, you know, what have we looked at, from a technical standpoint, just to give the Planning Board some background on that. MR. MESSIGNER-The SEQRA provides that where an Environmental Impact review has been completed, if then subsequent to that we have a project that was not contemplated in the original review, or if there are impacts that weren’t contemplated under the original EIS, we can, the Board can have a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared. Now, in this instance the applicant has voluntarily agreed to do that, and I think quite rightly so, recognizing that, while the hotel component of this project was contemplated in the original SEQRA approval, the water park wasn’t, and so the Supplemental EIS really focuses on those aspects of this project that are different in some way over that which you original approved in the original SEQRA process, and those are essentially visual impacts. This, visually, a bit of a different project. We have a different set of stormwater calculations. There is some changes, I would say, to the parking, although not a lot. It appears to be pretty close, and just sort of the general site plan and layout components are different in some ways, and I’m sure I’m missing a couple of things. The cultural resources piece has been updated from what we originally saw, and as I say, I’m sure that I’m missing a couple of things. The height is certainly different. The action which is in front of you, from a SEQRA point of view, is a site plan approval, a Special Use Permit, and also there is a requirement for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. So, procedurally, Chris and I thought that the way that this would work is that tonight you would declare your intent to be Lead Agency, the Zoning Board of Appeals, as an involved agency for the SEQRA action, and that when you chose to issue the document, and held your public hearing, that it would be a joint public hearing, with the Zoning Board of Appeals. So they would also hear the variance aspects, and you would be hearing the site plan and the Special Use Permit, and the SEQRA analysis, all at one time. That really, since everything is part and parcel and tied together, that seems to make the most sense. I can’t think of anything else to add. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I did have discussion with the ZBA Chairman to bring him up to speed on the project, and I think one of the difficulties that we’re going to walk through on this, and I don’t want to overstate it, but we run into similar problems when we have a zoning request, and a site plan, a zone amendment and a site plan package together where you have two action where generally the Planning Board is the SEQRA Lead Agency. What happens when you come back and you issue a positive recommendation for a zone change request, and then it goes to the Town Board is an entirely different decision making body, and although they may be of a similar mindset, that they have the opportunity to reach their own decision, and it’s completely discreet and separate from this Board. So for the applicant’s benefit, they’re aware of this and it’s kind of a double jeopardy, in a sense. Is that they can go through this process and satisfy the public and satisfy the Board. So that’s why we think it’s a benefit to have both Boards at the same time hearing the same information and hearing all the concerns of the public all at once, because they have to go back, even if you get done with the SEQRA process, they’ve got to go through that variance, that statutory test that New York State provides us with hearing relief from the Zoning Ordinance, you know, and they’ve got to satisfy a whole other test in this project. So, you know, all though much of this was entertained, it’s a little bit different than you’ve seen before, and I think Stu can say this in that we’re confident in that the document that you’re going to receive is going to fully examine the impacts, and it’s just, it’s not going to answer the questions, but it’s going to give you the information that you need to ask any additional, ask the right questions. It’s going to give enough information to the public so they have a very clear understanding of what’s going to take place, if and when this project’s approved. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) MR. SANFORD-Okay. Chris, you said Town Board. Did you mean Zoning Board? MR. ROUND-I was trying to make an analogy between a site plan and a rezoning request, and I kind of flashed through that rather quickly, but yes, you’re correct. MR. VOLLARO-I have one question. Mr. Messinger had put out his first memo on December 23. rd MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And there has been updates to that. MR. ROUND-Right, yes. MR. VOLLARO-We will get to see those updates? MR. ROUND-You will get the final document, for this third draft. Assuming there’s no more changes, you’ll see, receive both sets of comments that Stu has generated. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-And then a memorandum from Stu saying, yes, this document’s reflective and we recommend that it be deemed complete by the Planning Board. MR. MESSINGER-I don’t know if you’ve seen any of our earlier memos, but we have them tonight. We’ll distribute them. MR. SANFORD-We received by way of e-mail the December 23 memo to Chris from you, but we haven’t received any follow-ups. MR. ROUND-That’s correct. Yes. So you’ll have a complete paper trail tonight. MR. MESSINGER-We’ll hand that out to you tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-How much time do you need to review this third draft? MR. MESSINGER-We’ve narrowed the issues pretty tightly. I would think that we’d be able to review it within the next week. MR. MAC EWAN-So hopefully maybe by the end of next week or the beginning of the first week of February you’d be able to say, in your opinion, whether it’s complete or not? MR. MESSINGER-If you give me a week, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you want comments back from the Board members? Are we to hold our comments and reconvene at another meeting and give you our comments? MR. ROUND-Yes, I don’t know. Stu, John, I’m looking for suggestions. It’s difficult with a project of this magnitude whether you want to have a workshop meeting to do that, whether you review it in concert with the documentation you have to us, and if there’s not a lot of questions, maybe there’s a way we can handle that in a simple fashion. MR. MAC EWAN-My intentions with this application is to do a special meeting for this application only, for its review process. So it won’t be on a regular agenda. MR. MESSINGER-A special meeting to review completeness? Or a special meeting for the hearing? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-The full review of the whole project. MR. MESSINGER-But the first step is just a completeness of the SEQRA document. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Do you want to do that in the form of a workshop? MR. MESSINGER-It’s up to you. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you feel comfortable with? MR. VOLLARO-I made one comment on Mr. Messinger’s December 23 draft already. As one rd member, I would like to be able to see those comments before I’m ever given the document, so I can read those and try to understand where you’re coming from before I’ve got to go through that package. MR. MESSINGER-You’ll be much more up to date with the third draft, I think. The first draft. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I still want to see how we got there. That’s why, I want to see how we arrived at the third draft. MR. MESSINGER-I understand. MR. ROUND-What you’ll get, Bob, you’ll get Stuart’s first memorandum. You’ll get an LA Group letter that basically pulls out those comments and how they responded to them, the documents reflective of those changes. So we see that as a technical exercise, not really an exercise, I mean, I think you’ll have the document that you need in front of you, that gives you, gets you where you want to be. MR. VOLLARO-I still want to see how we got there, okay. MR. ROUND-I guess what we’ll do, we’ll get you those documents, and then you mull through that and see how this fits your style. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right, that’s my request. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. ROUND-I know, what’s also included in this, I know several Board members are new, you will, there will be the SEQRA Finding’s Statement that was adopted, because in this EIS is an analysis of, well, how does this process differ, how do the SEQRA Findings, are they reflected in the existing project or how are they contrasted with the existing project. So you’ll have that as well, with your review set. MR. SANFORD-Is that, when are we getting that? MR. ROUND-You’re going to get it tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re over here crunching calendar dates and going back and forth. He’s gone the entire month of February. I anticipate to be gone the first two weeks of February. MR. VOLLARO-And we don’t have any alternates, I don’t believe. MR. SANFORD-No, not yet. MR. ROUND-Well, let’s get this in your hands, and then maybe we can talk about those dates. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re going to need a week to go through it. I’d ask the Board members to take a week to go through it. I will get in touch with Chris and Stu, first week of February. All right. That’s what we’re looking at right now? And we’ll come up with a date to have a workshop to sit down with the applicant and deem it complete. How’s that? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) Hypothetically, we’re looking at some time the second week of February we think. Okay. We’ve got a lot of strings to pull together here. A lot of ifs. Why don’t we take the first step and Stu will look at his draft. We’ll look at what we’re going to get tonight. We’ll give everybody a week to look at it, and you and I will talk the first Monday in February. MR. VOLLARO-How do you want the responses from us? Do you want it in e-mail responses? MR. ROUND-Written either way, e-mail is acceptable, and I can collect those and file them. MR. MAC EWAN-So any comments have to be to Staff by a week from next Monday. MR. SCHACHNER-February 2. nd MR. VOLLARO-Comments back to Staff a week from the 2. nd MR. MAC EWAN-Regarding the draft. MR. SCHACHNER-No, no on the 2, he said. nd MR. VOLLARO-On the 2 of February. nd MR. SCHACHNER-I believe that’s what he said. He’s the boss, but that’s my understanding. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You want comments the 2 of February. nd MR. MAC EWAN-To Staff, on this draft we’re going to get tonight. That gives you a week to go through it. Stu says he’ll be done in a week with them, right? Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Stu can be done with it in a week because Stu’s been involved in it a long time. We’re just getting it now. So you’re give us the same time you’re giving him, you know. MR. MAC EWAN-Is a week not enough time? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll do what I can in a week. MR. SCHACHNER-February 2’s two weeks from yesterday. nd MR. MESSINGER-Two weeks, that’s two weeks. MR. SCHACHNER-Just so that everybody understands. February 2 is two weeks from nd yesterday. So I think what you’re giving people is almost two weeks. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. SANFORD-That would be, what, 13 days, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. ROUND-You do have a resolution in front of you, just seeking Lead Agency Status. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’ll move on that right now. Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO INFORM INVOLVED AGENCIES OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD’S INTENTION TO CONTINUE AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING SEQRA REVIEW, Introduced by Robert Vollaro, Who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/20/04) Duly adopted this 20 day of January 2004 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MR. LEMERY-Thanks very much. MR. ROUND-Just stay here. We’re going to make this distribution here for you. It’s rather large. MR. COLLINS-Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 25