Appeal Application ' Caffry & Flower NOA 3-2014
Attorneys-At-Law
Application for an App( RE: Bear Pond Ranch, LLC
From Zoning Administrator's French Mountain Bear Pond LLC
off State Route 9
Dept. of Community Development File No.
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road Date Received: li qc)._oi
p E+ -ID
Queensbury, NY 12804 4 •11
1. Applicant's Name: (10Si) k •I o ef- PAR 014
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Street Address: (Q n 60LiA 5-ed 70NING OFFICE
City, State, Zip: I o �S �-r-
� 1)-301
y
Telephone No. ( ) 7 1- -__ __
2. Agent's Name: 0(d�,0 kCL &M ( 5 -
Street Address: � umo .
City, State, Zip:
Telephone No. ( ) -
3. The applicant's appeal concerns the pr perry owned by:
bee):( Pry )2LVTV\ L re r (h Wibli,(17(11A ' ,r Pr 1-
4. Tax Map Number: .1 y, - I - 7 8
5. Zone Classification: L . (QA
6. Description of how to find the property: SOL11-4 P.:6(A;152 C
7. Section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance for which you are seeking an Interpretation. Describe
specific requests.
Il( 011(-01.e fted dated /c 0/11
8. Please attach additional documents, letters maps, etc. that may support this application for an
Appeal. 4 L.e a t1 Go hd -
9. The applicant shall return the original application with all pages intact.
)((lita- A / yiniA 3 ()lit(
Si- nature of app picant date
9
Signature of agent date
March 21,2011
Michael O'Connor,Esq.
Little& O'Connor
P.O. Box 898 L!' ,r
Glens Falls,NY 12801
RE: Zip Rider
Tax Map Parcels: 278-1-77 and 278-1-13
Dear Mr. O'Connor:
I am writing you in response to your letter of March 17, 2011 and our subsequent
conversation on March 18, 2011 relative to the above referenced items.
As discussed, in our January 19, 2011 meeting that was also attended by Jonathan
Lapper, Esq., it is my understanding that you are proposing the installation of a Zip Rider
facility and that such a feature will utilize the two referenced parcels within the Town of
Queensbury as well as lands within the Town of Lake George. The referenced properties
are located within a Land Conservation; LC-10 zoning district within the Town of
Queensbury. Further, it is my understanding that the proposed use; Zip Rider, is an
outdoor activity, that will be operated on a commercial basis and be available to the
general public. As such, this use is considered to be an OUTDOOR RECREATION use
in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code. The LC-10 zone offers OUTDOOR
RECREATION as an allowable use subject to Site Plan Review approval. This review is
conducted by our Planning Board.
Should you have any further questions or comments,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Town of Queensbury
Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator
CB/sh
Cc: Jonathan Lapper,Esq.
L:'Craig Brown\2011 Letters\OConnor Zip Line 3 21_I 1.doc
Caffry & Flower •
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS,NEW YORK 12801
(518)792-1582•FAX: 793-0541
JOHN W.CAFFRY CLAUDIA K.BRAYMER
KRISTINE K.FLOWER
March 12, 20141t��r �jrl t .�
� EIV.
Zoning Board of Appeals
6�'� M--
Town of Queensbury MAR 12 111 3:3
742 Bay Road TOWN OF QUEENSBUR'1P
Queensbury, New York 12801 ZONING OFFICE
Re: Appeal of Zoning Administrator' s Decision:
Bear Pond Ranch LLC/French Mountain Bear Pond LLC
Proposed Zip-Flyer in LC-10A Zoning District
Dear Board Members :
On behalf of our client, Lake George R.V. Park, Inc. ("LGRV
Park") , pursuant to Zoning Code § 179-14-030, we hereby appeal
the determination of the Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown,
regarding the above-referenced project . In particular, we are
appealing the apparent opinion of the Zoning Administrator that
the Zip-Flyer is an "outdoor recreation" use that is permitted in
the LC-10A zoning district subject to site plan review approval .
THE ZIP-FLYER IS NOT A PERMITTED USE
The Zip-Flyer is not an allowed use in the LC-10A zoning M
"tourist because it is a tourist attraction", which is not an Q U
permitted use in that district . See Town of Queensbury Zoning O
Code Table 2 (Summary of Allowed Uses in Residential Districts) . Ulu
It is a "tourist attraction" because it is a "man-made . . .
place of interest open to the general public" . Zoning Code § c
179-2-010 . c
VC3m
Le3IXc �
Contrary to the Zoning Administrator' s determination, the ; `�° '
Zip-Flyer does not meet the Zoning Code' s definition of an ° , o_ = o
LT"outdoor recreation" use. Zoning Code § 179-2-010. "Outdoor >. c`s2 v
recreation" uses include "recreation" activities. Zoning Code § �. E m U o
179-2-010. "Recreation", either active or passive, includes onl' ° ,t
"nonmotorized leisure activities" . Zoning Code § 179-2-010 . U < Iii o
! 411
Zoning Board of Appeals 2 M 12, 2014
The Zip-Flyer includes motorized mechanisms (i . e . , the
mechanical retrieval system for the seat/harness, and a generator
at the launch platform) and motorized transportation to the top
of the mountain (e. g. , truck, jeep, ATV, snowmobile, etc. ) .
Therefore, the Zip-Flyer is not an "outdoor recreation" use as
that term is defined by the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code.
The applicant' s site plan review application) admits that
the project is a "tourist attraction", and the applicant' s
representatives told the Planning Board that the Zip-Flyer would
be a "tourist attraction"2. As you may know, both the Town of
Lake George3 and the Adirondack Park Agency ("APA") consider the
Zip-Flyer to be a "tourist attraction".
Additionally, the applicant never appealed the APA' s
jurisdictional determination dated December 12, 2011 (copy
attached hereto as Exhibit C) that the Zip-Flyer, a "tourist
attraction", requires a permit from the APA because the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Code "designates tourist attractions as a Class
A project" .
Therefore, since the Zip-Flyer is a "tourist attraction",
and such use is not on the list of permitted uses in the LC-10A
zoning district, the Zip-Flyer is not a permitted use for the
location in which it is proposed in the Town of Queensbury. 4
Letter dated October 17, 2011 from Jonathan C. Lapper,
Esq. to Town of Queensbury Planning Board Chairman Christopher
Hunsinger, p. 1 (see also Site Plan Review Application pp. 2, 5) .
Attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2 Queensbury Planning Board Minutes dated November 17, 2011,
p. 29. Attached hereto as Exhibit B.
3 The project is located partly in the Town of Lake George
and partly in the Town of Queensbury, and entirely within the
Adirondack Park.
A tourist attraction is an allowed use in the applicable
Town of Lake George zoning district. Under the APA Act, the
proposed use is considered to be an incompatible use in that land
use area.
•
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 March 12, 2014
THE APPEAL OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR' S DETERMINATION IS TIMELY
As a result of reviewing a recent APA staff memorandum on
this projects, we have become aware for the first time that there
was a written determination by the Zoning Administrator set forth
in a letter from him to Michael O' Connor dated March 21, 2011 .
According to the APA Memo, the Zoning Administrator determined
that "the project is classified as an outdoor recreation use and
is an allowable use in the Land Conservation zone, subject to
site plan approval".
Pursuant to Town of Queensbury Zoning Code § 179-14-040 (D) ,
an appeal to the ZBA must "be taken within 60 days after the
filing in the Town Clerk' s office of any order, requirement,
decision, interpretation or determination of the Zoning
Administrator" . See Town Law § 267-a (5) (b) 6. To the best of our
knowledge, no determination by the Zoning Administrator, whether
provided in the letter dated March 21, 2011 to Michael O' Connor
or in some other form, has been filed with the Town Clerk' s
office?.
According to the Zoning Code, the time to file an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator' s determination has not yet commenced.
See Matter of Sonnabend et al . v. Town of Queensbury Zoning Board
of Appeals et al . , Index No. 59266 (Krogmann, J. , dated March 10,
2014) , pp. 5-6, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
Therefore, pursuant to the Zoning Code, this appeal is timely.
See id. at p. 7 .
Memorandum dated March 5, 2014 from Richard Weber to Terry
Martino (hereinafter "APA Memo") . A copy of the APA Memo is
attached hereto as Exhibit D.
6 Pursuant to Town Law § 267-a (5) (a) , the Town Board of the
Town of Queensbury has chosen to require that the 60 day period
within which to file an appeal shall begin upon the filing of the
determination in the Town Clerk' s office, not filing in the
office of the administrative official (Mr. Brown) .
According to staff at the Town Clerk' s office, no decision
has been filed with respect to this project, but as of the date
of this letter, they were still researching the files to confirm
this .
•
Zoning Board of Appeals 4 III
12, 2014
Moreover, the sixty day period in which to file an appeal
with a zoning board of appeals of an action of a zoning
administrative official can not begin before a party receives
notice of that action. See Farina v. ZBA of City of New
Rochelle, 294 A. D. 2d 499, 500 (2d Dept. 2002) . In the
alternative, in the absence of actual notice, the period will
begin to run when a party is chargeable with constructive notice
thereof. Iacone v. Building Dept . of Oyster Bay Cove Village, 32
A. D. 3d 1026, 1028 (2d Dept . 2006) ; Cave v. ZBA of Village of
Fredonia, 49 A. D. 2d 228, 231 (4th Dept. 1975) .
In this matter, our client had no actual notice that the
Queensbury Zoning Administrator had made an official
determination in March 2011 . The March 21, 2011 letter was not
sent to our client, and we do not have a copy of said letter. '
In addition, our client did not have constructive notice of
the March 21, 2011 determination until the APA Memo was released.
The Zip-Flyer was discussed substantively by the Planning Board
only one time, at a meeting held on November 17, 2011, over two
years ago. The minutes of that meeting (see Exhibit B) show that
David King, President of LGRV Park, was in attendance at that
meeting, but a March 21, 2011 determination by the Zoning
Administrator was never mentioned and the type of use - outdoor
recreation vs. tourist attraction - was never discussed. The
staff notes prepared for that meeting (attached hereto as Exhibit
F) , which provide a detailed description of the history of the
parcel, project and anticipated impacts, do not mention a March
21, 2011 determination by the Zoning Administrator.
The public notice (attached hereto as Exhibit G) sent to
nearby properties owners about that meeting does not state that a
March 21, 2011 determination had been made by the Zoning
Administrator. Even if the notice had mentioned a determination
made by the Zoning Administrator that, assuming for the sake of
8 Regardless, pursuant to Sonnabend v. Town of Oueensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town' s failure to file the Zoning
Administrator' s letter with the Town Clerk means that the 60 days
has not begun to run, even if we had received a copy of it.
• •
Zoning Board of Appeals 5 March 12, 2014
argument, had been filed with the Town Clerk' s office in March
20119, the notice was not sent out until November 10, 2011 .
The Planning Board has not considered the Zip-Flyer
application since November 17, 20111c. Since that time, there
has been no documentation issued by the Town, or meetings to
attend in Queensbury, that would have alerted LGRV Park to a
determination by the Queensbury Zoning Administrator.
Therefore, this appeal was brought well within 60 days of
LGRV Park' s first becoming aware of the Zoning Administrator' s
March 21, 2011 determination, when the APA Memo referred to it.
In conclusion, under the circumstances presented here, it
would not be equitable, or in compliance with the Zoning Code, to
apply a deadline 60 days from March 21, 2011 in which to appeal
the Zoning Administrator' s determination. Foremost, the
determination was never filed with the Town Clerk so the time to
appeal has not actually commenced. Additionally, it appears that
all involved parties, including the applicant and the Planning
Board, have considered the Zip-Flyer to be a `tourist
attraction" .
THE APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED
AND THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S
DETERMINATION MUST BE OVERTURNED
The project does not meet the definition of an "outdoor
recreation" use and it is a "tourist attraction", as defined in
the Zoning Code . A "tourist attraction" is not an allowed use in
the LC-10A zoning district .
The applicant' s own site plan review application, dated
October 17, 2011, referred to the project as a "tourist
attraction", even though the applicant had apparently already
received a determination from the Zoning Administrator, earlier
9 Determinations by the Zoning Administrator should be filed
with the Town Clerk' s office "within five business days from the
day it is rendered, and shall be a public record" . Town Law
§ 267-a (5) (a) .
10 There was a brief status update provided by the applicant
to the Planning Board at the March 20, 2012 meeting.
Zoning Board of Appeals 6 March 12, 2014
that year, apparently stating that the project was "outdoor
recreation"11. The applicant should be held to the
representations made in its application materials rather than be
allowed to rely on the incorrect determination made by the Zoning
Administrator.
The Zoning Administrator' s determination, which improperly
allowed the applicant to proceed to the Planning Board for site
plan review of a project that is not a permitted use, is
erroneous and must be overturned.
Even without a determination from the ZBA granting this
appeal, it is our position that the Planning Board cannot approve
the Zip-Flyer project in the current location because it would
violate the Zoning Code. See Zoning Code § 179-9-080 (B) ; see
also Zoning Code § 179-9-010 (C) (stating that the "Planning Board
is empowered to apply all of the requirements" of the Zoning
Code) . We will be presenting our position to the Planning Board
at its March 18, 2014 meeting. However, we have filed this
appeal to overturn the Zoning Administrator' s determination in
order to exhaust all administrative remedies. We hope that a
decision by the Planning Board will make this appeal moot .
Sincerely,
d4144
J(7.-
Claudia K. Braymer
Cbraymer @caffrvlawoffice. com
CKB/JWC
enc.
cc: Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator
Caroline Barber, Town Clerk
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Leah Everhart, Esq.
Michael O' Connor, Esq.
Suzanne McSherry (APA)
LGRV Park
11C_F_DATAlpublic\Client.Files\Lake George RV Park28041Queensbury\ZBA.appeal.wpd
11 It is unclear why the application materials were
inconsistent with the Zoning Administrator' s determination. It
may be that the Zoning Administrator' s determination was actually
ambiguous on this point, but we have not seen the March 21, 2011
letter.
I 7 - f2 .
PAUL E.PONTIFF BARTLETT,PONTIFF,STEWART& RHODES,P.C. RICHARD J.BARTLETT
ALAn R.RHODES Retired
ROBERT S.McMu.LEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PHILIP C.Mc1Nr1RE P.O.Box 2168
MARK A.LEBOWiT2 ONE WASHINGTON STREET ELLSABETH B.MAHONEY
J.LAWRENCE PALTROWIIZ JOHN D.WRIGHT
MALCOLM B.O'HARA GLENS FALLS,NEW YORK 12801-2168 JESSICA HUCABONE VINSON
PATRICIA E.WATK INS BRIAN C.BORIS
MARK E.CERASANO
BRUCE O.LIPINSKI TELEPHONE(518)792-2117 ROBERT S.STEWART
PAULA NADEAU BERUBE FAX(518)792-3309 1932-2001
JONATHAN C.CAPPER EMAIL info®bpsrlalvcom BERTRAM J.DUBE
BENJAMIN R.PRATT,.IR. WEBSITE wwtvbpsrlaweom 1916-1999
EILEEN M.HAYNES
JAMES R.BURxEr•
STEFANIE DILALLO BITTER
KARLA WILLIAMS BUETTNER
October 17, 2011
Chairman Christopher Hunsinger
Planning Board
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury NY 12804
Re: Bear Pond Ranch,LLC/French Mountain Bear Pond,LLC
Tax Map Parcel 278.-1-77 and 278-1-13
Dear Chairman Hunsinger:
Please be advised that our firm represents Bear Pond Ranch,LLC and French Mountain Bear Pond,
I,LC with regard to a year-round tourist attraction that is being proposed on parcels in both the Town
of Lake George and the Town of Queensbury. The parcels in Lake George that at are 277.02-1-59,
277.02-1-42, and 277.04-2-22. All of the parcels in total contain 260+1-acres.
The entire property will contain a festival area,restaurant and shops, a concert arena, stables and a
zip flyer. All of the main facilities for the tourist accommodation will be located in the Town of
Lake George. The only construction in Queensbury would be a tower and platform to support the
zip flyer's launch. The launch site will be accessed via the existing gravel drive and cul-de-sac.
Due to the fact that there is minimal disturbance in Queensbury we do not believe Stonnwater
Regulations are applicable. In addition, because of the minimal activity occurring in Queensbury
we are seeking waivers for both lighting and landscaping.No site lighting is proposed in Queensbury
Craig Brown has determined that the zip-flyer is a permitted use in this zone. The tower will be
lower than the trees behind it and therefore barely if at all visible. The launch site is located north
of and away from the rock face on the mountain. In order to assure that the SEQR review properly
encompasses the entire"action"occurring in both Towns, we request that a coordinated review be
conducted for this unlisted action.
• •
Please place this on the next Planning Board agenda. I have enclosed the Site Plan Application,Site
Plan, and Site Plan Fee. Please contact me or Attorney Stefanie DiLallo Bitter if you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART
& RHOD .,P.C.
r� I-
r
J•na . C. Lapper, 'sq.
ire• #: (518)832-6434
►it ct Fax#: (518)824-1034
P• ect E-Mail:icl@bpsrlaw.com
JCL:
cc: Ralph Macchio
Mike O'Connor, Esq.
Tom Hutchins PE
312039
• •
Site Plan Review Revised June 2009
Site Plan Review Application
REVIEW PROCESS:
1. Required Pre-submission meeting with staff to determine general completeness to be held no
later than 1 week prior to deadline day. Call (518) 761-8220 for an appointment
2. Submittal of complete application: 1 original and 14 copies of the application package by monthly
deadline.
3. Determination of application completeness. All necessary information must be provided and
appropriate fee(s) paid for consideration for placement on an agenda for that month.
4. Incomplete applications will not be considered for placement on any agenda until all missing
information has been submitted.
5. Submittal to Warren County Planning, if applicable.
6. Planning Board meeting, generally the third &fourth Tuesday of each month. You will be advised
in writing as to which meeting to attend.
7. Following the meeting you will be provided with a copy of the resolution stating the Board's
decision on your application. If your application was approved, the next likely step is a Building
Permit. Final drawings must be provided for the next phase of review, If your application was
denied your project cannot proceed as submitted.
DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS:
Please submit 1 original & 14 copies of the completed application package to include:
• Completed Application: pages 1-11 completed, signed & dated
• Pre-Submission Meeting Notes: signed by staff
• Copy of Deed
• New: Checklist& Plot Plan
• Fee 0 - 10,000 sf = $100
10,001- 30,000 sf = $250
30,001- 100,000 sf= $500
100,000 + sf = $1000
ZONING STAFF & CONTACT INFORMATION:
Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator craiolo queensbury.net
Keith Oborne, Land Use Planner keitho(a�queensbury.net
Pam Whiting, Office Specialist 518-761-8220 pamw(a�queensbury.net
Visit our website at www.queensbury.net for further information and forms
Town of Queensbury Planning Office- 742 Bay Road • Queensbury, NY 12804 •518-761-8220
1
•
• S
Site Plan Review Revised June 2009
General Information
Tax Parcel ID Number: 278 . -1-77 and 278-1-13
Zoning District: LC-10A
Detailed Description of Project [include current&proposed use]:
Construct a year-round tourist attraction supplementing existing facilities .
Location of project:
Off State Route 149
Applicant Name: :ear •on• •anc Address:. I eaman • ace
French Mountain Bear Deer Park NY 11729
Home Phone Pond, LLC Cell:
Work Phone bjl- i4d-uuu� Fax.
•
E-Mail:
Little & O' Connor, and
Agents Name: :ar e •on Address: -- ' • •
_ Stewart & Rhodes P.C. PO Box 2168 Glens Falls NY
Home Phone Hutchins Engineering . Cell: 169 Haviland Road
Work Phone 832-6434/832-6419 FaX Queencbury NY 12801
245-03.07
E-mail 824-1034/824-1019
745-0308•
Owner's Name . same as applicant Address
Home Phone Cell
Work Phone Fax
E-mail
Town of Queensbury Planning Office- 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 • 518-761-8220 2
• •
Site Plan Review Revised June 2009
Site Development Data
Area / Type Existing sq. ft. Proposed Total sq.ft.
Addition sq.
A. Building footprint
ft.
B. Detached Garage
C. Accessory Structure(s) 798
798
D. Paved, gravel or other hard surfaced area 63, 462 63, 462
63, 462
E. Porches/Decks
0 0 0
F. Other
0 0 0
G. Total Non-Permeable [AddA-F] 63 , 462 64, 260 64, 260
H. Parcel Area [43,560 sq. ft. / acre] ' , ' ; ' 4 , , • : • I , , I : ,
I. Percentage of Impermeable Area of Site [1=G/H] 0 . 60
0 .61 0 . 61
Setback Requirements
NOT APPLICABLE
Area Required Existing I Proposed
Front [1]
Front [2]
Shoreline
Side Yard [1] 100
256 '
Side Yard [2]
100 ' 1158 '
tcYard [1]
side 100 '
R3§gr Yard [2] 970 '
i:-
100 891 '
Travel Corridor
Height [max] 35 34 '
Permeability
95% 99 . 4% 99 . 39%
No. of parking spaces
Town of Queensbury Planning Office- 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804• 518-761-8220
3
•
Site Plan Review Revised June 2009
Additional Project Information
1. Will the proposal require a Septic Variance from the Town Board of Health? No
2. If the parcel has previous approvals, list application number(s):
unknown
3. Does this project require coverage under the NYS DEC Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program? Ye s
4. Estimated project duration: Start Date Spring ' 12 End Date (6 months)
5. Estimated total cost of project: $100, 00 0
6. Total area of land disturbance for project: 10, 4 0 0 sq f t in Queensbury
Floor Area Ratio Worksheet
NOT APPLICABLE
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) — The relationship of building size to lot size, derived by dividing the total
building floor area by the lot size in square feet, yielding a percentage.
Zoning District Symbol 'a �? Floor Area Ratio[FAR] . .y;,,
Waterfront Residential WR 0.22
Commercial Moderate CM 0.3
Commercial Intensive Cl 0.3
A. The combined area of all square footage, as measure from exterior walls of all structures on the property,
including all floors of the structures, garages, basements and attics with more than five (5) feet of ceiling height
and covered porches. Building square footage does not include: Open deck, docks and that portion of covered
docks extending over water and one storage shed of one hundred twenty (120) square feet or less. Any
additional sheds will be included. (See"FLOOR AREA RATIO").
B. Commercial or industrial: the total area in square feet as measured from the exterior of the outside walls of a
building or structure, and when applicable, the sum total of all floor areas of the principal and accessory
buildings or structures on the project site.
Parcel Area _ sq. ft.
Existing Floor Area ft. [see above definition]
Proposed Additional Floor Area sq. ft.
Proposed Total Floor Area sq.ft.
Total Allowable Floor Area (Area x )'see above table]
Town of Queensbury Planning Office- 742 Bay Road • Queensbury, NY 12804 518-761-8220 4
• •
S 179-9-080 Requirements for Site Plan Approval. Revised May 2009
unless it first determines that such site plan meets the folowing Standards. Please prepare tresponses to each of
the following topics.
•
STANDARDS •
•
A. The prcposed project furthers or is consistent with the policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
This proposal will allow for the construction of an additional tourist attraction to this area.
B. The proposed project complies with all other requirements of this Chapter, including the site plan review standards as set forth in
Paragraph F of this section. the dimensional, bulk, and density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located
(Article 3 and Table 1),the applicable requirements of all other Articles that apply.
Yes. All that is required is Site Plan Review.
C. The site plan encourages pedestrian activity internally and, if practicable, to and from the site with pedestrian paths or sidewalks
connected to adjacent areas.
The overall site plan accommodates internal circulation.
D. The site plan must conform to Chapter 136 Sewage and Sewage Disposal, Chapter 147 Stormwater Management Local Law, and
other applicable local laws.
The amount of disturbance does not meet the threshold required in the Stormwater Regulations.
E. the proposed use shall be in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this Chapter, specifically taking into account the location,
character and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed,the nature and
intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in
the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use
Tourist accommodations are encouraged in this area.
F. The establishment,maintenance and operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic,traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the town. Traffic access and circulation, road intersections, road and
driveway widths, and traffic controls will be adequate.
The project has been designed so that all of the traffic is managed off of Bloody Pond Road.
G. Off-street parking and loading facilities will be appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be
generated by the new use. The establishment of vehicle links between parking areas of adjacent properties are provided where
feasible. This furthers the Town's goal of reducing curb cuts and reducing congestion. A twenty-foot wide connection is required. If
adjacent properties are either undeveloped or previously developed without having made provision for future linkage, then a future
connection must be identified and provided for in the site plan under review for such future linkage when the time arises. The
Planning Board may require proof that the applicant has made contact with adjacent property owners for purposes of coordinating
linkages with adjacent properties.
Parking and traffic circulations are being addressed with this proposal. The Applicant has accounted for an overflow parking
area as well.
H. The project shall not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or
open space resources of the town or the Adirondack Park or upon the adequate provision of supporting facilities and services made
necessary by the project,taking into account the commercial, industrial,residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived
from the project. In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board shall consider those factors pertinent to the project
contained in the development considerations set forth herein under§ 179-9-080 of this chapter,and in so doing,the Planning Board
shall make a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in§ 179-9-
080 of this Article.
This modification will not have an undue adverse impact upon the he natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resources of the town
I. The provision for and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with
vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience shall be safe and adequate for pedestrian movement. Pedestrian connections
between adjacent sites shall be provided to encourage pedestrian use.
We feel that our plan provides for a pedestrian friendly site.
J. Stormwater drainage facilities will prevent an increase of post development drainage flows as compared to pre-development drainage
flows. Drainage of the site shall recharge ground water to the extent practical. Surface waters flowing off-site shall not degrade any
streams or adversely affect drainage on adjacent properties or public roads. Facilities shall be in conformance with the drainage
Town of Queensbury Planning Office- 742 Bay Road • Queensbury, NY 12804 518-761-8220
5
III ID
Revised May 2009
_ rds of Chapter 147 of the Town Code and the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations where applicable.
Exempt "" /14(4J 9
e water supply and sewage disposal facilities will be adequate and will meet all applicable and current requirements set forth by i i
Department of Health regulations and Chapter 136 of the Town Code.
Yes. Private Water and private septic. j
L. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening shall effectively
provide a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing
vegetation and maintenance,including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
The Applicant has requested a waiver due to the disturbance being mostly in Lake George.
M. Fire lanes, emergency zones and fire hydrants will be adequate and meet the needs and requirements of emergency service
providers
The Applicant is willing to work with the Fire Marshall with whatever he suggests.
N. The design of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas susceptible to ponding,flooding and/or erosion will minimize or avoid
such impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Applicant does not feel this will be an issue.
O. The site plan conforms to the design standards,landscaping standards and performance standards of this chapter.
Yes.
Town of Queensbury Planning Office- 742 Bay Road • Queensbury, NY 12804 - 518-761-8220 6
• •
179-9-050 Application for Site Plan Review Site Plan Review Revised June 2009
Application for site plan approval shall be made to the Planning Board using forms supplied by the Board. Application materials
and the site plan shall include sufficient information for the Board to make its findings under§ 179-9-070 and 179-9-080 below.
In determining the content of the site plan and supporting documentation, the Planning Board may waive certain requirements if
the Planning Board deems such requirements or information unnecessary for the type of project proposed. Any such waiver
shall be made in writing, and shall contain statements of the reasons why the waived information requirements are not
necessary for an informed review under the circumstances. The Planning Board may grant such waivers on its own initiative or
at the written request of an applicant. Such request shall set forth the specific requirements that are requested to be waived and
the reasons for the requested waiver. Absent any waiver or waivers, an application for Site Plan Review shall include the
following:
REQUIREMENTS Shown
on Sheet
A A vicinity map drawn at the scale that shows the relationship of the proposal to existing community facilities which affect or #
serve it, such as roads, shopping areas,schools, etc. The map shall also show all properties, identify owners, subdivisions, OVERA L
streets, and easements within 500 feet of the property. Such a sketch may be superimposed on a United States Geological SITE •LAN
Survey map of the area.
B The site plan shall be drawn at a scale of forty feet to the inch(1"=40 feet) or such other scale as the Planning Board may
deem appropriate, on standard 24"x 36"sheets,with continuation on 8%"x 11"sheets as nerpcsary for written information. OVERA L
The information listed below shall be shown on the site plan and continuation sheets. SITE 'LAN
C Name of the project,boundaries,date,north arrow,and scale of the plan.
D Name and address of the owner of record,developer,and seal of the engineer,architect,or landscape architect. If the SITE •LAN
applicant is not the record owner, a letter of authorization shall be required from the owner
SITE •LAN
E The location and use of all existing and proposed structures within the property, including all dimensions of height and floor SITE •LAN
area,all exterior entrances,and all anticipated future additions and alterations.
LAYO l
F The location of all present and proposed public and private ways,off-street parking areas,driveways, outdoor storage areas, •
sidewalks, ramps, curbs, paths, landscaping, walls, and fences. Location, type, and screening details for SITE PI
all wasti
containers shall also be shown. waste disposal
LAYOUT
G The location, height, intensity, and bulb type (sodium, incandescent, etc.) of all external lighting fixtures. The direction of
illumination and methods to eliminate glare onto adjoining properties must also be shown in compliance with§179-6-020. WAIVE
H The location,height,size,materials,and design of all proposed signs.
N/A
I The location of all present and proposed utility systems including:
1. Sewage or septic system; OVERAL
2. Water supply 1 system; SITE Pi •N
3. Telephone,cable, and electrical systems; and
4. Storm drainage system including existing and proposed drain lines, culverts, catch basins, headwalls,
endwalls,hydrants,manholes,and drainage swales.
J Plans to prevent the pollution of surface or groundwater, erosion of soil both during and after construction,excessive runoff,
and flooding of other properties, as applicable. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)for all land development N/A
activities (excluding agricultural activities) on the site that results in land disturbance of 1-acre or more. A SWPPP shall
comply with the requirements of the DEC SPDES MS-4 General Permit and Chapter 147 of the Town of Queensbury Code. It
shall be at the discretion of the Planning Board as to whether a SWPPP or an erosion and control plan shall be required for a
site plan review project land disturbance of less than 1-acre.
K Existing and proposed topography at two-foot contour intervals, or such other contour interval as the Planning Board shall OVERA L
allow. All elevations shall refer to the nearest United States Coastal and Geodetic Bench Mark. If any portion of the parcel is
within the 100-year floodplain, the area will be shown, and base flood elevations given. Areas shall be indicated within the SITE •LAN
proposed site and within 50 feet of the proposed site where soil removal or filling is required,showing the approximate volume
in cubic yards.
L A landscape plan showing all existing natural land features that may influence the design of the proposed use such as rock
outcrops, stands of trees, single trees eight or more inches in diameter, forest cover, and water sources,and all proposed WAIVER
changes to these features including sizes and types of plants. Water sources include ponds, lakes, wetlands and
watercourses, aquifers,floodplains, and drainage retention areas.
Town cf Queensbury Planning Office. 742 Bay Road • Queersbury, NY 12804 •518-761-8220
6
Site Plan Review Revised June 2009
M Land Use District boundaries within 500 feet of the site's perimeter shall be drawn and identified on the site plan,as well as OVERALL
any Overlay Districts that apply to the property. SITE PLAN
N Traffic flow patterns within the site,entrances and exits,and loading and unloading areas,as well as curb cuts on the site and
within 100 feet of the site. The Planning Board may, at its discretion, require a detailed traffic study for large developments or N/A
for those in heavy traffic areas,which shall include:
1.The projected number of motor vehicle trips to enter or leave the site,estimated for weekly and annual peak hour
traffic levels;
2.The projected traffic flow pattem including vehicular movements at all major intersections likely to be affected by the
proposed use of the site;
3.The impact of this traffic on levels of service on abutting public streets and at affected intersections. Existing and
proposed weekly and annual peak hour traffic levels and road capacity levels shall also be given.
0 For new construction or alterations to any structure,a table containing the following information shall be included: OVERALL
1. Estimated area of structure to be used for particular purposes such as retail operation,office,storage,etc.; SITE PLAN
2. Estimated maximum number of employees;
3. Maximum seating capacity,where applicable;and
4. Number of parking spaces existing and required for the intended use.
p 1. Floor Plans. N/A
2. Elevations at a scale of one-quarter inch equals one foot(1/4'= 1 foot)for all exterior facades of the proposed structure(s)
and/or alterations to or expansions of existing facades,showing design features and indicating the type and color of materials
to be used.
Q Soil logs,water supply well and percolation test results, and storm runoff calculations, as needed to determine and mitigate N/A
project impacts,
R Plans for disposal of construction and demolition waste,either on-site or at an approved disposal facility. N/A
S Plans for snow removal,including locations)of on-site snow storage. N/A
T An Environmental Assessment Form("EAF"), as required by the SEQRA regulations,with Part 1 completed by the Applicant
shall be submitted as part of the application. If the proposed project requires a special use permit and an EAF has been ATTACFED
submitted in conjunction with a special use permit application,a duplicate EAF is not required for the site plan application.
U If an application is for a parcel or parcels on which more than one use is proposed, the applicant may submit a single
application for all such uses provided the proposed uses are accurately delineated on a site plan drawn pursuant to the
requirements set forth above. The Planning Board may grant the application with respect to some proposed uses and not
others. For purposes of reviewing an application (and for SEQRA compliance) all proposed uses on a single parcel or on
contiguous parcels shall be considered together.
✓ A brief narrative statement on how the project proposed for review furthers or is consistent with the vision,goals and policies
in the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
Town of Queensbury Planning Office- 742 Bay Road • Queensbury, NY 12804 - 518-761-8220 7
• •
Site Plan Review Revised June 2009
Pre-Submission Conference Form [179-4-0401
1. Tax Map ID 278 • 1 77
2. Zoning Classification LC-IOA
3. Reason for Review: Site Plan Application
4. Zoning Section #: / 7 ' I
5. Pre-Submission Meeting Notes; Outstanding Items To Be Addressed Include:
Deed /Yes Yes ✓ No
General Information complete Yes
Site Development Data Complete V Yes No
Setback Requirements Complete Yes ;,/No
Additional Project Information Complete y/ Yes No
FAR Worksheet complete AV Yes No
Standards addressed Yes No
Checklist items addressed Yes No
Environmental Form completed Yes No
Signature Page completed Yes No
- ENv dor,/ ji�ucic%e�_ ,G 3
f}- 0 4JE.5i-a,' 5
- 62L3 /-�� & 7 / Q ti ti_B U F
/044e9 7/tit tu41 0.7 /N (3e2,6
6 f1
V r sv,9 L- '9-Bl =h,/
1)/36 Li! 5 /9'J 7C7,4 (7- r 4/ �2/1Sr� Pz. g j-/v /.Lvt
,N l�
�,2 P TO 52-4c-s,u L 4-,e,--7,4 i(JL 3
Gc'72 of= `
x? C"Lc7 c o/e/7b/.5G0_5 1/c-��
Staff Representative: Ade-
Applicant/Agent: / '" '1-47
, ff
Date: L l t/4/7/1
r/
Town of Queensbury Planning Office. 742 Bay Rcad Queensbury, NY 12804 • 518-761-8220
8
SEAR.mumEcTiommmt 617 .21
Appendix F
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
ART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project
ponsor)
1 . APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME
BEAR POND RANCH, LLC SITE PLAN REVIEW
3 . PROJECT LOCATION: WARREN
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COUNTY
4 . PRECISE LOCATION (STREET ADDRESS AND ROAD INTERSECTIONS, PROMINENT LANDMARKS, ETC., OR PROVIDE NAP)
OFF NYS ROUTE 149
5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION:
X NEW _ EXPANSION _ MODIFICATION/ALTERATION
6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: APPLICANT IS TO CONSTRUCT A TOWER IN QUEENSBURY WHICH WOULD SUPPORT
[HE YEAR ROUND TOURIST ATTRACTION IT IS CONSTRUCTING ON ITS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT LAKE GEORGE PROPETY.
7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
INITIALLY 260 ACRES ULTIMATELY 260 ACRES
3 . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
( YES _ No IF NO, DESCRIBE BRIEFLY
). WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
:ESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL X COIM7ERCIAL _ AGRICULTURE X PARR/FOREST/OPEN SPACE
ESCRIBE:
HE PROPERTY IS PRIVATE FOREST.
0. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER
OVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL) ?
X_ YES _ No IF YES, LIST AGENCY(S) AND PERMIT/APPROVALS
ARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND LAKE GEORGE PLANNING BOARD
1 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID A PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
YES NO IF YES, LIST AGENCY(S) AND PERMIT/APPROVALS
2 . AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION, WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS?
YES x No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
?PLICANT/SPONSOR NAME: BEAR POND RANCH, LLC. DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2011
CGNATURE:
JO 1.HAN LAPPS ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
'art II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESNT (To be completed by Agent
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617. 12? IF YES, COORDINATE THE REVIEW
PROCESS AND USE THE FULL EAF.
YES NO
B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6NYCRR, PART 617. 6? IF NO,
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY ANOTHER INVOLVED AGENCY.
YES No
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (ANSWERS MAY BE HANDWRITTEN, IF
LEGIBLE)
�l. EXISTING AIR QUALITY, SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER QUALITY OR QUANTITY, NOISE LEVELS, EXISTING TRAFFIC
?ATTERNS, SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION OR DISPOSAL, POTENTIAL FOR EROSION, DRAINAGE OR FLOODING PROBLEMS? EXPLAIN
3RIE FLY:
:2. AESTHETIC, AGRICULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORIC, OR OTHER NATURAL OR CULTURAL RESOURCES; OR COMMUNITY
R NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY:
'3. VEGETATION OR FAUNA, FISH, SHELLFISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES, SIGNIFICANT HABITATS, OR THREATENED OR
NDANGERED SPECIES? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY:
4. A COMMUNITY'S EXISTING PLANS OR GOALS AS OFFICIALLY ADOPTED, OR A CHANGE IN USE OR INTENSITY OF USE OF
AND OR OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY.
5. GROWTH, SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT, OR RELATED ACTIVITIES LIKELY TO BE INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION?
{PLAIN BRIEFLY.
i. LONG TERM, SHORT TERM, CUMULATIVE, OR OTHER EFFECTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN Cl-05? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY.
' . OTHER IMPACTS (INCLUDING CHANGES IN USE OF EITHER QUANTITY OR TYPE OF ENERGY)? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY.
IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?
YES No IF YES, EXPLAIN BRIEFLY.
RT III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To BE COMPLETED BY AGENCY)
INSTRUCTIONS: FOR EACH ADVERSE EFFECT IDENTIFIED ABOVE, DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS SUBSTANTIAL, LARGE,
'ORTANT OR OTHERWISE SIGNIFICANT. EACH EFFECT SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH ITS (A) SETTING (I.E. , URBAN
RURAL) ; (B) PROBABILITY OF OCCURRING; (C) DURATION; (D) IRREVERSIBILITY; (E) GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE; AND (F)
NITUDE. IF NECESSARY, ADD ATTACHMENTS OR REFERENCE SUPPORTING MATERIALS. ENSURE THAT EXPLANATIONS CONTAIN
FICIENT DETAIL TO SHOW THAT ALL RELEVANT ADVERSE IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.
CHECK THIS BOX IF YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED ONE OR MORE POTENTIALLY LARGE OR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH MAY
OCCUR. THEN PROCEED DIRECTLY TO THE FULL EAF AND/OR PREPARE A POSITIVE DECLARATION.
CHECK THIS BOX IF YOU HAVE DETERMINED, BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS ABOVE AND ANY SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION, THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND PROVIDE ON ATTACHMENTS AS NECESSARY, THE REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
NAME OF LEAD AGENCY
PRINT OR TYPE NAME OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICER IN LEAD AGENCY TITLE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
SIGNATURE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICER IN LEAD AGENCY SIGNATURE OF PREPARER (IF DIFFERENT FROM RESPONSIBLE OFFICER)
DATE
58
•
Site Plan Review Revised June 2009
Signature Page
This page includes the 1.) Authorization to Act as Agent Form: 2.) Engineering Fee Disclosure; 3.)Authorization for
Site Visits; 4.) Other Permit Responsibilities; 5.) Official Meeting Disclosure and 6.) Agreement to provide
documentation required.
OWNER'S AGENT FORM:
Complete the following if the OWNER of the property is not the same as the applicant
Owner: Bear Pond Ranch, LLC/ Ralph Macchio
Designates: Bartlett Pontiff Stewart & Rhodes P.C. and Hutchins
As agent regarding: Variance X Site Plan Subdivision Engineering
For Tax Map No.: Section Block Lot
Deed Reference: Book '-ge Date
OWNER SIGNATURE: • , chr . f/ 21.1 ArE: I J) 17 j it
APPLICANT'S AGENT FORM:
Complete the following if the APPLICANT is unable to • end the meeting or wishes to be represented by another
party:
Owner:
Designates:
As agent regarding: Variance Site Plan Subdivision
For Tax Map No.: Section Block Lot
Deed Reference: Book Page Date
OWNER SIGNATURE: DATE:
2.) ENGINEERING FEE DISCLOSURE: Applications may be referred to the Town consulting engineer for review of septic
design, storm drainage, etc. as determined by the Zoning or Planning Department. Fees for engineering review services will be
charged directly to the applicant. Fees for engineering review will not exceed$ 1,000 without notification to the applicant
3.) AUTHORIZATION FOR SITE VISITS: By signing this page and submitting the application materials attached herein, the
Owner, Applicant, and his/her/their agent(s) hereby authorize the Zoning Board or Planning Board and Town Staff to enter the
subject properties for the purpose of reviewing the application submitted.
4.) OTHER PERMIT RESPONSIBILITIES: Other permits may be required for construction or alteration activity subsequent to
approval by the Zoning Board or Planning Board. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain any additional permits.
5.) OFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES DISCLOSURE: It is the practice of the Community Development Department to have a
designated stenographer tape record the proceedings of meetings resulting from application, and minutes transcribed from
those tapes constitutes the official record of all proceedings.
6.) AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED: I, the undersigned, have thoroughly read and understand
the instructions for submission and agree to the submission requirements, I acknowledge no construction activities shall be
commenced prior to issuance of a valid permit. I certify that the application, plans and supporting materials are a true and
complete statement/description of the existing conditions and the work proposed, and that all work will be performed in
accordance with the approved plans and in conformance with local zoning regulations. I acknowledge that prior to occupying
the facilities proposed, I or my agents, will obtain a certificate of occupancy as necessary. I also understand that I/we may be
required to provide an as-built survey by a licensed land surveyor of all newly constructed facilities prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy
I have read and agree to the above.
Sign-lure yApplican Print Name[Applicant] Date signed
11/
Si d ature [' sent] Print Name [Agent] Date signed
Town of Queensbury Planning Office• 742 Bay Road • Queensbury, NY 12804- 518-761-8220 11
(Queensbury PlannoBoard 11/17/2011)
•
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 17,2011
INDEX
Subdivision No.8-2005 Mountain Hollow H.O.A.
TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No.300.-1-19 1.
Site Plan No.3-2010 Irene Marshall
2.
TABLING REQUEST
Tax Map No.289.14-1-28
Site Plan No.71-2011 Lafontaine's Ice Cream&Grill, LLC 3.
Tax Map No.295.12-1-3
Site Plan No 72-2011 Dennis&Nancy Defayette 5.
Tax Map No.289.7-1-40
Site Plan No. 54-2011 Hospitality Syracuse 6.
Tax Map No.309.13-2-2,3
Site Plan No. 76-2011 Great Escape Theme Park,LLC 14
Tax Map No.288.20-1-20
Site Plan No. 77-2011 Bear Pond Ranch, LLC;French Mountain 28.
Bear Pond, LLC
Tax Map No.278.-1-77, 13
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planr Board 11/17/2011)
•
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 17,2011
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER,CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD KREBS
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
BRAD MAGOWAN,ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I will call to order the meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board on
Thursday, November 17, 2011. We have two administrative items. Before we get into the
agenda, just for members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. I
think all of our projects have public hearings scheduled. There's also a handout there for public
hearing procedures, and I'll talk about them later when we get into the public hearing. The first
item on the agenda is Subdivision 8-2005.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SUBDIVISION 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA-FOR FURTHER TABLING
CONSIDERATION
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR.HUNSINGER-Was there any update from the correspondence that was in our packets'?
MR. OBORNE-Not much to report. Obviously we got a letter from November 8th from Mountain
Hollow H.O.A., Mickey Hayes, basically, and they're still waiting on the City of Glens Falls to
respond. They have not responded yet.
MRS. STEFFAN-So should we table that to January?
MR.OBORNE-I think that that would probably be prudent,to be honest with you,Jon. Does that
work for you?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I can just quickly respond.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just identify yourself for the record.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. The County DPW approved the plan. The City
Engineer asked for some additional engineering design work that was submitted about a month
ago. They wanted some water tests. which Tom Nace, who's also here tonight, did and
submitted to the City. So everything that the City asked for is there and we're waiting hopefully
for a permit. Hopefully it's getting there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then why don't we table it to the 26`^. Okay. I've got January meetings
on the 17th and the 26th. Is that correct?
MR.OBORNE-The 17th or the 24th.
MRS.STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion to table.
RESOLUTION TABLING SUB#8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A.
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address existing and
proposed improvements to the site that were not part of the original approval. Modifications to
an approved subdivision require Planning Board review and approval;
1
1,
(Queensbury Planroard 11/17/2011) •
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And for the record,we will pursue and use the EIS to satisfy that requirement.
MRS. STEFFAN-That's a document, probably,the engineer didn't have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR, HUNSINGER-And as with any, if there's an issue that can't be resolved, you can always
come back to the Board for clarification.
MRS.STEFFAN-Okay. So the motion stands.
AYES: Mr.Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs.Steffan,Mr. Magowan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. HOLMES-Thank you.
MR. MARTINEAU-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED BEAR POND RANCH, LLC; FRENCH
MOUNTAIN BEAR POND, LLC AGENT(S) LITTLE & O'CONNOR, BARTLETT, PONTIFF
STEWART & RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT
ZONING LC-10A-LAND CONSERVATION 10 ACRES TAX LOCATION OFF STATE ROUTE
149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 3,450 LINEAR FOOT ZIP LINE
EMANATING ON LANDS IN QUEENSBURY AND TERMINATING ON LANDS IN LAKE
GEORGE; TOTAL ELEVATION DROP OF APPROXIMATELY 770 FT. PROPOSED.
OUTDOOR RECREATION USES IN A LC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 43-06, SP 15-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING
11/9/2011 LOT SIZE 74.18& 169 ACRES TAX MAP NO.278.-1-77, 13 SECTION 179-9
JON LAPPER& MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 77-2011. This is for Bear Pond Ranch, LLC. This is Site Plan
Review for an outdoor recreation use in the LC zone. This is, location is off State Route 149.
Again, the existing zoning is Land Conservation 10 acres. SEQRA status is Unlisted for this
subject here. Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 linear foot zip line
emanating on lands in Queensbury and terminating on lands in Lake George; total elevation
drop of approximately 770 ft. proposed. Zip line to be accessed by previously installed logging
roads as described under parcel history. Staff comments: It is noted in the narrative dated
October 17, 2011 that the statement "Due to the fact that there is minimal disturbance in
Queensbury we do not believe Stormwater Regulations are applicable". Although staff
somewhat agrees with this statement, disturbance may be greater than expected with the
likelihood of blasting and subsequent stockpiling anticipated. Further, road bed preparation will
need to be accomplished to accommodate truck traffic associated with the project. The
Planning Board should require additional information including detailed construction sequencing
and existing infrastructure upgrades. Upgrades would include submittal of existing and
proposed stormwater controls for the access road. It is noticed that additional road work has
been performed by the applicant without proper review. Further to this, what are the plans for
the movement of patrons to the launch site? What follows is soils, and I think your trip up the
mountain,you pretty much got a flavor for what the soils are doing up there. We're talking about
ledge intrusions and the like, and what follows is Staff comments, and I think my only real issues
is access; the access road, and potential for blasting. I would appreciate clarification on the
blasting aspect, if at all. I'm not sure. I am picking that up based on the profiles of the footers in
the application itself, and the location that there is a certain level that they need to be in, and
with the knowledge that there's ledge pretty much on the whole site, there's no groundwater
issues here obviously, but clarification on that would be fabulous. Also, visuals are really not
represented well with this application, and again, the applicant has provided Office of Parks
Recreation and Historic Preservation sign offs and endangered species, and just to come
around full circle with the endangered species, this has to do with the rattlesnake den, what was
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
•
it, 1932 when it was last reported I believe, and that will always perpetually come up over time,
when projects on French Mountain come up, and Fire Marshal and Town consultant engineer
comments are attached. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Hi. For the record, Jon Lapper with co-counsel Mike O'Connor and Torn
Hutchins, project engineer. This is a procedurally interesting project because it's partly in
Queensbury and partly in Lake George, and we did attend the Planning Board meeting on
Tuesday night, before I rushed back to your Planning Board meeting to introduce this in Lake
George. The project. in total, is essentially a way to try and make Wild West Ranch a little bit
more viable,a little bit more relevant. It's pretty quiet,what's there now, and you probably know
that they had the Last of the Mohicans show this summer which was successful. not a huge
crowd, but a successful project,and in general they're trying to increase the ability of the bottom,
for the Lake George part of the project, to handle more people for festivals, for some small
concerts, and like the show that they had, make the restaurant more popular, increase the
parking, and there's a stormwater plan associated with the new impervious surface in the Lake
George part. On Queensbury, it's a way to do what we all consider a green tourist project. I
know that you've already looked at the West Mountain zip line, and this is the same idea, with
one tower at the top, four lines going down the mountain. In this case, because there's the
existing logging road, it seemed that the best way to design this was to put the platform and the
one tower as close as possible to that existing road so that it wouldn't have to be any
disturbance. It wasn't so much a way to avoid having to do a storrnwater plan,as a way to avoid
disturbance and just keep everything the way it is. Mike did have Dave Wick from Soil and
Water Conservation District go up and take a look at the road and, in terms of whether it was
disturbed and whether it could handle the traffic, which is small vehicles, and we have a letter
that we just recently got from him saying that he was very comfortable with it,with the size of the
road, the ability of the road to handle this. We know that there are going to be visibility issues,
and in talking to Keith, he asked us to prepare a Visual EAF addendum which we, even though
this is an Unlisted action which we did,we submitted that to Lake George. It was done after the
submission deadline for Queensbury. Tom's done photo simulations, The basic point on
visibility is that, which was in the cover letter, that the pole itself, the tower will be not as tall as
the trees behind it. I know you were all up there. We'll paint it black, camouflage,whatever this
Board ultimately determines, but you won't see that against the skyline because of the trees
being behind it and taller. So what's really being built there is just this one platform and the four
wires, and we're not saying that it's going to be an invisible project, but we're saying that it's so
far from where receptors are that it's really not going to be very visible,and we'll certainly spend
time talking about that,but it's a way to take advantage of the fact that that road is there and get
tourists up there,and hopefully this will be a successful tourist attraction for Lake George and for
Queensbury. So,that said, by way of introduction. when we went to Lake George,they passed
a resolution seeking Lead Agency status. This doesn't have to have a coordinated review. This
can be, because it's Unlisted, each town could do their own independent review. It seemed to
us that it was smarter and safer for one of the towns to do a coordinated review to look at the
impacts of the entire project, but, you know, that's where they came out, and if you decide to do
it differently,we'll abide by however you want to handle it, but that's the discussion that we had
with them, and they passed a resolution seeking Lead Agency status, and if you agree with that,
they've scheduled a public hearing for next month on SEQRA to get started. We're not trying to
push this through quickly. We're just trying to work through it, and, you know,whatever it takes
is fine, but,for Ralph, he needs to make more use of the property,mostly at the bottom, and this
is the whole plan, in terms of laying everything out for SEQRA,this is everything that he's got on
the table. Most of it happens at the bottom, but he thinks that the zip line is going to be pretty
exciting, and hopefully existing tourists will come more often than they're coming now to use
that. So, you tell us how you'd like to proceed. We could have Tom go through, in terms of
where the existing road is, how it's going to work, exactly where the facilities are. It's pretty
simple. It's pretty straightforward, but we could go through that if you'd like and answer any
questions.
MR. KREBS-Tom already took us for a ride on the side of the mountain. So I think we pretty
much already know where the road is and.
MR.TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-The only comments I'd make,for the purpose of your record, is that there is no
planned blasting for this. So the Staff comments with regard to that, I would answer them in that
manner. The preferred way of anchoring this tower that's at the top of the, or just short of the
top of the mountain, is to dig down to hard rock and then drill and pin it That makes it a better
anchor, and when we talk about the tower up there, we talk about 34.5 feet set into the trees, a
29
(Queensbury Plannir oard 11/17/2011) •
background of trees, on the Queensbury side, or back end of the tower,as opposed to the Lake
George side, which would be the exposed side. We will then come down to the road with the
wires, and the wires go directly to the base, but across the road, on the Lake George side, will
be a platform from which the riders will begin their dissent. So they're two small pieces of
construction that are done up there. One is the tower, which is above the road, and then on the
lower side of the road, the Lake George side of the road, is the platform from which the riders
get into their harnesses and then go down, and as Jon said, they've tried to make everything so
that there'd be the least disturbance up there. I think the total area of disturbance is 10,100 feet,
about a quarter of an acre. and that allowed,that was a conservative estimate based upon what
we thought we'd need for construction. The area toward Lake George will have some trees cut.
and maybe I'm getting into detail, if you've already seen that or not, we've got the plans. We
know of no additional roadwork. We know that there's a history on this site. There was a
settlement agreement that was signed by the Town Board and the Macchio family and their
entities, and that agreement has two points I would make. One, it said that neither party
admitted that they had done any wrong, neither the Town, in its attempt to make enforcement,or
require permits, which was challenged, or the Macchio's in doing the roadwork that was done.
Both parties said they simply wanted to move forward, and a second point of that agreement
was they adopted a plan that gave a road plan that was acceptable to the Town, supervised by
Wick, as far as the actual installation of it, and that has all been accomplished. Since that work
was done, there's no additional roadwork that's been done, except for ordinary maintenance,
and it has been maintained, and the stormwater that came with that road, those facilities have
also been maintained on a regular basis by the Macchio family.
MR. LAPPER-I think at this point we should point out, because you were up there, you can see
that that,since we're talking about the road, how much it's filled in from what the original cut that
was done by the loggers, that it's really now like a 12 foot wide road in most places,just over the
last few years, and obviously there's nothing that is being proposed now that would disturb that,
so that the sides of the road are going to continue to grow, and it's just the gravel drive
approximately 12 feet wide.
MR. O'CONNOR-The last point I'd make is that, again,to Staff comments,there is no proposed
additional roadwork. That's why we also had Dave Wick go up and make an inspection of it,and
I think you have his report, that he was satisfied with the road in its present condition. He
thought it was in the best shape,that everything had grown back to the widths that the Town had
wanted, and that he was satisfied that it would support proposed traffic that we would have for
this facility that we hope to construct. So there is no blasting. There would be no storage of
shot rock. There will be no additional roadwork, other than ordinary maintenance,and there has
been no work since the agreement that was reached with the Town, which provided lengthy
detail as to how the road would then be maintained or finished, and that's the way it was done,
and everything,all the banks would be stabilized and what not.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, from my point of view, the greatest visual impact, I believe, is
in the Town of Queensbury. So, you know, from my point of view, I think that, you know.
Queensbury should have Lead Agency, but that's my perspective. The other thing that I'm
concerned about, and I understand the Macchio's need to enhance their property and that kind
of thing, they own the property, but the thing that I'm concerned about, and I'm pleased that you
are providing a Visual EAF addendum, because I think that that's important. Because one of the
reasons why people come here, this is a tourist area, and one of the reasons why folks come
here,from like Metropolitan areas, for example, is to come to the mountains, and I have a great
concern about development on mountainsides, even though this is a recreational use We
approved one in our Town at the ski resort at West Mountain, but we thought that it was an
amusement use, you know, on a recreational property, and it was a good fit. In this particular
situation, you're looking at running a zip line, and, you know, in my mind. I've tried to visualize it
in camouflage, you know. you can do lots of things with paint,and how it would disappear on the
mountainside, and I don't see it disappearing on the mountainside, and so I see the mountain
with a big scar on it.a permanent scar, if this goes in, and so.you know, it's not that I don't think
its a good idea. It is an amusement area, and it's a fun thing to do, but at the same time, I'm
very concerned, because one of the reasons why people come here is to see the beautiful
mountainsides, and if we put something like this on it, that you can see from the Northway, I
don't know whether it's the right thing to do. That's my opinion.
MR. LAPPER-I think our response is to talk about, in detail, about just what trees, to minimize
what has to be cut. exactly where it is,what the perspectives are, how it phases away from what
you look at when you look at the rock face,that it's not on the rock face. So, I mean, I don't think
that anything that you've said, Gretchen, is inappropriate. It's just that we need to get into some
of the details and talk about it, talk about design, and make sure what's proposed is the best
way to do it.
30
. i
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Because some of the cross sections indicate that it's going to be above tree
line, like in the lower portions. I'm not talking about the higher portions, and when we did our
drive around. I asked specifically the agents for the applicant,you know,are you sure that this is
going to be below the height of land, when you look at a mountain, and you've got the tree line
at the top of the mountain, I wanted to be sure that this would be below the tree line at the top of
the mountain, because the last thing I would ever want to see is somebody to have to cut a
notch out of the top of a mountain to put something like this in.
MR.LAPPER-We'll go through all that because you're right to ask that.
MRS. STEFFAN-And, you know, if it's going to be above tree line, as the line comes down and
tries to intersect with, you know, the base lodge,you know, if it stands so far over the tree line,
then I don't know how it wouldn't stand out. So I have some concerns about that. That's why I
think that the EAF will be a very good thing for us.
MR.TRAVER-Yes, I think there's 400 feet, if I recall,of clearing from the platform.
MR. CAPPER-That's right.
MR. TRAVER-Before the wire goes above the tree line. So, 400 feet is not an insignificant
distance. Although it's not terribly wide,either,as I recall.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thirty-two to forty feet. We needed 32 feet. We need 32 feet for the four
cables, and we've said 40 feet to be conservative, because it's always going to be a little bit
rough.
MR. TRAVER-And with regards to the 400 feet, I know that that needs to be, certainly all the
larger trees need to be completely cleared from that area. Over time there might be some
growth that would return underneath. Obviously it would have to be maintained.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it would be probably at least 20 years before it would be significant enough
to make a difference.
MR.TRAVER-Exactly right. Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-We've said that we would leave the undergrowth and only take out the trees
that would provide a problem.
MR.TRAVER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we certainly are amenable to talking about even putting in more
undergrowth at a level that,you know,it's not going to be the same height as the other trees,but
it would provide the coloring of the other trees,and when we talked to the Lake George Planning
Board, they were suggesting that we put trees behind the upper tower, so that we are sure that
we don't create an opening in the sky behind it. I mean, this is a T type tower. It's not four
towers that go up.
MR.OBORNE-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we were very amenable to that.
MR.OBORNE-But that's the anchor tower. though.
MR.O'CONNOR-The anchor tower.
MR.OBORNE-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So, you know, and that's certainly one of my greatest concerns. that the
ridgeline is protected.
MR. O'CONNOR-The ridgeline. I can tell you,will be protected. There's no way that you aren't,
from some places, going to be able to see the four cables, as they do daylight and they do go
down the side of the hill, but they're going to look like transmission cables.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-What color are the cables?
MR. O'CONNOR-Stainless steel.
31
(Queensbury PlannBoard 11/17/2011) •
MR. KREBS-But, you know, as I look at it, you know, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but
when I stood there on the mountain and looked across, I see Prospect Mountain where they
have cut out part of the mountain, to make a parking lot at the top of the mountain, and that's a
major attraction to bring people to the area
MRS. STEFFAN-So that they can look at Lake George.
MR. KREBS-So they can look at Lake George. Exactly. So what I'm saying is that sometimes
when you change motif, it improves the opportunity for people to come and see the lake. I
generally don't want people clearing, but I can see eventually that maybe people, even if they
don't want to go on the zip line, would love to go up in a lithe automobile and go to the top of the
mountain and get to see what we saw.
MR. LAPPER-No chickens. If they get up there, they've got to go down. No chickens.
MR. O'CONNOR-Exactly. There's not a return ticket.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was actually one of my questions is how many, well, a couple of
questions. How many gators will they use? And how many trips do you anticipate in a day? Do
you have any idea?
MR.HUTCHINS-Four to five vehicles at a peak time has been the number of discussion,
MR.LAPPER-That hold four passengers,approximately.
MR.HUTCHINS-That hold,yes,four passengers.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's actually one of my concerns as well, and I know it's not part of this
application that's before us, but having snow mobiled through that, on that trail and through that
area, and having ridden up,when we did our site visit, one of my concerns is that the plan in the
application, with the gators and so on to transport people up there is going to end up being
insufficient, in terms of the number of riders per hour, and therefore there's going to be a
compelling, the applicant is going to feel compelled to improve upon the passenger
transportation system, if you will, to get people up there more easily or quicker or whatever. I
think if, in my own mind, and again, visiting the site, if the circumstances were different, I would
think it would be a better solution would be to have like a chairlift or something to take people
up, rather than a long and bumpy ride up this so far unimproved road.
MR. LAPPER-Part of the answer to that is that it takes a while for the harness to travel back up.
So it's just not happening that fast that you're just putting them on and zipping down, you know.
You come down and then the harness has to go up. So it just, it doesn't accommodate that
many people an hour.
MR. O'CONNOR-The other thought, too, is that by bringing them up by vehicle, it's less visibility.
MR.TRAVER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And if you brought them up in a chairlift setting, on a retrieval system where
they went back up.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You'd have to have towers.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, no. I don't think you need towers the way that this is built, I'm told, but it
would be a slow process. They don't, they're going to come down that line in approximately a
minute, a little bit more than a minute. They reach speeds up to 50 miles an hour, or can reach
speeds up to 50 miles an hour depending upon weight, but to go up the mountain, those people
would be very visible. The guy wearing the red jacket,the guy wearing the,whatever.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, a chairlift and a zip line are two different theories. I mean, we say towers
because every ski resort I have,unless you went with a, like a gondola, which,you know.
MR. O'CONNOR-We will have the developer for the ride here, okay, and he can explain that to
you, but my understanding is that there is a second vehicle that is with the other(lost word)that
can bring the people back up, but it's a cable system. They don't install towers.
MR. HUTCHINS-What I think Mike's referring to, there is a version of this ride that they build that
you start at the bottom and you strap up and they take you up on the same zip line,and then let
you go. So he's not referring to a separate chairlift, and I think you folks were.
32
1111
s
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR.MAGOWAN-All right.
MR. HUTCHINS-But there is a version of this where you start on a bottom pole up and come
down.
MR. SIPP-Is this going to be a year round, in other words you're going to operate in the
wintertime also?
MR.HUTCHINS-No. Most likely no.
MR. SIPP-You're going to cut them off when?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you can't get up the mountain.
MR.TRAVER-Well,and I think,too,that it's an open air ride, and it wouldn't be too comfortable.
MR. LAPPER-Yes,it would be too cold on your face.
MR.awful lot of erosion. Those ditches that are Spring or
nowla e nnot going road, going to have an
to hold it
MR. O'CONNOR-We were on the road, immediately after the hurricane storm came through,
and all that stormwater held up. I was.
MR. SIPP-For one vehicle.
MR. O'CONNOR-It hasn't digressed at all since then, and there've been a number of vehicles
that have been up there.
MR. SIPP-Yes,but not at that time.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, okay. The ride is weather dependent, and there are certain restrictions
as to when you can put people on it,from a safety point of view, and we can get that explained
to you probably in detail. The Department of Labor, we understand, supervises these things,
and they have certain standards as to when you shut down and don't shut down. So, you're not
going to have people up there during a storm.
MR. SIPP-I don't care about the people. What I'm concerned about is the road.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if we don't have to have people up there, we aren't going to have
anybody on the road.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but I think what you mean,Don, is just that's not.
MR.SIPP-Are you going to operate after a large thundershower?
MR. O'CONNOR-The roads are going to need regular maintenance as it presently does.
MR. SIPP-You don't have much soil to work with up there. That's why you don't have any huge
trees. In an uncut forest, for the past 100 years,they get to a certain height, about 40 feet, and
they start to die off because they can't get enough food to sustain, out of that thin soil. Now,
when you cut these trees on the top,where you have to cut them because the cable is below the
tree line, you're going to have to fill in with something that's going to hold the soil in that area.
and on the road also.
MR. O'CONNOR-We're very amenable to do that, below the area where you're talking about, in
that path that we cut. We don't want to get in there and have any significant soil disturbance.
The plan is to have the trees cut without heavy equipment,so that there is no disturbance.
MR. SIPP-That's easy to do, but we still don't have that much soil to put anything in there,
except that wild growing juniper or something,you know,to keep it down below the cables.
MR.O'CONNOR-We're amenable to that.
MR. SIPP-You're still going to see it. There's no way you're going to camouflage that part of it.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Is that to scale? Because I think you said the line is 3400 feet,or 3450?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
33
(Queensbury Plannii Board 11/17/2011) III
MR.SCHONEWOLF-And only 400 feet of its in Queensbury?
MR.TRAVER-No,400 feet is the tree cutting.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Of the line,total line, how much is in Queensbury and how much is in Lake
George?
MR. MAGOWAN-About half of it.
MR. TRAVER-About a third.
MR. HUTCHINS-Twelve hundred feet in Queensbury. of 3400.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-That pink line is 1200 feet?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I can understand why Lake George wants to be the Lead Agency. I
can understand that. I don't have a problem with it, either.
MR. O'CONNOR-And they've started the process and asked that it be coordinated review, and
this is very similar to your property that you had with McPhillips. I'm sure they're aware of that
decision, so they cite those reasons why they think that the review should be done in Lake
George, and I don't think there's much that distinguishes this from that,to be honest with you.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that was a log landing, though. That was a little bit, we could debate
that.
MR. O'CONNOR-As I said, all traffic, you know, and the sanitary facilities, actually more of the
road is in Lake George than is in Queensbury,the access road.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it starts in Lake George and it ends in Lake George.
MR. LAPPER-Because really it's the parking lot and the stormwater part that's really more of the
disturbance,that's all down at the bottom.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, that's Lake George's problem.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the visual is in Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-But the visual is in Queensbury.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that's a big deal to us.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Well, you might be standing in Lake George when you see it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You won't see it from Queensbury because you'll be on the other side of
the mountain.
MR. O'CONNOR-There's very little surrounding Queensbury where you're going to see this.
MRS. STEFFAN-Gurney Lane.
MR. O'CONNOR-Gumey Lane is behind it. Gurney Lane is to the south of it
MRS. STEFFAN-What's the Lake George side of Gurney Lane,where it switches?
MR.LAPPER-Goggins.
MRS.STEFFAN-Goggins Road.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's Lake George.
MR.HUNSINGER-Do you have to get APA approvals?
34
. *
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. LAPPER-We've submitted for a non-jurisdictional letter. We expect it'll be non-
jurisdictional.
MR. OBORNE-That needs to be part also of the SEQRA aspect of it, as far as it being an
involved or interested agency. So, I mean,that's typical.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Not if they give that non-jurisdictional.
MR. OBORNE-If they give that NJ,you're good. Obviously.
MR.O'CONNOR-And if they take jurisdiction,there will be no(lost word).
MR.OBORNE-That is correct.
MR.HUNSINGER-It would just be the APA process.
MR. LAPPER-Which is like a superseder.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess the question that I have is if the Town of Lake George is the
Lead Agent, I mean, you already heard probably the most significant concern we have is the
visual impacts, you know, how much of a say or discussion we would have in any mitigation of
those visual impacts.
MR. LAPPER-Well,part of it is SEQRA,and part of it is Site Plan.
MR.HUNSINGER-Site Plan.
MR. LAPPER-So you still have, we know that we have to settle up with you and make this as,
the best visual that we can and talk about mitigation in Queensbury.
MR.HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-But the SEQRA would be one SEQRA, and the simple answer is, as an involved
agency, if they're Lead Agency, you would send them a letter saying here are the issues we
want to make sure that are covered.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now, in terms of the visual impact, have you identified locations where you'll
have,where you'll be able to see the?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Keith had asked us, and we prepared and we submitted to Lake George, I
don't know if that was included in what you got from them, a visual impact assessment with
photo renderings.
MRS.STEFFAN-No,we didn't get that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I sent you a letter yesterday.
MR.OBORN E-Yesterday?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR.OBORNE-No, I haven't received that.
MR. LAPPER-You might not have gotten it yet.
MR.O'CONNOR-We have a copy of the letter.
MR. LAPPER-We measured, you know, four miles from Prospect Mountain. We did identify
where you could look at it,the distance from the Northway are all on that form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, because when we were up there, I mean, clearly there were
sections of the Northway that will have a visual line of sight. Clearly there's sections of Route 9
you'll be able to see it.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Clearly there's a house you can see.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No kidding.
35
(Queensbury Planroard 11/17/2011) al
MR.SCHONEWOLF-The biggest house around.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is in the Town of Lake George.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly. Unfortunately.
MR. LAPPER-The design was to try and mitigate visual impacts, and we know that, you know,
that's what we have to work out with you.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just remember how visible the road was when it was cut, this so called
logging road. I remember how visible that was, and that was cut in the woods, This will be on
top of and then cut in the woods. So,it will definitely have visual impact.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you have much less ground or much, yes, you will have much less
ground disturbance in this. The ground disturbance where they did the cuts for the, before they
had them stabilized and re-grown, I think is the visible part that you had. There's two different
parts of that road system where they actually took the logs directly down the hill. They planted
evergreens, and you saw the growth on those evergreens. They've been there three years or
something like that, and all of that brush along the side of the roads was part of their planting.
So you can repair,and they did repair what was there.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I agree. I mean, that was done because you were going perpendicular
to the grade, and that needed to be changed, but certainly at the top of the mountain, I mean,
it's, there's very little soil, so, but there are species that will grow, and, you know, camouflage is
always a good thing,too.
MR. O'CONNOR-The only direct view you have is almost from their property, when you talk
about views from the Northway, you're going to be looking sideways at the hill for the most part.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,it's a fairly narrow cut.
MR. O'CONNOR-But you're also going to be looking at it from a side. You're not going to be
looking at it dead on.
MR.TRAVER-Right,but what I'm saying is the narrower that gap,the.
MRS. STEFFAN-You see the whole thing.
MR.TRAVER-Exactly.
MR. OBORNE-Leaves do fall off trees, though. Not to be rude. but.
MR.O'CONNOR-The pictures we submitted are winter pictures.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well,that's good.
MR.O'CONNOR-Some are winter,okay, Mr. Lapper. Some are winter, some are summer.
MR. MAGOWAN-Tom, I have a question. The height of the platform, take off platform from that
to the ground, I see you have the safety catch net for take off and that. What is the height of that
platform from there to the ground? I see the elevation to the top of the pier, but.
MR. HUTCHINS-The next sheet might, it's roughly 15 feet, because we're maintaining 15 feet
from platform to clear.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm asking what we can do to make that maybe look like a ledge instead of a
pier. Because we have. I mean, like I said, if you're going to clear this and then you're going to
come up,we're all worried about the tower, but you're also going to see the face of this because
there's four lines. So that platform is.
MR.HUTCHINS-Seventeen feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-Just 17 feet?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-16'6", 17.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HUTCHINS-From 1305. See, if you go all the way to the left there's an elevation sketch.
It's 1305 from grade there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-One and a half stories.
MR.MAGOWAN-The width of the platform is 37 feet, correct?
MR.HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-You look on the next page. So what I'm saying is. you know,you're cutting the
40 foot swaths,so we've got a platform that's 37 foot. What can we do that, since we're going to
be clear cutting, you know, or not clear cutting, removing the taller trees to make the zip line,
what can we do to blend all that in, you know, with a low growing shrub, but to fill in that face
underneath the catch net and that, you know. maybe with fiberglass rock or something. Make it
look like a ledge or something, so it would hide it more.
MR.HUTCHINS-We could address everything on the platform below the,at that exposed face,a
number of ways,with camouflage netting.
MR. MAGOWAN-Only thing with netting is it's eventually going to deteriorate and fall down.
What I'm trying to do is, you know, to make it blend in with the. you know, when we looked
down,say,we could do this,you know.
MR. O'CONNOR-You could take, eight, ten foot shrubs and put them in front of that platform,
establish something like a planter so that they would have adequate soil to sustain themselves,
and that would be something that you would be able to, you know, by landscaping, keep it a
level that's not going to interfere with anything. but you could take out half of that easily or better
than half of that, 17 feet,with something decent that would look green,and if the platform itself is
black, you stand down on the Macchio ranch and we've got a pretty good idea of where this is
going to be on the mountain, and my eyesight's not the best in the world, but you have trouble
picking out something and say,okay,that's 36 feet or that's 32 feet, and I know what it is. If you
were above the tree line, then you've got to flag that you're looking at, but you keep everything
above the tree line, and it's very difficult on that face. You've got 3,000 feet that you're looking
at with just your eyesight, and you're trying to get into this narrow width. There's a couple of
trees up there, and it's probably an example of when you, if you go back out to the sight, there
are a couple of trees up there that probably have a branch width in excess of 40 feet, and you try
and figure out that tree, from that site down there, and without binoculars or something of that
nature, it's very difficult. but we understand what you're talking about. We don't want to have
something that's going to be visible.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I agree with you, and I can see that, because I was there on the visit and
we did look. This is my concern. You have to have mountainside. You come across, you're
looking at an angle, and all of a sudden it dips down, like this, and then it goes lower, you know.
It's not like we're, it's not like you're cutting it back at a "V" an bringing it down. It's going to
come over and then drop down and then be low underneath. So my attitude is what can we do
to visually make that blend in so maybe it looks like a rock ledge or something that, you know, it
belonged there. That's all I was trying to.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would suggest we do plantings, and we could work up a planting plan, and
we've got to see exactly, I don't think we need the clearance on the cables, and this we've got to
talk to Sean,the fellow that designed this thing. I don't think we need the same clearance on the
cables on the south side of the road which just go back to the anchor,as we do on the north side
of the road. So we can even do something there, so that you don't have that visibility. I don't
think, when you say you have to come down, you're still going to have the trees behind the
upper part that are going to stay there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, no, I was, I did see that, I know the trees,and you've suggested, or Lake
George did, planting more trees behind it. I think that's an excellent idea, to fill that in, and that
will close that gap a little bit more,but like I said, still, I,you know,with my eye,that's what I see,
the tree line coming down, cut down, and then the low shrub and the platform. So the more we
can blend that platform and the low-lying shrub in altogether to make it look like the natural land
is all I'd.
MR.O'CONNOR-We don't have a problem with that.
MR. OBORNE-Would you want to see something from the applicant in a facsimile or some type
of rendering that shows something along those lines? I mean, that's certainly something you
can ask for to belay your fears.
37
(Queensbury Plann�oard 1111712011) III
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that would be good, because I, you know, I've looked at it many times
now from the Northway. Unless I stop on the Northway, I can't pick out the exact spot. What I'm
going to be able to see is reflection, light reflecting off the cables. That will lead my eye to it, but,
driving along the Northway at 50 miles an hour,which nobody does, there's no way in hell you're
going to pick that spot out. It's just not going to happen.
MRS. STEFFAN-Both northbound and southbound? You won't be able to see it northbound or
southbound?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You won't be able to see it either way, and I've been up that mountain for
forest fires, and I thought I knew,when I was up with you guys, I thought I knew exactly where it
was. I can see that rock up there, that's over to the side, yes, I can see that, but I would venture
an opinion that the only thing I'm going to be able to see is the light reflecting off the cables.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it'll stand out more than you believe.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if you can do a simulation of it, a video simulation like we did for the
Traveler's building,you could probably show us that.
MR. SIPP-I mean,you've got a notch that you've got 40 feet.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but there's a lot of notches up there, too. I mean, if you look at it
when you're that far back.
MR.MAGOWAN-But they're natural notches.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-They weren't man made notches.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. and that's why, see, to your point here, if you make, if that
view looks natural and that looks behind it, you're going to have a hard time trying to see, you
won't even see it.
MR.SIPP-It'll blend,but you don't want the erosion that it's going to cause.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you mentioned bringing in soil and stuff like that, you know, if we bring in
soil and, you know, it's all rock, what's going to hold that back? So, you know, do we water jets
and some trees out of stainless steel and paint them,you know, low ones that don't grow.
MR.O'CONNOR-Frankenpines?
MR. MAGOWAN-No, not like a Frankenpine,but,you know.
MR. O'CONNOR-We think we can come up with plantings.
MR. HUTCHINS-I think we can come up with a plan to show natural screening.
MR.HUNSINGER-Go to Lowe's and buy artificial Christmas trees.
MR. MAGOWAN-I didn't say it right maybe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the rendering that we're looking for, the rendering of the project, is it color,
what is it,what is it to show?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they did a video simulation is what they did. Did any of you guys see
that? You did.
MR.LAPPER-That was expensive and involved and.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Yes. it was.
MR. LAPPER-Not that it can't be done, but maybe we'll start out with.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, maybe it's not necessary to do it,but something on that order.
MR. OBORNE-Can you start with a static simulation,a simulation at this point?
38
• •
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR.TRAVER-Yes, I don't know that we need video. but I think it would be helpful to have visual
renderings at different distances at different seasons, and I think showing the project as it would
appear right after construction. I've seen renderings that show, I can remember a commercial
property where we got some visual renderings given to us, and it turned out that they were
hypothetical visuals of what it would look like 10 years after the construction was over. I think
we need to see what the greatest amount of visual impact would be, which would be right after
construction.
MR.MAGOWAN-And going on the theory of lights,too,hours of operations. Dusk to dawn?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-They don't want to operate in the dark. This is scary enough.
MR. MAGOWAN-There's some thrill seekers out there that might want to do it in the dark,with a
helmet light.
MR.LAPPER-Yes,but not the insurance company.
MR.TRAVER-Right.
MR.HUNSINGER-Any other questions,comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-It hasn't been specifically laid out, but you asked, somebody asked on the
Planning Board whether it would be year round. I'm assuming it's like a seasonal, like Memorial
Day to Fall?
MR.O'CONNOR-We believe it's seasonal,weather dependent.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR.LAPPER-We'll have the designer here to talk about that in detail.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,we also discussed that on our site visit,too.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm assuming, you did mention colors, and you talked about, I know that we
talked about that a little bit when we while we were up there, but are you proposing any color
schemes? You mentioned camouflage or whatever,but earth tones.
MR. LAPPER-Someone suggested black or camouflage, but we'll really leave that open to
suggestion. I know that it's scheduled for a public hearing, but I think you guys can't do anything
until after there's a SEQRA determination, and usually when there's a coordinated review, it
comes to you,without a public hearing,just so, someone has to make that determination about
Lead Agency, and then it has to go to SEQRA before it can come back and be considered,
because there has to be a SEQRA determination.
MR. OBORNE-We'll discuss that here in a little bit, because one scenario could acknowledge
tonight. So I don't know what the Board's going to do.
MR.O'CONNOR-This is a copy of the Lake George letter. Do you have that yet?
MR. OBORNE-I have not gotten that, no. I was told all they set was the public hearing today.
That's all that I was told,but that wasn't from Rob. That was from the secretary.
MR.O'CONNOR-Well,they lay out,that's signed by the Chairman of their Board.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR.HUNSINGER-I'll read it, how's that, and then I'll give it to you,for the record.
MR.OBORNE-That would be fabulous. I appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's addressed to the Town of Queensbury Planning and Zoning Office.
"Gentlemen: Please be advised that the Lake George Planning Board has undertaken SEQRA
Review for the Site Plan Application filed in the Town of Lake George and the Town of
Queensbury for the above tax parcel." Which are listed. "At its regular meeting of November
15,2011, the Lake George Planning Board determined the proposed action was"Unlisted"and
that a Coordinated SEQRA should be conducted. The Lake George Planning Board further
adopted a resolution that it seeks to be Lead Agency. The basis for the request of status of Lead
Agency was: All traffic will impact Lake George only. All visual impacts, if any, will impact Lake
39
(Queensbury Plannllw!Board 11/17/2011) •
George only. All requirements for parking and sanitary facilities will impact Lake George only
Existing access roads are predominantly in Lake George. Disturbance areas in Queensbury in
minimum. Please consider this Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency by Lake George. Please
respond within the required 30 day time period as soon as possible. The Lake George Planning
Board, anticipating your response, has scheduled a Public Hearing for December 6, 2011.
Sincerely, Keith Hanchett, Planning Board Chairman" I think it would be pretty easy to argue
some of the comments that they make. I mean, you know, traffic certainly won't impact Lake
George only. If you're driving up Route 9, you're going to go through Queensbury to get to Lake
George,but that's okay.
MR.OBORNE-I think that's probably relegated to the site itself.
MR.HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the visual impacts, I do not agree with that statement at all.
MR.MAGOWAN-I'm with you on that one. The visual I think is more us than them.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Visual's the only one you can really argue. There is visual impact from
Queensbury, but that's the only place you can see it from, in my opinion. I can't see it from Lake
George.
MR. TRAVER-And the greatest disturbance is in the Town of Queensbury as well.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-That's right. That's what I said, there's visual impact.
MR. TRAVER-So our choices are either to also seek Lead Agency status.
MR.HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-To accept, to acknowledge them as Lead Agency status, right, those are our only
two choices?
MR.HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Well, no, you have other choices also. You can also do an uncoordinated
review. I've run that through Counsel. They don't want you to do that. I want you to do that, but
they don't want you to do that. So I suggest that you don't do that, and obviously you can
acknowledge Lead Agency, and with that NJ letter from the APA, that 30 day clock would stop
pretty quickly, to be honest with you. You do have a crack at it, obviously, with Site Plan
Review. You have that. So obviously you're going to have to figure out, the Board's going to
have to figure out if they, does this reach the level where you want to be Lead Agency? Keep in
mind that that will now have to go to the DEC Commissioner and that'll slow the project down.
MR.HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Which is not the intent of SEQRA. So there are some things that you do have to
(lost word),but I'd also remind the Board that you do have a public hearing tonight,too.
MR.HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Well,aside from the issue that's created by having it go to the Commissioner, I do
think we should be Lead Agency. I think we have the greatest impact, without a doubt, and also
the greatest long term impact because of the effects of the tree cutting, the 400 feet of tree
cutting. I mean, the impact in Lake George, they're going to have a tower and some associated
installations at the base, but that's in an existing developed area. The area in Queensbury, it
currently is undeveloped, other than the pre-existing, nonconforming road, and so now we're
taking 400 feet of trees and cutting them down, and putting a platform, and we don't expect
there to be a need for blasting,but.
MR. OBORNE-Well, obviously that's a decision the Board will have to make.
MR.HUNSINGER-Right. How do other members feel on the Lead Agency?
MR. LAPPER-What they were talking about,just very quickly, was that because it's a whole big
parking lot and stormwater facilities, and the festival area. So they weren't just looking at the
mountain. They were looking at everything that's going to be done, with bulldozers on the Lake
George side, that's what they were talking about, but of course, yes,zip flyer is just part of it, but
of course it's your call and we'll abide by whatever you decide.
40
•
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Right,and they're concerned with those things because they're in their town.
MR.HUNSINGER-Right.
MR.TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Would you see this from the outlets? You know how when you're at the outlets
when you're coming up Route 9 and you're at the outlets?
MR. LAPPER-No, it's on the other side of the mountain.
MRS. STEFFAN-But its on the front side of the mountain.
MR.TRAVER-It's on more of the northern side.
MR. LAPPER-It faces Lake George.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I know, I was up there, but I just.
MR.HUTCHINS-You can see the mountain from the outlet, but this is on the other side.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,it's more toward the northerly face.
MR. LAPPER-Yes,right.
MR.O'CONNOR-I honestly think that, I think the Town line is just before the Teepees.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and if you sat on Route 9 at the teepee's, you've got to look back over
your shoulder to see where this is going to be. I don't know if there are many properties at all
that are in the Town of Queensbury that are going to have a sight of this.
MR.LAPPER-Because it faces north.
MR.O'CONNOR-It faces north. Even the property that is immediately behind this,up on the top
of the mountain,will probably not have a sight of this. There's 200 some feet to the property line
behind us.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Some people on Bloody Pond Road might see it.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's Lake George.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, most of it is,yes, you're right. All of it is,you're right.
MR. O'CONNOR-All of it's Lake George. That was the issue with the McPhillips thing. You
argued about visibility there, and they said it'll be visible, but it will be visible to the people in
Lake George. I mean all the photos that we have from the pier down by the, what's the park
there that the pier's?
MRS. STEFFAN-Shepherd's Park?
MR. O'CONNOR-Shepherd's Park. We got it from there. We got it from the intersection of 9N
and 9L. We've got it from the Northway. All of those sites,which are the areas where it's most
visible, most likely to be visible, are all in the Town of Lake George. That's why it was placed on
the side of the mountain and not at the ridge of the mountain,to avoid that issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Personally I feel comfortable with Lake George as the Lead Agent, because I
think the concern for Queensbury is,or even though we talk about visibility,for us it comes down
to site plan, because the site plan are the issues that we need to deal with in Queensbury.
MR. SIPP-I think we've got to protect ourselves, because that portion of the mountain may not
be visible to us, but I think it's a prime state of erosion possibilities that are going to make it
visible to us. even though it may be in the Town of Lake George, it's going to be visible from
Route 9 and the Northway. If you don't do anything with that road,or,well.
41
(Queensbury Plann oard 11/17/2011) 0
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The road's there now. They're not going to do anything with it, with or
without the plan.
MR.SIPP-Yes,but if you get a washout through there,they're going to have to do something.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think, Don, the question then becomes, in order to address those
concerns,as the Town of Queensbury, do we need to be Lead Agency? And I'm not, although I
think our being Lead Agency is warranted, I don't think it's required because as the Chairman
pointed out,the site plan aspect of it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. Also the Town has the agreement on that road. So, not us.
MR.TRAVER-The road as it stands today.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-As it stands today.
MR. OBORNE-In Queensbury.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-In Queensbury. That's correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well. maybe what we could do is open the public hearing and see if there's
members of the public that want to speak. Are there any written comments, Keith?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. OBORNE-There are, but that representative is here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience that wants to address the Board
on this project this evening? Okay. We have at least one person. I don't know if you were here
a few minutes ago when I introduced the other public hearing. If you could just state your name
for the record and address your comments to the Board.
DAVID KING
MR. KING-Yes. Hello. My name is David King. I'm President and CEO of Lake George RV
Park here in Queensbury. My family has owned and operated that facility for over 45 years. We
own over 250 acres directly adjacent to the properties where this project is proposed. We're
huge advocates of tourism. We bring over six to seven thousand families here a year,and have
traditionally for over four decades. So when a project comes up that can help enhance the
tourism experience of our guests to this region,we're traditionally advocates, people that want to
back this. So my concerns of this project obviously are the location proposed for this. We talk a
lot about the visual impacts. Not many people are visually impacted from 200 feet from their
property line, except me. The applicant indicates there shouldn't be much visual impact from
guests that use my mountain trails. Now we've maintained hiking trails up this mountain, too,
since the park was built in 1966. This is one of the features that we market as part of the
camping experience in our facility. Our guests leave our park over our bike trail, which adjoins
the Warren County Bike Trail, and from there they access the trail head just north of the Colonel
William Monument, and they follow a well marked, well cleaned, well maintained trail up to the
top of the mountain. There's probably few property owners that spend as much time nurturing
the natural aesthetic of that mountain than our facility has over the last 45 years. When a cell
tower was proposed here about 15 years ago, I was not opposed to bringing the technology to
the mountain, you know, offering those new services to our guests, but I was concerned about
the visual and aesthetic impact to this natural environmental corridor. I am forever in view of
that cell tower. You can't be in my facility without seeing the entire tower from a good portion of
my facility. There are no other residents in the Town of Queensbury the way my property was
affected,and the over 6,000 families that visit this region every year were affected, So when we
come up on another project that we say, well, it's not going to affect many people in
Queensbury, well, that may be true. You might not see it from the outlet center and you may
only see a small cut through from the Northway, but for the hundreds of families that make that
hike up the mountain, we have to be mindful of how that affects their experience, which is part of
the experience we've marketed. Now I wish the Macchio's well with their endeavors. but I
question, too, is a zip line attraction consistent with the theme of the operation. I'm in the
business, too. So we have a lot of attractions in our facility. Playgrounds and bike trails and
swimming pools and trolley buses and indoor theaters and all of that, and it's very consistent
with the resort experience we offer. We have Adirondack Extreme. We have a West Mountain
proposed property. Bromley Mountain does an excellent job of that. All those sites, the impact
is very different there, because they're already being used for those recreational purposes, you
know, they're specifically designed for that use. I'm mostly concerned about changing the
character of the mountain. We talk about visual impact, but we haven't talked at all about
42
• •
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
audible impact. Now if you've ridden the zip line, it makes some noise. It's an odd noise. It's
not a noise you normally experience in nature. It's not unpleasant,necessarily, but if you had 20
riders an hour going down there all day, you're going to hear this zzz, zzz sound,which is going
to impact a hiker's experience in the woods, that might be listening for birds, that might be trying
to bond with the natural environment. So I am concerned about that. Gators, too, typically
aren't the quietest transportation vehicles. I use them on my property for landscaping. We can't
even operate them in the park before 9 a.m. in the morning because guests sleeping with young
children won't have it. So. I have some experience with these vehicles. They do make noise.
The noise carries. The erosion issues are a concern because if you're running that many
gators,four to five vehicles an hour all day long, even though they're going to maintain the road,
that would be a concern as well. So there are a lot of concerns here. My biggest thing is we
need to have a visual impact. We need to look at how this tower is going to look from my
property line. We're only 150 to 200 feet away, but, you know,from what I. I know the property
pretty well. It's going to be visible. No question about it. If you take a hike up the mountain,you
walk to the rock face where you can see the park from, and that's what a lot of the guests want
to do. They want to go up to the top. They want to look to the south. They want to see the
campground they stay in. Then they want to look towards the north to Prospect and see the
view. They don't want to see a structure. A structure, no matter what we do to surround it by
trees, no matter what we do to camouflage it or paint it, I'm reminded this past September
Hurricane Irene came through this area. It took over 120 trees down in our property. I have
places where I would have never thought I'd see a building or another structure, that I can see
now, because of the domino effect of that storm. When one big oak tree came down and it
leveled 40 other trees, a structure that may not be visible from the design of this project, after a
horrendous storm, could be visible forever from every direction. So we have to be mindful that
we're working in a territory on a mountain where there's never, ever been a commercial
operation like this. There's no precedent on this mountain, where the southernmost of the
Adirondack mountains, we call it the gateway to the Adirondacks, in our marketing. So the
expectation of a guest coming to this region is to, you're at the foothills of the Adirondacks, the
Adirondacks being this wilderness preserve, not necessarily a commercially developed area,
and we don't have a lot of gondola rides. We don't have a lot of ski resorts in our area. The
most intrusive development is on Prospect where there is a highway,as you mention,and that is
a great attraction, but let's not forget that that mountain itself, in its existing state, as a place to
recreate on foot,without any commercial manmade development is an attraction as well, and as
time goes on, that attraction actually becomes more special, because as more development
occurs around us, it's the preserved areas that become truly for the generations forward the
most special attractions,those that we preserve for nature. So I do have concerns, and I would
ask the Board that they make efforts for the applicant to provide visual impact drawings from our
property line as well, because it's said as though there wouldn't be much, but I think there could
be significant impact there. Management oversight is another big thing here, because it's
remote and there's no other operation at the top of the mountain. Trash and unsupervised
visitors to this area,there'll be a curiosity factor here. There'll be people that don't want to ride
the zip line, but just want to kind of check it out, want to go up and watch the people ride down.
It's very difficult to monitor as a property owner on that mountain, you know, non-authorized use.
I believe this operation will create a very, a lot of curiosity by people that live in the region and
other visitors that'll just want to go up there to just see what it is. With that,there could be a lot
of extra trash. There could be a lot of other negative impacts. I worry about other forest fires,
other things that could happen if we have this new use on the mountain. It's just a concern I
have. It could be monitored, but it would take a lot of man power and a lot of people to monitor
and assure that that is maintained properly to avoid those risks. Thank you for your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS.STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Sir, excuse me. I had a question. You heard our discussions about the whole
SEQRA review process, and can you just clarify for the record the impacts on the property that
you're talking about, your property. Is that in the Town of Queensbury or the Town of Lake
George?
MR. KING-It's in the Town of Queensbury.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. KING-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
KATHY BOZONY
43
(Queensbury Plannoard 1 1/1 71201 1) •
MS. BOZONY-Good evening. Kathy Bozony, office of the Lake George Water Keeper. Chris
has actually, Chris Navitsky, the Water Keeper, has actually reviewed this file, and I'm just going
to share some of the comments that were submitted. A lot of them have to do with the
stormwater on the road that was put in for the logging operation. The existing road has never
been reviewed, Site Plan Reviews for this proposed use. The issues that are raised regarding
the construction and use of this existing logging road proposed for construction use with the
current Site Plan application since 2006. Logging road violated the original condition of
approval granted on September 20, 2005 by the Town of Lake George Planning Board, which
was to have Warren County Soil and Water flag the buffer areas prior to any timber harvesting
and for a 20 foot buffer was to have been provided. In fact, road construction operations were
conducted in and through the stream meant to be protected. It was stated in a February 17,
2006 correspondence from Tom Jarrett, Professional Engineer, to the Town of Lake George
Planning Board that the "old trail/road is being upgraded to a forest road ..." On April 4, 2006,
Mr. Michael O'Connor, representing the applicant. stated to the Town of Lake George Planning
Board "The road was put in to facilitate the logging operation." Also does not appear that the
proposed road ever received adequate review by the Town of Queensbury due to violations,
Stop Work Orders issued and subsequent legal actions. Clearly, the intent of the road has
always been stated to be for logging and has never received proper Site Plan Review for
anything but a logging road. If a change in use from silvicultural activities to commercial use is
proposed, this must require a site plan review for the road including detailed stormwater
management plan from pre-developed conditions. Compliance with previous conditions of
approval must be verified. The Town of Lake George Planning Board amended the original Site
Plan Review Application with a condition "that the area delineated on the plan submitted be
revegetated to the satisfaction of Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District"on April
4, 2006. This was in an attempt to provide a buffer on the existing stream and to correct a
violation of the project, and we haven't seen any proof that this was actually done to satisfaction.
A Jurisdictional Inquiry has been sent to the Adirondack Park Agency, which we just heard
tonight,for the proposed project as well as compliance with the existing APA Permit(Permit 97-
25). The APA issued a permit for the commercial use and tourist attraction known as'Wild Wild
West". This pen-nit contained conditions that may restrict some of the proposed activities of the
current proposal including: Condition 3. No construction of building or structures and no new
land use or development as defined in Section 802(28) of the Adirondack Park Agency Act
which is not expressly authorized by the permit ... shall be undertaken without an additional
Agency Permit. Condition 7., which doesn't necessarily have to do with Queensbury, but No
vegetation may be cut, culled, trimmed, pruned or otherwise removed or disturbed north in the
forested buffer and west of the four new corral areas, and Condition 9. Parking shall be
accommodated on-site and shall not exceed 232 vehicle capacity shown on the plans. The
plans indicate approximately 800 parking spaces proposed with all these additions to the site
and the majority in the Town of Lake George. The applicant must coordinate the proposal with
the APA and comply with the existing permit for the proposed use,which will be the first sight as
people enter the Adirondack Park from the south. Stormwater management should be submitted
for all improvements associated with the proposed use on this road. Again, compared to pre-
existing conditions since a major stormwater management plan has never been available for
public review and comment. The Planning Board should carefully review the visual assessment
for the proposed use. Development and disturbance activities at the site have already altered
the existing tree line and ridgeline. A notch is visible from the Northway as well as the existing
road that is constructed straight up the mountainside. That's Chris' comments, and you do have
a copy of that as well. One of my questions is, I believe I heard that there was 10,100 square
foot of disturbance that was being proposed, and from discussions it looked like 400 feet was
being cut, 32 to 40 feet wide, that's 16,000 square feet. So I'm not sure where the 10,000, and
then my other concern is I guess I visually don't know what happens after that 400 feet, between
the 400 feet all the way to the total of the 3450 feet of the line. What happens? Are there trees
that are being removed, or are you literally 100 feet in the air above those treetops? So there
will be no cutting of any kind between, you know, the 400 and to the bottom of the line? That's
the case? Okay.
MR.TRAVER-As proposed.
MS. BOZONY-That's what was my concern. Thank you. I appreciate that.
MR.HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Anyone else?
MR.OBORNE-Kathy, did you receive my e-mail from this morning?
MS.BOZONY-Yes.
MR.OBORNE-Okay.
MS. BOZONY-The concern is from the Lake George Park, not the water shed, necessarily.
44
• •
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll conclude the public hearing for this evening. Were there any
other written comments, Keith?
MR.OBORNE-There are no other written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you get a copy of the Water Keeper letter?
MR. OBORNE-I did. It's in the file.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.O'CONNOR-We have not gotten a copy.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Honestly, we hadn't contemplated the walking trails on Dave King's property at
the top, and that's something that whether plantings or, you know, I mean, we just didn't think
about that there would be hikers that that might not want to see what you might be able to see
for 250 feet of the tower, but that's certainly something that can be looked into when we do our,
you know. rendering, and if it turns out that the buffer or the boundary between the two
properties needs to be augmented, I mean, there's nothing that the applicant's not willing to do
to,you know, that's reasonable to try and address visual issues.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.LAPPER-It just never dawned on us.
MR. O'CONNOR-The tower that we're talking about, too, and just so we don't get too far away
from what the actual application is, is a T tower,and as I understand it,the height of the bar that
goes across is three feet, and the pole is three feet in diameter,too,and that's what we hook the
cables into. You're not talking about a 36 foot massive structure or like one of these erector set
type cell tower. So it's not going to be that difficult, if we have some,to try and camouflage that.
So I'd just make that point. The other point I would make I guess is that maybe Kathy is not
aware, we're aware of the APA permit and the conditions of it. I think there are two permits in
play. One is 1995-25 and 1997-299, and then they were amended. Both of those were
amended in 1997, and all they did was make it 1997-299A and 25A. That's what the APA does.
Those permits did not involve the land in the Town of Queensbury. They were for permits
involving the lands of Beadland. The parcels that we have in the Town of Queensbury were
parcels that were purchased by the Macchio family,and I don't have the date right in front of me,
I think in 1965, '67. They were purchased from old John Stranahan. So they're not necessarily
part of that project. The other thing is, the, and I'm not sure why, but if they're not aware of it,
the actual settlement agreement between the Town and the Macchio families was signed after
the work was principally substantially completed, and at that point, the Town Board went and
inspects the work, and with the guidance from David Wick at the time signed off on it, saying that
this is how it would be settled, subject to the final supervision David Wick. That did take place.
Recently when we were on a site visit with Keith, I think it was with Keith and with Craig, he
asked when was the last time that Wick was up there, and I said I didn't know. So I called him
and asked him to go do another inspection, and that's why you have this report. You should
have that in the packet that came to you. So I think all those issues are old issues, particularly
based on his report that he thinks that the road will support what we propose to do. The
difference in Kathy's confusion as to the square footage, the 10,100 square feet, and Tom can
correct me on this, is the area of disturbance or the soil disturbance or possible soil disturbance.
All of it's not going to be disturbed,but that's where that launch pad's going to go,that little area,
and the anchor tower. The 16,000 square feet is not going to be disturbed. There's going to be
a cutting in that area, but the ground and the root system is going to be left in place. It'll be done
without heavy equipment so we don't grind up everything and cause erosion and what not. So, I
think it's just a matter of understanding the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the decision that the Planning Board needs to make this evening is
how we want to approach SEQRA. Then obviously after that then we would table this, pending
resolution of the Lead Agency status.
MR. O'CONNOR-We would prefer to have coordinated review, because we don't want to get
involved with arguments about segmentation.
MR. OBORNE-I echo that. I mean, the uncoordinated review, in my estimation, is off the table,
unless the Planning Board wants to resurrect it.
45
(Queensbury Plann111,oard •1111712011) •
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think your counsel has rendered an opinion that once an agency has
asked for coordinated review,another involved agency can't do uncoordinated review.
MR. OBORNE-Well,there's no legal precedent for it as well.
MR.O'CONNOR-Well,his feeling of interpretation and intent.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-So the question boils down to whether we want to contest Lead Agency status.
MR.HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think from what was presented by the applicant, what we know of the
plans, and we had additional public comment, I still feel, and even perhaps more strongly, that
the greatest disturbance is within the Town of Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-But unless other people feel, saying that, I also acknowledge that not being Lead
Agency does not mean that we have no control over development.
MR.HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Obviously we have Site Plan and so on, but I do think, to me,absent the decision
already by, the resolution already passed by Lake George, it makes more sense for us to be
Lead Agents.
MR.HUNSINGER-Other members?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-A coordinated review, isn't that easier?
MR.OBORNE-Well, it would be a coordinated review, but there has to be a Lead Agency.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Well,who's going to be Lead Agency?
MR. OBORNE-That is the nature of.
MR.HUNSINGER-That's the issue,yes.
MR.OBORNE-And it's a decision that DEC makes, the Commissioner specifically.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-You can put your input, you know, typically when you do your response, and if
you consent to Lead Agency, you then lay out your concerns that you want them to specifically
address in their SEQRA review, and then there's nothing that prevents you from having people
attend their public hearings and knowing fully well what's going on and being involved.
MR.OBORNE-And conversely,Lake George can do the same thing.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I think Lake George is relying upon the McPhillips case, but I don't want
to get involved with a delay here.
MR.OBORNE-We don't want to open that one up again.
MR.HUNSINGER-Right.
MR.OBORNE-The McPhillips case is what I'm talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's an awfully lot of similarities between the two, I think, you know.
Other members want to comment? Would you like to make a motion, Steve?
MR.TRAVER-Would I like to make a motion?
46
•
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Yes. I'll make a motion.
RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP#77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH
Tax Map ID 278.-1-77, 13
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 linear foot zip line emanating on lands in Queensbury
and terminating on lands in Lake George;total elevation drop of approximately 770 ft. proposed.
Outdoor recreation uses in a LC zone require Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD APPLY FOR LEAD
AGENCY STATUS IN A COORDINATED REVIEW SITE PLAN 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH,
LLC / FRENCH MOUNTAIN BEAR POND RANCH, LLC, Introduced by Stephen Traver who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Sipp:
Duly adopted this 17"'day of November,2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs. Mrs. Steffan,Mr. Sipp
NOES: Mr.Magowan,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr.Hunsinger
MR.HUNSINGER-So it's four to three.
MR.OBORNE-The Planning Board is now seeking Lead Agency status.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we need to identify the reasons for why we should be the Lead
Agent?
MR. OBORNE-If you wish to. Certainly that could be generated and sent on to you or actually,
you voted in the negative. I think Steve may want to issue that, because he's the one that
started the.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I'd be happy to sign the letter, now that the Board has taken the
motion,I certainly have no problem signing the letter.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,I can work on some draft language and send that around.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. When do we need to get that out?
MR. OBORNE-ASAP. Because you want to have the courtesy of giving that to the Planning
Board in Lake George.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but when you say ASAP, is that tomorrow, is it 10 days, is it a week?
What would be? Certainly before their December 6'''hearing.
MR.OBORNE-I would say before Thanksgiving if at all possible.
MR.TRAVER-Absolutely. Yes, I mean, I'll start working on something in the morning.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.OBORNE-Okay. It shouldn't be that bad. It shouldn't be that involved.
MR. TRAVER-Just outlining basically what I said in the minutes about the balance of the
impacts essentially being in the Town of Queensbury. Okay. I will work on something ASAP
and try to, I'll get a draft out to you,Mr.Chairman,and to you,Mr.Oborne,possibly tomorrow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.OBORNE-Okay. Fabulous.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if anyone has comments they want to add,feel free to submit them.
MR.TRAVER-Absolutely. Send me an e-mail.
47
(Queensbury Plannoard 11/1712011) 0
MR. OBORNE-It looks like obviously we're going to have to table the application to a specific
date.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And I would ask that in the conditions of that tabling that Pages, Sheets Three,
Four and Six be updated to denote how this is being pinned to the rocks. As it stands, they're
showing footings that are three,four feet below the ground.
MR.TRAVER-And that would answer the concern raised about blasting.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly. That would take that off the table,
MR.TRAVER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know if we can do that at this point, folks. We will have to have
construction type engineering to determine that. We can give you a typically pinning, but we
wouldn't be able to give you a site specific construction detail. It would be something that we
would give to Dave Hatin.
MR. TRAVER-Although, even if blasting ended up being required, it would be minimal I would
think.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, We can give a paragraph describing what's going to happen, what the
investigation's going to be in the spot.
MR.TRAVER-And it might be wise to cover both conditions.
MR. LAPPER-Yes,we can write that up.
MR. OBORNE-A typical's fine. Eventually you're going to have to do something.
MR.O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And we're certainly going to want that at Site Plan, I would imagine.
MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, because that would be a very technical issue that this Board wouldn't
really be able to address.
MR.OBORNE-Yes,well our engineer would.
MR.TRAVER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Just for the record, so you understand, we agree that it should be coordinated
review, that that's the smartest way to go, and we don't have an opinion as to which Board it
should be, it's just a matter of, if it has to be determined by the DEC Commissioner,
unfortunately. that's just a time element.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Which we have no control over, but just that the answer for us is that, and we put
it in the cover letter,that coordinated review is the right answer for this project.
MR.TRAVER-Do you have an opinion about the amount of impacts in the relative Town?
MR. LAPPER-I guess I did read the McPhillips decision, and the issues there. It's where you
can see it from, and they're going to say that they can see it from Lake George, and you really
can't see it from Queensbury.
MR.TRAVER-You're talking visual impact only. I'm talking about.
MR. LAPPER-And the other aspects are just that most of the project, although it's not on top of
the mountain, most of the project happens in Lake George. So I think that's what they were
saying to us,that the square footage of most of what's going to happen is in the Town.
MR.TRAVER-I understand what they're saying. I'm asking what you're saying.
MR. LAPPER-We just want it to get settled.
48
S •
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Actually speaking, most of the square footage, most of the factual, if you do
mathematical comparisons are, even for the road and the zip flyer, are in the Town of Lake
George.
MR.TRAVER-I thought the road wasn't going to be disturbed?
MR. O'CONNOR-The road is not going to be disturbed. That seems to be one of your concerns.
The access road is mostly in the Town of Lake George.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR.O'CONNOR-The existing road.
MR. TRAVER-I'm talking about the impact. If the existing road isn't going to be disturbed, then
what additional impact is the long road in Lake George going to have on this project?
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm just going to what comments have been made. I don't think there are any
impacts on that. The only impact that you're talking about is the 10,100 square feet around the
tower,which even David Wick.
MR. TRAVER-Which is in the Town of Queensbury.
MR.O'CONNOR-Which is in the Town of Queensbury.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-As opposed to the disturbance for the zip line, which is larger in the Town of
Lake George. The landing zone is probably twice that size, if not three times that size, and
that's new construction in the Town of Lake George.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith,do you want that condition in,or do we just table it?
MR.OBORNE-Excuse me?
MRS. STEFFAN-Do you want that condition in the tabling motion?
MR. OBORNE-I would like some sort of, at this point they're not going to be able to do all the
geotechnical work. I understand that, but if you can get a clarification on the pinning or some
type of boilerplate,that would be fine at this point.
MR. LAPPER-We shouldn't be tabled to a date at this point, I think,because you can't determine
how long it's going to take to determine who's going to do the SEQRA.
MR. OBORNE-It should be pending outcome of the SEQRA determination.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I was going to ask you, previously the DEC Commissioner ruled fairly
quickly.
MR.OBORNE-He did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, it was within 30 or 45 days.
MR. OBORNE-But we all have to get our stuff together. We have to send it out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, including my letter describing the argument.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.OBORNE-Specifically that
MR.TRAVER-Yes.
MR.OBORNE-There's certain protocols you have to go through.
49
(Queensbury Plann oard 11/17/2011)
MR. O'CONNOR-There's a procedure set forth in SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. •
MR. O'CONNOR-Probably Lake George because they made the initial motion, and they initiated
the SEQRA coordination, will send a notice to you, or send it to DEC with a copy of notice to
you.that you have 10 days to respond from that input.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, there are certain protocols that must be followed.
MR.TRAVER-Right. Well, as I said, I'll try to get a draft together,you know,ASAP.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, did I hear you say we should not table this to a date certain?
MR.OBORNE-That is correct. It should be pending the outcome of the SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Because by then, we'll know what to do at that point, how to place this, even if
it's after a deadline date, okay. The applicant should, obviously, depending upon the amount of
conditions that you're going to impose at this point, they're going to need to get going on that.
regardless. Now, it's, you can table it to a specific date, in anticipation of that being resolved,
and also in anticipation of actually going forward with the review. So, if you care to,either way, I
don't think it's a big deal, to be honest with you, if you do it pending SEQRA, pending the
outcome of SEQRA. Is that clear?
MR.LAPPER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if it's not a big deal, why don't we just, why don't we leave it open, you
know, until we get clarification. Then hopefully, as you point out, Mr. Chairman, that'll happen
soon.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Although I think I would feel more comfortable having a specific date, I
mean, at that date we either table it because SEQRA hasn't been resolved,or we would have an
update.
MR. TRAVER-And actually, that's a good point, because the date that we would table it to would
be beyond the period when DEC would render a decision.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR.HUNSINGER-I would imagine.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,good point.
MR.OBORNE-Go for the first meeting in January? Which would be the 17th.
MRS. STEFFAN-The 17th.
MR. HUNSINGER-The 17th.
MR.OBORNE-Does that work for the applicant,Jon?
MR. LAPPER-That's fine, and if it turns out it has to get tabled again.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me, you're timetable and your meeting dates are different than Lake
George.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sure, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-So I don't want to fall into the same sequence that, say the Commissioner
says Lake George should be the Lead Agent. You should then get your concerns and
comments off to Lake George, so that they can begin the process. I think you're better off doing
50
• •
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
it to a shorter period of time, some date in December, with an idea that hopefully we'd get it by
then. If we don't,we table it,but if we want to keep the thing moving.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you've missed the application deadline for November 15th. You missed
the deadline for any December meetings.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, January's the earliest we can do it anyway.
MRS. STEFFAN-That's the next deadline.
MR.OBORNE-That's why the first meeting in January is.
MR.TRAVER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-When's your first meeting in January?
MR.OBORNE-The 17th.
MR.O'CONNOR-So that's going to be the same.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do they meet the night after that?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-They meet the night after that, I think.
MR.LAPPER-The first Tuesday.
MR. O'CONNOR-They meet the first Tuesday of January. So that throws us into the first
Tuesday of February.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well,we meet the third Tuesday in January.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm presuming, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm presuming DEC's going to say Lake
George is the Lead Agency. They're then going to need to get their comments back to Lake
George, which they haven't submitted at that point, before Lake George can take SEQRA
action. Although I guess if DEC says they're the Lead Agency,they just,they go forward without
your.
MR. TRAVER-Well, one scenario might be that if we get word of a decision that's not favorable
to us from DEC, we could have a workshop or a special meeting just to do our comments. That
wouldn't take terribly long to get them to Lake George.
MR. HUNSINGER-If we did a special meeting,we'd just have to warn it.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But the only way we can schedule a special meeting is by vote of the Board
at a regular meeting.
MR.TRAVER-Right. Well,as soon as we get a response,we'll make that decision.
MR. OBORNE-I think your only option is the first meeting in January,to be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I do,too.
MR. OBORNE-Regardless. I wouldn't overcomplicate it,to be honest with you.
MR. LAPPER-We could set it and see what happens.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.OBORNE-Exactly.
MR.TRAVER-Our record so far is only four meetings in a month, remember.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I'm well aware of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We're ready. The condition is pending the outcome of the SEQRA
status.and, you know,applicant can address Staff Notes and engineering comments.
51
(Queensbury Planroard 11/17/2011)111 7/201 1) •
MRS. STEFFAN-The other comments that came up were to provide renderings of the visual
impact seasonally. That's one of the things that I've written down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, you wanted Sheets Three, Four and Six to be updated with how the
pins?
MR. OBORNE-Yes,on the mechanisms for attachment to the mountain, the footings.
MR. HUNSINGER-The anchors,yes.
MR. OBORNE-The anchors. That's fine.
MR. MAGOWAN-Pinning it,anchoring it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll put forth a motion.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP#77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH, LLC
Tax Map ID 278.-1-77, 13
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 linear foot zip line emanating on lands in Queensbury
and terminating on lands in Lake George; total elevation drop of approximately 770 ft. proposed.
Outdoor recreation uses in a LC zone require Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/17/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment,and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH, LLC; FRENCH
MOUNTAIN BEAR POND, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
Tabled to the January 17, 2012 Planning Board meeting Pending outcome of SEQRA
determination. We have a couple of conditions on that tabling motion:
1. So that the applicant can also address Staff Notes and engineering comments.
2. So that the applicant can also provide renderings of the projects and its visual impacts
seasonally.
3. We would also like the applicant to update Sheets Three, Four and Six regarding how
the pins will anchor the structure to the mountain.
4. So that the applicant can also provide the APA's non jurisdictional letter.
Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs.Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We'll be back eventually.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll see you again soon. Any other business?
MR. OBORNE-I do. I have a couple of things I'd like to discuss.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-First thing is, on Tuesday we discussed that Soil and Water is providing training.
That e-mail should have gone out today from Craig to you guys. So check your e-mails, if
you're interested in that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
52
•
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. OBORNE-Also it is very difficult for Maria to transcribe her notes when there's sidebar
conversations going on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-It's very difficult for her, and I have to deal with her on a regular basis,and I don't
like a difficult Maria,and that's all I have.
MR.HUNSINGER-OkaY. Anyone else?
MRS. STEFFAN-I also would offer that I think that,for our December meetings, that we should
probably assign motions to each one of the Planning Board members for each one of the items
on the agenda,so that everyone will have an opportunity to construct motions, because we have
two meetings,we only have a few meetings left.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're not going to be there?
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. My appointment is up at the end of the year and I will not be seeking
re-appointment.
MR. HUNSINGER-We will miss you. You commented earlier that it looks like we might only
have one meeting in December?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is setting up to be a pretty light agenda for December, for both the Zoning
and Planning Boards.
MR.HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR.OBORNE-And Staff is glad to accommodate everybody's social calendars.
MR. HUNSINGER-Including your own.
MR.OBORNE-Including my own. Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Does someone want to make a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER
17, 2011, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr.Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,Mr.Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf,Mr.Sipp,
Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you,everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger,Chairman
53
111, 0
"P■4
11116_
Adirondack
parkagency
December 12, 2011
Michael J. O'Connor, Esq.
PO Box 898
Glens Falls, NY 12801-0898
Dear Mr. O'Connor:
RE: J2011-0604
Owner: Bear Pond Ranch LLC
Towns of Lake George and
Tax Map Designations: Queensbury, Warren County
277.02-1-42, 277.04-2-2T2wn of Lake George - 278.00-3-1,
Town of 4ue and 277.02-1 59
rY - 278.00-1-13, and 278.00-1-77
We received your Jurisdictional Iniry Form
2011 requesting a jurisdictional determina onnregarrding 1o,
proposal to construct a tourist attraction. regarding Your
A permit is required from the Agency for the project proposed.
The portion of the proposed project located in the Town of Lake
George is located in a Moderate Intensity Use land use area.
Pursuant to § 810 (1) (b) (6) of the Adirondack Park Agency Act,
establishment of a tourist attraction in a land use area
designated as Moderate Intensity Use on the Adirondack Park Land
Use and Development Plan Map constitutes a Class A
thus requires a permit from the Agency Y Project, and
•
The portion of the proposed project located in the Town of
Queensbury is located in a Rural Use land use area.
§ 810 2 . c. (I5) of the Adirondack Park A Pursuant to
attraction is a Class B gencY Act, a tourist
project that is not listed on the list
of primary or the list of seconda
the Town of Queensbury �' uses in Rural Use. However,
Y administers an Agency-approved local land
use program that designates tourist attractions as a
project, and thus your proposed Project Class A
the Agency. requires a permit from
P.O.Box 99•NYS Route 86•Ray Brook. NY 12977 • 518 891-4050•518 891-3938 fax •www.apa.state_nyus
•
III . III
Michael J. O'Connor, Esq.
December 12, 2011
Page 2
Please be aware that there may be additional reasons for Agency
jurisdiction over the
ed orpunderPakenl unless and r
project may be started until the
required Agency permit has been obtained.
If you decide to apply for a permit, please submit the enclosed
form with all required signatures. This form will supplement
the information you have already provided and commence the
processing Colleen Agency Environmental
Program
Specialist
assigned -to this matter and
is available if you have questions.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact the
Agency. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sinc: -ly,
w t J )144-k-
Douglas W. Miller
Project Administrator
DWM:PVC:mp
Enclosures
cc: Rob Hickey, Town of Lake George Code Officer (by e-mail)
Craig Brown, Town of Queensbury Code Officer (by e-mail)
1•Undertaken includes commencement of any part of the project
including grading, clearing, excavation, or construction of a
road, etc.
•
ab-
Adirondack
parkagency
MEMORANDUM
TO: Terry Martino, Executive Director
FROM: Richard Weber, Deputy Director
DATE: March 5, 2014
RE: P2012-185, Review of the Bear Pond Ranch, LLC's Zip-Line
Proposal for French Mountain, Towns of Lake George and
Queensbury
Agency staff have reviewed the Bear Pond Ranch, LLC proposal and
are providing a recommendation to approve the project with
conditions. A draft permit with appropriate conditions has been
attached for Agency consideration. Staff believe the project
would produce adverse impacts to open space and aesthetic
resources of the Park but do not believe the impacts as
identified in the findings of the draft permit and in this
memorandum should be considered undue. The discussion below is
intended to help the Board understand the key issues and to
understand the basis for the staff recommendation.
A. The Project Setting
The project site is located on the north and west faces of
French Mountain, which includes a prominent rocky outcrop, a
defining landscape element in the area that overlooks the
highest volume gateway into the Park on the Adirondack Northway.
The traffic volume experienced on the Northway as it enters the
Park at this location is estimated to have an average annual
daily traffic volume, or AADT of over 45, 000 vehicles. NYS
Route 9 and the Warren County Recreational Trail also pass
through this subtle pass which provides a sense of entry.
Heading northbound on 1-87 the travel corridor climbs to a
highpoint near French Mountain before descending to Lake George
Village . The character of the land uses along the Northway
begin to change in this area from the more developed commercial
and residential landscape seen passing by Glens Falls and
Queensbury to a less developed landscape of mountains, lakes and
forest as one enters the Park.
Page 1 of 12
III •
R _. - _ .
i
_)2
6 m.
r
Looking north along the Northway travel corridor near the entrance to THE PARK, approximately 1
mile from project site
Traveling southbound on the Northway near the Village of Lake
George, one can also see French Mountain in the distance as the
terminus of the mountain range that defines the eastern edge of
Lake George . Viewed from many vantage points, the undeveloped
and rugged west face of French Mountain is a unique regional
landscape feature that is recognized from the water on Lake
George, from the Prospect Mountain Highway, from the Village
Park in Lake George, and other locations. The distinct mountain
helps to define the open space character of the Park and serves
as a landmark at its entrance.
Page 2 of 12
! S
-._. .f-
Looking south along the Northway travel corridor near the near Lake George Village, approximately
4.5 miles from project site
B. Review of Class A Regional Projects in Towns with an Approved
Local Land Use Program
The project site is located in two separate land use areas
according to the Adirondack Park Agency Land Use and Development
Plan Map. The lower section of the site is located within the
Moderate Intensity land use classification where the landing for
the proposed zip-line will be located. The forested upper
portion of the site on the slopes of French Mountain itself is
located in the Rural Use land use classification. The launch
area for the proposed zip-line is located near the summit and
north of the 250 foot high cliff on the mountain. Similarly,
the project site is divided between two Townships. The lower,
Moderate Intensity portion of the site is located in the Town of
Lake George and the upper, Rural Use portion of the site is
located in the Town of Queensbury. Both Towns have approved
local land use programs pursuant to §807 of the Agency Act.
Page 3 of 12
• •
In general, the Agency and towns with approved local land use
programs are required to make findings pursuant to 809 (9) that
the Class A regional project meets all of the pertinent
requirements and conditions of the approved local land use
program. This substitutes for the approval criteria under
§809 (10) the Agency would use for a project in the absence of an
approved local land use program making findings regarding the
consistency with the land use plan, the land use area, the
overall intensity guidelines and the shoreline restrictions
according to the standards and procedures established in the
approved program.
On February 5, 2013 the Town of Lake George approved under site
plan review an earlier version of the project plans after
conducting a public hearing on the same date. Upon the Agency' s
completion of the application, a letter of consultation was sent
by Agency staff to the Town Planning Board Chair on February 3,
2014 . The letter requested comment from the Town and notified
them of recent changes to the plans and the project description.
To date no additional comments have been received from the Town.
The Town of Queensbury' s Planning Board discussed the project
and opened a public hearing on November 17, 2011 , but the review
of the project was subsequently tabled. Under the Town of
Queensbury' s approved land use program, the project is
classified as an outdoor recreation use and is an allowable use
in the Land Conservation zone, subject to site plan approval as
described in a letter from Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator to
Michael O' Connor dated March 21, 2011. The Town planning board
has scheduled to resume its review of the revised application at
their next meeting on March 18, 2014 following the Agency' s
decision.
C. Agency Review of Class A Regional Projects in Approved Towns
The Agency is required to make its independent determination
regarding no undue adverse impact to the Park resources in
consultation with the Towns . The findings regarding the
consistency with the land use plan, land use area, overall
intensity guidelines and the shoreline restrictions are made
according to the standards and procedures established in the
approved program administered by the towns .
Specifically, the Agency is required to make its own separate
determination regarding no undue adverse impact upon the
natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
Page 4 of 12
i
recreational or open space resources of the Park or upon the
ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and
services made necessary by the project .
The Agency' s determination must also take into account any
commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other
benefits that might be derived from the project. In short, the
potential significance of identified impact [s] to the Park
resources must be considered in relation to the significance of
any potential benefits that may have been identified.
It is important to understand that an approved town' s
determination with regard to consistency with the land use plan
and the project' s compatibility with the character description,
purposes, policies and objectives of the land use area are made
from the perspective of the town and its approved local land use
plan, not necessarily from a broader Park resources or potential
regional impacts perspective. Conversely, the Agency is
obligated to look at a project and its potential impacts at a
regional scale that often go beyond town boundaries, looking at
potential impacts to Park resources, including local
governmental considerations.
D. Pertinent Development Considerations
In making a determination as to the potential impact of the
project upon the resources of the Park, the Agency must consider
those pertinent factors contained in the 37 development
considerations provided for in Section 805 (4) of the Agency Act.
Agency staff has carefully evaluated the proposal and have
identified potential impacts to aesthetics, critical resources
and land as being the most significant review considerations for
this project. Through the project review process, staff have
requested a detailed visual impact assessment including a
mapping of the limits of visibility, an inventory of publically
sensitive view locations, a narrative assessment of the
potential impact at these locations and a series of visual
simulations and videos of a similar Zip-Flyer° facility in
operation at Bromley Mt. , Vermont in order to gain an adequate
representation of the project . The resulting materials indicate
that the project is visible from many locations at distances
varying from % mile to nearly 5 miles .
Staff believe the clearing of vegetation under the zip-line for
the 900' section near the summit of French Mountain will be the
most visible element of the project. The tower and launch
structures near the summit will be partially screened by
existing vegetation and the four zip-line cables with riders
Page 5 of 12
III •
will be significantly less visible as seen from distances
greater than a mile from the project. A summary of the
potential visual impacts of the project in relation to the
pertinent development considerations is provided below for
Agency consideration.
It should be noted that evaluating potential impacts to the Park
resources often involves evaluating the close inter-relationship
between any number of relevant factors listed under §805 (4) . As
stated above, visual impact is the primary concern in this
review. The factors listed below are believed by staff to be
closely linked and the most important to making a determination
on the significance of the project' s visual impact. The
discussion of each of these pertinent factors is provided in two
parts. The first part provides a definition and statement of
objectives for the given consideration as identified in the
Agency' s guidance entitled Development in the Adirondack Park
(DAP) . The second part provides a brief staff analysis of the
potential impact of the project in relation to each of the given
development considerations.
Open space resources
Projects should minimize disruption of and preserve open space
resources where appropriate, particularly on lands classified as
Rural Use and Resource Management. Private open space lands
contribute to wildlife habitat, serve the forest products,
agricultural, and tourism industries, and are essential and
basic to the unique character of the Park. Private open space
lands may also be available for public recreational activity.
Though the Town of Queensbury will make its separate findings
about the compatibility of the proposed use with its LC-10
zoning under its approved program, the preservation of the open
spaces which are essential and basic to the unique character of
the Park would be a key objective for the Rural Use land
classification in this area.
The project would involve the cutting of trees within a 35' to
50 `wide swath for a length of 900' down the north-west slope of
French Mountain. Efforts have been made by the Project Sponsor
to vary the edge of the cut and to allow for selected shrubs and
small trees to continue to grow within the cut area, as well as
planting. Despite these proposed mitigation efforts, the visual
effect of this cut as seen from a distance may be similar to a
powerline corridor on a hillside. The floor of the cut area may
have a different color and visual texture and contrast more
sharply in the winter months with snow on the ground. The
Page 6 of 12
. .
introduction of a man-made geometric shaped element that appears
as a straight line in an otherwise undeveloped and forested
mountainside will contrast significantly with the natural
setting and disrupt the open space character in this area.
Experience suggests that the introduction of a small man-made
element into an undeveloped setting will have a more significant
impact on the open space character of an area than the
introduction of larger man-made element into a more developed
setting.
Vegetative cover
Vegetative cover is comprised of all of the plants in a given
area. This includes the various layers of vegetation, such as
the bryophyte (moss-lichen) crust, forbs and herbs, low shrubs,
high shrubs, and low, mid and high canopy. Vegetative cover
contributes to wildlife habitat, soil erosion prevention,
stormwater runoff reduction, and aquifer and surface water
quality and recharge. Vegetative cover can also improve the
aesthetic character of an area. Projects should minimize
disruption to vegetative cover and may require the planting of
additional vegetation.
The proposed cutting of vegetation for the project' s necessary
clear-zone may disrupt the aesthetic character of the area.
Proposed mitigation by the Project Sponsor to soften the visual
impact of the cleared zone on the mountainside would include a
commitment to a long-term management approach for the vegetation
in this area and would involve new plantings for the purpose of
blending the edges of the cut area with the adjacent undisturbed
forest.
Unique features
Unique features, including gorges, waterfalls, and geologic
formations are remnants of past geologic or meteorologic
actions, and include scenic features such as rock slides,
cirques and aretes, paleontologic features such as stromatolite
fossils, and structural formations such as rusty quartz veins.
Projects should avoid the destruction and/or alteration of
gorges, waterfalls, geologic formations, and other unique
features.
French Mountain is a scenic feature in the landscape with its
250' high cliff on its western slopes. The introduction of the
proposed zip-line structures and cleared-zones on the
mountainside may significantly alter the natural scenic
qualities of this unique landscape feature. The alternative
involving a shorter zip-line with a launch point at a lower
Page 7 of 12
• •
elevation on the mountainside was not selected as the preferred
alternative by the Project Sponsor because it would not meet
their objectives.
Aesthetic Resources
Section 574 . 5 of Agency regulations provides further definitions
of certain development considerations identified in §805 (4) of
the Agency Act. Of these, aesthetics is one of the defined
terms and includes two factors under this heading that are
considered pertinent to this review:
(7) Aesthetics means harmonizing land use or development with
the natural environment.
(i) Scenic vistas include distant views through or along an
opening, especially views which frame or focus attention upon a
scene of distinctive character and natural beauty such as a
prominent landmark, mountain, river valley, plain, or historical
monument. Scenic vistas include those designated on the official
Adirondack Park land use and development plan map, and those
locally designated.
(ii) Natural and man-made travel corridors include the land or
water visible from natural and man-made transportation routes
such as interstate, State, county and town highways, boating and
canoe routes, and hiking and horse trails.
The stated objectives of the aesthetic development
considerations identified in DAP are to: preserve and enhance
the scenic qualities of the Park; and, to design the built
environment in harmony with both the existing character of an
area and the natural landscape.
(i) Scenic vistas
No designated scenic vistas are identified on the
Agency' s Land Use and Development Plan Map or at the
local level in the vicinity of the project site.
Traveling in the northbound direction, the existing
roadside vegetation along NYS Route 9 and I-87 permits
mostly filtered views of French Mountain near the
entrance to the Park. Short duration views in this
area do exist from both highways allowing a more
complete and detailed view of the Mountain and
potentially the proposed project . These views are
approximately 90 degrees to the right of the direction
of travel. The majority of the vegetation along the
Page 8 of 12
M
roadsides is deciduous which will therefore permit
greater visibility to the proposed project during the
leaf-off conditions in Winter, early Spring and late
Fall . The visibility of the project near the entrance
to the Park is generally located in the foreground,
within a 34 mile of the project site, and the detail of
the cable systems, launch platforms, towers and riders
would be clear at this distance.
Traveling in the southbound direction on the Northway,
French Mountain becomes a more prominent feature, as a
mountain in the distant and middleground views framed
by roadside topography and vegetation. The character
of these longer duration views directly ahead of the
traveler is predominately of natural, undeveloped open
space. The introduction of a man-made element into an
otherwise undeveloped and forested mountainside will
contrast significantly with the natural setting and
will adversely disrupt the scenic vista in this area.
(ii) Natural and man-made travel corridors
In general, people traveling on Route I-87 experience
the Park entrance and Lake George Village very
differently from those people traveling on Route 9.
The Route 9 corridor is lined with diverse signage,
the parking areas, lighting, and commercial land uses.
By contrast, the views from both the northbound and
southbound lanes of the Northway are predominately of
an undeveloped character with forested hillsides, Lake
George and other unique features like French Mountain
when available.
The most significant visual impact created by the
project proposal is experienced in the southbound
section of the Northway at distances between 2 . 5 miles
and 1. 75 from the project site. The staff conclusions
regarding the views from this section of the travel
corridor are the same as identified above under the
scenic vista development consideration. The
introduction of the proposed project into this
otherwise undeveloped highway vista will adversely
change the character of the travel corridor.
Page 9 of 12
•
E. Consideration of Alternatives
Understanding that the visual impact of the project had the
potential to be significant, Agency staff requested information
about alternatives considered by the Project Sponsor that could
either avoid or mitigate the identified impacts. One
alternative involved locating the launch area further down the
mountain to shorten the ride and reduce the extent of visibility
of the project. The Project Sponsor did not believe this
alternative would meet their objectives and thought it would
make the proposed zip-line less competitive with similar
facilities in the area. Specifically, the Project Sponsor
stated that a shortened zip-line project would not be
competitive with a similar project being considered within the
existing ski trail clearings of the West Mountain Ski Resort
nearby and outside the Park. The Project Sponsor also indicated
the shorter alternative would likely result in the construction
of new access roads and would require increased tree removal.
F. State Land Master Plan and the Significance of Travel
Corridors
The Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan provides a clear
statement about the importance of travel corridors in relation
to the character of the Park that is worth noting here:
The importance of the major travel corridors and the
principal segments of the local highway network to the
integrity of the Park cannot be over-emphasized. The lands
adjacent to these highways are the most visible to the
traveling public and frequently determine the image and
entire atmosphere of the Park for many visitors. In
addition, due to the heavily forested character of the
Park, scenic vistas from these travel corridors are
relatively rare and their protection and enhancement are
important.
G. Staff Conclusions
In summary, staff offers for Agency consideration the following
conclusions about the significance of the visual impacts related
to the project proposal:
1. The primary views of French Mountain as an undeveloped
setting are experienced from the Northway.
Page 10 of 12
. 410
2 . Northbound views are primarily filtered, and at 90 degrees
to direction of travel . The views are short in duration
but detailed when visible.
3 . The southbound views are considered to have the most
significant visual impact . The views are long in duration,
framed by topography and roadside vegetation and are viewed
with a middleground level of detail. The proposed project
appears to create adverse impacts to open space and
aesthetic resources .
4 . Views of the project from Lake George and the Village are
in the Hamlet context looking through foreground
development to the distant view of the Mountain.
5 . Views of the project from Prospect Mountain are from a
superior vantage point looking down and across a
significantly developed setting to the Mountain and the
project site.
6 . The project involves the introduction of a tourist
attraction onto an undeveloped and forested mountainside .
The proposal, particularly the visual impact associated
with the clearing of vegetation for the project will
contrast significantly with the natural setting.
7 . An evaluation of the project' s potential visual impact in
relation to the pertinent development considerations
indicates that potential impacts to open space resources,
vegetative cover, unique features, aesthetic resources and
adjacent land uses do exist.
8 . Staff believe the project produces adverse visual impacts
that are contrary to the objectives of the pertinent
development considerations .
9 . The adverse visual impacts that might be created by the
project are in part mitigated by careful design and
vegetation management proposals. The existing trees
adjacent to the tower and launch area will partially screen
these elements located near the summit. The proposed
vegetation management plan for the required cleared area
will soften the project' s contrast with the natural
setting. The proposed development in the base area is
considered compatible with the existing commercial
development.
Page 11 of 12
. III
10 . Staff provides a recommendation for approval of the project
with conditions believing that the potential impacts to
open space and aesthetic resources within the approved
local land use programs of Lake George and Queensbury are
not undue. The consideration of an undue adverse impact
within the context of this project review is ultimately a
decision for this Agency Board.
Page 12 of 12
STATE OF NEW YOB{
L
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF W t�
ARREN C-U .C,, - :, ,, .,
1 U L L
In the Matter of the Application of MAR 2 2014
KATHLEEN W. SONNABEND, DAVID L. THORNE, ---
LARA CURRIE and JOHN CURRIE --- ------ _
DECISION AND ORDER
Petitioners,
for a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 RJI No.: 56-1-2013-0578
Index No.: 59266
-against-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD and QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,LLC,
Respondents.
Appearances:
Caffry& Flower(John W. Caffry,Esq., of counsel)Attorneys for the Petitioners
Meyer& Fuller,PLLC (Matthew F. Fuller,Esq.,of counsel) Attorneys for
Queensbury Partners, LLC
Miller,Mannix, Schachner&Hafner,LLC(Leah Everhart,Esq.,of counsel)
Attorneys for Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning
Board
KROGMANN,J.
•
By Notice of Motion,the Respondent Queensbury Partners,LLC seeks a pre-answer
dismissal of the petitioners' first, fourth and fifth causes of action as it is alleged such claims are
barred by the statute of limitations and the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In support
of the motion, the Court has considered the affirmation of Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., dated October
18,2013, together with exhibits as well as a Memorandum of Law. In further support of the
motion, the Court has considered the affidavit of Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator of the
•
S III
Town of Queensbury, dated October 11, 2013, as well as a Memorandum of Law. In opposition
to the motion,the Court has considered the affidavit of Kathleen W. Sonnabend, dated
November 7,2013,together with exhibits, as well as a Memorandum of Law in Opposition. In
reply,the Court has considered the further affirmation of Attorney Fuller dated November 20,
2013,together with exhibits, and a Memorandum of Law. In addition,the Court has considered
the affidavit of Sue Hemingway dated November 19,2013, as well as a Reply Memorandum of
Law. The Court also considered the oral arguments heard on November 22, 2013. The Court
also granted leave for and received correspondence from Attorney Caffry dated November 22,
2013 post-argument regarding a Decision and Order provided to the Court during oral arguments.
The underlying petition was commenced on or about August 23, 2013 and an amended
petition was filed on September 30,2013. The proceeding was brought pursuant to Article 78 of
the CPLR and seeks to annul,vacate and set aside the July 24 and August 21, 2013 approval by
respondent Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter referred to as the"ZBA")
of the area variance application(#61-2011) filed by the respondent Queensbury Partners,LLC
(hereinafter referred to as the"Applicant"). The proceeding was also brought to annul,vacate and
. set aside the August 27,2013 approval by respondent Town of Queensbury Planning Board
(hereinafter referred to as the"Planning Board")of site plan review application#62-2011 by
respondent Applicant for the same project. The Applicant proposes to construct a mixed use
development on Bay and Blind Rock Roads in the Town of Queensbury.
The project is proposed to include 14,000 square feet of office space, 142 apartment units
and 42,180 square feet of commercial space,occupying a total of 11 buildings. Of particular
concern for the petitioners,the project would include 70 apartment units in that portion of the
Page 2 of 8
• •
"Office"zoning district which is within 300 feet of Bay Road, despite the fact that the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Law expressly prohibits multifamily dwellings, including apartments, in that
part of the district which is within 300 feet of Bay Road. The petitioners argue that the
Applicant applied for and the ZBA approved an area variance for the construction of multifamily
dwellings in the part of the Office zoning district within 300 feet of Bay Road, instead of a use
variance, which the petitioners allege is required as a matter of law. Further, the petitioners
allege that the Applicant filed an application with the Planning Board for site plan review
approval for the project, which was approved on August 27,2013, in contravention of the Zoning
Law which prohibits multifamily dwellings in the Office district within 300 feet of Bay Road. It
is alleged that the Planning Board could not approve a site plan without the Applicant applying
for and successfully obtaining a use variance from the ZBA. The petitioners assert that while an
area variance is necessary as the proposed project is within certain set-backs on both Bay Road
and Blind Rock Road,the Applicant should have also applied for a use variance to allow
multifamily residences to be constructed in the affected portion of the Office district.
Respondent Applicant argues that the first,fourth and fifth causes of action must be
dismissed for failing to exhaust administrative remedies particularly, the failure of the petitioners
to challenge the determination of the Zoning Administrator made on November 10,2011.
Applicant argues that pursuant to Town Law§267-a(5)and Chapter 179 of the code of the Town
of Queensbury, an appeal from a determination of a building inspector or other administrative
official charged with decision making under the Town's Zoning Law must be made within 60
days after such determination is filed. Applicant argues that the Zoning Administrator, Craig
Brown, issued a determination dated November 10, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "Brown
Page 3 of 8
• 0
letter")wherein Brown advised Attorney Fuller as to what variances and permits would be
necessary for the Applicant to obtain in order to proceed with the project.1 It is alleged that upon
the filing of the November 10,2011 letter in Brown's file,the time to appeal the determination
began.
Notwithstanding the foregoing,the Applicant argues that the petitioners were given
constructive,if not actual notice of the contents of the Brown letter as the petitioners,
particularly, Kathleen Sonnabend,regularly attended the highly publicized meetings discussing
the project and even raised concerns regarding the set backs as well as the level of density. The
Applicant argues that it is disingenuous for the petitioners to now argue that they were unaware
of the same issues that they vociferously objected to at the ZBA, Planning Board and Town
Board meetings.
Petitioner Sonnabend asserts that she was personally unaware of the November 10,2011
Brown letter until August 26, 20 L3. Sonnabend asserts that on August 1, 2013, she undertook a
lengthy FOIL review of the files maintained by the Planning Board and the ZBA regarding this
project and did not find the letter of November 10, 2011. She further asserts that she was
unaware that Craig Brown maintains a separate file in his office for individual projects.
Sonnabend states that had she known about the separate file, which purportedly contained the
Brown letter of November 10,2011, she would have requested to review that file.
"On a pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 7804(f)to dismiss a petition upon objections
in point of law,only the petition may be considered,and all of its allegations are deemed to be
' The crux of the dispute is that the applicant believed that pursuant to the Brown
interpretation letter dated November 10, 2011, an area variance would be required for
development within 300 feet of Bay Road within the"Office"zoned district.
Page 4 of 8
•
true. No additional facts alleged in support of the motion may be considered (internal citations
omitted)." 1300 Franklin Ave. Members LLC v. Board of Trustees of Inco .crated Vill.le of
Garden City, 62 A.D.3d 1004, 1006 (2d Dept. 2009). "It is settled that on a pre-answer motion to
dismiss brought pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint must be liberally construed,the
allegations therein taken as true, and all reasonable inferences must be resolved in plaintiff's
favor. Moreover, the motion must be denied if from the pleading's four corners `factual
allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law
(internal citations omitted)."Gorelik v. Mount Sinai Ho ital Center 19 A.D.3d 319 (1'`Dept.
2005).
The Zoning Law of the Town of Queensbury specifies:
"Such appeal shall be taken within 60 days after the fi1in Town
Clerk's office of any order,requirement, decision, interpretation or determination
ination of the Zoning A dministrator(emphasis added)."
§179-14-040 Procedure for
Appeals.
Zoning Administrator Craig Brown indicated in his affidavit that while he does not
remember filing the specific letter dated November 10, 2011, it was his custom and practice to
file such determinations in his office. Brown does not state in his affidavit where the letter was
filed other than in his office. Brown does not suggest that he filed same with the Town Clerk but
explains that the contents of the letter were publicly known as there were Public Hearings
regarding the area variance at several meetings of the ZBA in April, May and July of 2013.
Clearly, this is an admission that the Zoning Administrator did not follow the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Law which provides for filing with the Town Clerk, and as such,the time in
Page 5 of 8
• �
which to commence an appeal has not yet begun. (See, infra).
The Town's argument regarding the Zoning Administrator's method of filing,in direct
contravention of its own adopted rule, is that it is a mere technicality. The Town asserts that
actual and constructive knowledge of the Zoning Administrator's determination could have been
garnered from attendance at the various meetings, at which the petitioners were often present.
This argument is flawed.
Procedurally,there must be a starting date for the time period to be calculated for the
appeal as opposed to the general "constructive notice"argument proffered by the respondents.
Hence,the filing of the document with the Town Clerk who would presumably time stamp or
otherwise indicate the date of filing for purposes of commencing the time to appeal. If the
•
Brown letter had been filed with the Town Clerk, as provided by the Zoning Law,and the
petitioners failed to appeal same timely, it is without doubt that the respondents would argue that
the time to appeal was a finite period of time marked by the event of filing. In the matter at bar,
while the respondents argue that the petitioners had constructive notice of the contents of the
letter,there is not a certain date that was pinpointed to commence the period for appeal. In fact,
the respondents all assert that the November 2011 letter was discussed at meetings in the Spring
and Summer of 2013. The Respondents do not indicate which of those various meetings in 2013
would have allegedly triggered the period of time for appeal.
Notwithstanding that the Brown letter was purportedly not contained in the files
maintained by the ZBA nor the Planning Board,upon careful review of the language of the letter,
it is not immediately clear that a use variance was obviated. The relevant sentence in the Brown
letter is: "Further, relief is needed from the 300 foot minimum setback requirement from Bay
Page 6 of 8
• 41
Road for residential dwelling units." Upon its face, this sentence could be interpreted to mean
that both an area and a use variance are necessary or, as was interpreted by the Applicant and
apparently the ZBA, that only an area variance was necessary. The determination of the Zoning
Administrator is equivocal and ambiguous on its face.
In an effort to preserve their appellate rights,following discovery of the Brown letter on
or about August 26, 2013,and within the applicable period of appeal, to wit: 60 days, the
petitioners filed an appeal dated October 18,2013 with the ZBA. The Court will deem that the
appeal has been timely. The letter from Attorney Caffiy also contained a request to table the
appeal pending the outcome of the instant litigation. Insofar as the petition is not barred as
untimely based upon the foregoing, the appeal of the Brown letter may now be considered by the
ZBA.
The Court notes that the petitioners have argued that remanding the matter back to the
ZBA is an exercise in futility insofar as the ZBA and Planning Board have previously approved
the project.2 However, as the Brown letter is now challenged, the ZBA will have to Iook closely
at the requirements contained therein as well as the determination by the Zoning Administrator
that obviated a use variance, if that is indeed the determination of Craig Brown. It is premature
to speculate as to what the ZBA will decide regarding the appeal of the Brown letter. At this
juncture, the Court will not interject its analysis into the process as there has not been an
opportunity to exhaust the administrative remedies nor could there have been without the proper
2 Petitioners argue that despite filing an appeal of the Brown letter upon discovery of
same, they had no duty to appeal the letter. In light of the ambiguity regarding whether or not a
use variance was required, the petitioners assert there is not an actual determination by the
Zoning Administrator to appeal.
Page 7 of 8
I
filing of the letter with the Town Clerk.
While the Brown letter may be considered ambiguous, clearly,the Applicant and possibly
the ZBA and/or Planning Board believed it was an administrative determination which obviated
the use variance requirement. As such,to exhaust the administrative remedies, the appeal of the
Brown letter should be perfected and the petition held in abeyance pending further proceedings.
Based upon the foregoing,the pre-answer motion to dismiss is denied. The appeal of the
November 10,2011 letter from Craig Brown to Matthew Fuller and the interpretations contained
therein shall be heard by the ZBA at the members' earliest opportunity. For that purpose,the
matter is remanded to the ZBA. The Court will hold the amended Article 78 petition in abeyance
pending further determination(s)by the ZBA and,if necessary, the Planning Board. The
respondents need not file an answer to the petition until the appeal is determined. At that time,
counsel for the parties shall agree upon a scheduling order and submit same to the Court for
approval or, if same cannot be accomplished, advise the Court in writing and a conference will
be scheduled to establish a motion schedule.
The within constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
ENTER:
DATED: yl4ftI JOB 2.014- = Y/ P
HONORAB E DA IP : KROGMANN
JUSTICE OF THE S ' "' ME COURT
The Court is filing the original decision and order together with the original papers in the
appropriate County Clerk's Office. Attorney for Petitioner to comply with CPLR 2220.
Distribution:
John W. Caffry,Esq.
Matthew F. Fuller, Esq.
Leah Everhart, Esq.
Page 8 of 8
411/ Ill
Department of
OW Community Development
wx- 1
Queensbury Planning Board
es...* Staff Notes
November 17, 2011
APPLICATION: Site Plan 77-2011
APPLICANT: Bear Pond Ranch, LLC/French Mountain Bear Pond, LLC
REQUESTED ACTION: Outdoor recreation uses in a LC zone require Planning Board review and
approval.
LOCATION: Off State Route 149
EXISTING ZONING: LC-10
SEQRA STATUS: Unlisted
PARCEL HISTORY: SP 43-06: Applicant has constructed forest roads, including clear cut areas,
totaling 5.3 acres of land. Clear-cutting more than 5 acres in the LC-zone
requires Planning Board review and approval Settlement dated December
1,2008 with Town Board
SP 15-06: Applicant has constructed forest roads for logging&permanent
access to Macchio land on top of French Mt. Rd. Construction requires 31.3
acres of clearing/disturbance on the 5 parcels involved. Disturbance greater
than 5 acres on any one parcel in the LC-zone or over 2 acres in the RR-3A
zone require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board Withdrawn by
applicant on June 27,2006.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 linear foot zip line emanating on
lands in Queensbury and terminating on lands in Lake George; total elevation drop of approximately 770 ft.
proposed. Zip line to be accessed by previously installed logging roads as described under parcel history.
STAFF COMMENTS: It is noted in the narrative dated October 17,2011 that the statement"Due to the
fact that there is minimal disturbance in Queensbury we do not believe Stormwater Regulations are
applicable". Although staff somewhat agrees with this statement, disturbance may be greater than expected
with the likelihood of blasting and subsequent stockpiling anticipated. Further,road bed preparation will
need to be accomplished to accommodate truck traffic associated with the project. The Planning Board
should require additional information including detailed construction sequencing and existing infrastructure
upgrades. Upgrades would include submittal of existing and proposed stormwater controls for the access
road. It is noticed that additional road work has been performed by the applicant without proper review.
Further to this, what are the plans for the movement of patrons to the launch site?
•
Soils: Woodstock-Rock outcrop complex, steep(WoE)—According to the Warren County Soil Survey
these soils are categorized as somewhat excessively drained to excessively drained Woodstock soils and
Bedrock. Granite bedrock is typically at a depth of 18 inches and rock outcrops at the surface consist of
protrusions,faces and ledges of schist, gneiss, or granite bedrock. Seasonal high water table does not occur
at this location. It should be noted that runoff is rapid to very rapid within this soil complex.
Staff comments:
Pages 00 -01:
1. No immediate issues
Page 02:
1. Blasting to facilitate installation of footings is likely as the depth to bedrock is less than 18 inches in
most cases. What, if any,boring data is available at footing locations? Please clarify.
2. Concerning potential blasting,protocols including notification,times,duration,etc. should be
forthcoming.
3. Detailed construction sequence should be submitted to include any roadbed upgrades and
stormwater controls.
Page 03:
1. No immediate issues
Page 04:
1. Visual impacts to be considered. Colors and visual addendums lacking in details
Page 05— 11, S-1, S-2:
1. No immediate issues.
Additional comments:
1. With the potential for blasting,road upgrades on steep slopes,disturbance within the Queensbury
portion of the project,and visual impacts associated with the project,a coordinated SEQR review
could be considered. The Planning Board may wish to seek Lead Agency status on this project with
the knowledge that Lake George will most likely request the same;as with previous projects, the
Commissioner will designate Lead Agency if both agencies seek said status. Further to this,the
Planning Board could acknowledge Lake George as the Lead Agency for this project with the
knowledge that the board will commence site plan review only as Per Town Code. Finally,there is
nothing in SEQRA that clearly prohibits the Planning Board from conducting their own
uncoordinated review for this Unlisted Action per §617.6(b)(4). However, there is also no clear
legal authority for doing an uncoordinated review when another involved agency starts a
coordinated review. A separate,uncoordinated review would be contrary to one of the basic
purposes of SEQRA,which is for environmental reviews to be done promptly and efficiently, with
minimum delay and without unnecessary duplication of review. Counsel is not aware of any other
situation in which an Involved Agency initiated a coordinated review. For these reasons, Counsel
does not recommend that the Planning Board conduct an uncoordinated review for this project if the
Lake George Planning Board,or any other Involved Agency, starts a coordinated review.
2 The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to provide a performance bond as per §179-9-
090 due to the potential environmental and visual sensitivity of the project.
3 The applicant has provided NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and
NYSDEC Endangered and Threatened Species sign off from respective agencies.
4 Town Consultant Engineer comments attached.
5 Fire Marshall comments attached.
L:1Keith Obome12011 Staff Notes\Planning\November 171SP 77-01 Bear Pond_11 17 11.doc
-2-
THE
•
North Cou, Office
ChaKen 100 Glen Street, Glens Falls, NY 12
180
P: (518)812-0513 F: (518)812-0055
COMPANIES www.chazencompanies_com
Engineers Capital District Office (518)273-0055
Environmental Professionals
Land Surveyors Hudson Valley Office (845)454-3980
Landscape Architects
Planners
November 9, 2011(Revised)
Mr. Craig Brown
Zoning Administrator and Code Compliance Officer
State Route 149
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury New York 12804
Delivered via email only:CraigB(Wqueensbury.net
Re: Bear Pond Ranch—Site Plan Review
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
Chazen Job#91104.34
Queensbury Ref No:Site Plan 77-2011
Dear Mr. Brown:
The Chazen Companies (Chazen) received a submission package for the construction of a year round
tourist attraction, including a festival area, restaurant and shops,a concert arena,stables and a zip flyer,
in the Towns of Queensbury and Lake George. The construction within the Town of Queensbury is
limited to a tower and platform to support the zip flyer's launch. Submitted information includes the
following:
• Site Plan set entitled, "Bear Pond Zip-Flyer", prepared by Glynn Geotechnical Engineering.,
dated October 7, 2011;
• Site Plan set entitled, "Bear Pond Ranch State Rout 9 & Bloody Pond Road", prepared by
Hutchins Engineering,dated November 17, 2010, last revised October 17,2011;
• A cover letter written by Bartlett, Pontiff,Steward& Rhodes, P.C.,dated October 17,2011;
• An application for Site Plan Review with associated documents;
• And a Short Environmental Assessment Form;
Your office has requested that we limit our review to the design of stormwater management and
erosion and sediment control items as it relates to compliance to local, state or relevant codes and
regulations.Also,we have also been requested to review only the portions of the project that fall within
the Town of Queensbury. Pursuant to this, Chazen offers the following comments for the Town's
consideration:
Town of Queensbury
Bear Pond Ranch
November 9,2011(Revised)
Page 2 •
1. The project proposes the construction of a festival area, restaurant and shops, a concert arena,
stables, and a zip flyer as part of a year round tourist attraction within the Towns of Queensbury
and Lake George. Construction within the Town of Queensbury includes a tower and platform
to support the zip flyer's launch. Chapter 179-06-08 of the Town of Queensbury Code states
that the stormwater drainage plan shall analyze the impacts of the project using a 50-year storm
event for commercial or industrial projects. The applicant has requested a waiver from meeting
stormwater management requirements stating that there is minimal disturbance within the
Town of Queensbury. The plans indicate the proposed zip flyer tower and take off platform
measure a total of 798 SF of additional impervious area, and a total disturbance area of 10,400
SF. it appears from the submitted information, that the proposed additional impervious area
created by the zip flyer tower and launch pad is minimal. Since only a minimal amount of
additional impervious is proposed, it is anticipated that only a minimal increase in stormwater
runoff will be realized.
2. The sediment control fence detail provided shall be revised to specify the silt fence material in
accordance with the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control
(NYSSESC). Also, the applicant shall provide the construction specifications for the Silt Fence, in
conformance with the NYSSESC
3. Due to the steep slopes on site, rolled erosion control matting is recommended for use on
disturbed slopes,in addition to the proposed silt fence.
4. It is recommended that the applicant indicate the material specifications and application rates
for topsoil,seed and mulch to be used to reestablish vegetative cover following construction,for
the contractors use.
Conclusions and Recommendations
It is our opinion that the applicant should provide clarification for the above items and incorporate the
changes for the next submission.
819191100-91199\91104 34-T Queensbury-SP 77-2011-Bear Pond Ranch Docs\Rnview+Bear Pond S 77-2011_11-9-11•(Revised).doc
Town of Queensbury •
Bear Pond Ranch
November 9,2011(Revised)
Page 3
If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact this office at(518)824-
1926.
Sincerely,
Sean M. Doty, P.E., LEED AP
Senior Project Engineer
cc: Pam Whiting, Town Planning Office Administrator(via email)
Keith Oborne,Town Planner(via email)
Joel Bianchi, P.E.,Senior Director-Municipal Engineering(via email)
File
R 9\91100-91199\91104.34-T Queen ,ay-SP 77-2011-Bear Bald Ranch\Docs,Revin4Benv Pond Sp77-2011_11-9-11-(Rsysed).doc
FE MARSHAL'S OFFICE
IIIII
VeTS_ __ Town o Queensbury
742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
" Home of Natural Beauty ... A Good Place to Live "
PLAN REVIEW
Bear Pond Zip Flyer
77-2011
11/1/2011
The following comments are based on plan review of submittals: (site)
1)Based on site submittals drawings, the Fire Marshal's office has classified
this project as a"U" occupancy classification. Based on this classification,
no emergency access roads are required.
Note: When the construction permits are applied for, the occupancy
designation may change based on what is proposed, and further code
requirements may become applicable.
41**‘11?-1we :. \
Michael J Palmer
Fire Marshal
742 Bay Road
Queensbury NY 12804
firemarshal @queensbury.net
i
1
Fi re Mars Iial 's Office • Phone: 518-761-8206 • Fax: 518-745-4437
firemarshal@queensbunj.net • www.queenshury.net
11 TOWN OF QUEI URY
•
iv� Community De lopment Office
742 Boy Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-5902
Notice of Public Hearing-Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Pursuant to requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and/or Subdivision Regulations the
Town of Queensbury Planning Board will conduct a special meeting / public hearing / public comment
meeting on Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 7 D.M. at the Queensbury Activities Center located at 742 Bay
Road to consider the application for:
Applicant(s) BEAR POND RANCH,LLC: � AppEcalion Type Site Plan 77-2011
FRENCH MOUTA1N BEAR !
-- - --- - POND LLC-- - --- -- - ---
--= ---- ---------
(s) i Same as applicant _ _SEAR Jype ! Unlisted_
Agents) Little &O'Connor, Bartlett ' Lot size 1 74.18& 169 acres
Pontiff Stewart&Rhodes; ;
Hutchins Engineering _ _^`!_-__ —
Location Off State Route 149 Zoning Classification LC-10A-Land Conservation
- - - - - - 1- --- - _ _i 10 acres _
Tax ID No. J 278.-1-77, 13 i Ordinance Section _ 179-9
. Cross Reference : SP 43-06,SP 15-06 - Warren Co.Planning 11/9/2011
Public Hearing i 11/17/2011 i - _- -
Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 linear foot zip line emanating on lands in Queensbury and
terminating on lands in Lake George; total elevation drop of approximately 770 ft. proposed. Outdoor recreation uses in a
i LC zone require Planning Board review and approval.
Date Sent: November 10, 2011
Signed: Gretchen Steffan,Secretary, Queensbury Planning Board
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
This notice is given in order that you as owner of property in the immediate vicinity that may be affected may
appear at said hearing and be heard with respect thereto.
Applications are available for review in the Planning Office Monday thru Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. If you have
any questions please call the Planning Office at 761-8220, to fax your comments: 518/ 745-4437
I r,s mew .era
I1- ID-1/ i
"Home of Natural Beauty - A Good Ptace to Live"