Loading...
2004-02-10 SP (Queensbury Planning Board 2/10/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC MEMBERS ABSENT LARRY RINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SUPPLEMENTAL EIS SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2-2004 GREAT ESCAPE AGENT: LEMERY GREISLER, LLC ZONE: HC-I LOCATION: 1213 ST. RT. 9, 1227 ST. RT. 9 APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED A SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE GREAT ESCAPE, WHICH ADDRESSES THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 200-ROOM HOTEL AND INDOOR AMUSEMENT CENTER. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL ENTERTAIN A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL GEIS AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE TO COMMENCE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL ALSO SET A “SPECIAL” PUBLIC HEARING DATE AS WELL AS A COMMENT PERIOD. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5, 4 LOT SIZE: 6.40 AC., 4.06 ACRES JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Tonight is a Supplemental EIS for The Great Escape. Chris and Stu, I’ll turn it over to you. Give us a brief synopsis. MR. ROUND-Yes. I’ll give you a brief background. I’ll let Stu fill in. As you know, Great Escape delivered a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, in draft form. The first step for the Planning Board is to judge that complete, to start the public review process. What we’ve been doing, behind the public scenes, is reviewing that document. Chazen Group’s provided two or three, three sets of comments on the document. The applicant has been responding to those comments. We subsequently tried to draw the Planning Board’s process to a close, met with several Planning Board members and with Stuart and myself, and identified those final set of comments. The applicant, tonight’s, going to be delivering a document that we Planning Staff and the Chazen Companies has judged complete, and the three members of the Planning Board have identified as satisfactory to the issues that they have identified. Once this document, the resolution in front of you tonight is a resolution to accept the document as complete, start the comment process, so the document would be produced, distributed, to the Planning Board members, involved agencies, Zoning Board of Appeals. Several documents will be produced for the public, so that they’re available for those folks. We’ll be setting a public hearing where we will actually be receiving public comment. That will be March 2, which is a nd Tuesday night. That’s a change from a previous date that we’ve brought around to you folks. MR. VOLLARO-March 9 was the. th 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/10/04) MR. ROUND-March 9. March 2 was a date that Town Counsel, Mark Schachner, would like thnd to be part of this process, rather than one of his associates. That date is most acceptable to him, and to the applicants and the Planning Board, and our consultant. That will be, we’ll have a presentation from the applicant at that point, and you’ll actually have like you do in a normal public hearing, you’ll have the public come up, provide comment. The comment period will extend a minimum of 10 days beyond that public hearing date. So folks will have an opportunity to digest what they hear and see at that evening, and have an opportunity to provide written comment up through the end of March 12, March 12 or 13, and we’ll, that’s ththth in our resolution tonight, and then we’ll proceed, as we normally do, with the review process. MR. VOLLARO-Will that be a joint meeting, Chris? MR. ROUND-Yes, and it’s important to note, because this project involves relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals, we thought it beneficial to have both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board to hear the same presentation, to hear the substance of the project, because the Planning Board is the SEQRA review agency. A lot of the substance that you’re looking at, one of the critical areas is visual impacts and the height relief requested from the ZBA is directly related to visual impacts. So it’s important that you both be on the same level of understanding with those issues, and hopefully the decision process will coordinated between the two Boards, and that’s our objective is to coordinate the review. Now, Stu, if you want to? STUART MESINGER MR. MESINGER-I think that’s, I don’t have anything to add to that. MR. VOLLARO-I have just one question, if I could. Stu Mesinger’s letter of February 5, 2004, has that been accepted by the applicant in total, or is it sporadically accepted, or what? MR. MESINGER-The applicant submitted pages from the revised SGEIS responding to the 13 points in that letter. Either showing me where the physical changes have been made or indicating, in the event, a figure, a lot of it was just changing the titles of figures, that that would be done. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we can, in a sense, incorporate into our approval tonight the February 5 letter? th MR. MESINGER-Yes. I don’t have a response about the last point, which if you’ll recall when we met, and so I don’t know that they’ve changed the document to reflect that. You might want to ask that. MR. VOLLARO-I think we discussed that. That might be a Findings Statement? MR. MESINGER-Yes, right, that’s what we talked about. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? MR. SANFORD-Just one on clarification. I think that you didn’t change of those dates when we last met, but let me just go over them again. On the 9, there’s going to be public hearing’s th opened up, as well as the joint meeting with the Zoning Board? MR. VOLLARO-The 2. nd MR. ROUND-No. It’s now the 2, and that should be reflected on your resolution that you nd have in front of you. MR. SANFORD-3/2, then? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/10/04) MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. What about 3/9? MR. ROUND-3/9 is no longer a date that we will meet. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Then on 3/19, or then on actually 3/12 would end the comment period? MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and then on 3/25, site plan? MR. ROUND-3/25 we propose a Special Planning Board meeting for you to start to review the substance of the site plan. MR. SANFORD-And will that be joint as well? MR. ROUND-We hadn’t defined, or come to that conclusion yet. I think we tentatively scheduled it as a joint meeting. I think we’ll know better after the 2. nd MR. SANFORD-And then tentatively on or around April 15 would be adoption of Findings? th Is that still on, for target? MR. ROUND-Within the month of April, I think that’s a target, yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, along those lines, the variance that the ZBA has to look into for, there’s a couple of variances. Will they take place before or after the second meeting? In other words, it’s tentatively on the second meeting that it’s a joint, but will they have, when will they be making their determination on variances? MR. ROUND-The variance action cannot occur until after SEQRA Findings are adopted. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Anything you wanted to add? MR. LEMERY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is John Lemery, Counsel for the project. I want to say, first of all, that we’re very appreciative that you took this time to have this Special Meeting for us. We know that you have all these meetings every month, and that they go on for several hours into the evening. So we’re very appreciative of that. Mr. Vollaro, with regard to the last comment concerning the bridge, we’re very amenable to have it part of the Findings that the bridge be part of the Findings. We’re working on it now. We’re trying to figure out how we can get, because that’s a separate site plan review for the bridge, as we see it. I mean, you have to approve the bridge and the site plan for the bridge and all of that. The only question we have regarding the bridge is the question of, you know, when they’re going to finish the sewer line, but it’s being designed and so we’re telling Ryan Biggs, the designers and the construction company, that it has to be in by the Spring of ’05. It has to be in place and ready to go. So we understand your concern there, and that you want to make it part of the Findings that we’ve instructed the designers and the contractors that that’s the case. MR. SANFORD-John, whether it’s part of the Findings, or as we suggested, maybe it could get addressed right up front, basically the direction we were moving in, at least at that short meeting that we had, would be that before a CO was issued, the pedestrian bridge would be constructed and operational, and of course the sewer line would have to be put in at that point in time, in order for the hotel to be operational, but it was the strong feeling, at least on those 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/10/04) members who were present, that that be at least now part of the Findings Statement. So I just thought I’d mention that. MR. LEMERY-I understand that. That’s fine. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. LEMERY-I understand that. MR. SANFORD-I believe the applicant is shaking his head no on that, when I just brought that up. MR. COLLINS-I’m not sure, when you say a CO, because the intention is to, if we can get this thing done, have it open before the Park is open. The pedestrian bridge, obviously, would need to be done for the Park. So I’m not sure that we’ve had a discussion, as far as timing of it, but our intention is to have it ready for the 2005 season. Now our intention on the hotel is to try to open that before the Park. So, you know, it’s a pretty aggressive construction timeframe as it is. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we can do is, as we start reviewing the site plan itself, we can dive in to these details a little bit more, than try to discuss them tonight. MR. COLLINS-Yes, and I have no problem with that. MR. LEMERY-We understand the need to get it done, and hopefully it will be done by the time that the hotel opens. MR. COLLINS-I mean, the hotel project is the hotel project, and the pedestrian bridge is really for the Park. We have no problem, you know, if it’s part of the Findings, but tying up a CO based on that, I’m not sure that, you know, that’s the way you want to go with that. MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, it’s kind of the way I want to go with that. I’m very concerned about accidents potentially happening, when people are parked over there and they’re crossing the street to get to the Park, and I think that the pedestrian bridge would go a long way in preventing any kind of a horrible accident. So, we’ll go into it more, but I just wanted you to know up front just exactly how I happen to feel about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. LEMERY-No, sir. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? Does somebody want to move it? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s that? MR. MESINGER-We have a document now. MEG O’LEARY MS. O’LEARY-We do. So, I think, are we, we’re collecting all the SDGEIS, taking them back and bringing back, right? Okay. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Are we set? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/10/04) MR. ROUND-Yes. We just wanted to make sure we’re acting on the document that we had in front of us tonight. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. MOTION ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE GEIS FOR THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK AS COMPLETE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Great Escape Theme Park proposes expansion of facilities to accommodate a 200 room hotel and water park, and WHEREAS, the project applicant submitted a proposed Draft Supplemental to GEIS on January 20, 2004 and the Town Planning Staff, members of the Planning Board and its consultants Chazen Companies have reviewed the proposed Draft Supplemental to GEIS and requested various changes and revisions to the document, and WHEREAS, the applicant has made the requested changes and revisions, and WHEREAS, the Town Planning Staff and Chazen Companies have recommended the Planning Board accept the Draft Supplemental to GEIS as complete for the purpose of public review and comment, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts the Draft Supplemental to the GEIS for the Great Escape Theme Park, LLC as complete for the purposes of public review and comment, and RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to conduct a public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comment, and RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury establishes a public hearing on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 at 7 p.m. at the Queensbury Town Center, and RESOLVED, that the Planning Board shall receive written public comment with the close of comment on Friday, March 12, 2004. Duly adopted this 10 day of February, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-See you guys on March the 2. nd MR. LEMERY-Thanks very much. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, Karner blue. You wanted to talk about the Karner blue. MR. ROUND-Yes. We gave you a Vision Statement about what the Karner blue butterfly protection plan, and that’s a change in the title from Management Plan to Protection Plan. We gave you a Vision Statement about two weeks ago, and we said we would reconvene with you, 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/10/04) make sure you understood that this was the direction that the Town was going in. I know not everybody on the Planning Board agreed specifically with this, but we believe that the majority of people that were involved with the project, Planning Board, Town Board, prescribed this direction for us. We want to make sure you understood where we were going with this, and if you had any comments or questions on it, you know, get back to me so that we can start movement on this project, in the very near future, because it has, it’s been a couple of months and we haven’t done anything with it. Basically, I’ll run through it quickly. We’re looking at developing an overlay district that will communicate to the development community just what protocols they need to follow when communicating with endangered species issues, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and DEC, and that overlay district will apply to this entire Queensbury Sand Plains Unit, and that will get rid of some of the confusion from the development community, exactly what do they need to have in hand when they come to you, to prove that they’ve documented their due diligence when it comes to endangered species. The plan as it exists today, and will exist, once this work is completed, will also identify areas that the DEC has judged to be suitable for future restoration activities. I don’t think, there were very few people that wanted to actively acquire land or acquire land through set aside program through a mitigation or an extraction program. So this just identifies, these are lands that are suitable for these activities, and if there’s a mutually agreeable, voluntary mechanism where we can acquire those lands, either directly to the State or a local entity, that’s a good way to communicate that. So, that, and there’s additional language in there. So that’s the substance of the direction that we’re taking, and we want to make sure the Planning Board members were involved with that, and then I don’t know if, as we proceed, whether we want a Planning Board member to participate in a smaller group, to track exactly the direction it’s going or if you want the entire Board to see subsequent submissions. MR. VOLLARO-Have you determined what the overlay looks like yet, in terms of land? In other words, you’re going to have an overlay that goes over Queensbury, and it’s going to say, these are the lands we’re talking about. MR. ROUND-Yes. If you fall within this district, these are lands we’re talking about, that physically identifies those areas, which is basically the Sand Plains unit, which is that rectangular area that’s, you know, basically 149 south, and, you know, east of West Mountain Road, and west of I-87. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-That rectangle. So you’ve seen this depict that depiction before. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-It’s very clearly defined on the map, and if a project falls within that district, here’s a set of procedures that you need to follow. Basically it’s just, we’re taking what’s already existing regulations, at State and Federal level, identifying it in our local land use regulations, so that the local community really knows what they need to do to comply with the State and Federal Statutes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s what I was going to say. MR. ROUND-We’re not creating a new law. We’re just really communicating what it is they need for you folks to be sure that they have complied with the State and Federal Statute, and then it also communicates, here’s our vision for restoration activities. We really don’t have an entity in hand. We have some players pulling together. In the years to come, we’ll see an entity take an active involvement in restoration. Hopefully DEC will do that through the Environmental Bond Act and through its activities. They’ve done some cooperative efforts with the Land Conservancy in other communities, and hopefully our land conservancy will step up to that role. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/10/04) MR. VOLLARO-In your initial reviews, is this when the applicant gets notified that he’s obligated to do this? In other words, he may not know. MR. ROUND-Right. It’s helpful to Staff and it’s helpful to the applicant, because we get, you’ve seen the applicants come in here, and there’s a checklist on the SEQRA form that says, is there potential for endangered species, and they say, no, you know, well, that’s not the due diligence that they need to follow. They need to send a notification letter. What we had suggested adding is, here’s a biological screening process that you should go through, to kind of take the guess work out of, you know, the first step in trying to evaluate whether there’s a potential for that species on the site. MR. VOLLARO-It sounds pretty straightforward to me. I wasn’t one of the supporters of this, but, you know, that’s the way life goes. It’s in black letter type, now you do it. No problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Then you’re going to further identify areas that could be set aside? MR. ROUND-Correct, yes, and what we refer to historically is this beads and string model, is basically the Niagara Mohawk Power lines are a pathway for migration of the species, and they’re very conducive to blue lupine growth, and that’s the string, so that’s the linear pathway that the butterfly has adapted to in our region, and some people have said that, if not for the power lines, the endangered species wouldn’t exist in our area, because that’s where the Sand Dunes in this terrestrial environment. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve kind of created the habitat, I think. MR. ROUND-And so the beads would be nodes of land, you know, on that string that could expand that type of environment and actively cultivate the lupine and then help the butterfly reestablish itself. That’s kind of, in a nutshell. MR. MAC EWAN-Where do you want to take it from here? MR. ROUND-Well, I just want to make sure that you folks, that you all know what we’re doing, that, you know, if not in agreement, that at least you know the direction that we’re taking. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. ROUND-And gauge what kind of role do you want to play, as we develop this basically zoning regulation. Do you want to see a draft? Do you want to have a membership actively participate in the language crafting process? MR. SANFORD-Well, the big issue is the quid pro quos, right? So someone wants to develop up by West Mountain, in one of those areas, I guess what I’m interested in seeing is what is going to be the criteria for, in exchange for developing up here, you will do this other thing? I assume you’re still on that track, you know, which is, if you’re going to disturb habitat, you have to replace habitat, and so I would just like to, I mean, that’s what we’ve never been able to get to with our previous discussions. We all had agreed that that’s what we want to see, but then the consultant never came in and said, you know, here’s the list of exactly, if A happens, then B is what we want, and, what we didn’t want is we didn’t want this Board to have to wrestle with that, without, you know, there’s issues of consistency here and appropriateness and everything else, and I thought that that’s what we were going to get. Are we going to be getting that? MR. ROUND-No, you’re not, Dick. I think that’s the goal we were working towards. That was like our Option C. This is Option B, which was less than that. What happens is that it’s, you didn’t see a lot of the front end with the Schermerhorn, this Sherman Avenue project, in that there’s very subjective decision making by the scientists involved, on qualifying and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/10/04) quantifying habitat. In that case, they identified, on the same piece of property, a 30 some odd acre piece of property, they identified a patch of lupine as being occupied, and occupied meaning in the strictest sense, that it was home to a butterfly, but the science allows them to say, even though there’s not a butterfly in this particular patch of lupine, we know there to be butterfly within 1,000 yards of this area, and so the potential exists for this butterfly to migrate to this particular patch, and that changes from year to year to year, and they may be in a patch a half mile wide. So on this one site, they identified two areas. They identified one area that was occupied, not in a strict sense that there were not butterflies observed on this site, but it had the potential to be home for butterflies. They identified another patch of lupine on the same property that was not occupied, which was several hundred feet away, and they indicated it was not occupied because it didn’t have a critical mass in size, and that the adjacent fauna was not nectar species that was conducive to the feeding habits of the butterfly. So, for us to do that kind of an evaluation on a Town wide basis and make judgments is a really time consuming and difficult thing to do. So we haven’t taken that, we haven’t lifted that weight or that burden off the developer. If a developer today, even after this plan is developed, wants to go in and destroy occupied habitat, they need to go through a permitting process with the State and Federal government. MR. SANFORD-I just really, for the life of me, Chris, can’t understand what the LA Group really did for us in this whole exercise, other than I guess charge us some $30,000, maybe, and I’m not trying to be argumentative here. MR. MAC EWAN-Just to clarify the record, it was C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-C.T. Male. MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry, C.T. Male. We knew all of this, way back when, about where the habitat was, and what we wanted to have is a nicely laid out blueprint that the Planning Board or the Town Board or whoever can follow, to basically review applications as the Chairman put it one time, so we’re consistent, and we’re fair to everybody, and what you’re saying is that nothing’s really been added, that I can see, from when we first started this project. So I’m confused as to what we’ve done. MR. ROUND-Well, I think we started out with this direction in mind. I think as the project evolved I think that there were players at the table who wanted to achieve the goal that you had identified, and as we became involved, I think there were concerns about cost, concerns about process, concerns about the Town’s capacity to actually perform that service for the development community, because we talked about, how do we fund that, and we talked about mitigation fees and charging every developer money to come in and handle that particular service for them. It’s a very, in concept, it’s a terrific objective and terrific goal to achieve, but in a practical sense, it becomes very much a large burden, and our concern was, this level of effort may not benefit a large. MR. SANFORD-Right, but there was Option One, Two, and Three. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. SANFORD-I can’t locate my sheet which actually was, I think, distributed to us, which listed Option One, Two, and Three. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. SANFORD-We settled on Option Two. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. SANFORD-What was Option One? Do you recall? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/10/04) MR. ROUND-Well, Option One was to do less, I think, Bob, maybe you were an advocate for that, is basically do nothing. It’s basically, let’s let the development community handle this. MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s against public policy, isn’t it? I mean, you basically, we have an obligation to deal with endangered species. So I don’t know if that was really what Option One was. MR. ROUND-Option One was no proactive measures. I think it said, hey, you’ve got to comply with these State and Federal Statutes. That’s your job to do that. We’re not going to provide any communication. We’re not going to adopt a zoning overlay. You’re on your own, basically. MR. SANFORD-All right. Now, Option Two was what? MR. ROUND-Is this, what’s presented to you. MR. SANFORD-But as it was presented back when, it was a paragraph or so. How did it read, do you know? I’d like to see that memo again. MR. ROUND-Sure. I don’t have that with me, but I can give you a copy of that again. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Can you e-mail it to me? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Because I’d like to read that through, because I know the difference with Option One was basically C.T. Male, there was like, I asked you for the cost. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And I think that was around a $13,000 price tag. Option Two was in the 30’s, and then Option Three was even higher than that, and I’m just kind of looking at it, you know, if it’s a matter of another $16, or $17,000 from Option One to Option Two, and we already had the overlay, then I’m really not sure what we’ve really gotten out of this. MR. ROUND-I don’t think, I think a lot of what has been done is, a lot we have completed, no additional cost, is already there. So to bring the work to closure is not going to be an additional scope of work. I mean, we’ve already, and it’s going to be less than what we had projected, and what has been approved by the Board. So basically we’re reducing the costs that we initially identified. It’s been a very difficult issue. There’s been a learning curve involved with all of us here. MR. VOLLARO-This lines up with Special Use Permits, you know, it’s almost on the same par as that. MR. SANFORD-Well, when we had the presentation, and I remember it was a joint presentation to the Planning Board and the Town Board. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. SANFORD-The C.T. Male presentation, we had already known all of that, I mean, quite frankly, what he had to say. I mean, it wasn’t new information there, and that’s kind of where we are now. I mean, the way I’m seeing it. MR. ROUND-I hear you. MR. SANFORD-All right. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/10/04) MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess. I mean, that’s it, but I mean, I’m not sure how we’re ever going to really deal with these things. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess maybe a comment is just, you know, keep proceeding the way you are. Maybe what we can do, in the interest of just dispersing information is keep me in the loop with this, and if you feel so inclined that at some point you either want to have a joint meeting again with the Town Board or elect a committee from the PB, I’ll take it from that point and make the necessary movements. MR. ROUND-I’ll run it through you, and you can talk to the rest of the Board. Okay. I’ll work with that, and I think that’s all I wanted to bring to your attention tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? MR. ROUND-Lastly, I don’t know if you’ve met Gretchen Steffan, our new Planning Board alternate? MR. MAC EWAN-I knew she looked familiar. Hi, Gretchen, how are you? MR. ROUND-I know Albert Anderson was here. I know he introduced himself to Bob. I don’t know if he met the rest of you. MR. VOLLARO-He was here. He talked to me. Well, I’ve known him from before. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? That’s it? MR. ROUND-That was it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 10