Loading...
2004-03-02 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) QUEENSBURY JOINT PLANNING BOARD/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 2, 2004 7:00 P.M. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD ROBERT VOLLARO MEMBERS ABSENT LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES ALLAN BRYANT JAMES UNDERWOOD ROY URRICO CHARLES ABBATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SDGEIS SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2004 GREAT ESCAPE AGENT: LEMERY GREISLER ZONE: HC-1 LOCATION: 1213 ST. RT. 9, 1227 ST. RT. 9 THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING PLANNING BOARD APPROVALS FOR THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PLANNED FACILITIES, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AMUSEMENT FACILITY IN THE HC-I ZONE, AND WAIVERS FROM THE I-87/ROUTE 9 DESIGN GUIDELINES. AN AREA VARIANCE IS SOUGHT FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF THE 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. THIS HEARING IS ALSO BEING CONDUCTED TO RECEIVE COMMENT ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SDGEIS) DATED JANUARY 20, 2004 ANALYZING THE PROJECT IMPACTS. COPIES OF THE APPLICATION MATERIAL AND THE SDGEIS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE TOWN’S PLANNING OFFICE. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5, 4 LOT SIZE: 6.40 AC., 4.06 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020 JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Our format tonight is the beginning of the comment period for The Great Escape’s proposed expansion for the hotel and indoor water park, part of their Park expansion. Our format tonight is going to be that we’ll have a review by the Staff to show you and indicate where we are right now in the review process. The applicant will make a presentation. Then we’ll open up the floor to begin the public comment. There have been some inquiries regarding our four minute time limit. We will waive that tonight because of the 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) obvious interest in this. We’d ask you, if you would, keep your comments as brief as possible, and at the conclusion of the public comment period, then we’ll open up the questions for members of the ZBA and the Planning Board who are both in the review process of this. Given that, I’ll turn it over to Chris. MR. ROUND-Thanks, Craig. Chris Round, Director of Community Development for the Town. The primary purpose of tonight’s meeting is to receive comment on a Supplemental Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the project, and I think most of you are aware what the project is. We’ll receive comments tonight, verbally. There’d be, a written comment period has been established. All those comments will be collected and incorporated into an Final Environmental Impact Statement. The way that process works is that the applicant will be drafting a document and responding to those comments. That document is subject to the Planning Board, as the Lead Agency, it’s subject to their review and acceptance, and at the acceptance of that document, the next step would be development of Findings which are basically the conditions that the project would be subject to if and when it receives an approval. Tonight’s also a public hearing, not just for the SEQRA review purposes, but it’s also a public hearing to receive comment on the site plan, to receive comment on the special use permit, for the operation of an amusement center in the Highway Commercial zone. It’s also a public hearing on the variance request for height relief for the proposed structures. This is a little bit unique. We have both our Planning Board and Zoning Board here tonight. The benefit of that is that the Planning Board and Zoning Board both get to hear all of the public here all at one time, and the unique thing about this project, one of the unique things, is that the height relief is directly related to this environmental impact, or the potential environmental impact, and to say that in a different way is that the ZBA is going to be granting height relief and the Planning Board is evaluating, one element is evaluating the visual impacts of this project. Those two things go hand in hand, so it’s key for the Zoning Board and the Planning Board to be in communication with one another and get a feel for the public’s concerns all in a single meeting. Tonight we do have here, this is Town Counsel, to my right, Mark Schachner, and to my immediate right is Stuart Mesinger. The Town has hired Chazen Companies, a local engineering/planning firm, to perform the review on behalf of the Town. The Town normally employs an engineer. In this case we chose Chazen to provide continuity in the review. Chazen did the review on the original Environmental Impact Statement that was completed in 2001, and this document is identifying those elements which were not contemplated or the changes that were not contemplated in the original project. So it made sense for us to continue to employ Chazen. Chazen will be also issuing written comments that will be addressed by the applicant. Those are not prepared for your review tonight, but those will be submitted to the Planning Board for their review, and once they’re reviewed by the Planning Board, that they’ll be forwarded to the applicant to address those issues as well. MR. STONE-Chris, may I just correct one thing you said? The Zoning Board will consider a variance from the height requirement, not grant. You used the word “grant”. We will consider. MR. ROUND-I think, I don’t know if there’s anything else to be said. One thing we do want to remind you, we do have speaker cards. If you have an intention to speak at tonight’s meeting, it’s helpful if you do sign in and provide that information. I think there’s folks at the back of the room that have those cards. That will help us make sure that we have your name properly captured and identified in the public record. Make sure when you do come to the microphone, please speak into the microphone so we can capture that information. We are going to keep verbatim meeting minutes for this meeting, as we always do with our Planning and Zoning Boards. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Lemery, I’ll turn it over to you. MR. LEMERY-Chairman MacEwan, Chairman Stone, first of all, our thanks for your willingness to hold a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Boards. A project like this ends up going back and forth, back and forth between the Boards in connection with the kind of project this is and the relief we’re requesting. So we are very appreciative of your willingness to have a joint meeting where the public can be heard and we can describe for you both again what this project 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) is all about. We have our complete team with us tonight to answer any questions you might have. Our architect is here, Trevor Harrison, of the architectural firm of Harrison Bridges, which designed the hotel. Our water park designer is here, Ken Ellis of Aquatic Development Company, which designed the 34,000 square foot indoor water park, BBL Construction Services, which will construct the facility is represented tonight by J. Holpeck, and D.A. Collins, which has been engaged to do all the site work in connection with the development. If I could just give you a brief history of what’s been going on at The Great Escape in the last few years. In July of 2001, the theme park completed a Generic Environmental Impact Statement which considered, at the request of Town Planning Board, the general direction of the Park over the next several years. Since 2001, The Great Escape has made a number of improvements to the infrastructure of the Park, and has delayed plans, and is, in fact, not going forward with any plan to do an on-site septic system, but has agreed to go into the Queensbury sewage system, and in fact has given the Town an easement, at no charge, to locate the pump station, which will feed the Route 9 Sewer District, which will run from approximately where the Wal-Mart store is up through, I think up to 149. The Park has hired the engineering firm of Jarrett-Martin to decouple all of the septic systems in the Park, as soon as the sewer line is hooked up. So, we’re all very excited about that. That gets the entire Park off the septic and the new hotel and indoor water park will be on the sewer system, and will be on the Town water supply. The pedestrian bridge. The pedestrian bridge we’ll speak a little bit about later, in some more detail, but the pedestrian bridge, construction will start on that in the fall. Right now, it has been delayed, in some respects, because of the sewer line going up through the Park property, and in front of the Park, as well as the pump station. So the Town Board, when we were last here, gave us the permission to delay the implementation of that until the sewer line was through the Park. We also got an agreement from the Town that the sewer system would not be put in front of the Park during the season, so that the pedestrian bridge can start right after the end of the season in September, and hopefully be open by the opening of what we hope will be the hotel and indoor water park in the Spring of 2005. On December 15 of this year, the theme park th submitted a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to the Town to address the ways in which the hotel, which was originally approved in the 2001 Impact Statement, had changed. Under the original approved plan, the Town Planning Board approved a 200 room hotel and a facility for what we were hopeful was going to be a Warren County tradeshow and convention facility. Warren County elected not to proceed along those lines. So that was obviously never built, but that was what was approved back, in terms of the SEQRA, not the site plan, but the SEQRA was approved back in 2001 when the Impact Statement was completed and the Findings were made and accepted by the Town. The hotel with indoor water park is a permitted use in the Highway Commercial Intensive zone, which is where this property is located. So it is a permitted use. The indoor water park is also a permitted use, pursuant to site plan review as an accessory use to the hotel, much like a swimming pool would be. However, we’re seeking a grant of a Special Use Permit in connection with, from the Planning Board, rather, in connection with the indoor water park, so that it would qualify as an amusement center, and the purpose of that is, if there are times, from time to time, when the hotel has capacity or rather when the hotel is not booked, and there is room in the water park, that that Special Use Permit, which is a permitted Special Use within the Zoning Ordinance, would permit the hotel to offer the accommodations of the indoor water park to residents of the community. Without that, it could not be utilized. It’s not intended that it will be utilized much. We’re hoping that the Park and the hotel will be filled most of the time. The hotel and indoor water park should not provide any traffic impacts because access to the indoor water park will only be permitted through the hotel. So you have to go into the hotel to get into the water park, and only when the hotel is below occupancy rates that make it unattractive for patrons to go into the water park. The hotel is a four story hotel, and is 67 feet in height. It is 27 feet over a 40 foot variance, which is what is allowed within the zone. However, in the Route 9 corridor, there’s a special overlay of 35 feet. Russ Pittenger is going to describe in detail our rationale and the need for the variance, as will I later in our presentation. We can tell you, unequivocally, we have done an awful lot of study, visual analysis which has been for this company. This company, as the Town Planning Board knows, does a very thorough job of all of the analysis which has to be done. This facility cannot be seen, cannot be seen from anywhere on Glen Lake. It cannot be seen from the receptor neighborhoods, as we call them, either Courthouse Estates or Twicwood. So the only place this can be seen is from Route 9 heading 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) north, for a certain period of time, and on the Northway, at certain points where there’s a visual ability to see it through the trees. None of the trees on Route 9 are going to be impacted or affected. So once you get beyond the Coach House Restaurant, you will not see this hotel again, unless you’re on the Northway. The pedestrian bridge will hopefully minimize some of the traffic issues that people have been concerned with on Route 9, and there will be a re- sequencing of the lights at Route 9. When we filed our Supplemental Impact Statement, we asked the Town Board to allow us to re-sequence the ring road, relative to the pedestrian bridge. Under our original plan, at the point where the pedestrian bridge was required to be built, because of certain traffic mitigations, it required, at the same time, that the southern portion of the ring road be built. Because the pedestrian bridge is going in now, as an accessory to the west side of the highway, we’ve built the northern part of the ring road, so that it provides access to the hotel from the northern portion, and that will be more particularly described to you by Russ Pittenger from the LA Group. The 2003 traffic counts were well below the Phase III thresholds which tripped certain mitigation involving both the pedestrian bridge and the ring roads. The traffic counts have not risen in the last few years to the point where they were at the time of when the Impact Statement was provided. We believe that with the introduction of the pedestrian bridge and this early implementation of improvements, it will improve the traffic flow on Route 9 by directing traffic into the Park and the hotel parking lot, just north of the site. I’d like to, we’re going to have a few people just address you tonight, with your permission. John Collins will speak next, and then we have Russ Pittenger from the LA Group. Trevor Harrison is going to describe to you the beautiful Adirondack style in which this facility will hopefully be built, and then the water park folks will describe what they plan to have in there for families, and then back to me for the wrap up. So, with your permission, Mr. Chairman. MR. COLLINS-Thank you, John. I’m going to let Russ get started because John covered quite a bit about our Supplemental Impact Statement and how it refers back to our original Generic Impact Statement. So I’ll add some comments in about the economic impact and obviously the tourism benefits that we believe this project will give to the area, but I think just for timing purposes, I think Russ’s portion would fit in nice. So, Russ? RUSS PITTENGER MR. PITTENGER-Thank you, John. My name is Russ Pittenger. I’m a Landscape Architect and principal with the LA Group in Saratoga Springs, New York. I have a summer home on Birdsall Road, and I am a lake resident, although I don’t have a blue tag on, but I wasn’t sure if it would make some people mad. I’m going to describe to you first basically the site plan and the project. I’m going to let the architect describe the building and the components. I’m going to come back and discuss some of the critical systems by which this project is supported, and then I’m going to go into the visual description of the analysis that we did on the structure before we go back and talk about some other, really the variances that we’re seeking on this project, and as I go through the description of the project, I’m going to try and make you aware, the audience and the Boards aware, of where we’re in compliance, general compliance, with our 2001 SEQRA approval and master plan, and where we diverge from that. Generally this three part plan that you see before you is a 40 scale plan of the hotel and water park. The existing entrances to The Great Escape are right here. Here’s where the entrance gates are. Route 9 is at the top of the page. North is heading that way with the Northway immediately below. This project is sandwiched between Route 9 and the northbound lane of the Northway. The Coach House Restaurant is existing and is shown here in brown. The existing site is generally wooded. There’s a high knob here, and it slopes down to these parking lots here, much of which is used for existing parking today. This is fairly wooded and high. There’s a Holtz Realty Office, kind of in a residence is right located where this green driveway is. There’s a driveway here that goes to what was the Kenny house, and this portion here is presently the Samoset cottage, rental colony. The proposed hotel would sit at approximately, the main floor of the hotel, or rather the basement floor of the hotel would sit at about the same level as the Coach House. So as this portion of the site is developed, this building would sit into the site. So we’re aggressively grading from the DOT right of way down into our parking lot. We’re cutting approximately 30 to 40 feet in this deep sand bank as it goes through. The main entrance to the hotel is located in 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) this location. We have emergency access only from Route 9 and this part. It will tie into a road that serves the Coach House to provide circulation there for emergency and service purposes, but all of the hotel arrivals will be directed to this portion of the ring road, which was originally permitted and designed as part of the 2001 approval for the development of the parking fields for The Great Escape. Generally speaking, I’ll get into some more detail on that later. The reason that we’re including improvements to these parking lots below here are two-fold. One is, in excavating this bank out to create this project, we need a location to deposit the fill. That does a couple of things for us. One, it accelerates filling these parking lots which are going to come up approximately seven or eight feet in grade, but what that does for us, it allows us an opportunity to capture, contain and percolate the stormwater in so the stormwater system, as it will function after construction, will actually provide for better treatment than exists currently today. I’d like to turn it over to Trevor Harrison to just describe the architectural character of the building, and then I’ll come back to our systems. TREVOR HARRISON MR. HARRISON-Thank you, Russ. As was mentioned, my name is Trevor Harrison. I’m an architect with Harrison, Bridges and Associates, in Rochester, New York. I’m going to briefly run through the architecture of the hotel and water park, and then turn it over to Ken Ellis to discuss sort of features of the water park itself. Let me begin by discussing the exterior of the building. As you can see from the rendering piece, really we’re trying to combine a traditional Adirondack look, while mixing in a little bit of the kind of resort architecture of the Adirondacks. So we’ve got a building with really a base, middle and cap piece. The base is a mixture of logs and stone. Stone accents at certain pieces, with logs just at really one floor. As was mentioned, it’s a four story hotel. So the middle two stories of the hotel are clapboard siding, with the top piece being shingles. The roof is a green asphalt, fiberglass shingle roof. Windows would be clad wood windows, single hung, with probably, again, a green exterior cladding. The water park itself exterior is a large structure that we’ve tried to break up to, again, scale this building down a little bit. Use of dormers and elements to try to scale that down and again, on the hotel scaling type things and also detailing, we’ve got balconies that are decorative in nature, but will allow that Adirondack kind of look. I can run through the plan if we want to do that. I’m not sure if these Boards want to go through the details of the plan. I think I could probably talk about the building all night long, but if there is no desire at this point to talk about the plan, I think we can turn it over to Ken Ellis. KEN ELLIS MR. ELLIS-Thank you, Trevor. My name is Ken Ellis. I’m the President of the Aquatic Development Group. Our company specializes in the design and construction of indoor and outdoor water parks around the country. We’re located down in Cohoes, New York. The water park, as John mentioned, it’s an amenity to the hotel. It’s designed as a family attraction, a family facility similar to what The Great Escape accomplishes with their mix across the way for the summer season. The water park is entirely enclosed in the building that Trevor described. It does have a few water slides that will exit and enter the building on the Northway side of the site. The rest of the components will be inclusive of the building, which is about 33, 34,000 square feet. You will enter the water park through the main lobby, drop down to the basement level, and as you come in to the water park space, you’ll have a sense of arrival into a whole entirely themed area. The indoor water park concept started out in the Mid West. There are probably of this size, probably close to 15 to 18 now facilities that are being built around the country. There’s probably three or four in construction as we speak. It is a concept that it gaining a lot of momentum in the hotel business, hospitality business, to attract and help grow tourism, family recreation, mini getaways, mini vacations, and John will speak to this a little bit, but it’s a way that a family can take a day, two days, three days, a get away, drive 10 minutes, drive an hour and experience this facility. The components are geared, as I said, towards families of all ages. You come in to the facility and the first thing that will catch your eye is a large interactive play structure, and there are some images up here that you can come up and take a look afterwards, a structure that is designed for ages four to fifteen or sixteen, a lot of moving water, a lot of interactivity, some water slides, climbing. That’s the ultimate tree house 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) for kids, and that’s what you’ll get as you look immediately into the space. A little further up, you’ll see the slide tower that houses a family raft ride that you can have four or five members in one family ride in one raft that goes outside the building. It’s totally enclosed and brings you back inside the building, dumps you down into the landing pool. A couple of tube rides. A little more thrilling of an activity, single and double tubes. Again, entering and exiting the building, single and double riders. Next to that you’ll find a more secluded tot area, you know, the six month to three or four year old, with a fair amount of lounge area for the mother, parent, or grandparent to hang out with their younger children and experience a much more passive sort of entertainment recreation for that group. As you see in the main space, there is a Lazy River. A Lazy River is for everybody. It’s about a 500 foot river. It travels at three to four feet per second. You ride on a tube and you float and you meander around the inside of the space, and as you go, you can experience different activities. You’ll go underneath the interactive play structure. You’ll look up at the people hanging out in the Spa, up in the corner, you’ll look at the slides coming down in. You can see a hanging bridge go over you as the kids go from one side to the other of the interactive structure, and you can work your way around and stay in there as long as you’d like. There’s also an activity pool which has basketball hoops and volley ball and different things that occur in that area. There is no water any deeper than four feet in this entire facility. Again, it’s a very safe facility as far as water depth. One of the real signature pieces we’ve put in here, because one of the age groups that’s tough to attract on the family vacation is the teenager. The eight, nine, ten year old loves, they’ll go anywhere with the family. The 13, 14, 15 year old, I’d rather stay home, you know, I don’t need to go with the family. I’m too cool for that. So, we’ve included this thing called the Flow Rider where you can actually surf. You can actually Boogie Board on a sheet of water. It’s the skateboard type attraction that kids will come and their first try they may last three seconds, but by the end of their stay, they’ll be challenged to last 15, 20 seconds or 30 seconds. A lifeguard has to blow the whistle and tell them to move on. They have lessons in how to use that and how to become better and little exhibitions, and you know, it’s kind of like surfing in the middle of winter in the Adirondacks. It would be one of a kind. This whole facility will be one of a kind as far as attracting tourism, awareness of this whole region up here in Lake George. It will have a theme to it. It will be an Adirondack theme inside the space, it will feel like the hotel. It will help you really just escape when you go there, and I would say, historically, these facilities have been running a very consistent and high occupancy rates around the country, not only weekends but week days. You’ll find families that will even, you know, take their child out of school for a day or two because it might be a little more affordable, get a package deal on the weekday to come use that facility, which helps promote year round business, and week long business, which is difficult this time of year. John, I know you want to chat a little bit about, I’ll leave that up to you to chat about the market a little bit, about water parks. Thank you. MR. COLLINS-Thank you, Ken. Ken touched a little bit on the marketing approach that we’re going to use with this. It’s definitely unique to the area. This will be another piece to the puzzle. The intention of this property is not to compete with other properties. It’s to add another reason for the people to come into the area. With all the great expansion that’s happened at Gore Mountain or what’s gone on at White Face, the Lake George Forum, the new World War Theater project, all the things going on in Downtown Glens Falls. This is another piece to the puzzle, and it’ll get people to come up not only during the regular season, our summer season, but as Ken said, the off season, which the area’s done a lot of work trying to promote, expanding the seasons, and obviously the winter season, the winter travel would be a big part of what this will do for the area. Russ, did you want to jump back in? MR. PITTENGER-If I could. I want to spend a few minutes talking about the systems that are integral to the project, and there are concern of residents and the designers alike. First off, the sanitary sewer hookup. The project will tie into the sewer system once it becomes on-line. There’s no anticipation for any temporary hookup, except for the Coach House during construction. Stormwater system, the stormwater created by this project is actually less than that was approved under the 2001 Generic Impact Statement. We have stormwater basins designed here to accommodate the flow. For a 100 year storm, as this runs through, it generates approximately two acre feet of stormwater for this basin, and our capacity here is 3.3 acre feet. Likewise, for this southern parking lot we have approximately 500 cars here. That generates a 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) little bit less than one acre foot of stormwater under the 100 year storm, which is our most restrictive and our design storm, and we have the capacity, again, for a little bit over three acre feet here. So what we’re doing, we’re blessed with good soils. We’re designing these parking lots as though they were paved, although they will not be under this phase. We’re just going to have a gravel top on them. So the stormwater system is, by building these parking lots up and giving us the depth here, I think we have a better treatment system, and we’re generating less stormwater. The traffic concerns, by not building the convention center, and having the indoor water park as part of the hotel, our traffic counts are lower than was approved in the 2001 Generic Impact Statement. We’ve asked Creighton Manning Engineers in Albany, who are traffic consultants, and consulting on this project, to identify the level of service required for this four way intersection, at the intersection of Glen Lake Road. Their recommendations were that a traffic light was not warranted under DOT standards, and that this right hand turn lane from southbound traffic was the mitigation that was required for our anticipated flows. I think that’s certainly a discussion that the traffic planners will have, but that’s, the indications that we have is it will not warrant a light there, and DOT won’t put it in until it’s warranted. As John mentioned, the pedestrian bridge, the pedestrian bridge is anticipated to go in, with construction starting in the fall, although the funding for the bridge is different than the funding for the hotel, the designers for the bridge are separate from the designers for the hotel project. The contractors are different contractors, and the permit agencies dealing with the DOT are different than the permit agencies we’re dealing with here. So while it’s our goal to have them occur simultaneously, they’re not directly tied together. I guess the last key that I want to touch on is go through the visual analysis that we did, talk about how we got to where we are in the hotel and in the process. The first thing we did when we received this project was to look at the plan and look at the elevations. So we ran sections through the site, both north/south and east/west. This is a photograph taken from The Great Escape parking lot looking north, and then we took an elevation from the architects and superimposed that on there to get an idea of what the building would look like from where you could see it, and from the south, in the parking lot you certainly will see it. This view is across, looking this way. The reason that we’re before the Zoning Board is for a height variance from the 40 foot to 67 feet. Part of the reason for that is the configuration of the hotel, and the character of it and the nature of the site that we have. These little post-it tabs I cut to be a 40 foot building. This brown line is our proposed grade. This tan line is the existing grade, and as you notice that, as that grade does grow in the back, anywhere that a 40 foot building on that existing grade could indeed be higher than the 67 foot proposed building. So there is an opportunity that, while it is higher than is permitted in the zone, there certainly could be a building there at a higher elevation, even though it’s within the 40 feet. The next thing that we looked at was building a 3-D model of the building, and then superimposing it on a landform model, and this is a view generally from the south, looking at the building, kind of blocked out to get a feeling for the bulk and the scope of it, and the main concerns that we had were not so much what it would look like from that parking lot, or Route 9, or the Northway, but more, what effect that would have on the areas to the east, the residential areas. This represents a view, a very high elevated view from, this is the bike path bridge at the Glen Lake Fen, the entrance to Glen Lake, looking across the wetland. There’s the hotel there, with the Northway behind and Route 9, and this is the key area that we were looking at, in terms of the trees and vegetation, and what kind of screening opportunities existed there. Now, our on-site plans are to preserve as many as possible any large trees, although the nature of the site and the nature of the project are such that we’re very aggressive in our grading and our construction. So while we’re saving what we can, mostly it’s just the ones around the Coach House. We’re losing a lot of trees on site, although we’re preserving the ones along Route 9, in the DOT right of way, and also the ones along I-87 Northway. Our computer analysis indicated to us that, at certain elevations, there were view opportunities of the roof from Glen Lake. We flew balloons at 80 feet above grade, and they were flying at about Elevation 505, and we realized that, from our computer models, and working with the architects, that if we could lower, gradually lower the height of that building, we could reduce the visibility. So in these plans, we had quite a bit of visibility with an 80 foot structure, and the keys (lost words) Doc Barber’s house on the lake, and as the building dropped in height, the visibility of that dropped also. MR. SANFORD-What’s that shaded area represent? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. PITTENGER-The shaded area would represent where you could see something of the roofline. MR. SANFORD-Only at those particular spots on the lake? MR. PITTENGER-That is correct. Under these different heights. So what we asked the architects to do was that, given the parameters of the water park, which has, which wants to be higher than it really is, and also trying to use that architecture so that it has a roofline instead of just a flat roof, those things were working against us. We have about 16, 17 feet in roofline on the building, but we took this a step further, and last week we went out and we went to the site and we flew two sets of balloons, one immediately next to the Coach House, and then one up at the Holtz Realtor driveway there, up at about Elevation 500. What we did was we flew one at the roofline itself, flew one 50 feet above, and then in one case we flew one 50 feet above that, to really field verify what kind of visual impacts we would have from the lake. I was the lucky one to get to truck around on the lake, walk around. This view, seven and eight, is from the same location. It’s approximately south, it’s south of Doc Barber’s dock here, where this cove is, basically undeveloped cove. This is the photo with the 50 millimeter lens. Here’s the house on the big island owned by Dr. Hughes. Using a 200 millimeter telephoto, this, again, is the big island here looking back toward the inlet and the Glen Lake Fen. That circle is around a balloon that’s 50 feet higher than the roof of the building. So for that point, and that location, the roof would not be visible. We used a target balloons to make sure that we’re on location. So as I was walking this route here, and back in, I saw the target balloons, 50 feet above the roof, but did not see any views of the roof. I say it that way because, can I guarantee those no views of the lake? All I can say is I couldn’t find it. I could see, I did know I was in the right location, because from this whole lake and these photos and the residences in here, we had no views of the roofline. There’s an interesting point, here, along Ash Drive, though. Now this Photo Location Three is very close to the bridge at the bike path, and from that location, both of the target balloons, 50 feet above the roof, were visible right at the tree line. However, leaving there along Ash Drive, just as you get to the turn where the pine trees start, the bike path diverges. It’s not in this area, but right at that point, is this View Five, and on View Five, there is a balloon. You can see this piece of snow and that’s right at that Holtz driveway, and right in that throat you’re going to catch a piece of that roof, and that’s the extent of the visual study. I guess I’ll turn it back to John. MR. COLLINS-Thank you, Russ. We should also point out, at that location, that is on our property, and you can see from that location the corner of what is the Nightmare building, and that more than this building, you’d be able to see. So you can see that existing, the Nightmare building up in Ghost Town. John, did you want to go into anything else? MR. LEMERY-Just the need for the height variance, which is an Area Variance, not a Use Variance, is necessary in order to build the hotel at the four stories. If it were a three story hotel, it would be so long trying to connect it to the Coach House, which is an integral part of the facility, it wouldn’t be feasible. It would be dragging out all the way along Route 9 and almost up to the Samoset colony. The other problem, which is the principal problem, is that the indoor water park, in order to build the indoor water park, we have to have the height for the interpretive rides in there that the slides and the play structure, if you’ve been up to The Great Escape and you’ve seen the Paul Bunyon dump bucket and all that kind of thing, the only way that those will fit will be if the building is 65 feet, and as Russ said, it started at 80, and we kept telling them, get the building down, get the building down, to as low as we could possibly get it, so as not to be visible anywhere. We wanted to have a roof, as he mentioned, so it wasn’t some flat looking building that was not aesthetically pleasing. The purpose for the hotel and water park as we’ve described is to provide a year round indoor resort experience for people coming in to the area and the Adirondacks, take advantage of the ski resorts here, increase hotel occupancy, year round destination which will benefit, we think, the entire area. We think the project is in keeping with the neighborhood. This section of Route 9 where the project is located is composed of diverse commercial mix, and this is, all of the property really which surrounds this building is owned by The Great Escape, including the Rush Pond area, the property to the 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) east, the property to the north, and the property to the south. The Adirondack style is in keeping with the Queensbury Master Plan which suggests that properties along the Northway or where they’re going to be visible coming through the Town have an Adirondack kind of look to them. We were very careful in designing it so that that would meet the criteria. It will be primarily visible from a couple of points of drive-by, on Route 87 and Route 9. We believe that it will have a very positive effect on the local economy, and will advance the Town’s efforts and the County’s efforts to extend the tourist industry year round. We believe, based on the occupancy rates that we’re looking at, that the hotel and indoor water park will add an estimated half a million dollars a year in bed tax revenue to the new County four percent bed tax, which is used for the promotion of tourism in the County. It’s estimated that it will provide an additional one million in sales tax revenue, based only on the sales tax generated by the room, not any of the other activities within the hotel. The assessed valuation will be greatly increased. This property, when completed, will probably be somewhere in the $35 to $40 million range, in terms of assessed valuation for the Town and County. There are 66 new jobs proposed as we speak tonight. By the time this is finished, there may be more jobs which are necessary by reason of what ultimately goes into the facility. We have very limited flexibility with respect to siting, due to the need to construct the facility within the area that is available, and to attach it to the Coach House Restaurant, which was part of the original plan, and part of the original plan the Planning Board looked at. The location and the type of traffic mitigation measures required by the 2001 Impact Statement have been and will be met, and the theme park will meet all of its obligations for that requirement. The location of the wetland corridors prevent the project from being moved south, anywhere south on that side of the road. The building codes prevent the hotel from being set further into the hillside which would permit a higher prevailing grade, due to the need for each hotel room to have emergency egress. The Code requires emergency vehicles. We have met with the Warren County Fire Coordinator. He’s looked at the plans, and has orally approved them, in terms of the access road and the access that will be available to the emergency vehicles in the facility. The Adirondack style roof which we put on this hotel, ladies and gentlemen, accounts for 15 feet of the height. So part of the height request is as a result of trying to meet the Adirondack style roof. So that people coming into the Town no the Adirondack Northway will be able to see this facility that it will be visually attractive. We don’t believe that the variance request will have any negative impact on the neighborhood. We maintain that it is not visible from the Glen Lake, Courthouse Estates or Twicwood area, which were the three receptor neighborhoods, as we call them, in connection with our original Impact Statement which was approved. It will sit in front of The Great Escape, which is located on a hill and is zoned, actually, for much taller structures of up to 200 feet under the plan which was approved by the Planning Board in 2001. The Great Escape has the control of, and will maintain, the visual buffers which will help minimize, and are required to minimize, the project’s visibility, including the 75 foot tall conifer trees which are located adjacent to the Coach House that will frame the new buildings. The existing large trees at the parameter of the parking area will be maintained and we will provide a tree inventory to the Town in accordance with the site plan review that is required by the 2001 Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The vegetation in Glen Lake that provides screening from the lake view is on the portion of the wetland owned by The Great Escape and there will never be anything in there. The 10 foot buffer, which was required by the Planning Board at the time, the 10 foot buffer between the ring road and the 87 right of way will be maintained and will be treed and screened as required by the 2001 Generic Environmental Impact. So we hope you’ll look favorably on this request, and we thank you for, again, taking the time to meet with us. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. I’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETER MC DEVITT MR. MC DEVITT-Good evening. My name is Peter McDevitt. I live at 50 Hunter Street in the City of Glens Falls. As a matter of public record, I’m a member of the Common Council in the City of Glens Falls. My motivation in coming this evening is to support the project. I’ve had an opportunity to review the plans, and I think it meets the very high standards which you people 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) have in the Town of Queensbury. I would ask you to hold their feet to the fire. Basically adhere to strict environmental considerations, but I think that the economic benefits, which you’ll probably hear over and over again, I think are very considerable. I think, over the last three or four years, a great deal of effort has gone into a sewer system, the extension of a sewer system, and we’re talking about a system that ultimately ends up at the City of Glens Falls. We have a State of the Art facility on Warren Street that basically, in terms of replacement value today, is probably a $50 to $60 million facility. I think the City really doesn’t have a large dog in this fight. Maybe a small one, with the enhanced sales tax dollars, with the enhanced occupancy tax dollars, the greater utilization of our facility on Warren Street I think, ultimately, will help the City. So, I guess in the final analysis, I would ask, ultimately, for the approval. At the same time, you know, adhering to the high environmental standards that the Town of Queensbury has always adhered to. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? ANDREW PATNODE MR. PATNODE-Hello. My name’s Andrew Patnode. I represent W.W. Patnode Sons, local construction firm, Stillwater, New York. I’m also a Planning Board member at the Town of Stillwater. I’m here to tell you that I’m in favor of this project. I think it’s fantastic. It’s nice to see clean development, something that can bring not only jobs, construction jobs, what I’m interested in, but also full-time jobs, and also maintenance jobs for the future, not to mention bringing people through your roads that are going to go to the different stores and buy products and create more revenue. We do a lot of work at The Great Escape every year. We’re very lucky. It’s not just when they’re building new things, but they maintain everything very well. They keep everything to the highest standards. It creates jobs on a yearly basis. I have, in the neighborhood on some occasions, 15 or 20 people working at The Great Escape in the spring, preparing it for open season, two, three, four months. Those jobs are very important to me and very important to the local communities. One of the important things to keep in mind is that it’s not just the construction jobs when it’s built, and it’s not just the housekeeping jobs or jobs that are in the hotel, but it’s everything that takes place, the maintenance in the future, the sewer connections, the different people that perhaps, you know, the sewer system needs to be increased, more people need to be hired for that. This type of development creates jobs, and I’m here just to say that I’m for it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. JACK BENIAK MR. BENIAK-Good evening. My name is Jack Beniak. I’m a principal in Cool Insuring Agency. By point of reference, our business was founded here in 1857. So we’ve been around for a long time, and I think we’ve, hopefully you’d all agree that we’ve served the community well. We’ve certainly enjoyed having our business headquartered here. The majority of my commerce comes locally, I’d say within a 15 mile radius, but I do get to travel to other regions, and whether you’re following the Queensbury sports teams or if you’re an insurance agent like I am, you get to go to places like Gloversville, Johnstown, Amsterdam, Scotia, and Ballston Spa, and those folks would be envious to have a project like this presented in front of them today. I’m clearly in favor of this project. I’ve had experience in dealing with The Great Escape and John Collins. I was on the Governance team at the Glens Falls Country Club several years ago when the initial project was put forth, and we found him to be a good neighbor. He honors his commitments, and I just think this would be a really, real big boon for the area, and a very tasteful project. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Next? MARILYN VAN DYKE 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MRS. VAN DYKE-My name is Marilyn VanDyke, and I’m the Historian for the Town of Queensbury. I’d just like to make a few comments, as we’re proceeding with this plan, to look briefly at the nature of the area that will be impacted from the standpoint of historical and archeological findings and possibilities. There’s no doubt in my mind that this is a very sensitive archeological area, and in the pre-history period of time, we already know that Native Americans roamed in this area and that materials had been found that date to the early archaic period, which is 6000 B.C. The recent work that was done at the pump station by the archeologist Ed Curtain tells me that he has found this type of material at that site and we’re very excited to know that we can learn from the findings that were made at the pump station. During the later period when this was the frontier of America, and we began to go into the historical period, we know that a very strong military road was built from Fort Edward to Fort William Henry along this area. This road is now the subject of a new historical research study that is being done for the National Parks Service by the Warren County Historical Society, and the researchers have told me that this is one of the most difficult areas of the road to define exactly. They’re still struggling in the area that goes in front of The Great Escape as to exactly where the road went, and their concerns at the moment are for the fact that you have this hill that you’re planning to remove and that perhaps there might be some findings there that would show more evidence of the road, if it, indeed, went through that particular section. Also along this road, as the French and Indian War was fought, coming up 250 years ago this coming year, armies marched along this road, dropping sometimes cargo and supplies or they were the subject of ambushes and ambuscades, which may have left refuse that could also be studied. Later on we have the overlay of the plank road and then the macadam road and also the peat mining took place by The Great Escape. I’m primarily concerned, or very concerned, with the expression given by one of the gentleman who spoke this evening that you plan to aggressively grade this area to get it into a slope and move a lot of soil into the lower parking area. There may be many finds that are within those soils, and I think we should be very careful about what we are moving and how we are moving it. I want to investigate this further and I’d like to have time to do that, but I would believe at this time that we might want to consider an on-site archeologist while that work is going on to make sure that we don’t destroy some very important historical evidence that might possibly be found there. I also have not seen the Environmental Impact, the environmental statements that were earlier done in 2002. So I do not know how these matters were addressed in those papers, and I also need to see those. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Marilyn. Thank you. Anyone else? PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Hi. I’m Paul Derby, President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. I just have a few issues that we wanted to talk to. First I want to explain a little bit about the Association. The mission of the Glen Lake Protective Association is to protect the water quality and the quality of life at Glen Lake. Currently we have 306 members from approximately 350 lakeside residents. So we’re very well represented. We are all volunteers. There are many people here tonight wearing blue ribbons from the lake here to support our concerns, and other people, many people sent in notices that came back to you. I just want to begin by saying that we are not here tonight to try to stop this project. That’s not our intent. We are here, however, to try to make sure the project is done in a responsible way. It won’t cause harm to us our environment and to our community. I also want to make it clear that we’re not targeting The Great Escape for the cause of all our problems. We hear that often. The Association works all year on environmental and quality of life issues directly on the lake. For example, this year we will hire and expend tens and thousands of dollars on management plan to control nuisance aquatic weeds. Likewise this summer we will offer a boaters safety course, open to all Queensbury citizens. We also routinely, through our newsletters and meetings, educate our residents about septic awareness and the behaviors that negatively effect the lake environment, and we continue to ask the Town to enforce the laws and rules, and in fact to even increase land use restrictions within critical environmental area. I want to skip around to the visual impact first, because I learned something new this evening. I appreciate the additional study that’s been done by Mr. Pittenger, and, in fact, we were going to come in and suggest that they actually do 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) some type of actual visual look from the lake. However, this is the first time we’ve seen this material. It’s not part of the SDGEIS, and we need time to look at it and review it. One of the things we’re going to ask for this evening is an extension on the public comment period because it’s not a complete application. We’re going to ask for a 60 day extension. There are other things in the visual impact that need to be considered, such as the impact from lighting. I notice in the SDGEIS there is no tie to lighting on that building, on the hotel, or anything on the roof, are there going to be upper story lights? That’s not tied in to that in any way. So we’re going to ask for some kind of study related to that. Also, our proposal really was to fly several large balloons at various points to simulate the roofline to 67 feet, and then to actually come onto the lake and observe it from say nine points on the lake to see if you could really see it, rather than just do computer simulations. Part of that looks like it’s been done, though we’d like to see it done, in fact, we were inviting The Great Escape and their engineers to invite Glen Lake folks out on the ice this time of year to take a look at it, to really put our minds at ease that there was going to be no visual impact. So again, we invite that, and as to the lighting, we feel that perhaps they can simulate lighting at that height. If it’s going to be an issue, again, come back on the lake in the evening to see if you can see that. Also another visual impact from the lake is up on the shoreline. For instance, Fitzgerald Road sits up much higher than the lake, and we don’t know if that will have more impact up on the lakeshore, rather than from the lake itself. So we’re asking for more and better visual impact studies. We’re certainly willing to help out with this, and we’d love to go, when they do these actual studies, to take a look at it. Okay. Our Number One concern is the water quality of Glen Lake. That’s our Number One mission. We want to be certain that the stormwater runoff and the erosion management plans associated with this structure, it’s construction and pavement, parking areas and roads do not negatively affect Glen Lake. Please remember that this construction is within a critical environmental area and within the Glen Lake watershed. According to the Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan, which was adopted by the Town in 1999, any development within the Watershed should utilize the best management practices and the greatest extent possible control and minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff, and we ask that they be held to that. Further, none of us no the lake are experts on stormwater management, and this is very technical material. Therefore we have asked Dave Wick and his staff at the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation to review the plans, and render expert opinions. They have graciously accepted to do this for us. Unfortunately, the stormwater management plan in the SDGEIS was incomplete when it was accepted in February. They indicate on Page 2-6, that a completed grading and erosion control plan will be submitted as part of the site plan application, and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be submitted prior to construction. It is my understanding that as of last Thursday a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan was made available for review, but the Association, again, has not received a copy of this. Also I received an e-mail from Dave Wick this morning, explaining to me that this staff has done a very cursory review of the stormwater plan, and that they have numerous concerns, or numerous comments. He suggests that we sit down with him and we plan on doing that. Dave couldn’t be here this evening. He had another meeting, and further, members of the Association really need to sit down with them to discuss this plan, to see if it’s adequate. Because the management section was incomplete, and because we need time for expert opinion, we’re asking the Boards to grant an additional 60 day extension for the written comment, and to hold a second public hearing to allow verbal public comment on aspects that could not be adequately covered here tonight, such as the stormwater plan, the possibly revised traffic plan, and this new material on the visual impact that we’ve just received this evening. The Association also wants to put on record some general qualitative, layperson concerns about the stormwater management. Again, I’m a bit disturbed because I heard that they’re going to raise the parking lot seven feet, and that they plan on using crushed stone. However, on Page 2-7 of their document, quoting, the green parking lot and the hotel parking will be, I think they meant to say will use conventional pavement, since these areas will be subject to year round use. The green parking lot is the large parking lot below current Coach House, between that and the wetland stream that’s there. The Great Escape argues that they need this parking lot to accommodate hotel and water park patrons for year round. We argue that it seems irresponsible for us to pave that parking in that area with impervious pavement in that fragile, environmental area, and it was our understanding in the Findings Statement that that was not a permanent, but a seasonal parking lot that required porous pavement, if pavement at all. We request that you stipulate that this remain a seasonal lot and that if it is 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) paved at all, that porous pavement or some other superior infiltration material be used. Also, according to the maps up there, you can see that there are very large stormwater retention basins in the south and southwest corner of that green parking lot immediately next to the stream. This basin would accommodate your first flash from a storm event. Again, we view this as inadequate because of its critical location. We really view, at this point, as laypeople, the stormwater plan is insufficient. We ask that the Boards go back and read their own Findings Statement, Page Seven, which quoting, The Planning Board finds the protection of the water quality of Glen Lake Fen is of paramount importance to the Town. We’re also concerned about the runoff and the erosion during the construction phase. The proposal states that the gravel from the hill will be used to raise the parking lots. We now know it’s going to be raised seven feet. I just learned from someone on the lake that seven feet is a tremendous amount and I was just thinking that, I was wondering about the stabilization of that soil. They talk about stockpiling during the time when they’re moving that hill, and also when it’s waiting to be moved, and also when it’s put out on the parking lots, what is going to keep, perhaps a rainy season as we had last fall, from just washing all of that soil into the wetlands that are there, and that can’t be recovered, once that happens. We also very much want that buffer to be kept intact along Route 9, and we’re worried about, again, in the construction phase, how they’re going to stabilize that large cut out before the erosion and the rainwater washes it away. Wastewater disposal is really an easy one. The Great Escape has said they will hook into the sewer line. However, it’s a little unclear about the language. So all that we ask regarding wastewater disposal is that you stipulate that all wastewater from the water park and the hotel and all effluent be disposed through the water line, and that the sewer line be completed and fully operational before any part of the project is allowed to open. It talks about the hotel in there, but not the water park specifically. The other huge concern for Glen Lakers is the traffic, and it’s a little disturbing to me that they say there’ll be no traffic input. It just doesn’t seem to kind of pass the logic test. The Association believes that The Great Escape’s traffic plan would serious public safety problems for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, not only for Glen Lakers, but for Queensbury citizens and for Great Escape patrons as well. The Great Escape proposes, as you see on the map, to put an entrance at Park Area C at Route 9 across from Glen Lake. However, there will be no traffic light, no additional lane to exit cars from Route 9. Further, the project proposes to construct only the northern portion of the ring road, and not add the second entrance across from Round Pond Road, nor would it eliminate the current entrances to Route 9, which were to be closed off to force pedestrians to use the walkover bridge. Those of us that use Glen Lake Road regularly are painfully aware that that intersection, as it is now, is a nightmare, all year long, not just during the summer. It is dangerous, and it is a serious public safety concern. We believe that the proposed plan to add another road there would only further aggravate that already dangerous situation. It seems to me that if anyone was trying to come out and go north to Lake George, it would be a nightmare because it’s already a hard time to go south or north there. It’s just more confusion to an already terrible intersection. Therefore, what we would like to see, and we would ask, is to consider the following option, that The Great Escape should in fact complete the entire ring road, as it was described in the Findings Statement, all the phases. This would include the second entrance at Round Pond Road, traffic lights, additional lanes, both intersections, the elimination of existing entrances and lights, and fencing along Route 9 to force pedestrians to use the crossover bridge. We believe that this would be in the best interest of the public health and safety. If not, then we would propose really doing nothing, because just adding another road across from Glen Lake is going to be awful. If that additional road is allowed, at least put a traffic light and an exit lane to get cars off the road and the traffic moving. One more point, then I’m going to sit down. The pedestrian walkover bridge, in our opinion, you should stipulate that no Certificate of Occupancy be granted to the hotel or water park until the pedestrian bridge over Route 9 is completed, and fully operational, again, this is a public safety issue in our mind. Since the sewer line is to be completed in June 2004, and since really the construction plans for that sewer line are already completed, we see no excuse to not have the walkover bridge finished. In fact, they should be applying for those permits now. They should have done it before, and that the bridge could be done this year. It’s too late for that now, but we hope, again, for the safety of everyone, that you will tie those two things together. Okay. Thanks for bearing with me. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. BARBARA SWEET MRS. SWEET-Good evening, everybody. I’m Barbara Sweet. I live in the Town of Queensbury. I serve on the Queensbury Open Space Planning Committee, although my remarks here tonight are not necessarily those of the Queensbury Open Space Planning Committee. I just wanted to let you know of that affiliation. I also work for the Adirondack Regional Chambers of Commerce. I very much appreciate the concerns that have been expressed here this evening by members of the public. I have served on a Zoning Board in the past and on a Planning Board, and I know the amount of work and thought and what a huge process it is to go through such an important application. I want you to know that I agree with the amount of work that you’re going to be going through. I know it’s important. I know you’ll have a lot of questions, and I know it’s not an easy thing to do something like this. In a past life, I’ve also served as a Commissioner of the Adirondack Park Agency. So I’m very familiar with environmental concerns and the concerns of neighbors, those affected by traffic, and those affected by light. I do want to reiterate, and I’m sure you all are aware of this, the importance of this project to this region. I grew up in Glens Falls and Queensbury. I know probably hundreds of people that have worked for The Great Escape over many years. It’s helped a lot of people get through school. It’s helped a lot of people further their careers. It’s been a huge economic engine, when you look back over the years, from when it was a very small location started by Charlie Wood. I think it’s very exciting and important that The Great Escape has chosen to invest an absolute lot of money in this region to give us a premier hotel facility which will attract more tourism dollars to this region, which will attract more people that will be interested in living in this region, that may eventually be of help as we work towards seeking positive ramifications from the things that are going on in Albany and Tech Valley. It will be another showcase for us to tell our story, who we are, what we do, the historic background of our region. It’s very wonderful, all that we have here, and I see this new hotel, this new water park, as being another tool in a toolbox that we have to sell our area, to keep our area important, and most importantly to keep people in our region with gainful, year round jobs, and to give hope to those who have been looking for jobs, and the ability to stay in this region. So I thank you for your time and consideration and I wish you the very best as you review this important project. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. DREW SPITZER MR. SPITZER-Hi. Drew Spitzer, 21 Gentry Lane, Queensbury, representing myself as a resident, and also as the principal of the Lake George Forum. I think the most important thing to consider here is striking a balance between what is, quite possibly the most progressive project that I have heard come to our community in a long time, and what I consider to be relatively small zoning issues. I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that the difference between a building that’s 39 feet, 11 inches, with a flat roof, that doesn’t quite look right, and a 67 foot building with a beautiful peaked roof that fits our Adirondack region and style is something very reasonable for you to consider, but I think the zoning issues are sort of secondary, and I’m sure that the Zoning and Planning Board will do an excellent job ensuring that The Great Escape and Premier Parks do an adequate job of making sure that this building is environmentally sensitive. I would ask you to consider all of the costs that you potentially impose on a developer, and speaking as a developer, I can tell you unequivocally, that all of the different studies and delays and so on with do nothing more than reduce the amount of advertising jobs, benefits, and ultimate fizz to the facility before it’s completed, and if you’re considering the job elements, which is what I consider to be the most powerful portion of it, please consider that the development alone, the construction alone, the operation of the facility alone, is only a small part of the job creation that I think you’ll see here. The additional output, and I use that term loosely because I’m not an expert in feasibility, but the output that a facility of this type will have on our County is immense. I’m personally excited about the amount of people that will be here, winter, spring, summer, fall, spending dollars in our restaurants, our hotels, and hopefully our ice rinks and tradeshow centers. As a previous motel owner/operator 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) of over 30 years, I can honestly say that if I still owned the same property I demolished to build the Forum, I would still support a project of this type, because it will not, in my opinion, cannibalize any of the existing hotel trade. It is marketing a specific group in our off season. It is an extremely high dollar market that they’re targeting, and it is clearly bringing additional output to the community, and the final thing I’d to say is that every dollar they spend advertising their facility is going to bring Warren County to the forefront. This is a progressive project. Who has an indoor water park in their area? It’s very progressive. So please consider that as you sort of balance the zoning and planning issues and the architectural issues, which I do appreciate, okay, but we need to give jobs to the people who are living here now. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. DENNIS BROWER MR. BROWER-Good evening. I want to thank the Planning and Zoning Board for holding this hearing this evening, the public hearing, and the outreach that it supports. I’m Dennis Brower. I live at 9 Brookshire Trace in Queensbury, and historically, you know, I want to give you some perspective. When we were planning the sewer system for Route 9, The Great Escape came forward, and I can’t begin to tell you how concerned they were about the environment, the visual impact of our efforts, the aesthetic impact of our efforts on their customers and our tourism economy, and our residents in the region. Where some may have asked for economic gratuity, The Great Escape never mentioned it. I have to tell you I was extremely impressed with the way they approached our efforts to sewer Route 9 and build the economy of Warren County for the future. By the same token, I think the fact that they’re willing to invest the type of dollars that we’re seeing this evening in this presentation, the fact that they’ve taken into effect the impact on the community, the aesthetics, again, with the height, noise, of course. They may actually block some noise from the Northway with their new facility, to some of the impacted communities, and of course their support of the sewer system which not only enables their project, frankly, but more importantly protects Glen Lake, The Fen, and the environmental effects that we thought the sewer system would actually improve the environmental situation around Glen Lake, as well as boosting our economy in general for the community. The project they’re proposing has a year round impact, simply not seasonal like many of our tourism efforts. It’ll bring tourists here in the hottest days of the summer to enjoy their hotel and water park. It’ll bring them indoors in the coldest days of winter when they don’t want to enjoy the slopes because it’s just too cold. I truly think that the overall impact will be positive. The tourism enhancement, economic development, job creation. Needless to say sales and bed tax impacts. I appreciate Paul Derby’s comments. I’ve had the great pleasure to work with him and the members of the Glen Lake Association in the past. I find them to be very thoughtful people and concerned about their environment as we all should be. With that, I thank you for taking the time to listen to my comments. Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Dennis. Anybody else? ROBERT HUGHES MR. HUGHES-Yes. I’m Robert Hughes. Conflict of interest is that I do live on Glen Lake. I’d like to raise a cautionary note. In my opinion I would argue that this company has shown no community support. The history tends to show that they’ve had a tendency to want to refuse to pay the sales tax. That went around for years. They fought the sewer system and at this time I actually have questioned whether the entire Great Escape is going to tie into that system. In the past, they’ve teased and taunted the community, in my opinion, like bullies, over sound issues, like bobsled ride, and the realities are that companies like this draw money out of the community. In fact, I’ve heard several people say that they bring jobs to the community. They don’t. They tend not to even employ locals. The only jobs tend to be filled by Romanians, and that’s about the only people they’re going to put through school. So I really think we should be cautionary about this. I think that the reality is, let’s face it folks, they’re not doing it for us. They’re doing it for corporate profits. Thank you. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) TODD SHIMKUS MR. SHIMKUS-My name’s Todd Shimkus. I’m the President, CEO, of the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce, and while I certainly don’t want to follow Barbara Sweet because she does such a wonderful job for us, I do feel it’s important to mention a couple of things, and given the unique circumstances of having the Zoning and Planning Board here, and the opportunity, I do want to thank Chris Round, in particular. Even before I arrived here, a little over a year ago, Chris was in touch with me by e-mail and by phone and was extraordinarily helpful as my family and I tried to relocate to this area, and I might say that one of the things that we did with a nine year old and a thirteen year old, to convince them that moving from Massachusetts to this area, was we bought them, at Christmastime last year, season passes to Six Flags. They understood the Six Flags name and understood what that meant. It meant fun. They enjoyed themselves. I think we lived over there this summer. It’s certainly an attraction to this area for families, and it’s something that I think this region really ought to cherish. You know, New York, as I’ve certainly learned, in coming from “Tax” achussets, as I do, has a challenging climate in which to encourage private sector investment. Six Flags, as I understand, has 39 family oriented parks throughout the United States. They’ve chosen to invest right here. You folks have certainly done yeoman’s work over the last few years in putting together a sewer project and an expansion that I’m told costs around five and a half million dollars. What you’re getting with this proposal is a six to one return on that investment, minimum, based on the $30 million project cost of the hotel and indoor water park, and in terms of the economic impact, that doesn’t even begin to touch the surface of the benefits that will happen. This area will truly be moving towards becoming a four season resort, and in fact I will leave with you tonight, I know you’re going to get a copy of it, a letter from Gore Mountain, from Mike Pratt the General Manager there, and in his letter to you, that he faxed over to me today, he says, “as we work to bring groups, families and individuals to this area, we are always looking for additional attractions and lodging opportunities that would make this region a stronger destination for the winter vacationer”. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if this project is approved, that it will help us in that fashion and deserves this community’s support. These folks here, the local management in particular, John Collins and a number of his staff that I see here tonight, I can attest to the fact that, they not only get involved in this community, in terms of providing financial support to local organizations, a wide range of which you never hear about, the also provide a ton of sweat equity, in terms of leadership on boards and commissions, such as at the Chamber of Commerce, and a whole host of other organizations that you see throughout the area. So there is no doubt that these folks are not only good corporate citizens, but outstanding corporate citizens, who I think have done a tremendous job in answering most of the questions that have been raised over the last number of years as you’ve gone through this comprehensive process. So with that said, I think there’s no doubt, you have an opportunity here to take an investment that this community has made to get a six to one return and to do something that is of great value to this region, both from an economic sense, and also heading into the future, to attract families like mine to come and live here and to see how truly wonderful this area is in which to live, operate and own a business. So I would urge you to move as expeditiously as you can. As I mentioned before, it’s a tough climate in which to encourage economic investment. You have an opportunity to do that. There’s two things that you can do to make that happen, and that’s Empire Zones, and certainly Len Fosbrook can talk more about that than I ever could, but the other piece is making sure that the regulatory climate in this community is such that it encourages investment. You have an opportunity to move forward, to expedite this process, and I would urge you to do that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I beg your indulgence, and the public’s, the applicant’s, but Mr. Abbate and I are working at the polls, and we have to get back there so we can close up at nine o’clock. MR. ABBATE-But we will be back. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. STONE-We will be back. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks, Lew. Anyone else? LEN FOSBROOK MR. FOSBROOK-My name is Len Fosbrook, and thanks for the introduction. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this evening. I’m with the Warren County Economic Development Corporation, and for the record, let me make a distinction here. We are not a County Department. We are a separate, not for profit, corporation run by an independent Board of Directors who has asked me to come here this evening and speak in favor of this project. This project, as other projects that we have recently supported, such as the Lake George Forum and the Fort William Henry hotel, exquisitely fits into our development plan for the County. Warren County’s economy is driven by, 38% of it is driven, by the tourism industry, and we feel that upgrading of hotel stock, which this project will do, and increasing four season tourism, which this project will also do, would be key to increasing that part of the economy. Relative to the Zone benefits, it would not be in my purview to speak to that this evening, because they are a separate zone administrative board, but I will tell you that this project is going through that process. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. LILLIAN ADAMSON MRS. ADAMSON-I’m Lillian Adamson. I live over in Courthouse Estates now. We used to live up on Lake George, but the increase in tourism and the increase in taxes forced us to leave what had been a home for over 30 years. For my husband’s family, many more than that. I think I’m more concerned about the quality of life for people who live in Queensbury, Glens Falls, Lake George and so forth, and so far I haven’t found that increasing tourism has done that. I think that the almighty dollar is what everybody goes for now, and it’s the only thing. So I don’t think there’s any stopping this, and I’m not proposing to stop it. I only would like to say I’d like to see some noise mitigation. When I hear that they’re going to cut down the bank, it looks to me as though they’re going to cut down all that hillside that goes up to Samoset, and when they do that, and move all that dirt, there’ll be no protection from noise from the Northway. There may be a few trees left, but right now it’s a totally wooded area, and nobody seems to have addressed how many trees are going to be left and what sort of protection there’s going to be from the Northway noise, which is considerable. When Warren County built their new jail, incidentally, that jail was to be an addition. One of the things that I have found, in the years that I have lived here, is that there is a little bit of misstatement in what people are going to do. Things that are supposed to be additions to homes, to the jail, aren’t additions. They’re totally new buildings, and in what happened over at the jail, so many trees have gone out, there’s been a total change over there. I hate to see so many more trees, and so much landscaping changed to do this, and the fact that it’s considered that they can do it without putting a stop light in makes things even more ridiculous. My concern, basically, is the noise and what’s going to be done to help that. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. BILL FLAHERTY MR. FLAHERTY-Good evening. My name is Bill Flaherty. I live at 51 Sara-Jen Drive, and for reasons that Todd and Len and Drew and Jack had spoke about, I’m certainly in support of this project. I live directly opposite The Great Escape, on the other side of 87, but I commute by it on a daily basis, and, you know, I think this project fits well with the strategy of the County and the Town to develop a four season economy here. Certainly, getting a payback on the investment in the sewer project is optimal, and the $30 million that The Great Escape is investing here does that, and I certainly like the fact the pedestrian bridge is going to be built 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) there as well, and another side note, I have a lot of relatives, in-laws that come visit me from North Carolina, and I’d certainly like to put them up there, instead of my house, but I’m very supportive of this project. A million dollars in sales tax revenue and a half a million dollars in occupancy tax revenue can go a long way, and I certainly think The Great Escape people have shown a commitment to the community in the type of things they’ve sponsored and the efforts they’ve made on different boards and with organizations. So I’d appreciate your consideration for this project as well. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? CHRISTINE MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-Hi, everybody. My name is Christine Mozal. I am a resident of Queensbury. I am a year round resident on Glen Lake, and I own the only business on Glen Lake, called the Docksider Restaurant. My main concerns are environmental, and I am trusting the Boards to look at those closely, because I do live on the lake, and I do make my living there, and I’m hoping that you do protect our waters. Number Two, I have a traffic concern. Last year I employed 52 people, full-time, at my restaurant. That means I’m busy. I have a lot of customers, and most of them are coming off Route 9 to my restaurant, which is about 1.7 miles from that intersection. I have employees that come alternate ways. They’re familiar with alternate ways. My customers are not. I think that they should really look at the traffic light there. So my customers can leave safely, so my employees, whoever uses that intersection can leave safely. Another concern I have is a clarification of the parking lots. I know there’s confusing, it was confusing to the Glen Lake Association what actually will be used, since it is so close to where the waters enter Glen Lake. You need to really look at that, and those are my kind of negative concerns, I guess, but I hope I do benefit from this year round business that they are, you know, providing for us. A large hotel like that, we can always use, you know, alternate season business, and that isn’t really what I wanted to say, but off season business is what we really need, and I’m hoping that this hotel does bring that to us. So I do support the project. I know they’ll be conscientious about what they’re doing, and I think overall, as a business owner and a property owner on Glen Lake, I’m happy with what I’ve heard tonight. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. LINDA CLARK MRS. CLARK-Good evening. My name is Linda Clark. I live on Glen Lake, and I am on the Glen Lake Protective Association Board. I receive the mailings and I maintain the membership. I received in the mail, as many of you already may be aware of, the Glen Lake Action Alert notices that have been signed by members of our Association, and I just would like to submit these at this time. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to give them right to Chris, that would be fine. Anyone else? ANNA FOWLER MRS. FOWLER-I’m Anna Fowler. I live on Glen Lake, at 96 Ash Drive, and I just wanted to say, I think it sounds like a great project, and I don’t feel like there has to be a big conflict here between an excellent project and taking the environmental concerns into consideration. I feel like sometimes as though it’s been presented as though it has to be a conflict, because I think it could be an excellent project, good for the community, fun for lots of people. However, we need to adequately address the environmental concerns in this wetland area. We need to do both, and if we don’t, we may have irreversible damage down the road that we’ll be sorry about, and I think it’s worth a few more weeks of our time to adequately look at the stormwater management plan in particular and make sure that that is adequate before we move on, and I don’t think that will prevent the development. It will make it a better development. Thank you. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? KAREN ANGLESON MRS. ANGLESON-Karen Angleson, One Greenwood Lane, Twicwood, Queensbury. I’d like to make some comments on the Six Flags/Great Escape Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The document contains much data that needs to be carefully reviewed. In addition, it is my understanding that the stormwater study document was not presented to the Planning Department until this past Thursday afternoon, February 26. This is not enough time for the th Planning Department to prepare copies, distribute them to the Planning Board and the rest of the Town Officials, and to allow for public access, to say nothing of reading and reviewing it. The stormwater and wastewater treatments are essential environmental issues and I agree with Paul Derby and ask for an extension for the comment period. The proposal for re-sequencing of traffic improvements, I feel, is totally unacceptable. In this proposal it is stated that the hotel is to be built before anticipated, and consequently the northern parking lots are to be undertaken before the southern parking lots. It’s further stated, and I quote, that “given the development of the northern parking areas, the southern portion of the ring road will not be needed until the theme park attendance levels increase and create the need”. The document further states, and I quote again, “Construction of the pedestrian bridge, as previously required at the first construction opportunity defined as the first construction period following the completion of the sewer line in front of The Great Escape property, and which does not interfere with the theme park’s season”. It seems that the construction of the pedestrian bridge could be in progress while the sewer project is in progress and the area is torn up. As another speaker said tonight, the permits could have been applied for before this. This is just another delay tactic and brings with it great and troubling prospects, of an accident waiting to happen. When someone is attempting to cross Route 9 and goes in front of a car, either traveling on Route 9 or turning into or out of the parking lots, I don’t know if you’ve gone up and down that road much in the summertime, but it is an absolute accident waiting to happen. It had been stated in the initial document, from 2001, that when the southern end of the ring road was completed, the Route 9 access driveways to the parking lots on the west side of Route 9 would be closed. Access to these parking lots would be from the ring road and traffic light would be eliminated, the one that goes in to the parking lot. I’m extremely concerned about the conflict between pedestrian and vehicular traffic crossing from the Route 9 lots on the west side of Route 9 over in back to the amusement park on the east side of Route 9. I would request that no Certificate of Occupancy be granted before the pedestrian bridge is completed, fully operational, and all walking traffic be eliminated from Route 9 in this area. I also request traffic lights be installed at the northern and southern intersections of the ring road with Route 9, that would be the Glen Lake Road and Round Pond Road, and that the complete ring road be constructed at this time. Not delayed for some fictitious numbers to be decided upon. If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a variance to the amusement facility in the HC-1 zone, will this allow further type of amusements on the west side of The Great Escape property, causing more encroachment on the wetlands? If one looks in the Town website, the Town zoning ordinances are granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with the New York State Law 267, and a Use Variance must demonstrate unnecessary hardship. Don’t forget to review all the terms when you review that. What is being done to address the noise associated with the 24 hour construction of this project? I haven’t heard anybody mention that tonight, and since I do live in a neighborhood that is close to there, and they do plan, it is written in the document that there will be 24 hour construction when they start, I think that’s an area that needs to be addressed. The applicant is receiving the benefits of the Empire Zone status for this project, and they certainly should take the concerns and the safety of the community into consideration. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. JOANN BRAMLEY MRS. BRAMLEY-Joann Bramley, Twicwood. Before I begin my comments, Mr. Sipp, representing Courthouse Estates, is in Florida. He’ll be submitting a written comment. He did 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) ask, this evening, if I would express his opinion. On just three items, that the pedestrian bridge is completed, and tied to the Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel, there is a light at Glen Lake Road, if the northern ring road is going to being, and that no Special Use Permit be granted for the water park. The majority of behaviors that we exhibit in our daily lives are motivated by our innate need for safety. While Great Escape has enjoyed the luxury of a good safety record to date, the sheer volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the Route 9 corridor, involving The Great Escape, is problematic. Unfortunately, we become desensitized to issues and conditions because they become the status quo. The pedestrian bridge crossing at Route 9 must have a definitive completion date. It is an important factor in the continued effort by the community to ensure the safety of the entire community, not only the patrons of The Great Escape. We’ve all experienced the near misses of someone darting across the road to beat the light or a vehicle ahead of us that we have to break for as they look at the Park, no one ever wants to be part of any scenario with potential for personal injury between a vehicle and a pedestrian. Let’s work together to ensure the chances of that happening are minimized. The Waikita Motel, located on the corner of Route 9 and Round Pond Road, has filed an application on February 17, for a three story, eight-five room addition to its motel. This additional traffic, th coupled with the construction of a Super Wal-Mart, leaves this corridor in a more vulnerable condition than from the time of the original Environmental Impact study. Many residents and tourists travel the Route 9 corridor daily for destinations further north than The Great Escape. In accordance with the original FEIS, the Planning Board had the option to restrict any new development within the Park if the pedestrian bridge was not operational by 2003. An extension on the bridge was granted to The Great Escape, due to the Town’s delayed timetable for the sewer project. However, in a good faith effort, the Planning Board allowed the installation of two new rides, the Sky Coaster and the Canyon Blaster. The Supplemental DGEIS uses very vague language, in no less than four places, regarding the installation of the pedestrian bridge. On Page 1-6, it states that when the sewer is done, in June of 2004, The Great Escape, quote, “could construct the pedestrian bridge”. The lack of integrity in that wording is discouraging and not acceptable to this community. It is requested that the Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel be contingent upon the pedestrian bridge being completely operational, and again this evening, during the presentation, we heard a very noncommittal delivery of the pedestrian bridge timetable because the funding is different, the designers are different, the permits are different. I would have to think that any corporation that can coordinate the type of development that this corporation does, could certainly see to it that these differences could be overcome as they’re developing their hotel and their water park. And with respect to the ring road, the Supplemental DGEIS refers to the building of the hotel and the water park at this time as a re-sequencing that has not been tied to traffic or attendance thresholds. Let’s apply the same logic to re-sequence the planned schedule for the ring roads that are intended to divert traffic from Route 9 and Round Pond Road and Glen Lake Road. The Great Escape’s intention at this time is to only complete the northern ring road and not to install the traffic light. So imagine cars simultaneously exiting Glen Lake, crossing a lane to turn south on Route 9, and cars exiting the ring road, crossing a lane to turn north on Route 9. This option is dangerous and ineffective. It’s required the Planning Board required the completion of the entire ring road, with the lights, be tied to the completion of the hotel project. The aggressive construction schedule is a major concern for numerous reasons. Construction vehicles operating on a 24 hour basis are going to be a major noise generator. Page 4-14 of the document states, and I quote, “All equipment would be in constant operation”. The Supplemental DGEIS states that the noise level in the neighborhood is now louder at night, after the Park is closed. If these readings were done at 10 p.m. as stated, then traffic exiting the Park must have been a factor. Using this logic to claim that the residents will not be disturbed by, and I quote, “two large track earth movers, one large dozer, and four off road trucks”, to reconfigure the topography for 75 to 80 days is not plausible. Listening to heavy equipment at three in the morning is not acceptable for one night, let alone for 75 to 80 days. The construction schedule serves the needs of the applicant and creates an undue hardship on the very community it claims to serve. Sound is not a purely quantitative entity that can be factored without the subject human element being considered. That was the basis for a recently passed Town law restricting the trash pickup before six a.m. and after ten p.m. It is asked that the Planning Board follow those established hours of operation for constructing crews on this project. The Special Use Permit. The Great Escape has decided to substitute a 32 square foot 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) water park for a swimming pool. A water park is an attraction, not an amenity as is a swimming pool. It is not logical to think there would be enough return on investment to build an attraction of this magnitude to make it available only to hotel guests. Therefore, a Special Use Permit is requested by The Great Escape to allow the water park to be used by non hotel guests. The language, again, is very vague, stating it may permit limited use. It seems more plausible that the facility will be used for special events, which would be nice for special interest groups or clubs. However, the Special Use Permit will designate the area west of Route 9 as an amusement center, thus allowing shows, entertainment, rides and permitted uses in the area that needs to remain intact from a topographical and visual perspective for the benefit of the environment and the community. The Park may say they have no plans for additional development. However at one time, the Park had no plans to be open past six p.m., or for a hotel. It’s requested the Special Use Permit be denied because of the potential for further development on west side of Route 9 that accompanies this permit. The Great Escape receives Empire Zone status for their projects, and thus will benefit by not pay any sales tax on construction materials, as well as receiving tax credits for the 66 new employees as well as other employees. It is our local and State taxpayer money that is used to assist their corporation and their expansion. One concern with this project, that it is not following the guidelines outlined in their original document. The request for waivers, variances, special permits, accelerated construction timetables and exceptions to the rule sets a precedent for the endless requests, again, by this corporation and other businesses in Queensbury. Each new request is based on the faulty logic that the previous request was granted, so the next one should be also. The document contains conflicting information which is used in a discretionary manner to promote certain parts of the project while delaying the issues that are repeatedly expressed as a priority by this community. It is requested the Planning Board grant an extension so all parties involved in the review process have the additional time to study the project in more depth. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. KATIE GUISER MRS. GUISER-My name is Katie Guiser, and I live in the Town of Queensbury and pay taxes, and I am befuddled as to how the Town of Queensbury can even consider a project of this magnitude without considering traffic. We know that there’s a problem at Route 9 and 254. There’s been a meeting about it. There’s another problem up with the Million Dollar Mile. Wal- Mart is planning an expansion and now we want to add the tourism industry. We need to look at Route 9 first. We can’t consider something that’s going to add traffic to what’s already there. If you go up there in the summertime, you’ll get stuck on the Northway. You can’t even get past that exit. You’ll get stuck on Route 9. So, as a resident, I don’t think that we should be even considering anything until we do something with Route 9 that benefits everyone and opens up the traffic. In addition to that, I’ve been hearing a lot of rah, rah, rah about 66 jobs, and I believe that in the tourism industry that those jobs are minimum wage jobs, and those are not the kind of jobs that this community needs. In addition to that, the air pollution is not being considered. The amount of sits there and emits air pollution, with all the trees gone, is not going to be beneficial to our community. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. DAVID CAPRON MR. CAPRON-My name is David Capron. I am a resident of Queensbury. I’m very involved in the community through Queensbury Economic Development, but I’m here as a resident tonight. I’m also on the Adirondack Regional Chambers Board. I’m here to support the project because a lot of the community development that we have been working on, as, you know, Queensbury residents is to develop the area, change the way the traffic goes over 149 into Vermont, taking all the dollars over there. This is a Premier project. It’s a Premier Park. Nobody has brought up tonight that, you know, a lot of the community development in here, John Collins himself is a resident of Queensbury, and he’s also, you know, very involved in the community on different boards himself. It’s, you know, and he’s there for the betterment of the community as 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) well. So I’m here to support the project, and thank you for taking the time and both Boards meeting to save time, because projects of this magnitude are projects that can’t, they can’t be delayed. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t look at things all the way through, but the project has to move forward in order to be developed. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. HAROLD “HAL” HALLIDAY MR. HALLIDAY-Good evening, everyone. My name is Harold Halliday. Everybody knows me by Hal. I’m a resident of the Town of Queensbury. I have two homes in the Town of Queensbury. I’ve lived here for 32 years and I moved here from New Jersey specifically because of the tourism business. So I moved in because I liked the tourism. I owned an active business here until five years ago when I sold it. I decided to take up a new job. I needed something to do, and at the age of 50, I decided to go to The Great Escape and get a job. I must tell you, as a resident and someone that has an investment and a family in Town, that I’m working for a good company. This is not a fly by night operation coming through Town for two weeks. They abide by the rules. They train employees better than any place that I have personally seen in my 32 years of traveling, not only in the hotel division, but in the Park, and in other operations that I have personally been involved with. Tonight I wish I wasn’t a member of the Six Flags employment team, because I think it would mean more, coming from the heart, just as a resident, but I feel compelled to tell you that, please keep in mind, this is a good company. I know you’re doing your homework. I can see all the paperwork on the table. This is a good company. I don’t know of another company, personally, that employs more 14 and 15 year olds than The Great Escape does. Not only do they employ them, but they train them how to be good employees. They teach them how to work. They don’t hire foreign people to take away from the Town of Queensbury. They hire foreign people because we can’t get enough people that just want to work seasonal. People want full time jobs. They need benefits, and they need a pension. This company can offer that to only a certain number of people in the Park. I am one of the people that work seasonally full time, and I am looking forward to working seasonally full-time, and I’m just telling you as a resident that it’s a good company. Please do whatever you can to assist them in moving this project forward. I realize all the concerns of the people that live around the neighborhood, and I’m sure that you’ll take that into consideration, but please help them move forward, if at all possible, to keep this project going. It’s a good project. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. LINDA MC NULTY MRS. MC NULTY-Linda McNulty, 14 Twicwood Lane, Queensbury. We’ve been a resident of the Queensbury area for over 30 years. I’ve been a native of the area all of my life. I have seen terrible growth through the Route 9 corridor. It makes it very difficult for anybody trying to go between Queensbury and Lake George on Route 9. I really feel that the traffic issue is still a problem and it should be addressed before a permit is granted for the hotel. As far as the height of the hotel, it really bothers me that the Queensbury Town has zoning, and they don’t stick by it. There’s no reason, when a corporation like this comes into Town, they know what the rules and regulations are. They know what the zoning is. Why do they even propose building a building this high? It was my understanding, when the Impact Statement was done a few years ago, that there was to be no recreational use of the west side of Route 9. Now we’re seeing a change in that. I also regret hearing that they’re promoting taking kids out of school when we’re having problems enough educating our kids without that. As far as the bed tax goes, it’s my understanding that that’s on paper, but it’s not being enforced, it’s not being collected, and I also agree that the 66 new jobs most likely are minimum wage. We have very little affordable housing in the Town of Queensbury, or surrounding communities. I would like to see something come in to this area that promotes $50,000 jobs on up. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) JACK FOX MR. FOX-Hello. My name is Jack Fox. I come to you both as a resident of Queensbury and a Finance Director of The Great Escape, and I’m here to tell you that I’m somebody that came here six and a half years ago, transferred into this area, because it was not a minimum wage job, and I felt very much growth in this area, I’m proud of this area. I love this area. I’m glad to work here. I see a number of people in this room who have come and helped growth of this area. I also see a number of people in this room, co-workers, here right now, brought up in this area, helping the growth of this area, in a number of jobs here. I think the new facility will bring many more jobs like that, as well. I also come, as somebody who really loves the Adirondacks, love the mountains. Love the area. You’ll see me many times, when I need a break, looking out the windows of our offices over the mountains and the areas around. I’m very proud of the fact that the plans of this program beautify the area and took painstaking efforts to consider the nature of the area, and I have had the chance, on some occasions, to see it. I haven’t been a part of it, but I am very proud of the fact that the nature in this area is being preserved. I’m also proud of the fact that this new project, I think this new project promotes tourism and growth in this area, not a competitor, but brings in new markets, new areas, new opportunities for growth. I think this is all very positive to the area, and I’m proud of the fact that this is all being done, or I like the fact that, like I say, both as a resident and an employee, while considering the environment and the area, and maintaining both aspects of the area. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MARGARY MC CORMACK MRS. MC CORMACK-Gentlemen and Ladies, my name is Margary McCormack, and I have a very brief message. I’m sure you’ll be very happy to here that. Remember quality of life, will you please? It’s why most of us came here, and why most of us stayed here, and a lot of people are going to be leaving, and they’re going to take with them all the beauty that was here. There was a fable about killing a goose that laid a golden egg. Remember that? Greed is very destructive, and money should not buy your vote. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MARK HOFFMAN MR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, 32 Fox Hollow Lane. I’m speaking on behalf of Citizens for Queensbury. Several points. First, we have a concern with regard to safety, specifically, we feel, regardless of the tallies of the attendance figures, that a project of this magnitude will result in a substantial increase in attendance, as well as a substantial increase in traffic, and consequently we feel that safety mitigation measures, including the pedestrian bridge, should be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Other mitigation measures, including the completion of the entire ring road and traffic lights are indicated. My understanding is that the intersection of Glen Lake Road and Route 9 is already a difficult intersection, and I think it’s highly likely that a traffic light is an appropriate response to that. I would be skeptical of the recommendations of a traffic report sponsored by the developer. Also I think we should keep in mind that a hotel project of this magnitude likely will generate more trips per attendee, or per family than would be the case with simple, people that are simply attending the parks because of the potential for multiple trips back and forth. People that are staying in a hotel are not going to only make one trip per day out, in and out of the hotel. We’re concerned about the proposal for 24 hour construction. It seems that a 24 hour construction schedule would generate excessive noise, and is not a fair burden to place on people in the neighboring community. It seems reasonable, at a bare minimum, to restrict construction to the hours that garbage pickup is restricted in this Town. We’re concerned about the issuance of the Special Use Permit and whether this would open up a Pandora’s Box of entertainment amusements in that part of the project, and on that side of the street. If any such permit is permitted, it should be very strictly restricted with limitation to the project as proposed. The 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) suggestion by the developer that the use by non-hotel residents would be limited and restricted, it’s very unclear how something as complicated as that could be enforced. I’d like to see more detail in terms of how the volumes would be restricted, and any Special Use Permit, again, should be strictly contingent upon the traffic mitigations that have been mentioned before, and the pedestrian bridge. We’re concerned about the excessive grading involved with this project. The hill that exists to the north and west of the project area serves as an important, both visual and also noise buffer from the Northway. If the vegetation and topography are going to be radically altered, we’re concerned about the noise effects on surrounding communities. In addition to the visual impacts that have been mentioned, we’re concerned about the streetscape along Route 9. It appears to me that the project is largely being designed, in terms of its architectural features and appearance, to provide a presentation to the Northway traffic, so that people will see that there’s a water park when they go by on the Northway. I think that a project of this magnitude should have an attractive presentation to Route 9, should provide an attractive streetscape, including appropriate vegetation and trees along the road. It’s important that the proposed pedestrian bridge be easily accessible to people that are walking along the Route 9, along the sidewalk along Route 9, and that pedestrian traffic that’s not necessarily in and out of the Park, but maybe just a bystander, pedestrians, that they should not be inconvenienced by this project. Also, we’re concerned about the visual impact of additional blacktopping involved with the parking lots. Queensbury has been expressed, on numerous official Queensbury documents, that Queensbury has an excess of asphalt along its major corridors. I think we need to put a very strong emphasis, in any site plan, on decreasing the visual impact of the parking lots, whether it be through the design of the parking itself or whether it be through appropriate landscaping, which would be very strictly designed and enforced. Just parenthetically, I would also have a question what the visual impact is going to be from Rush Pond. We’ve seen the pictures and the balloons from the Glen Lake area. I think we should also look at what would be visible from the Rush Pond area. This has been designated in the Town’s Open Space plan as a nature preserve. I think the character of that nature preserve could be adversely affected by visibility of this project from Rush Pond. Finally, I would just comment that my understanding is that this project falls within an Empire Zone designation, which means that the remainder of the community, those individuals and businesses that are paying full State and local taxes, are, in effect, subsidizing this project, and consequently that places an extra burden, an extra moral burden, on the developer and on the Town that any development is in the interest of the community. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. JEREMY HAMMOND MR. HAMMOND-Good evening. Just for the record, it’s been five years. Jeremy Hammond, Ward 4, 873 Sherman Avenue. For the record, I haven’t spoken in front of a Board in five years. So I’m a bit nervous and a little bit rusty. I agree with the gentleman from the Common Council of Glens Falls. I think his words were something to the effect of hold them to their word. Certainly I agree with that. At the same time, as you watch them, they do provide many, many summer jobs. Now, I was quite offended by the folks that were snickering in the back. I work at the College of St. Rose on the weekdays, and on the weekends I take my pleasure in dealing with tourists and other folks at The Great Escape. I’m probably not going to be working there this summer, but in the past I think three summers I’ve worked there. Yes. There are a lot of foreign students that work there, but as it was stated by, I think his name was Jack, it’s hard to find people who want to deal with tourists around here. Ironic, because in my mind, I think we have a tourist economy, but people find it difficult to deal with tourists, and they have approximately, I think it’s nearly a 100% turnover. I was actually talking to one their HR people who mentioned that to me. I know many people work at The Great Escape because they’re poor. A lot of people from up north, who can’t, don’t have nice clothes and so forth, actually receive clothes from The Great Escape as part of their wardrobe, which I think’s a very important thing for the community, that we can actually have these jobs. They may not be the highest paying jobs, but it gives the kids experience, and it’s definitely a benefit to the community in that aspect, and I’ve found that employees call themselves, the employees at The Great Escape, most of them call themselves dirt employees, and there’s a good reason why we 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) call ourselves dirt employees. Because we’re dealing with the tourists, and the locals that do not respect the fact that we’re working at The Great Escape. There’s, in fact, even a current school board member who’s working at the front gate. Tourism. I commute to Albany every day. The State continues to demand that counties pay more on retirement and health costs. My homeowners taxes didn’t go up much this year, and I think that’s a benefit to our local businesses, including The Great Escape, which brings money to the community, in the form of taxes and so forth. This new project will bring, as it was stated, an estimated .5 million dollars in bed tax. I know John Salvador’s probably crying about that .5, but I’m sort of happy to have it in my pocket, and our tourism, Lake George, Saratoga and the new conference center, will be a benefit, because tourists come to new attractions. This will be a new attraction, and this will attract more people to our area, hence the attractions. You have the benefit to holding them to a promise. In my opinion, we should call for a traffic light at Glen Lake. Now I know that this is a DOT situation. I don’t know what they’re smoking. I don’t honestly know what they’re smoking as to say no, you can’t have a light, at what could possibly be one of the more busier intersections. I agree with my fellow residents. I think a full ring road should be in effect. I honestly think, if at all possible, it could go all the way through their property, giving access to their parking lots and so forth. Definitely I think that’s a good thing. They have to be forced to use the pedestrian bridge, or to build one, something I feel is very important is a sidewalk that will connect their two properties. Because I’m sure they’re going to be having deals. One last thing. Main Street, Queensbury traffic is bad, and it’s not the fault of the businesses on Main Street, in fact, I was at a meeting, nearly five years ago, where they talked about traffic, and they didn’t blame the businesses, and it’s not the fault of The Great Escape that traffic is bad. I think it’s just the fact that The Great Escape’s been there for near ever, and it’s grown, and that corridor hasn’t grown with it, along with all the other tourist spots that have popped up over the years. Solve that issue, I don’t think that we should limit The Great Escape’s growth, and I think that a five foot variance on the building is not a reason to prevent their growth, and to solve a problem like Route 9, we need you people, and the Town Board, under Dan Stec’s leadership, but it’s under their leadership that those problems should be addressed, and fixed, and it should be with the communities that are involved, and that’s all I have. Thank you, gentlemen and ladies, for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? SCOTT SIMMONS MR. SIMMONS-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is my first Town meeting that I’ve ever been at, having previously been a resident in Schenectady, and having recently moved up to Lake George. Scott Simmons. First of all, I’d like to take task with the previous speakers that seem to have a disagreement about Six Flags, and it being a corporate overload. I have a statement here from James Danhouser, the CFO of Six Flags, recently giving a presentation where he emphasizes the decentralized management structure, and one of the points is that he operates each Park as a local business. Which means that The Great Escape is not beholding to any corporate overloads. That having been said, four very important words, as far as the Six Flags hotel. Amusement parks need growth. If they do not grow, they die. For those that are opposed to the hotel, and for new jobs, new revenue, more tourism, more dollars into this area, you might as well demolish The Great Escape and pave it over, because without growth, that is what amusement parks do. I studied the amusement park industry for a number of years, and without fail, that is what happens. Thank you for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? LAURIE GRAVES MRS. GRAVES-Good evening. My name is Laurie Graves, 82 Ash Drive. Am I opposed to this project? No, I’m not. I think it’s going to be a wonderful project, but I do have some concerns that I feel should be addressed. I do think there is a need for a traffic light. I do think that the north and south ring road should be completed as part of the hotel project. I do think that the two parking lots to the west side of Route 9 should be blocked off, and the pedestrian bridge be 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) completed before the hotel is opened. These are all safety issues. I do feel that there will be an increase of traffic at the Glen Lake intersection. You’ve got stated 66 employees that will be coming and going. You will also have guests of the hotel coming and going. You will also have delivery trucks that will be coming and going. Getting out of Glen Lake Road to head south is a nightmare now, without having to face traffic from a road across from Glen Lake Road that will also be trying to turn left and right onto Route 9. I have concerns over the stormwater catch basins in the parking lots, the location so close to the stream. I’d like to know if there’s any way that they can be moved further away from the stream. They plan on, at one point in the books that I have read, paving the green parking lot, and I don’t want to see that happen. I think it should remain a permeable, porous surface. There’ll be, the hotel will be open year round, which means that with the snow and the ice they’ll have to be sanding and salting the lot, and with the runoff down into the area down below, I think, again, it’s important that the stormwater basins be moved away from the stream, and I agree with what a few of the people have said that with the time that has been presented for the stormwater management plan, I think that more time is needed to study this. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. GEORGE FARONE MR. FARONE-Good evening. My name’s George Farone. I’m a resident of Queensbury. I’m going to take up a little bit of your time because I know you’ve had a long night. I have a lot of respect for everybody that’s been up here talking about this project. I am an Executive Director of a local business, Tribune Media Services, we’re a Fortune 500 company, and I think we’re in a unique position here in Warren County. We have a number of big businesses that help support the area. We employ about 425 people, but we also have an economy that runs on tourism, and I think the draw to the local tourism is a Great Escape, and this hotel also should be something that will provide not only summer attraction, but off season attraction as well. I know a lot of folks have talked earlier about Six Flags as a company, what they do for the community. I, as a member of my company, am very involved in the community. Our company supports community very much, and I can tell you, as a member of the Adirondack Regional Chambers of Commerce this year, I’m President for the Board of Directors for United Way, and also on the Board of Directors for Prospect School. Everywhere I go I see either people from The Great Escape, or I see affects of dollars that The Great Escape is donating in our community. So they are a good corporate citizen. They do get involved with the community, and they do give back. I know there was some of their folks got up here and spoke, but hopefully coming from someone outside their company it’ll have a little bit more weight to it, and with that, I thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, George. Anyone else? No? Okay. We’ll conclude that part of the public comment for tonight. Do you gentlemen want to come back up, and I think what I’ll do now is just open it up for questions from both the Boards, for you folks, especially more towards the ZBA, I think, than the Planning Board. MR. LEMERY-Maybe we could make a couple of comments, just to clear up some things. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. Sure. MR. LEMERY-Number One, one of the ladies mentioned the trees on Route 9. Those trees on Route 9 are all within the State right of way, and none of them are coming down at all. You will not see this hotel from Route 9 as you go north, north of the Coach House. So that whole bank, all the way up to the top, and several feet on the interior, none of that’s being cut at all. So that’s intact, will always remain intact. It’s part of the right of way, and it’s not ever intended to be disturbed. It can’t be disturbed. Number Two, the traffic light. We don’t disagree with the folks from Glen Lake or anybody else about the traffic light. The problem with the traffic light is that we don’t have the right to put a traffic light in there because it’s a DOT issue, and the DOT deals with traffic counts and things of that nature. So if there’s some way everybody could get together and deal with putting a traffic light there, that’s not an issue for us, and we 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) understand who has to pay for it, but we don’t have the right to determine that. So, to the extent that the Town Board, the Town planners, however we could talk to DOT, we’re with you on that one, but we can’t make it a condition because we have no right or ability to cause it to happen, but we understand the issues of that intersection, and have no problem with it. With regard to the stormwater management plan, the stormwater management plan was basically approved in 2001, when the, for the hotel and for the parking lots, and for the convention center. So maybe one way to resolve this quickly would be to have our stormwater people meet with one of the gentlemen I think was Mr. Derby, I think, suggested that the County was willing to look at the stormwater management plan. If they would include our experts in such discussions, so that hopefully their questions could be addressed, and any things that needed to be done could be done, we’d participate in that, but that’s subject to their willingness to allow us to participate and try to work out whatever issues they think need to be addressed. We certainly are going to have a stormwater management plan that meets the criteria of the Town Board, the Planning Board, your engineers who have been retained to pass on this, Chazen. So there isn’t anybody here who ought to be concerned about the fact that the stormwater management plan won’t be a best technology and best available. Dollars are not the issue with the theme park in that regard. The pedestrian bridge. I’ve got the contract on my desk. It’s being reviewed now, and being signed within the next few days with Ryan Biggs to get the design underway and get it done. It’s not something that can be engineered in two weeks. It’s not just the bridge. It’s all the access ways that have to be planned to get people on to the bridge, and then get them off on the other side. We understand the Town Board’s and the Planning Board’s directive here, and the bridge is going to be constructed. We can’t construct it over the summer and get into a situation where we can’t have patrons in the Park in the middle of trying to construct the pedestrian bridge. That would be a nightmare that would be a traffic problem, safety problem, and everything else. So it’s not unreasonable to say that this thing will be, the construction will start, hopefully, as soon as we can get the DOT permits and we can get the thing designed, and we understand the issue with that, and we’re going to address it, and I’d like to assure all the folks here that we’re on top of that one, and DOT has met with our engineers and is working that out now. So it’s not something we’re trying to delay. It’s not something we’re trying to sweep away. It got delayed because of the sewer. Everybody knew that, and now that the sewer line, they’re working now in the parking lot of the theme park. So, that’s something that’s going to get taken care of right away. The Empire Zone, I only want to comment that under the Empire Zone designation, the theme park pays full taxes. Those taxes are paid to the municipality, and it’s up to the theme park here, or in this case the hotel and water park, to get a rebate from the State of New York. The localities are not affected by the Empire Zone. So, one of the tenants of the Empire Zone was that the local taxing jurisdictions are not adversely affected. So there are substantial increases in tax revenue that will come. You don’t have a Town tax, so that’s one issue, but certainly from the County’s perspective, that’s a major item, and as we all know, who’ve lived here all our lives, that that’s an issue. I guess that’s all I have. Thank you. MR. COLLINS-It was also brought up, from Marilyn, about the archeological study which was completed in 2001. We are working with Hartkin and Associates to put in a remediation plan which is removal of artifacts that have already been identified. So that was completed in 2001. The process actually retrieving that data, which is almost identical to what you found at your pump site, is in the process of being done and will be completed before construction gets started. Marilyn also talked about the military road and, you know, we’ve supported her in that process as well. So we don’t have any problems there, and far as employees, let’s clarify. We do hire international employees. We do give them what I think is a great job experience, but it’s 60 out of 1,000. Sixty people out of 1,000. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LEMERY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’d like to open it up to questions from either Board. We can start with the ZBA first. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. ABBATE-I have a question, if I may. Sixty of a thousand, sixty percent. Sixty percent would be foreign workers. Is that what you indicated? MR. COLLINS-Sixty out of a thousand. MR. ABBATE-I see. The next thing I’d like you to explain to me, if you would, what is meant by aggressive bull dozing? MR. COLLINS-That’s another one that, John, maybe you want to address, as far as the time of the construction. MR. LEMERY-I don’t know what Russ meant by aggressive bull dozing, and by the way, we’re perfectly willing to abide by the Town’s limitation on the noise. Nobody, I, frankly, think that that’s a very reasonable request. So we’re not interested in the six to ten, or whatever the request is. I think what he meant by “aggressive” is that we’re trying to meet a window and get in for the 2005 season. This theme park, and all other theme parks in the country have had declining attendance since September 11, 2001. If you looked at the attendance records, which we’re required to report to the Town Board every year as part of the traffic, it has not improved, in almost three years, in terms of the ability to get more increased traffic. So it’s been a problem for the theme parks in the country, and we’re trying to address that now with what we’re looking at. So that’s why we’re trying to get ready, and hopefully increase this for the 2005 season. MR. ABBATE-Maybe I didn’t phrase my question properly. Let me try it again. Aggressive bulldozing, how many cubic feet do you propose to move, under this aggressive bulldozing term? MR. PITTENGER-I think, when I’m talking about aggressive grading on the site, for example, we worked on the Ramada at City Center in Saratoga Springs, we had an opportunity to save some mature trees in the center of the parking lot. That came out very nice. We don’t have that opportunity here. The way that the program is set up with the hotel, and related parking lot and the nature of the existing site that is deeply sloping sands, one side of which has been cut to form the Northway, we are really coming from the property line and we are aggressively meeting grade to make our project work. So where we have an opportunity to save trees, we are, but generally we’re cutting, some places 20 or 30 feet of material and moving it. Calculations for material removal for the hotel, which would be transported down to the lower two parking lots, is in the neighborhood of 180 to 200,000 cubic yards. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Let me just say something to the public, as the Chairman of the Zoning Board. I heard a lot of your comments tonight. I apologize for having to leave for a little bit, but a lot of the things that I heard are not germane to the Zoning Board, and when we do have our hearing, and we will have a hearing on the height, I would ask you to come and make comments that talk to the balancing test that we must perform between the benefit to the applicant and the detriment to the community. Those are the ways we make our decision, and that’s what we need to hear at our hearing. So I encourage you to come. I would like to see as many here, there as tonight, but remember, our test is different than the Planning Board’s test. It’s, again, the benefit to the applicant, which is very obvious, we think. You made a very good presentation tonight on that, versus the detriment to the community, and that’s the judgment that we have to make. MR. ROUND-I know, Mr. Stone, you were out of town. That application has been presented to you. You have some of that material in hand. MR. STONE-I know we do. MR. ROUND-Okay. I just wanted to make sure you know that. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from any of the Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I just have, I’ll start off with one comment. I’ve been through the book, and I’ve been through all the plans, and I think one of the things that seemed to be missing to me is fairly, it’s a fairly complex project, and I know the members of the LA Group are probably familiar with Per Charts. Gap charts. These are schedule charts. They have what’s called critical path analysis tied to them. They’re start/stop dates. They have a place on the chart. There’s a line that if any of the critical path developments go over that line, and they’re not corrected in some fashion, the end project won’t make it. What I would like to see is a Per chart developed for the development of the hotel, the development, tying the sewer into that Per chart because it’s a critical path element in my mind, and also tying the pedestrian bridge, tie those three things together, in a Per chart fashion, so that you have a document to work with. Right now, I haven’t seen that document, and I don’t know if anybody at the LA Group has a document like that. If you do, that’s fine. I would have found it very helpful in reviewing this project to have had some sort of a chart showing your schedules, and the critical path analysis. That’s one of the things. A lot of the stuff that I came up with, I’ve already heard tonight, so I’m not going to mention it. I do know that I think, I’m just going to probably ask a question concerning the DOT. Is Mr. Remington, Bill Remington, the person who issues warrants in Warren County for that light? He’s up at Warrensburg, because I’ve had dealings with him in the past. DEAN LONG MR. LONG-Dean Long from the LA Group. Both the traffic analysis and the evaluations take place down in Albany, Mark Kennedy. MR. VOLLARO-Mark Kennedy. Okay. MR. LONG-Right. The folks up in Warrensburg won’t, will not be really involved with that evaluation at all. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to know whether Mr. Remington was involved in that or not. Now I have that answer. Just let me go real quick through. I think, one of the things I want to get straight, a little bit of housekeeping in this book, and it’s got to do with some numbers in here. Now, I know that the size of the project building is taken from Page II. This is the Introduction to the book. We talk about the water park at 3550. I’m just trying to get a calculation up there. I calculated from the water park, the three stories that are 40,960. The first floor at 34,090, and the lower floor for the banquet operation at 24,372. I think come out with 216,892. Minus the water park is 181,342. When you get into Section I, they talk about the operation less the water park at 194,000. That’s like a 7.3% difference in the two numbers. Which is correct, 194,000 or 181,000, just so I know. MR. HARRISON-I’m just going to try to address that. If you could give me a moment, I could try to address that. MR. MAC EWAN-While he’s looking that up, let’s move on to another question. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m looking at, the next thing that I had on my list here that I wanted to talk about was the water park itself being open to the public. If it’s open to the public, you’re going to need a Special Use Permit. That’s obvious to me. Controlling the use of the water park itself seems to be a pretty difficult task, in terms of controlling it from the hotel. I’m trying to decide in my mind whether to limit this to the general public, or to have it be an on-site amenity only. I’m still wrestling with that in my own mind. MR. COLLINS-The purpose of the water park is to drive hotel occupancy. Okay. The reason we’ve asked for the Special Use Permit is because we’ve had so many questions saying, well, I want to hold a birthday party, and we say, no, unless you get a room overnight, you’re not 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) going to be able to do that. That would give us the flexibility, and I don’t foresee it happening, that if we did have low occupancies, and we will not promote taking people out of school, if we do have low occupancies in off peak times, because of the numerous requests that we’ve had, I mean, we announced this, it was 20 below, and the first, every question with local people, how do we get to use it, how do we get to use it, and we said, unless you stay there, you don’t. The purpose of the water park is to drive hotel occupancy. It’s a resort. You use it when you stay there. If that’s a bone of contention for this Board, we will look at that, but the Special Use Permit is if we’re in here now, talking about all issues, we decided it was best to address it now, than somewhere down the road. MR. LEMERY-Part of the dilemma we get into, and it’s sort of where we all live, is that if it’s limited to the hotel guests, and somebody wants to, there’s low occupancy and somebody wants to come up and use it, and we say to them, well, you have to rent a room, and it’s $200 a night to rent a room, or whatever it is, and then you get access to the water park with your whole family, then somebody comes to the Town Planning Board, the Town Board, and somebody says to the Supervisor, you know, we’d just like to go up there and use the water park, we live here in Queensbury and we can’t use it without renting a room, they won’t let us in kind of thing. So, you know what I mean? So what we’re trying to do is work out a situation whereby we’re not violating the law by saying, come on up and have your birthday party here or come on up and have your sports banquet here and use the Park, we’re trying to do it in a way that we comply with the law, we don’t get in trouble with the people who live here, who want to use it, and at the same time, make it available principally for our guests, but I can see that happening, Bob, and I think I know what you mean. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s why I said I’m still wrestling with it in my own mind as to how that would go. MR. COLLINS-And, to be honest with you, we wrestled whether we should even put it in the application, but as I mentioned, because we’re going to sit here and address the Supplemental Impact Statement, we said, well, if we’re going to ask for a variance, we might as well ask for this as well, so that, down the road, if we find that that’s such a big issue that we have that in our pocket, but the primary purpose, the sole purpose of the water park is to be an amenity, the hotel. The occupancy rates of hotels with water parks are 56% higher in winter attractions because of that, and I hate to say it, because of the summer we had this past year, which was wet, there were so many cancellations, it’s another hitch on people canceling their reservation and coming in, or not coming in due to weather. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One thing I found that was limited in my being able to review this, there are three pages of three pieces of lighting information in this document, but it’s not good enough, I don’t think. I think you’re going to have to take a better look at foot candles on the ground, with respect to the illumination of parking lots and so on, because it doesn’t give you any information in here at all, a small chart on the average and the minimum, and you can get to the uniformity ratio from that, but it really is, it has to be a better chart for me, and I think it’s going to be a site plan issue. So I won’t talk about it here, but it’s something I wanted to highlight. In terms of moving about 190,000 cubic yard, it says in Page 1-3 that all materials will remain on the site. Now, in the event you need to go to off site operation, and it mentions, you may have to go off site, it’s a possibility, I think that the noise impacts there, we should at least know what leq above ambient would be, for nighttime operation, because I think that most people are going to be looking at that for the evening. So we ought to have some estimate of what leq at night would be. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you looking for specifics, to give them direction? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I said, for direction I think we had about 50 dba above ambient noise in our last go around in here. MR. HUNSINGER-Five, not fifty. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. COLLINS-Not 50, 5. MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking 50 dba total, or 5 above ambient. MR. COLLINS-Yes, five above existing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Five above existing, and that’s probably what we’re going to be looking at for at least the nighttime noise. MR. COLLINS-We think that’s in there, but we’ll double check. MR. LONG-Page 4-14 and 4-15. MR. VOLLARO-Four fourteen and four fifteen. MR. LONG-Yes, take a look at those. MR. COLLINS-We’ll double check to make sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LONG-This is Dean Long, LA Group. I believe what you’re looking for, as far as nighttime sound and sound in general would be found on Page 4-14, and 4-15. MR. VOLLARO-That would be in Section Four? MR. LONG-Correct. MR. COLLINS-John Collins. We’ll double check that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In the lighting plan, just take a look at what, at the 67 foot level, which is the requested level, not the level that may or may not be granted, but what’s being proposed, at least let’s take a look at what the light source, when you go to the view sheds on Glen Lake, you look at them in terms of balloons, to see the structure. At night when that hotel is lit, it’ll present a different perspective in those views, and that ought to be at least looked at, in terms of light pollution from those, at least from those locations. In the document that Chazen presented, written by Pete Romano, and I guess, Mr. Mesinger, I’m going to be talking to you on this one, there’s a document called Progress Site Development Plan. I haven’t seen that. Is that a document? Is that a drawing? What is that? STUART MESINGER MR. MESINGER-That’s a set of site plans that they had submitted that was an earlier set of site plans. That’s a set of site plans, an earlier set of site plans that they had submitted. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, essentially, they’re not germane to this, to what we’re looking at, or are they? MR. MESINGER-They are. They had submitted several iterations of site plans to us, and we have looked at them as we’ve gone along. I don’t recall whether Pete’s memo referenced the current set or the prior set. MR. VOLLARO-He puts a date on it of January 15, 2004. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. MESINGER-That would be an earlier set, then than the ones that you have in front of you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Should that be something that we should be looking? MR. MESINGER-No, because they’re not the current plans. MR. VOLLARO-Is a set of current plans coming, or do we have them? I haven’t seen it. MR. MESINGER-The plan set that I’m working off of bears a revision date of February 17, and th I think that’s the date that the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and plans that were submitted to the plans that were submitted to the Planning Office. Those are your current site plans. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. So the title of Progress Site Development Plan may be just a little. MR. MESINGER-I think it’s the date is what’s the key thing. MR. ROUND-Further on that, Bob, our office, in trying to get you a document that was deemed complete, reviewed a number of sets, and so that’s the correspondence trail that you’re looking at, and so that was a comment on an earlier set. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this has to do with an earlier set of plans, then. Okay. The Grading and Drainage Plans, L2-01 and L2.03, I didn’t see any review by Pete Romano on those. Did Chazen review those grading and drainage plans? MR. MESINGER-The January 15 plans we only gave a cursory review to because they had not yet then submitted a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and there was really no point, we felt, in reviewing the grading and drainage plans until we had the whole Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. They’ve now submitted that. There is a date of February 17, and we are in th the process of reviewing that. MR. VOLLARO-In the process of reviewing that. Okay. Fine. Mr. Chairman, that’s the end of my questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. HARRISON-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to, this is Trevor Harrison. I wanted to address the question about square footage. The design square footage currently is, and planned, is 216,350. The water park is approximately 32,000 square feet, and that is a remainder of 194,350, by my calculations. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Craig, I have a couple of questions, just a clarification for either of the Johns. On the ring road, in terms of sequence, it seems to me, basically hearing what the public had to say, as well as my own concerns, that you need to do a little prep work, in terms of your infrastructure, in order to construction some of your attractions. The ring road would be a good example of that, and I was wondering, are you anticipating, based on the public comment, to complete the whole ring road at this time, or just the northern part, and would you plan on constructing that road prior to or in time for the construction to take advantage of using that road, because I’m very concerned with that road following the majority of the construction, with the traffic problems associated with the trucks and the other vehicles. So would you please weigh in on that one. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. COLLINS-The northern ring road is part of this project. The way we review it is we would have to come back, for the completion of what would be the parking lots. At the present time, the way we’re sequencing it is the construction of the northern part of the loop road to get access to the hotel, which the front entrance faces I-87. That’s why it’s being proposed in this manner, as opposed to the whole loop road. No decision has been made on the southern loop road. Obviously if those are comments, we have to respond to those. So I can’t give you a definitive answer right now, but the reason it’s the northern part of that is because it’s access into the hotel. MR. SANFORD-Right. Well, I think what I don’t want, I mean, I’d like to see the road being utilized for the construction of the project. MR. COLLINS-The road, well, we’re going to use, the construction road we’re going to use, which I think is spelled out in the Supplemental Impact Statement, is what is now the driveway up to our ranch house that we purchased from the Kenny family. So it doesn’t interrupt with the Samoset hotel, which we want to obviously book for this year. Because if I start the ring road, I don’t have access to the Samoset cabins, and I don’t want to do that. MR. SANFORD-We’re going to have to take a hard look at the traffic again, because there’s going to be some traffic issues that could be minimized by using the ring road, right from the beginning on construction, and that’s why I’m asking for the clarification on, you’re clarifying it, but not the way I’m comfortable with it, at this point. Now one other question regarding the pedestrian bridge. You’ve heard what the public had to say, and you heard probably what the Planning Board had to say, at the prior meeting, and John addressed it, John Lemery addressed it, but still it’s not clear or concise enough to my satisfaction. Are you willing to agree to complete the pedestrian bridge and have it operational prior to receiving a CO for the hotel and the water park? Yes or no? MR. LEMERY-The problem with that is, it’s a DOT permit issue. So we’re hostage to DOT. So, obviously we’ve got to get the DOT permit. That’s the question. It seems to the company is worthy of some good faith here. It’s designed. It’s going to be built. It’s going to be constructed as soon as possible, Dick, and if it ends up getting finished, after we start the hotel, rather after we open the hotel, it’ll be there. It’ll get started as soon as we get the permit. MR. SANFORD-John, I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I do appreciate, one of the ladies who spoke did point out that there’s a lot of vagueness, for lack of a better word, or wiggle room in how the actual environmental statement reads, and I certainly, for one, would like to have it no question at all regarding that pedestrian bridge. MR. LEMERY-Our intent is to have the pedestrian bridge finished and ready to go when we open the hotel. However, I don’t think it’s fair to say to the company, if we’re in the middle of trying to get the permit out of DOT, because it is a State highway we have to cross, to hold up this for that reason. We have committed to this. We’ve said we will build it. This is a good, responsible company. We’ve appreciated your forbearance, and we’re going to build it. Immediately. MR. SANFORD-John, I hear you, but, you know, one could also make the argument that maybe you should be doing the bridge first. So, I mean, again, I mean, the sequencing is important, here, and I’m not questioning your integrity, or The Great Escape’s integrity. I just don’t want to have it vague. I want to have it nailed down so that it is a complete understanding that the bridge will be operational at the time the hotel is opened. So we don’t have pedestrian safety issues. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe in an effort to help move this along a little bit here tonight, every comment that every speaker has made here tonight has to be responded to by the applicant in writing, and incorporated in the SDGEIS, and that comment, relative to that pedestrian bridge, I noted it was at least six people made comments in reference to that. So they have to be addressed, and when they finish that Supplement and respond to all the comments during the 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) public comment period, then we’ll take that information, and if you’re still not comfortable with it at that point, then we’ll start the negotiating process. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, can I make a follow up? MR. STONE-I want to help something. Sir, your calculations. If I heard you correctly, you said 216 minus 30, 218 minus 36, or something. Which comes into the 180’s, and not the 194. MR. HARRISON-I apologize for my calculations. That is correct. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Just a follow up. In the event we, as a community, can’t get the light at the Glen Lake intersection, what we could do is to limit that to an entrance only into the ring road, off Route 9. That way, people couldn’t be coming out and having conflicting traffic movements. So, if you can’t get the light, that might be a way to mitigate that problem. It’s just throwing it out there for you to think about. MR. LEMERY-Yes, that’s reasonable. If everybody, maybe we can if everybody helps with it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I had. I didn’t have anything else, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from the left side of the table? MR. ROUND-Mr. MacEwan, just to address the comment by Chairman Stone of the ZBA. This is a public hearing on the variance application. So don’t miss this opportunity to weigh that test tonight. You’re not necessarily going to reach that decision. I know it’s a little unique in that you’re not reaching a decision on a variance the same night you hear it, but please examine that particular issue and I think we can talk a little bit about timing and some other elements. I think Mr. Schachner wants to address you on some other issues. MR. SCHACHNER-Chris is correct. At such time as all comments are done, and all Board member’s questions are done, before this meeting ends, we need to talk about some process issues. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. One last go around. Anymore questions? MR. URRICO-I’ll jump in. My question is to future growth and what’s anticipated. In the SDGEIS, you, several times, mentioned the Wisconsin Dells as an example of what the growth can be, and what started out as a 22,000 square foot indoor water park in the 90’s, the early 90’s, now encompasses six parks, one of which is 125,000 square feet, to accommodate the growth that has come since then, and some of them even have other amenities, like cinemas and specialty stores, gourmet coffee and candy shops, spas. So there’s, and a lot of the sequencing seems to be tied in to the growth. So there must be some anticipated growth that you folks are looking at. I’m concerned as to what that might be. MR. COLLINS-I’m not following you, as far as the growth of the hotel? MR. URRICO-You have several sequencing, like the installation of the traffic light is tied into anticipated visitors. MR. COLLINS-Right. All that’s tied to the 2001 EIS. MR. URRICO-I understand that, but you must be anticipating a certain amount of growth. You said they were at 56%. There’s a 56% growth in hotels that have a water park attached to it. MR. COLLINS-Yes, as far as, versus a traditional property that doesn’t, in off season occupancy. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. URRICO-Occupancy. MR. COLLINS-Occupancy, yes. We’re only seeking approval for a 200 room motel. That’s what we have, you know. MR. URRICO-I guess my question is that, right now you’re seeking a 27 foot variance, height variance, and if it’s granted for here, do you anticipate further growth down the road which is going to extend the height to other attractions that will be added on? MR. COLLINS-No, I mean, this is what we have, you know, the reason we’re here is because it’s a variance based on what we originally were approved at, which was a 200 room hotel. This was contemplated back in 2001. The difference being the water park versus the convention center. MR. URRICO-I understand that, but the height variance is brought about by the water park. Is it not? MR. COLLINS-Right. We don’t anticipate building anything taller on that side, because that is what we have approval for is that hotel, and the rest is parking. Does that answer your question? MR. URRICO-But is that the end to the attractions for that hotel? MR. LEMERY-You’re asking that if the attendance warrants it, whether there would be a request at some point to expand the water park? MR. URRICO-Right. MR. LEMERY-There may be, but it certainly wouldn’t be any higher than it is today. It would never be more than the 65 feet. Because it wouldn’t need to be to meet the requirements within the Park, but if the thing is jammed all the time with patrons, then it’s possible that the company could come back to the Planning Board. The gentleman who talked about what happens in the theme park business is exactly right. Unless you can constantly renew your inventory and renew your opportunities, these things don’t survive. They just don’t survive, and so there’s no other attraction planned over there. I mean, one of the folks mentioned, you know, for example Ferris wheels and all these kinds of things on the west side. The only contemplated issue is the hotel and the water park. If the hotel needed to be expanded and there was room on that site to expand the hotel, to provide for more guests, you know, it’s possible to come back here, or to expand the water park within the site, because it’s very, very popular, it’s possible, but there’s nothing else that would be put in it over there, or asked for over there. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct me if I’m wrong, but the west side of Route 9 is Highway Commercial. MR. LEMERY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So therefore he couldn’t put an amusement over there, without seeking a variance. MR. LEMERY-Right. It’s not an RC-15. So we couldn’t do it anyway. Right. MR. URRICO-You could with a special use variance. MR.LEMERY-We’ve kind of had enough. I don’t think we would try to, you know. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. COLLINS-I mean, if that was a stipulation for the Special Use, we’d certainly look at that, because is no intention to do that right now. So, like I tried to explain before, we put it in there. It’s your guy’s decision, to talk about. MR. VOLLARO-Just one thing, I think maybe just jump in here for a second. Mr. Lemery, you talked about the permits, from DOT, being something that may be a little loose. Putting that into a Per chart as a critical path item would certainly highlight you as to whether you’re going to be late or not. MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. COLLINS-Ryan and Biggs did do a flow chart, time chart, that right now says we’re in good shape to be ready by Memorial Day weekend. If we had some sort of (lost words) that if it was outside our control, then we might be able to come to agreement on some sort of date, but right now we don’t see that, but I assume we’re going to have to come in front of the Planning Board again to get site plan on the pedestrian bridge, and that’s in our time frame. MR. VOLLARO-And if you put all those together, because you’ve got a, at least the LA Group has got a coordination problem that I see, and the only way to coordinate a problem like this, where you had separate contractors doing different things, is to have a Per chart. MR. LEMERY-We’ll get that to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you? MR. LEMERY-Right now, all our design is to get this done by the time we open the hotel. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, if you could provide a copy of that prior to a next meeting, I would appreciate that. MR. COLLINS-And the LA Group has not been contracted, yet, for that job. So, don’t assume they’re doing it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Sorry about that, Russ. MR. SANFORD-Craig, I’ve got one more quick question, regarding the public comment on an additional time to review stormwater runoff issues. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we’re going to get to that tonight. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So you have that already in the? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a note to discuss it and what we want to do with it. MR. SANFORD-All right. I’ll wait until then. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-Just a comment, if I may. The document you submitted, Wisconsin Dells Indoor Water Park still growing, and Roy was addressing that, let me just read the two sentences. “Never underestimate the Wisconsin Dells indoor water park industry. Every time you think the resorts can’t possibly get any bigger or add any more amenities, they do”. What does that mean? MR. LEMERY-I don’t know what you’re reading from, but I’m assuming that. MR. ABBATE-Would you like a copy of it, it’s part of your brochure. Sorry, this came off the Internet. Sorry. What does that mean. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. COLLINS-I don’t know. I wasn’t the author of that. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me try this. Does it mean possibly that there is an anticipation that there will be a dramatic growth in your amusement park, other than what’s proposed? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to even entertain commentary that’s not relative to this application, and that’s obviously some other organization, water park, amusement park, whatever. MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’ll wait for the ZBA meeting. MR. COLLINS-I want to reiterate. I think we did a pretty good job of getting close to what this project is three years ago. We looked at the impacts of a 200 room hotel. This industry was new. Back then we threw in the 200 room hotel because that’s what might have been. We were asked to do what could possibly happen. So I think we’ve come pretty close. I guess the question was, do you think this could grow in the future? If the demand is there, you know, we may have to come back and say we wanted to build. Go ahead, I’m sorry. MR. LEMERY-The property is constrained by the site. The site is only so wide between Coach House and 87, and the parking lots to the south of the Coach House are all needed for the theme park on the east side. So there’s no place to go for any expansion. The only possible place you could go would be to the north, which is parking for the hotel and also additional parking for the theme park when the ring road is completed all the way around. So, is it possible to add another 10,000 square feet to the water park if it’s warranted? Maybe. Could you add something else to the hotel? Maybe. If you could find room on the site that didn’t impact, you know, the setbacks, but that’s about it. I mean, there’s no, it’s not like, when they talk about the Dells, they’ve talked about seven or eight or nine hotels have sprung up. So if this is a good industry, and people look at this and say, this is terrific, who’s to say that other hotel operators in Queensbury or Lake George come in and say, I mean Queensbury, and say we want to put an indoor water park because our occupancy rates can be driven, but this site is severely limited, and we don’t see the kind of expansion they might be talking about there, under any circumstances, happening at this site. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? No? One thing that we need to deal with tonight is a request by several people, people who commented tonight from the public regarding extension of the written comment period for this. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I believe you also have a request to reconvene the SEQRA public hearing as well. I believe the President of the Glen Lake Protective Association asked for both of the things, the extension of the public comment period and to reconvene the SEQRA public hearing. So those are two threshold procedural issues you have to deal with, and those are Planning Board issues, because the Planning Board is the SEQRA Lead Agency. MR. MAC EWAN-Comments on it? MR. VOLLARO-Looking at that, with the amount of data that still has to be presented, Mr. Chairman, I would be inclined to grant that extension, to grant an extension. I think we have to talk about how much of it we would grant. Maybe it’s 45 days as opposed to 60, but I think they certainly need an opportunity to. MR. MAC EWAN-When are we next scheduled to meet, the 25 of March? th MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 25 March. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Consider granting an extension of the written comment period to that period, because that’s the next time we’re meeting with The Great Escape. Right now, as it’s laid out, the written comment period would close March the 12. th 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. SANFORD-I don’t think that’s enough time. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either. MR. SANFORD-I think 45 days would make sense. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see how they could do a review on a critical, and if they wanted to get some special help to do this, they’ve got some expertise trying to look at this, and I don’t know whether that would be enough. That’s basically only, I’m just looking at, we’re sitting here today at the 2. So that’s. nd MR. SANFORD-Three weeks. MR. VOLLARO-That’s three weeks. MR. SEGULJIC-The stormwater plans are done, correct? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Stu Mesinger said that they were not complete yet. I don’t know. MR. MESINGER-We would be complete by the 12. So you don’t need to look at us as a factor th in this. MR. MAC EWAN-You’d be complete by the 12 of March? th MR. MESINGER-Yes, for the review, our review. MR. MAC EWAN-The review, and then once you’re done with your review, it’s ready for public review? MR. MESINGER-Right. Correct. MR. SANFORD-Then you’d only be giving them 12 days or something. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s our kind of like timeline? I know you and I talked about if things went, you know, the dream scenario here, if things went according to the way we thought they would, we talked about a meeting in early April, mid April. MR. VOLLARO-April 15, I believe it was. th MR. ROUND-All we’ve predicted ahead was to March 25 was a reconvening of the Planning th Board to entertain some of the site development issues. The ZBA, I think the Chairman’s expressed an interest in, you know, we had talked about whether there’ll be a joint meeting of the ZBA and the Planning Board. That wasn’t clear. I’m hearing the ZBA Chairman indicate he’d rather just have his own Board convene and entertain the variance issues. That can happen as a part of a regular meeting, or a special meeting. So that’s as far as we’ve projected ahead. The sequencing of the approvals is that the Planning Board meets to complete the SEQRA review process, accept a final document, and then issue SEQRA findings before any action, any discretionary approval, the site plan, the special use permit or the variance can be issued. That doesn’t preclude you from meeting and deliberating on those elements. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I mean, I guess if I could just add two cents on that, in my opinion at least, having been through several dozen SEQRA proceedings, if not more, and this Board, the Planning Board’s been through a number, perhaps greater than the Zoning Board of Appeals, but you get to a point of limited return to sit here and try to project out the month of March, the month of April, the month of May, because as Chris said, the next significant SEQRA step, at such time as the public comment period is closed, obviously the next significant SEQRA step is for the applicant to prepare the draft of the final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) Statement. The applicant will undoubtedly strive to do that quickly, but the applicant, even the applicants themselves don’t know yet what exactly the comments will be, because the public comment period hasn’t closed yet. So, I wouldn’t get too wrapped up in trying to plan this out much beyond what Chris has talked about. MR. MAC EWAN-So what are you guys shooting for for length? MR. SANFORD-How about April 15? th MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the feeling here? MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking to try to give them 45 days, to look this over. That was my feeling on it. MR. SANFORD-Mine, too. MR. MAC EWAN-I think thirty days would be ample. Considering this thing is going to be ready by the 12, and they’ve already got the bulk of the information already in front of them. th Really the only thing they’re going to be looking to acquire here is the stormwater management report. MR. SEGULJIC-Thirty days should be more than enough. MR. MAC EWAN-I would think so. MR. VOLLARO-Where would that 30 days put us? It would put us into the beginning of April? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to add 20 more days on top of the 12. Whatever that carries th you out to. MR. VOLLARO-April 1. st MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s reasonable. MR. PITTENGER-Mr. Chairman, if I may, I’d like to suggest that there was a stormwater plan that was designed for the project, that was approved in 2001. We have reduced the impermeable surface. We do have new regulations in New York State that we have to comply with, but I feel that, given the previous analysis and the current analysis, that we feel comfortable that we can satisfy the environmental concerns with Chazen. If the Glen Lake Association, Protective Association, wants to get involved in that process, we’re more than happy to bring them into that process. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something I would encourage you to do, but that would be something out of the ramifications of our review, you know, of this Board. Certainly it would probably go a long way in helping to ease their minds. MR. LEMERY-If they would be willing to encourage a meeting with Russ, and the County, if the County is willing to help them, that might help everybody shorten the process, and so everybody comes to an agreement as to what they require. So we’re more than happy to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something you guys will have to orchestrate outside these doors. April 1? st MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m certainly inclined to give an extension for all the reasons stated, but I think it needs to be something reasonable. I’m with you on that. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. VOLLARO-The only reason I had picked the 45 days is because they’re looking for a supplemental technical support. MR. MAC EWAN-But what’s hanging out there, Bob, is one more piece of document that we’re waiting to go through internal review before they feel comfortable releasing it. He says it’s going to be ready by the 12. th MR. VOLLARO-We’re giving them from the 12 to the 1 to take a look at that. thst MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s a big project, Craig. I mean, you know, I mean, right from the get go, I mean, this has been sort of like, let’s hurry up and get this thing completed type of a deal here. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t think that’s quite the case, Rich. I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that. MR. LEMERY-It’s a site plan issue anyway. It’s not a SEQRA issue. MR. SANFORD-I mean, I’m not so sure that the pedestrian bridge or a lot of these issues aren’t SEQRA issues to some degree. Unless we know for certain that certain things are going to take place, I’m not sure how we can give you a neg dec on SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s stick with one thing at a time here. MR. SCHACHNER-Let’s understand the process. No one is contemplating this Board issuing a negative declaration, okay. So let’s back up a step. I strongly disagree with the applicant’s counsel’s last point that these are not SEQRA issues. I disagree with that completely, and I don’t even think that’s subject to reasonable debate, but, I do need to make sure we’re all on the same page, procedurally. Nobody’s proposing, not the applicant or anyone else, that the result of SEQRA review here is any negative declaration. What’s happened here is there’s already been a positive declaration literally several years ago, and the applicant has now, as far as I’m aware of, no fuss, no muss, no fight on this issue whatsoever. The applicant has come in and said, we’re going to do some things that are, and these are my words, not the applicant’s, we’re going to do some things that are in exact compliance with what was outlined in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement of several years ago, but in some respects we’re going to do things that are at least somewhat different than what was outlined in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement several years ago. This is not your typical process that you’re in more often than not, that’s heading toward a SEQRA negative declaration. Where this is headed is, we’ve got a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, also called a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, that’s been accepted as complete. Tonight’s our one, and perhaps only, public hearing about it. There’s a public comment period that’s currently been established to expire on the 12 of this month, on March 12. What you’re now debating is thth extending that public comment period, I believe I heard until April 1, possibly. There is a st request to reconvene the SEQRA public hearing. I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t, but I think you should make sure and address that request, and if and when you grant that, an extension, the public comment period will close. As I said, the next step is for the applicant to prepare a draft of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. As Chairman MacEwan has indicated, the principal component of that effort will be the applicant preparing responses to all of the comments that have been made on the draft EIS. Not only the comments that have been made verbally this evening, but also whatever comments are submitted in writing. To date, and to the end of the public comment period. Until that time, no decision making of any kind is going to take place, although as somebody, I think it was Chris, pointed out, the Board’s can continue to meet and consider, if you wish, that’s up to you. Is that helpful in terms of process? MR. SANFORD-Well, up to the point, but let’s say we don’t have a meeting of the minds, as to what constitutes appropriate findings. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. SANFORD-Explain the process following that point. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Then none of the decisions that you, the Planning Board, are making, as the SEQRA Lead Agency, require unanimity of mind. If you don’t have a meeting of the minds on whether the Final EIS is complete or not, or even on these procedural issues, how far to extend a public comment period, if at all, simple majority rule of the SEQRA Lead Agency. So this would be four members of the Planning Board. As long as four members of the Planning Board, which is the Lead Agency, agree, that’s how the SEQRA decision making process will play itself out. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So to give you a hypothetical, to bring it home, so we all have a clear understanding, if we don’t seem to feel comfortable on, let’s say, the sequencing of ring road or the pedestrian bridge, or one of those items, then we’re not going to really be addressing it in the context of actually doing a Long Form SEQRA. We’re going to basically call to a vote. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. You’re definitely not going to be addressing it in the context of a Long Form SEQRA review. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-We’re way past, you’re talking about the Environmental Assessment Form process. MR. SANFORD-Majority rule of the Planning Board is going to determine, now let’s say we vote no on something. What happens at that point in time? The application is not accepted? MR. SCHACHNER-If, by voting no, you mean that the Planning Board passes what are called negative SEQRA findings, meaning that, on balance, you feel the environmental impacts of the proposed project outweigh the negative environmental impacts, or adverse environmental impacts, outweigh any benefits of the project, then you will have issued what’s called a Negative Findings Statement, and no Board will be able to approve any aspect of this project. Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thanks for clarify that. I appreciate it. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now back to our topic of extending the written comment period. MR. HUNSINGER-I would offer a motion. MOTION TO EXTEND THE SEQRA PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR GREAT ESCAPE TO APRIL 1, 2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 2nd day of March, 2004, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to have to vote no on that. I don’t think it’s enough time. That’s my reason for a no vote. I’d like to give them more time to do that. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-So it didn’t carry. I didn’t carry. We need four votes. Right? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You absolutely need four votes. It doesn’t matter how many of you are here. You’re a seven member Board. You need four votes for any resolution to be binding. MR. MAC EWAN-So let’s negotiate, here. So, how much farther do you want to go? MR. SEGULJIC-What are you saying, April 15? th MR. VOLLARO-A Planning Board member is asking me why I think it’s going to take that long. If they had the expertise among themselves to do this, my concern is that they’re trying to get somebody else in to help them out, and I’m not, aren’t they seeking. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s keep it up here. MR. MAC EWAN-Give me some timeframes, what you’re looking for, and we’ll see if we can come to some happy medium. MR. ROUND-Bob, just for your information, I believe it’s Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District is working with the Glen Lake Protective Association. They have the document. They have commenced their review. MR. VOLLARO-Can they commit to some kind of? MR. ROUND-And I can’t speak for them. I just want to make sure that you note that. MR. VOLLARO-If we’re into a negotiation, here. My fellow Board member says eight, we’ll go along with 8 April, and let’s do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Move it. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MOTION TO EXTEND THE SEQRA WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR GREAT ESCAPE TO APRIL 8, 2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 2nd day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-And there was also a question by someone in the public about reconvening the SEQRA public hearing. Personal opinion, I don’t think it’s appropriate or needed because we’ve extended the public comment period. MR. SCHACHNER-The issue is that, I believe, the President of the Glen Lake Protective Association, in addition to asking for extension of the public comment period, which is the time in which to submit written comments, which you’ve now extended to April 8, also asked for th reconvening of this SEQRA public hearing, meaning another time when people can come and make verbal comments, and I believe the Chairman has indicated, in his view, that that’s not necessary. MR. VOLLARO-I tend to agree with that. I don’t think we have to reconvene a public hearing for SEQRA. I agree with the Chairman’s position. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. SCHACHNER-And you don’t need to pass a motion. As things currently stand, you’re not reconvening that. You don’t need a motion unless you change that. MR. SANFORD-So if there are questions after the Glen Lake Association reviews the stormwater report, they have to provide them in written form? MR. SCHACHNER-On the SEQRA review, that’s correct. Now, that leads to, I still have actually three procedural questions remaining, which I’ll spit out at some point that’s appropriate. MR. MAC EWAN-Now would be a good time. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Sanford’s question leads me to that. We need to understand there’s a little complexity to this, that this proceeding this evening was scheduled as a joint hearing, not just with the two Boards, but for actually three purposes. This was scheduled as a SEQRA public hearing on the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement. This was also noticed, if I’m not mistaken, as a public hearing for the Zoning Board of Appeals’ consideration of Area Variance applications that have been submitted. This was also noticed for the Planning Board’s public hearing for the site plan review application. Is that correct, Chris? I’m sorry, the Planning Board’s consideration of both the site plan review application and the Special Use Permit. So, you’ve now, as I understand it, decided that on the SEQRA review aspect, you’ve extended the public comment period until April 8. You’ve decided not to th reconvene a SEQRA public hearing, but each Board, and I think you need to do this separately, needs to decide whether you’re going to continue your other public hearings that have now been opened, or whether you’re going to close them this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the next time we’ll meet with the applicant is relative to the Site Plan and Special Use Permit review. Correct? That’s the next time we would see them in front of us. We’ve done some hypothetical things. That’s why I was asking the questions earlier, timeline, timeframes and such. At this point, I’m amenable to leave the public hearing open for the Planning Board for that purpose. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So what that mean, if the Board agrees to do that, and that would require a resolution, as you typically do, then that would mean that, for the purposes of commenting on the Environmental Impact Statement, the SEQRA stuff, the written public comment period would close on April 8, but at some time in the future that the Planning Board th reconvenes reviewing the Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit applications, people would be able to get up and speak to those applications. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. STONE-And I would offer that we keep the Zoning Board public hearing open also. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That’s fine, but each Board should act independently. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to go first? MR. STONE-Yes. Do I get a motion to do that? MOTION TO KEEP THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 2 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: nd 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to make a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MOTION TO KEEP OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PURPOSES OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, AS WELL AS FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Duly adopted this 2nd day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? MR. SCHACHNER-I have one last housekeeping procedural question. This is not a Planning Board issue. This is strictly a ZBA issue. Chairman Stone was kind enough to appropriately point out, I think for the benefit, principally, of the public, that the Zoning Board of Appeals authority here is very different than the Planning Board’s. It’s much more limited in some ways, but in any event. It’s very different. Chairman Stone very accurately cited the overall standard by which the Zoning Board of Appeals must review the Area Variance application, but my concern, as Town Counsel, having, again, dealt with these issues hundreds of times, I think it would be beneficial, Chairman Stone, since you read the overall standard, if we just briefly had a spiritual reading of the five criteria. I’d be happy to do that. MR. STONE-Sure. Absolutely. Thank you very much. MR. SCHACHNER-The five criteria that the Zoning Board of Appeals will have to consider, in weighing, as Chairman Stone described earlier, the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted versus any potential detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community are as follows. Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the Area Variance. Number Two, Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. Number Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and lastly, Number Five, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which is relevant to the ZBA’s consideration, but does not necessarily preclude the granting of the Area Variance, and my last comment is the reason I felt it was important to read those criteria is because I thought it was helpful that Chairman Stone outlined the overall standard, but I thought that people should know that they can’t just submit opinions as to whether the benefit outweighs the detriment or the detriment outweighs the benefit. The Zoning Board of Appeals must consider the variance request in accordance with those five statutory criteria. MR. STONE-And the only thing I would add is that I heard a great deal tonight, when I was here earlier, about how good the applicant is, how good a corporate citizen, how good a community citizen. That doesn’t cut it as far as our criteria go. It is very good. It is not germane, and thank you. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/2/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay. We’re adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 45