Loading...
FGEIS Executive Summary_06 01 Great Escap e Theme Park Final GEI S Executive Summary dated June 2001 ji 1 gal Generic ElIvironmental factStatementI Xecv f � F -1- Tj Fo-V Groat escape Theme park LLC J.urie 2001 Volume .1 of 3 Executive Sum Comments/Res wary and ponses l i Pelton Marsh Kinsella _ . 1420 W.Mockingbird Lane, Suite 400 Dallas,Texas 75247 Contact: Dan Hester (214) 688-7444 Richard R.Leinbach 21 Olena Drive Whitesboro,New York 13492 Contact: Richard Leinbach (315) 736-1323 Clough Harbour and Associates 3 Winners Circle Albany,New York 12205 Contact: Steve Nissan (518) 453-4500 Ryan Biggs Associates,P.C. 291 River Street Troy,New York 12180 i' Contact: Mark Kanonik } (518)272-6266 Hartgen Archeological Consultants 27 Jordan Road Troy,New York 12180 Contact: Karen Hartgen/Matthew Kirk (518)283-0534 Date of Acceptance of DGEIS: July 28,2000 Date of Public Hearing: August 29,2000 Close of Comment Period: October 27,2000 Date of Acceptance of FEIS: June 21,2001 i j FGEIS for Great Escape Theme Park SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement("FGEIS")has been prepared by Great Escape Theme Park LLC("Great Escape", "the Applicant" or"the Park")for the lead agency,the Town of Queensbury Planning Board("the Planning Board")in accordance with SEQR's procedures at 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(8)which require that following the public comment period on a draft EIS,a Final EIS shall be prepared for a proposed action which will include "...copies or a summary of the substantive comments [on the draft EIS] and their source...and the lead agency's responses to all substantive comments", as well as any"revisions and supplements"made to the draft EIS. Pursuant to SEQR's provisions for EIS preparation and public comment at 6 NYCRR Part 617, on July 28, 2000,the Town Planning Board accepted the Applicant's Draft Generic EIS ("DGEIS") dated July,2000 as complete for purposes of commencing public review and issued its "Notice of Completion of Draft Generic EIS and Notice of SEQR Hearing" ("the Notice"). DGEIS documents were made available at that time for public review by providing review copies at the Town Offices,the Crandall Public Library and to four interested neighborhood and community organizations and several local newspapers which had previously requested the document. The Notice of the availability of the DGEIS and the opportunity for comment at a public hearing and in writing was also published in the The Post-Star on August 8,2000, as well as the state Environmental Notice Bulletin in its August 9, 2000 issue' . Pursuant to the Notice, a SEQR public hearing was held on August 29, 2000 in the auditorium of the Queensbury High School at which 43 individuals and organizations offered oral comments on the DGEIS. As SEQR and the Notice required,the record of the public hearing was kept open following the hearing until October 27, 2000 to receive further written public comments. The originally noticed deadline for written comments to be submitted was September 11,2000;the lead agency extended that deadline for an additional 45 days because of many requests of interested persons for additional time to make comments. With that extension,the public comment period on the Great Escape DGEIS was ultimately over 90 days,far in excess of SEQR's procedural requirements for public review. An additional 87 individuals and organizations filed written comments by the October 27, 2000 filing deadline,for a total of 130 individuals or entities commenting on the DGEIS at either the public hearing or in written comments. These commenters include 31 comments by organizations,including neighborhood organizations,local businesses and business organizations, and other government agencies. The latter include the independent consultants and staff of the SEQR"lead agency" Town Planning Board,the SEQR"involved agencies",the State Departments of Environmental Conservation("NYS DEC") and Transportation("NYS DOT")which must issue state permits for the Project, 'The notices are reproduced in the appendices section of the FGEIS, Section 4.8. 1-1 as well as several "interested agencies",including the Warren County Planning Board and ( the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council.Per SEQR's procedures, Section 3 of this FGEIS contains a verbatim transcript of the August 29,2000 public hearing, as well ' as complete copies of the 87 written submissions. This FGEIS contains additional visual and audible noise studies performed in 2000 during the review period for the DGEIS, as was suggested by many commenters, as well as complete responses to all substantive comments made on the DGEIS. The FGEIS Table of Contents lists all exhibits and appendices in Section 4,including additional sound studies,profiles,the updated visual analysis,revised traffic level of service reports and SEQRA notices. Section 2.0 of this FGEIS provides summaries of all 640 separate comments made by the public and a response to each substantive comment. Responses to substantive comments were developed with the input of the Applicant,the Town's environmental consultant,The Chazen Companies, and the involved agencies. The responses were reviewed and developed by the Planning Board at workshop sessions on May 31,2000. Where the Applicant and the Lead Agency and/or its consultant have not agreed on the response,the differing positions are both provided. Section 4.0 of the FGEIS contains appendices,including the new visual and noise studies and other new exhibits referenced in various of the 640 responses contained in DGEIS Section 2.0. The major substantive issues addressed in the Final Generic EIS include: • Further visual simulation studies were conducted for new rides and ( tall structures in the existing Park amusement area(Park Area A) in order to allow for unproved visual review thresholds to be set. These thresholds insure that rides up to 200 feet in height can be sited within defined areas of the Park which will not be significantly visible to viewsheds to the east,including Glen Lake and the Fens,the Warren County Bike Trail and the Glens Falls Country Club(Response 246; Section 4.3); The Visual Threshold map locates three height zones: 115' to 135', 175' to 185', and 200',within which attractions of corresponding heights can be located without undue visual effects. The 115'to 135'height zone is located in the northern portion of the Park which is at a higher elevation relative to the rest of the Park and includes Ghost Town and the area around the Nightmare attraction. Zone 175'to 185' is located in the center of the Park and includes the area from the front of the Park to behind the Condor attraction to the Comet roller coaster and south to the area of the circus tent. The 200' zone is located in the area of the Park that is the topographically lower area of the Park which includes the Rainbow Ride,the Boomerang attraction and out to the west side of the Bavarian Palace. 1-2 • Additional audible noise data from new studies performed by both the Park's consultants and independently by the Town validates the DGEIS noise analysis and its conclusions(Responses 51,480); • The further noise monitoring done near Glen Lake indicates that the original monitoring location near the lake shore at Birdsall Road is generally representative of the noise levels at other shoreline locations at the Lake (Response 57; Section 4.1 of this document); The Park proposes to continue annual noise monitoring in each of ithe three receptor neighborhoods at the established sampling ■ locations,to allow for appropriate data comparisons over time. Additionally,the Applicant recommends that a 5 dBA noise threshold be adopted as a Finding herein to set the threshold levels at which increased noise would be deemed significant and require supplemental studies according to SEQR. This, any change in the Park's operation which would not increase noise levels above 5 dBA above the"baseline" determined by monitoring would be deemed non-significant and within the impact thresholds established in this FGEIS. • The Traffic Impact Study contained in the DGEIS has been confirmed by the reviewing agencies and affirms that the Applicant's recommended traffic mitigation will preserve levels of service for Route 9 traffic at equal or better levels than the present, despite projected growth in Park attendance. While there will be some increase in traffic on surrounding roads such as West Mountain Road, Sweet Road and Round Pond Road, such increases do not rise to levels that would be considered significant according to standard engineering practices. (Responses 92, 368); • As suggested by the "involved agencies"NYS DOT and the Town,the Applicant has proposed to tie traffic mitigation thresholds to traffic counts rather than attendance levels as initially proposed in the DGEIS. The vehicles will be counted at the Park entrances on the west side of US Route 9 and reported to the Town Planning Department.(Response 258). • The analyses in the DGEIS and FGEIS suggest that the project will have no significant adverse water quality impacts on Glen Lake or the Fens.Nevertheless,the Planning Board believes it prudent,to �( require the Applicant to conduct a long-term water quality �1 monitoring program. As detailed in the FGEIS Response 101, 1-3 collection of five sample sets over the operational season will be analyzed for conductivity,total suspended solids and total phosphorus. • The Planning Board anticipates requiring several measures beyond those proposed in the DGEIS to mitigate impacts to water quality as a result of stormwater runoff,including the use of swirl concentrators which filter oil and other debris from stormwater flows. • The Planning Board intends to further review the details of the Applicant's grading and drainage plans during site plan review. • Stormwater quantity and quality from the site will be controlled to pre-development levels. At the regulatory threshold of the 50 year event, 10.99 cfs will be released from the site, compared to 11.62 currently. (Response 386). • Contrary to the suggestions of many commenters, available data suggests that Glen Lake water quality at present is not threatened. Extensive long-term monitoring data indicates that the lake is at the low end of the "mesotrophic" lake classification,with under 10 ppb of the critical nutrient parameter Phosphorus and 2.9 ppb Chlorophylla. (Responses 63, 64, 72, 150) • Phosporous loadings to the Glen Lake watershed from the Park from the design storm event will decrease from today's 1.19 pounds to 1.06 pounds of Phosporous post- development because of Applicant's improved proposed wastewater system. (Response 55). • Although the current on-site septic systems at the Park have no demonstrable impact on Glen Lake water quality, the proposed wastewater treatment plant will reduce nutrient loadings to the soils in the watershed at least 90-95% from present levels. (Response 63; 434); • The Applicant has indicated its commitment to connect to a public sewer,if and when one becomes available,but proposes to use its interim upgrades for the near-term until public sewer is physically I available. (Response 233). • Many commenters suggested various alternatives which would l reduce the need for construction of impervious surfaces,including �.._ 1-4 ! I a parking garage and use of paving block 'g p g s. The Applicant's position is that these alternatives are infeasible because of operational, cost and maintenance considerations. (Responses 35 and 416). The Applicant has alternatively suggested the use of porous pavement in many of its seasonal lots to increase permeability. The Lead Agency will consider the information submitted by the Applicant and the various commenters when making its Findings on this issue. (Response 107). • The FGEIS verifies that grading and clearing associated with the Project would not significantly change noise transmission from the Northway to the residential neighborhoods in the Study Area because published studies suggest that the amount of vegetation to be cleared does not function as a significant noise barrier and because where existing grades block direct transmission of noise from the Northway to residential receptors, such grades will continue to exist. (Responses 6, 39,222). • A noise berm as suggested by commenters is infeasible,because the Northway and noise sources on the road are elevated below the receptor neighborhoods. Hence, such a berm would need to be approximately 50 feet high, and even if built,would be of questionable effectiveness. (Response 121). • The FGEIS verifies that the Project will have no effect on rare, endangered or threatened species or habitat, and that the resource inventories in the DGEIS are adequate. (Responses 84 and 351). • The clearing and grading associated with the Project will not alter the existing vegetation and hillsides within the Route 9 and the state highway right of way. Current screening and topography on Route 9 will therefore be preserved.Lands outside of right of way however will be significantly altered and that there will be a significant alteration of the view from the Northway. i • Mitigation of impacts to cultural resources on a portion of the site between Rt. 9 and the Northway and north of the Coach House Restaurant will be performed subject to approval of the State Historic Preservation Office in accordance with the State Historic Preservation Act. (Responses 29, 601). • The Applicant has argued that the proposed"festival parking" design is environmentally superior to the alternative of a typical i commercial lot design with internal landscaped islands because it provides more effective screening options along the travel '` 1-5 corridors and it reduces the land area needed for clearing and paving and better performs the traffic mitigation fimction of providing for quick and convenient access from Route 9 and thereby reducing congestion and delays to through travelers. Disadvantages associated with this design are the lack of internal landscaping. The Planning Board also notes that effective screening along travel corridors could be achieved regardless of the internal design of the parking lot. The Planning Board will consider these factors when making its Findings regarding the design of the parking area (Response 40). • The Applicant has argued that, contrary to the perception of many commenters,the Park has ample land for development and is well- buffered from adjacent land uses by natural resource lands and distance. (Response 248). The Applicant has further argued that the Park has more than sufficient room to add or reconfigure amusements in the 90 acre developable "upland"portion of the Park without intruding into the 250 acre "buffer" surrounding Area A. The Planning Board agrees with the Applicant that the proposed Project of constructing a parking and on-site traffic- management system together with the other proposed improvements also occurs on newly-acquired lands west of Route 9 will not expand the footprint of the existing amusement area within the 237f acres of Park Area "A". The Applicant has therefore argued that, compared to other theme parks, especially those nearer urban areas,the Great Escape has ample area and is adequately separated from adjacent land uses. (Responses 97 and 366). The Lead Agency is also aware of and will consider arguments made by residents that the Park is surrounded by residentially developed areas that are adversely affected by increased noise and traffic associated with the Park. • The Applicant has argued that the parking lots should be lit by 50 foot tall lighting fixtures because they will most efficiently light the lots.The Applicant has further argued that adverse impacts will be mitigated by the use of"shoebox" style fixtures that will cast light downward and because the lights will be in use for a relatively small number of nights in the summertime and fall. The Planning Board will balance these arguments against its general policy of requiring lower light fixtures,which policy is expressed in draft form in the Town's proposed zoning ordinance.In making its Findings,the Planning Board will consider the potential visibility of tall light fixtures from nearby residential receptors. 1-6 The Applicant has responded o suggestions that the proposed shuttle bus system be operated on a dedicated road by proposing a shuttle bus route(See FGEIS Section 4.10). The Planning Board believes that this is largely an operational issue and will therefore reserve the right to review how the system functions once it is operational. The Planning Board will utilize the DGEIS and this FGEIS (collectively the"GEIS")to make Findings on the proposed project. The Findings will serve as the basis for the Board's decisions and subsequent actions with respect to the Project. The involved agencies are anticipated to make their own Findings on the project. Complete indexes by commenter and topic appear at the end of the comment summary/responses section,FGEIS Section 3.1, as Sections 3.2 and 3.3 respectively. LA335\001WEIS RESPONSES)=C SUM FINALFiNALB.DOC I I � i II t 1-7