Site Plan Application & Narrative
December 17, 2018
Stephen Traver, Planning Board Chairman
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury NY 12804
Re: ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’
Application for Site Plan
By Great Escape Theme Park, LLC
Dear Chairman Traver and Planning Board Members,
In conjunction with its parent company, Six Flags, Inc., Great Escape Theme Park, LLC (“Great
Escape” or the “Applicant”) hereby seeks site plan review for the construction of a new water
ride (Watermania) and a new water attraction (Shipwreck Cove). The area of the proposed ride
and attraction falls within Park Area ‘A’ of Great Escape Theme Park (the “Park”) in the area of
the Park previously approved as ‘Wiggles World’ (Qby SP# 58-2007). Great Escape seeks this
approval to further improve and expand the guest and visitor experience within the Park.
Enclosed please find an original and 14 copies of a Site Plan Application for members of the
Planning Board (the “Board”), which includes the following project description or narrative.
Also enclosed please find a check in the amount of $100.00, representing the fee for the site plan
application.
.
I. General Project Description
The Great Escape wishes to expand the water park experience for all Park guests and visitors by
construction of a new water ride (‘Bucket Blasters’) and a new water feature (‘Shipwreck
Cove’). The Great Escape is presently in the process of rebranding the waterpark from
‘Splashwater Kingdom’ to ‘Hurricane Harbor’. The new ride and water feature will be located in
the area of the park formerly known as ‘Wiggles World / Kidzopolis’. This area is to be
incorporated into an expanded ‘Hurricane Harbor’ waterpark.
Associated with the construction of the new water ride and water feature will be a new walkway
/ staircase connection to the area near the existing ‘Buccaneer Beach’, ‘Mega Wedgie’, and
waterpark bathrooms. Additionally, a new pump house, shade structure, walkway queue line to
the existing ‘Big Red Planes’ ride and portal / entrance to the waterpark are proposed as part of
this project.
Queensbury Planning December 17, 2018
Re: Site Plan: ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’
II. SEQR/Site Plan Review Requirements
On July 11, 2001, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, as lead agency, adopted a Final General
Environmental Impact Statement (“FGEIS”) and Findings Statement (the “2001 Findings”), that
considered the general direction of future development at the Great Escape Theme Park (the “Park”).
The FGEIS and 2001 Findings were then further supplemented and amended by a Supplemental
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“SGEIS”) and Supplemental Findings Statement (the
“2004 Findings”).
As identified in the FGEIS, Park Area A is a 237.6 acre portion of lands owned by Great Escape
east of U.S. Route 9, which has traditionally been utilized for amusements and attractions, and
has been a theme park since 1954. This area is presently zoned RC (Recreation Commercial).
Significant acreage within Area A is “developable” or ideal for siting amusement park rides,
attractions, facilities and support facilities such as the proposed ‘Bucket Blasters’ and
‘Shipwreck Cove’. The DGEIS anticipated that, in the future, Great Escape might add new
attractions and facilities in order to remain competitive with other amusement/theme parks. See
pp. 1-2, 2-17 and 2-18 of the DGEIS.
The 2001 Findings (as supplemented by the 2004 Findings) adopted developmental impact
thresholds for various significant environmental factors. As long as these thresholds are not
exceeded by proposed new development, the 2001 Findings held that a State Environmental
Quality Review Act or “SEQRA” review is not required. Instead, the Board must approve new
rides, attractions and facilities within Park Area A on the basis of site plan review and area
variance approval, if required, provided that they are consistent with the impact assessment and
thresholds generically adopted in the 2001 Findings.
A. Traffic
The 2001 Findings refer to a traffic study detailed in the FGEIS which states that “traffic impacts will
occur as traffic associated with the growth in the Park’s attendance increases.” See p. 9 of the 2001
Findings. The FGEIS sets forth “Improvement” measures designed to handle increased traffic,
measures which are tied to attendance level thresholds. See pp.4-18 and 4-19. In other words, when
attendance at the Park reaches specific levels, various mitigation measures could be required.
However, the 2004 Findings ultimately dictated that traffic counts, as opposed to Park attendance,
would be the trigger for traffic-related mitigation measures. Traffic counts, as identified in biennial
(SP# 63-2015) traffic reports performed by Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP (“CME”), would
determine whether Six Flags must implement mitigation measures. Conversely, the construction of
rides, attractions and facilities would not directly dictate mitigation measures. As set forth by CME
in its August 2017 report, “Phase 3 improvements are required when the combined volume of traffic
in the southbound through lane and the eastbound right-turn lane at either \[the US Route 9/I-87 Exit
20 Northbound Ramp or US Route 9/Gurney Lane (County Road 23)\] intersections reaches the
1
traffic threshold listed in the … Findings Statement.”
1
According to the 2004 Findings ( p.8), the relevant threshold for Phase 3 mitigation measures is “\[w\]hen combined traffic volumes reach 1,320
or 1,368 during weekday AM peak hour and 1,454 or 1,404 at the Saturday AM peak hour, respectively at the US Route 9/Exit 20 and US Route
9/Gurney Lane intersections.” Per Creighton Manning, existing 2017 volumes are 825 and 790 for weekday AM peak hour at US Route 9/Exit
20 and US Route 9/Gurney Lane intersections respectively, and 757 and 872 for Saturday AM peak hour for Route 9/Exit 20 and Route 9/Gurney
Lane respectively. Phase 3 measures include, but are not limited to, widening the eastbound approach of the I-87 Exit 20 northbound off-ramp,
widening the west side of US Route 9 in order to create a second southbound through lane from Exit 20 to Gurney Lane, and constructing a four-
Page 2 of 5
Queensbury Planning December 17, 2018
Re: Site Plan: ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’
Because existing 2017 traffic volumes fell well below the Phase 3 threshold for both weekday and
weekend peak hours, Great Escape has not yet crossed the threshold wherein the FGEIS called for
the implementation of the next phase of mitigation measures.
Great Escape has always been proactive in implementing measures designed to effectively manage
and direct traffic. When and if additional mitigation measures are dictated, Great Escape will
certainly see them through to completion. There should be minimal, if any, additional vehicular
traffic generated by the addition of the Deck by virtue of the fact that the majority of patrons served
by this enhancement to the restaurant will already be at the park or guests of the Lodge. Therefore,
no additional mitigation measures will be required, and currently existing parking lots will be well
suited to handle parking needs.
B. Sound
The 2001 Findings state that “\[w\]hen a new ride or attraction (facility) is proposed on Six Flags
properties, the Planning Board shall review its sound characteristics. Any facility or attraction that
will result in an increase of the L by 5 DBA or more above baseline at one of the three \[residential
90
receptor\] monitoring locations shall be subject to additional environmental review.” See Section
5(g)(7). The 2018 sound study performed by O’Brien and Gere indicates that generally, sound level
2
ranges were similar to those measured in 2016 & 2017 at the required community locations.
The ‘Bucket Blasters’ and ‘Shipwreck Cove’ are not expected to generate any additional noise
compared to the ‘Big Red Cars’ and ‘Little Tea Cups’ rides that are to be removed as part of this
project, therefore will not generate the noise level typically associated with roller coasters and other
such attractions. As a result, the addition of the ‘Bucket Blasters’ and Shipwreck Cove’ will not
violate the permitted sound thresholds. Any motorized components, e.g. pumps, will be located
either below grade, within buildings or fenced barriers. Therefore, we can be reasonably certain that
the Attraction will not result in a material deviation from the sound levels indicated in the 2018
sound study.
The closest residential receptor point, in the likely direction of sound projection, would be the
northern portion of the Twicwood Estates development a distance greater than 1/4 mile to the south.
The 2018 sound study indicates that only minimal weekend audible noise from the Six Flags
properties (“Park”) was noted during the weekday and weekend measurements. The ‘Bucket
Blasters’ and ‘Shipwreck Cove’ are predicted not to violate the permitted sound thresholds let alone
contribute any discernible noise above existing levels documented in the 2018 sound study.
Six Flags will continue to comply with Section 5(g)(6) of the 2001 Findings which requires that
annual noise monitoring be conducted at the three residential receptor locations detailed therein.
leg intersection at Round Pond Road and US Route 9 by constructing the southern piece of the new ring road. See 2004 Findings Section D(2) at
p.7 for a complete discussion of the timing of mitigation measures, and description of those measures.
2
For example, background L90 sound levels as a result of sound at the Park were within or below the range of sound levels measured in 2016 &
2017 at Courthouse Estates, at Glen Lake Shore, and Twicwood Estates. Weekend nighttime (while the park is closed) L90 measurements were
found to be within or below the range of sound levels measured in 2016 & 2017 as well. August 24, 2018 O’Brien & Gere Annual Community
Sound Survey - 2018.
Page 3 of 5
Queensbury Planning December 17, 2018
Re: Site Plan: ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’
C. Stormwater
Section 5(c)(4) of the 2001 Findings refer to, and summarize, Great Escape’s proposed
implementation of a stormwater management system. In the Findings, the Planning Board expresses
its concern with the protection of the Glen Lake Fen’s water quality, and goes on to set forth certain
mitigation measures to ensure the protection of the environment and water quality.
The Applicant anticipates a 4,292± square foot increase of impervious cover in the project area as
part of the development associated with the ‘Bucket Blasters’ and Shipwreck Cove’. The Six Flags
properties have long since exceeded the one (1) acre of disturbance threshold requiring compliance
with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES) - Phase II stormwater regulations and Town of Queensbury local
stormwater regulations. The proposed post-construction stormwater control system has been sized to
mitigate runoff from the 50-yr storm per requirements of the town of Queensbury stormwater design
standards. Any runoff that occurs as a result of storm events in excess of a 50-yr storm will be
allowed to discharge to an existing drainage structure immediately to the southwest of the restaurant
main entrance.
Stormwater (rainfall) that falls within the footprint and immediate adjacent deck/walkway areas of
the ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’ (4,099 sf) will not be tributary to any post construction
stormwater control measures. Rainfall will be treated and disposed of as part of the water filtration
and backwash system for both the ride and water feature. Only 193 sf of new impervious cover will
be tributary to the proposed post construction stormwater control measures.
This 4,292± square foot increase represents a nominal increase in impervious area to the 237.6 acre
parcel area.
D. Wastewater
No new restrooms, locker rooms or food service stands and associated sanitary wastewater
discharges are proposed in conjunction with the ‘Bucket Blasters’ and ‘Shipwreck Cove’. All treated
ride/feature water will be captured by a NYSDOH compliant, water collection, filtration, and
treatment system for continued reuse. All filtered backwash water generated by the ride and feature
will be directed to a NYSDOH approved existing holding/de-chlorination tank and on-site infiltration
system.
E. Soils, Geology and Topography; Ecology
Because the land where the ride and feature are proposed has been previously developed, the
proposed redevelopment will not disturb any existing woodlands. Only limited areas of existing
lawn and landscaping will be impacted, with similar proposed landscaping to augment any lost
vegetation will be provided. No disruption of any animal or plant species is expected, nor will there
be any impact to open space, agricultural, forest or mineral resources.
In accordance with 2001 Findings Section 5(b)(3), Great Escape will provide the Planning Board
with a detailed landscape planting plan during site plan review.
Page 4 of 5
Queensbury Planning December 17, 2018
Re: Site Plan: ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’
III. Waiver Requests
Exterior Lighting:The Great Escape wishes to seek waiver from the design standards for exterior
lighting as the proposed lighting is to be very close to the existing. Only the location of the exterior light
poles will change, the existing light poles will be reused. The proposed project setback to property lines
will mitigate any light generation being visible off site. Additionally please note, the water park typically
does not operate after sundown.
IV. Required Approvals and Attachments
Great Escape anticipates that governmental approvals required for the proposed deck will be Site
Plan Review, Area Variance Review and a Building Permit from the Town of Queensbury.
To assist in your review, the following are inclusive of this submission:
1.Cover Letter
2.Application Fee(s): Site Plan ($100.00)
3.Site Plan Application w/ questions/answers
4.(2) Full size and (13) 11x17 drawings (1-9) entitled ‘Bucket Blasters & Shipwreck Cove
– The Great Escape’
All drawings revision ‘A’ dated 12/17/2018
5.Deed
6.2018 O’Brien & Gere Sound Study
7.2017 Creighton Manning Traffic Study
Please feel free to contact us at (518) 792-2907 if you have any questions or comments regarding the
above or attached. Thank you for your consideration of this application.
Sincerely,
Robert U. Holmes II, P.E.
Project Manager
Ecopies: Eric Gilbert – Great Escape
Dean Hyatt – Great Escape
F:\\DataFile\\2001 Project Files\\Grt Esc Proj\\01-054 Great Escape Venues\\01-054.68 Hurricane Harbor\\Work Docs\\01054.68 18xxxx SP\\Srce
Files\\01054.68 181129 Drft Cvr Ltr.doc
Page 5 of 5
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Site Plan Review Application
Review Process:
1.Required Pre-submission meeting with staff to determine general completeness to be held no later than1
week prior todeadline day.Call (518) 761-8265or (518) 761-8220for an appointment.
2.Submittal of complete application: 1 original and 14 copies of the application package by monthlydeadline.
3.Determination of application completeness. All necessary information must be provided and appropriate
fee(s) paid for consideration for placement on an agenda for that month.
4.Incomplete applications will not be considered for placement on any agenda until all missing
informationhas been submitted.
5.Submittal to Warren County Planning, if applicable.
6.Planning Board meeting, generally the third & fourth Tuesday of each month. You will be advised in
writing as towhich meeting to attend.
7.Following the meeting you will be provided with a copy of the resolution stating the Board’s decision on
yourapplication. If your application was approved, the next likely step is a Building Permit. Final
drawings must beprovided for the next phase of review. If your application was denied, your projectcannot
proceed as submitted.
DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS (hard copy & electronic):
Please submit 1 original & 14 copies of the completed application package to include:
Completed Application pages 2-9,signed & dated
Pre-Submission Meeting Notes:signed by staff
Copy of Deed
Checklist & Plot Plan
Environmental Assessment Formfor any non-residential project
Fee:$100 (0 –10,000 sq. ft.); $250 (10,001 –30,000 sq. ft.); $500 (30,001 -100,000 sq. ft.);$1,000
(100,000+ sq. ft.)
Staff & Contact Information:
Craig Brown,Zoning Administratorcraigb@queensbury.net
Laura Moore, Land Use Plannerlmoore@queensbury.net
Sunny Sweet, Office Specialist –Planningsunnys@queensbury.net(518) 761-8220
for further information and forms
Visit our website at www.queensbury.net
Site Plan Review application –Revised October 2016
Town of QueensburyPlanning Office-742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Constructionofnewwaterride/waterfeature.Shadestructure/pumphouseandstaircase,etc.
1172StateRoute9
Site Development Data
Proposed Addition
Area / Type
Existing Sq. ft.Total sq. ft.
sq. ft.
A.Building FootprintN/AN/AN/A
B.Detached GarageN/AN/AN/A
C.Accessory Structure(s)N/AN/AN/A
(Project Area) Paved,
D.96011939794
Gravel or other hard surfaced area
E.Porches/DecksN/AN/AN/A
F.OtherN/AN/AN/A
G.Total Non-Permeable (Sq. Ft.) \[Add A-F\]96011939794
H.Parcel Area
\[43,560 sqft/acre\]
Parcel Area (Acres)237.6237.6237.6
Project Area (Sq. Ft.)170001700017000
Percentage of Impermeable Area of Site \[I=G/H\]
I.
Parcel Area14.8±%~0%14.8±%
Project Area56.5%1.1%57.6%
Setback Requirements
Area
RequiredExistingProposed
Front \[1\] (Round Pond Rd.)
30'430'± (Tea Cups)385'± (Staircase)
Front \[2\] (Route 9)
30'1,150'± (Big Red Cars)1,150'± (Bucket Blasters)
Shoreline
75'N/AN/A
Side Yard \[1\] (West - Wakita - Country Inn & Suites)
20'250'± (Big Red Cars)245'± (Bucket Blasters)
Side Yard \[2\] (East - towards Round Pond)
20'680'± (Big Red Cars)685'±
Rear Yard \[1\] (North)
20'940'± (Big Red Cars)950'± (Bucket Blasters)
Rear Yard \[2\]
20'N/AN/A
Travel Corridor
N/AN/AN/A
Height \[max\]
(Big Red Cars)26'± (Shipwreck Cove)
175 (per FGEIS)20'±
Permeability
Parcel30%85.2±%85.20%
Project Area43.5%42.4%
No. of parking spacesNo New Parking Required (FGEIS)
3
(TBD)
17,000sq.ft.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Steven Traver, Chairman and Planning Board Members December 17, 2018
Re: Great Escape – ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’
§ 179-9-080 Requirements for Site Plan Approval. The Planning Board shall not approve a Site Plan
unless it first determines that such site plan meets the following Standards. Please prepare responses to
each of the following topics.
Standards
A.The proposed project furthers or is consistent with the policies of the Town’s Comprehensive
Plan.
The Great Escape has been in existence for decades, and is located within the Route 9 North
Commercial Corridor. The Great Escape property is presently zoned Recreational
Commercial. Fitting in with a significant goal identified in the Town of Queensbury’s
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (the desire for pedestrian-friendly development), the 2001
Great Escape Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and the 2004 Supplemental
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS), the Great Escape is very pedestrian
friendly. Access throughout the park is predominantly via walking.
The proposed ‘Bucket Blasters’ ride and the ‘Shipwreck Cove’ water feature are being
incorporated into the existing water park by redeveloping a portion of the former ‘Wiggles
World / Kidzopolis theme area. This proposed redevelopment will providing a newly
expanded and exciting guest experience for those visiting the Great Escape. Please see the
enclosed narrative (the “Narrative”) for additional details.
B.The proposed project complies with all other requirements of this Chapter, including the site
plan review standards as set forth in Paragraph F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and
density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Article 3 and
Table 1), the applicable requirements of all other Articles that apply.
As mentioned above, the proposed ride and water feature are to be located in the area of the
Park formerly known as ‘Wiggles World / Kidzopolis’. The placement of the new ride and
feature requires the removal of two existing rides (Little Tea Cups and Big Red Cars), The
removal of a two existing rides and the placement of the new ride and water feature will
comply with dimensional, bulk and density requirements of the Recreational Commercial
zone.
C.The site plan encourages pedestrian activity internally and, if practicable, to and from the site
with pedestrian paths or sidewalks connected to adjacent areas.
As noted above, access throughout the Great Escape is via walking.
D.The site plan must conform to Chapter 136 Sewer and Sewage Disposal, Chapter 147
Stormwater Management Local Lay, and other applicable local laws.
The means of potable water supply and sanitary wastewater disposal is via connection to
Town-owned municipal systems. The disposal of backwash water from the proposed ride
and water feature will be handled via existing subsurface infiltration systems for the
Page 1 of 4
Steven Traver, Chairman and Planning Board Members December 17, 2018
Re: Great Escape – ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’
treatment and disposal of pool water. Pool backwash water is only disposed of from the
existing backwash water detention tanks after residual chlorine has dissipated.
E.The proposed use shall be in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this Chapter,
specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the
description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity
of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the
nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which
will follow the approval of the proposed use.
The size, character, color and location of the proposed ‘Bucket Blasters’ ride and
‘Shipwreck Cove’ water feature will comply with the existing GEIS, the SGEIS and the
studies’ respective findings statements (the “Findings”).
F.The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed use will not create public
hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be
otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the town. Traffic access and circulation, road
intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls will be adequate.
Per the GEIS, the 2001 Findings, and the 2004 Findings, the mitigation of traffic
constraints and congestion is tied to ‘traffic count’ levels. The results of the 2017 traffic
count study fall below the ‘threshold’ necessary for the implementation of Phase 3
improvements. Hence, the construction of the proposed water ride and water feature will
not directly dictate the implementation of mitigation measures.
G.Off-street parking and loading facilities will be appropriately located and arranged and
sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated by the new use. The establishment of
vehicle links between parking areas of adjacent properties are provided where feasible. This
furthers the Town’s goal of reducing curb cuts and reducing congestion. A twenty-foot wide
connection is required. If adjacent properties area either undeveloped or previously developed
without having made provision for future linking, then a future connection must be identified
and provided for in the site plan under review for such future linking when the time arises.
The Planning Board may require proof that the applicant has made contact with adjacent
property owners for purposes of coordinating linkages with adjacent properties.
No changes in traffic, curb cuts, off-street parking, and/or loading facilities will be required
as part of this proposed project. Per the GEIS and the 2001 Findings, and the 2004
Findings, the implementation of mitigation measures for the expansion of Great Escape
vehicle parking (parking lots) is dictated by the ‘overall’ park attendance. Please see the
Narrative for additional information in relation to traffic.
H.The project shall not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic,
ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the town or the
Adirondack Park or upon the adequate provision of supporting facilities and service made
necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential,
recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the
determination hereunder, the Planning Board shall consider those factors pertinent to the
Page 2 of 4
Steven Traver, Chairman and Planning Board Members December 17, 2018
Re: Great Escape – ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’
project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under § 179-9-080 of this
chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board shall made a net overall evaluation of the project
in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in § 179-9-080 of
this Article.
Per the GEIS and the 2001 Findings, no threatened or endangered species were found to be
located within the Park. Additionally, there are no historic or archeological sites located in
Park Area A (as defined in the GEIS and 2004 Findings) where construction is proposed.
Please see the Narrative for additional details. Also, please note the proposed project area is
located in an area prior disturbance and development.
I.The provisions for and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway
structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience
shall be safe and adequate for pedestrian movement. Pedestrian connections between adjacent
sites shall be provided to encourage pedestrian use.
Access throughout the Great Escape is via walking.
J.Stormwater drainage facilities will prevent an increase of post development drainage flows as
compared to pre-development drainage flows. Drainage of the site shall recharge ground
water to the extent practical. Surface waters flowing off-site shall not degrade any streams or
adversely affect drainage on adjacent properties or public roads. Facilities shall be in
conformance with the drainage standards of Chapter 147 of the Town Code and the Town of
Queensbury Subdivision Regulations where applicable.
The redevelopment of the proposed project area requires the replacement of existing
stormwater controls (315 cf) for pre-existing impervious cover as well as providing
stormwater controls for addition new impervious cover (193 sf). The new impervious cover
will require a minimum of 77.2 cf of storage/infiltration (volume of runoff for a 50-yr 24
hour duration storm). Stormwater (rainfall) that falls within the footprint and immediate
adjacent deck/walkway areas of the ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’ (4,099 sf) will not
be tributary to any post construction stormwater control measures. Rainfall will be treated
and disposed of as part of the water filtration and backwash system for both the ride and
water feature. A 2’x2’x257’ (411.2 cf) stone fill trench around the perimeter of the new
deck/walkway space is to be provided to collect and infiltrate tributary stormwater runoff.
No stormwater pretreatment of stormwater is proposed since the existing and proposed
impervious cover within the project area is not subject to sanding and salting during the
winter and vehicle access to the project area is restricted for maintenance purposes only.
Existing drywells, drop inlets and the existing infiltration basin to the west of the existing
theater will remain unchanged.
K.The water supply and sewage disposal facilities will be adequate and will meet all applicable
and current requirements set forth by Department of Health Regulations and Chapter 136 of
the Town Code.
As noted, water supply and wastewater disposal are by connection to Town owned municipal
systems. As discussed above, backwash water from the proposed ride and water feature is
treated by the filtration and backwash system for the ride and water feature then disposed of
Page 3 of 4
Steven Traver, Chairman and Planning Board Members December 17, 2018
Re: Great Escape – ‘Bucket Blasters’ & ‘Shipwreck Cove’
via an existing subsurface infiltration system. Backwash water is only disposed of from the
existing backwash system after residual chlorine has dissipated and ‘off gassed’ in a
detention tank.
L.The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping
and screening shall effectively provide a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and
adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance,
including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
A landscape plan has been provided as part of this application. Some existing landscaped
green space is to be impacted by this project. It is the applicant’s intent to similarly match
and complement existing landscaping in within the project areas.
M.Fire lanes, emergency zones and fire hydrants will be adequate and meet the needs and
requirements of emergency service providers.
The proposed ride and feature are to be constructed in the area formerly known as ‘Wiggles
World / Kidzopolis’. Existing fire lanes, emergency zones and fire hydrants will not be
impacted as part of this project.
N.The design of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas susceptible to ponding, flooding
and/or erosion will minimize or avoid such impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Soil and site conditions in the vicinity of the project area are not typically susceptible to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion do to the presence of highly permeable under lying sandy
soils.
O.The site plan conforms to the design standards, landscaping standards and performance
standards in this chapter.
The Great Escape wishes to seek waiver from the design standards for exterior lighting as
the proposed lighting is to be very close to the existing. Only the location of the exterior
light poles will change, the existing light poles will be reused. The proposed project setback
to property lines will mitigate any light generation being visible off site. Additionally please
note, the water park typically does not operate after sundown.
Page 4 of 4
§ 179-9-050Checklist-Application for Site Plan Review.
Application materials and site plan shall include sufficient information for the Board to review and provide a
decision. The applicant is to provide a site plan drawing and all attachments that address items A-V. The
applicant may request a waiver from A-V and is to provide reasons for waiver(s) requested. Please label
information to be submitted.
Sheet #
REQUIREMENTS
A vicinity map drawn at the scale that shows the relationship of the proposal to existing community facilities which affect
A.
or serve it, such as roads, shopping areas, schools, etc. The map shall also show all properties, identify owners,
Cover
subdivisions, streets and easements within 500 feet of the property. Such a sketch may be superimposed on a United States
Geological Survey map of the area.
The site plan shall be drawn at a scale of forty feet to the inch (1” = 40 feet) or such other scale as the Planning Board may
B.
C1
deem appropriate, on standard 24” x 36” sheets, with continuation on 8 l/2 “x 11” sheets as necessary for written
information. The information listed below shall be shown on the site plan and continuation sheets.
Name of the project, boundaries, date, north arrow, and scale of the plan.
C.
All
Name and address of the owner of record, developer, and seal of the engineer, architect or landscape architect. If the
D.
All
applicant is not the record owner, a letter of authorization shall be required from the owner.
The location and use of all existing and proposed structures within the property, including all dimensions of height and
E.
EX1/C1
floor area, all exterior entrances, and all anticipated future additions and alterations.
The location of all present and proposed public and private ways, off-street parking areas, driveways, outdoor storage areas,
F.
sidewalks, ramps, curbs, paths, landscaping, walls and fences. Location, type and screening details for all waste disposal
N/A
containers shall also be shown.
The location, height, intensity and bulb type (sodium, incandescent, etc.) of all external lighting fixtures. The direction of
G.
N/A
illumination and methods to eliminate glare onto adjoining properties must also be shown in compliance with § 179-6-020.
The location, height, size, materials and design of all proposed signs.
H.
N/A
The location of all present andproposed utility systems including:
I.
1. Sewage or septic system;
2. Water supply system;
N/A
3. Telephone, cable and electrical systems; and
4. Storm drainage system including existing and proposed drain lines, culverts, catch basins, headwalls, endwalls,
hydrants, manholes and drainage swales.
Plans to prevent the pollution of surface or groundwater, erosion of soil both during and after construction, excessive runoff
J.
and flooding of other properties, as applicable. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for all land development
activities (excluding agricultural activities) on the site that results in land disturbance of one acre or more. A SWPPP shall
comply with the requirements of the DEC SPDES MS-4 General Permit and Chapter 147 of the Town of Queensbury
N/A
Code. It shall be at the discretion of the Planning Board as to whether a SWPPP or an erosion and control plan shall be
required for a site plan review project land disturbance of less than one acre.
Existing and proposed topography at two-foot contour intervals, or such other contour interval as the Planning Board shall
K.
allow. All elevations shall refer to the nearest United States Coastal and Geodetic Bench Mark. If any portion of the parcel
EX1
is within the 100-year floodplain, the area will be shown and base flood elevations given. Areas shall be indicated within
C1
the proposed site and within 50 feet of the proposed site where soil removal or filling is required, showing the approximate
volume in cubic yards.
A landscape plan showing all existing natural land features than may influence the design of the proposed use such as rock
L.
outcrops, stands of trees, single trees eight or more inches in diameter, forest cover and water sources and all proposed
L1
changes to these features, including sizes and types of plants. Water sources include ponds, lakes, wetlands and
watercourses, aquifers, floodplains and drainage retention areas.
Land Use District boundaries within 500 feet of the site’s perimeter shall be drawn and identified on the site plan, as well
M.
N/A
as any Overlay Districts that apply to the property.
Site Plan Review application –Revised October 2016
Town of QueensburyPlanning Office-742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Sheet #
REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED)
Traffic flow patterns within the site, entrances and exits, loading and unloading areas, as well as curb cuts on the site and
N.
within 100 feet of the site. The Planning Board may, at its discretion, require a detailed traffic study for large developments or
for those in heavy traffic areas, which shall include:
REFER
TO
1. The projected number of motorvehicle trips to enter or leave the site, estimated for weekly and
FGEIS
annual peak hour traffic levels;
2. The projected traffic flow pattern including vehicular movements at all major intersections likely
to be affected by the proposed use of the site;
3. The impact of this traffic on levels of service on abutting public streets and at affected
intersections. Existing and proposed weekly and annual peak hour traffic levels and road capacity
levels shall also be given.
For new construction or alterations to any structure, a table containing the following information shall be included:
O.
1. Estimated area of structure to be used for particular purposes such as retain operation, office,
Storage, etc.;
N/A
2. Estimated maximum number of employees;
3. Maximum seating capacity, where applicable; and
4. Number of parking spaces existing and required for the intended use.
1. Floor Plans.
P.
2. Elevations at a scale of one-quarter inch equals one foot (1/4” = 1 foot) for all exterior facades of the proposed structure(s)
N/A
and/or alterations to or expansions of existing facades, showing design features and indicating the type and color of materials
to be used.
Soil logs, water supply well and percolation test results,and storm water runoff calculations as needed to determine and
EX1
Q.
mitigate project impacts.
C1
Plans for disposal of construction and demolition waste, either on-site or at an approved disposal facility.
R.
N/A
Plans for snow removal, including location(s) of on-site snow storage.
N/A
S.
An Environmental Assessment Form (“EAF”) as required by the SEQRA regulations, with Part 1 completed by the Applicant
T.
shall be submitted as part of the application. If the proposed project requires a special use permit and anEAF has been
Attached
submitted in conjunction with a special use permit application, a duplicate EAF is not required for the site plan application.
If an application is for a parcel or parcels on which more than one use is proposed, the applicant may submit a single
U.
application for all such uses, provided the proposed uses are accurately delineated on a site plan drawn pursuant to the
requirements set forth above. The Planning Board may grant the application with respect to some proposed uses and not
N/A
others.For purposes of reviewing an application (and for SEQRA compliance) all proposed uses on a single parcel or on
contiguous parcels shall be considered together.
Cover
A brief narrative statement on how the project proposed for review furthers or is consistent with the vision, goals and policies
V.
ltr
in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
Attached
Site Plan Review application –Revised October 2016
Town of QueensburyPlanning Office-742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
12/10/18
RobertU.HolmesII,P.E.
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Instructions for Completing
Part 1 - Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses
become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully
respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful
to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1 - Project and Sponsor Information
GreatEscapeThemePark,LLC
Name of Action or Project:
BucketBlastersandShipwreckCove
Project Location (describe, and attach a location map):
1172Route9,Queensbury
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
Constructionofanewwaterride/waterfeature.Shadestructure/pumphouseandstaircaseetc.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone:
518-792-3500
GreatEscapeThemePark,LLC
E-Mail:
egilbert@sfpt.com
Address:
POBox511
City/PO: State:Zip Code:
LakeGeorgeNY12845
1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance,
NO YES
administrative rule, or regulation?
If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2.
2.Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other governmental Agency?
NO YES
If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval:
237.6
3.a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? ___________ acres
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? ___________ acres
.34
c.Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? ___________acres
237.6
4.Check all land uses that occur on, adjoining and near the proposed action.
Urban Rural (non-agriculture) Industrial Commercial Residential (suburban)
Forest Agriculture Aquatic Other (specify): _________________________
Parkland
5.Is the proposed action,
NO YES N/A
a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations?
b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan?
NO YES
6.Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural
landscape?
7.Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area?
NO YES
Name:Glen Lake, Reason:Benefit to human health, natural setting, Agency:Queensbury, Town of, Date:11-
If Yes, identify: __________________________________________________________________________
30-89
_______________________________________________________________________________________
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels?
NO YES
b.Are public transportation service(s) available at or near the site of the proposed action?
c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action?
9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements?
NO YES
If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
10.Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply?
NO YES
If No, describe method for providing potable water: ______________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities?
NO YES
If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
NO YES
12. a. Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic
Places?
b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area?
NO YES
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency?
b.Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody?
If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: _______________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
14.Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply:
Shoreline Forest Agricultural/grasslands Early mid-successional
Wetland Urban Suburban
NO YES
15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed
by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered?
Frosted Elfin, Karner Blue
16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain?
NO YES
17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources?NO YES
If Yes,
a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? NO YES
b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)?
If Yes, briefly describe: NO YES
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Page2 of
X
Tuesday, November 13, 2018 9:21 AM
Disclaimer:The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist
project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental
assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are
answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF
question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although
the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to
DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order
to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a
substitute for agency determinations.
Part 1 / Question 7 \[Critical Environmental Yes
Area\]
Part 1 / Question 7 \[Critical Environmental Name:Glen Lake, Reason:Benefit to human health, natural setting,
Area - Identify\]Agency:Queensbury, Town of, Date:11-30-89
Part 1 / Question 12a \[National Register of No
Historic Places\]
Part 1 / Question 12b \[Archeological Sites\]Yes
Part 1 / Question 13a \[Wetlands or Other Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and
Regulated Waterbodies\]waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
Part 1 / Question 15 \[Threatened or Yes
Endangered Animal\]
Part 1 / Question 15 \[Threatened or Frosted Elfin, Karner Blue
Endangered Animal - Name\]
Part 1 / Question 16 \[100 Year Flood Plain\]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
Part 1 / Question 20 \[Remediation Site\]No
Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report
1
Part 2
Answer all ofthefollowingquestionsin Part 2 using theinformation contained in Part 1 and other materialssubmitted by
theprojectsponsoror otherwise availableto the reviewer. When answeringthequestionsthereviewershould be guided by
theconc
No, or Moderate
small to large
impact impact
may may
occuroccur
1.Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning
regulations?
2.Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?
3.Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?
4.Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishmentof a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)?
5.Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway?
6.Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
7.Will the proposed action impact existing:
a.public / private water supplies?
b.public / private wastewater treatment utilities?
8.Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological,
architectural or aesthetic resources?
9.Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands,
waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)?
10.Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage
problems?
11.Will the proposedaction create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?
Page 1 of 2
PRINTFORM
Foreveryquestion in Part 2 that was
particularelementoftheproposed action may orwillnotresultin a significantadverseenvironmentalimpact, please
completePart3. Part 3 should, in sufficient detail,identifytheimpact, including anymeasuresor design elements that
havebeen included by theprojectsponsorto avoid or reduceimpacts. Part 3 should also explain howthelead agency
determined that theimpactmayorwillnotbesignificant. Each potential impactshould be assessed considering itssetting,
probabilityofoccurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scopeandmagnitude. Also consider thepotentialforshort-
term, long-term and cumulative impacts.
Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required.
Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action will notresult in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Name of Lead AgencyDate
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead AgencyTitle of Responsible Officer
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead AgencySignature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer)
PRINTFORM
Page 2 of 2