07-15-2014 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 15,2014
INDEX
Subdivision No. 1-2013 Hayes &Hayes, LLC 1.
EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.2
Site Plan No. 62-2012 Kirk Roberts 2.
Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8
Site Plan No.42-2012 Daniel&Ellen Nichols 3.
Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 AND 19
Site Plan No.46-2014 Russell Canterbury 3.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-25
Site Plan No.49-2014 Richard&Jill Long 13.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240-1-16
Site Plan No.44-2014 Denise Humiston 15.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-27
Site Plan No.45-2014 William Rudenko 18.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-32
Site Plan No.48-2014 G&G Boat&RV Storage, LLC 22.
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-23.21, 23.22, 23.23
Site Plan No. 77-2011 Bear Pond Ranch, LLC &French Mt. Bear Pond, LLC 25.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY)AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 15,2014
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
BRAD MAGOWAN
THOMAS FORD
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DAVID DEEB
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board on Tuesday, July 15th, 2014. For members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of
the agenda on the back table. We are going to deviate from the agenda. I just asked the applicant
if they had any objection and I'll ask the Board as well. Bear Pond Ranch, under Old Business, I
would like to hear that one last,unless there's any objections from the Board.
MR. DEEB-Great idea.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think that was a good idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. First on the agenda is approval of minutes from May 20th and May 22nd
2014. Would anyone like to make a motion?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 20, 2014
May 22, 2014
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MAY
20TH AND MAY 22ND, 2014, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We have three Administrative Items under Item Two.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
SB 1-2013 HAYES&HAYES,LLC: REQUESTING 6 MO. EXTENSION TO 1-15-2015
MR. HUNSINGER-The first one is Subdivision No. 1-2013 for Leonard Romeo, Hayes & Hayes, LLC.
They have requested a six month extension to 1/15/2015. Any additional information, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-There is not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any comments,questions by the Board?
MR. KREBS-Any reasons given?
MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, it's explained that there's some issues with back taxes that have
not been paid,and Dennis is here,as well,that can,if there are any questions.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do have the letter dated June 13th. Does anyone have any questions for
Dennis?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make the motion?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION OF SUB # 1-2013 ROMEO; HAYES&HAYES, LLC
On 1-21-2014 the Planning Board approved the following: Applicant proposes a reduction in lot
size of owner's parcel by 0.44 acres and the addition of 044 acres to applicant's property. Due to
site plan review a boundary line adjustment between two properties is also required. Modification
to an approved site plan and subdivision require PB review/approval.
The applicant has requested a 6 month extension to 1-15-2015;
MOTION TO GRANT A 6 MONTH EXTENSION TO JANUARY 15, 2015 FOR SUBDIVISION 1-2013
LEONARD ROMEO - HAYES &HAYES - DIXON ROAD, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved its
adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 15th day of July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SP 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS: TABLED TO 7-22-2014,NO NEW INFORMATION
MR. HUNSINGER-The next item is Site Plan 62-2012 for Kirk Roberts. We had tabled it to this
evening.
MRS. MOORE-I do have information about that applicant. That applicant did submit their site plan
and area variance today.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So they are scheduled to be on the August agendas for both the Planning Board and
the Zoning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we should table this to August and not next week.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So they'll be before the Zoning Board on August 20th? That's the first meeting,the
Zoning meeting.
MRS.MOORE-It'll be,correct,it'll be the Zoning Board first.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we should table it to the 26th of August.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone want to make that motion?
MR. MAGOWAN-It's the 26th,right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,August 26th.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS
On 2-25-2014 the PB tabled this application to 7-15-2014;
The applicant& agent met with staff on 7-3-2014 and it is anticipated a revised application will be
submitted by 7-15-2014;
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
Tabled until the August 26, 2014 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SP 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS: TABLED TO 7-2014, NO NEW INFORMATION
RECEIVED
MR. HUNSINGER-And then the last Administrative Item is 42-2012 for Daniel & Ellen Nichols. No
information has been received. Staff has suggested a deny without prejudice. Has there been any
contact with the applicant since?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has not contacted me. I have no new information submitted by the
applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay,and when was the last time that we heard the project? January 21St?
MRS.MOORE-January 21St,correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-And certainly six months seems like a long time to go without hearing from
anybody.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to make that motion?
RESOLUTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SP#42-2012 DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS
On 1-21-14 the Planning Board tabled the application to a July meeting-see attachment
No new information was submitted on the June 16th deadline nor has communication been
received from the applicant or agent.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN
NICHOLS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
Duly adopted this 15th day of July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Under Item Three we have two recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO. 46-2014 SEQR TYPE II RUSSELL CANTERBURY AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL
OWNER(S) RM CANTERBURY REALTY, LLC ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL
LOCATION 39 CANTERBURY DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 2,247 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. SITE PLAN:
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A FREESTANDING STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF
15% SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES:
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY; SIDE, REAR, SHORELINE SETBACKS; HEIGHT,
ROAD FRONTAGE AND FAR REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. THE PLANNING BOARD
SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 49-14, SP 19-13, SB
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
3-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING JULY 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, GLEN LK. CEA
LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-25 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-6-050, 060
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSSELL CANTERBURY, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This application is for removal for an existing structure and constructing a new
structure, and the Nature of the Variance is relief from the 75% permeability requirement. They're
proposing 66.6 relief from the shoreline where 50 feet is required and eight feet is proposed, and
then 23 feet 10 inches is the existing for the shoreline; side setback relief requested on the south
side is 20 feet; and 14 feet.2 inches is proposed and then on the other side, or existing is 12 feet 3
inches. Height relief is also requested where 28 is required and they're proposing 32 feet, and the
information for the Board is that you're to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board based on
the information submitted requesting relief from the setback requirements, height, permeability,
and floor area, and under my Summary I have, the Board may consider encouraging reduction of
the dwelling size footprint further from the shore.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall with Rucinski/Hall Architecture, and with me
tonight is Russ Canterbury, the owner of the property. The property is located on Canterbury
Lane. That is a private right of way that comes off of Ash Drive on the west end of Glen Lake. It is
an existing house year round. They do use it year round. It's minimally heated. The original
construction was.
MR. CANTERBURY-The property was acquired in 1959 and construction started soon thereafter. I
was two years old. So I don't remember a lot of the details of the construction.
MR. HALL-It's been added on to and it's quite chopped up and Russ would like to make it into a full
year round, something that they can use and utilize. We are rather handcuffed on the site by the
size of the lot. It is only 80 some odd feet deep from the lake to the back shoreline. The drawing
that I have up here now, the red line represents the existing property lines. This is the lakeside.
The blue shaded area that you see there is the buildable envelope on the site if you take all the
setbacks into play. The yellow area is the area of the existing camp. The brown shaded areas,the
tan shaded areas, are the existing hard surfaces, the concrete decks and patios and what not that
are on the building now. The gray area is the area of crushed stone driveway and the access to the
adjoining property, which is Canterbury Drive. So that access has to be maintained. It does go
across the back of the lot so we're a little restrained by what we can do there. The red box that I
have shown down here in the corner is the location of the existing septic tank. We know where the
tank itself is. We really don't have any idea where the tile field or leach pit or whatever happens to
be attached to that is without digging it up,and we're a little hesitant to do a whole lot of excavation
around it right now because it is right next to the roadway, and we're not sure what's going to
happen if we go poking around that, but we know that it's closer than 100 feet to the lake. It
doesn't meet the required setbacks for DOH requirements. The plan is to remedy that situation,the
area in dark green that's shown on this map is being purchased from the adjoining landowner.
That will allow us to put a new septic tank, a new pump station, and a new sand filter bed farther
away from the lake. We'll be able to maintain the 100 foot separation. It does a couple of things
for us. It not only buys us that area to get that out of the lake,get that away from the lake and make
it compliant, but it also gains some additional property for the overall Floor Area Ratio, the green
space numbers. It brings that all up. We are taking away a significant amount of the concrete
patios that are there. The deck area will be open underneath the deck. It will have a deck dry
system which allows water to go in. It captures the water, puts it in to a drainage area and we can
drop that into an infiltration area. We do have the two infiltration areas shown on the lower
portion and the upper portion. That'll be for maintaining the roof water, collecting that, and the
rest of the green space goes up. We've got some plantings along the Canterbury Lane side, and
then the existing dock stays right where it is. Underneath the deck area will be permeable
pavement for permeable pavers. The other two, the photos that I just gave you, this is an existing
photo of the property. The blue house is what's there now, and the second drawing, the second
picture I gave you is the photo rendering showing what we're proposing to put there, just to note
that it's relatively close in scale to the adjoining property just to the north. Those were the major
points.
MR. FORD-Not many ripples on the water, I notice.
MR. HALL-It was a little cold that day.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. MAGOWAN-Did you test the ice before you went out on it?
MR. HALL-I didn't test the ice, and I stayed away from the ice even next door, yes. Yes, there was
about a foot of ice out there the day I went out. Mid-January.
MR. KREBS-Well,you have to remember, when you go out on the ice,you're just walking on frozen.
So you could be,you know, the Lord or something. I tell that every year. I'm in Rotary and I take
the exchange students up and we go up to Lake George for the Lake George Festival and I take them
out on the Lake and I say to them, do you realize now that you're walking on water, it just happens
to be frozen water. There was a young fellow from Bosnia this year and he turned and said to me,
does that mean I'm Jesus?
MR. HALL-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. HALL-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-Yes, I have a question. On the survey map it shows a second dock.
MR. HALL-There's only one on this. The second dock maybe the adjoining landowner's.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,one of the plans did show a second dock.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean the one on the right.
MR. KREBS-This is the VanDusen drawing. It shows way at the, I guess, on the north side of the
property there's another dock.
MR. HALL-Yes. I think that's the one,that's the neighbor's dock. That's this one right here.
MR. CANTERBURY-That's the neighbor's dock.
MR. KREBS-Okay,but it shows it on your property.
MR. HUNSINGER-It shows it on your property.
MR. CANTERBURY-We'll have to have them move that.
MR. HALL-No,there's just the one dock here.
MR. KREBS-Okay. Both the existing and the new drawings both show only one dock, but the
VanDusen shows a second dock here.
MR. HALL-There's the deck here and this one. This, I think, was something that was just sitting
there that was being moved out at the time.
MR. KREBS-Okay,but they recorded it,all right. Okay. Just wanted to know.
MR. CANTERBURY-Yes, that's gone now. That's actually a launch. There's a launch to put a boat
in.
MR.TRAVER-I wanted to ask about your figures regarding the shoreline setback. I wanted to make
sure they were accurate. Fifty feet is required and it looks like right now you're encroaching about
48%of that, 23 feet 10 inches,is that correct?
MR. HALL-That's correct. The very front portion of this bump out is 23 10 to the water.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you want to increase that encroachment up to 84%, and leaving only 8 feet
from the house and the water?
MR. HALL-The actual, that's to the actual deck that we're putting out there. That's to the point of
that deck. The back portion of the actual house portion, this is the screen porch that's out there.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
Both of these are open underneath, and the front line of the house actually stays relatively close to
the 23 feet that's there now. So the actual building itself, the deck comes forward, but the actual
front line of the building really doesn't come that much further forward. I think it's 22 feet and
change.
MR. CANTERBURY-The road in the back prevents you from going back.
MR. FORD-That's what I was going to ask,because you acquired additional property back there.
MR. CANTERBURY-So there's a road. There's my property.
MR. FORD-Who's road is that?
MR. CANTERBURY-Well, there's a reason it's Canterbury Drive. So it's access for all the homes
there,but obviously we can't build on it and the property that I'm buying is on the other side of the
road. So the septic will go under the road to that additional land.
MR. HALL-This portion from about where we've got the property line coming this way,goes almost
right straight up. It's a pretty steep bank going up that. Towards that end, it's an uphill climb, but
it's not as steep. It goes up.
MR. FORD-So there's no really good way of moving that road with that steep an embankment right
there on the side of it.
MR. HALL-No. The driveway, Canterbury Drive is right at the base of that, and if you look on the
first photo,you can really see how that goes up in the back. Down here on this end is relatively flat
where the cars are sitting and the drive comes across here,but you can see how fast that bank goes
up behind it.
MR. FORD-You can see the elevation change with that house across the road.
MR. HALL-Yes,and that house is the Benton house. It actually comes in from Birdsall Road. There
is an access, the power line is out back. There is an access, a trail that comes down through from
Niagara Mohawk, and there is a little swipe that comes down off of that so they have access to
Canterbury Lane as well.
MR. MAGOWAN-How close is the footprint now of the house?
MR. HALL-How close is the footprint now? The garage and the main house are pretty much in the
same spot.
MR. MAGOWAN-Twenty-three,ten. Is that what I'm looking at?
MR. HALL-Yes. And the front bump outright here is this front bump out on the picture.
MR. CANTERBURY-Yes, what's in front of the house now is concrete patios that come as close or
closer to the lake than what he's talking about with the decks. That it's all.
MR. HALL-Right up to the lake.
MR. CANTERBURY-My father built the house over 50 years ago primarily with good materials, and
obviously it's got major repairs there required and he lived to be 93. If he lived longer the entire
parcel would have been covered with concrete. He had the affinity for concrete,whether it needed
it or not.
MR. KREBS-It's called easy maintenance.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had similar thoughts and concerns as some of those that have been expressed.
Your one side setback, the building is 27 feet, and you can go as close as 20, but yet you're so close
to the lake, you know. Isn't there a way to maybe widen the house and, you know, lengthen it so
that you, you know, narrow it and make it narrower and longer so that you're not as close to the
lake.
MR. CANTERBURY-We actually did it narrower,longer and narrower.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HALL-The original that we had started out with had it, we couldn't get any farther back
towards Canterbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right.
MR. HALL-So we shrunk it down and tried to pull it out and we did maintain it. We can't really get
any farther to the north. That's the 27 that you're talking about. If we go any farther that way,we
won't be able to get into the garage. This is the entrance to the garage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,what if you turned the entrance to the garage around?
MR. HALL-That's where it starts to go up on Canterbury,and there is a retaining wall there on the.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,looking at your site plan there's a negligible.
MR. HALL-There's about a three and a half to four foot drop from that back portion that comes
down around the corner. That's where Canterbury comes up around and starts to rise right there.
So that whole back wall along that side of the garage has to be a retaining wall to hold that. So if we
turned, we'd really cut down into the grade to get back in there, and I'm afraid we'd wind up
flooding that garage every time it rains because Canterbury Lane is just going to run right down
into it.
MR. HUNSINGER-The screened in porch,does that have a roof over it?
MR. HALL-It's a flat roof with a sundeck on it. It's accessed from the master bedroom.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it is impermeable.
MR. HALL-The roof of it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HALL-And then underneath it is all, underneath of that porch is all wide open. It's just sitting
up on piers. So it's, the footprint of the building itself. The footprint of the building itself is here
and then across and back out this way. Because this is all open underneath, and if you look on the
elevations, it kind of, there's stone columns that come up that support the deck and the sun porch.
So that portion is all open underneath there and the intent is that that would be a, you know, a
stone infiltration area allowing for, it's just covered by the screened porch. The flat roof will have
a gutter along the edge of it to pick up all the water coming off of that roof and direct it to the
infiltration bed.
MR. HUNSINGER-So basically the only real structure that encroaches closer to the lake than what
the house is now is really the patio.
MR. CANTERBURY-The screened porch and the deck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HALL-And we're pulling out the concrete that's there and putting a deck where we're going to
be able to capture that water and direct it to an infiltration bed, and underneath that deck we'll
have permeable pavers. So we're trying to, while we realize that that portion of it, I mean, if we
took the existing concrete, if that was counted towards our setback,which I believe it's not,but it is
impermeable surface that's right at the seawall. So I mean, it's pretty much hard surface from the
house to the seawall now. What we're trying to do is leave the front part of the house,build a deck
over it with permeability underneath, and then take the rest of it from there out away from that,
and allow it to open up some more green space underneath. We realize that we're extremely
handicapped by our setbacks.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I realize there's a couple of really good things that are going for your
project. I mean,you have increased permeability and you are putting in a new septic system. My
first glance at the project,you know, my first thought was that it might be too big for the site, and in
a lot of ways it almost confirms it when you gave us this picture, because the proposed house is
significantly larger than any of the three houses that are shown there.
MR. HALL-It's eight feet taller than what's there now. We're going from, it's 23 feet and change,to
32 feet. So we'll wind up being taller, and that's just simply because the crawl space that's in the
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
basement now,literally when we stand up in the basement,we have to stand with our heads cocked
because it's only about six feet under side of everything. The main floor is eight feet and then the
upper floor is built into the roof system. So it's seven feet and change with knee walls and sloped
parts of the ceilings.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,we haven't really addressed the variance request for the height. Can you just
talk about why that's needed?
MR. HALL-That's the reason, so that we could get an eight foot, in the basement space, an eight foot,
and we've maintained eight foot floor to floor height or floor to ceiling heights with the minimum
thickness of floor that we could put in to do that, and then I brought the roof pitch down as low as I
could over the main portion, and then the area above the garage we've built into the roof the way
the rest of the house is. So we've tried to keep everything down as low as we could,but to get three
stories and maintain some roof pitch. I didn't like the idea of dropping the roof pitch any more
than what we did. In the front of it, it looks like it's very steep, but that's just a two story open
section. From the stairwell back we actually flattened the roof out quite a bit. It's only a four
twelve pitch from the stairwell to the back of the house. We really flattened that part out. So the
two story portion that's in the front, the Great Room portion, that does have a higher pitch to the
roof,but it's got a lower wall to it on the first floor,or on the second floor I guess you'd say.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think you did a good job with the property you have. I mean,you really tried to
squeeze it in there. Unfortunately it makes the house to the,looking at it to the left,look like a shed
now,but then I look at the house behind it on the hill,you know, and it's kind of towering. So I like
the idea of, like I said, you know, you're kind of limited, like I said, to going back. So you really
utilize the opportunity to move some of that water out front and contain it, which I think it's an
excellent choice for what you have to work with here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other thoughts or comments from the Board?
MR. DEEB-Is the building as tall as the one next to it on the right?
MR. HALL-Yes, it's a couple of feet taller than the one that's on the other side. Basically the ridge
lines are pretty close. We tried to do that, the actual height of the house itself is the same height.
It's just that we're a couple of feet higher because of grade. As we start moving to the south along
Canterbury the grade starts coming up. So it's just a little bit higher based on that. Our finished
basement floor is slightly higher than their finished basement floor.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it's an excellent project for the Zoning Board.
MRS. MOORE-I do have information from the County Planning Office,but it's in reference to the site
plan itself. I can read it so you're aware of it now, and I do have two public comments that
generally we red those when the public hearing is open.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, there's no public hearing this evening. So it would certainly be
relevant for the Zoning Board tomorrow night.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, and they'll see that. I just want to make sure you're aware that there's the
County comments for the site plan and the two items for the site plan when we see it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are the County comments relevant to the variance request?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, and I can read what he's written to the area variance board,to the Zoning Board,
rather.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-It says, County staff realizes that there is a limited "buildable" space.
Notwithstanding, the amount of proposed built space leaves little room for onsite infiltration of
stormwater and appears to be an over use of what the property can sustain. The application also
indicates a sand filter bed on property not owned by the applicant and there does not appear to be
any information in the packet giving the applicant the right to use the property for a sand filter.
And I can correct that. I did talk to the County Planning Office and identified that the applicant
does have an agreement with the adjoining neighbor to do that. So he was aware of that.
MR. HALL-That should be part of your,you have that in your package, that this piece of property is
under agreement with the Bentons.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there was reference that there was a, and I can't remember the exact
wording.
MRS. MOORE-It was identified as staff notes. The actual information is being handled
administratively because it's merging that parcel with the adjoining property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Was that it, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from the Board?
MR.TRAVER-Well, again, I would just repeat my concern. I just think it's too big.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that's what I was saying,too.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, I understand it's a valiant attempt to upgrade the facility, but the lot is
what it is. I think it's just, I mean, eight feet from the water, and I don't know what design changes
might be better,but I just don't see how that's going to work.
MR. CANTERBURY-Well,the current patio is that distance from the water right now.
MR.TRAVER-I understand that. It's concrete,but I mean you wouldn't be able to build on it now. I
mean,you're trying to improve the property, and I appreciate that, but I think that you might have
to re-visit the general size and location of some, I mean, I understand it's a tough lot. If there were
not a building there and you had to put a structure there, it wouldn't be anything like this. So that's
my concern.
MR. HUNSINGER-How would we like to express some of these concerns in a recommendation?
MR. KREBS-But the problem is we look at the adjoining properties and the properties.
MR. TRAVER-We're not looking at the adjoining properties. We're looking at the application in
front of this. We will be at some point, maybe, when they come before us, but tonight we're not.
So we have to keep focused on what we have before us, and I just think that the 84% relief from the
setbacks is, I mean, call is 24 feet there right now at 48% is a lot, and I appreciate that the applicant
has,you know,his dad was a firm believer in concrete and did all of that kind of thing and that they
want to upgrade the property and make it more effectively a year round residence, but I think that
there's more creative ways to do that then to put it eight feet from the water line. So I guess my
comment would just be I have grave concerns about the extent of relief being requested.
MR. DEEB-Yes, but there are extenuating circumstances. If you take the patio and the covered
porch,how many feet are you?
MR. HALL-If we take the sun porch and the deck away,we're back to the 23 feet.
MR. DEEB-And right now there's concrete going up through there.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. DEEB-So your concern is a little puzzling because in essence I feel that they're almost the same
because the patio and the porch are open, and they're just going to allow for permeability,which to
me is an improvement.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact there's another major improvement, and that is moving the septic to 100
feet away from the water I think is a major improvement.
MR. DEEB-Well that would be done anyway. Whatever happens,that's going to be done.
MR. HALL-That has to be.
MR.TRAVER-That's my point. This isn't the only option, I don't believe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. TRAVER-That's all I'm suggesting. I'm not saying that, you know, they haven't put in a good
faith effort. I think that more creativity, perhaps, would alleviate some of the extreme in these
requests. That's my opinion,for what it's worth. We'll see what the Zoning Board says.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I,just off the top of my head, I don't recall seeing too many projects where
there's a total of seven variance requests.
MR. HALL-A couple of those, a couple of the variance requests are based on the fact that this lot has
no road frontage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I don't have an issue with that one at all. It's a private road. Yes, I don't
have an issue with that one.
MR. HALL-So that one and the nonconforming lot size,we don't have any control over those.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. HALL-We've tried to take into account,and like I said,we've taken a look at it.
MR. TRAVER-There's a history of small lots certainly around the Glen Lake area, and we've gotten
applications where construction has been advocated on these small lots, and they've still required
some variances but they've just essentially reduced the size of the structure and been able to make
it much more compliant, you know, with a similar situation. Just historically I guess parts of that
area that just have very small lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of a recommendation, I mean,the typical comment is that we have not
identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated, but I think in this case we have
identified some areas of concern.
MR.TRAVER-Yes, I think that there's,with a design modification,a greater mitigation could occur.
MR. KREBS-Right,but are they significant?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,that's the Zoning Board.
MR. KREBS-But if they didn't build a new building there,the concrete is still seven feet from or eight
feet from the water.
MR. HALL-The concrete now is right up to the water.
MR. KREBS-Right up to the water, okay, and the septic system is significantly closer and may not
even be, may be what I had on my Lake George place,which was a can in the ground and,you know,
based on the timeframe.
MR. TRAVER-But they're not advocating that things remain the same. They want to change and
improve it and make it year round. So, what we're saying, that's the context within which we're
reviewing.
MR. KREBS-It's already year round.
MR. HALL-Our house now is a year round now. It's lived in full time, yes, they use it year round
now,and it is,like I say,it is heated. It's insulated,though not very well.
MR.TRAVER-Right,well,that's my point. You want to improve it obviously,and make it more.
MR. FORD-I can appreciate the fact that you're acquiring more land and a substantial improvement
in the septic and so forth. The structure itself seems to be larger than it should be, I believe. In
other words,if that were smaller,you'd be requiring several fewer variances,would you not?
MR. HALL-We're going to require the variance. I mean, this strip of land, anything that would get
built in there wouldn't require a variance,but anything we do outside of that's still going to require
area variances, shoreline setback. Anything we do is going to require those. I mean,the only thing
we're not seeking is side yard setbacks.
MR. DEEB-I mean,even if you shrank the building down in size,you're still not going to come within
the setback. You can't do it.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I know that.
MR. DEEB-The lot's impossible.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I highlighted, since you put that on the map, I highlighted the allowable
building area as well. Yes,it's pretty telling.
MR. HALL-It's pretty small. The only thing that I could think of,and I have to really discuss this with
Russ. The only thing that we could possibly do would be to take this block as it stands now and
slide it back. There is some space between the back wall of the garage and Canterbury Lane. We
may be able to pull that back. Again,the eight feet is for the deck itself. I know it's a structure. It's
considered a structure, but we're at least maintaining the stormwater there. So we could probably
pull this back far enough where we could get the front of the screen porch to possibly line up with
the front of the house, thereby pushing that back and little farther. I don't know what that does
grading wise.
MR. FORD-I would see that as a substantial improvement over what.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but it also creates another problem, and that is if there's any water coming off the
road, it's going to be putting that water closer to the building. Right now you have an infiltration
area.
MR. HALL- We've got some infiltration area to get that in. It may be, like I said, that may be a
solution or something that we could offer to take a look at between the Zoning Board and the next
time we're before you.
MR. TRAVER-I think that's all that I'm expressing is that there may be options that could be
considered that would reduce the magnitude. Understand you're going to need relief because of
the nature of the lot. Sure.
MR. HALL-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-But there may be steps that can be taken in the design or the overall size that would
mitigate and make it much more compliant, much more effective structure and still have it be an
effective,nice place to live.
MR. HALL-The other thing that we may be able to look at it right now we're talking about bringing
this deck around so that we have an access to get down onto the lawn and then down this way. We
may be able to move that area back here, take the stairs and down and kind of reduce the size of
that deck a little bit in that area,so that this side yard setback goes from 14 to 21.
MR. FORD-I think that's the kind of creativity that was referred to earlier in the conversation.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,what's bothering you? Is it the eight foot from the point of the deck out? Or
is it the screened in porch? I mean, overall I think what he's done to the lot and,you know,to place
this lot and what he's doing is taking out concrete,pretty much.
MR.TRAVER-Well,he's proposing to do that anyway. The question is what's going to go in place of
that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,he's going to have more permeability between there and the lake.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, there's an improvement in permeability, Chris pointed out. There's an
improvement, so the relief required for permeability is less than it was, but the other things are an
increase. So they're more than offset by the fact that he's going from the shoreline from 48% to
84%,and the height is going from 28 feet to 32 feet, and it's,well,whatever.
MR. MAGOWAN-How are the decks on either side? I mean, they almost look like they're on top of
the lakes,too. I mean,how much further are you protruding out from them?
MR. HALL-The one that's to our north, we're about the same distance back that they are now, and
with that said,we're probably about the same distance that they are. Now realizing that the Sabia's
lot goes up relatively steeply from the, they can't really get much closer to the lake than what they
are. That's a pretty steep bank coming up.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I think we're getting a little bit into the weeds and more into the site plan
part.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I think just generally what I'm expressing is just a general alarm at the size of the
increase in relief that's required and wondering whether some design elements could be modified
to make it a more appealing request for relief.
MRS.MOORE-Can I offer?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-If you move to that section where it says identify the following areas of concern, the
concern would be the amount of relief requested could be reduced by design modification and
achieve the development desired. I don't know if that addresses what you said.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,that's a good response.
MRS.MOORE-Okay,and I don't know if the whole Board would be.
MR.TRAVER-And they're already taking a look at that.
MR. FORD-That would be good guidance for the ZBA.
MR. HUNSINGER-How did you word that, Laura? That was very good.
MR.TRAVER-Or should we just second that.
MRS. MOORE-I have the amount of relief requested could be reduced by design modification and
achieve the development desired.
MR.TRAVER-Second.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make that motion?
MR. KREBS-Well, I still have a question as to whether the standard A, is that really a significant
adverse impacts?
MR.TRAVER-That's not for us to determine. That's for the Zoning Board to determine.
MR. KREBS-Yes, it is for us to determine, because this is the Planning Board, based on limited
review,has not identified any significant. That's saying the Planning Board. Okay. Did you find a
significant,that's what I'm asking.
MR. HUNSINGER-But we have identified areas of concern.
MR. KREBS-Areas of concern,yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the standard choices are A or B.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess what has been suggested is that we identify B and just, you know,
we'll identify what the areas of concern are.
MR. KREBS-It's really up to the Zoning Board anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, as Mr. Schonewolf said, this will be a good discussion for the Zoning Board.
So,you know, I mean,that's not to say we have to go with the standard resolution request. I mean,
we could do something different. I don't think anyone has suggested that we've identified
significant adverse impacts. We've just suggested that there's areas of concern.
MR. FORD-Right.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-So, yes, I think you're correct in your observation. So we're back to, would
anyone like to make a recommendation? Based on maybe the comments that Laura suggested or
some other comments.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#49-2014 RUSSELL CANTERBURY
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of
existing home to construct a 2,247 sq. ft. (footprint) single family dwelling. Site Plan: Pursuant to
Chapter 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance construction of new hard surfacing within
50 feet of a shoreline and construction of a freestanding structure within 50 feet of slopes in excess
of 15% shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from
permeability; side, rear, shoreline setbacks; height, road frontage and FAR requirements of the WR
zone. The Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the ZBA.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 49-2014 RUSSELL CANTERBURY,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
The Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following areas of concern, per
Laura's comments: The amount of relief requested could be reduced by design modification and
achieve the development desired.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. We'll see you back next week. Okay. The next item on the agenda is
also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
SITE PLAN NO. 49-2014 SEQR TYPE II RICHARD & JILL LONG OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING LC-42A-LAND CONSERVATION 42 ACRES LOCATION 2407 RIDGE
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 284 SQ. FT. POOL IN THEIR FRONT YARD WITH A 206 SQ.
FT. DECK. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-5-020, & 179-13-010 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM REQUIREMENT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW POOL PLACEMENT IN FRONT YARD AND
SETBACKS FOR DECK. CROSS REFERENCE A V 51-14, SP 49-13, AV 46-13, BP 14-201
WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER CEA LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 240-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-020, 179-13-010
JILL LONG, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a deck and place a pool in the front yard. The
deck location is 13.6 feet from the north property line and 65 feet from the south property line,
where 100 feet is required. You've seen this application before, noting that the size of the lot
doesn't comply with the LC-42 acre zone where 100 foot is required for all setbacks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could speak right into the microphone,
please. If you could identify yourself for the record.
MRS. LONG-Jill Long.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to tell us about your project?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MRS. LONG-We want to put a pool in but we can't put it in the backyard because we have the septic
with the drainage pipes. So we have to, and there's not enough room in between the side of our
house and our neighbor's property to put it in. So we need to put it in the towards the front of the
house to clear the variance of his property line.
MR. HUNSINGER-And this is an above ground pool?
MRS. LONG-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-With a deck?
MRS. LONG-Well, we have a deck on the house now, but it's not very big. So we were going to
enlarge that and bring it over so the deck would be here and the pool would be like here.
MR. MAGOWAN-Not tied together?
MRS. LONG-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-You need that swinging gate,you know.
MRS. LONG-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's a big sized pool. I've got a 28 footer. You can get lost in that thing sometimes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is the construction finished now?
MRS. LONG-We wanted to do the pool because of the electrical. So when they do the final
inspection,you can tie it all in together.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Was there anything else you wanted to add?
MRS. LONG-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board?
MR.TRAVER-It seems fairly straightforward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments from the Board, if anyone
would like to make a recommendation.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 51-2014 RICHARD&JILL LONG
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 284 sq. ft. pool
in their front yard with a 206 sq. ft. deck. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-5-020 &
179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from requirement that does not
allow pool placement in front yard and setbacks for deck.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 51-2014 RICHARD & JILL LONG,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
RICHARD LONG
MR. LONG-Great. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Okay. We're going to skip ahead to New Business.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2014 SEQR TYPE II DENISE HUMISTON OWNER(S) BINLEY FLORIST, INC.
ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 773 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
AN 80 SQ. FT. PORTABLE WAGON PRODUCE STAND IN A PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT AT
BINLEY FLORIST. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
PRODUCE STAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 14-05, BP 05-436 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2014 LOT SIZE 7.21 ACRES
(PORTION OF) TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040
DENISE&JARED HUMISTON, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to locate a portable produce wagon on a portion of the
Binley Florist property, and the Board should consider the waivers requested in reference to
lighting, signage, utilities, stormwater, topography, landscaping, etc., and in your application
package is a picture of what the applicant proposes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUMISTON-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. HUMISTON-My name is Jared Humiston. This is my wife Denise Humiston.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add about your project?
MR. HUMISTON-No. We're just looking at putting a vegetable wagon there. There's some
similarities between the vegetables and what he does. So we think it will be beneficial to both
businesses.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions,comments from the Board.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are they grown locally?
MR. HUMISTON-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-And I assume this is not going to be a year round operation?
MR. HUMISTON-No,it'll be seasonal.
MR. TRAVER-What are you going to do with the wagon in the wintertime, put it, store it
somewhere?
MR. HUMISTON-Transport it back to the farm and leave it on the property there until next spring.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-The question I had is you gave us this nice picture of what it looks like. Does that
face the road or does that face into the parking lot?
MRS. HUMISTON-It's actually the same on both sides,the bins and what not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you can stand on both sides,too,then. Okay.
MR. HUMISTON-So the bins are suspended by chains.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-Do you think four parking spots are enough?
MR. HUMISTON-Yes, we've done the Fall festival out there in the past. He has the annual Fall
festival and we've brought the wagon out there and so we're using a very similar spot to what we've
used before, and it doesn't impact on his parking.
MR. DEEB-I mean,if you do get five or six people at one time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think they're just saying the tent and the cart will take up four spots.
MR. DEEB-So you have enough parking for everybody.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-They're supposed to dedicate at least the spots that they've identified for the project,
according to a produce stand. I'm assuming they've worked an arrangement with the property
owner that other parking's available if needed.
MR. HUMISTON-He actually identified areas that people don't normally park in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this
project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't see any hands or takers. Any written comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-There is no written comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were
received and we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Seasonal produce stands is something that was encouraged in the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan, and, I mean, I certainly have no issues with this project. It's the kind of thing, well,
we've got another one right after yours.
MRS. MOORE-I can add what I've seen in other produce stand pieces of information I've looked at is
that there's been a timeframe where because it's a produce stand if Binley Florist operates on a
yearly basis, so it operates from Spring to Spring or you can put a timeframe on it only if that's
desired. There was no timeframe proposed on this one, and I'm assuming it ends at the end of the
season and will continue indefinitely, but if the applicant knows that, you know, there's a five year
lease on this spot with this property owner,then that may be included with the information for the
Board. I don't know that, and nothing was identified. So this may be an indefinite project. So just
to be clear.
MR. HUMISTON-From conversations with Wally is he actually approached us with it and,you know,
I think he's open to no time limit as, you know, an agreement, and if he doesn't want it, I think he
would just talk to us and say, hey, we'd like to end the commitment this year. I think indefinite is
okay with him.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it's not a permanent structure. So I can't imagine they'd want to be out
there once it gets cold.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. TRAVER-No, and they addressed that earlier in the comment that they were going to store the
wagon.
MRS. MOORE-Right. The other thing to note is that right now it's identified as a portable produce
stand, but if in the upcoming years it becomes a tent or something larger, then it would have to
come back for review. So right now it's limited.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,we're approving the wagon. Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good point, Laura.
MR. MAGOWAN-Don't take the wheels off it,all right.
MR.TRAVER-Or put a motor on it or anything.
MR. DEEB-Do you think,do we need a time,from month,say whatever it is?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I don't think we do.
MR. DEEB-Until October or?
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,they've identified it as a seasonal operation.
MR. DEEB-Ambiguity is always a good thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Well, and not only that, but Wally runs, I mean, he starts putting flowers outside, you
know, in the early Spring and brings them in towards the middle of the Fall. So that's
automatically being done from the existing business. So I don't see any.
MR. DEEB-They're not the same business.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Let's say growing season.
MR. KREBS-If they can give me fresh corn in the month of November, I will be there.
MRS. HUMISTON-We'll see what we can do.
MR. HUMISTON-I've never tried growing corn in a greenhouse before,but we'll see what we can do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to make a motion?
MR. KREBS-Sure.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#44-2014 DENISE HUMISTON
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes an 80 sq. ft. portable wagon produce stand in a portion of the parking lot at
Binley Florist. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Produce Stand shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 7-15-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO.44-2014 DENISE HUMISTON, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) Waiver requests granted: G, lighting, H signage, I utilities, J stormwater, K topography, L
landscaping, M land use districts, N traffic, 0 new construction/ alteration details, P floor plans,
Q soil logs, R construction disposal,and S snow removal.
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel.
4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2014,by the following vote:
MR. KREBS-Waivers requested will be granted for lighting, signage, utilities, stormwater,
topography,landscaping and M -land use districts, N traffic, 0 new construction.
MR. KREBS-Is this applicable?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,something's not right here.
MRS.MOORE-No,it's correct. There's a series of waivers that are requested in this application.
MR. KREBS-Okay. P- Floor plan, Q-soil logs, R construction disposal and S snow removal.
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set.
MR. HUMISTON-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do you grow all the vegetables that you're planning to sell?
MR. HUMISTON-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Where's your farm?
MR. HUMISTON-Argyle.
MRS. HUMISTON-Argyle.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Good luck.
MR. HUMISTON-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO 45-2014 SEQR TYPE II WILLIAM RUDENKO OWNER(S) GF LODGE 81
BENEVOLENT PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELK'S ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE
LOCATION 32 CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A PRODUCE STAND USING A 20' X 20'
CANOPY. PURSUANT TO 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PRODUCE STAND IN A CI
ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 54-90, U V 46-90, BP 08-636 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2014 LOT SIZE
5.01 ACRES (PORTION OF) TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-32 SECTION 179-3-040
BILL RUDENKO, PRESENT
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a produce stand with a 20 by 20 canopy, and it describes it
with three tables on a portion of the Elks Lodge property and to use no more than 11 parking
spaces at any one time. In this case the applicant has noted that during an Elks Lodge event that
the applicant would not operate the produce stand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. RUDENKO-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Board members. My name is Bill Rudenko. I'm a
partner in the family business, Bull Hill Farm Orchard and Nursery located in Hartford, NY. We're a
registered business with the Washington County Municipal building. We have operated produce
stands since 2008 when we started out with three locations. We were rurally located. Now we
operate in Warren and Washington County and this would be our sixth location this year. We were
attracted to the Elks Lodge property because in many prior years it was the home of the Glens Falls
Farmer's Market. They gave up the site and we decided to approach the Elks Lodge and we had a
favorable meeting with them and they are on board for, even that we are requesting a five year
window to operate this business at the Elks Lodge and they signed on for. So they're in agreement
with us. The site itself has safe ingress and egress from Cronin Road, wide driveways going in and
it's well delineated. For our purposes, that only attracts drivers to pull in and do business with us
because it is safe and there is a lot of room to turn around in there. It has 80 parking places, and
when the Elks Lodge has a function, a wedding or a big picnic or any organizational type banquet
facility rental, we will not operate that day on that property because their parking lot is usually
taken up. They park on the rear lawn. They have cars all over the place. So we will not operate.
That might present some sort of hazard to our customers if they're pedestrians. So any other time
the membership that occupies the Benevolent organization would probably be around 20 to 40 cars
in their parking lot at any one time,leaving at least 40 parking places for us, for our customers, and
we probably only need six to eight to ten maximum during peak business days, which are Friday,
Saturday, Sunday and Monday. On any of those days, we would probably hopefully have around
100 cars pulling in, and of course they would have to leave, but the parking lot is so vast,when the
Glens Falls Farmer's Market operated there, they had to have 40, 50 cars in there at a time. They
were an amazing success for the three to four hours that they conducted business on a Saturday. If
I could approach that kind of business volume, I could retire a lot sooner, but I don't suspect I'm
going to even approach that number of cars. At any given,in any 15 minute interval,we could have
eight to ten to twelve cars pulling in or pulling out while we have two to three to four cars parked
where the customers are actually at our stand buying produce. If there are any other questions, I'd
be happy to answer them, or concerns,but we chose that location because exposure is good and the
parking lot is huge,better than anything we've ever had over the years.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. DEEB-You're not, how are you going to advertise? I mean, if people are coming in, they're
going to have to be coming down Cronin Road for them to see you.
MR. RUDENKO-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Other than that, I mean, I was thinking, you're not planning on putting a sign down on
Cronin and Bay? I mean, I was just wondering,are you going to try and direct people to your?
MR. RUDENKO-Well, I had hoped to do that. We had hoped to use, Glens Falls Farmer's Market
used to have signs out on Bay Road. Professionally done yard signs on a little A frame with an
arrow pointing that says sweet corn. We were hoping to do that, and also on, I think it's
Meadowbrook at the other end of the road, one there if possible.
MR. DEEB-I was just curious.
MR. RUDENKO-Yes, we were hoping to put two, three or four signs out front right, and advertising
the produce of the day,be it locally picked blueberries or local melons or Georgia peaches,to direct
people. Signs, in our business, make a huge,huge difference. I mean,they do for any business,but
we have to draw the people in off the road.
MR. DEEB-Well,you're off the beaten path. So
MR. RUDENKO-Well, Cronin Road is somewhat heavily traveled. It's a little late,this year, for us to
advertise our location in the Chronicle. So signs are very important to us, but they are the yard
signs,two by two feet,double faced,professionally done.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. DEEB-And I notice that you're on the lawn at the eastern end of the parking lot.
MR.RUDENKO-Yes.
MR. DEEB-And so the parking's going to be expedient for them to get right out and go to the,and it's
far enough away from the building.
MR. RUDENKO-Yes,it is.
MR. DEEB-So it's strategically located,then. Where are your other operations now?
MR. RUDENKO-Right now we are located on Aviation Road in Queensbury at the Queensbury
Church of Christ. We have been there six years. So this is the fifth year of our five year agreement
with them. So I'll be back this Fall or over the winter to re-do another five year site plan approval
for Queensbury Church of Christ. We're in Glens Falls at Security Plumbing Supply on Dix Avenue
across from the old Price Chopper, across from Falls Farm and Garden on Dix Avenue. We are at
the Hilly Billy Golf,the Hilly Billy Fun Park on Route 149.
MR.DEEB-Okay. So this is a good location,then.
MR. RUDENKO-We feel it is, and over, the first year is very iffy because people have to get used to
you,but once we're established,the location should do very well we hope.
MR. DEEB-And I'll bet you're glad to see the roundabout go in on Aviation Road.
MR. RUDENKO-On Aviation Road?
MR. DEEB-Your competition's not there anymore.
MR. RUDENKO-Yes,they're not there,but it's surprising how these locations,one year they could be
very productive. The next year it trails off and three or four years later it's like nobody has any
interest. I can't explain it. It's like sweet corn. You made a comment about sweet corn in
November. Well, BJ, Bill Boces of BJ Farms in Greenwich,he said to me after Labor Day,after the 1St
of the year, it's psychological. People stop buying corn. Even though sweet corn is just as good in
September and October as it is in July and August, because he has corn right up until the first killing
frost, and then it's good one or two days after the first killing frost, but psychologically our business
goes down into Labor Day, we get a little bump, and then it's a precipitous drop after that because
nobody buys sweet corn anymore which is a big, the two big items are tomatoes and sweet corn,
but once nobody has,wants sweet corn,business just trails right off.
MR. DEEB-They ate too much during the summer.
MR. RUDENKO-That could be,they're tired of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public
hearing scheduled for this project as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address
the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.HUNSINGER-I don't see any hands going up. Any written comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No written comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were
received. We will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II SEQR, and I said it with the earlier project. Produce stands are
something that are encouraged in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I certainly don't see any
issues with the project. I haven't heard any from the Board.
MR. FORD-No.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#45-2014 WILLIAM RUDENKO
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a produce stand using a 20'x 20' canopy. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the
Zoning Ordinance Produce Stand in a Cl zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 7-15-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2014 WILLIAM RUDENKO, Introduced by Donald
Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff. This is good for five years.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code.
2) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
4) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2014,by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-In this case, this applicant has asked for a five year agreement. So right now that's
current, I don't believe that's in the resolution,and in the past resolutions you have included that.
MR. KREBS-I'm adding that this is good for five years.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. RU D E N KO-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. RU D E N KO-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I do have a question. Do you have apples? You gave us this sample sign that
says apples.
MR. RUDENKO-Yes,apples,lots of apples.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have them right now?
MR. RUDENKO-We have 550 semi dwarf apple trees.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow,so you're selling them right now?
MR. RUDENKO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Not until later. That's why I was asking.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. RUDENKO-They'll be fresh, Cortland's, Macs,maybe some Gala's. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO.48-2014 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED G &G BOAT&RV STORAGE,LLC AGENT(S)
NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) GIOVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS ZONING CLI-
COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 74 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
TWO SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS (27,942 SQ. FT. & 32,527 SQ. FT.) FOR BOATS & RV'S.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SELF STORAGE FACILITY IN
THE CLI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 59-13, SB 3-03, SP 43-98 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2014 LOT SIZE
2.53, 1.78&1.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-23.21,23.22,23.23 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM NACE&MIKE GIOVANONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed the site plan application for the construction of two self-
storage structures for RV and boat storage. The project was reviewed by Warren County, the Fire
Marshal,and the Town Designated Engineer and those comments are included in your Staff Notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Good evening.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering. With me is Mike
Giovanone, the owner and Steve Gardner is going to be a partner on the project. Basically what
we're looking at is a boat and RV storage site for enclosed year round storage of large motor homes
and boats. The owner currently has a location down on the north end of Saratoga Lake, some of
you may be familiar with. It's a very nice looking facility. We're proposing to use permeable
pavement for our stormwater drainage because of the fact that there's large vehicles turning and
entering a garage type facility, there are reasonable, or large size areas of asphalt required. So we
figured the permeable pavement would be an ideal opportunity to take care of the stormwater.
Utilities, there's a water line entering the site just for fire protection, with a hydrant in the back of
the site. There will be electric provided to the site. The electric will be primarily for battery
chargers so that the batteries in the recreational vehicles can be maintained by the triple charger.
There are no other utilities. There's no sewer required. The office for this facility will be an
adjacent parcel that the owner presently leases with an option to buy, and I don't know what else I
can tell you,but I'll be glad to answer questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is it sprinkled? Is that facility sprinkled?
MR. NACE-Is it sprinklered,fire protection,sprinklered?
MR. GIOVANONE-No. There's no sprinklers in there. There are firewalls to meet all the different
fire codes. Munter Construction has designed the building to meet all the fire codes with firewalls
in lieu of a sprinkler system.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you're going to use a Knox Box for entry?
MR. NACE-Yes,the Fire Marshal has requested that and we will comply with that request.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's kind of a silly question, but how do you know how big to make the units?
Because there's so many different sizes of RV's and boats. I mean, I saw the elevations and stuff.
MR. GIOVANONE-I brought some pictures of our Saratoga operation. There's several different
ones. You can pass them down, I guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great.
MR. GIOVANONE-What RV and boat storage is all about is to provide a service that is quite unique,
you won't find in a typical storage facility. We have about 160 units down on Route 9P. Our mix is
60% antique vintage cars, 20% boats, 20% RV's, and then miscellaneous. We have a collection of,
one collector has about 12 million dollars-worth of cars in one whole building down there, all the
way down to a fellow who's re-doing an old pickup truck. The security is tight. Every square inch
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
of the facility is video'd. It's monitored. It's recorded. It's fenced. The computerized gates today.
We know what time you came in, what time you left, we know your license plate number. We
know what car you drove in and if you were smiling, and if you take a look at those pictures, the
Town of Saratoga was very, very friendly and we donated the firehouse to them down there, the
area for the firehouse, and we keep it as such that the very first year we were open they gave us a
beautification award. We keep it immaculate. Without being longwinded, the whole idea of this,
when I stood before this Board and asked you to approve a Concord Pools building that was up
against the Northway, this was going to be on the Second and Big Boom Road. We just slid this
project back. Luck would have it that the swimming pool industry just came off of one of the worst
winters it's ever had in history. So in early February, late March, I said, well, I think we're not
going to chase an eagle at this stage of our career and we're going to slide this into the Fall. Well
the owner of the building next to us have a tenant that defaulted on its lease, came to me would you
like to lease purchase this piece. I said that would be fantastic because now I'll put Concord Pools
in that building,slide this back and maintain the frontage two acres for future development because
there's, all the utilities are right down the road. This makes so much more sense in the way it
happened. Maybe it was just, you know, luck, but I think it gives it a better layout. It gives it
proper exposure, and it fits the piece. It fits it. There's no,we don't deal with,there's no electrical
to deal with, other than 10 amp circuits for triple chargers, and area lighting,that's designed not to
spill off of the site,and an electric gate.
MR. KREBS-In looking at the prints, it looked like those were individual units where these show
these are open. Is that different?
MR. GIOVANONE-That's a common building that holds multiple units,but just to give you an idea of
what the inside looks like, the ones that we're proposing here tonight are partitioned, roll up metal
doors,nothing really flammable in these buildings.
MR. KREBS-I just wanted to make sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had the same question.
MR. FORD-The video surveillance,is that exterior only?
MR. GIOVANONE-Yes. In the facility down at 9P,there's 16 cameras that are very blatant and eight
that are hidden, one at the gate, and again,it's just good business to know who comes and who goes
at any given time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Boards?
MR. FORD-I'm impressed with the quality.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's one of the nicest I've seen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled, if there's no other questions from
the Board. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the project, this project? Any
written comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS.MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing and like the others before,let the record show,
no comments were received. We'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. The applicant has completed the Short Environmental
Form. Are there any environmental concerns that any Board members have?
MR. FORD-I don't.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion for a SEQR resolution?
RESOLUTION RE: SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SP#48-2014 G&G BOAT&RV STORAGE
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
The applicant proposes two self-storage buildings (27,942 sq. ft. & 32,527 sq. ft.) for Boats & RV's.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Self Storage facility in the CLI zone shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject
to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Part 2 of the Short EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared.
Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SEQR FOR SITE PLAN NO. 48-2014 G
& G BOAT & RV STORAGE, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2014,by the following vote:
MR. DEEB-Just one question. There's no washing? Okay.
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-There are a couple of engineering comments. Did you have any comments about
that?
MR. MACE-It's mostly, they're asking for additional notes and specifications on the permeable
pavement construction and maintenance, and I've addressed them in a letter. I will be taking care
of those on the plans tomorrow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn't think they seemed to be any significant issues. Unless there's any
other questions or comments from the Board,would anyone like to put forward a motion?
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#48-2014 G&G BOAT&RV STORAGE, LLC
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes two self-storage buildings (27,942 sq. ft. & 32,527 sq. ft.) for Boats & RV's. Site
Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Self Storage facility in the CLI zone
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Subdivision: Merge two lots with 3rd lot
to be larger by removing shared drive access. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance
any modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 7-15-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2014 G &G BOAT&RV STORAGE, LLC, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff:
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
3) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be
installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff,
4) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
5) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of aU site work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
6) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These
plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such
a plan was prepared and approved;
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or
an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
7) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel.
8) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
9) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution
10)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. GIOVANONE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 SEQR TYPE APA JURISDICTION BEAR POND RANCH, LLC; FRENCH
MOUNTAIN BEAR POND, LLC AGENT(S) LITTLE &O'CONNOR, BARTLETT, PONTIFF STEWART
& RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING LC-10A
LAND CONSERVATION 10 ACRE LOCATION OFF STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO CONSTRUCT A 3,450 LINEAR FOOT ZIP LINE EMANATING ON LANDS IN QUEENSBURY AND
TERMINATING ON LANDS IN LAKE GEORGE; TOTAL ELEVATION DROP OF APPROXIMATELY
770 FEET PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OUTDOOR RECREATION USES IN THE LC ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 43-06, SP 15-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING
11/9/2011 LOT SIZE 74.18&169 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-l-77, 13 SECTION 179-9
MICHAEL O'CONNOR,JON LAPPER&SCOTT MANCHESTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MRS. MOORE-The only information I have is to clarify that it is from October of 2011. The last
proposal was for a 3,450 linear foot zip line with four line recreational ride, and information for the
Board is they may consider the waiver requests for lighting and landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the firm
of Little & O'Connor. I'm representing the applicant tonight with Jon Lapper who is also
representing the applicant, and between us, the rose between two thorns, is Ralph Macchio, and
behind me is his wife Rosalie. They are the principles of the applicant, and basically I think we're
going to try and run through our presentation by use of the consultants. Before we do that,though,
I just want to, for the purpose of your record, indicate that prior to being here tonight, the Lake
George Planning Board, in February of 2013, granted approval to this project, or to their portion of
the project that's within the Town of Lake George. The Adirondack Park Agency also reviewed the
project and issued a permit in April of 2014, and it's significant to note that the APA review is the
equivalent to a SEQR review. So for this application,this application is exempt from SEQR because
of the APA approval. On November 16, 2012, we go back a ways with this application, having
started it, the Warren County Planning Board issued a determination of No County Impact, and
along the way the New York State Department of Transportation, this is more for Lake George, in
May of 2013, indicated that there was no additional highway permit necessary based upon the
traffic that we would generate, and probably most important to your Board, we did receive an
engineering signoff this month from the Town Engineer for the issues as to the construction that's
going to take place within the Town of Queensbury. I also note for the record, and I'm not sure,we
started this, I think, in 2011, what you've been given out of the old files, but I have a letter here, it
was dated October 25, 2011, from SHPO, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation,saying that there was nothing of significance as to animal or vegetation habitat on this
site. I also have, or they said there's nothing of historic significance on this site. I also have a letter
from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation dated March 13, 2012 that
says that there's no significant habitat or plant life on this site. I already told you about the County
Planning determination. That was dated back November 16, 2012, and we did have letters in the
file, one from Jointa Galusha, indicating that on inspection of the access road, it was sufficient to
accommodate the delivery of ready-mix concrete for the planned structures at the top of the
project. We will have concrete up there for the purpose of the anchor, and we have a letter from
Dave Wick,which was in November of 2011 that he had reviewed the road and found the road to be
in good condition and that it would support the traffic that we would create for bringing
participants to the top of the mountain. You have to remember that this road was built for the
purpose of a logging road and logging trucks, logging equipment. So the type of vehicle that we're
going to use to transport people is going to put a lot less burden on the road than what that type of
traffic would put on it. With me, and I'll call them in different orders,but Kevin Frank from the LA
Group. Kevin did the visual study, studies. Scott Manchester from O'Brien and Gear. He did the
noise study, and Sean Learner is also here who is the representative of the manufacturer of the Zip
Flyer. I'd like to begin with Ralph giving you just an idea, his overview, and also we have Tom
Hutchins who will give you some geographic outlay of the project and parts of the project.
MR. LAPPER-As Mike said, we have all of the technical guys to answer your questions, and I know,
knowing you guys, that you've looked at the APA permit which was really very thorough. That
process was pretty iterative where we changed the project to minimize the impacts, especially
noise and visual, but before we get to that, Ralph and Rosalie bought the first piece of property on
French Mountain in 1969 and we just thought that it would be good for you to understand their
philosophy because it goes a lot to minimizing the impacts and really what they have in mind here, I
think,is just a good place to start before we get into the technical presentation.
RALPH MACCHIO
MR. MACCHIO-Good evening. My name is Ralph Macchio, and myself, my wife and the family own
the Wild West Ranch and the property we have in both Queensbury and in Lake George. We
purchased the property back in 1969, on top of the Mountain, including the pond, and then in 2005
we purchased the Ranch which gave us a direct access up into the upper portions of the lots we've
owned since 1969. During that time period, we have not built so much as a doghouse on our
property, and when we do decide to do something, we ask our sons and my wife and myself. I get
an opinion, but, and also the grandkids from time to time, they have an opinion of what they think,
and we're very selective in what we've done. To date we've done basically cleanup of the property.
When we first went there it needed a good cleanup, and then, in addition to that, we started the
landscaping,the mowing of the lands and the shaping of the weeds and what have you, and then put
some boulders around to give some natural effects to the Ranch, and we also maintain a summer
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
home there on the Ranch. During that time we noticed the outlook, which amazed us when we
went up there and we would go out to the outlook and look down and see what we saw, everything
from almost the entire Lake George, on a clear day, the high peaks of the Adirondacks and the
Adirondacks around us and the Town of Lake George and the Northway. So,you know, it was just
spectacular, that view, and we always thought that that view should be shared by others, as an
enhancement to the Ranch, the community and the area in general. We, later on in years,
approximately three or four years ago, came upon the zip line concept, and upon looking at it, we
researched it. First they said,look,you're going to have to make it like a ski slope and cut the trees
down. At that point we rejected that concept and didn't go back to it, but then after a careful
review by engineering and surveys and the slope of the Mountain, we found that we could have a
zip line there that would be, would offer very little to be mitigated in terms of aesthetics. We can
hide the towers to a large degree. The one on the bottom will only show 12 feet. The one on the
top will be up approximately 140 feet away from the landing platform, and this tower has a lot of
tall trees around it and a lot of those trees will not have to be touched because there is no
interaction on the cables between the launch pad and the tower. There is nothing that moves back
and forth. It's simply a matter of bringing the cables out to the launch pad where they would load
up and then go down the zip line, and in addition to that, before we made that decision about the
zip line, I went on several zip lines, and I have to tell you that my first impression on my first zip
line, I was sitting behind that gate and looking down, and I tell you I was a bit worried, but as soon
as that gate opened and I got airborne, I'll tell you it's such a special feeling. There wasn't that
anticipation. Almost immediately you got the feeling like you were soaring, like an eagle gliding
over an area and gliding down. The visibility was absolutely beautiful, and it didn't have half the
beauty of what this area has and what French Mountain shows on the north side going down, and I
know that this would be a lifetime experience for people who took this zip line down. It is a thrill
ride,but that's not the real experience. The experience is floating over the landscape,looking at the
entire Lake George, the tall peaks, the Adirondacks, the Town, and it's an experience that lasts for
years after you've had it, and that's what made myself and my family decide that this is something
we would want on our Ranch. We looked around. We said, well, the cables will be coming down.
They're three quarter inch cables. If you ride down any roadway and look up into the sky,what do
you see? Telephone lines that are five and eight times bigger than that, that are against the sky,
against the greenery. They show up almost everywhere you go to look. This here will be mitigated
in terms of the landscaping down. We only have to clear eight feet below the rider, and the first
900 feet, and where we don't need to cut anything we absolutely will not, and the rest of it, we're
over 100 feet at times above the trees coming down to the Ranch. There is some mitigation there, I
agree, but miniscule compared to the benefit, and not only that, you don't have to be a hiker to get
up to the Mountain to see this beauty and to experience this beauty. You can be an older person,
you can be a handicap person. This is available as an Adirondack activity that's absolutely
gorgeous and beautiful and should exist in this community. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Tom Hutchins.
TOM HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. We've been, I just
want to briefly go through the concept with you. We were here back in 2011/2012. In general the
program has not changed significantly since that time. We've made a number of refinements down
on the Lake George side,there's a whole lot more infrastructure on that end of the process. There's
wastewater treatment, there's water and there's entry parking and all that, but on the ride itself
there's been, or the Zip Flyer itself there have been very little changes since we were here. The
process with,and I want to briefly touch on the overall. Again,nothing has been re-located as far as
the Zip Flyer is concerned, at the top we have a launch platform, a cable support tower, and an
anchor, and the anchor is just a chunk of concrete that's anchored into the rock that holds the
cables. I believe you're all familiar with the access road. This is the lower portion of the road, and
right here is where it crosses from the Town of Lake George to the Town of Queensbury, and it
meanders to the east of the actual launch site as it climbs up, this being the high point of the road,
and then you're heading down, as you're familiar with down, and there's the turnaround, the loop
that we've all been to. Now, to focus on this particular area, much of the APA review process, at
least on our side, was focused on this area. We've put considerable amount of thought into just
how much has to be cut, where it has to be cut, how it's going to be cut and how it's going to be
restored. Essentially, there is a centerline of the Zip Flyer, there's a path. There is a path through
there, varies from 36 to 50 feet in width that will require selective cutting of various heights from
the launch platform to an area about 850 to 900 feet down the profile. What has to happen is we
maintain an eight foot clearance below the rider to the nearest obstacle. At the start, at the launch
platform, you're roughly 10 to 12 feet above grade. So trees higher than 12 feet have to be cut in
this area, and you'll see on your plan, I've shown the maximum height of the tree that can remain as
you go down the profile, okay,and as you get down in here,we can have 28 foot trees. We can have
23 foot trees, still maintain our clearance because as you can see on the profile, this is existing
grade, and where the grade starts to drop off the trees stay high. We're not topping trees. We will
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
have to take the trees that are obstructing within that clearance envelope. Now we've put a fair
amount of effort into,this is going to be a hand kind of selective cut into just how that it's done,that
it's not cut in a straight line on both sides. It's to be cut in a somewhat random manner, and these
areas are re-planting areas of evergreens of varying heights that are replaced after the cut is made.
We've shown erosion controls down through here. Much of this will be hand cut. There'll be very
little equipment. There will be some equipment involved, but very little equipment. As far as
actual construction, the envelope is here for the launch platform, and that's a prefabricated
structure so it's a matter of, construction's really a matter of pouring a foundation, and then it's
basically assembly and again, the tower, which is up here, which is 34 feet in height, and again, the
primary construction there is pouring the foundation and then again it's a prefabricated structure
that's basically erected, and the anchor platform,which is an anchor of concrete. It's anchored into
the rock. It keeps the tension on the cables. I worked with your engineer on erosion controls and
some of these berms and some plantings. This is all incorporated into that, and very recently
actually I've been through it with your engineer and as Mike indicated he had just provided the
signoff. So with that, I think I'm,did I miss anything? Any questions?
MR. FORD-I have a question. What is going to happen to the trees and other foliage that has been
cut up through that swath?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, what gets cut will get removed. The stumps will stay. They're not going to
leave all the trees there. Most of that, that'll get removed, and it'll have to get cut to manageable
sizes and with relatively small equipment be able to get it out of there.
MR. FORD-And will that be simply transported to another area in the forest or off site?
MR. HUTCHINS-I don't know the answer to that. It could be, most likely it can go back down to the
Ranch and find some use for it or take it off site.
MR. HUNSINGER-How often will you have to trim and cut the brush after the initial?
MR. HUTCHINS-At least annually. I mean, it'll have to be monitored, ongoing inspections, and Sean
can talk more about how the system's inspected,but inspections are frequently. At least probably a
couple of cuts a year to maintain those clearances,but they would be hand done.
MR.TRAVER-I had a couple of questions about the road. I understand that this,at least initially,we
proposed to operate year round. Is that still the case?
MR. O'CONNOR-It's still the case,yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I know that stormwater is discussed a great deal in your proposal, but could
you just, I guess in layman terms, or summarize for me how the,because I've been on the road both
winter and summer, and I know that there's potential there for erosion, particularly after a
significant rain event. How are you managing that?
MR. O'CONNOR-We do a Spring maintenance of it and bring it back into top shape, and then we do a
Fall maintenance,get it ready for the winter, and we do periodic maintenance if we have a problem,
if we have a heavy, you know, we have a hurricane come down through there or something of that
nature. They clean out the ditches, get the debris out of there, re-crown the road and take care of
anything that's started to erode. It's designed with water bars. Dave Wick actually supervised it
as part of the mitigation for some prior action,and it was built to his specifications.
MR. TRAVER-And in the wintertime, I know in the summer, because I've ridden in one,your plan is
to transport people up in like ATV's and trailers and so on. What are you going to use in the
wintertime,a snowmobile?
MR. O'CONNOR-What we've thought about this so far is it'll be a track like vehicle. You can take
wheels off a four wheel drive vehicle and you get a triangular type track,almost like a ski center.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,they put those on ATV's,too.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There'd be some, we have to acknowledge there will be some weather that
says we don't go up the Mountain,if it's not safe.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I wouldn't think you would get as much business in February as you would in
June.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. O'CONNOR-If you go through the APA permit, we said that we will do business in February,
January and February, maybe December,January and February on reservation only.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We would like to think that we would get some people that would like to go up and
take a look at the lake with the snow on it and what not,but.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, and that brings me to my next question. Currently, at least parts of that
access road are used by the local snowmobile club. Now what's going to happen with that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Used with our permission,and we will continue that.
MR.TRAVER-So you think that can co-exist still with the track vehicles?
MR. O'CONNOR-The traffic on it is not that heavy from them, the last two years that they've had it,
was it the last two or three years. Almost three years they've used it. Honestly, it's not heavy
traffic. There are a number of turnout spots on the road, and we can utilize those. We plan on
using them, you know, for our traffic that's going to be going both ways, so that people will know
that the traffic going up has the right of way, and by radio communication between the vehicles,
we're at station such and such, make way, and they will pull over for us at the first thing that they
pass by.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and last but not least for me, the question, third question for me
was raised by the discussion of the stumps and so on. After the initial cuts are made, I'm talking up
near the launch tower,is there going to be plantings of smaller trees to replace them?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And those will, over years will get bigger until eventually they need to be trimmed
and so on,or is there just going to be bare stumps left up there?
MR. O'CONNOR-No,there are seven water bars, and each of those will be re-planted and then if you
look at the cross hatched areas, each of those cross hatched areas will also be planted, and if you
look at this, there's a good note on this S-6 that talks about the clearing specifications and talks
about the re-planting. The cross hatch areas indicate areas to be re-planted. These areas shall be
re-planted with hemlock fir, white spruce, plug seedlings 15 feet on center, individual species shall
be planted in groups and arranged in irregular natural patterns to simulate natural conditions.
MR.TRAVER-And if and when they get large enough to,within eight feet of the rider,then they'll be
trimmed as needed.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and if they're new plantings we can trim them without, we can't go in and top
trees. They'd end up being sticks, but if we do plantings, we can maintain the plantings, just like
you would in your yard.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Let the record show that the Spring mitigation has not occurred yet on the road. We
can attest to that.
MR. O'CONNOR-We're waiting. The road needs to be maintained, and what we're hoping for is that
we'll actually get into construction and we'll be able to combine the construction maintenance with
the opening of it. If you take a look at the APA,there is a provision in there that we have to, after all
construction is complete, file an engineering report with them showing that the road has been
maintained in a proper manner, and then we have to do that for the next three years, to show that
we are maintaining the road as we have promised that we would do.
MR.TRAVER-What happens after three years?
MR. O'CONNOR-We will still maintain it,but they won't be looking over our shoulder,basically. It's
to our advantage to maintain it. We want the people to have a good ride up there, and we want it to
be a safe ride. We don't want it to be a problem. The road was built in 2006, 2005, and with just
the annual maintenance or just the semi-annual maintenance it has maintained its condition very
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
well. If you've been up it, it's a well-built road. Right now some of the grass or the brush on the
sides of it have grown up substantially, but once that's trimmed back you're going to see that the
drainage ditches, what did you call them, Jon, the water bars and the riprap stops and the drainage
trenches are still there and they're kept clean and they're maintained. I think the next thing we'd
like to talk about is sound.
MR. MANCHESTER-Hi. My name is Scott Manchester. I work with O'Brien and Gear and we
evaluated the potential noise impacts from the project. Just to start out, the project, as designed,
has built in to it some built in noise mitigation,both in its siting of the project and location of the Zip
Flyer and also the Zip Flyer is going to be using rubber wheels on the zip lines, and those rubber
wheels is to take away the noise from the travel of the,the actual travel of the chairs down the line.
So both of those are noise mitigating portions that have been put in to the design of the project. So
from that point we evaluated potential for any noise impacts for the project, and our assessment
followed, used DEC methodology in evaluating those impacts, both in establishing the criteria for
what could create a potential impact on the public and also evaluating the level. So the criteria
that we used was based on an increase in sound level. So that, to evaluate whether it's going to
create a negative impact is, we looked at whether it was going to increase the sound level of the
area, and came up, and the DEC recommends that sound levels exceeding six decibels create a
negative potential impact to the public. So we used that as a criteria for the project and looked to
see whether the predicted sound levels would exceed an increase in the sound levels at that nearest
receptors which are nearest, could be residences or the public around the project would see
increased noise levels of six decibels or not to what's current. We also used the DEC's guidance
determined to how to predict those sound levels, and calculating the sound levels from the sources,
the noise sources of the project. Basically,this noise,this project has one major noise source. This
is rider, the sound from riders. That's probably the loudest sound levels that can come, exuberant
riders going down as they leave the platform going down along the sip lines. So what we did is we
assessed the levels of riders potentially yelling on the project. That was the single most, the single
loudest sound level from the project. Other noise levels pale in comparison to that. So we
calculated and we determined what the predicted level increase would be from those riders on,
going down on the surrounding public. In order to know the increase, we need to know the
background sound levels. So we evaluated the background. We went up to the Mountain and
measured sound levels to determine what the existing sound levels were on the Mountain, and by
that way we could compare our predicted sound levels to the existing sound levels to determine the
difference in increase.
MR. FORD-Excuse me,but at what time of the year did you make those sound tests?
MR. MANCHESTER-We did those during the summertime, the summer period, I believe it was, I
don't have that in front of me, but about this time last year, July/August timeframe last year. So it
was during the summer,leaf on time level.
MR. FORD-Did you take into effect that foliage was full at that time, so you have no comparison
between that and when there is no foliage,correct?
MR. MANCHESTER-We don't. The major noise sources,though,wouldn't be higher without foliage.
So I this case we were measuring levels that are probably conservative in that. So if you're looking
at sound levels in the winter,the background sound levels would be elevated even higher. So you'd
be comparing to a higher level background sound levels. I mean, when we went up on the
Mountain what we found was we found sound levels predominantly controlled by sound from the
Northway, from traffic down on 9 and on the Northway. That's what primarily at all the, the
locations that we looked at, and up on top of the Mountain especially, that's what we heard and
that's what was driving the background sound levels for the area. So, what we did was we
calculated, we determined what sound levels of the riders yelling. We assumed four riders at one
time. So at the worst case conditions, we took those and we modeled those using attenuation,
distance attenuation, the reduction in sound over distance from a point to where they're traveling
on the line,to the nearest locations of receptors around the, noise sensitive receptors to the project,
and sound level reduces, as you know, it reduces over distance. So we calculated the reductions
due to distance, and then for the mountaintop there's also obstacles or barriers that further reduce
the sound, and those barriers include the topographic barrier at the top of the Mountain because
they're going down,they're below from one of the receptors which is the property line up at the top
of the Mountain. That's behind the Mountain. So that the sound level has to go over that. So that's
a barrier to the sound, plus the barrier from just having being in a woods. So that provides some
mid sound level reduction as well. What we found was,when we calculated the sound levels at the
nearest receptor,the levels were only increasing by one,the maximum of two decibels at any of the
nearest receptors,which is well below the six level criteria we were using,which was the allowance
of up to six decibels. So it was only one to two that we were calculating. So without any additional
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
mitigation, the sound levels were well within the acceptable levels, meaning there wasn't any
significant noise impact.
MR. MAGOWAN-And that was based on four people going down the zip line?
MR. MANCHESTER-And that's based on four people going down simultaneously, all at the same
time,all yelling,worst case.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now it's not one at a time,you can put?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Four separate cables.
MR. MAGOWAN-Four separate cables,that's right. Okay.
MR. MANCHESTER-Yes, so there's potential, I don't know how much that would be operationally.
I'm not sure how often that happens, but potentially if all four people left at the same time, that's
what we modeled for, and that's what we used as a worst case situation to model out to the nearest
potential receptors on that.
MR. TRAVER-So you found a one or two Db increase in sound in the one of the residential areas I
guess is what you're saying?
MR. MANCHESTER-Yes,one to two decibels pretty typically. That's what we found.
MR. TRAVER-In the context, and understand, I'm sure you're aware that the decibel increases are
hard to convert to practical experience. So what I would ask you, if you know the answer to this, is,
given the background noise that you found in your study, and in your worst case scenario with four
riders coming down the Mountain and you're in a home or residence somewhere in the vicinity,and
you have this one to two decibel increase in the background noise, is that increase in noise going to
be contained within the general background noise or would you distinctly hear the voices of the
people coming down the line? Do you understand what I'm asking?
MR. MANCHESTER-I do. So what you're asking is can you audibly hear a voice. So sometimes you
could hear.
MR.TRAVER-No,what I'm asking is you have a general background noise which is made up of many
complex noises as you discussed.
MR. MANCHESTER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Route 9, the Northway, various other noises and so on, some natural. So then you
add this component, which only adds this one to two, which I'm not a physicist, but I know it's a
relatively small amount. So my question is, that increase, is that generally going to be within the
variance in the background noise, such that it won't be a distinct, it may be technically an increase
in the background noise, but will it be generally absorbed into that general, not really white noise,
but that general background noise, or will there be a distinct hearing someone feeling very happy
about coming down that zip line, as opposed to merely the background noise, and then that would
go way and maybe you might hear someone else,if you understand what I'm trying to say.
MR. MANCHESTER-I do. Let me see if I can respond to that. The one to two decibels, what that
tells me is that it's possible to hear that,but there's time, noise varies over time. So sometimes the
sound levels are up, sometimes they're down. They're up and down. What we compared it to was
the sound level was pretty much constant, but there's a lot of bumps in that. So there's a plane
going over and you can hear the plane and that sometimes increases it by many decibels, or, it is
within that normal fluctuation, and just to put it into context, 0 to 3 decibel increases are generally
not highly noticeable, generally. That doesn't mean you can't hear something, but it's not readily
noticeable.
MR. TRAVER-I think it's a matter of common experience that, for example, we might, I mean, I can
recall occasions where I might be out in my backyard and there's this sort of background noise,you
don't even hear it after a while, but suddenly then I might hear someone say up on Chestnut Ridge
or something, I'd say, was that someone hollering or did I just hear someone say something, and
you're almost not sure. It's like a little blip in the background. It sounds like that's what you're
describing,as opposed to a prolonged vocalization.
MR. MANCHESTER-That's correct. Yes.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. FORD-Isn't there a difference between the background noise that you're describing and the
ability for someone listening to differentiate and determine that that is a human screaming as
opposed to normal background noise?
MR. MANCHESTER-There's a difference. You can, to say that the sound level's increasing or not is
not saying that it can't be identified. So you can hear something faintly in the background. You
may be able to hear a voice. That doesn't mean it's increasing to a certain level. So the, whether
it's a noise impact, we look at overall whether it's increasing it be several decibels, in this case it's
six, but we're looking at like one to two, which is a very minor amount. That does not mean that
they can never be heard.
MR. FORD-What I'm trying to get at is not whether it can be heard or not. Obviously it can be
heard,but there's the normal background noise, and I want to make sure that we're identifying that
you can differentiate between that normal background noise and a human being, whether in
delight,fear or whatever.
MR. MANCHESTER-And that is possible to hear something like that, hear a person, the voice of a
person. It's possible to hear,yes.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MANCHESTER-Some of the questions that we addressed that the APA had was talking about,
you know,the type of criteria and the levels we use, and we based those on,we respond to those by
showing that we based our increase on what's typically used by the DEC or what they're
recommending when they assess noise impacts and whether they need to mitigate noise impacts.
So we use a criteria that is laid out by the DEC. We looked at other sources as well. There was a
little bit of question about what other sources are there besides just people yelling, for instance a
vehicle coming up. We looked at that. We looked at people talking at the platform. We also
looked at potentially there's machinery at the platform. All those sound levels, though, more than
10 decibels below the sound levels of the riders. So they would not increase the sound levels at all.
In fact, they would not even increase, they wouldn't change the assessment at all. Any of those
other sound levels are much, much lower.
MR. FORD-Scott, I have a follow up question as well on the wheels, did you not identify them as
rubber wheels?
MR. MANCHESTER-They're rubber wheels that are meant to eliminate the noise,the zipping,like if
you have metal wheel, that metal on metal can create a noise. The rubber wheels are designed to
mitigate the noise of the actual rider coming down.
MR. FORD-So the wheels are not metal covered with rubber?
MR. MANCHESTER-No,well,they're coated,yes. It's a coating.
MR. FORD-A rubber coating over a metal pulley type wheel?
MR. MANCHESTER-Yes,that's right. So they're not completely made out of rubber, but they have a
rubber coating and the purpose of that is to mitigate the noise.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's kind of the same thing as a chair lift at the ski center there. You have that
rubber around where the cable goes over, and when your chair goes over,you know,you don't hear
the grinding and the.
MR. MANCHESTER-Yes, probably. I know that for a number of different types of things, one way to
get rid of the noise from metal on metal contact is put some rubber in that. That's absorptive and
takes away that sound.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So there is no metal to metal contact in this?
MR. MANCHESTER-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I thought.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. LAPPER-That's it for noise. We've got Kevin Frank on visual now.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. Can you just comment,what were the levels
of the background noise? Do you have those in front of you? Just out of curiosity.
MR. MANCHESTER-Yes, and there were some questions about that from the APA on whether those
were accurate, and they pretty much reflect that we can hear, they were pretty consistent and we
could hear the Northway at all the locations. We were getting background levels of anywhere from
47 decibels to,at the top of the Mountain,to 51 down at the bottom. That was the background,that
was the kind of continuous background level that we're measuring.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MANCHESTER-Essentially we looked at the three nearest receptors. We looked at one which is
up at the top of the Mountain. Michael has a picture there might be able to show. It's kind of
where the, so we looked at the receptor nearest point to right here where the riders start off. So
down here we looked at the two nearest property lines at the bottom as well,where these are here.
These are kind of the nearest property lines to where the zip line is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions on noise from Board members? Okay.
KEVIN FRANK
MR. FRANK-Good evening, Board members. For the record my name is Kevin Frank. I'm with the
LA Group and we performed the visual impact assessment that was done for the Adirondack Park
Agency application, the subsequent permit issuance. Can we try a full screen view on that, see if
that'll still work. This first figure is the limits of zone visibility, potential visibility from the APA
application. We basically studied a five mile study area around the zip line itself,which you can see
is located in the middle of the circle in purple, and as Tom's plan showed, this is basically oriented
in a southeast to northwest direction. The Town line between Queensbury and Lake George cuts
across the zip line here and then down, then across then down, this is the Town of Queensbury.
You'll see that most of the areas evaluated,which are the numbered circles,were to the north of the
site. That's because most of the potential, the zone of visibility, was located to the north, around
Lake George, but there were also some areas identified based on topography and vegetation in the
area in the Town of Queensbury. This view is from the Northway after you get on at Exit 20
traveling northbound. It's right after you pass the sign that says "Entering Adirondack Park". It's
basically a 90 degree view off to your right. Obviously this was taken during leaf off conditions
with snow on the ground and this is located about seven tenths of a mile to the west of the site, and
what you see here, and some of the other simulations that I'll show you, Mr. Macchio mentioned the
rock face or the rock outcrop that's in this area. The ride itself is actually, the lift towers are
located further to the north and west of this rock face,and the actual launch power is up in here,but
within the trees,and what you see coming down here are the cables associated with the Zip Flyer.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Is that a true depiction of what the zip line may look like?
MR. FRANK-The cable thickness? I was going to get to that in a minute.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sorry.
MR. FRANK-And I'll actually show you some real world applications. The APA asked the same
question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FRANK-These are basically three quarter inch cables, and you're looking at this from about
three quarters of a mile away.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FRANK-Technically this is as small as our computer can make those lines, and I'll show you
some more in a minute.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FRANK-I drove past this on my way to Bolton Landing for a meeting this afternoon with leaves
on. You can't see this. This view's not possible. Again, this is from 90 degrees. You have to be
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
looking out your right hand window while you're driving 65 miles an hour to get this view, but
nonetheless this is a view that the APA wanted to have on record. This was the nearest location to
the Town of Queensbury in the APA study. That's the reason I showed this one. So now we're
actually in the Town of Queensbury coming up Route 9, before we get to the intersection of Route
149. You can see the sign for the Log Jam driveway right in the foreground. This is the existing
conditions view, and here's a simulation. Again, the lift tower up in the trees up in here, and you
can make out the Zip Flyer cables,but obviously in the context of overhead utilities that are located
in this area. Now to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, we also, as part of the APA evaluation,
were asked to look at a similar facility located nearby. So we went to the facility, Bromley
Mountain. This is a view of the Bromley facility from approximately seven tenths of a mile away or
about the same distance we saw the other simulation. The top of the tower, or top of the ride is
here. The bottom landing is here. So your cables are running down through here. You also have a
ski lift here and another ski lift there. So,the wire's here and this view, from that same distance, at
least in my eyes, which are getting worse by the years, is not visible. We also blew this up once,
and again,this is the area where the cables are coming down, and blew it up even more. This is the
area where the cables are coming down. You can start to see the ski lift cables, but again, in my
perception, I'm not seeing zip line cables here.
MR. HUNSINGER-How thick are ski lift cables?
MR. FRANK-It depends on how the length of the lift, spacing of the towers, but that's probably a
good at least a solid two inch woven cable, if not more, depending on whether it's a detachable lift
or it's quad or a double, but definitely a thicker line, which is a lot more weight than is a single
individual. We're back to Queensbury, now we're getting close to the intersection of 9 and 149.
You actually come down the hill just a little bit, but we're right here near the intersection. Again,
this is existing conditions, and here's proposed conditions. We had labeled, again, the tower is not
visible, and now since we've come down in elevation, the zip line lines are actually down here.
Again, with leaf off conditions you can make it out through the branches, but when you have this
leaf out, you're not going to have that, the view. The other area that we evaluated, because it was
shown as being potentially visible, we looked at the high school, in the back of the high school near
the athletic fields, and what you see here, this is the land form of French Mountain. It's got a little
bit of a saddle in it as you see here.
MR. FORD-This is back of which school?
MR. FRANK-Queensbury High School,which is about, I think this is roughly almost four miles away,
three and three quarters miles away, and we can't show any of the components because they won't
be visible,but what we're showing here is what we call a wire frame and it's an intermediate step of
how we create the view. We essentially drape the topography onto the view along with the
conditions. You'll see here that the lines themselves will be blocked by this intervening vegetation,
and that's my last item.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, looking at this and you're saying that there's vegetation between the two
points,are there points between there where you may see?
MR. FRANK-On the campus itself?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I mean, you're showing us a view from the campus saying it won't be visible
because of the vegetation that's in between. So are there points between the Queensbury High
School and the project site where you may see?
MR. FRANK-I understand the question. What we did, once we created the zone of visibility
mapping,we'll go out and field verify,because this is a desktop analysis. So what we'll do is we've
drawn basically the length of Route 9. You can make out the landform of French Mountain from a
distance, but it's really not discernible. Because of the way Route 9 curves,you really don't have a
straight shot view in like you do when you're coming down the Million Dollar Half Mile, which is a
straight section of road, and you're looking right at French Mountain, and we also drove around
some of the outlying roads here and didn't have clear views into French Mountain landform from
those roads,within the potential visibility area.
MR. FORD-Kevin, I have a question. You've given us several depictions and photographs and so
forth of the three-quarter inch cable. Why do we not have a picture of a person in a chair on that
three-quarter inch cable descending a mountain?
MR. FRANK-Good question, and the APA asked the same one. When we go back to this first view
that I showed, I don't have this electronically, sir, but we did add fliers or riders to this simulation,
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
and, I don't know if I can show this, probably best just to describe it. The size of the people that
were on that basically doubled the width of that line. So you saw, we put four dots on that line
showing four people, granted it's a snapshot in time. They're not in motion, but we do have a
graphic that shows four bodies along that line, and it does show up. It's perceptible as a dot, like
four dots along that line.
MR. MAGOWAN-So that could be taken as a bird or a hawk flying?
MR. FRANK-My initial explanation to the APA, before we actually gave them the simulation, if
you've got black flies flying around in front of your eyes, and basically the equivalent of that. Right,
again,this is three-quarters of a mile away.
MR. FORD-You took into consideration the, not just the size of the individual, but the width of the
chair that the individually is sitting in?
MR. FRANK-Basically you're seated in an L position. So for an average person two and a half to
three feet tall, so that's the mass you put on basically an L-shaped three by three,because you are in
an upright sitting position, and that's the massing that we added to this particular simulation to try
and show the riders.
MR. FORD-The chair itself is larger than that,though,correct?
MR. FRANK-The chair itself, it's my understanding, is a fabric type chair, and a harness. So it's not
like a ski lift chair by any means. It's basically more of a harness than it really is a chair,per se.
MR. FORD-Yes, I saw it yesterday.
MR. O'CONNOR-Kevin,you actually did a video of the Bromley people when they were riding.
MR. FRANK-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-It didn't show up in the video.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can we get you on the mic,please. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-You actually did a video of the Bromley ski, or zip line in operation, from the same
distances that we have a view of, a potential view, and you couldn't discern, as I understand it, and
the riders on that, even though there were riders coming down the line. It's a matter of the human
eye and the distance that you've got. The APA actually did that initial visual analysis and gave us
15 public spots to look at and do the simulations from, and that's what you did, and I believe the
APA people came out and went through those sites.
MR. FORD-So southbound on the Northway at that, at a couple of open spots there, that was one of
the,those were the sites you used?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. At Exit 22, is it, at Exit 22 as you're coming out of Warrensburg there's an
open spot that you can see from the site out, when you go out on the rocks,you can see that part of
the Northway. There's like a 20 second interval there that you have a view of this portion of the
Mountain. The distance, though, from that view to the Mountain is the same, we did the same
distance to Bromley when it was operating and you couldn't see anybody on the chairlifts. You
couldn't see the wires on the chairlift.
MR. FORD-There are places,southbound on 87,south of that point.
MR. O'CONNOR-Further south of that there's an opening, when it's leaf off, not when it's leaf on.
There's an opening when it's leaf off where you have a 12 second opportunity if your attention is
directed almost at right angles,you can see the Mountain,and you would see the lines.
MR. FRANK-Right, that's at Location 15 here, and before you get to Exit 20 there's a sign that says
Queensbury Next Three Exits. Right before you get to that sign, if you look out your left hand
window, there's another opening there, and you do get a view. That's of another shorter duration.
So there are two southbound locations.
MR. FORD-I know, I was up there today and viewed it.
MR. FRANK-Yes, I mean,you're driving down and,boom,it's there.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I'm sorry, what are you saying you would see as you're driving southbound?
Would you be able to differentiate the line itself,or no?
MR. FRANK-I do have that on another file if you want me to pull that up, I can show you what that
view looks like.
MR.TRAVER-Sure,yes.
MR. FORD-I'd like to see it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm glad that you brought these,because you had mentioned yesterday during the
site visit that there was a complete visual analysis done, and there wasn't anything in our package
to review. So I was wondering how you were going to present this information to us. This is very
helpful is what I'm saying. I'm glad you brought this.
MR. FRANK-We're standing on the southbound side and you can see the view context, you're
looking over the northbound lanes, guardrail on the northbound side, and here's the lines. Here
are the lines,the platform and the upper tower,again,are up here in the trees.
MR. FORD-And where's the depiction of the chair with the passenger in it?
MR. FRANK-We only did that for the one location that was closer, to give a worst case condition.
This one is, this is, what, eight-tenths of a mile, yes, as opposed to one that was seven-tenths of a
mile. So we took the one that was closer and put the riders on that one. That's the one they've
asked for, unlike the other vantage point,where you do have some of the lines sky lighted,this is all
in the context of vegetation behind it.
MR. HUNSINGER-So,again,is the line itself overstated in this simulation?
MR. FRANK-In all the simulations they're the same size.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FRANK-They're one pixel thickness, we couldn't make them any smaller, otherwise there'd be
nothing to show.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FRANK-So rather than show nothing,at least show you the position of where it's going to be.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, again, I think for purposes of this exercise, the real example was that Bromley
picture that you showed us where you couldn't seethe line. Is that fair?
MR. FRANK-Exactly. Even when you blow that up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FRANK-And that was the equivalent distance of that earlier view that I was showing from the
northbound side,which was seven-tenths of a mile away.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.TRAVER-And we know the thickness of the Bromley zip flyer wire?
MR. FRANK-I don't know for certain,but it's probably fairly standard within the industry,and, Sean,
I don't know if that's something. Is the three-quarter fairly standard throughout the industry?
MR. FORD-And you didn't get, at Bromley you didn't get a passenger and chair on that zip line as
well,right?
MR. FRANK-We have video, and to be honest with you, I sat and watched the video three or four
times, and I didn't see a rider coming down. I had like five or six colleagues come in and view it
independently. I think out of that two people were able to pick up an instance where they saw
motion along the line. We sent that up to the APA. That was part of our record,and even informed
them, don't read any further, because we told them at what time in the video they show up and
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
where they show up, but to have them view it, and we didn't get specific feedback from them, but
that was part of the record that they reviewed, in terms of visibility and making a determination
that there wasn't significant undue adverse visual impact.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board on this issue?
MR. O'CONNOR-We actually have the seat here, and we have the trolley part here if you wanted to
look at it. We can bring that in. It's in the back. Do you want to look at it?
MR. FORD-Some of us did yesterday.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if you have a question, I mean. The rubberized, the rubber coating in the
lines, and I'm told by Mr. Learner, was the product that they built one of these lines over a
monastery, and the metal on metal does give a zing, zing. So they came up with the coating on the
wheels and it has no noise. One statement made earlier about,okay.
MR. FORD-I was just referring to yesterday where I saw those pulleyed wheels and I didn't happen
to see any rubber coating on that.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have the wheels with that rubber coating tonight.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is the seat that people sit in.
SEAN LEARNER
MR. LEARNER-So pretty much it's a.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is Sean Learner from Zip Flyer.
MR. LEARNER-Nice to meet you all. So this harness comes out of the paragliding industry. It's
tested as such. Pretty much it's a one size fits all harness where the harness never leaves the cable
or the trolley. So what we're trying to do is really mitigate any operator error by using it. So
anybody from 60 pounds to 300 pounds can fit in this harness. The harness is designed to have
people lean back so that when they come down, they enjoy the view, understanding what they're
seeing, and when you're above the trees,you don't even know how fast you're going. The Zip Flyer
trolley is a patented invention by myself, and the trolley governs the speed in terms of how fast we
want the rider to go, and that's a decision that's made first by safety, second by angle of the cable
and engineering and the third by what it's like for the rider to come into the brake. So,the way that
the trolley works is we have a brake pad that's four inches thick in the front of the trolley. As the
cable goes right through the center of the trolley. We call this the brake beam. So essentially the
brake beam has a pin shackle. Depending upon where you set the pin shackle depends upon how
much brake friction there is on the cable. The nice thing about our trolley, it's all aluminum,
corrosive free, low maintenance. The only thing you ever have to do is pop the brake out,then put
new brakes in. You had a question about coated wheels. Coated wheels came about because we
did a project in Nepal,longest zip line in the world,which is 6300 feet long, 1200 feet in the air, and
flew it right over a monastery, and when we were doing the project, the monastery said, yes, we'll
let you fly over the land,but it has to be perfectly silent,and so we came up with a system on how to
coat our wheels so that they could, at high speeds up to 100 miles an hour, they could, you know,
withstand heat and also at very,very low speeds, not provide too much gripping. We use a special
mix that we came up with in Europe and it's been independently tested and every wheel goes
through a very big Q-A, Q-C program to ensure the viability of it. I don't mind passing this around
so that you guys can see it if you want to.
MR. FORD-These pulley wheels are coated. Those are not. Correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-These will be.
MR. LEARNER-Yes,we use the same process.
MR. FORD-Yes,but they're not at this point.
MR. LEARNER-These wheels are not coated,but we make the wheel coated just like these.
MR. FORD-I understand.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions I have is about safety. Like who oversees, for the State of
New York,the actual ride itself?
MR. LEARNER-So, from a safety standpoint,we are, I think it's New York State Department of Labor
who watches over us, and makes sure that we conform to the ASTM 2959 Standard, which is a
standard for participation experiences. That standard makes us design everything to the ASTM
2991. Our manuals have to be to ASTM 770, and 1173, and those standards are 100%, you know,
out there so that people can know if we're abiding by them. We also happen to have the Chairman
of the ASTM 2959 committee as our principle engineer, and then the person who's the secretary of
that committee happens to be the guy who checks all of our drawings and calculations. So we've
also built a QA-QC program off of the 2291 criteria to make sure that our bearings are lasting, you
know, 35,000 cycles, that everything is to conformed to the material spec, making sure that we use
proper materials that are strong enough and we do FMEH, failure mode analysis on every single
part of our ride. More importantly from that, we also don't have any single failure points on our
ride. Everything has double and triple redundancy. Talking about safety,we've come up with the
leading zip lines and ski rescue evacuation system, which is called the zip brake. This device is
used from everyone from SWAT teams to military to ski lift rescue, all the way up. We do full
training about how you get certified to use that, and it's been great for us. It's been great for our
clients. To be able to go down the cable very slowly, be able to trim the brake and know that you
can inspect the cable the whole distance by visual inspection, making sure that you can get to a
customer within,you know, 50 seconds if you need to because you have the ability to take the brake
off and as long as you're trained on knowing how to use that it's a very,very safe device, and that's
what I have.
MR. FORD-Good.
MR. HUNSINGER-How many products do you have?
MR. LEARNER-How many products do I have?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,how many do you have in operation right now?
MR. FORD-How many sites?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LEARNER-Yes,so Zip Flyer has built nine sites and my technology is on 50.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow,and are those all,where are they?
MR. LEARNER-So anywhere from.
MR. HUNSINGER-We know there's one at Bromley,but.
MR. LEARNER-So Bromley has my technology. We didn't build the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LEARNER-So Bromley, Park City,Veil, Breckinridge, Camel Back Mountain,let's see, Nepal.
MR. FORD-Of those that you just mentioned, could you give us some analysis of the safety record of
those sites?
MR. LEARNER-Knock on wood,we have zero claims on our insurance, and we have zero,you know,
injury. I mean,maybe a scrape here or a bruise there,but it's probably more egress situation and it
is ride. Once you're on the ride and on the cable, it's very, very safe because it's controlled. It's
controlled by our brakes. It's controlled by the terminal brake. It's controlled by the operator and
what they're taught to being able to efficiently run the ride. Like I said, maintenance is really
straightforward. We have the manuals that show you step by step what you do on a daily basis,
what you do on a weekly basis, what you do on a monthly basis, and every year Zip Flyer comes in
and checks 100% of the ride, 100% of the cables, and actually in the manual, we only approve the
cables for one year until they're inspected by us and then we grant another year of use. So that we
make sure that,with the MRT machine,nothing can break through and cause any problems.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. LEARNER-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we'd be glad to give up the table at this point, unless you have some
questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board?
MR. O'CONNOR-We'll give up the table if you want to see if anybody else wants to speak.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Board's quiet. All right. We'll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-I do have public comment,and I don't know if those representatives want to speak for
themselves.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. The
purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to provide comments to the Board. I would
ask anyone who wishes to address the Board that they direct their comments to the Board, and
when they come up to address the Board to state their name for the record. We do tape the
meeting, so speak clearly into the microphone. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes and the
tape is also available on the Town's website. So if anyone wishes to review the meeting in the
future they can. Having said that, who would like to be first? Good evening. It seems as though
you have a presentation to make.
CLAUDIA BRAYMER
MS. BRAYMER-Hi.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask you how long it might take?
MS. BRAYMER-We were hoping for five minutes each.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. B RAYM E R-Thank you.
MRS. MOORE-Can I just confirm that you did submit a public comment letter? Are you reading that
into the record?
MS. BRAYMER-I'm not going to read it into the record. If it's been provided to the members, that's
sufficient.
MRS.MOORE-It will be. Okay.
MS. BRAYMER-I'm going to be covering some of the comments. For the record, my name is Claudia
Braymer. I'm an attorney at Caffry & Flower, and I'm representing Lake George RV Park. Lake
George RV Park lands adjoin the project site, and to my left, your right, is Dave King, President of
the Lake George RV Park, and on this side of me is Peter Loyola from the CLA Site. Lake George RV
Park is a longstanding established business in the Town and we are requesting that you take our
concerns seriously, just as you would for any other adjoining property owner when you're doing
Site Plan Review of any normal project. Despite the ZBA's decision regarding them upholding the
Zoning Administrator's determination on the use classification of this project, we would like you to
keep in mind that this is a commercial tourist attraction that would be located in a residential
zoning district. The applicant's own Site Plan Review application called this a tourist attraction,and
as you've heard tonight, this is a very complicated enterprise. We'd ask that you scrutinize this
project carefully as you've been already making lots of informed questions. You've already been
questioning them and I can tell you've been looking at this carefully and I'd just ask you to continue
to do that, and once you've done that,we ask that you deny this project because it does have undue
adverse impacts upon the Town and it does not meet the Site Plan Review criteria that is required
under your Town Code. I'd also like to note for the record that there has been no discussion on this
project since, I believe it was Fall, October, maybe November of 2011, and also this is the first time
that I've appeared before you on this project representing our client, Lake George RV Park. Also
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
pursuant to Town Code 179-18-020D, the Planning Board is empowered to make its own decision
regardless of any other decision that was made in the Town of Lake George or through APA.
Therefore, despite the applicant's attorney telling Craig Brown that our presentation to this Board
would be a dog and pony show, and that this Board's review should be limited given those other
approvals, I would ask, again, that you take our client's concerns seriously and consider them fully,
and we ask that you take them into consideration, urging you to deny this application in the best
interest of the Town,because you cannot rely on the State,APA, DEC, or the Town of Lake George to
consider this Town's interests. Lake George RV Park was not completely opposed to this project,to
the idea of a zip line somewhere on Bear Pond Ranch's property. However, Mr. King was
concerned about the negative impacts of the proposed site and asked the applicant to consider
alternatives. The applicant claimed that it had considered other alternatives, but nothing was
seriously or genuinely proposed, or there was never even a rough site plan design for a different
alternative. Even Tom Hutchins said tonight himself that since 2011, nothing has changed.
There's been no change to this project since they initially proposed it. As a result, Lake George RV
Park now must oppose the proposed project entirely because of its currently configuration and
location that would destroy the scenic qualities of French Mountain that Lake George RV Park has
worked to maintain for the last 45 years. Aside from our position to the ZBA and argument there,
that this is technically an impermissible use in this zoning district, the Planning Board should deny
the project application for several reasons, as I alluded to earlier. First, the current proposal fails
to meet the design standards that apply to this project. Specifically the locations of the upper
tower and platform would violate 179-4-0101)(2)(b) because they would be located at the very top
of French Mountain where they would be seen from many roads and adjoining landowner's
property. In addition, the zip line is located so high on the Mountain that the existing vegetation
and topography would not provide an adequate background,as required by 179-4-0101)(2)(d). I'm
providing these because these are in your Town Code, and I want you to know that they apply to
this project. The site of the zip line would accentuate the existing notch in the ridge due to the
road,when viewed from public roads, and it would create a silhouette against the sky, as we saw in
the applicant's own visual simulations, and I also will have you look at Peter Loyola's simulations as
well. The second reason for denying this is the undue adverse visual, including the adverse visual
impacts, is the undue adverse impacts on the scenic and aesthetic resources of the Town. The
Town Code has numerous provisions about project design, especially in the area of Route 9 North.
So that projects are designed in a way to protect the unique and Adirondack scenic qualities of the
Town. This project flies in the face of those design criteria, and would cause an undue adverse
impact on the Town. Site Plan Review should be denied. Short of that, the applicant should be
required to provide additional simulations from Route 9 that show the chair, and additionally they
should be required to provide the Bromley video for all of the Board to review and fully consider
and be able to take those into consideration. It also has, the project also has undue adverse
impacts on Lake George RV Park's adjoining lands. They alluded to noise, and I think that your
questions were very well targeted on the fact that any uncharacteristic sound can cause a nuisance
on people that are not attuned to the background noise that's there all the time. The DEC guidance,
which their expert relied upon, says that any type of noise like that that's going to be really shrill,
like somebody screaming while they go down the zip line, is an adverse impact, and it's an undue
adverse impact in this situation requiring denial of the Site Plan Review application. There's also
adverse impacts on the quality of the outdoor recreational opportunities. If you don't know it
already,there is a hiking trail at the top that the public is,that's open to the public,in addition to the
guests of the Lake George RV Park, and they will be impacted by this project in a very acute way,
and I have to mention also that there would be undue adverse impacts on water, land, and wildlife
in that area. Another reason for denial is that the zip line would not be consistent with the Town's
Comprehensive Plan, and that is a Site Plan Review criteria that you need to take into consideration.
This project does not protect the Town's natural resource areas as we've discussed, and its scenic
and aesthetic qualities. This is a separate,independent basis upon which to deny the application. I
also ask that you do not grant this applicant a waiver of any of the Site Plan Review requirements,
especially the stormwater and landscaping requirements. I will note for the Board that the road
was created in violation of the Town of Queensbury regulations, and given that history, there's no
reason that this applicant should be treated any different than a normal applicant. They should not
be given special treatment here. In any event, unlike other provisions of the Town Code where the
Planning Board is able to waive certain requirements, the Planning Board does not have the
discretion to waive the stormwater regulation requirements. It's a separate Chapter in the Town
Code. It's not under the Zoning Code, and you cannot waive it unless they meet one of the
exceptions. Well, then you wouldn't be waiving it, it wouldn't apply anyway, but they don't meet
any of the exceptions here. So they must provide stormwater management design, maintenance.
They've already said that they plan to do maintenance on the road, but we've seen no written plan.
There's nothing written for us to be able to review or hold them accountable for in the future.
They've already missed their spring cleaning maintenance. Also given our client's concerns about
the visual impacts from its own property, the boundary line, the applicant should be required to
fully landscape the project's elements. They've talked a lot about the swath that will be cleared,the
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
900 foot long swath that's about 50 feet wide, give or take, but they haven't talked about the trees
that might be around, kept or maintained or added around the platform and the upper tower and
the thing that anchors it into the ground. So the applicant should provide a full landscaping plan
just as is required for every other applicant, and we're asking that the Planning Board require them
to provide a Type C Buffer between the two boundaries, between the boundary line to provide a
buffer between these two uses. This is a commercial tourist attraction, next to a residential zoning
district. Two more points. The Planning Board should not review the application until it gets all of
the information it needs to review the access road stormwater management and also Site Plan
Review for the road. They've never gone through Site Plan Review for this road. Now they're
putting in a new project that relies on the use of the road. I understand that there was a settlement
in the past,but now they're using this road in a different manner. They should be required to have
Site Plan Review of the road. And if not, the Planning Board should require, in any further
documents that the road cannot be widened or upgraded or creating additional spurs without prior
approval by the Planning Board. My last point is that we ask that the Planning Board use its power
to require posting a financial security to ensure that this project would be constructed, maintained
and decommissioned in a proper manner. In conclusion, we ask, there are several grounds for
denying Site Plan Review,and we ask that you do so. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
PETER LOYOLA
MR. LOYOLA-Peter Loyola. I'll try to be brief. I have a couple of key points that I think I'd just like
to mention to the Planning Board. I think it's an important enough project here on French
Mountain that I got involved. Dave has been a longtime client. I am very familiar with the project,
or this site. In fact before this applicant was the owner, I worked with the Beadnell's working on
some development concepts for, I think it was a golf course and some housing concepts. So I know
the site extremely well. That was another reason why I got involved, and then I've also had the
opportunity to work, the pleasure of working with Sean Learner, Zip Flyer, proposing a zip line for
Howe Caverns expansion,and we worked very hard. They ended up not going with the extreme zip
line,but I'm very familiar with the process and how the zip lines work. Very familiar with the siting
and the location, and I just want to make sure that this Board realizes that, and they carry out a
little bit more due diligence to allow or have the applicant provide some alternatives,because there
are definitely alternatives that I think can help mitigate some of the, in my mind, primarily visual
impacts. The impacts that we put together, and I have some photo simulations that we prepared,
just as a reviewer to the work that the LA Group did. Our methodologies are very similar. What we
came up with similar results, quite frankly. However, I think the focus of this is really on the
foreground view where you're going to actually see the zip lines. From Lake George, from out two
miles, three miles, distance is going to mitigate those views, however, close up, foreground views,
this is going to be visible. It's essentially going to look like a transmission line. You have
vegetation that is going to have to, a slot cut that's going to have to be removed, and maintained,
and that is going to look, at various angles, 20, 21 was a, you know, I actually looked at this view,
and we looked at some simulations, but, you know, the lines themselves, and I understand the
Bromley video shows that. What it doesn't show is that, or what's taken a little bit out of context is
the fact that there's a lot going on on Bromley. There's ski slopes and there's things going on. This
is a natural site. This is not a use or a visual impact that's compatible with the surrounding area.
You're going to clearly be able to see that this is incompatible with just the natural view that you
have here. So, I mean, I could show you some of the visuals. They're fairly similar to what Kevin
showed. I think the important piece, though, is that the tower is actually very close to Dave's
property. I mean,we did have one, I don't know if that was ever submitted to the Planning Board. I
just want to show this. Yes, this is the first one here. We're approximately, I want to say, what's
the distance of the tower from the property line? Yes,we're about 240, 50 feet from the edge of the
property line, and this is taken from a trail that's frequently hiked by the guests of the Lake George
RV Park. There is going to be clearing. Very difficult, from a photo simulation standpoint,to make
sure that we had the proper vegetative removal. One thing you have to point out is that,that I had
to point out is that the anchor and the counterweight behind here, the anchoring system, that
vegetation has to be removed from that. So we're clearly going to be able to see this tower from
Dave's property. You come up the trail, and before you get out to the scenic overlook,there's a view
of the tower, and it's just,it's going to be apparent. So when I looked at that,one of the things that I
saw was that, all right, let's go back to alternatives. What's the alternative? And that's where I
think the design process was a little bit short circuited. First of all, one question that I had was,was
this location of the Zip Flyer based on USGS topo,or was it based on two foot contour intervals? My
guess is that, at least from this diagram, that this was based on USGS, which, once you get out into
the field, there's going to be variations of that because topo is not very accurate. So what I'm
thinking happened here was they laid out the line, based on USGS, just to make sure they got the
profiles and the heights of the apparatus correct, and I'm very familiar with the criteria that's
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
needed for clearances and speed is a big one, but I haven't seen any alternatives to this. I know,
from experience with the Howe Caverns project,we had two foot contour intervals,and it was still a
little difficult to figure out, you know, where the towers need to be located, whether they could be
raised 20 feet or over a couple, and I worked with Sean, you know, I think he would agree, and
again, I'm not necessarily opposed to this zip line, but I think that this Planning Board really needs
to look at alternatives because I think there are places that this tower can be located that'll be less
visible,quite frankly, and also,obviously on behalf of Dave,move a little bit further northwest,and I
think there's topo that's there that would actually allow the tower to go a little bit higher and still
mitigate some of the views. I mean, the views that are coming out on the end and the exposed face
could move northeast a little bit and still get you the same topo, still get you the same ride that you
need, but could be hidden by vegetation a little bit more from views looking from the Northway.
You can absolutely see this from the Northway. You will be able to see this from the Northway.
You'll be able to see it from 21 down to 22. It's going to be dramatic, quite frankly, and those are
the only views that I'm concerned about, and then also I'd just ask that the Planning Board take a
look at some alternatives because the APA never really looked at any alternatives. The Town of
Lake George never looked at alternatives, and I think there are ways to tweak this to get the
location and the same ride and mitigate some of the adverse impacts. Those are my key points.
This is just a depiction, and I just wanted to pull this simulation together just to show the location
was done with the same methodology that was used by the applicant. This is the slot cut from the
road. The tower is going to be approximately located here, with the landing pad. Disregard the
color. I mean, I show this as black just to show that, you know, the orientation of this is what
you're going to be able to see. Kevin is absolutely right. It's very difficult from one photo sim, one
photo, to actually depict the width of that line. I think you are going to see the line a little bit less,
you know, from one photo in a simulation. However, we move in a space, and the light and the
reflection from the cables are going to be visible. They're going to be visible, if this were a dark line
against a dark background, it would mitigate, the color of the line would be mitigated somewhat,
but once you get into certain positions where you actually can see and there are some photo sims
that actually show where the lines are silhouetted, it'll appear as black. Lighter towers will appear
against a darker background, much lighter, but again, against a silhouette, they'll be darker. So, in
this particular case, you're going to see it, from foreground views, you're going to see it. You're
going to see the vegetation removal. That has to be maintained for safety reasons. In the
wintertime I think it's going to be a lot more apparent, and that simulation shows it, that you're
going to see that line as a transmission line. It's as simple as that.
DAVE KING
MR. KING-Again, Dave King, President of the Lake George RV Park. I'd like to address some other
things that have not come up in any of the public hearing discussions since this has been brought to
this Board. This is the first commercial use at this elevation on the Mountain, perhaps one of the
first uses like it at this elevation in the Town of Queensbury. My concerns have to do with many
points. First being forest fires. I'm concerned with the intense commercial use on the top of the
Mountain. There'll be employees there at times of the year when they may need comfort from
warmth. I assume that might be done with a campfire or a fire in a 55 gallon drum, for instance,
something to put off some heat to take the chill off of an employee maybe working there for the day
during those times of the year. We've had histories on the Mountain of fires getting out of control.
They're very difficult to fight in those remote areas. I have not heard of what the plan would be to
control these fires, to supervise this area after employees have been at the top of the Mountain, or
those that may trespass at times when it's not in use. The applicant has indicated there may be
times when it's on a reservation only basis. We know that people have used this Mountain for
generations and have, you know, basically considered it their Mountain. People have walked and
climbed that Mountain, used it for their own recreational purposes, at times of the year when we
can't always supervise them. So my concern is if there's structures at the top of the Mountain and
infrastructure there to support employees, even in the off season when it's not fully utilized, those
fire pits, fire furnaces, whatever they may be, may be used illegally, too, by trespassers, and
therefore fires could easily get out of control and destroy not only the applicant's property but also
neighboring properties. I'm also concerned about the general safety of other recreational users on
the Mountain, whether they be hikers, birdwatchers, you know, tow mark skiers, whatever it may
be, because there will be an increased use of commercial motorized traffic, whether it be the use of
ATV's, or other track vehicles as discussed. Track vehicles going to the summit, to the launching
area in the winter would create potentially the image of a groomed trail to a certain destination on
a mountain. I'm concerned that, again, when that is not in use at other times of the winter, say it
was on a reservation only basis and a track went up there on a Tuesday for a rider on a Saturday
the snowmobiles come up and they'll want to take that groomed trail to this destination, which
happens to be at the launch site, very close to my property line, which would increase the amount
of illegal use of my property by these motorized vehicles at other times of the year. I've also not
heard the discussion of hunting season. I have great concerns because I know this Mountain has
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
traditionally for generations been used by the families of the French Mountain region and their
guests to hunt. I have many people that have asked permission to hunt my properties over the
years and I've granted them access. I'm concerned now having a commercial operation with this
amusement ride at the top of the Mountain of hunters in the area that are just not aware of the
existence of this zip line. You can actually hunt the same areas of the Mountain you've done for
generations. If you're not from the area, you come up from New Jersey once a year, you may
actually access the Mountain from a direction to the south or east where you wouldn't even cross
the zip line. However, you could be firing arms in areas that could endanger the users, the
employees or the users of this zip line. So again I don't believe existing uses of the Mountain
necessarily, outdoor recreation uses, naturally coincide with this commercial use as an amusement.
I'm also concerned about the processing of refuse and trash at the site. The applicant has indicated
there could be as many as 40,000 users. That can create a lot of empty soda bottles. I assume, as
you take your rise up the top of the Mountain, the time for refreshments might be on the ride up.
Therefore depositing of garbage needs to be done somewhere perhaps before you fly down.
Therefore there has to be ways to handle the trash removal and secure it if it is to be stored
overnight. I have great concerns about wildlife and trash being distributed onto my property or all
over the Mountain. It's quite pristine. If you walk those trails, there is very little trash on that
Mountain. We take regular walks up the Mountain, my staff, to keep our trails clean. I would
certainly not like to see this intensive commercial use creating lots of extra refuse on the Mountain.
So there would have to be a plan for removal and security of that trash on a daily basis. In terms of
the comments earlier by the applicant on visual impacts, visual impact studies of seeing dots on
lines and three-quarter inch cables, I do want to make it known that my whole life I've done, you
know,lots of photography of this Mountain for marketing purposes. I've taken pictures, actually, of
the Mountain with people on the rock face, as far down as the Warren County Bike Trail. You can
identify somebody's color of their shirt when they're standing on the rock face. I want to draw you
attention to a tragedy we had in America during 9/11. At that time, an unknown person flew an
American flag, a three by five flag. They actually hung it from a tree at the top of that Mountain to
show their support of this nation at a low time. It was stated in the Post Star, every passerby on
Route 9 and I-87 could see that American flag. We're saying we can't see a three foot chair hanging
from a line from this distance,but everybody noted the American flag when it was flown on the top
of that Mountain in 2001. So, the visual impact statements that have been made, and the request
that I made at our very first Planning Board meeting regarding the subject in October of 2011, I had
asked this Board to please request that the applicant due visual impact, visual images of what this
proposed structure would look like from my property line, and unfortunately that was never done.
I've done my best, with the aid of Peter Loyola, to create those images for your consideration and
hope that you will consider those impacts. In terms of maintaining the cut area, let me draw your
attention to the tragedy that just occurred at a Six Flags Amusement Park in New Jersey where six
people were injured on a rollercoaster where limbs actually came in contact with them. It is my
understanding that that also was a ride that was regularly inspected by something like a
Department of Labor like we have, in New Jersey, and those people,those limbs are normally cut on
a regular basis. Unfortunately those riders were injured because there was not enough inspection
done, or the inspections that were done were not accurate and did not allow them to remove and
cut the limbs in time to prevent those injuries. I would caution this Planning Board that
maintenance on this system, if it is going to be allowed, given the mitigation plans for selective
cutting, that there be oversight beyond, very tight oversight of that. The Lake George tourism
community cannot afford a tragedy to occur in any tourism venue here, especially in an amusement
ride at the top of a historic mountain at the gateway to the Adirondacks. The Planning Board must
also consider the significant undue environmental impacts that this proposed development causes
which is contrary to the goals of the 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan,which pledges to conserve
existing landforms and features, our beautiful Mountain; protect views from the public roads.
There's always talk about the 10 second views from I-87,but the views from Route 9, and the views
from the Warren County Bikeway,by the way,will have some of the most significant impacts on our
visitors and our residents. When you come up the hill on a bike, southbound at Magic Forest, the
structure that is being proposed to be created will be in your view from a very long time unless
you're a very good peddler up a steep slope, you're going to see this for a very long time. It'll be
right in your purview. Again, I haven't seen the applicant provide any really good images of what it
would look like from the Warren County Bikeway or Route 9 in front of Magic Forest where people
often even sit in traffic at times due to backups at the outlet centers where you'll be seeing sitting
looking at that development for long periods of time. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan also says
we must preserve our mature trees. Over one and a half, almost one and a half acres of cutting will
be required. Many of those very mature trees at the top of our Mountain. It says we should restrict
building on steep slopes. Clearly, this is a structure on a steep slope, and to avoid structures that
create a silhouette against the sky when viewed by public ways. You will see silhouettes at times of
the year, less when leaf is on, more when leaf is off, but you will certainly see silhouettes of this
structure from my property, without a doubt, and I want to end it by just saying that there is no
significant economic impact from this project in the Town of Queensbury. The revenues will be
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
collected in Lake George. This would create few jobs for our local residents who would likely be
part-time and seasonal jobs and low paying jobs. Any tax revenues collected would be split with
other towns and the County. I want you to consider that the beautiful Mountain that we have here,
that we use as the setting, to stage our tourism economy, will be forever changed with the creation
of this man-made structure. We must consider those impacts on guests that come here, that value
undeveloped spaces when they choose their vacation destinations. The Lake George RV Park
produces significant revenues for the Town via our taxes collected and impacts made on the local
economy from our over 40,000 guests that visit our Park every year and have for nearly five
decades. Allowing this proposed development may result in lost revenues for our camping resort
in time and in turn negatively impact this local economy. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MS. B RAYM E R-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes,sir. Good evening.
DON DANIELS
MR. DANIELS-Hi, I'm Don Daniels, Aviation Road. Boy, we got a lot of information tonight, didn't
we?
MR. HUNSINGER-We did.
MR. DANIELS-A lot of technical stuff. I was listening to all those facts and figures about the sounds
and the noises, and I understand that the loudest recording of any sound on any of these zip lines
was the first time that Ralph Macchio went down his Zip Flyer. Anyway, I was reading my Fortune
magazine that came a couple of days ago, and Japan is pushing for the private individuals and
entrepreneurs. They want to start promoting more of them. Ralph Macchio is not a big chain.
He's an entrepreneur. He's an individual that's coming up here, and they've been here for a long
time, and he's trying to improve the area. Obviously you've heard about all these zip lines that are
all over. They're all over the country. This Peter mentioned about Howe Caverns. Last night on
TV I saw the commercial of their zip line, come to Howe Caves and use our zip line. The Double H
Hole in the Woods has a zip line. They have the adventure, up in Bolton Landing they have a zip
line, goes right through the trees. I'm sure that everybody that goes down through their zip line,
they're always having to trim their trees. Anyway, this fellow that, he's the CEO of a 300 year old
company in Japan. He made a comment. The role of government is to set the stage for the private
sector to perform, and Mr. Macchio's trying to perform, and there's a lot of comments against this
thing. We wouldn't have The Great Escape in our backyard here if seven of you people were sitting
there and a lot of people were against The Great Escape. Well,where's Charlie Wood going to plant
the trees? Well, how often is he going to pick up the cigarette butts? Where's his parking going to
be? If all these different questions came up, there wouldn't be any Great Escape. If the first outlet
store up on Route 9, if everybody said,well,what if more outlet stores come in? We wouldn't have
150 outlet stores, obviously. It's a great boon, and people that come up here, they don't just come
here for trees. This area is an enormous area for a lot of things,and people come here for the outlet
stores. My cousin's been up here two or three times a year. She's in Utica, and her and her
husband like to come up here. We have lunch together. They go shopping at the Outlet stores.
That's the only thing they're here for, but there's a lot of other people. These zip lines that are
going all over the country, and you heard about Bromley and Veil, and there's, zip lines, they're
something new, and West Mountain has mentioned wanting to put a zip line in. There's probably
going to be one on Whiteface Mountain and Gore Mountain. It's a natural thing to put this in
because they have to come down, and they already have these facilities. So people travel wide,
wide, far and wide to get to areas that have some of these things, and there's a lot of people that
love these zip lines. They're getting to be more important all the time. We have the Six Flags, but
they don't call The Great Escape Six Flags yet because the Six Flags Amusement Parks,which are all
over the country and in different parts of the world, they have six roller coasters, and somebody
mentioned, they mentioned about the people that got hurt with the tree branch. Yes, they did get
hurt with the tree branch,but they also had their arms,they were like this,you know, a lot of times
they put their arms up, and they do have instructions there that say keep your arms inside the car,
and I'm sure that they feel bad about that tree,but you can trim the trees,but if there's a windstorm
that comes along and the thing's going, the wind can move branches, you know, but I'm sure they
trim trees all the time, and one of you mentioned about being visible more in the wintertime. Well,
there's a lot of pine trees there that don't drop their leaves. So they're always going to be there,
and more are going to be planted as they trim some of them. They have to trim it to make it work.
There's been a huge amount of work that's gone into this project. It's mind boggling, to me, that
Mr. Macchio has been after this thing for three or four years, especially the confrontations we had
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
five and six years ago about the road,that Mr. Macchio was probably in his winter home and people
were building the road. Whether they built it wrong or not, we got that part straightened out, but
the road is there, and actually, if there was a fire up there, the road is good for the fire trucks to go
up there because it was built for heavy duty use and our fire trucks could go up there. There's
always a possibility of somebody building a campfire illegally, and even Mr. King, he's probably,
there's probably going to be people coming to his campsite. I don't think he'll put a sign up there
that says don't go to the zip line. If people come, they're probably going to be staying at his
campsite also that are going to want to stay at his place because the zip line is the closest thing to
him. There's always some down sides to any of these things, but I think it's a good project. I've
lived in this Town since 1960. I think it's a good project and it should be approved. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening.
DAVID KENNY
MR. KENNY-My name is David Kenny. I live on 131 Equinox Drive in Queensbury. I wasn't
planning on speaking tonight, but I do have to make one comment, a couple of comments, as far as
economic impact. I'm an owner of some of the outlet stores. We do over 70 million dollars in sales
and most of those sales come from tourists that go to Lake George or come to this region. To say
that Queensbury doesn't benefit from the tourists, whether they go to Lake George or wherever, is
crazy. Because we are a major benefactor of those tourists. There wouldn't be outlet stores if it
wasn't for those tourists. So to say that, I think you've got to take that to heart and think about it.
The other thing is, I own quite a few hotel rooms in the area. We pay four percent bed tax to
Warren County, close to four million dollars. I don't know what the exact number will be this year,
but it could be over three, they say it's coming close to four. That's used for advertising Warren
County, bringing people up here. Well, something like this venture may bring more people to this
area than that four million dollars that's being spent right now, and I think we better seriously look
at that. We spend a lot of money bringing people here to get jobs, and the other thing. The outlets
bring a lot of jobs to this area. If it wasn't for the hotel rooms in the area, those jobs may not be
here. So it does have an effect. Everything has an effect. We're not a parochial community
anymore. What helps Lake George helps Queensbury. What helps Queensbury helps Glens Falls.
To sit here and say, well, the business is in Lake George so therefore it doesn't help Queensbury I
don't believe is true. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes,sir.
MRS. MOORE-Chris also prepared a public comment letter. Are you reading that letter, or do you
want?
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes,in the most part,you won't have to read that.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water
Keeper remains concerned about the proposed plan due to the numerous areas of noncompliance
with the Town Code, including stormwater management, segmentation of environmental review
and site planning. The existing access road has never received approval or Site Plan Review from
the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. In addition, we do not support any waiver requests for
stormwater management for any project within the Lake George Park, especially when there is no
existing stormwater management for the access road. The Water Keeper requests the Planning
Board to apply the Town's regulations regarding Site Plan Review, specifically requiring the
construction of roads on steep slopes, stormwater management and environmental review, during
your deliberations. The access road has not been reviewed or approved by the Town of
Queensbury for commercial use. The "existing access road" has received much attention since its
illegal construction back in 2005 but it has never received an approval from the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board. The road, which we've called "French Mountain Memorial Highway"
has been an agenda item for Site Plan Review twice in 2006 - the first time it was withdrawn after
discussion requiring the APA review and the second time a Stop Work Order and Violation was
issued by the Town of Queensbury. This second application resulted in a settlement with the Town
of Queensbury Town Board requiring the applicant"to use best efforts to stabilize the forest roads
on the subject property so as to minimize potential impact of run-off to off-site resources". The
Planning Board must note that: The "existing access road" is called a "forest road", which under
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
any interpretation cannot be considered as a road servicing a proposed commercial activity with no
design standards or stormwater management. The "forest road" was to be stabilized to minimize
potential impact of run-off to off-site resources. Again, this "forest road" was not designed to nor
does it comply with any design standards of the Town of Queensbury. At the December 1, 2008
Town Board meeting discussing the settlement agreement, Town Board member John Strough
questioned the proposed use of the "forest roads" as noted in the attached minutes: "Questions
remain, it has not been established what these forest roads are to be used for. Are these roads to be
used as a......culture, in other words, logging activity as originally identified by the landowners or will
other uses, vehicles and activities be allowed such as jeep rallies,ATV uses, horses,public hiking. What
I don't know, I think makes a difference, it does tome. Will these forest roads be used for access for
other kinds of development, if so, what?" Therefore, the proposed 40 riders/8-10 vehicles per hour
and 43,340 riders/9,000-10,000 vehicle trips per year will occur on a "forest road" that has never
been approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. In fact, at the only Planning Board
review that occurred back on May 22, 2006, the Board decided to have the APA as an involved
agency for the 19 acre clearing for the "forest road", which resulted in the application being
withdrawn. The road remains highly visible and has resulted in a scar up the side of the mountain
and there a notch in the ridgeline of French Mountain,which you can see whether it's a two second
or a ten second window, and I still see it every time I go south. The Planning Board must review
the road design for grade, construction and protection of the resources of the Town and the Park
and mitigate negative impacts. There were a couple of comments earlier about people that say the
road is in good condition,but there's no professional engineer signoff. There is a, it was stated that
it was a well-built road, and I wrote this report March 2006. I never thought I would get as much
mileage out of this,but I'll drop this if anyone is interested. You can take a look at it. There are no
stormwater management controls on the proposed "forest road"/commercial access. For over 8
years, there has been no stormwater controls installed on the road. It must be realized that the
stabilization and minimizing potential impacts of the road does not qualify as compliance with
stormwater management regulations and requirements within the Lake George Park. A complete
stormwater management plan should be finally submitted for review and approval for this
excessive and unapproved disturbance. There were talks that it was built to Dave Wick's
standards, the stormwater, but those are not stormwater management standards. Water bars are
not stormwater management. Water bars can concentrate runoff. So again, they talk about
references to washout on the roads, and the road needs to be maintained. So clearly stormwater
management is necessary. The exclusion of the access to the proposed tower results in
segmentation of the environmental review of the project. In conclusion, the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board should determine the Site Plan Application as incomplete and table the project
pending additional information regarding the access road for commercial purposes. And I'll be
glad to leave a copy if anyone wants to take a look. This has pictures of the construction of the road
and aerials that were done in 2006.
MR. HUNSINGER-Should we have him leave it with you, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-He can leave it with me.
MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. KREBS-I'd like to ask Laura a question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead.
MR. KREBS-Talk about regulations for roads, are we talking about regulations for public roads that
anybody can drive on or all roads? Is this considered a public road? No, it's not a public road. It's
a private road. Does it have to meet Town specifications? I do not believe a private road has to
meet Town specifications,but maybe it does.
MR.TRAVER-It would be subject to Site Plan Review,though.
MRS.MOORE-But you are, as part of this project,you're reviewing this application.
MR. KREBS-Yes,but I was taking it as a separate item.
MRS.MOORE-Okay,and it's not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
JOHN KIM
MR. KIM-Yes. John Kim. I own the motel right in front of the project, right on Route 9. I've been
up here since 1980. I'm Dave Kenny's brother-in-law. I'm in the outlets as well, his partner, and
Sun Castle Resort. I've seen rotten lumber come in there when they were behind me and the
stench from the bark when their de-toother and de-barker was going and going until three, four in
the morning. I mean, that motel, when I took it over, was absolutely, the whole property just
reeked, reeked of dead, decaying wood. I mean, the Beadnell's came in there. They started doing
their western theme there. They improved that property, more to a tourist, what I wanted, my
customers would want, and then you've got Ralph come in here and he did the same thing. I think
any big project like we did down the outlets can help this area. The Great Escape has to put a new
project in every five years. If they don't, people don't want to come back to the area. They don't
want to see the same old thing year after year. I mean,they're a corporation where if the numbers
aren't there,they're going to pull out. They're going to leave the area. If we, as a government, and
people in Town don't support these projects,everybody's going to get up and leave, and if The Great
Escape leaves, where are we going to be? We live off the tourism. So I think you should really
consider this project as something that's a new, and that's going to bring good, more people and
money to the area. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. KREBS-Thank.
MS. BRAYMER-Could I just point out one thing about the stormwater?
MR. HUNSINGER-If you come to the microphone. Is there anyone else that wishes to address the
Board? Okay.
MS. BRAYMER-The way I'm reading the stormwater regulations, it says, it applies to all land
development activities. It doesn't say it applies to roads. This is a land development activity
subject to Site Plan Review, and it should also, the road itself should also be subject to Site Plan
Review and the stormwater management regulations in Chapter 147,not the zoning. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any other written comments, Laura,that weren't?
MRS.MOORE-No,there were not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would the applicant like to come back to the table? We will conclude the
public hearing for this evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me begin with first just a comment about whether or not we were in
compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. When the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was
developed, the most recent one, various zoning changes were made, various definitions were
changed, and one of those was that for an LC-10 Acre zone, outdoor recreation was allowed. The
definition of Outdoor Recreation includes activities operated on a commercial basis for the public.
Now the opponent to this application disagrees with that. The Zoning Administrator has said it
includes this proposed activity. The Zoning Board affirmed that by denying the appeal of that
determination. This is a permitted use and it's within the guideline, if you will, of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan,and it's within the specific regulation of the Town Zoning Ordinance.
So they base a lot of their argument on the fact that because it's commercial, it's not compatible
with the residential zone. Well, the LC-10 Acre zone is a residential zone, and it's a permitted use
in a residential use. So I think it is compatible, and to keep going down that same road with the
APA, with the Zoning Board, with the Zoning Administrator, now with you, is a little bit of folly. I
think, clearly,that it's a permitted use, and that it's within the spirit of the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. The other comment I would make and maybe I need to get up to make the point.
Unfortunately, we probably did too much pre-application planning. We did too much pre-
application mitigation so that I can't stand here and say,we don't want to begin this out on the rock
face. That was his first suggestion. We said, no, we won't do that, we want, and Mr. Macchio said
no,he wanted this line to be camouflaged within the existing trees which the average height, I think,
is 48 feet. This tower that we're talking about is a pole. It's a single pole with a cross bar on it.
That tower is 34 feet. He did not want to be out here. Now Tom is a little bit correct and a little bit
wrong when he says we didn't consider alternatives. One of the main changes we made was the
landing zone of the line. The initial landing zone of the line was out at the end of the existing
buildings, and where The Last of the Mohicans first had their site, that would have been more
directly perpendicular to the Northway, and would give you a more direct look up the line. We
decided to change that to bring it over here to make this more parallel, so the only thing you got
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
was, particularly at the top, was a side view, and the side view would be camouflaged by the trees
that are on both sides of the line. The other change that we made, which we thought was
significant,was we initially had the tower or the pole at the top in about the area where it is,and we
had next to it, or immediately next to it,the launch platform. So you would have had both of those
pieces of equipment at the very top. So,to eliminate that,what we did is move the launch platform
below the road. It's about 125 feet, I think, below the actual tower, and what that did is two
different things. It separated them so that they would not be a mass there. It also allowed us to
say that we won't do extensive clearing on that first hundred and twenty-five feet. There's nothing
that moves above the launch platform. The return line for the harness that comes back up stops at
the launch platform. So the only movement is from the launch platform down. This is static.
Once we put it in place, we can re-vegetate the outside area. We don't need to worry about the
separation of the lines. If there's a tree that's going to fall on them or something like that that's
dead, yes, we would have to remove it, but for the first 125 feet, we won't be removing trees, and
this is not silhouetted. That tower, that 34 foot tower, is in 48 foot trees, and some of them are
behind it. That's not silhouetted into the ridge. It's below the ridge. The other change, and actually
was, we did shift it a little bit that way. We can't shift it further that way because of the property
corner. As you come down, we've got to avoid that property corner. We also were asked, and we
talked about alternatives, were asked whether or not we could move it 300 feet down the road,
down the Mountain. We don't have a road access or a road system. We'd be building another road,
and that would be more clearing. So this was the plan that gave us the best plan that we could
present to you. Unfortunately, as I said, we mitigated the impacts before we came to you. We
didn't come to you with telling you we're going to put in 10 lines and we'll accept four. We didn't
come in and say we want it on the rock face, but we'd take it over here. We took care of all those
things before we did it. The same thing with the rubber coated wheels. We came up with that and
said that is what we would do. The other point I would make is the road. The road, with due
respect, is not part of the construction. It's an existing road, and it's a road that was approved by
the Town Board, and it was approved by a settlement agreement, as part of a consent order, if you
will, and it was then exempt from any other requirements. The Town actually had an engineer
supervise the approval of that, and the mitigation of it and the construction of it. Dave Wick is a PE.
He was brought in from Soil and Water. He actually reviewed the road, reviewed the stormwater
that was on the road, and if you've been up the road, you've seen the ditches, you've seen the rock
breaks that are in the ditches,the deams I guess they call them, and that road,he reviewed it again,
not back when it was built,he reviewed it in 2011. That's the letter that you have, I believe, in your
file. Currently I am pleased to report that this road is in the best condition I've seen it in. The
surface is compacted stone along its length, and is holding up to erosion very well. The road width
has been narrowed to the dimensions recommended by my report two years ago, and the
vegetation along the shoulder is very stable. The drainage ditches and culverts are stable and show
no significant signs of erosion or off-site disposition of sediments. Towards the top of the steeper
sections there are two small areas which needed some additional stone and minor re-grading work,
which was agreed to by all on the visit, and has since been accomplished. So I'm not segmenting
the road from the project, but the road is an existing piece of construction. It's not part of the
construction that we're asking you to approve, and as far as a change of use, I'll go back again to my
earlier comments. It was approved as a road for heavy duty logging vehicles. They are a lot less
than what we are going to put five to six passengers in with a driver and bring to the top of the
Mountain.
MR.TRAVER-I think a logging operation,though,and I'm not a logging expert,but that occurs over a
finite period of time separated by many years, not operating year round, 40,000 people per year,
not to say the road can't do that. I'm just pointing out that I think you're comparing a little bit
apples and oranges if you're talking about a one shot logging operation versus a continual usage.
MR. LAPPER-But these are small vehicles,which wouldn't damage the road.
MR.TRAVER-Right,but 10,000.
MR. LAPPER-Well,that's the worst case. We'll see what it really is.
MR. TRAVER-My only concern I think at this point with the road, in view of the history and
acknowledging the history that you gave, and the fact that it was subject to review, the only thing I
think that I would like to see is the annual reports on the condition and the maintenance of the
road, on an ongoing basis, not just for the first couple of years. So that we know, because of the
history of the road,because of the original design was not subject to planning.
MR. O'CONNOR-We would not have an objection to that. We being you.
MR. TRAVER-I think because this is a change, I mean, let's face it, the road, when it was first put in,
was not put in according to a plan that was reviewed, and it was designed for a different purpose.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
Since then, it's been looked at and there've been some efforts put in, successfully, to manage
apparently the runoff and so on to date,but how that's going to be impacted by these vehicles, large
or small, tracked or wheeled, whatever the use it would end up being, it's still a use that the road
was never designed for and not even what it was intended for when it was first built. So if we can
monitor that we'll get early warning should there be any indication that there's some problems
developing,and I understand there's already a requirement for the first three years,but I would feel
better if we had some kind of ongoing, annual written evaluation that the engineer could look at
and say,okay, everything is fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We're not asking for a blank check, okay.
MR.TRAVER-Well,that's good.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you look, but if you want to give me one with my name on it, I'll take it. If you
look at the APA permit, I believe there are 47 conditions of that permit, okay. Many of those
conditions address some of the questions that were actually raised. We can't put additions on to
the road. We can't run the road into other areas. We can't change the activities, and they are all
within those conditions, and we would have no objection to you saying that in your resolution,you,
as a Town Board, for purposes of having the Town's right to enforce, have adopted all the
conditions that are in the APA permit, and with the exception that their permit on the road was by
no later than 90 days after construction of the Zip Flyer zip line authorized herein and annually
thereafter for three years the applicant shall provide the Agency with a report prepared by an
engineer licensed in the State of New York on the condition of the gravel access road serving the zip
line. The report shall specify, at a minimum,the condition of the road surface,ditches and drainage
systems, and shall include a schedule for recommended repairs and/or maintenance, and just,
instead of saying for three years,while the zip line is in operation.
MR.TRAVER-I think that would be appropriate.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We don't have a problem with that, and I don't know if you've all gone
through the APA permit. There are a couple of points I would highlight, I guess, partially in
response. One is that by no later than 15 months after commencement of operation of the zip line
flyer authorized hearing, the applicant shall provide color photographs, print no smaller than eight
by ten, in digital file showing the structures, cutting and planting. Photographs shall be from
viewpoints one,three, and five, as depicted on the map of potential visibility,contained in the visual
impact assessment. The photos shall be high resolution digital images taken with the film
equivalent of 50 to 85 focal length lens. All photographs must identify the date the picture was
taken, the location of the photograph, the lens size employed. Compliance photographs shall be
taken on a clear day with little cloud cover. This does not,the tower, I call it the tower, the pole, is
not creating a notch in that ridgeline. The pole is actually below the ridgeline and the top of the
pole is below the ridgeline. We're confusing something with, on somebody's claiming that there's a
notch there that we're building in. We're not building in that,but that was one,and.
MR.TRAVER-Well, I think to some degree they're talking about the visual impact of the road,which
is quite a negative scar on the Mountain,but, I mean,that's there and it is what it is,but, I think will
be more noticeable than the zip line, I mean,forever probably.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's true. I think there was a stretch of the road which part of the
mitigation of the road that was agreed upon was eliminated and has since been re-planted and the
trees in there now disguise it very well. They were pines.
MR. FORD-There's still a notch there at the top you see every time.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, at the very top, there is. That's in the highest peak, which is probably about
1,000 feet away from where the power is actually going to be located,but if you look through those
comments, the conditions, I think you're going to see that the APA was thorough in its review and
put in provisions saying we're satisfied with what you and your professionals have signed for, but
we want to have a second look. They did it with the road. They did it with the cutting area that we
may have to re-visit that. They also did it with noise and said that if they had legitimate complaints
that they thought were legitimate on noise, we would have to come back to them with a noise
mitigation plan to take care of that, and we looked at those conditions and said we can live with
them. We have full faith in what we're doing. The other point which was raised was de-
commissioning of the tower. They have that in there. If the zip line is operating, we've got to
remove it. We can't leave it as a skeleton on the Mountain. We take the tower down and take the
lines off.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. FORD-What period of time constitutes lack of use?
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me look. I forget.
MR.TRAVER-I think it's,if I remember right,it's the same as a radio tower,isn't it?
MR. O'CONNOR-They took it out of their cell tower regulations.
MR.TRAVER-That's what I remember. I haven't looked at it in awhile,but that's what I remember.
MR. LAPPER-While Mike's looking into that, I just want to make one comment. Justin terms of the
economic benefit, which we really didn't highlight, although a few people from the public
commented on. Just taking a regional view, there are a lot of vacancies in the motels in Lake
George and in Queensbury, even in the summer, and in terms of something that'll be attractive to
people coming to the region, this is a gravity ride, a low impact ride, and when you talk about
preserving open spaces, what Ralph is doing, you know, the road is there, as we've said, but in
terms of what he's doing, mostly the Mountain stays the way it is, and that is attractive to tourists
because it's a beautiful Mountain,but we think that this is going to be something that's going to be a
real benefit to the motels,to the outlets,to the campgrounds as well, that people are going to really
like this, and that's certainly why Ralph's going to the trouble of a four year approval process and
an expensive project, but we think it's going to be a real benefit to the community, to Lake George
and to Queensbury and to Warren County. I hope you don't lose sight of that.
MR. FORD-I can appreciate the economic impact. There is something that I want to voice, so that
you'll have the opportunity to address it, because it has not been addressed to my satisfaction yet.
Every day in America nine people are killed and over 1,000 people are injured by a visually
distracted driver of an automobile. I have not yet been convinced that there is not going to be a
visual distraction to drivers, particularly southbound on the Northway, in those openings where, in
my opinion, you missed a golden opportunity to show us visually what that was going to look like,
and what I see up there is not showing me what it's going to look like with a person coming down
that zip line, and I drove it twice today, and I noticed that there's a large open space where I can
clearly see up to the Mountain, and I believe if I am visually distracted by somebody coming down
that Mountain, which I'm not convinced I won't be able to see, the next opening may be where I
really lose it because I will be looking for what I think I saw the first time coming down.
MR. LAPPER-The answer there, Tom, is that when you take your eye off you have to do it very
quickly. I mean, we all look at things all the time like West Mountain, yes, we'll show you, but the
answer is that you look at it but it doesn't take your focus away from looking at the road.
MR. FORD-Of course it does. When you're looking off at a 90 degree angle to the, to identify what
that is you're seeing.
MR. LAPPER-It's no different than.
MR. KREBS-But,Tom, come on,you drive down the road,you can see The Great Escape water park,
okay,you can see The Great Escape,okay. That's a distraction.
MR. DEEB-There's a million things that can distract you on the road.
MR. KREBS-You go further down the road and you know, I don't care if you start at Albany, there's
distractions all the way on both sides of the Northway. When you're driving a car, as a person,
you're responsible to pay attention to what you're doing.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-West Mountain at night is the biggest distraction.
MR. DEEB-There's so many distractions. No matter where you drive there's distractions. You just
have to be a responsible driver. Plain and simple.
MR.TRAVER-All right. We're going to look at this Bromley video?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is there a place where you can see dots going down the line that you?
MR. DEEB-There they are, I see a lot of dots,how many are going down?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Can we get you on the microphone,please.
MR. FRANK-I had people who shot the video, they took notes. We had someone standing at the
platform and said okay, start, and somebody launched. We had a watch going. People were
viewing it from that location, and when they saw something coming into their view, they noted the
time. You'll see running time along the bottom. So I had the benefit of knowing when they saw
something firsthand.
MR. FORD-Okay,and this was a person in a chair coming down a zip line?
MR. FRANK-Multiple people.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. FRANK-Multiple people.
MR. FORD-Because we're going to have,what,four people at a time coming down?
MR.TRAVER-Well,that would be the most.
MR. O'CONNOR-Each line is run independently. They don't go off at the same time. You might
have four friends who get up there that say we'd like to see, go down together, and that may
happen, but they're going to be run independently. I'm sorry. Why don't you just run it once
without telling them where to look, and then have them.
MR.TRAVER-Could you remind us,again,how far the viewpoint is from the zip line.
MR. FRANK-This is at seven tenths of a mile.
MR.TRAVER-Seven tenths of a mile.
MR. FRANK-Which is the same distance as the northbound view,whereas the southbound view is a
little bit further. It's more of eight tenths of a mile. So it's essentially equivalent to the distance on
the Northway,both northbound and southbound.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I see cars going by.
MR. FRANK-This is the landing. Here's the launch, and your lines are coming right down through
here.
MR. FORD-Thank you. That's helpful.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can't see it.
MR. DEEB-No.
MR. FRANK-It should stream. I don't know why it's running slowly. No, that's the correct one, it's
just the computer is slow.
MRS.MOORE-How many minutes is it? We're at a minute five.
MR. FRANK-Okay. This is from approximately three miles, which is about the same distance at
south of Exit 22 where you have that view.
MRS.MOORE-Can you locate,again,the distance.
MR. FRANK-The launch is starting up here. Re-play that first one. Okay. Location One, riders are
visible in the video near the top of the ride at eight seconds. Riders appear from the trees near the
bottom of the ride at 47 seconds. There were three riders.
MRS.MOORE-Forty-seven seconds?
MR. FRANK-Eight seconds near the top, appear from the trees near the bottom of the ride at 47
seconds. There were three riders.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. TRAVER-So that's a slightly shorter ride than what we're talking about this evening because
this ride is,what, 55.
MR. DEEB-Fifty-eight seconds.
MR.TRAVER-Fifty-eight seconds.
MR. FRANK-The facility at Bromley is reported to be a half mile long with a vertical drop of.
MR. LAPPER-There's 47.
MR. FRANK-Dimensions, Bromley's 2600 feet. Bear Pond is 3450 feet. Both have very similar
verticals. Bromley is 700. Bear Pond is 750. Both have four side by side rider capabilities. Top
rider speeds for both rides is 50 miles per hour. The launch tower at Bromley is a little bit taller
than the one proposed at Bear Pond.
MRS.MOORE-Do you want me to play Number Two again?
MR. FRANK-If the Board wants to see it,by all means,but.
MR. FORD-Thank you for seizing that opportunity.
MR. FRANK-I forgot that it was with me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you feel a need to see it again?
MR. FORD-No, I don't.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we're all set. Thanks, Laura.
MR. TRAVER-You know, we talked about a lot of impacts on this project, but I think that it's not
going to be, there's certainly going to be economic impact, various things we talked about, the old
road and so on, but I do think this issue of the visual impact is what the legacy of this project could
very well be because we've seen stills and video of the Bromley which suggests that this will be
practically invisible or hardly visible at all. Other people objecting to the project say it's going to be
extremely visible, and I think that's what the issue,how this project will be remembered is based on
that. If it turns out that it's, you know, very visible and it's a bit of an eyesore, it's going to be
perceived very negatively. If it turns out that it's almost invisible like the Bromley ride,then I think
everyone will be very pleased. That's really what,people riding up and down the Northway,if it's a
real eyesore from the Northway,people are going to say that was terrible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Thank you, Steve.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Steve. There were some comments down here. Was there any question
you wanted to ask?
MR. DEEB-Well, if we go back to the road, Mr. Macchio, it's counterproductive for him not to take
care of that road. He certainly wants to keep the business going for a while. He doesn't want to
invest all the resources he's investing now to have that road deteriorate so he can't bring anything
up it, and then lose it and have to tear the tower down. So, I mean, I just thought that, you know,
that would be worth mentioning, and in conversation with him I really feel that he's totally sincere
about keeping the environment for skiing and just doing the best that he can for the surrounding
area, and it's proven by, he hasn't developed that ranch with anything else, or put anything on it.
So I just wanted to make that comment.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I was going to comment on one thing, too. I noticed that the Fire Marshal
hasn't commented here, but this would be a first we haven't had a discussion of a high tower that
somebody didn't say that it was going to be a fire hazard, we're going to burn the place down. I
can assure you that that area right there, in the Town of Queensbury and the Town of Lake George
has adequate equipment to do EMS, which you're going to have some EMS here, maybe at the
bottom. We've been there, but I don't see it anywhere near possibly being a fire hazard, and that's
a NIMBY based thought, but there are going to be fires on that Mountain, there are, and we've been
out there for two days, we've been out there for two hours, but the Town of Queensbury has a
tremendous amount of equipment for that and we use it over on Black Mountain. We use it on a lot
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
of other places around here. They have six wheelers with stretchers on them. So they could run
right up that road,grab somebody at the top. It wouldn't take them any longer.
MR. O'CONNOR-Our activity does not promote any fires up there, but if you've been up on the site,
you see the people,they go up there. I mean, it's posted. It's posted for liability issues,but even as
Mr. King said,people go there when we aren't there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,but you've got to be prepared for that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think, having lived in other areas of the State, the Town of Queensbury
probably is better prepared than most.
MR. DEEB-Can you address just one thing Mr. King mentioned, and that would be the, what about
your employees in the wintertime,trying to keep them warm?
What they'll do is have an enclosure. It could be a temporary one, right on the platform, where
they'll be working.
MR. DEEB-Will it be heated?
MR. MACCHIO-I don't think so, no, and we might look at the generator and electric heater, you
know, if anything, but it's going to be small, compact, and they have to dress for this type of thing.
It's an outdoor activity.
MR. KREBS-I'm sure it's going to be very similar to the people at the top of a lift at a ski area. They
have a small compartment where they.
MR. MACCHIO-That's exactly it,yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments?
MR. FORD-Yes, I'd like to get a clarification. We had, during the public session, we had someone
refer to the trail system there on the Mountain. Mr. Macchio, would you be good enough to
describe the trail system as it pertains to this?
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me answer part of that I guess.
MR. FORD-Okay. Go ahead.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the trail system, and I didn't know if I was necessarily going to answer
that. The trail system that they're talking about, I believe, at this point enters the Macchio
property. In order to get out to the rock bluff you walk onto the Macchio property. He's never
actively, you know, discouraged that. He has posted it for liability purposes. So that if somebody
goes out there, they're on their own, and there's an exemption under the Environmental
Conservation Law that if somebody's using your property for recreation purposes,you aren't liable
for it, but the posting of it helps it. The posting signs go up and they come down. That's the trail
system I think you're referring to. There's a trail, as I understand it,that comes from the bike path,
up through the King property up to that point.
MR. FORD-And over onto the Macchio property.
MR. O'CONNOR-Over onto Macchio property,and it's actually been surveyed and it's shown.
MR. FORD-Thank you for that clarification.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's the road, and there's the road that comes up from Bay Road, is what
Mr. Schonewolf said.
MR. O'CONNOR-There's a road that comes up from Bay Road and joins the Macchio property.
MR. HUNSINGER-We know firsthand because we've driven on it.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. O'CONNOR-The other point, and I think it was a minor point, but would this operation
encourage the snowmobilers to, as they come across from Bay Road, to come to, from Washington
County to Warren County. During the winter, the snowmobile club puts up signs, puts up
barricades and what not to keep them on that one main path, and I think that that would probably
still be maintained so that they're not going to be up visiting the site or up where we have traffic. If
that becomes a problem then they have a problem I would think.
MR.TRAVER-That's normally fenced off in the wintertime I think.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and there are a bunch of other little points, but unless the points raise the
question, I don't think you want me to go through sentence by sentence. If you do, I'm glad to do it.
If you have questions,we'll try to answer them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was just about to ask the Board if there were any additional questions.
The other question I have for the Board is, is there any additional information that the Board would
like to see? We heard a lot of comments from the public. We heard a lot of information from the
applicant. Are there any remaining information that you would want to see?
MR. TRAVER-I mean, we talked about the maintenance agreement and the reporting, engineering
reports on the road that was verbally agreed to by the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-That would be in a resolution, but I can't think of any additional data that we would
need.
MR. FORD-As would be what is called for in the APA approval. That'll be part of our resolution as
well. Right?
MR. KREBS-Yes, what I did, on Item Number Six, subsequent issuance of further permits including
building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all of the conditions of this resolution,
including conditions of the APA.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Well, but the APA condition on the engineering report is only the first three years.
They've agreed to continue it beyond that.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-So we'd want to put that in the resolution.
MRS.MOORE-Can I add some language or give you some suggestion?
MR. KREBS-Sure.
MRS. MOORE-With one exception, that it is ongoing reporting provided to the Town on a yearly or
more frequent basis as long as the zip line is in operation.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yearly. What do you mean more frequently? You said yearly or more frequently.
MRS.M00RE-At least yearly.
MR. O'CONNOR-We'll do it yearly.
MRS. MOORE-There may be a point where you come across that you developed a report more,prior
to the annual, and we would like that report as well. That's all I'm saying.
MR. HUNSINGER-If there's no additional information that the Board is looking for, would anyone
like to make a motion to close the public hearing?
MRS. MOORE-Before you close your public hearing,just a comment to the Board and to ensure that
it's, people are aware that there was a site visit conducted and Planning Board members did attend
that site visit and that was yesterday.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,not all members were present.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. FORD-But all members have been on that site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Absolutely.
MR. FORD-Some multiple times.
MR.TRAVER-And on the trail.
RESOLUTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SP#77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH, LLC
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH.
LLC &FRENCH MT. BEAR POND, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other questions or comments that any Board members want to make?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I think you've just got to make sure you've got all the conditions. I think
Don's got them.
MR. KREBS-I'll read it again. Including conditions of the APA for the future, at least annually, as
long as the operation continues.
MR. LAPPER-Could you be more specific.
MR. O'CONNOR-Would you say incorporate all the conditions for approval made by the APA on the
permit issued April 7th,April 18th, 2014, and in addition to that, as to condition number twenty-five
had to do with.
MR. HUNSINGER-We got language from Laura.
MR. KREBS-We got language. Okay.
MRS. MOORE-The only thing I would interject is, is that we do have a,there was a waiver request in
reference to the landscaping, but I think there's been detail provided by the applicant in the
drawings that have been submitted that show detail about landscaping and cutting plans as
referenced in the APA condition. So I don't think that waiver is something that is being requested
now.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we withdraw, I saw also they were talking about a waiver for lighting. We
have no lighting.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-So that's not necessary.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you go through the APA thing you'll see that. No lighting about 600 feet
elevation, if there were to be any lighting above 600 feet elevation we'd have to go back and modify
our permit. The waiver requests are withdrawn.
MR. FORD-You want to avoid that at all costs,don't you,going back again.
MR. O'CONNOR-The APA weren't bad,but they were just slow. That's the best I can say.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Our secretary is ready to read a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH, LLC &FRENCH MT. BEAR POND,LLC
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to construct a 31450 linear foot Zip Line emanating on lands in Queensbury and
terminating on lands in Lake George; total elevation drop of approximately 770 feet proposed.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-9 of the Zoning Ordinance Outdoor Recreation Uses in a LC zone shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR-APA Jurisdictional;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 7-15-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH. LLC & FRENCH
MOUNTAIN BEAR POND, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded
by David Deeb:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code;
2) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone,orange construction fencing shall
be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff,
3) All conditions as identified by APA be a part of the Town Planning Board's resolution in
documentation form. This includes but is not limited to the maintenance plan for the site a.)
Road,b.) zip line with one exception,that it is ongoing reporting provided to the Town on a
yearly or more basis as long as the zip line is in operation (see attachment);
4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
7) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 15, 2014,
Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/2014)
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
57