Loading...
01-21-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. 53-2019 Apex Capital, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2, 315.5-1-2 Site Plan No. 79-2019 Don Bernard 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.8-1-15 Site Plan Modification No. 1-2020 Queensbury Square, LLC 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-38 Site Plan No. 2-2020 Larry Kelley 7. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-22.1, 296.13-1-22.2 Site Plan No. 3-2020 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 9. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board st meeting for Tuesday, January 21, 2020. This is our first meeting for January and the first meeting for 2020., and because of that, it is technically our organizational meeting, and I can report that all of the officers that had decided to continue in their positions are doing so. The Vice Chair and Secretary were elected by this Board last month, and myself, the Chairman, was appointed by the Town Board earlier this month. And that’s about all. We don’t have any new members. So that really is all the organizational announcements that we need to make. I want to thank Mr. Jackoski and Mr. Dixon for filling in for us tonight with a couple of absent members to bring us up to strength. I also want to mention that the, you’ll see some lighted exit signs. In the case of an emergency that is the exit from the building. If you have an electronic device, a cell phone or other IPad or other device, if you would either turn it off or turn the sound off so it doesn’t interrupt our meeting. And there should be some agendas on the table at the back of the room if you would like one, and with that we will begin our agenda for the evening. And we begin with thth approval of minutes from November 19 and 26 of 2019, and I believe we have a resolution. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th November 19, 2019 th November 26, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THTH NOVEMBER 19 AND NOVEMBER 26, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: st Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-Thank you, and the first item on our agenda is under Tabled Items. Apex Capital, LLC. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 53-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. APEX CAPITAL, LLC. AGENT(S): STUDIO A LANDSCAPE ARCH. DPC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC/MDR. LOCATION: 59 WEST MT. ROAD (MAIN); 47 & 53 WEST MT. RD. (PARKING). (SEQR) APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE WEST MOUNTAIN SKI AREA PARKING LOT, CONSTRUCTION OF A ZIP LINE ATTRACTION, APPROVAL OF AN EXISTING MOUNTAIN BIKING VENUE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PROJECTS. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOWN BOARD REFERRAL FOR A PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PARCELS 315.5-1-3.2 AND 315.5-1-2 FROM MODERATE DENSITY TO RECREATION COMMERCIAL. THE PARCELS ARE TO BE USED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-15-40 TOWN BOARD MAY REFER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION, 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) AND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A RECREATION CENTER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW SEQR. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-2002 CREATE 2 NONCONFORMING LOTS, SP 22-2008 ADDITIONS & DECK, SP 34-2011 ALPINE SLIDE & ZIP FLYER, SO 61-2011 SHED ADDITION; SP 60-2018; PZ 584-2019 RE-ZONING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 382.34. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2 315.5-1-2. SECTION: 179-3-040. MR. TRAVER-And we understand that they have a request for a tabling as they’re still accumulating details for their application? MRS. MOORE-Correct. th MR. TRAVER-And have asked to be tabled to the February 18, 2020 meeting. Do you have anything you want to add to that, Laura? MRS. MOORE-You were accurate that they have information that they need to address with the Town Engineer and so they’ve requested to be tabled this evening, and their hope was to be tabled to a February meeting and as Staff I find that okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. This does have a public hearing as well. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application, Apex Capital? I’m not seeing anyone. Okay. We’ll be hearing it again next month. We have a draft tabling motion. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN/ RECOMMENDATION SITE PLAN 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, Tabled until the February 18, 2020 Planning Board meeting. st Motion Seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move on to Planning Board Recommendations to the ZBA, and the first item under that is Don Bernard, Site Plan 79-2019. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 79-2019 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 8-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DON BERNARD. AGENT(S): AJA ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 20 BRAYTON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TEAR DOWN AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME OF 1,060 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH 3,711 SQ. FT. OF FLOOR AREA. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, PLANTINGS, SITE GRADING, NEW SEPTIC, NEW WELL AND REMOVAL OF SOME SHEDS. THE SITE WILL RETAIN AN EXISTING GARAGE OF 418 SQ. FT. AND A PORTION OF BRAYTON ROAD IS LOCATED ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT & FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SEPTIC ALTERATIONS 2019, AV. WARREN CO .REFERRAL: JANUARY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .28 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-15. SECTION: 179-6-065 ANDY ALLISON & CHRIS JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but the project is a teardown of an existing home to construct a new single family home of 1,060 square feet and a floor area of 3,711. Relief is sought for setbacks, height and floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here tonight? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) MR. ALLISON-So, good evening. I’m Andy Allison, the owner of AJA Architecture & Planning, and Don Bernard who’s the property owner. Chris Jones is the architect on the project. We’re glad you could have us here and we’re here to answer any questions or however you guys want to run through the project. MR. TRAVER-Well, welcome. Tell us about your project. MR. JONES-We have an existing building that’s on the site at 20 Brayton Road and what we’d like to do is we’d like to tear this building down and replace it with a new structure essentially in the existing building footprint with some minor deviations from that, but mostly within this building footprint. Our goal is to reduce the impact on the site from the existing building to the new one. We’re hoping to sort of alleviate some of the setback closeness issues we had before and basically maintain the entire site as a more eco-friendly site going forward. Part of this would be we have, as was mentioned before, we have three variances that we’re requesting. So we have the setback, height & floor area variance. We have three sides of the building right now that would need the setback variance. All three have been positively improved we’ll say from the site. The area variance we’re requesting is for the non-conforming site. We’re trying to get another floor on it, but the overall building footprint is only increasing by about 12 square foot,, and then the overall height variance, we’re looking for a variance from 28 feet, which is the Town recommendation, up to 35 feet four inches and some change. Basically just so we can get a walk up basement on one side of the building. The walk up basement would be on the side that is closest to the marina adjacent to it, and it would allow the basement to be a little more user friendly. With all that being said, we are taking a look at the overall site layout of the property. There is an existing dock on the property, and what we’d like to do is we’d like to do some environmental improvements above the dock on the page. So basically address some of your site runoff and what not. With that being said, there also are a number of small accessory sheds on the property. The majority of them would be leaving to alleviate runoff. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And you’re here this evening because you’re going to the ZBA. So we need to consider primarily the variances this evening. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-There are a lot of sheds on the property. MR. TRAVER-I guess. MR. MAGOWAN-I even see that one over there actually looks, it kind of cuts right through the property line there onto the neighbors there. MR. ALLISON-Actually that shed has already been removed. MR. MAGOWAN-That one’s been removed. MR. JONES-Yes. So the, as you see them on the screen, the only shed that’s going to remain would be the shed directly south on the page. That one. That one and then the larger shed up in the top right of the site, which would be the garage-esque shed. That one will remain. The rest of them will be removed. Another piece we’re doing is as you can see there’s an organic form in front of the building. If you could bring your mouse down just in front of the structure there. There is a concrete walkway. A portion of that would get removed in the new proposed plan as well, and would be replaced with grass or plantings. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I’ve really never seen a lot layout like this. It’s quite an intriguing little lot there isn’t it? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And then out back, then you’re surrounded by the boat company all the way around . MR. JONES-Yes, sort of three sides if you will. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically it’s a two story now and you want to bring it down to a single floor. MR. JONES-No. It’s currently a single floor, and then we would like to basically put a new door to a second floor and a basement. MR. ALLISON-And just to note that the surrounding houses around it are all much taller than the final. The two houses in close proximity on the lakefront front of this are actually probably 10 or so feet taller than this, as designed. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I like the finished look from the lake. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) MR. JONES-Based on this elevation here, as you can see in the bottom left there, that is really the only portion of the walkout basement and that’s really the only portion we’re asking for the height variance on, but everything to the right of that would be under that 28 feet. MR. ALLISON-Yes. Laura, if you could go back to that site plan. The site is even a little more interesting than the drawings show. If you look at the extreme north and west boundaries of our site, where it turns from sort of white to gray there, that property is actually bermed up quite a bit. So the drop off to the marina is probably about eight or ten feet, right on the other side of the fence. So a walkout basement would be almost at the level of the marina, but we’re going to maintain the privacy fence. We pulled the whole house to the east to get off of that property line just slightly. We re-designed the whole way the house was sitting. So that the entrance in and out of the house is not impacting the flow of traffic to those other two houses because they actually have a shared driveway, and I think the best part of the project that Don really wanted to do is all of the landscaping between the house and the dock that’s going to remain really goes from what now is hardscape to rain gutters and permeable plantings and we’re taking as much of the lot as we can and turning it into permeable before we get to the dock. MR. DEEB-Well the only thing that triggered the height variance was that walkout basement. Otherwise it would have been the same. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my biggest concern, too. MR. DEEB-Was the height, but now putting it in perspective. MR. JONES-Yes, we’re incurring the height variance because we’re actually going down. MR. DIXON-What type of improvements are you planning for the dock area? It says dock and deck on here. MR. JONES-Any changes we would do would just be general maintenance. So we may replace the top with wood that’s new, something to just keep it functional and maintainable, but there wouldn’t be any other improvements. MS. WHITE-No size increase? MR. JONES-No. MR. TRAVER-Other questions from members of the Board? For our referral, do we have any specialized concerns that we want to bring to the attention of the ZBA? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I did want to offer to the Board and to the applicant, I did have a phone conversation with a neighbor today and their concern was primarily construction time and not blocking that road and not parking on other neighbors’ properties during construction. MR. JONES-They are small lots there. MRS. MOORE-They are, and that was the concern, that some of the driveways that exist there now actually are covering the holding tanks. So, yes, they can handle a typical vehicle ,but they can’t handle construction vehicles. So I just wanted to make sure that the applicant was aware of it. MR. TRAVER-Yes. You might want to have some discussions with the neighborhood and make sure that you can, do your best to accommodate this. I’m sure you’re, you know, if you get final approval you’re going to want to act on this soon, but you can understand how cramped everybody is there. You’re going to have an impact definitely. I mean hopefully the final product will be better in the long run. Thank you for that. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 61-2019 DON BERNARD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to tear down an existing home to construct a new single family home of 1,060 sq. ft. (footprint) with 3,711 sq. ft. of floor area. Site work includes stormwater management, plantings, site grading, new septic, new well and removal of some sheds. The site will retain an existing garage of 418 sq. ft. and a portion of Brayton Road is located on a portion of the property. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, height & floor area. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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; 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) 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 NO. 61-2019 DON BERNARD; Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. st Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. JONES-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item also under Planning Board Recommendations is Site Plan Modification 1- 2020 for Queensbury Square, LLC. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 1-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): MONTY LIU. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 909 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION TO A 5,460 SQ. FT. BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE PROJECT IS TO INSTALL THREE 57 SQ. FT. PADS WITH CANOPY COVERS FOR A TOTAL OF 170 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDES AN EXISTING 7,000 SQ. FT. LIQUOR STORE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING SITE PLAN FOR NEW COVERED DELIVERY ENTRANCE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 76-2017, AV 78-2017, AV 1-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2020 LOT SIZE: 1.42 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-38. SECTION: 179-9-120. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MONTY LUI, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a Site Plan Modification to the existing building that’s under construction. The building is 5,460 square feet, and due to some building code changes they have to install, their delivery entries need to be covered. So that actually requires setback relief and the total square footage is 170 square feet, but each, there’s there delivery entrances and that will be 57 square feet each, and so those need setback relief from Weeks Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Yes, I thought it was kind of interesting when I saw what this was all about. After all the effort that’s gone into this project in general to see this 57 square foot. In any case, welcome. State your name for the record and tell us about your project. MR. DOBIE-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, representing Queensbury Square, LLC who’s Monty Liu, the managing member. As you may recall we were here two, two and a half years ago to work this project through and we received front setback relief along Weeks Road. It’s a little deceiving there. The right of way’s quite wide. It’s offset a little bit. So we’re not able to meet that front setback. We received relief to go to 32 feet for the face of our building and that’s where it’s situated now. Where we got a little sideways was during our o original approvals we had a rendering of the building from a building manufacturer which had just a flat plane to the Weeks Road side of the building, and we did show the doors, and I didn’t know the Building Code well enough until about six weeks ago and our designer didn’t know that also that if you have exterior doors on a commercial building you need it to be roofed over at least the swing of the doors. So we had to, and then once we had Ethan Hall design it properly we received our building permit. I totally missed, and the Town missed also quite frankly, and it’s just one of those things it’s such a small change that Mr. Hall had to add the three small gables off the back of the building to cover those entrances off that side. So they do have a structural foundation which is poured now, and again I didn’t see this on the plans and I saw it in the field right after it was poured. So it was let’s put the brakes on, get this sorted out. So we did need to ask for that additional five feet of relief from the Zoning Board and receive hopefully a Site 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) Plan Modification from you folks. Again, quite simple. They’re five feet deep, eleven and a half feet wide, and they are poured now, but the building is not framed. So I think we’re doing the right thing by putting the brakes on and not proceeding with the framing and then trying to do an after the fact in this severe case. MR. TRAVER-We appreciate that. MR. DOBIE-So we’re here to ask for your recommendation to the Zoning Board and hopefully we can work through our variance tomorrow night and be back with you folks next week. Thank you very much for your consideration. MR. TRAVER-All right. Really straightforward. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-No. All I want to say is, Lucas, thank you. I know Monty, you want to come in, Monty? I hope you didn’t close the store to come to the meeting, but, no I wanted to thank you for putting a hold on it, and, Monty, I know this ties up things for you and thank you for doing the right thing. MR. TRAVER-If you would state your name for the record, too, so you’re part of the record. MR. LIU-My name’s Monty Liu. I’m the owner and manager of the store. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And I just think it’s very admirable to do that and thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. DEEB-I do have one question. Will you re-confirm the colors of the building? MR. TRAVER-Right. Earth tones. Do you anticipate any changes in the colors? MR. LIU-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’ve re-confirmed that. Does anyone have any concerns they want to pass along to the ZBA regarding these three, 57 foot pads and the covers? Okay. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 1-2020 QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a site plan modification to a 5,460 sq. ft. building under construction. The project is to install three 57 sq. ft. pads with canopy covers for a total of 170 sq. ft. The project site includes an existing 7,000 sq. ft. liquor store. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to existing site plan for new covered delivery entrance shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 NO. 1-2020 QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. st Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next category is New Business, and the first item is Larry Kelley, Site Plan 2-2020. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 2-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LARRY KELLEY. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): 687 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 989 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING BUILDING WITH 5,234 SQ. FT. TO BE USED FOR FIVE STAR GOLF CARTS AND UTILITY VEHICLE SALES, SERVICE AND REPAIR – NOT AUTOMOBILE. AN EXISTING 5,287 SQ. FT. PAVILION TO BE ENCLOSED FOR INTERIOR STORAGE OF GOLF CARTS AND UTILITY VEHICLES. A PORTION OF THE SITE TO BE USED FOR OUTSIDE DISPLAY AND STORAGE. IN ADDITION, A PORTION OF THE MAIN BUILDING TO BE RENTED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REUSE OF EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION – 697 UPPER GLEN ST., LLC. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2020. LOT SIZE: 3.58 ACRES (TOTAL). TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-22.1, 296.13-1-22.2. SECTION: 179-3-040. TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes to re-use an existing building and I see that the agenda has the square footage as adjusted and to be corrected, and Mr. Jarrett will explain that, and to be used for Five Star Golf Carts and Utility Vehicle sales, service and repair, not automobile. An existing 5,287 square foot pavilion to be enclosed for interior storage of golf carts and utility vehicles, and a portion of the site to be used for outside display and storage. In addition there’s a portion of the front end of the building that is to be rented for commercial use. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-For the record, Tom Jarrett with Jarrett Engineers. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, I need to recuse myself from this project as I have a conflict of interest. MR. JARRETT-I’m here representing Five Star Golf Carts and Utility Vehicles. With me is Larry Kelley, one of the owners of Five Star. Our application is not quite as straightforward as the last one, but hopefully close. Larry plans to move from the currently leased site just north of this, just one door north of the former KFC building, to the site proposed in our Site Plan application which is the former KFC site. The site will be used almost or nearly as is. We don’t need to make any modifications to the existing building, except replace a couple of doors and then make some interior modifications. There is a second building on the site that is a picnic pavilion in the rear that will be used for open parts storage. Eventually hopefully it will be closed in, but right now it’ll be open. The clarification on the agenda and the Staff Notes is that the rear picnic pavilion is just over 5,000 square feet. The main building on the site is just over 10,000 square feet in footprint. The total functional usable area is about 13,000 square feet. Just as a note, we do meet floor area ratio and permeability requirements by a wide margin. What Larry plans to do is use the rear of the building for his own operations, to sell and maintain golf carts and utility vehicles. The front portion of the site, both upper and lower floors would be leased out to other tenants. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any idea what a likely business would be? LARRY KELLEY MR. KELLEY-Small retail potentially. It’s currently, recently it’s been utilized as a wood shop on one side, and it had a small restaurant on the other that is no longer. I don’t really plan on doing much with it right now anyway until I kind of move into my building and I’m going to probably use the Knights of Columbus area. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the rear of the bottom part. There’s more storage. I’m probably not going to do much with that or think about renting that because I’m going to probably need it. MR. JARRETT-The front part of the building is primarily amenable to offices. The rear is negative space. So whoever’s going to use that for a sales area and a display area and then service in the far rear which is mostly detailing and some repairs. The site right now is not connected to the Queensbury sewer. We plan to do that. Upon this approval and upon him closing on the site he would pursue that application with the Town. Lighting, we really need no changes to the exterior lighting. There are two old pole mounted lights on the site which can be used as is. He probably doesn’t need them, and if he does use them he would change the fixtures to downcast LED lamps. Stormwater is one thing we want to clarify 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) on these Staff Notes as well. There is a stormwater system on the site. There are two drywells in the parking area. There’s another drywell managing roof runoff. Those serve the developed portion of the site quite well or appear to. Then there’s a depression in the far rear of the site that seems to capture all the excess runoff from the site, and you’ll note if you visited the site all the runoff runs towards the rear away from Route 9. So it doesn’t appear to impact any properties, and the movie theater is protected as well. No runoff reaches that. Larry plans some landscaping improvements which you’ll see in our application, especially along the front, along Route 9 and along the front of the building. Landscaping along his portion of the building, the rear of the building looks to be in pretty good shape. I may have to amend that slightly. It’s landscaped currently. The signage would be re-located from the existing site next door to the current site, the same square footage of the sign, and lastly the front of the building he’ll spruce up. It’s a little tired. It needs a little TLC, a little clean up, and he’ll do that. Questions, comments? MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-The only thing I have to say is, boy, you have a lot of carts over there sometimes and I’m like my gosh he’s got a lot of carts. MR. KELLEY-They’re all for sale. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s amazing what’s over there. I always, you know, it’s nice, and then you go to some of these little developments in these campgrounds and everybody has, you know, and then they’ve got them jacked up and then they have bigger tires. It’s really amazing. MR. JARRETT-You may want to visit his showroom. MR. KELLEY-Yes, it’s’ a fun business. MR. TRAVER-Are most of them electric or gas? MR. KELLEY-Ten years ago it was more gas. Now it’s almost 80% electric. Because of the advances in electric. It’s a good thing. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any takers. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type II. So no SEQR action is required on our part. Any other questions, comments before we go to a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was pretty straightforward. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 2-2020 LARRY KELLEY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing building with 10,184 sq. ft. to be used for Five Star golf carts and utility vehicle sales, service and repair – not automobile. An existing 5,287 sq. ft. pavilion to be enclosed for interior storage of golf carts and utility vehicles. A portion of the site to be used for outside display and storage. In addition, a portion of the main building to be rented for commercial use. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, reuse of existing building and site shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/21/2020 and continued the public hearing to 01/21/2020 when it was closed, 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 01/20/2020; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 2-2020 LARRY KELLEY; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater, k. topography, q. soil logs 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. KELLEY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business we have Site Plan 3-2020, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC. SITE PLAN NO. 3-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED/ FGEIS SEQR. GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC. AGENT(S): FRANK PALUMBO, CT MALE ASSOCIATES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC. LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RIDE “ADIRONDACK OUTLAW” THAT IS TO BE 164 FT. IN HEIGHT, WITH AN ATTENDANT BOOTH OF 24 SQ. FT. AND OPERATOR BOOTH OF 42 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 6,190 SQ. FT. BUILDING AREA KNOWN AS “THE SALOON” CAFÉ AREA OF A LARGER BUILDING. THE RESTROOM AREA OF 1,123 SQ. FT. IS TO REMAIN WITH A CANOPY TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE AREA OF BUILDING REMOVED WILL BE CONVERTED TO A RIDE ACCESS PLAZA FOR THE “STEAMIN’ DEMON” AND THE NEW “ADIRONDACK OUTLAW”. THE PROJECT INCLUDES BUILDING DEMOLITION, GRADING AND CUT FOR NEW RIDE AREA, NEW LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER AND ASSOCIATED UPGRADES TO SITE FEATURES FOR GHOST TOWN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 6-2014 SUPER NOVA RIDE, SP PZ 23-2015 GREEZED LIGHTNIN RIDE, SP 5-2017 BONZAI PIPELINE RIDE; SP 15-2018 PANDEMONIUM RIDE; SP 67-2019 (WITHDRAWN), SEVERAL MORE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2020. LOT SIZE: 237 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040. CHARLES DUMAS & FRANK PALUMBO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a new ride called the Adirondack Outlaw at 164 feet in height with an attendant booth of 24 square feet and an operator booth of 42 square feet. The project includes the removal of a 6,190 square foot area known as The Saloon. The restroom area of 1,123 square feet is to remain. In addition to that would be a canopy. The area of building removal would be converted 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) to a ride access plaza for the “Steamin’ Demon” and the new “Adirondack Outlaw”. Project includes building demolition, grading and cut for new ride area, new lighting, landscaping, stormwater and associated upgrades to site features for Ghost Town. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. DUMAS-Good evening. Thank you. My name’s Charles Dumas. I’m with the law firm of Lemery Greisler. We represent the applicant, Great Escape Theme Park. We’re here in connection with the Adirondack Outlaw ride. The Board has previously seen this in a different location within the Park. We’ve been able to identify a new location for it that locates it in a different height study zone, and so the application that we have doesn’t present any exceedance of the thresholds that are established. There’s a height visual threshold, and in this particular zone it will accommodate rides up to 185 feet. Our ride is 164 and it’s 21 beneath the threshold. In terms of the sound, we have provided information, we have been provided information about the sound generation from the ride, and it’s not inclined to have any appreciable impact on adjacent properties, and lastly with respect to traffic it’s not expected to generate any additional traffic. A traffic monitor indicates that we’re well beneath the thresholds identified in the GEIS that would trigger any need for mitigation. We’re here this evening to answer whatever questions the Board may have, whatever comments the public cares to make. We’re here to address those with the idea that we can have an action on this this evening. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, thank you. I appreciate the amount of work that you put into trying to find a way to accommodate. I was actually surprised that you wouldn’t just come up with another ride, but I’m not obviously familiar with your business. So I understand you were committed to try to make this work. MR. DUMAS-Yes. This is a really important part of what the Park is trying to do. It’s made a major investment over the past many years in other parts of the Park and hasn’t spent any appreciative attention to this part of the Park, it’s really a signature part of the Park, in some time, and so this is an important improvement. There’s been a lot of time, effort and money to bring this to this point and hopefully to fruition. It, in and of itself, is not as important as the larger picture for the Park, and there’ll be some freshening of the Steamin’ Demon area in conjunction with this. So it’s serving multiplicity purposes. MR. TRAVER-Well I know we spent a great deal of time, you’ll recall that when this ride was coming we all did quite a bit of homework on the history of the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement and so on and we ended up, with the amount of time and effort that went into those demarcations of visual impact zones and so on that we felt that those were significantly important to adhere to and that was why we felt it would be difficult to accommodate your earlier location for the same ride, but I think it also seems to apply in this case because you’ve clearly moved it to the other side of the line, and the line hasn’t moved but the ride has. I know one question has come up, which I know you addressed with some late information that you submitted to the Town, but I’m not sure if all of the members of the public are aware of it, and that was the concern, because of the proximity of the ride to the lower threshold area, that possibly during the ride operation that maybe the, because it’s a long, it’s 85 feet when it’s on the level, but during the operation of the ride might some of it intrude into that lower threshold area. MR. DUMAS-Yes., that’s a good question, and let me introduce some of the other people that are here this evening. Frank Palumbo from C.T. Male Associates, Danielle Smith and Jose Martinez from Great Escape, and we’re also fortunate to have with us Scott Manchester from Ramboll, formerly O’Brien & Gere, and they do the annual sound monitor for The Great Escape as required by the GEIS, and it’s interesting. In preparing for the meeting I was going through some of the materials and Scott provided a huge amount of data in the initial compilation of the GEIS. So he’s very familiar with the operation of the Park, the GEIS, and its history over the past 20 years. MR. TRAVER-A lot of work went into that. MR. DUMAS-Yes, it did. Yes, it did. So this is the team I have here. Frank, do you want to talk a little bit about the Chairman’s question? MR. PALUMBO-Sure. Frank Palumbo. I’m a Landscape Architect with C.T. Male. So if you recall, this is the area where we had previously had the ride. This will now become an entry plaza for the two rides. So right here is where the pathway goes down now to Steamin’ Demon, and what we’re doing is we’re actually replacing that here. They’ll have an entry portal, as they call it, at this point, and the entry portal to the new ride will be here, the same type of corral structure that we had the last time, and then down to the point here, load the ride, exit here. They’re able to go right back to the ride, go to the other ride, go back into the Ghost Town area and so the line of demarcation right here is that boundary line, and yes, it is close, purposely close because this positioning of the ride, you know, become, the details of that were necessary to work out, but it is assuredly that that line was determined for a reason, and so this is the edge of the building. Charlie’s is here. I know there was some concern that it was possibly reported that Charlie’s would be removed. It is not. It is here. There’ll be a portico area outside of it with tables underneath, but that line, I just want to make a point and I’ll come back to the site plan, right there, you can see where the end of the ride is here, very close in line with the wall there. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-But that’s when it’s down. Right? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-Move to the next point. Right there is that wall that I was pointing out for Charlie’s. If you extend that up, it reaches a point where at the height up from there it’s 141 feet, not in the zone. So six feet differential but not in that lower zone. At this point here, still not over that line, this is at approximately 85 feet. The math here is 85 feet. We covered that a lot at the last meeting. So at no point does that go into and above that zone. When it’s here, you’re still outside of the zone and, you know, even if you’re at that close point, I just wanted to have a reference point for you, still outside the zone, and the peak here as Charles put 21 feet below the zone. The Condor is here, clearly in that 185 zone here, and th when we were out there, the first time we tried to do the balloons November 8, we couldn’t get the balloons up because of the wind, but we did get drones up, and we had previously shown some of that imagery. Laura, if you could open the photos, we just brought two this time, just to make our point, drone views, yes that one first if you want. So big shadow at the time, but there’s no hiding anything there. That tree area there you cannot see the lake. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. The shadow is because we’re looking east, right, as the sun sets? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that shows the terrain boundary that’s blocking the sunlight. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, it does follow the terrain. You are correct. So you can just make out some of the treetops, and, yes, by the time we were doing this, we had been attempting to get that balloon up there most of the day. So this was later on. We do have a better image, because, you know, some of it was just the cloud cover that was coming in as well, but clearly unquestionably at that point, that’s at 145 feet from right in front of here was the closest we could get to where we had the original ride. Okay. That’s why I mentioned at the point where the ride is coming here, you know, coming in this direction towards me, when it crosses that line, it’s at 141 feet. There’s clearly no chance that that is being seen. So in the zone that we’re supposed to be in, no possibility of seeing that ride at that point. MR. TRAVER-I was going to say, and if the ride at its height is 21 feet below the threshold for that zone, because one of the other things that was written into the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement was the, within 20 feet the Planning Board can control some lighting issues. MR. PALUMBO-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So you’re outside of that as well. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-And this image was from in front of the Condor. We were standing right here where the flight went up. So now you have the peak part of the ride right there. There’s the Condor. I showed you what it was from over here. At this point here, that image is from 175 feet, that one there. So that is from right in front of the Condor. Again, no possibility of seeing the lake there, and 30 feet higher than the other image that we just showed. So we are very confident that the ride in its relocated position is not visible, which is the most important thing, to that threshold area, one of those key receptor points that was identified in the document. So two things. We’re within the thresholds by moving it, and we’re confident it cannot be seen, and we are 21 feet lower in that zone. MR. TRAVER-Follow up question on the sound study. How did you determine how much noise the thing would make in order to? MR. PALUMBO-Well, I can let Scott, he did his report on that. SCOTT MANCHESTER MR. MANCHESTER-Yes. Scott Manchester. I work with OBG, part of Ramboll, and at the request of The Great Escape we did a sound study of the ride itself. So we were provided sound level measurements of the same ride at another Park, but it was the same exact ride operating in another Park, and we took the sound levels that they actually measured at that ride at we used that to establish the ride sound levels. We also then added in sound levels from the riders themselves because that’s the other sound source, the riders, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) and they’ll make some sound. Again, there’s not a ton of riders, there’s 16 riders, but we assumed that all the riders were yelling all the time. So that they were all yelling in unison. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. MR. PALUMBO-With respect to any other of the site plan items, I think Laura’s comments, there was nothing significant. We have decreased our impervious area. We do have a comment letter from Chazen which we have already written a response to, but that was really the type of item. Some of them will be further responded to as we go for our building permit. What we have to do, which we have not been able to do at this point, because we couldn’t do it until we have Site Plan approval, is get into, you know, the exact detail. We have to do some drilling there, really design that foundation. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PALUMBO-When we’re doing that, that’ll, like they were asking questions in terms of soil erosion around some of the retaining walls, those items. All things that are very, very simple, just very technical minutia really when it comes to the stormwater now. It’s not a big aspect of, since we are within the stormwater threshold as well. So it doesn’t call upon us to be creating anything new. So I think we’ve covered all the comments and certainly would want to address any other comments. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I just have two other questions. One is you mentioned you’re awaiting to some degree design of the base to support the ride itself. Are you confident that that height of that yet to be designed base will not impact on the overall height of the ride as we discuss it this evening? MR. PALUMBO-Absolutely. I can tell you this. We will not go any higher than that point. The decision on the height right now is to keep it at the same level as this rear area. So that the operator booth and the attendant booths here will be right at that same level. So we are not going any higher and the main reason for that, cost. Every inch of concrete that we have to go above there is an unnecessary cost for us. MR. TRAVER-So can you tell us what the height, and forgive me if it’s in the plans and I overlooked it, but can you tell me what the height of the base is as currently designed is? MR. PALUMBO-The height that we have on the grading plan that we have on the set, we’ve show spot elevation that is right here at 442, and the existing elevation, and we’ve set that platform at 442. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you’re representing tonight that the base platform of the ride would not exceed 442? MR. PALUMBO-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The other question is on the colors of the ride itself? You mentioned reddish and cream in color? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Have you determined that? Is it already painted or what’s the? MR. PALUMBO-It is. Laura, if you could pull that other image up. One of the things that I know everybody, when you see that graphic, every printer is different, but this is actually more of a cream and a rust color, but in the image, you know, when it prints off on an eleven by seventeen on a certain, you know, the color schemes really are a little bit more vibrant. So what you’ll see is the ride actually in manufacture process with the colors. This is the one with, if you go back to the drive. Yes, that blue was like the standard stock before. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you can see that’s what I have from the Town. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. So if you go, I think this one, the last one over here, right there. So this is a portion of the ride, and you can see from a photograph, that’s much more cream than what the picture really showed it as a bright yellow almost and that’s more, you know, of a more rusty color than what almost got to the orange on the graphic that we had received initially. MR. TRAVER-So the ride will be reddish and cream in color. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, and you can see, there’s the gondola. So you can see those colors there, and, Laura, I think you had the mast head. That’s the mechanical component at the mast where the connection with the spindle is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood. My concern is what’s it going to look like when it’s actually assembled and on site. That’s all I’m saying. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. DEEB-The relevancy of the color, it’s an amusement park. It’s got all kinds of colors in it. Why we have to discuss the color is beyond me. MR. TRAVER-They’re representing it’s going to be. MRS. MOORE-Part of your Site Plan Review. MR. DEEB-I’m just saying, you know, I’ve seen the Steamin’ Demon. MR. PALUMBO-A good point. This is much more muted colors than Steamin’ Demon. Yes, there’s a lot, I respect your point there because there’s a lot of color already there. I do think that, given that it’s a new ride and that it is part of the review process, I think that what we’ve done is at least used more earth tone colors and that is what we would propose to go with. MR. DEEB-I think it looks good. I appreciate you doing that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it does. I’m just looking for clarification that it’s going to be what you’re representing. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And you’re saying it is. MR. PALUMBO-That is the ride. That’s not somebody else’s. That’s ours. It’s under construction. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, again, and my concern is not what color it is under construction, but what it is when it’s actually up, but you’ve addressed that. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I read your audio study today when we got it. There were three reference points that you used and if I remember correctly you had one decibel increase, one that wasn’t increased, and one that was two decibel increase. MR. MANCHESTER-Yes. Correct. MR. DEEB-Within tolerance, so that the noise level appreciably wouldn’t go up. MR. TRAVER-It was within the SEQR. MR. DEEB-Now, this might be a little tricky. The sound measurements, I’m going to get scoffed at for this one, but how do you know people in this Park don’t yell louder than the people in the other park? MR. PALUMBO-Well, one thing I’ll put in before Scott does is as he already said, the people, so he has already planned on every person on that ride for the entirety of the ride, actually almost more than when the ride is running because he’s just worded it that way, but just screaming at the top of their lungs for the top, all of them fully loaded , that there’s not. If you want to add anything to that. MR. MANCHESTER-Scott Manchester again. Just to add to that, they’re all yelling at the same time, a lot of happy folks I guess, but, no, we use sound levels that are, there’s an EPA document that actually looks at sound levels of people talking and people yelling and so we take sound level of a cross section of adults, children, males, females yelling, and they have numbers for that. They’ve got everything in the EPA to quantify that. MR. MAGOWAN-Just one more question. How about those sound levels around bodies of water? MR. MANCHESTER-Should be, we are extrapolating these from back to where, they’re not over top of the water, but by the time they get out to that point they are very low, and you can see which we’ve actually extrapolated them out to where they get to those water levels. They’re very low. They’re going to travel across the water under normal conditions just like anything else, and you’re probably referring to when you’re at like at early morning, or at night especially at night when you can hear somebody talking across the water. MR. MAGOWAN-That, too. Actually on the cover page, my house is actually on the picture here. I live right off that circle there. I listen to the Comet every day, that click, click, click around the corner and the scream down and the music, and I’ve walked the Park and the one thing I’ve asked for is if you could change that music. It’s the same music every day. It’s crazy. It’s not the clicking of the rollercoaster or anything else, because it’s a happy noise and you kind of get used to it, but I know on the bodies of water, but I also 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) grew up right up here, too. I grew up right here where I’ve seen you doing studies at the end of Greenwood and that, Twicwood area. I grew up there. So I’m right over the hill, and like I said, depending on the day, the breeze, you know, the sound does travel, and I know once it hits Glen Lake, you know, especially at night, you can kind of hear the neighbor across the lake and their conversation that they’re having. So I just want to make sure that these numbers, you know, because we do have a low body of water right here and it’s all open, you know what I’m saying? If that sound swings and then it goes across the lake. MR. MANCHESTER-Yes, and that’s a really good point because the sound that’s going over those areas is actually traveling a further distance, and there’s actually sound levels, a lot of that’s marshy and sound that is actually traveling over dense vegetation, grasses, that gets attenuated even more. We didn’t add that additional reduction in, but again, over top of those types of soft surfaces and grasses and shrubs, it’ll even be attenuated even more. So it will be reduced more. That would be different than completely flat, open water which it wouldn’t, but it actually would be lower over those areas. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I appreciate you saying that, and like I said with the increase in the measurements that you came up with, I don’t foresee that being a problem. I wanted to make sure that we’re all comparing apples to apples here. MR. PALUMBO-I think one of the things about the selection point that was done again in the original EIS, that the monitoring station that was agreed upon is at this, you know, closest point right here. So what Scott has done was evaluated it to there showing no impact there beyond what the EIS envisioned and so theoretically that’s really before it gets to that open water. So if it hasn’t had the impact there, you know, you can at least interpolate that the sound wouldn’t increase as it was going across the rest of the water. MR. MAGOWAN-I appreciate the interpretation. MR. TRAVER-And, Scott, you do the sound studies for the Park generally? MR. MANCHESTER-I’ve done a lot of them over the past many years. MR. TRAVER-Well, an interesting question is, how does the sound level of this ride compare to the other rides in the Park? Is this going to be the loudest ride in the Park? MR. MANCHESTER-I guess I can’t answer that because I’m not measuring specifically the sound levels of each ride. So each ride will be different. The coasters, I guess I would say that this is not necessarily any louder than anything else, but again, I can’t address that specifically. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the each make different types of sound, yes. MR. PALUMBO-And Scott has accommodated for the increase of this particular ride. Bear in mind, people shout and scream on the Steamin’ Demon. People shout and scream on the Condor, which is up higher. So there’s a comparison there of probably more riders at any given point on the Steamin’ Demon and for sound coming from a height, we have some equal basis there. So I think his work to show what the addition could be is well within the EIS numbers. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Any other questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I had some questions on the height. So on the last page of your application it shows the elevation at 605 feet at the highest. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-How would that compare to say the Condor or perhaps the Sasquatch? MR. PALUMBO-Higher than the Condor, lower than the Sasquatch. I apologize you weren’t here at the last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I wasn’t. MR. PALUMBO-We did talk about that in terms of, so it’s close to the Sasquatch, but it is lower than the Sasquatch. So that still remains a higher point, especially on that front side of the Park. So the volume of space of it, though, because it’s that spindle, when it’s at its highest point, it is at that 605. When this is at rest, you know, Sasquatch is there all the time, always at that height. When this is at rest, that sits at the 85 foot high level. So this, when it’s at rest, this time of year if you went by, that is lower than the Condor. MR. DIXON-On your EAF form here, Item Twelve, it says that the site contains a structure that is listed on either the State or National Registry of Historic Places. What’s the structure? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) MR. PALUMBO-Do you recall? That’s an automatic fill in on that one from DEC. MR. DIXON-Like Brad I’ve grown up in the area and I can’t recall a structure in the Park. MR. PALUMBO-I apologize, because the last part of that is not, but again, all I can do is turn to the EIS and say that anything that was covered by archeological or historic significance was covered in the EIS. Laura, I don’t think there’s been anything identified since then. MRS. MOORE-Since then. MR. PALUMBO-So I apologize, Mr. Dixon, because, so EAF’s as they get filled out now to make sure that people like me don’t make a mistake on it, DEC and SHPO actually have it set up so that it gets an automatic fill in, that if there is something within that sort of range, and there’s another sheet that usually describes what it is. Since we were within the Park and the EIS was done and we cross check things, I don’ t think there is anything that is, certainly not within the footprints of where our ride is. MR. DIXON-And then I just wanted to make a comment because I know last time that everybody had presented there was discussion as far as some of the wildlife on Glen Lake. I specifically had asked about the loons as well as the osprey, and I’m going to come back with some of my information from what I had found. They’re very tolerant of noise, people. Osprey, on the way out of Fort Ann there’s an osprey nest right along the highway and the osprey and loons appear to be migratory. Again, I’m not expert in birds, but I didn’t see anything that was of concern to me for loons and osprey specifically, pesticides on the lake, and lead sinkers, the loons, they like to eat them. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you for bringing up the comment. So we did look into that. Six Flags has three other locations where this ride is in Florida. One is in, Daytona Beach, Panama City, and Kissimmee, Florida. Two that are near ocean and one that is near a large lake. They’ve been in operation in that same order, 2016, 2012 and 2012. They’ve had no bird strikes in those areas. They’re thought on it, from operating the rides, is that they believe this is due to the fact that the booster takes a little while to ramp up, which would alarm any birds that might potentially be in the immediate vicinity of the ride. So that’s one factor. Because this did come up, I also checked, Mr. Magowan we had also talked about how this might compare to turbines because a lot of people will say wind turbines have this bird strike problem. So I looked into that as well. So a standard, and I had said, what started the question is we’re going approximately 50 miles an hour and the thought was that that was faster than the turbines. It’s actually significantly slower depending on, you know, so those things are so large that they look like they’re just doing this graceful. When they’re hit with a 10 mile an hour wind they’re going anywhere between 120 and 180 miles an hour and they’re substantially larger. So I took three industrial turbines, common manufacturers, GE. There is one that had 116 foot blades, okay. So double that in terms of what we’re comparing to here of, so our total span here being 162, we have an 81 foot compared to that 116. They also have 148 foot blades, 116 foot long one, that’s typically at a height of 328 feet. Far, far higher than ours. The 148 foot blade, 410 foot high, and another one that’s 143 feet and that’s 399 feet high. The bird strikes for those, they have calculated across the State because there’s people that are pro and con on wind turbines. In the east, the typical is approximately six bird strikes. All right. We’ve calculated or giving testimony that there were no strikes there, but one of the things they point out, the lower you go, the higher you go, the more strikes you have. The lower you go, so I think everything that we’re doing here, the potential there is lower. Also comparatively to other projects you might review at any given point, windows and car strikes are much, they’re quantifiably significantly higher than that average. So I know I’ve felt horrible driving along and all of a sudden you can’t avoid it. I’ve had them hit my picture window in the house. That is quantifiably higher. That’s information from the United States information, I did not just find the best website for me and to present it. So we’re much smaller than those, much smaller . I think that slowness, and actually you can think of it as how the ride is going, but also when you think about those birds that are over at Glen Lake, they have the time to adapt to, they’re coming to this Park. They will have that knowledge of what’s happened and why they may or may not want to be there.. Also, the fact that this ride is swinging around. We’ve had no bird strikes there. There’s a lot of things that could happen, but our past history is that that is not happening and so you think, I cannot tell you that that would not happen. That would be like me saying I would never hit it with a car by accident, you know, that it would fly in front of my car, but the actual magnitude is extremely low. MR. DUMAS-Just one addition. The three locations that were referred to in Florida are Fun Time locations. Just for clarity for the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. We do have a public hearing on this application. Does the Board have any questions, comments before we go to the public hearing here? Okay. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I see one gentleman. Yes, sir. If you could give up the table so we could take public comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RON MACKOWIAK 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) MR. MACKOWIAK-For the record, my name is Ron Mackowiak. I’m the Vice President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. Over the winter and on behalf of the President I’m speaking tonight because he’s not here. I’m also speaking in terms of the Board with regards to the letter that I’m providing, and again, the subject is the application 3-2020, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC. To the Planning Board in the Town of Queensbury, “The membership of the Glen Lake Protective Association wants to express its appreciation of your efforts to remain true to the rationale and thresholds set out in the Environmental Impact Statement. As a result, Great Escape management has agreed to move the new Adirondack Outlaw ride to an appropriate area of the Park. Thank you. However, we still have concerns that the new location does not assure us that portions of the ride will not be seen from Glen Lake or that noise generated from the ride will not create negative environmental impacts at Glen Lake. While the applicant may argue that no visibility or noise impacts will occur at Glen Lake, there are no actual field studies to verify these assumptions. For example, while the base of the ride is within the 175' height threshold, are we certain that”, based on the presentation tonight they’re asserting that it’s not within the 135 foot elevation. MR. TRAVER-Well there was a question about that that I become aware of, and that’s why I addressed, and they actually prior to this meeting, perhaps too late for the public at large, but they actually did address that in an additional submission. MR. MACKOWIAK-Okay. That was one of our concerns. So that sentence at this point is moot. “Perhaps additional balloon testing should be performed at the new location and along the extent of the spinning arms, lights, and gondola to assure that none of the ride will be visible from Glen Lake. As well, while their new sound narrative suggests that the ride will not be heard at all from Glen Lake due to landscape contour and tree lines. there is no field data to support that the new ride will not be heard at Glen Lake. Actual field sound studies should be performed from the location of the ride and measured at various locations at Glen Lake. And importantly, if this Ride is approved, the Glen Lake Protective Association asks that the Planning Board stipulate in the written resolution that any actual visual or noise impacts created from the installation and/or operations of this Ride will be satisfactorily mitigated or eliminated per the criteria established in the Environmental Impact Findings Statement pages four and five, section 3 - How the GEIS will be Used. Additionally, during the last public hearing members of this Planning Board and the community brought up other valid environmental impacts that may result from the Ride. The new Ride will certainly be visible from the pristine fen that we have” at this location off of Ash Drive, and what I’m speaking about is particularly the area just to the south of the lake. MR. TRAVER-And was that not evaluated during the 2001 study? MR. MACKOWIAK-Let me finish my statement. “The Town of Queensbury has designated the Glen Lake fen as a Critical Environmental Area” and again it’s this area. It’s right out of the SEQR Handbook on the Web. You can actually print this map up, and I’m not sure what year it was designed. It appears it was in ’89, but it was designated by the Town of Queensbury. “To our knowledge, no Environmental Impact Statement has been done that includes the effects of activities from the Great Escape upon this valuable, protected natural resource. This Board should consider requiring an EIS to protect the fen.” We don’t believe it is covered under the current EIS. “As well, there is neither mention nor analysis of the negative effects the visibility, lights, spinning arms, and noise from the new ride will have on the wildlife - the Bald Eagles, loons, herons, etc. The Board should also consider these impacts. Thank you for listening to the public. We appreciate your efforts in this matter. Respectfully, Glen Lake Protective Association” And if I could just add one comment. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. MACKOWIAK-Over the last few years we have seen loons on the lake for the first time in a long time. I look at the Fen as an area of refuge for the loons, particularly during the summer activities where it’s busier. One thing we haven’t seen, we haven’t seen nesting ones. We haven’t seen any chicks, any offspring. MR. TRAVER-Well that would almost entirely take place up in the Fen. MR. MACKOWIAK-That’s my understanding, yes. It would most likely take place at that. MR. TRAVER-They can’t walk. MR. MACKOWIAK-They can’t walk. MR. TRAVER-When they lay eggs they sometimes will make a little island. MR. MACKOWIAK-And I appreciate the comments of the gentleman that in Florida there haven’t been any bird strikes. I don’t think they have loons in Florida. So for my particular concern is the Fen, the impact of the Fen, whether or not it’s covered under the Generic Environmental Impact Statement or whether or not it needs to be addressed and whether or not there’s a negative declaration associated with that, and that’s basically my point. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MR. MACKOWIAK-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. JOHN CEMBROOK Good evening. John Cembrook. I’m a resident at 121 Birdsall Road, Queensbury. I’d like to read a quick letter from my wife who couldn’t join us this evening. I thank you for your time. “Dear Planning Board: I want to start off by thanking the Planning Board for their dedication and commitment to this board. It was very evident to me at the last Board meeting when I realized that Mr. Traver read thru the many volumes of the Environmental Impact Statement that Paul Derby and my Father, Don Milne, worked so hard to get in place to protect our precious lake from the corporate disregard from Six Flags. My family history on Glen Lake goes back for generations long before Charlie Wood started Storytown with the purchase of a Merry Go Round. It was a small children’s park for many years. Since Six Flags has taken over, this amusement park has grown over the years not in terms of square footage but in terms of the rides becoming increasingly loud, immense, and obtrusive to the point of destroying the peace and tranquility of our lake and for the neighbors around it. Since Six Flags took over the park from Charlie Wood almost 20 years ago, there has been an intensification of use of this park. Just because it is deemed an amusement park shouldn’t give them the right to violate the beautiful serene Adirondack environment surrounding it. The GE affects neighbors and communities for miles around it. We ask the Planning Board to seriously consider the effects the monstrous rides have on our communities, the negative effects on our real estate values, the effects on the natural environment and wildlife in the Fen, and the effects on our ability to enjoy the beauty of the Adirondacks. The Town of Queensbury has incorporated many building restrictions over the years on new construction (many of which have been copied from the Adirondack Park Commission) to protect the many lakes and the serenity of the Adirondacks. I kindly ask that the Planning Board decline this application as it is an intensification of use. These rides keep getting bigger and louder and, at some point, we have to say, STOP!”. Our communities and the Adirondacks need to be protected from this big corporation, its deep pockets, and its corporate disregard for our right to enjoy our homes without these continuous monstrous rides with loud screaming people from spring into fall. Of course, that is also the time of year when we all want to be outside enjoying the beauty of the Adirondacks. The movement of The Outlaw Ride to just within the 175-foot zone specified by the EIS does not eliminate the negative effects this ride will have on our communities. It is clear by their prior advertisements, which were conveniently altered since the last board meeting, the GE wants this ride visible for as far as the eye can see. I do not want to see it or hear it and many in our community agree as seen by the turnout at”, tonight’s board meeting, and “the last board meeting. Please deeply consider this before you vote. Thankfully and Sincerely, Pamela Cembrook” My wife. If I could add one or two statements to summarize my thoughts. We really do appreciate the work that you do every month, and like I said to you last time every case is different. It takes a high degree of judgment, all the factors in play. My concern is one is as I understand it there’s a new President of The Great Escape as of about nine months ago. A Ms. Rebecca Woods, and I’m not sure if Ms. Woods is here this evening, but I’m concerned about a danger of a serious of transactions. We’re here looking at one ride, and as my wife suggests, this is an intensification of use. Albeit it an opinion by the other party suggests it will not impact the noise, I think we all heard last time that we’re beyond peak noise here. In its current condition this Park is impacting our lives and that’s in May and it’s in June and it’s July, August, September, and October and it doesn’t end until the Park shuts down, and that’s a fact, and for those of you who haven’t spent any time at the lake, I implore you to take some time this summer and see it and feel it for yourself. When does it end, this notion of intensification? I realize there’s an EIS, and that was done professionally and thoughtfully and frankly healthfully for us today, but is that the only aspect of consideration as we think about intensifying the use? I would put to this Board that I realize we can turn down lights and shave the volume of music but this ride is being put here to put screaming people above the canopy, and ‘m sure the sound engineer would say if it was a lower ride the sound would be attenuated even more, but that’s not the intent. In fact I find it rather presumptuous that this corporation built this ride before it was approved. I understand that they have 21 other parks. This ride could be moved to another park without financial hardship to them. This notion of wildlife. I appreciate that it was discussed and brought up, this notion of loons who actually are negatively affected by sound volume and movement. It’s a really important issue. We’ve not seen loons for decades. We now have loons on the lake. It’s a wonderful thing and I could share with you at some future moments some recordings of their sounds mid-summer. I fear that they’ll be gone . The last thing I would say, as I head off and leave the mic for someone else, this is an important asset to our lives. I think many people testified last time how important Glen Lake is to them, as is the bike path, as is the folks the kayak in the Fen, as is folks that come to the Adirondacks. I don’t know a lot of people that come up to the North Country to go to an amusement park. They come up to the North Country for the lakes, for the hiking, for the biking, for the skiing and all of the activities and they pile on a trip to the amusement park. It’s not a destination. We need to consider a model where if we add noise to this Park we offset it by taking something away. As I understand it we’re taking away a saloon or something that doesn’t generate noise. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) I think we need a different model for how we think about how we run this Park going forward and how we consider building and the impact on all of us. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. Paul Derby, Glen Lake. I want to thank you for your serious consideration f this and the efforts that you’re making. Just a couple of quick points. First coming back to Chris was talking about the Sasquatch. That is a higher ride, but it’s also in the 200 foot threshold . So it’s in an appropriate place for that. The Condor’s actually much lower than the proposed ride, but there were two things that were brought up last time that I want to just reiterate here. I think the colors of the ride are fine, but we should ask questions about the lights on the ride and how bright are those lights, are those lights around the gondola, are they spinning through the sky, and I know the applicant said that they can time to turn those lights off at certain parts. So I’m asking if they could perhaps turn those lights off at the top 25% of that ride, about 12 and a half percent on each side. That might show, because we don’t know what kind of night glow is going to come from those lights, etc. So that’s one point that should be considered, and the other is there was quite a bit of discussion last time about the trees and the tree line as visual screen is important to their analysis of what will be seen and there were questions at the last public hearing about an analysis of the age, the types and the health of those trees because if they’re gone, then we have no visual screening at all and that should be something that should be considered in the discussion. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. LINDA CLARK MS. CLARK-Hello. Linda Clark, Glen Lake. I just wanted to just give you a heads up that I did submit a very length letter at the last meeting and I stand by everything that I wrote in that letter as of this meeting. So without getting into reading the whole letter, I just want to kind of review some of the things that I am very much still concerned about. I’m hearing a lot of assurances and a lot of promises here. with that I’m hearing, well there’s going to be minimal or no light impact, no sound impact from screaming on the rides to sound with music. I have a hard time believing that because from my home right now I hear events from Ghost Town and Fright Fest. I’m hearing assurances there’s going to be no visual impacts. Okay. We’ll address that in a minute. I’m hearing assurances that there’ll be no environmental impact. Maybe I missed something, but all I heard was something about bird strikes. I really didn’t hear anything here about the sensitivity of the animals and how that will impact the population on the lake. Okay. Maybe I can buy the bird strike thing, but I’m still not hearing how this is going to impact really, truly the whole environmental situation regarding the wildlife. MR. TRAVER-Ma’am, I think that you would get a great deal of information if you would go and read the original environmental impact study that looked at sort of a, almost a swat analysis of this Park, and attempts to address all of those issues, primarily that we’re concerned with there are visual and sound impacts and the lines that we talked about last time and tonight, the boundary lines for the height limitation, are intended to make sure and there was talk about the discussion we had last time about loons and the osprey and so on, that was primarily because we knew that there was going to be a visual impact of the placement of the ride because it exceeded the boundary that was established by the Environmental Impact Statement. In this case they have moved it to where the, lengthy, over a year they spent studying this, Environmental Impact said this would not have an impact, but you list a lot of environmental valid concerns and they are addressed in that environmental impact study and I heard you. MS. CLARK-Well as I said, I’m hearing all the promises and the assurances and I’m recognizing that. MR. TRAVER-It’s a compliance issue. MS. CLARK-Okay. I’m recognizing all of that. I guess then let me just finish what I was saying. With your assurances, you’re relying on assurances with a tree line that is privately owned, that is not forever wild, and that could have, it could change any day. So I don’t understand how that can be an assurance. So I guess maybe what I should come around to say to you is what are you going to do if all of these promises and assurances fall through? What is the Town of Queensbury going to do if we see it or we hear it or it’s impacting the wildlife? What is the Town going to do? MR. TRAVER-I can give you an answer to that. MS. CLARK-Good. MR. TRAVER-The applicant has submitted a very, very detailed plan, right down to the utilities and the exact location, the exact height and the exact construction of the ride and submitted that to the Town and 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) signed off on that the fact, it’s not a promise, this is what we’re going to do, and they’re held to that in order to complete this project, and they’re subject to onsite review by Town officials. It’s not an option. They can’t say well here’s what we’re going to do, although let’s be careful because we’ve had occasions where people have taken on projects where they haven’t sought proper review, but in this case, they have laid out in very, very tremendous detail. If you go to the Town website you can look at it yourself, queensbury.net, exactly what they are telling us they are going to do, and yes it’s a promise, but we are supported by the Town, the Town Staff who are going to enforce that they are doing what they are pledging to do. MS. CLARK-Okay. That is great. I’m glad to hear that the Town is committed to making sure that all these things will not happen. And I guess that’s what I’m asking. I’m hearing the promises. I’m hearing the assurances. I guess I want a guarantee from the Town that all this negative stuff won’t happen, and if it does, you will have some kind of recourse set in place to make sure that it’ll get fixed. That’s all I’m asking. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any takers. I imagine you have some written. MRS. MOORE-I do have some written. MR. TRAVER-Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this is from Bob and Linda Neidermeyer. “We are concerned as everyone else who lives on or near the lake. We would appreciate being told all ans. to our concerns. Mainly noise and wildlife. Better we know now, and not after the ride is up and running. You may read or give this note to any person in regards to this matter. Thank you to all who are working on this problem, both sides.” The next one is, “Dear Planning Board Members: I am writing this letter for your consideration due to the fact that I am unable to attend this meeting. I was able to attend the previous two meetings with regard to the proposed new "Adirondack Outlaw". I find it interesting after reviewing the documents provided online that the position of the applicant as outlined in the Letter to Board dated December 16, 2019 is that provided the thresholds of the 2001 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) along with the 2004 Supplemental GEIS are not exceeded "the Planning Board must review proposed new rides and attractions within the park on the basis of the Town's Site Plan Review criteria". Based on the previous two meetings I find this position very interesting in that the applicant went to great lengths to suggest to the Board that the Board had the ability to evaluate their original proposal regardless of the fact that the original proposed location for the ride was not in compliance with the 2001 FGEIS. Having recently retired after a 43-year career in Heavy and Highway Construction my only request is that the board follow what was the foundation for my career "Trust yet Verify". After reviewing the Site Plans Sheet #8 (C-503) the elevation of the ride at its highest point is shown as elevation 605.3 Feet and the elevation of the platform is 442.0 Feet. Comparing that information to the Site Plan Application previously submitted (Site Plan Application dated September 16, 2019) which states in paragraph 2 on page 3 "The attraction has a base elevation of approximately 440 Feet and at its highest point will extend to 165 feet in height or 605 feet elevation". I have to ask - What has changed from the Environmental Impact position! Therefore, I am strongly opposed to this proposed project moving forward until verification that the proposed Site Plan 3- 2020 does not have any negative environmental impact on the surrounding communities. Thank you for your consideration, David Benton 77 Birdsall Road” MR. TRAVER-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. So you heard public comment. Let’s see, there was discussion about the increasing loons. I’ve noticed an increase in the loon population, too, and I found that comment interesting because that took place in the presence of Great Escape. MR. DUMAS-I just wanted to offer a general comment and then we can talk about any specific concerns that the Board has or answer some of the public comments, but it’s important, I think, to come back to center a little bit. The GEIS was an agreement after a couple of years of study between the Park, the community and the Town, and it was designed to eliminate some of what we’re going through this evening. It was designed to provide some thresholds and some protections for the community in exchange for which the Park would be able to rely upon doing certain things on its own property and make the investments necessary to keep their property relevant and fresh, and that’s extremely important in this business, and it’s important not to overlook, you know, it’s easy to demonize a corporation for trying to make a profit or trying to be successful, but it’s important to recognize in the Findings there’s an expression of how important The Great Escape is to this region, and it talks about and recognizes The Great Escape as being an anchor for tourism. It talks about it being a major employer. It talks about increasing the taxation, both in terms of real property taxes, which is estimated now at about $310,000 a year, and sales tax of an equal or greater amount. That’s a very big significant economic engine for this community, and to have this agreement, which is careful study and striking a balance between community interests, governmental interests and the private interests of the corporation is enormously valuable. So we think it has continuing 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) integrity, continuing meaning and we’ve tried to respect that in the changes that have been implemented since we first started. So with that I think is a fundamental underpinning. We’re prepared to talk about any other questions that the Board has about any other subject associated with this ride. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d like to add to that, seeing as how I’m now the senior member of the Planning Board, but from the Town Planning Board perspective, the reason why we asked for the Environmental Impact Statement was because year after year The Great Escape was coming before this Board with another ride, and we kind of said, timeout, we want to see what the full build out of the Park could be and that’s really what the GEIS is designed to do. I agree with everything you said, but from the Town’s perspective it was something that we really did ask you to do because we wanted to be confident in future decisions that we weren’t making decisions that we had in the past. MR. DUMAS-And we honestly felt as though we had a reasonable basis to make the request that we made in October. We heard what the Board said. We heard what the public comments were, and we recalibrated and we came back with what we believe is a very, very good plan, balancing the interests of the community as well as the needs of the Park. MR. TRAVER-And I think that the homework that a lot of people have talked about that we all did as a Board and you certainly did as an applicant around the 2001 agreement was really the main factor that caused so many issues for us with the original application that perhaps could be mitigated but obviously raised a lot of environment impact challenges for you, and I think we have the same standing this evening. That line hasn’t moved and your application has moved the ride, and we have the same standard and now you moved outside of that, violating that threshold. As Chris said, that’s what that whole project was created for. MR. DUMAS-Were the Park to come back and propose a ride that violated the thresholds, we would certainly expect to have to document a change in circumstances that would warrant or merit that, but since we have made these adjustments, we feel as though the efficacy of the GEIS has been upheld, and we’ve met the balance that it was trying to achieve. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and thank you for that. It was obvious the amount of work that you put into submitting this modified application as opposed to doing all of the environmental studies to try to demonstrate that somehow the impacts would be minimal or could be mitigated with the original application. I think it was a very sensible thing you did. I was surprised that you ended up taking this particular course of action. I mean again I’m not a management person from an amusement park. I might have gone with perhaps a different approach, but it seems to have worked out. Let’s hear from the Board. Anybody have any comments, questions, final questions? MR. JACKOSKI-Can you address the lighting that the public brought up. I mean, are you going to have carnival type lighting like the Condor on this ride? MR. DUMAS-First off the ride is not going to extend above the tree line. It has LED lighting that can be programmed to not illuminate the end of the ride if need be. That shouldn’t be a concern because it doesn’t extend above the tree line. It falls 21 feet below the threshold and it could be programmed if need be if there’s a discernable impact. MR. JACKOSKI-So you don’t think that when you’re in the Fen, and we could all see it from the one picture that you had there with the drone, you don’t think that that light is going to affect the visual impact, even though it’s forward of the tree line closer you, or the same thing with Rush Pond, or the great walking trails that we’ve got built by the Town of Queensbury out by the side of Rush Pond with those lights. I’m not saying you’re exempt from any lighting schemes because of the document but on the other hand I just want to understand. MR. PALUMBO-No, I think I understand your question. So I wasn’t part of working on the EIS, but from my review of it, there were decisions that were made, that happen with any EIS, scoping, how you go about that, and I know some people were involved with that, and I’m making a presumption here, that what we did when we first did our visual analysis, which did include field studies, on some very particularly cold days as well, but it did include that, but those points that we were addressing, because the visual analysis had identified, the EIS had identified those as critical points. They did not identify the Fen as a critical point at that time. If there was a reference, and I thought I heard somebody say that the Critical Environmental Area of the Fen was decided in 1989. I’m guessing, and again, I don’t know. I’m not part of the Town and I wasn’t part of that process. MR. TRAVER-Creating a CEA really doesn’t have anything to do with the Environmental Impact study in 2001. MR. PALUMBO-Right, no, but what I’m saying is my guess is that the attributes of the Fen, the hydrology were probably the leading factors of what made that a Critical Environmental Area and the species that were in there. So of those species, so at least there was knowledge of the Fen at that time, and at that 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) time I think, and I’m presuming this from what I have read, was that the critical visual points were from more known and fixed locations, residences that would have this there. The Fen, you can kayak in it, but that’s a temporary activity that’s in there. The lighting that you’re talking about would most likely be effective at night. I don’t know how many people are kayaking there at night, but the reality. MR. TRAVER-But this isn’t going to be operated at night, if I remember right. MR. PALUMBO-No, it’s not, right. So when it gets darker, because people made the point about in October when we have things going and stuff, but during the predominant portion of the summer, which we covered at the last meeting, that it is not operated in the dark period. So would lights be more intrusive if they were running all night? The lights up on West Mountain, all winter long you can see the top of the Mountain because those lights are there constantly. Somebody is affected by those lights more than other people, but the fact is that the EIS identified key points. It wasn’t just the lake. It was the golf course and the bike path as the critical ones. Again, that was the decision that was made at that time. From the people, what they’re saying, they put a lot of effort into that report. So they were part of that process, and no one asked for the Fen at that time. So they also said, well, when we had the other proposal, why aren’t you treating this like it’s a requirement. It’s not like, we thought we had proved that you would hardly see this thing when it was in the other location, but the message was, treat it like it’s the Code, and that ride is not in the, you know, so any other project, height threshold, anything else that you would have, treat it like that. We are now within the thresholds in that area. That was all part of it. The lights can be mitigated, but I do think that that, you know, mitigated to where we can adjust it, that’s an adjustment that can take place after the ride is installed and we can determine whether or not there’s a, if there’s a, but right now we are meeting all those thresholds, and the one that particularly talked about color and light was when it was closer to the threshold and we are outside of that as well. So I understand your concern about it, but Great Escape has done a lot, and moving the ride here does not make it less expensive. All the studies that they have done as part of the contract all along, so Scott is here talking about the sound. Every year he has done the sound study. There’s been an annual cost to that, bi-annual cost to the traffic studies. So that was part of that, call it a contract within that EIS, and they were told, you’re violating that agreement when we came in before. They are now meeting the agreement. So where does the stretch occur? Why does one particular item that was not there, why is it meaningful? When somebody said what are you going to do with this, you act on many, many projects. So if a building got built and then the person went out of business, you know, what do you do? Do you have them tear down the building? You don’t. They did it at the time built to Code. There were other comments that were made here that were considered as the Chairman pointed out and Mr. Hunsinger who was here at the time, all of those were studied and we are within those thresholds. So I know that’s probably a long answer to what your question was, but it’s the truth. They have met the conditions that were established in the EIS. It’s unquestionable that they have. MR. JACKOSKI-So the ride will not have lights on after Park hours? MR. PALUMBO-I think we established at the last meeting that we had said that. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And we’re sure that the ride will not be stored after Park hours in an upright position? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. We’ve committed to that. It is stored at the 85 foot high. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, before we do vote, as I stated last time, I have a teenage son that works at the Lodge. So full disclosure, but no impact to my thought process. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you have a potential conflict that you’ve disclosed. I don’t feel that precludes your voting, but thank you for disclosing that. Anyone have any additional questions for the applicant? All right. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-The public hearing is still open. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. You need to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. So, let’s see, where are we at. We have a draft motion. MRS. MOORE-Can I assist Mr. Deeb with, there’s a SEQR resolution in there, and I’ve reviewed this and it’s to be amended. So let me give you the piece that I think you should evaluate and then you can consider it. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) MR. DEEB-This is for the SEQR? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-All right. A motion to be proposed that no additional SEQR review is required for the project as proposed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a SEQR motion. MRS. MOORE-I apologize, not to interrupt you, but I should, there’s some circled comments at the top. MR. DEEB-Whereas, The Planning Board has determined there’s no need for site specific or separate specific SEQRA review because the proposal falls within the thresholds previously approved as part of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. RESOLUTION RE: SEQR DETERMINATION FOR SP # 3-2020 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC The applicant proposes to construct a new ride “Adirondack Outlaw” that is to be 164 ft. in height, with an attendant booth of 24 sq. ft. and operator booth of 42 sq. ft. The project includes removal of 6,190 sq. ft. building area known as “The Saloon” café area of a larger building. The restroom area of 1,123 sq. ft. is to remain with a canopy to be constructed. The area of building removed will be converted to a ride access plaza for the “Steamin’ Demon” and the new “Adirondack Outlaw”. The project includes building demolition, grading and cut for new ride area, new lighting, landscaping, stormwater and associated upgrades to site features for Ghost Town. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Whereas, The Planning Board has determined there’s no need for site specific or separate specific SEQRA review because the proposal falls within the thresholds previously approved as part of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The Planning Board has also determined the proposed Site Plan does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts from the previous Final General Environmental Impact Statement of 7/11/2001 and the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement of 4/10/2004. MOTION TO NO FURTHER SEQR REVIEW REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED FOR THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Deeb Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NONE: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Okay, and the other resolution. All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 3-2020 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a new ride “Adirondack Outlaw” that is to be 164 ft. in height, with an attendant booth of 24 sq. ft. and operator booth of 42 sq. ft. The project includes removal of 6,190 sq. ft. building area known as “The Saloon” café area of a larger building. The restroom area of 1,123 sq. ft. is to remain with a canopy to be constructed. The area of building removed will be converted to a ride access plaza for the “Steamin’ Demon” and the new “Adirondack Outlaw”. The project includes building demolition, grading and cut for new ride area, new lighting, landscaping, stormwater and associated upgrades to site features for Ghost Town. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and determined no additional SEQR review is required; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/21/2020 and continued the public hearing to 01/21/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 01/21/2020; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 3-2020 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, j. stormwater, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal 2.) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) 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 any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. 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; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) 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; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) 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. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) The ride is to rest in the horizontal position when park closes for the day. m) The ride’s lights will be off when the Park is closed. st Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-You had two items that you brought up during discussion. One was lights to not be on after Park hours, and that the ride was in the horizontal position. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think those are both in the application, but we can add that. MRS. MOORE-I would highlight those. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, you need to adjourn your meeting. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. ST MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: st Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Jackoski, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 25