Loading...
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