2004-04-06
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 6, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
PAUL HAYES
CHARLES ABBATE
JAMES UNDERWOOD
ALLAN BRYANT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2004 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE I ACTION GREAT ESCAPE THEME
PARK, LLC HOTEL/INDOOR WATER PARK AGENT: JOHN LEMERY OF LEMERY
GREISLER, LLC OWNER: GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC ZONING: HC-INT.
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF NYS RTE. 9, ADJACENT TO COACHOUSE RESTAURANT
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 200-UNIT HOTEL AND INDOOR
WATER PARK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (HC-INT.) ZONE. THE PROPOSED
STRUCTURES ARE 67 FEET TALL. THE HC-INT. ZONE IMPOSES A 40 FOOT
MAXIMUM HEIGHT. THE PROJECT IS THE SUBJECT OF A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SDGEIS) CURRENTLY BEING
REVIEWED BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AS THE LEAD
AGENCY UNDER SEQRA. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WILL ISSUE NO
DECISION UNTIL THE PLANNING BOARD ISSUES A SEQRA DETERMINATION.
CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 4-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 10, 2004 LOT
SIZE: 3.90 ACRES, 6.76 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-4 & 5 SECTION: 179-4-030
JOHN LEMERY, JOHN COLLINS & RUSS PITTENGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. STONE-This meeting is a continuation of the Joint Public Hearing held on March 2, 2004,
when we met with the Planning Board and ourselves and the public and the applicant. At that
time, we left the public hearing open for consideration by the ZBA at this time. However, since
the revised comment period is still open, I think that’s April 8, no decision can and will be
th
made by the ZBA tonight. We shall merely listen, question and comment. I do ask that no
inference as to a final determination by this Board be made by anyone this evening.
MR. ROUND-We want to make sure the public understands where this project is, relative to the
SEQRA review process. I think you touched on those key points. The ZBA cannot reach a
decision tonight because of the SEQRA review. The ZBA is an involved agency, for the
purposes of the project review. So your comments tonight, to the extent that they are applicable
to the project, you know, are going to be addressed by the applicant and hopefully to the
Planning Board and ZBA’s satisfaction.
MR. STONE-Yes, and the public should know that at a previous meeting of the Zoning Board,
we did, we were asked to raise some of our concerns about the project. We did on the record,
and they were given to the applicant as part of the comments during the comment period.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
Before we start, before I allow the applicant to speak, I believe two members of the Board would
like to make a statement. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. It’s my understanding that a question has been informally raised
whether I may have a conflict of interest in this matter. I am at a disadvantage, since the
questioners have talked to several people but not to me, and I’m guessing about the concern
and reasons for it. I believe the issue is remarks I made three years ago at a public hearing.
After carefully reviewing my remarks as recorded in the minutes of that meeting, I have
concluded I have no conflict of interest, economic or otherwise, and I am not going to recuse
myself. I have no economic interest that will be effected in any way by any determination made
in this matter. My present evaluation of this proposal is that it will not have a direct, unique
impact on me, personally, or on my immediate neighborhood. Therefore, I conclude I have no
direct conflict of interest in considering this matter. Regarding any perceived conflict, the
raising of the question of conflict does not create a conflict. If it did, an applicant could simply
say they perceived a conflict for anyone they wished to exclude from considering their
application. Such shopping for a favorably based hearing panel is something I refuse to
condone or encourage in any way. I stand behind my comments of three years ago, but they do
not constitute a pre-judgment of this proposal. Until I hear and understand all the concerns and
proposed solutions, I cannot say what my conclusion would be regarding this particular project.
MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s very interesting being in the public eye and being a member of the
Zoning Board here, and I’ve been involved for a period of about three years. I don’t know as to
which specific comments they were addressed that I might have a possible conflict of interest,
but I would also make the same statement as Chuck. I have no personal interest or any
financial interest is in The Great Escape. I have been involved with The Great Escape in the
past. Involved with the Glen Lake Watershed study. I was the Chief Water Testers, and on
numerous occasions I was called upon to test water samples above, within, and below The
Great Escape. I will say that, in doing those water samples, that there was a perception on the
part of many of the Glen Lake residents, of which I am one of them, that The Great Escape has
had a negative effect upon Glen Lake over the years, but in doing those water samples over the
years, none of them came back negative, and basically we gave The Great Escape a clean bill of
health. They have always been very cooperative in that venture. My comments, I think, were
specifically related to the meeting that we last had, and they were offhand comments that we
made that evening. It was a very late hour. We’d had a long evening of discussions, and we
were asked to allay some of our concerns about what we wanted to or did not want to hear at
the hearing, and my specific comments were kind of off the cuff. I said it would be nice if we
didn’t have to hear all the employees of The Great Escape saying what a great operation they
were. I think everyone in the community is well aware of the rule that The Great Escape plays,
and the fact that they do contribute much to the area’s economy. It wasn’t meant to be a
negative comment. It was meant to just be that our meeting here this evening is concerned
strictly with the height variance. We all realize that people have emotions about this, pro and
con, but our decisions here this evening will be done strictly based upon that height variance
only.
MR. SCHACHNER-Lew?
MR. STONE-Yes, Mark.
MR. SCHACHNER-Just to make clear, despite ZBA member Underwood’s statement about
your decision tonight, you won’t be making a decision tonight.
MR. STONE-Yes. I was about to say that. Thank you, Mark. All right. The first thing we’re
going to do is, we received revised Staff notes, which I assume the applicant got. So we will
read those into the record, along with the County, because I don’t think that was done at the
joint meeting that we had.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
MR. MC NULTY-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2004, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC Hotel/Indoor
Water Park, Meeting Date: April 6, 2004 “Project Location: West side of NYS Rte. 9, adjacent to
Coachouse Restaurant Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a
200 room, 216,850 sf Hotel and indoor Water Park facility.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 27 feet of relief from the 40-foot maximum height
requirement of the HC-Int Zone, §179-4-030. The original application submitted requested relief
from the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, however, the proposed construction has been relocated
in order to eliminate the need for such relief.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
The Planning Board is currently
reviewing application materials associated with this proposal. Specifically, the Planning Board
is considering a Site Plan Review application as well as a Special Use Permit application.
Staff comments:
Please see the attached memo from Marilyn Ryba regarding this project. In addition to the
required review criteria, the Ryba memo raises several on point questions that might provide
additional answers and insight on the potential impacts ( positive and negative ) of this project.
Given that the close of the comment period, relative to the SDGEIS, is April 8, it would be
th
prudent for this board to discuss all concerns with the applicant and provide a comment
document to the Planning Board by then so that the Planning Board can consider your concerns
when rendering a SEQRA finding.”
MR. STONE-You better read Marilyn’s.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, that’s what I thought, and this is the memo from Marilyn Ryba. It was
addressed to the Planning Staff, Planning Board, and ZBA. “Following are comments in reference
to the Great Escape visual impact analysis and observations regarding the March 27 balloon flight.
You may wish to consider these comments and questions in conjunction with SEQRA review, as
well as variance criteria item 1 regarding neighborhood character, and item 4 concerning impacts
on environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Visual Impact The supplemental visual
analysis, dated Feb. 26, 2004 addresses visibility from surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Field balloons were flown again in March to provide staff and various Board members within the
Town review structure the opportunity to view first hand potential visible impacts. I visited sites
on Great Escape property at Rush pond, Queensbury schools, and I-87 (north and south). These
areas were selected to assess potential visibility from the aspect of the Zoning Ordinance Design
Guidelines, specifically § 179-7-050 G (2), and also the Town of Queensbury Open Space Vision
concerning Rush Pond as a possible nature preserve. Queensbury schools was chosen due to its
status as a civic institution used extensively by the public. The design guidelines were adopted in
April 2002, and the Open Space Vision was adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP) in July 2003. As noted by The Chazen Companies in their December 23, 2003
memorandum to Chris Round, the project did not come forward for site plan review prior to
implementation of the design requirements, and the water park is a new facility not reviewed
under prior SEQRA review. Therefore, there must be a justification for a waiver. Evaluation
Determination of neighborhood character can be a subjective process. Having a checklist of
questions, used on a consistent basis for analysis, can maintain objectivity, and provide consistency
when evaluating all future proposals for any applicant. The idea is similar to the list of questions
that the Planning Board and Town Board uses to make zoning changes. To determine whether or
not undue adverse impacts will result, you may wish to ask these questions: - What is the nature of
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
the project’s surroundings? - What are the existing land uses? - What other structures are in the
area? - Are there particular scenic values or design characteristics to be conserved? - Does the
proposal violate a clear community standard? - Are the impacts shocking or offensive to the
average person? - Are mitigation steps possible to improve compatibility? Photos Attached
photos indicate points of visibility. As noted in The Chazen Companies memorandum to Chris
Round dated March 19, 2004, it would be helpful to have a photo simulation for the northbound
view from I-87. As the staff photo shows, tree cover along the Northway is an important aspect for
view mitigation. The LA Group sheets Ex. 1.01 through 1.03 dated 1/15/04 with revisions dated
2/17/04, indicate that existing trees along the Northway are within the I-87 right-of-way. Should
these trees be considered a part of view mitigation for the adjacent property owner? Please let me
know if you have any questions. I hope this information is useful.”
MR. STONE-And we did not get pictures. Did we, gentlemen?
MR. MC NULTY-I didn’t.
MR. STONE-I didn’t.
MR. ROUND-I’m sorry, get what?
MR. STONE-We didn’t get the pictures referred to in Marilyn’s letter.
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, we have them with us.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-Also I might point out, we didn’t get a copy of this. So this is the first time we’ve
heard about Staff notes. We weren’t provided with them.
MR. STONE-Really? I apologize.
MR. ROUND-Mr. Stone, if I might, I just want to clarify in the notes, there’s talk about the waivers.
The ZBA is not entertaining the waiver. The waiver is part of the application to the Planning Board.
In our Zoning Ordinance we have design guidelines for the Route 9 corridor, and the waiver is a
request by the applicant that’s being sought from the Planning Board. I just want to make sure
you’re clear on that particular point.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. ROUND-Everybody should have, the distribution went out Friday, and everybody should
have received copies. Our apologies to the applicant, and our apologies that you didn’t receive the
photos. The photos were basically photos of, you know, things that you observed first hand on the
day of the balloon flight. They were photos of the balloons from visible locations.
MR. STONE-I was going to state for the record, it’s been alluded to, but that on the 27 of March,
th
the Board members did attend a publicly announced gathering at the area of the desired hotel to
look at the balloons that were up at various heights, the height of the building and 50 feet above
that, I believe, and maybe another 100 feet above that, and then we scattered to the winds to look at
it from wherever we desired that we wanted to look at these balloons. I just want the public to
know that. Would you just read the County Planning Board, just for the record.
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 10,
2004 Project Name: Great Escape Theme Park, LLC Owner: Great Escape Theme Park, LLC
ID Number: QBY-04-AV-23 County Project#: Mar04-20 Current Zoning: Highway
Commercial Intensive Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing a
200-room hotel with attached indoor water park on mostly vacant property across Rte. 9 from
Great Escape that will be connected to the existing Coach House Restaurant. Site Location:
1213 State Rte. 9 and 1227 State Rte. 9 Tax Map Number(s): 295.8-1-4 295.8-1-5 Staff Notes:
Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 200 room hotel with an attached water
park. In addition, the building is proposed to be within the 75 foot travel overlay zone due to
parcel shape. The hotel is proposed to be five stories where four floors are used for hotel rooms
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
and a lower floor for banquet and breakout space. The hotel facility with the water park will be
67 feet in height where the zone allows a maximum height of 40 ft. The information submitted
with the application indicates the architectural style and the needs of the water park generated
the height variance. The architectural style is an Adirondack theme that would blend into the
surrounding areas and have minimal impacts. A sight analysis was performed and indicated
the building would be seen from the Northway but would have minimal to no exposure to the
residential neighborhoods in the area. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board
Recommendation: Approve The County Planning Board recommends approval.” Signed by
Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/12/04.
MR. STONE-Gentlemen, lady.
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, my name is John Lemery, Counsel to The Great Escape Theme
Park and HWP LLC, which is the applicant. With me, John Collins, the Vice President, General
Manager of The Great Escape Theme Park, Meg O’Leary, one of my colleagues and a member of
the law firm. We have two members of the LA Group here tonight. We have with us also
representatives from BBL Construction Services, the General Contractor, as well as
representatives from the Aquatic Development group, the designers and builders of the indoor
water park. We filed an application with the Zoning Board in February of this year for a height
variance, in connection with the 200 room hotel and indoor water park which was the subject of
an application also to the Queensbury Planning Board. In July of 2001, The Great Escape
completed a Generic Environmental Impact Statement. I brought copies of it. It’s a very large
document, but that document provided basically a road path for the Town and the Theme Park
in connection with the development of its future. The Planning Board, in 1999, wanted to know
what The Great Escape’s overall plan was for the development of that site, in terms of what they
plan to put in the Park itself, what was the plan for the west side of Route 9, where the parking
lots are, and the Board wanted to take into consideration at that time the issues relating to
traffic, noise, visual impacts, stormwater management, sewage disposal, water and things of
that nature. The result of the Impact Statement and the Findings by the Town Board provided,
as I say, basically a road map and a template by which The Great Escape could go in to the
Planning Board, and so long as it met certain thresholds, SEQRA was completed, and The Great
Escape could go right to site plan review. For instance, there are four or five different, I’ll call
them pods, within the Theme Park proper on the east side that provide for different levels of
height. All the way up to 200 feet. There’s a certain area within the Park that a structure could
go up to 200 feet and would not be seen by any of the receptor neighborhood, based on the
science that was done at that time. There are also, there were also extensive noise studies done,
and every year The Great Escape is required to give to the Town, go out every year and take
noise studies at certain receptor points involving the three neighborhoods and other places, and
provide that information to the Town. In addition, The Great Escape, every year, is required to
provide traffic studies to the Town, and in the Impact Statement, there were certain thresholds
which, when met, would have required traffic mitigation. There was a threshold that would
require the building of the ring road, which we’ve referred to this road that would basically
parallel 87, and right adjacent to the 87. So there was a point at which when attendance reached
that level, the ring road had to be built. There was a provision that required that traffic lights be
installed at a point where that traffic threshold was met, and it wasn’t traffic that was generated
by The Great Escape. It was basically Route 9 traffic. When the traffic counts reached a certain
level, then the Park had to do certain things to mitigate that traffic, unrelated, necessarily, to its
own use, and so the build out plan provided a way for the Town to monitor, control, and deal
with the expansion at the Park, which, on the east side, principally involved the location of new
rides and attractions. There is no greater land use over there, because it’s all limited by the
wetland and the borders of the wetland and things of that nature. So, it was more in connection
with, well, what kind of rides, what’s your mix going to be in there, and what kind of traffic will
that generate, and how will we control it. So, that was all done here. As far as the west side of
Route 9 was concerned, we asked for, in the Impact Statement, for the right to build a 200 room
hotel, to be located behind the Coach House restaurant, on the west side of Route 9, between
Route 9 and the Northway. At that time we also had offered, The Great Escape had offered
Warren County a two acre site behind what would be the hotel site, for the convention and
tradeshow center, which was the subject of a lot of discussion at that time at the County Board
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
of Supervisors. We said to the Board of Supervisors, we’ll give you two acres of land, and you
can put your tradeshow facility here if you want, and we’ll do the Impact, we’ll take the time,
spend the money to do the Impact Statement, and the SEQRA determination on that, and that
was done, and so at that time, the Planning Board approved the location of the tradeshow
facility to be located back there. Well, as everybody knows, Warren County didn’t proceed
with that, and so that was never part of what was done, but the 200 room hotel was approved,
and the SEQRA implications, the traffic impacts of that, were provided for in the Impact
Statement dealing with at what point we would have to deal with traffic mitigation. Every year
we have to, as I said, file a traffic report with the Town, and every year, The Great Escape is
required to give the Town, so that the Town can monitor the attendance records, so the Town
knows how many people are coming into the Park for visits. So, it was on that basis that we
looked at building a hotel behind the Coach House. After 2001, it’s no secret that the theme
park industry was severely impacted by that event, and it’s been a struggle for the resort
industry, the theme park industry, to recover from that. Attendance has struggled back,
September 11, yes, September 11, 2001. After that date, the whole industry was suffering from
th
visitor attendance. So the issue of building a hotel was brought to the surface again, and there
was a lot of discussion about whether or not something could be done to try to get the
attendance back, and try to build something that would provide for a destination resort on
more of a year round basis. Last summer, as most of us remember, the month of June was a
disaster, and it rained practically every weekend, and that impacted the entire tourist industry
in Warren County, and particularly so because at the theme park, which is the largest tourist
attraction in that regard. So, we’ve been watching the growth of these hotels with indoor water
parks, basically indoor, a water park that provides for a year round opportunity for families to
come and spend time, more than one day. So part of what John was trying to accomplish was
to get people to come to Warren County, go to the Park for more than one day, maybe stay for
two or three days, in the area, visit the Park, and he’s been watching the whole water park
trend. The Wisconsin Dells, I don’t know who’s familiar with that, the Wisconsin Dells is an
area which has a number of hotel and indoor water parks, and there isn’t the kind of ski and
other tourist attractions we have here, but they’ve become very popular, and they’ve added
considerably to the base of what would otherwise be the average room rental. So we started
talking about, could we put a hotel and indoor water park of the, or indoor water park as part
of the hotel. We’re fortunate because right here in Cohoes, one of the premier water park
designing companies in the country, the Aquatic Development Group, is located. Ken Ellis and
his family have owned the business for years, and they’ve done a lot of indoor water park
development, or rather indoor and outdoor water park development, and have been a vendor
to Six Flags for many years. So we started that process. A design team was engaged, and we
started to look at how we could build this facility. The Zoning Code of Queensbury has all
kinds of references to an Adirondack theme, hoping to get an Adirondack theme as part of what
hopefully will be development in the Town. We were very mindful of that, and we asked our
designers to look at building this hotel, and using an Adirondack theme, so that it could become
a real good visual entrance to the community from 87. One way to get people off 87 and into
the Town and into the, in the areas where the businesses are located. So we started working on
the design of the hotel and the indoor water park. Part of the problem with the hotel was that,
in order to get an Adirondack design, we had to put a roof on it. The hotel, we’re 27 feet over
the 40 feet, but interestingly enough with the hotel, if we built the hotel at grade, at the actual
grade it is, and went up 40 feet, the hotel would be a lot higher than it will be because the
actual, the grade is being reduced considerably, so that the hotel is sitting down in, and it
wouldn’t rise to the level of where it would be if we were permitted to build a 40 foot hotel at
that site. Seventeen feet of it is the roof. So 17 feet of that request that we have of you is in
order to put an attractive green Adirondack roof on it. When we started looking the water park,
the designer said, we have to have a water park. If we’re going to have something that is going
to attract people here and try to rebuild this attendance issue, we’ve got to have a facility that is
interesting enough that people will come more than once and get off the road and come and
hopefully spend time. Mr. Ellis said, well, you’ve got to have something that’s high enough so
that you can put, I’ll call it a Paul Bunyan, the tree house in there. They’re roughly 50 feet high.
You’ve got to have water slides that people can get on and come in to the Park, and they have to
be high enough where you’ve got a gravity feed and it was originally proposed at 80 feet. We
went back to them and said, we can’t, we’re not doing an 80 feet. There’s no chance that we’re
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
going to be looking at that, and we told them to go back and figure out how to build this
building in a way that it could not be seen, visually, by any of the receptor neighborhoods. We
were sensitive, and with the help of the Planning Board which helped make everybody
sensitive to it, we were very sensitive to the Glen Lake area, the Twicwood people, and the
Courthouse Estates, and we said, you can’t be able to see this thing from anywhere. It’s got to
go below the tree line, and we ended up, we flew balloons, we flew balloons and we flew
balloons, until we got to a point where, and I asked the LA Group, can you see this thing from
anywhere, no, you can’t, there’s only one little tiny piece over on Ash Drive. There’s no
residence there, other than that, you can’t see this hotel anywhere, water park. So we said,
okay, then that’s as low as we can ask for a variance. We can’t go any lower and still be able to
build the facility. The other problem, and I’m going to let others, who are the designers, speak
to this, other than myself, but the other thing we looked at carefully was, our position was that
the Coach House restaurant is a landmark. There’s some of us here who remember it when it
was called Alfonso’s, 100 years ago, but then it’s always been a restaurant, and it’s always been,
in some ways an introduction to the Adirondacks. It’s a beautiful building that was built, I
think Alfonso built it, and it was an entrance to the Adirondack Park, that log theme. We didn’t
want to have to take it down, and we thought, well, we need to try to link the hotel. We need to
try to attach the hotel to Alfonso’s, or to the Coach House, so that we could have a link to the
Coach House. The Coach House would serve as the restaurant for the hotel, and the dining
room for the hotel, and in order to do that, we had to relocate the hotel on the site, bring it
closer to the restaurant and that necessitated a short corridor length than if we were trying to
build this thing at a lower height to meet the impact, because you’d end up having people
walking a quarter to a half a mile to get down to the Coach House. So one of the reasons why
we went up another story is because in addition to the roof, we felt we had to get access to the
Coach House as part of this facility. The other problem we have is that, as a result of the Impact
Statement, we can’t build horizontally, because the site is impacted by the ring road on the one
side, which we’re required to build, to get the traffic off Route 9, which is a good thing for
everybody, the Town and the theme park, and we run in to this 75 foot setback on the east side,
and we didn’t want to come to your Board for a Use Variance. We wanted to come to your
Board with nothing more than an Area Variance for the height. So we had to adjust the
building on the site, so that we weren’t coming in here and asking you for a Use Variance. As
far as the neighborhood is concerned, where this is to be located, I want to show you some of
the photographs that were taken. There is not another, first of all, let me say that The Great
Escape owns all the land to the east, all the way to the bridge, the bike trail, and the old railroad
bridge. That’s all land owned by the theme park, all the way over. The theme park owns all the
wetland over there. The theme park owns all the land to the west, including Rush Pond, all the
way over to the other side. It owns all the land to the south, including what was the Animal
Land parcel, and all the land to the north, up to the Samoset Motel, including the Samoset
Motel. We want to show you something. Russ, do you have that visual? May we show some
photographs to you?
MR. STONE-Absolutely. Surely. The only thing I would ask, if you can identify them, so they
can be in the record, so that we can tie one to the other.
MR. LEMERY-Why don’t you just bring them up, Russ.
MR. STONE-Yes, just bring them up, we’ll look at them.
MR. LEMERY-The first one is, we drew a circle around the, we’ll turn this so folks in the
audience can see. We drew a circle around 2000 feet.
MR. STONE-Well, why don’t you bring it up. Bring it over here so everybody can see it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Are these ultimately going to be submitted, not necessarily tonight, but
some time, they’ll be submitted to the Town, right?
MR. LEMERY-Yes.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
MR. SCHACHNER-Great. It’s appropriate.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s why I said, identify them if they can, too. So that we can tie them to
the comments.
MR. LEMERY-We did, took an aerial view, did an aerial view of, this is where the hotel and
water park is located. Here’s the Coach House. This is The Great Escape proper, here, 87,
north, south, Route 9. We took a 1,000 feet, and a 2,000 feet circle, circumference, around this
facility. There are two residences on the Glen Lake Road, up here, to the north end. Those are
the only two residences within 2,000 feet of this facility. So all the land to the east, all the land
to the west, and the north and the south is owned by The Great Escape Theme Park. So we sort
of have taken a position that this is the neighborhood that we’re in. This is our neighborhood.
This is Rush Pond. The Theme Park itself, and we all know that nothing will ever be built over
here, and nothing will ever be built over here, and the only thing I can, I’d like to represent to
you tonight, on the record, that the only thing we’re looking at is the development of this
facility over here, on the west side. There is no other building. There are not going to be any
attractions over here on the west side. The other land here, other than the Coach House and the
hotel and water park, is all parking. It would only be devoted to parking, up this way from the
hotel, up to the end of the Samoset Motel here, and southerly all the way to Animal Land,
which is really right down here. So, we think that this is not intrusive and really doesn’t impact
anybody, in terms of, it’s not like we’re looking for an Area Variance and our neighbor’s 50 feet
away and we’re going to have a, you know, we’re going to impact on their site. We’re going to
impose something on there which is going to be offensive to them in terms of their
neighborhood or any neighborhood. So this is our neighborhood, as we see it. The Route 9
corridor, the Theme Park on the left and right. It’s well over 2,000 feet. Other than those two
houses here, it’s well over 2,000 to this first house, which is at the southern end of the Court
House Estate development, and a very far distant from either Glen Lake or on the west side.
We have some, one of the things that people asked to see was a simulation of what this facility
would look like, coming up Route 9, and this is it, right here. That’s the way it looks now, and
we’ll circulate this, if that’s all right. This is the simulation, this is what this facility would look
like coming up Route 9. It’s really buried in the trees. None of these trees are going out. The
Planning Board has required a buffer, which is a 10 foot buffer between 87 and the ring road,
and we have to inventory every single tree, and account for every tree to the Planning Board, as
part of the Impact Statement of 2001, and as part of the approval of the hotel. So I’d like to
show you this, and you can see what the visual impact of that would be. The other view is the
view that Mrs. Ryba was looking to see, coming north on 87. My personal opinion is that it’s a
wonderful entrance to the Town. You can see the existing Coach House here, as you come up
87. This is the existing picture, and then here’s the intra position of the, again, the hotel and
indoor water park as you come north on 87. It’s really kind of a small view shed, because you
can only see it from here. Once you get north of these trees, you really can’t see it, going north,
until you get up right there at 87, right adjacent to it. It will not be seen from Route 9 anyplace,
because that whole hill on Route 9 is part of the Route 9, it’s Route 9 right of way, and this hotel
is basically on the west side of that. So as you, once you go by the Coach House on Route 9
going north, you won’t see this again. It’s not visual at any time. It’s only visual from the
Northway, and going north on Route 9.
MR. STONE-Which is the water park?
MR. PITTENGER-The hotel is behind, and this is the water park in here.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s directly behind the Coach House.
MR. PITTENGER-Behind the Coach House is that wing of the bottom elevation.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, we have another simulation of the Ash Drive point, and we’d like
to show you that also.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. PITTENGER-We identified the balloons, and that green, this green running through there
is the.
MR. BRYANT-While you’re passing that around, could I ask you a question?
MR. COLLINS-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-It’s relative to this shot of the Northway, and primarily what Mrs. Ryba says in
her memo, relative to those trees, those trees are actually in the Northway right-of-way, not part
of your property. There’s a small buffer area, and then you’re going to have the loop road. Is
that correct?
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. BRYANT-So basically you’re relying on the trees to provide the buffer, visual buffer from
the Northway. Is that what you’re doing? I mean, the trees are what’s currently going to
provide the buffer, right now, the existing growth there.
MR. LEMERY-Well, yes. Right now in the right-of-way is the buffer, plus 10 feet, plus the ring
road before you get to the hotel.
MR. BRYANT-So there’s nothing, there’s no growth, really, on your property? Between the
facility.
MR. LEMERY-None to speak of, really. None to speak of.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So if somewhere down the road the State decides to cut those trees down,
as they have in other areas of the Northway, I mean, that’s going to be a different picture. Is
that correct? Do you have any plans to put any growth?
MR. LEMERY-You mean could you see the hotel from the Northway? Yes, you can see the
hotel from the Northway.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, you can see it.
MR. LEMERY-I mean, that would be something that, you know, we’re hopeful people can see it
from the Northway, hopeful that they come off the Northway and come into the area, but we
have to put plantings along that buffer zone.
MR. BRYANT-That was my question. Are you going to plant along there.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, and they have to be in accordance with the Planning Board directive. So the
answer is yes.
MR. STONE-So they have asked you for some kind of buffering plants along the road?
MR. LEMERY-Yes. We have to put our planting plan together, Mr. Chairman, and give it to the
Planning Board.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s to be done.
MR. LEMERY-Yes.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question, too. Signage. What are your plans for signage, new
signage? Right now there’s a big sign on the Coach House. Is there any other, going to be any
other signs denoting this new facility?
MR. COLLINS-We’re not asking for a Sign Variance. Whatever the Sign Ordinance calls for,
for, you know, identifying the hotel, we will submit under that, but we’re not asking for a
variance on any sign.
MR. STONE-I realize you’re not asking. I was just curious what your thinking was.
MR. COLLINS-Yes. I mean, there’ll be an id sign that is in the front of the hotel, and, Russ, do
you have anything else besides that?
MR. PITTENGER-Thank you, John. Our plans currently show, or our revised plans that are
being resubmitted, in addressing the current comments on the site plans, indicate that there’ll
be a sign in the turnaround circle of the main hotel, that, here on the site plan, that would also
be here in this rendering, so that people on the Northway would be able to identify the hotel. In
addition, we’re planning on having signage that identifies the hotel at the north end of the ring
road at the intersection of Route 9 and Glen Lake Road that would indicate two things. One,
entrance to the hotel, and, second, identify this as the main entrance for parking for The Great
Escape. We haven’t detailed that yet, but our plans anticipate that we would need to have a
sign there.
MR. ABBATE-I have a question, if I may. Counselor, then it’s the intent of The Great Escape not
to request any Sign Variances?
MR. COLLINS-That is correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-You mention the Samoset as being your property. Is that staying?
MR. COLLINS-Because of the design of the ring road, in 2005, part of it would go. The road
enters directly across from Glen Lake Road, which there’s a string of rooms. That has to go, and
then the back portion of the cabins would be actually sitting on the roads. Those would go, but
the front stretch of cabins, so basically half of it would remain, and we’d book it just like we
would out of the hotel, is if someone’s looking for a rustic cabin. So those would remain in
2005. Now, down the road, that whole area has been approved for parking, for Park parking,
which is not in this project.
MR. STONE-Okay, and the house is going, too?
MR. COLLINS-That would stay, in the short term, but eventually it would go, yes.
MR. STONE-The one between the hotel and Samoset?
MR. COLLINS-That would stay temporarily, correct, for 2005.
MR. STONE-I’d like you to continue, but let me just ask you a question. You mention, as part of
your presentation, walking distance, and you gave some numbers. Can you give me better
justification for going up rather than going out? Just so people don’t have to walk as far?
MR. LEMERY-Sure. Could I refer to Jay Holpeck, our?
MR. STONE-Sure, absolutely.
JAY HOLPECK
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
MR. HOLPECK-I’m Jay Holpeck. The way we, the project has been designed by hospitality
standards, the guidelines we use is business travelers will travel a maximum of 250 feet before
it’s uncomfortable, from your central lobby, your hotel elevators. Resort guests, because they’re
staying a little bit longer, the guideline is 350 feet. Right now, the way the site dictated the
shape of the facility, our maximum distance of travel was 320 feet. That’s based on a four story
complex. If we go to three stories, it adds an additional 140 feet of linear travel, which would
put us up to 460 feet of the maximum distance, which we feel is too long and it’s an
uncomfortable distance. So that was a determining factor.
MR. STONE-Okay. You said, we feel, but there are standards that have been established that
more than you feel?
MR. HOLPECK-Yes, there are, it’s not the law or code, but they’re hospitality guidelines that
we follow.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. COLLINS-Also, in reference to the water park itself, as John mentioned, it’s such, I mean,
the amenity of the water park is such big part of this project, and in order to make it to what we
want it to be, which is we have certain standards on what we expect people expect when they
come to a Six Flags Theme Park, and The Great Escape in this case. There’s certain attractions.
One the driving attraction is as John said we had to lower our expectations, but we didn’t want
to go any further than we felt could justify the rates and the product itself was the family raft
ride. The family raft ride requires an elevator system, or a conveyor system, if you will, that’s
about 10 feet taller than the top of the platform, and we thought we drove the platform as low
as we could, which is, I think, 53 feet now. So that combination is 63 feet, and they had about
four foot clearance up to the top of the roof. So that dictated the height the water park
attraction. We originally wanted a 400 foot slide. Is that correct? 450 feet. We’re winding up
with 350 feet, based on lowering the height of that, and that’s where John talked about original
height, and I do want to reinforce to John that when we originally looked at this, obviously we
wanted to put an attraction in there that would add to this area. Certainly we felt that the 45,
450 foot long family raft ride was a great product, but the concern of visual impact was that we
knew what we were up against as far as the zoning. We did whatever we could to lower that
impact, and as John mentioned, we put it behind a hill, so even though you’re going to have an
I-87 view shed, it is sitting up against a hill, and you guys were out there and you saw where
this was situated. So we flew balloons once, verified that even after dropping it, we wouldn’t
see it. Then we said, well, let’s make sure that’s correct, and we flew them again. So we flew
them a second time, and then we asked, you know, it was requested to have you guys and the
Planning Board present to do it a third time, just so everyone would feel comfortable at the
height. At 67 feet a good portion of that, as John mentioned, is roof, and in the water park in
particular, the roof is to accommodate the attractions we have inside.
MR. STONE-So, part of the height variance you’re seeking is because of the attraction itself, not
just the hotel.
MR. COLLINS-That’s exactly correct.
MR. STONE-Thank you. You may continue.
MR. LEMERY-I’d like to point out that this is not a typical, it’s not like a Marriot Courtyard or a
Wingate or one of hotels of that kind that we see being built up and down the Northway and
other places. This is a very different kind of facility. There is a four story atrium in the
building. So when you come into the entrance, there’s a big stone fireplace inside. It goes up
four levels. It’s really very attractive. It’s designed in the Adirondack theme with wood and
stone, a stone fireplace. There’s glass an amenities, so that when people come in, and the kids
walk in to this facility, you know, they turn their eyes to the right and the first thing they see is
this entrance to the water park and so that’s a pretty spectacular thing. There will be food
service for the families in the indoor water park. There’s a banquet room in there, so that
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
banquets can be hosted, weddings can be held at the hotel. The other thing, the hotel is
designed with suites. There are 22 suites for families, and every single room is a connecting
room. So that families who come up with, I have four children, for example, you know, and
you would, each room will accommodate six people, a mother and father and four kids. If a
larger family or if people wanted privacy, every room’s connecting, so that it has those kinds of
amenities to draw people into the area for that kind of stay in the winter. We looked at the off
season months. We looked at the ski business that comes to West Mountain, Gore Mountain,
which is growing. We looked at the fact that a lot of people coming up to ski the Killington,
Pico area are getting off here in the Town, going to 149 and driving over there. This facility is
within 75 miles of virtually all the ski areas. So we think it has real value, in terms of attracting
people here during the winter months. We think that, as the area grows with the hockey
tournaments coming in, the Lake George Forum, that this provides a wonderful place for
people to come in to the Town, and actually if the sidewalks are extended at some point, people
can walk from the hotel and go up and shop the shops. So we think it’s a great location, and I’d
like, if I could to have Jay Holpeck, again, tell you a little bit more about the unusual amenities
within this facility.
MR. HOLPECK-There’s quite a few of them. I had to make sure John was specific. Like John
mentioned, one of the first things when you come in the hotel, and again, part of the reason
with the height, the lobby is a four story great Adirondack space, with a great Adirondack
natural stone fireplace, strip cedar type railings and natural wood everywhere. Some of the
other amenities, again, as John indicated, the banquet room, which will be divided up into
several spaces that could seat 20, up to 250 people. For the water park itself, we do have two
separate retail spaces, one that sells more of the water park amenities like the towels and the flip
flops and the little swim goggles, then there is a larger retail space that’ll sell the tee-shirts and
different apparel like that. We do have an arcade. So if the kids do get, you know, tired of
swimming all day, they could walk right, within a few yards or a few feet and just go in to the
arcade. As he indicated, the rooms are all set up as an Adirondack style, Adirondack finishes,
Adirondack look. Cedar log type beds and fixtures. The outside of the building, stone façade,
split log siding, cedar shake shingles. We have a lot of exposed timber, and again, one of the
reasons with the variance, if we were to lop off the roof, which is 17 feet of the variance that we
request, really it would be a flat roof structure. It would not have the Adirondack theme that
we’re really looking for. So, again, that is a key reason for the variance, and obtaining this type
of roof with the exposed heavy timber trusses on the outside, I mean, overall we tried to really
push and stick with the Adirondack theme on this. I’ll just hand it over to Bruce Quay from
Aquatic Development.
BRUCE QUAY
MR. QUAY-Thank you. I’ll talk a little bit about some of the features of the water park itself.
Starting right from the top. The roof itself has integrated into it a transparent roofing system
called Foil Tech or Techselone. One of the unique features of the roofing system is that it is not
only light transparent, but it’s a UV transparent. So literally we’ll be able to get UV light into
the building, grow plants in the water park. You’ll be able to get a sun tan in the water park,
and truly get a, bring the outside environment into an indoor tropical environment. So we
think that’s one of the unique features of it. Inside the water park itself we’ve talked about the
raft system, a series of, or excuse me, the water slide system, five different water slides,
including a family raft ride that will hold up to four individuals at a time, a large lazy river area.
On the mezzanine we’ll have a large play structure, interactive play structure with dump
bucket, a bunch of interactive water guns and other features that can literally handle dozens
and dozens of children and teenagers at the same time. We mentioned at the last presentation
another unique feature of the water park is the flow rider system. This is a standalone surfing
system that capitalizes on a real growth market in skating, surfboarding and waveboarding.
Literally, the biggest difficulty in attracting teenagers to these parks is not having the right type
of amenities, and we think that the flow rider will really attract that teenage, 20’s crowd that is
in to surfing, skating and snowboarding. I said a mezzanine area underneath it, plenty of deck
area for families, parents and kids to lounge around and be able to visualize what’s going on,
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
small kids pool area in this back section. So we think we’ve covered the spectrum of the client
base.
MR. STONE-Question about, the water park area aside. I know it’s an integral part of the
design. Is this going to be, the construction cost of these 200 rooms, hotel, is this going to be
premium cost? Is it going to be, just tell me about what it’s going to be.
MR. COLLINS-I guess Jay Holpeck might be the best person to answer that, but it’s definitely
going to be of quality that is going to be able to bear what Six Flags tries to accomplish. I mean,
as you can see, the project is quite extensive. It is not going to be inexpensive. It is, you know,
it has been quoted in excess of $30 million for the project. It is, it’s going to be a very nice
property, and no expense was spared on this, but at the same time, it is a family resort. I mean,
it is not, you know, a spa or, you know, what would be another type of chain that might be like
that, yes, Sagamore, Ritz Carlton type of quality, but, you know, it’s certainly going to be of the
utmost quality.
MR. QUAY-Talking about quality, we like to think, in the water park side of it, about how much
entertainment value that we can effectively design, per square foot, into an indoor water park,
and as John was alluding to, we have designed and built hundreds of water parks, and we
think, particularly as it relates to how we’ve integrated the slide complex, how we’ve integrated
this flow rider as well as the lazy river and the rest of the amenities, including the play
structure, there’s more entertainment value per square foot in this design than we’ve ever
accomplished. So we think that, from a quality standpoint, there is not an indoor water park in
the country that we’ll take a backseat to.
MR. URRICO-How does this compare, size wise, to some of the other water parks? Is it
average? Is it bigger, smaller?
MR. COLLINS-They are building them now, 400 rooms, 100,000 square feet. Two hundred
rooms, 32,000 square feet would be average, but, as I mentioned, the ones that are being built
now in the Dells are about 100,000 square foot water parks, 400 rooms. We feel that, given what
Bruce just said, what we pack into that 32,000 square foot space is going to more than make up
for the size that some of the other ones have.
MR. URRICO-What about the height of some of the other rides at the other parks?
MR. COLLINS-Most of them are very similar, if not identical to these type of heights, to get the
water slides.
MR. QUAY-We’re working on two, right now, John, that are at 75 and 85 feet, 80,000 square
feet. We happen to have finished and are in the process of breaking ground on two water
parks, one in Virginia and one in Ohio at 80 and 100,000 square feet, and those two, I believe,
are at 76 to 77 and 81 feet height respectively.
MR. COLLINS-No offense to those. Ours is going to be much better. So let’s get that on the
record. Just because it’s bigger doesn’t mean it’s better.
MR. ABBATE-May follow up on Mr. Urrico’s area, please? I asked the question at the last
meeting that we had, it was never answered, and I indicated I’m going to ask the question
again, and it went something like this. Every time you think the resorts can’t possibly get any
bigger or add any more amenities, they do. Is it the intent, if this is approved, that there will be
an expansion?
MR. COLLINS-The hotel is sitting on, as John mentioned, a piece of land that gives us no room
to go sideways. We also don’t have any room to go into the Route 9 right-of-way. The rest of it
is previously approved for parking and we will need it for parking.
MR. LEMERY-Are you talking about expanding the theme park itself?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. LEMERY-There’s no expansion which will take place between Route 9 and 87, and there’s
really no expansion that can take place in terms of, you mean land acquisition, that kind of
thing? The answer is no, there’s no more. It’s confined within roughly a 90 acre site on the east
side, and basically what will happen in there is that there will be a mix of new attractions
coming in, old attractions coming out, things of that nature, but, you know, you hear rumors all
the time, The Great Escape is going to buy Round Pond. The Great Escape is going to buy the
Glens Falls Country Club. The Great Escape is doing this. None of that. It’s not going
anywhere. It is not expanding, certainly not expanding within the confines of, it’s an RC-15
zone. The only good thing about the sewer line is some of the areas within the Park itself,
which are now septic fields, at some point may be able to put something on them because all the
septic fields are being taken out and reclaimed, when the Park goes on the sewer.
MR. ABBATE-Fine. Let me just put a period after that. So if the plans as submitted to this
Board, as well as the Town are approved, the plans, in and of themselves, finality in terms of
growth. Is that how I read you?
MR. COLLINS-I’m not sure, in reference to this project?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. COLLINS-Yes, I mean, this is the project.
MR. ABBATE-That’s what I’m asking. Then I have a couple of other little points, if I may.
There was an article that appeared in the Post Star, and the reporter was Jason Rowe, and he
quoted Counsel as follows. He said, “John Lemery, the lawyer who represented the Park, said
if construction needed to run late, it would not go past 10 p.m.”. Is that still correct, on the
record?
MR. COLLINS-Whatever the, we agreed to abide by the Noise Ordinance that they use for trash
pick up, which I believe was six to, what, ten or whatever it was. I think that was the reference
that was made, in the context. Is that correct, Chris?
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. COLLINS-We’re in the ballpark, but, yes, we would abide by that.
MR. LEMERY-There was some reference somewhere to this all night construction or something,
that’s not going to happen. So whatever the Planning Board determines is appropriate will be
the construction time.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. The other little point that I have here, again, quoting, Mr. Lemery, quote,
the problem, Lemery said, is that officials from the State Department of Transportation are not
willing to sign off on a traffic light. Would you go into a little more detail? If we’re going to
have as much as that gentleman indicated earlier, what do you intend to do about all this traffic,
and traffic control here?
MR. LEMERY-Maybe I was out of the room when somebody mentioned traffic.
MR. STONE-No, it hasn’t been mentioned. He’s quoting you.
MR. LEMERY-The Impact Statement, which was filed with the Town of Queensbury, and which
is the, basically the bible under which the Park can expand, has certain traffic mitigation. I
don’t recall specifically, but for example, when the Park attendance gets to 1.2 million people,
then a road, access road adjacent to Route 9 has to be built coming off the Exit and into the Park,
when it’s 1.2 million. We can get that other information for you. We had always agreed, we
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
agree that the Glen Lake Road is a problem, and we’ve never felt that we weren’t willing to put
a light there. Unfortunately, it’s a State highway, and we can’t dictate what goes there. So we
met with the Town. John met with the Town Supervisor and with DOT and our traffic
consultants, and we asked them to please give us the permission to put the light at Route 9 and
the Glen Lake Road. So, I think maybe Chris can speak to that. He was at that meeting. John
Collins was at that meeting, but it’s not now required under this Impact Statement, but we think
it needs to be done also.
MR. COLLINS-And there was traffic thresholds that required, as John mentioned, mitigation,
and what this project, if all these people that were to stay at the hotel were incremental
attendance, which we hope they are for the Park, during the Park’s operating season, we are
still not near the levels required, that required mitigation, but what we are proposing with this
project is 80% of the mitigation that’s required at full build out of the Park, and so we’re not
even back to where we were in ’99 with this project, and we’re proposing 80% of what they said
it had to be five years down the road. So, yes, the northern ring road, the pedestrian bridge,
those traffic mitigations, plus we did meet with, you know, as John mentioned, with DOT, and I
think they’re comfortable with our proposal. We’re submitting them additional information,
that the traffic is there to warrant a light, but that is their call, and we’ve met with them.
MR. LEMERY-And Great Escape will pay for the light. We’ve told the Town that. So we’re not
opposed to the light. Maybe Chris can speak to that meeting with DOT.
MR. ROUND-Yes, I think Mr. Collins and Mr. Lemery are accurate in what they presented. We
have met with DOT and it’s a matter of DOT having certain information at hand that allows
them to, basically it’s a signal warrant, which is a test that says, under these conditions a signal
would be required to be installed, and I think the applicant’s working toward making sure that
the DOT has that information. I think the outcome of the meeting was it wasn’t whether one
was going to be installed or not. It’s just what kind of information needed to be presented to
DOT to make the project happen, and I think they’re well on their way to making that happen.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’d like to go back to the hotel itself for a minute, if I might. You’ve
mentioned two or three times that one of the reasons for the height needed is because of the
Adirondack style roof, but from what was said tonight, correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds to
me like even if you put a flat roof on the hotel, you’d still need the same height relief for the top
of the water park.
MR. LEMERY-That’s correct.
MR. COLLINS-Yes, that is correct.
MR. MC NULTY-I think the roof is a good idea, but removing the roof would not solve your
height problem at all.
MR. COLLINS-Yes, but you’re right. It’s a consistent height roof, but we would still have a
section.
MR. MC NULTY-You would still have to have the same height.
MR. COLLINS-Correct.
MR. MC NULTY-The second question, hasn’t come up, I don’t believe, so far, is are there any
plans to floodlight the side of the hotel?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
MR. COLLINS-We did a lighting plan that we submitted, and, Russ, do you have any other
update on that? It’s well within the standards of the Town.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes. We have submitted a photometric plan to the Planning Board, and then
we, they requested us to add additional information regarding the building mounted lights.
Those plans are, have been prepared, and they will be subject to review. As far as the amount
of lighting, there will be entrance lighting at the place on the building, at each doorway there’ll
be a 50 watt bulb, and on the east side of the hotel, that would be at the end of this east wing,
here at the employee entrance at this end, there is a, the plans indicate two 100 watt floods that
would be on either side of the lobby entrance, pointing up at the glass in the lobby. That’s
where the building will be floodlit. Also there will be three 100 watt floodlights in the area of
the tubes in the southwest corner of the water slide, and also there’ll be up lights, 100 watt, two
100 watt up lights at the sign, one for the flagpole or feature. Also, up lights, two 100 watt up
lights at the entrance sign at the corner of Glen Lake Road. They’ll be on the plans. There’s no
intentions to floodlight the hotel proper. The only floodlights on the building will be on the
west side. So as a visual concern from the Glen Lake Fen or the adjacent residences, there’ll be
no floodlights visible, and with the exception of some entrance lights at the main hotel drop off,
that is the concentration of lights, and they’ll be fairly minimal.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anything else?
MR. ROUND-Could I add something to that?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. ROUND-The Zoning Board of Appeals also received the lighting plans. Those are part of
this review drawing size set, and I think this question has been raised as part of the SEQRA
review, and the visual impact analysis and the sensitivity of, I think the whole community has
increased its awareness about lighting, and sensitivity lighting, and I think one of the difficult
things that we’ve discussed with Mr. Pittenger is that typically lighting plans are shown in light
that projects onto the ground, and you see these photometric drawings were basically drawings
showing the concentration or the lighting values on the ground, and you’re not typically seeing,
well, how do you represent that on the building, and I think what they’ve presented is they’re
going to try to amend these drawings to present that information so everybody knows exactly
what kind of lighting it is. Sometimes it’s not going to be exhaustive as a lighting plan that you
might see, but you will see identified those type of fixtures that will be on the facility.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anything else, gentlemen and lady?
MR. COLLINS-We don’t have anything else.
MR. STONE-Okay. So I think we will now, we will re-open, or continue the public hearing that
we began on March 2. I ask you very specifically to limit your comments to the job before us,
nd
the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community. Town Counsel has given a
very good description at the last public meeting, in terms of the things that we have to be
concerned of, about. We’re talking about a height variance, from 40 feet to 67 feet, and that’s
what we’re talking about. I certainly recognize, as I did at the last meeting, that there are many
of you in the audience that regard The Great Escape as a very good neighbor, and that’s fine.
Yes, Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing I wanted to mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was in your opening
remarks, you said something about first people in favor, then people against. I don’t think
that’s appropriate. Some people are not comfortable being labeled, in one camp or another. I
think you should just, whenever you see fit to open the public hearing, let people come up in
whatever order they wish.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
MR. STONE-Thank you. Okay. So, let’s start. Anybody wishing to speak on the subject, of The
Great Escape height variance?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GEORGE STEC
MR. STEC-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. My name
is George Stec, and I live at 245 Butler Pond Road in the Town of Queensbury. This is the third
presentation I’ve heard of The Great Escape, and, personally, I think this is an outstanding
project, no if’s, ands or buts, in my opinion. This evening, we’re going to talk about the height,
in regard to the Zoning Board. I went to the third balloon siting, and I went over to Ash Drive,
and that is the only position I observed this from was Ash Drive. Now, where I live, my home,
every day, every meal when I sit down at my table to eat, to sustain my life, I look out over the
Town of Queensbury, a good portion of it. I see towers. I see radio towers. I see water towers,
more water towers. I see the trash plant, big smoke stack, big blue building, and when I’m
eating my meal, I’m looking at this trash plant, and I know what’s going on in there. Some of
my scraps will end up there. I look at the cement towers on the east end of Glens Falls, smoke,
from time to time, belching out of that complex, those big, high cement towers, and these are all
negative things. I look over to Mount Equinox, and I see a big strip of land down that west side
of the mountain that was cleared off for the power line that accesses Mount Equinox. So I see a
lot of tall structures in and around the Town of Queensbury. To some people they’re offensive.
To some people they’re not. Some of these were there when I moved here. Some of them came
after I moved here. I see lights at night on these radio towers. I see the lights from West
Mountain Ski area in the night, and 27 feet is not very much, and also when I look out my
window at my kitchen table, I see some of the rides at The Great Escape, and I say to myself, in
these times of trouble and tribulations, there are people having fun there. This Park is
providing something, an escape, a great escape for them to get away, and they enjoy
themselves, and this is good. This is very good, but there are a lot of negative things out there,
tall structures, and when I stop and think of what I see, and I see 27 feet. That’s why we’re here
this evening. There are people, men and women, who could spit pumpkin seeds and
watermelon seeds further than 27 feet. So, in closing, I support this project entirely.
MR. STONE-Thank you, sir.
MR. STEC-You’re more than welcome. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak on the subject of the height variance for The Great
Escape hotel water theme park?
JOANN BRAMLEY
MRS. BRAMLEY-Joann Bramley, Twicwood Lane, Queensbury. My comments are related to
the variance granting, in terms of setting a precedent for other buildings of this height, and I’d
also like it to be noted that, effective fire safety coverage associated with this building will be at
the Town’s expense, either to provide new or additional vehicle, fire protection vehicles to
address the needs of a building of this height, so that can be recorded and noted. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak?
DONALD MILNE
MR. MILNE-Donald Milne, 25 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury. I’m speaking representing only
myself and the opinions and observations expressed are my personal views. I have no objection
to this height variance, and I’m in favor of it. In terms of the benefit to the applicant, we won’t
address that. That was exhaustively covered by windy John Lemery. I attended the balloon test
and found that the balloon marking at the top of the building was not visible from Glen Lake,
where my residence is. I feel it’s not an impact. Additionally, the design calls for a peaked roof,
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
in keeping with our new zoning law. Therefore, the eaves are at least, I had written originally
at least 15 feet below. I see that they’re 17 feet below, and windows are below that. As a result,
there should be no impact from lighting due to windows. I hadn’t been aware that there was
going to be skylight over the Park. That could possibly impact, but in summation, the building
is not visually impacting the lake, and is designed using the Adirondack criteria for Route 9,
calling for peaked roofs with wood or stone siding. I think it’s an asset to the community.
MR. STONE-Thank you, sir.
MR. STONE-Anybody else?
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-Paul Derby, President of Glen Lake Protective Association. I live at 86 Ash Drive.
I agree with what Mr. Milne said, in principal. I also was at the balloon studies, and the only
place we could see the red balloon was from Ash Drive. We were all there. So it seemed
reasonably certain that we won’t be able to see the structure. My concern, before and today, is
about the lighting for the structure and how much actual light pollution will be generated from
it. I didn’t realize a study had been done, but I just urge you to take a close look at that lighting
impact study and that also we would like to be given the opportunity to examine it before a
decision is made. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else? Well, hearing none else, I will keep the public hearing
open, because we will be meeting at some future date. Mr. Round, do we have a date yet?
MR. ROUND-We don’t. They’re really all contingent upon the SEQRA process being
completed, and those milestones, we know one of those, the April 8, I think, is Thursday.
th
Thursday is the close of that comment period. The next task, which will be for the applicant to
prepare a proposed draft, or a proposed Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Planning
Board needs to judge that, whether those answers to the questions that have been raised
through this comment period have been satisfactorily addressed, and then, when that occurs,
then SEQRA Findings are drafted, and reviewed and adopted, and, you know, that could be
several weeks before all those steps could take place.
MR. STONE-So we’re probably talking May.
MR. ROUND-And we’ve worked with the applicant to provide them with a Special Meeting so
that we are accommodating the public as well as the Board. So that you’re not inundated with a
very lengthy meeting. I know you had a very long one just a short time ago. So we can’t give
you a date at this point, I guess.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Lemery, do you have any comments you want to make upon what
you’ve heard so far?
MR. LEMERY-I called my brother today, who is the Warren County Fire Coordinator. His
name is Marv Lemery. He’s the Administrator of Fire Coordinator, and I had raised the
question that Mrs. Bramley, I think, raised about fire protection, and if I could read the letter,
and then I’d like to submit it. “In response to your question regarding adequate fire protection
for the proposed hotel and water park for the Great Escape, I offer the following: If the people
are concerned about the ability of the fire service to reach a height of 65 feet or more with a
piece of apparatus, the Queensbury Central Fire Department, which will be the primary
response department to your facility has a tower truck capable of reaching 95 feet. Also with
the Warren County Mutual Aid agreement, there are 4 other pieces of apparatus all with the
ability to reach above 64 feet all within 4 minutes response time. If you need any additional
information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Marvin F. Lemery Fire
Coordinator”
MR. STONE-That was one of the concerns that we had raised, too. So I’m glad of that.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/6/04)
MR. COLLINS-And also, every year we meet with Queensbury Central and do an evacuation
procedure on our Sky Ride, so the Hudson Falls Ladder truck, and whichever, I think it’s Lake
George also has a ladder truck, and Queensbury Central, all respond to the property for that
evacuation training that we do every year, and we have a great relationship with Queensbury
Central, and I think they would say that, we have met with them on this topic.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-What’s the height of the Sky Ride?
MR. COLLINS-The Sky Ride, at its tallest point, because of reach over the water, I believe, is
about 70 foot reach. We are going to do one with the Condor ride, which is 80 feet. So it
reaches that as well.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I just want to touch on some of the comments that were made
about the lighting. Relative to the Park itself and the roof of the Park, the designer mentioned
that the material is such that it allows light and UV rays to pass through the roof. Is it also
reverse? Will the light escape from the roof?
MR. QUAY-Yes, it will.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and what time is the park going to be open until? I mean, is it a 24 hour
thing, or does it close at nine o’clock?
MR. COLLINS-The intention is to go 10 to 10, close at 10 o’clock. Yes.
MR. STONE-Just a quick question, speaking of the lighting that Allan talks about. If this
building were at 40 feet, would there be any less light on the front of the building?
MR. COLLINS-No, it would be the same lighting package that we have.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anything else? Then I will move that we adjourn, leaving the public
hearing open, that we adjourn until a date to be set, in a timely fashion, when the SEQRA
review is done, and after the comment period is over.
MR. COLLINS-Thank you for your time.
MR. STONE-You’re welcome.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
19