Loading...
2004-05-20 SP (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 20, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD MEMBERS ABSENT ANTHONY METIVIER CRAIG MAC EWAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 GREAT ESCAPE PLANNING BOARD ADOPTION OF SEQRA FINDINGS – 10 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF FS GEIS JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll turn it over to Chris. MR. ROUND-We last met on The Great Escape proposed hotel/water park on May 10. At that th time, you accepted a Final Environmental Impact Statement. We distributed at that same time draft SEQRA Findings. We’ve made some minor changes to those SEQRA Findings, and I’ve got copies for you, and most of those were not substantive in nature. A couple points that we want to bring up to you, maybe we’ll walk you through those, as I distribute these. Let me let Stu know, I think the one was in regard to the ped. bridge issue. MR. MESINGER-Yes. I’m assuming that everybody read it. We went through it last week and we asked everybody to do so. So rather than go through paragraph by paragraph, or even section by section, I guess I feel like it would be more constructive for you folks to simply raise issues and questions and do it that way, unless you feel otherwise. We should be working off the new one. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I did. MR. MESINGER-And I know Bob submitted something. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, how do you want to run this here, our comments? Do you want me to just run through mine, and then? MR. MAC EWAN-Are you guys done with your comments? MR. MESINGER-Yes. I don’t. You’ve had this for at least a week, and I’m assuming everybody read it and I just kind of think we’d all fall asleep if I started reading it back to your, or spent a 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) lot of time with it. I’m assuming you read it and I think we’d be better off just entertaining questions and discussion. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, Robert. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll start off with it. On Page One, under the Description, under Location, I want to add that the affiliate, which is HWP Development, LLC, is bound by the FSGEIS to the same degree as The Great Escape Theme Park, LLC. Is that satisfactory? I don’t know what the applicant is going to say about those, but that’s my proposal. MR. MESINGER-Yes, I think it’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Page Five, Number 14 on Page Five, I just wanted to add, where it says, talks about the guidelines and maximum building height and setback is justified, and just put a note next to that that says however the ZBA will ultimately determine the approval or denial of the height variance. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you looking, Page Five? MR. VOLLARO-Page Five at the top, 14. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And then all it says there is to add however the ZBA will ultimately determine the approval or denial of the height variance. Because right now it looks like it is justified, and therefore that’s the end of it, and I think there’s another step. MR. SANFORD-Couldn’t we just change it to the Zoning Board? MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I said, ZBA. However, the Zoning Board of Appeals will ultimately determine the approval or denial of the height variance. MR. SANFORD-Right. Well, I have a number, Bob, of these things where Planning Board is referenced where really it’s in the jurisdiction of Zoning Board, making the initial determination, and I’m interested in sequencing. Is it, since the Zoning Board hasn’t signed off, at this point, on these variances. Is it out of sequence of us to be making a conclusion of our findings on their topics? MR. SCHACHNER-Two thoughts on that. First of all, the Zoning Board hasn’t, you say the Zoning Board hasn’t signed off. I mean, the Zoning Board has not ruled on the variance request, simply because the Zoning Board doesn’t have the ability to do so until this process is complete. So you have a cart and horse or chicken and egg situation, and the answer to your second question is, it’s not only appropriate for this Board to be expressing its views on these issues as part of SEQRA Findings, but one could argue it’s even required, and that you have to go through this process before the ZBA renders its decision. MR. SANFORD-Right, in that case then I would suggest we definitely take the tone that Mr. Vollaro’s suggesting, and not be perhaps arrogant enough to think that we’ve addressed, in a comprehensive way, these types of issues, because we haven’t. We haven’t talked in terms of heights and things of this nature. I think it’s inappropriate for us to go into that area. MR. ROUND-But just to clarify, I think I won’t go too broadly back into, the Visual Impact Assessment, you were evaluating the impact of height on visibility, with respect to the sensitive receptors around the community, but, in this regard, Item 14 it says, therefore, based on the above facts and findings, the Planning Board finds that the grant of a waiver. You are the authority that grants a waiver from the Upper Route 9 Corridor Design Guidelines, not the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) Zoning Board of Appeals. So, in this instance, it’s appropriate for you to have that kind of language in there, but the sentence that we were looking at, from Bob’s standpoint is, however, the ZBA has ultimate decision making authority regarding the variance for height relief. I think that would address some of what. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and I’ll go after him on some of the areas where I thought Zoning Board would have been more appropriate or like Bob put, which I think was very tactful, that subject to, that the Planning Board finds, subject to the Zoning Board granting the variance. MR. ROUND-Jump in where those things are appropriate and we’ll try to address it. MR. SANFORD-And I’ll do that after him. I don’t want to interrupt him. MR. VOLLARO-Just basically you want to try to soften the language a little bit so when they read these Findings, they don’t feel they’ve been left out in left field or something. MR. SANFORD-That’s part of it, and I think that’s important. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, I do, too. I have no problem with that. MR. MESINGER-I’m personally fine with this change. MR. VOLLARO-Page 5B under Special Use Permit, I just want to add to that this sentence, that issuance of this Special Use Permit shall be specifically for this application only and shall not establish any precedent for any future Special Use applications on the west side of Route 9 by The Great Escape or any other applicant. MR. MESINGER-I’m okay with that. MR. ROUND-It’s under B1. MR. VOLLARO-It’s under B1. Correct. Again, we’re on Page 5, 5C, the pedestrian bridge. Now this will probably be a little controversial, but I’ll go through it anyway. In the first sentence, I’d like to replace is with was, and so that would now read, the pedestrian bridge was not formerly a part of the project, nor did the 2001 Findings condition to grant the local approvals for improvements planned in the Park area, see on construction of the pedestrian bridge. Now, my words are, when I say to the first sentence, by inclusion of descriptive wording in related schedules including the 2004 FSGEIS, the bridge, by definition, must now be considered part of this project, considering The Great Escape stated best efforts to bring the bridge on line and operational, concurrent with the hotel and water park. I think, for all the dialogue that we’ve had, in looking at the Final FGEIS, it’s pretty hard to exclude the bridge, I believe, from this at all. I think, by definition now, I think it’s got to be included. MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s the Planning Board’s Findings Statement. So I guess, I think you ought to look to the Planning Board on this, rather than. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just sitting quiet waiting for the left side of the Board to comment. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re listening. MR. SANFORD-I think your statement’s excellent. My statement was just to remove it entirely. It’s not a necessary statement. Item C-1 can be just removed and it’s not necessarily or particularly relevant to a Findings Statement. There’s a number of those that I also have, just paragraphs here that don’t need to be made. C-3 is a perfect example of a non-relevant paragraph. It reads as follows. The Planning Board recognizes that The Great Escape has been cooperative with the Town, with, blah, blah, blah, blah. Just leave it alone. Get it out of there. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t add or subtract, I feel, from this. I think it’s The Great Escape is trying to say, in some fashion. MR. SANFORD-But it’s our Statement. It’s our Statement, Bob. It’s not theirs. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but they wrote it, and I always have, my mind never quite clicks in this area. I have a real tough time with somebody else writing my stuff. MR. ROUND-Maybe I could just have you pause for a second so, under C-1, we’re only changing one word, and the balance of your comments, Bob, are editorial in nature, and not language? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, I don’t know. I’m wondering whether we should amplify that Paragraph One. Once we replace is with was. MR. SANFORD-Then you’re suggesting it’s part of it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I wanted to get some parenthetical information into that, that says by inclusion of descriptive wording and schedules. Now you could take that as my comment, if you like, but I think it might reside in that, so that it’s plain to the viewer, to the next reader, why we did that. I don’t know. MR. MESINGER-I don’t have any problem with changing the is to was. I’m not sure that you need the rest of it. You’re not substantively changing any of the other Findings that I can see. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Also on Page Eight, the very first mitigation measure listed is, in fact, construction of the pedestrian bridge. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-In the chart. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-So, I mean, I agree with Stuart. I mean, is to was, fine, either way, but to the extent that you, I think what you’re saying, Bob, is you want it clear that the pedestrian bridge is part of this Statement. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And it looks like the very first mitigation measure in the chart is construction of pedestrian bridge over Route 9 and it talks about the triggering threshold. Now that’s, of course, what was discussed, I believe, several years ago, but it’s also discussed at some length in the traffic impact mitigation section. MR. MESINGER-Well, on Page Six, Findings Five and Six really deal with this issue. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, exactly, in some serious detail. MR. SANFORD-You know what I would recommend, Bob, and it’s up to you if you want to continue with your statement which I’m not really, I would remove C-1 entirely. On C-2, I would start that as one, and I’d kill the word Nonetheless, and just have it read, just in accordance with, and blah, blah, blah, blah. I’d kill Paragraph C-3 entirely, and then start off Paragraph Four as killing “in addition” and just go the Planning Board further recognizes. In other words, there’s, if I was writing this, and the applicant wasn’t writing this, or the applicant’s agent or whoever wrote this, there’s just things in here that really aren’t necessary to 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) have in here, and I certainly wouldn’t put them in. Now what they are is, to some degree, is they’re complimentary sentences or statements about. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we getting to the point, though, are we splitting hairs? MR. SANFORD-No, I don’t think so. This is our Statement. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we are. MR. SANFORD-It isn’t the applicant’s Statement. MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re going to adopt the Statement, if we get to that point, tonight. I mean, let’s stick to the fundamentals, the change in the language that’s going to be appropriate to make sure that the project gets resolved the way we want it to. MR. SANFORD-Then let’s keep it down to factual, concrete, non-subjective things. The fact that in C-3 talks about the Planning Board recognizing The Great Escape has been cooperative with the Town, is fine. I mean, in a way, I mean, we don’t know what that means. We don’t know what is, I mean, maybe cooperative in your eyes, Craig, maybe not as cooperative in my eyes. I’d just as soon not have those types of vague sentences and expressions. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s stick with C-1 right now, and for per people’s comments here, let’s replace is with was, as suggested, is part of the project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then drop off the, by inclusion, because as Counsel has pointed out, it’s probably in there. MR. MAC EWAN-It is. It’s clearly stated on Page Eight, Phase I. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s also the subject of very detailed proposed Findings, Numbers Five and Six on Page Six. MR. MAC EWAN-So we got that covered. I mean, let’s just cut to the chase. MR. VOLLARO-What I was trying to do, you know, every time you read this, you’re looking at 2001, at 2004, and you’ve got to try to keep those two things on track in your mind, as what did 2001 say and what did 2004 say. MR. MAC EWAN-But I think Chazen has done a good job for us. I think they’ve taken this thing and tied it all together so that, you know, one link leads to another link, and there’s no slipping through the nets here, so to speak. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So long as, I would have to say that, it probably, based on the chart where they say construction of pedestrian bridge over Route 9 eliminate or (lost word) pedestrian crossings. They’re saying that it’s going to be there, but, see, it says in accordance with 11/25/02 Planning Board meeting, what that is referring back to is the 2001 Findings Statement, and I’m. MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, if Mr. Vollaro finds that confusing, Mr. Sanford’s suggestion is perfectly workable to the three of us, and that would mean just taking out C-1 and C-3. I can’t imagine the applicant much cares. They’re non-substantive. They’re somewhat historical. They don’t add or subtract a whole lot to the document in our opinion, and if you want to start Section C with Number Two becoming Number One, take out the word “nonetheless”, Number Four would become Number Two, take out the words, “in addition”, substantively, it’s pretty much the same. MR. LEMERY-Are we allowed to speak here? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, in a moment. We’ll get to you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We can buy that. That makes sense to me. I don’t have a problem with that. MR. LEMERY-We would object to that. I’ll tell you why if I’m allowed to speak. MR. MAC EWAN-Object to what? MR. LEMERY-Well, we would agree that is to was is fine, but the reference to the pedestrian bridge in Paragraph One is part of the prior record, and the prior record, the prior record of the Impact Statement has to be part of this record. MR. SCHACHNER-See, and it is, and see I think what Mr. Vollaro is saying is he’s finding it somewhat confusing, and I think that’s a reasonable comment, and the prior record, I think the Counsel’s correct. I think the 2001 and 2002 documents are a part of the record, and they’re part of the record, whether they’re specifically referenced here or not. MR. LEMERY-Also part of the, the reason number three is in there, part of the record, and part of the Findings that the Town makes, is that there are positive economic and social economic benefits from this project, part of the record that you try to make and the Findings that you try to have are, if you’re going to make Findings that allow something to proceed, those Findings should be in the form of something that speaks to the economic and positive impacts. This is an economic and positive impact of the Town. This is, Mr. Sanford, factual. There’s nothing in here that isn’t factual. The Great Escape gave an easement. The Great Escape allowed the Town to, and it’s still there. It’s all still there. So all we wanted to say, that this is a good thing and it’s part of the cooperative effort between the Town and the Park. We’d prefer it be left in there. MR. SANFORD-No, that’s right, with all due respect, that’s fine, but this is our Statement, not yours, and really, I mean, I think that’s a fair point. MR. MAC EWAN-But, Rich, given what the applicant’s saying, I think he’s making a reasonable comment, because part of doing this is you have to show the economic benefits to the community. MR. SANFORD-He says it later on in this Statement. We’ve all read this, but he talks in terms of. MR. LEMERY-I don’t know what his point is, Mr. Chairman. MR. SANFORD-Let me finish, please, and maybe you’ll hear it. On Section H you talk in terms of your social economic considerations, John. You go into them in great detail how you’re going to provide jobs that range from eight dollars an hour to seventy thousand dollars annually. MR. LEMERY-Well, what’s your particular objection to this Section? MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s just not, you know, I don’t like language, maybe we could talk about the fact that you’re always kind to your mother. I mean, it’s not relevant to what we’re trying to address here. I certainly wouldn’t write it this way, if I was writing this Statement. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to leave it in, leave it in, leave it in? I have three leave it in’s. MR. SANFORD-Take it out, I think. Why do you want to leave it in? That’s what I’d like to know. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Because there is a definite point to be made in there. I mean, it’s part of the economic benefits that this action will bring to the community, and it’s a requirement, that’s part of our review, to disclose that. What’s the big deal? We’re talking five sentences here. MR. SANFORD-Well, here’s the big deal, Craig, in that if the relationship, down the road, gets into a problem and they have to be addressed perhaps legally. I don’t think that this document should be embraced by the Planning Board, on behalf of the Town, in a way that supports or gives advantage to the applicant, where they could use our own document, our own Statement to basically conclude that, hey, there’s no merit to what you’re saying on future unknown issues. After all, your own Statement talks about how cooperative we were, when it’s not necessarily necessary. I just don’t appreciate it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s really far reaching speculation, and to try to use that from a legal aspect. MR. SANFORD-Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it’s a little bit farfetched and a little bit absurd to have the applicant prepare the Planning Board’s Statement for us, and then we critique it. MR. MESINGER-Well, but that’s not. MR. SANFORD-Not unusual. MR. MESINGER-Well, but also it’s not, this has gone through several reviews by Staff, and I will say this. There were other such statements in earlier drafts that we thought should go out. I’ll give you my opinion on these two paragraphs. It’s a lot of discussion over something that’s not terribly important one way or the other. They can stay, and I don’t think they do anything wrong. If you take them out, it doesn’t really detract from the Statement. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. MESINGER-So, you know, take a vote and move on. MR. SANFORD-Fine. I’ll be interested in hearing if our attorney concurs, because, you know, if we have problems when we look at the good intentions of some of the things that The Great Escape has talked about, and if, in fact, we feel that they haven’t exercised due diligence in trying to build this bridge in a timely manner, our own Statement compliments how cooperative they’ve been. It weakens our position. Okay. MR. MESINGER-I’ll disagree with you, because those are factual statements. I don’t think it weakens your position to state a fact. That said, this particular set of facts don’t bear directly on the action in front of you. So, either way, they’re factual. They’re true. Something that’s true doesn’t weaken your position. MR. SANFORD-I know. I was asking for the lawyer’s, the attorney to talk on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro, the burden’s on you. MR. VOLLARO-I say leave it in. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got four leave it in. Let’s move on. MR. VOLLARO-I just, I have to agree with Mr. Mesinger, in or out, it really doesn’t bother me much, and I don’t think that, from the standpoint of the future, I’d have a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Move on to the next item. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Paragraph Six, Page Six, is my next. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. MESINGER-Did one come out, then? MR. SCHACHNER-One came out, then, C-1? MR. RINGER-One’s out, and two’s in, or three’s in. MR. MESINGER-We understood C-1 came out, and you start with. MR. RINGER-One’s out, three’s in. MR. VOLLARO-I thought we were leaving was in. MR. MAC EWAN-Just changing the language on the first paragraph. MR. VOLLARO-Are we changing the language on Paragraph One, or is that gone? MR. MAC EWAN-Changing the language that you asked by one word. MR. LEMERY-We were okay with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is with was. MR. LEMERY-We were okay with the language change. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Let’s get on to a little more substantive discussion here. On Page Six, Paragraph Six, it starts off with “therefore the Planning Board”, starting with the second sentence in there, and it starts “best efforts”, and I’ll start with that, I’m going to read this whole thing because it, I don’t think materially changes the intent of this, either. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have Bob’s comments? MR. LEMERY-No, I don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have an extra one for him? MR. ROUND-No, I don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-I wanted him to have one, and I was going to share with someone else. Why don’t you give it to him, because that’s what I was going to do, so he’d have a copy of it. Go ahead, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Starting with the words “best efforts”, best efforts shall mean that The Great Escape must pursue construction of pedestrian bridge vigorously and provide the Planning Board’s designated engineering firm with clear evidence on an ongoing basis that the bridge approval and construction process of proceeding with all possible speed, taking into consideration any factors or developments outside of The Great Escape’s control, so long as The Great Escape has provided audible evidence to the Planning Board’s designated engineer that it has met it’s obligations to use its best efforts in pursuit of a timely completion of the bridge, there will be no delay in opening the hotel/water park. If the Planning Board’s designated engineer finds that The Great Escape has failed to use its best efforts, including a method of recovery, in pursuit thereof, the Planning Board may suspend or withhold the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel/water park resort until the Planning Board’s designated engineering firm is satisfied that The Great Escape has used its best efforts to remove remaining obstacles to completion of the bridge. MR. MAC EWAN-How is that significantly different than what’s in the Findings Statement? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-The Findings Statement, it says the Planning Board, the inclusion of the Planning Board’s designated engineering firm. I want the right for this Board to be able to pick an engineering firm that’s going to represent this Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Our engineering firm is sitting right there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you haven’t read my last, and, Stu, this is not meant to be anything but complimentary to you at all, but what I’m trying to say is additionally the Planning Board finds that the selection of the engineering firm shall have no prior working relationship with The Great Escape on this project. I feel that, having been involved in this kind of stuff in the past, long relationships are not really the kind of thing that you want to use when you’re providing audible evidence, and that’s my position on that. MR. SCHACHNER-I think from our standpoint, and we haven’t rehearsed this, but we’re just giving you our gut reaction from our standpoint, what we’re understanding the proposed revision to basically introduce a new player into this, which would be a newly designated engineering firm. MR. VOLLARO-That represents the Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and the purpose of introduction of the new designated engineering firm would be for that engineering firm to provide guidance and advice to the Planning Board as to whether the applicant had, quote unquote, exercised its best efforts. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and I guess what I’m going to say is that doesn’t, as your Counsel, that doesn’t strike me as an engineering function. That doesn’t strike me as an engineering function. MR. MESINGER-That was my comment. MR. VOLLARO-It could very well be. You’re going to have a lot of detailed things working in this project when it gets in the field. I mean, there’s a lot of stuff that. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s definitely true. MR. MAC EWAN-But what’s the issue whether they’re building this thing in the field or not? MR. SCHACHNER-The issue is whether they’ve utilized, the issue as I understand it, is not how is the bridge designed, how many traffic lanes, how many inches of this. How many pounds of stress does the bridge piling take. The issue that I think you’re focusing on is the determination of whether the applicant has utilized its best efforts, and that just doesn’t, as Counsel, as an attorney, that just doesn’t strike me as an engineering call. MR. VOLLARO-Well, who would you put in an engineering place. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not an engineering issue. MR. VOLLARO-Who would you put in place to do this oversight? MR. MESINGER-The Board, with the advice of its engineer, whoever that engineer may be, and Counsel. MR. SCHACHNER-And Counsel. MR. HUNSINGER-And Staff. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I see this as a situation where I would like to see audible milestones, maybe that this Board creates, milestones that say if you meet these milestones. MR. LEMERY-We’re not prepared for any of this, Mr. Vollaro. So we might as well stop right now. We can just walk away here. We’re not prepared for this. MR. VOLLARO-Prepared for what, sir? MR. LEMERY-For this kind of foolishness about this Statement. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think this is foolishness at all. MR. LEMERY-First of all, this company is a long-time corporate taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury, and your sense here that you need some proof beyond the goodwill of this company that comes back to the Planning Board. The Planning Board has, for years, had the ability to determine all the projects in front of you, whether someone is making progress or not. This is no different. Here’s a fine corporate taxpayer that has represented to you, and made a part of its Findings, that it will make its best efforts and do everything including the $1.8 million that it’s going to cost to build this bridge and it has now been started. So we’re not interested in paying for another engineer to look at this, because we already had to pay for your engineers to do this work, and by the way, C.T. Male, we were very cooperative with C.T. Male. C.T. Male is the Town’s engineers with respect to the sewer project. We had a number of meetings with C.T. Male whereby we discussed where they were going to put the pump station, how it would affect the Park, what the buildings would look like. So you probably don’t want to use them either. MR. VOLLARO-No, you haven’t read this yet. MR. LEMERY-We want this statement left as is, that’s the way we’ll proceed, and we think that’s a fair and reasonable. We’ve done our best to write language that recognizes your concern about building this pedestrian bridge, which we all know, at this point, isn’t even justified by the 2001, it isn’t even justified by the 2001, so we agreed to build it. MR. VOLLARO-It was your choice, John. MR. LEMERY-So we’re building it. Enough is enough. We’re building it. That’s the way it’s going to work. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s all step back and take a deep breath. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve already taken my breath. MR. LEMERY-That’s enough. MR. VOLLARO-I believe that you and John are honorable and want to do this job correctly. I still feel that I would like to have the ability to have somebody looking at this from a milestone, audible point of view. MR. LEMERY-You can come out and look any day you want and see whether they’re proceeding. MR. VOLLARO-You know that there’s not a member of this Planning Board that can do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, please. MR. MESINGER-Can I hope in? I think, I understand what Bob’s trying to do. I just don’t think we need to change the Findings to do it. You’re the Planning Board, and you’re the people who have given the approval and made the conditions, and you ought to keep that. Let me finish, 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) and as you do with all your reviews, you rely upon your engineer, whoever it might be, us for this project, Male for other projects and somebody else for other projects, your Counsel and your Staff, and practically as this works, if there’s a delay, and you have reason to question it, you will inquire of the applicant. You will inquire of Staff, Counsel/attorney, engineer, what’s going on, and they’re going to submit evidence, and if it’s engineering related, you’ll ask your engineer to look at it. If it’s legal related, you’ll ask your Counsel related, and you’ll always be asking your Staff, but I think the Finding, the way it’s written, you’re covered. MR. SCHACHNER-Just let me add to that. Let Stuart finish, but before you guys jump on him, the way it’s proposed right now, and, Bob, I’m not sure how far ahead you’ve thought this, but the way it’s proposed right now, I could envision a situation where you don’t believe, as a Planning Board member, that the applicant has utilized its best efforts, but an engineer who’s independent, whether it’s C.T. Male or Joe Blow engineering, who’s, you know, accustomed to building schedules and the vagaries of DOT permitting and all the rest of it, could say, I think they’ve utilized best efforts, and the way you’ve written it, actually, interestingly enough, the way it was originally proposed, not you as a Planning Board, not you, Bob Vollaro, but you as a Board would have the authority, the responsibility, and the autonomy to make the determination as to make the determination as to whether the applicant’s utilized its best efforts or not, and the way you’re proposing to do it, you’re going to foist that responsibility onto the Planning Board’s designated engineering firm, and I’d hate to be sitting in this chair, next year, and have the designated engineering firm saying, I’m satisfied the applicant’s utilized its best efforts, and have you, Robert Vollaro, jumping up and down saying, but they haven’t submitted the DOT permit application that was required by December 4, and have C.T. Male or some th other engineer saying, well, I understand why they haven’t done that. They haven’t done that because they’ve been very, you know, whatever. So I guess I’m following on Stu’s comments. MR. VOLLARO-I think I understand what, where I’m coming from on this, this seven member Board, whether I sit in this chair or anybody else sits in this chair, I don’t think the seven member Board that meets nominally twice a month has the ability to do this kind of monitoring. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we have Staff. That’s why we have engineers. That’s why we have Counsel. MR. VOLLARO-That was my next question. Okay. That’s fine. If Staff wants to take on that responsibility, and I know how busy Staff is. I just know this is just another layer of work that Staff has to do. I’m interested in getting, you two folks are both interested in getting this done. I know you are. MR. SANFORD-Can I make a comment? I think the historical perspective that’s being missed here is the last meeting where the majority felt it was appropriate. I think in the words of Mr. Metivier was very profound, is the bridge will be done when the bridge is done, and that carried the day. Where my argument was, well, if their intentions are good, and the bridge isn’t done, how do we address potential safety issues which lost the argument, but the minority, Bob and I were in the minority, and we felt concerned about that, but we recognized that the majority prevailed, and yet what we’re looking for here, or at least what Mr. Vollaro was looking for here, is a way to ensure that the safety issues are best addressed, and by best addressed, it meant perhaps a diligent, well-trained, astute person who can perhaps interface with this Board, to give advice and counsel as to whether or not, in fact, best efforts are being made, and that the good intentions represented by The Great Escape are being lived up to. I think that is the historical perspective and the intent. I support him on it. I don’t want to arm wrestle with Mr. Lemery. I can see he gets pretty emotional about these things, but I think that Bob’s intentions are good here, not to derail this, but to have a way in which this Board, who might not be capable, by themselves, to deal with this, we can have somebody who can guide us with this and keep on top of it. That’s the point. MR. RINGER-This Board always has the opportunity to bring in people. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. MESINGER-And you can do exactly all of those things, without this change. What this change does is take the decision making authority away from you. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe if I can, let me try to put this in a different perspective. Through the literally hundreds of applications that have come through this door over the years, we do the same level of review that we’re doing with this, although this is somewhat a more complex review. The treatment that we give any other applicant who proposes any kind of commercial endeavor or residential endeavor, is that the information that’s part of the application when they make their submission and we make a determination based on that application, based on the criteria that they supply us, we hold it up to either our Town Engineer to ensure that they’re meeting the requirements of the Ordinance, of the Subdivision Reg’s. We hold it up to our Town Zoning Administrator, our Town Code Enforcement Officer, and any other parties that are part of that relative review. It’s the same thing that we’ve got going on here. There are certain layers that need to be met, as part of this review, and certain thresholds and certain criteria that these people need to do, no different than anybody else, and we still have those same players in place in other applications, but you don’t ask to go to another layer of review with them. MR. VOLLARO-No, but I never remember, in any application, and I’ve only been on this Board for six years, where we, every once in a while, took a look at the progress that was going on. Once these things are approved by this Planning Board, hey, we’re looking at the next 100 coming down the pike. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Then why would I, I would ask you, then, why do you feel that you need to take a periodic review of the progress of this application, where you didn’t with the Aviation Mall. You didn’t with Home Depot. You haven’t done it with several of Schermerhorn’s phased project. You didn’t do it with Hudson Pointe, which was a phased project. You didn’t do it with Indian Ridge, which was a phased project. MR. VOLLARO-You’re absolutely correct. None of those involved the safety of pedestrians interfacing with automobiles on a major highway. None of them. MR. SCHACHNER-Let me just throw out a thought here. First off, or two thoughts. None of us, meaning Staff, engineering firm, counsel, disagree with what I think Rich and Bob are talking about, as far as their good intentions, and, in fairness to Rich and Bob, Craig, there is something a little bit different here, which is that here we have a particular proposed mitigation measure that the applicant has indicated every willingness to install, but the applicant has also candidly said that they can’t guarantee a certain installation date because of matters beyond their control. So that is a little bit of a wrinkle, and I think in fairness to Bob and Rich, that’s why they’re concerned here, but our concern, although I think Chris and Stu will speak if I’m representing that the three of us are on the same page here and we’re not, our concern is while we agree with Rich and Bob, as far as the intentions, the proposal, and I don’t know if you really focused on the very last phrase said, it takes it out of this Board’s control, and that seems remarkably inappropriate from our standpoint. So let me throw out this constructive suggestion. What if we said something like, and I just jotted it down. It doesn’t sound perfect yet, but something, where it says provide the Planning Board with clear evidence on an ongoing basis, what if we said something like, including written monthly status reports, and then if we, that would be the applicant’s burden to do written, monthly status reports about the project. That doesn’t strike me as too onerous. If the applicant goes ballistic about that, I would suggest to you, too bad, and if, and then also include, where it says the Planning Board finds that The Great Escape has failed to use its best efforts, say if the Planning Board, upon consultation with, or including Planning Board consultation with its engineering firm, its Staff and its counsel, finds that Great Escape has failed to use. That’s just a constructive suggestion. MR. SANFORD-I like that. MR. VOLLARO-I would buy that. It makes sense to me. That kind of accomplishes what I’m trying to accomplish by using an alternate engineering firm. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. SANFORD-I like that. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s my thought. MR. COLLINS-The thing that bothers me, and if that’s the way you want it, we do annual sound studies. We do annual traffic studies. We give you every report that you ask, but the problem is, you’re questioning our intention, yes, you are. From the very beginning, you are questioning our intention, to the extent that you’re saying, you’re going to penalize us. Well, we all know this process. We know we have to go through site plan review. We know we have to go through, to get the variance for the height. All of those are still processes we have to go through, but we’ve already started the engineering. We’ve already met with DOT. We’ve met with the Town, and yet we don’t want, as you say, I want to give you credit for that, but I want to penalize you if you don’t do it. It’s a slap, is what it is. MR. MESINGER-The substance of Mark’s change, though, and for you folks. MR. COLLINS-And I don’t have a problem with Mark’s change. Reporting. MR. MESINGER-That’s the only substantive thing. MR. COLLINS-Right. That’s all it is, but he’s not questioning the intent. What is so wrong about it, and I can see why John was upset, is because, it was, we don’t believe you, and we’re never going to believe you. So we’re going to penalize you, even though we see it being built, because we don’t believe it’s going to get finished. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not the truth at all. MR. COLLINS-That’s what you’re saying, though. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m not. MR. LEMERY-You’re also raising safety issues at the Theme Park and there hasn’t been any safety issues to our experience. We don’t know of any problems over there with the traffic. We don’t know of any problems over there with pedestrians crossing. So, you know, it’s not even, when you go back to 2001, Mr. Vollaro, you and I both know, this bridge was not required, as far as building this hotel. MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely, John. MR. LEMERY-That’s right. So it was a given that we said, we’ll build the bridge now, and the problem is, you built in conditions with this particular company and this applicant, and this applicant, in our opinion, is held to a standard you don’t apply to anybody else in the Town, and it’s unfair. You don’t take anybody’s word for it, that this company is not going to put up a $42 million facility and not be mindful of the fact that it’s got to get the bridge up? Now do you think that makes economic sense? Then leave it alone. MR. VOLLARO-It makes sense. I’m just saying that things happen in the field. MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, please. MR. SCHACHNER-Now, I’ve written the language, if you want to hear it. MR. MAC EWAN-The applicant is in agreement with what Counsel has suggested to appease Mr. Vollaro. MR. COLLINS-Can you read it, though? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask a question, first? Before you read that, Mark? I’m just trying to understand, and I tend to agree with what you’re saying. My thought, as I was listening to this debate is, we’re almost assuming that you’re not going to do it on time. MR. LEMERY-Right, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-And so I appreciate what you’re saying. The question I have is, what would be the best guess, right now, for when the bridge will be completed, looking into your crystal ball? MR. COLLINS-Looking into my crystal ball, it would be when we open the Park, which is when the intention of the bridge, that’s what it serves, is the Park. MR. HUNSINGER-Next year. MR. COLLINS-Yes. So the intention would be Memorial Day weekend. MR. MAC EWAN-The Park or hotel? You mean the hotel, right? MR. COLLINS-No, the Park. That’s what the pedestrian bridge is built for. The pedestrian bridge is built for the people that are walking across. That’s what it’s built for. So our intention would be to have it ready for the 2005, which we said from the beginning was our intention, and we even went, too, and said you guys can hold the Certificate of Occupancy. We gave that one up. We didn’t want that to begin with. We gave that up. We didn’t get credit for that. So if we need to submit, you know, a monthly report that says here’s who we met with, it’s no different than doing the yearly traffic study. MR. MAC EWAN-My opinion is I think that that paragraph is fine as it is. It doesn’t need to be changed whatsoever. That’s my position. MR. SANFORD-But they’ve agreed. First of all, let me ask Counsel. MR. LEMERY-That’s our opinion. We’d like a vote on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we go any further, let’s let Mark read the language change that he’s proposing. MR. SANFORD-Fine. MR. SCHACHNER-I think Rich had a question first. MR. MAC EWAN-We could beat this thing to death tonight. I just wanted to. MR. SANFORD-No. I have a question of Counsel here, and this is because of, quite honestly, this is unique to us. I don’t think this Board has often dealt with supplements to Environmental Impact Statements like this, and this Findings Statement, I’m still trying to get my arms a little bit around it, and that’s why earlier I made comment that it’s the Findings Statement of the Planning Board. How regular is it, or how appropriate is it for this process to unfold the way it is tonight, which looks to me like this is a joint effort at composing a Planning Board Findings Statement with a very dogmatic applicant and agent being involved in the writing of it. Is this supposed to be our summary of basically this document, or is it supposed to be the applicant’s and our Findings Statement? In other words, in other towns, with your experience, would it be perhaps appropriate for the applicant not to be at the table, perhaps present if they chose to, and that this is merely a Planning Board exercise? This interplay between the applicant, is it usual or is it a-typical? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. SCHACHNER-It’s extremely customary. It would be very, very, very rare to not allow the applicant reasonable input into the decision. That doesn’t mean controlling input. That just means input. I mean, this is not unusual at all, nor is it inappropriate at all. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I just didn’t know, because I’m listening to this, and the way I thought, a month or so ago, this was going to unfold was there would be a subcommittee of the Planning Board that would compose a Findings Statement. It would be presented at a public meeting, discussed and voted on. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine, too. MR. SANFORD-But that’s not what happened. MR. SCHACHNER-True. MR. SANFORD-And now the Finding that any change to a document, I believe, authored by the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-Initially authored by the applicant. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and very mildly modified by Stuart, that’s a fair statement, is now basically being defended by Mr. Lemery. MR. SCHACHNER-All right, but what you asked is should the applicant have input, and my answer is, yes, the applicant should have input. You shouldn’t be bullied by the applicant, regardless of the decibel level of the applicant’s input, it is your Statement, and you’ll do with it as you see fit. The answer is it’s very appropriate to have the applicant have an opportunity to have input. MR. SANFORD-I don’t think John means to bully, but he’s a pretty strong-minded guy. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s my turn. Three comments to make. I’m not an expert at this, but I’ve sat through probably six or seven Environmental Impact Statements in my tenure on the Board. Out of all of those, one, I recall, that was prepared by this Board per se, and that was done by Staff and that was for the industrial park that was given to the Glens Falls property, Veterans Field. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and understand that’s because we were the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-All other Environmental Impact Statements are prepared by the applicant. MR. SANFORD-I’m talking about a Findings Statement, not an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. MAC EWAN-Adopted by the Planning Board, and Findings Statements are part of that process. MR. SCHACHNER-A draft Findings Statement. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Adopted by this Board and revised as we see fit to fit our needs, and that’s exactly what we’re doing here. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. SANFORD-And that’s what I think Mr. Vollaro is trying to do, though. His head is being handed to him when he’s trying to revise it. MR. MAC EWAN-His head is not being handed to him, and I really. MR. MESINGER-This is really not productive. The fact is, Bob has suggested five changes. We’ve accepted four of them. We’ve reached an agreement, I think on this one, if you want to move on. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I’m ready to move on. MR. VOLLARO-I think Mark said he had the language finished. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve been trying to get to him on it. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. I’m suggesting that in Paragraph Number Six on Page Six, four lines down, there’s a clause that starts with “provide the Planning Board with clear evidence on an ongoing basis”, I’m suggesting after the word “basis”, add the language, including written monthly progress reports. MR. RINGER-Quarterly. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-See, that’s why I asked the applicant when they thought the bridge would be built, to try and get an idea for how many reports that would require. MR. SANFORD-Let’s compromise it and say every two months. MR. HUNSINGER-So I could get an idea for the burden that would be. MR. MAC EWAN-Quarterly. Make it Quarterly. MR. RINGER-Semi-annually. All right. MR. VOLLARO-How about none at all? MR. SANFORD-How about none at all, Larry? MR. RINGER-I’m for leaving it the way it is. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m in favor of leaving it the way it is, too. I think it gives us all the. MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re all compromising here. So compromise, meet halfway. MR. SANFORD-Two months. Bi-monthly. MR. SCHACHNER-That raises the issue of whether bi-monthly means twice a month or every two months. MR. SANFORD-Every two months. MR. MAC EWAN-Quarterly. MR. RINGER-Quarterly is fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Is there a consensus on quarterly, which is, I don’t think, subject to misunderstanding. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Your next item. MR. SCHACHNER-It would be about six lines below that, there’s a sentence that starts with “If the Planning Board finds that The Great Escape has failed to use its best efforts”, and I’m suggesting adding the clause after, “If the Planning Board”, after consultation with the Town’s engineering consultant, Town Counsel, and Planning Staff, finds that The Great Escape has failed, etc. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll buy that. I’ll take that as an acceptable alternate to what I’d written. MR. RINGER-I would assume the Planning Board would do that anyway, without putting it in. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-I would assume the Planning Board would do that automatically without putting it in. MR. SCHACHNER-Same here. I just threw this out to try to keep us moving. MR. RINGER-Yes, well, I hate to put more words into something that’s. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Now I’m getting a good idea how Congress works, or doesn’t. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-Could I just jump up to Paragraph Five, there’s a, the last sentence in there was an internal discussion. So that last sentence says do we want to extract some of this. That whole sentence should be stricken. MR. VOLLARO-You mean by the inclusion? MR. MESINGER-Those were notes to Chris and I back and forth. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s an internal note. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw that. MR. RINGER-I put a question mark on that when I was reading it over. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is my last thing, okay, and I knew that was going to be controversial, what I wrote. In any event, in Phase I, if we go to Page Eight D, Eight D under Traffic, if you go up, if you go under D under Traffic, Number 8 under the D, it’s number 9, Page Eight, D-9. MR. MAC EWAN-Reference to mitigation measures, trigger threshold chart. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Paragraph One, it refers to pavement markings to create a designated northbound left lane on U.S. Route 9, and I understood that one. The question I have is where is drawing P-4 addressed, and at what phase is it implemented? Now I think I got my own answer, later on this evening, before I came here, and I guess it’s on Roman Numeral Six, where it says, a limited turning lane will be built north of the Samoset entry. Does that relate to Drawing P-4? I see a yes? That’s a yes? MR. COLLINS-I believe it does. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-Drawing P-4, however, is a reproduced drawing. So you can’t scale the length of that road, of that turn lane. So I don’t know what it is. MR. COLLINS-You want the distance? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Stu says he original there which can be scaled off. MR. MESINGER-Yes. I don’t. I don’t have a P-4 in here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t, either. I tried that at home, and didn’t have that. MR. MAC EWAN-So what’s the reference you want? MR. MESINGER-I don’t think it’s a Findings thing so much as you’re just looking for the length, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, I’d like to know, when I look at the drawing, and the drawing, I would like this to say, a limited turning lane will be built north of the Samoset Motel in accordance with Drawing P-4. Now that would nail it down. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, where does it say a limited turning lane will be built north of the Samoset Motel? MR. VOLLARO-Go to Roman Numeral Six. It’s in the big book. I’m sorry. MR. MESINGER-In the FGEIS, Executive Summary. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. LEMERY-It’s not in the Findings. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not in the Findings, no. They do say in the document, in the big document, and it’s under Finding in ways in which the project deviates from what was envisioned in the 2001 Statement. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, okay. MR. VOLLARO-And in there they say a limited turning lane will be built north of the Samoset Motel. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There is a drawing in the drawing package, Drawing P-4, which has been reproduced so that the scale, it’s not scalable, and I don’t know what the length is. So to clear that up, some place in there, we should reference P-4. MR. MAC EWAN-But, maybe I’m confused here now. Under Phase III of mitigation measures, okay, on our Statement tonight, if you look at the last paragraph, the last sentence says, this additional lane will become an exclusive southbound right turn lane at U.S. Route 9, Glen Lake Road, and new ring road. MR. VOLLARO-That’s southbound. This is a northbound turn lane. What we’re talking about on P-4 is northbound. You’re talking about the re-striping of the road southbound. MR. MAC EWAN-When you come out onto Route 9, you are heading southbound. That’s the only way you’re going to get into the ring road. MR. VOLLARO-No, no. The words in the drawing says the intention is to complete, it says. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-The ring road. MR. VOLLARO-It says widen U.S. 9 for additional southbound right turn into The Great Escape access road. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what that last sentence is saying, if I’m reading it right. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t say that at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s what I’m reading. It says this additional lane will become an exclusive southbound right turn lane at U.S. Route 9 and Glen Lake Road and the new ring road. MR. VOLLARO-Where are you now? MR. MAC EWAN-On Page Eight, mitigation measures. MR. HUNSINGER-Page Eight, all the way at the bottom. MR. MAC EWAN-Phase III, last paragraph, last sentence. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The designated exclusive right turn lane, is that what? MR. MAC EWAN-Read the last sentence. Go right to the bottom. This additional lane will become an exclusive southbound right turn lane at U.S. Route 9, Glen Lake Road and ring road, which is definitive of what you are asking them to have, which is stated in here they’re going to do. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. What I’m asking is that it references the Drawing P-4. That’s all I’m asking. MR. MESINGER-Why would we reference that, and not all of the other drawings? MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re splitting hairs here. I mean, P-4 is the drawing, should we adopt this thing, should we approve this thing, are the drawings that they’re going to use to build it. MR. VOLLARO-The problem is, when I looked at the drawing, the drawing is reduced, and I couldn’t scale it. MR. MAC EWAN-You asked for it to be reduced. Everyone on this Board said that they wanted to have 18 by 24 copies for ease of reviewing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine, but I would just like to know what the length of the lane is. I think it’s important for me to know that. MR. SCHACHNER-If I could, again, try to offer a constructive suggestion. I think, principally, Mr. Vollaro wants to know the actual length of this length of road. MR. COLLINS-It’s 100 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-But it’s not necessary to revise this document for that. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not suggesting it is. I’m just saying, I think that’s what he wants to know. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. MESINGER-And I think I agree. I think Bob just wants the answer to his question. It’s not really a Findings change, because you’re not going to start referencing drawings throughout this, but you needed an answer, and I guess that’s the answer. MR. LEMERY-It’s 100 feet. MR. COLLINS-Yes. The center of the ring road is, it’s on the map, RT-9 one plus nine hundred, the beginning of the turn lane is RT-9 plus eight hundred. So I’m assuming that’s 100 feet between those locations. MR. SCHACHNER-And for that matter, if you want an easy proposed revision, you could say this additional lane will become an exclusive southbound right turn lane of approximately 100 feet length at the U.S. Route 9, Glen Lake Road, and new ring road. MR. VOLLARO-That would be okay. I just want it to hang together, Chris, in my own mind. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand what you’re saying. MR. VOLLARO-As long as I can relate to a drawing and understand that that represents 100 foot of turn, I’m happy. I don’t like to leave stuff hanging where there’s a drawing that’s been submitted. MR. RINGER-Let’s move on. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Are you all done, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m finished, sir. MR. MESINGER-So are we going to do that, or are you okay? MR. SCHACHNER-Is that an addition or no? MR. VOLLARO-No, just leave it be. That’s fine. MR. SANFORD-Am I next, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’ve got a question. I don’t really think it belongs in the Finding, but I think it’s material and I’d like to ask applicant and Staff, as well as this Board, for where this fits in on the process, because after the last meeting, the majority vote was to basically rely on The Great Escape’s best efforts to address the lights and the pedestrian bridge, and the minority lost that vote. I can appreciate that, but when I got home, I was thinking about it. What we basically did is we, by making that decision, we came up with a number of scenarios that could possibly be in place when the Park opens, and briefly here’s what they are, and you don’t have to write them down right now, but there’s four where there’s no bridge. You could have no bridge when the Park opens, and you could have no lights either at Glen Lake Road or Round Pond Road. You could have no bridge when the Park opens, but you could have a light on Glen Lake Road, but not a light on Round Pond Road. You could have no bridge, but you could have a light on Round Pond Road, but not on Glen Lake Road, and you could have no bridge but both lights are in place. Also, you could have the bridge and you could have these same set of conditions. For a total of eight possible scenarios. Now, I was thinking about this, and I’m sure you’ve thought it out, what might be the case in any one of these eight possible scenarios, and what I would like the applicant to do, and I don’t know if it needs to get somehow incorporated in Findings or if it’s down the road. I don’t even know if we do site plan anymore on this, or what we’re doing on this, but I would like to know how, both how traffic will enter and exit 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) under each one of these scenarios, and also how pedestrian movement will take place from the hotel parking lot to, and the parking lot, from the hotel and the parking lot to the entrance of The Great Escape, because you have situations where there’s fences involved and there’s current lights that will be moved, and I’m just wondering, when we look at applications and I don’t want to reference prior applications, but we get every single one of these details down, to the point that we want to know if there’s going to be a truck driving on Weeks Road and whether or not it’ll have the right turning radius. Here there’s eight scenarios that could exist when the Park opens next season. We don’t know what the scenario is, and quite frankly I don’t know for sure how those flows are going to take place and I don’t believe it’s responsible for this Board to not know that. So that’s my comment. I would appreciate it if the applicant would respond to that, and I’m not sure where it fits in, and if anybody wants to volunteer where that fits in, I think it’s an essential component, please let me know. MR. RINGER-I don’t see where it fits into the Findings Statement at all, but maybe when we do site plan we might want to look at that, but the scenario, the eight choices may still be there. MR. SANFORD-It may not. MR. RINGER-We’re looking at the Findings Statement right now, and I don’t see where any of that. MR. SANFORD-And there’s my reference, Larry, thank you. We’ve basically concluded, everything’s okay. Here’s our final Statement, and we don’t know the answers to these eight potential scenarios. How can we be so sure. How can we be so sure that things are going to be appropriate if we don’t know how they’re going to happen? MR. COLLINS-Can I comment? You have a legitimate, there’s obviously a lot of possibilities, but what we’ve said is, as opposed to examining all those possibilities, what we’re saying is, if they don’t give us the light at Glen Lake Road, the existing southern entrance will be for exiting. The northern ring road will be for entrance. That’s it. MR. SANFORD-That’s one scenario. MR. COLLINS-Well, that’s the one we’re proposing. MR. SANFORD-No, but I don’t want to be argumentative. MR. COLLINS-I’m not. I’m just saying that that’s the one we’re proposing. MR. SANFORD-I would like to see a paragraph on each one of these eight scenarios where you explain how it’s going to take place. I think that’s reasonable, and you should know this, because those are possible outcomes. They are possible outcomes. Okay. Now let me move on. I don’t know if we’re going to go anywhere with it, but, I mean, I thought it was very logical and reasonable. Back to the Findings Statement. First of all, I don’t think anybody will find an objection, on Page Two, A-1, please remove the comma that’s in an inappropriate spot. Page Two, A, Item One, there’s an unnecessary comma. Okay. All right. Now, no objection there. Page Three, Item Seven, I would like to see it read the way it reads, please delete, and Comprehensive Plan vision. I’m not sure that I feel comfortable in saying that I incorporated all of what the Comprehensive Plan is and feel comfortable with that. Item Four. MR. MESINGER-Should we discuss each of these? MR. SANFORD-Sure, go ahead. Discuss it. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, no, it would be the Board discussing it, is what he meant. MR. MESINGER-Yes, right. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. SANFORD-Does anybody have a problem with removing, “and Comprehensive Plan Vision”, on Page Three, Item Seven? MR. MAC EWAN-Does it meet the design corridor standards of that area, Chris? MR. MESINGER-Those are really in the Zoning Ordinance. He’s correct about that. MR. SANFORD-I’m leaving in “Town Zoning Ordinances”, but I’m not sure, the Comprehensive Plan. MR. MAC EWAN-The Comprehensive Land Use Plan, is that what you’re referencing in this thing? MR. VOLLARO-That’s what it says, and Comprehensive Plan. I assume that’s what he’s referencing. MR. SANFORD-I mean, that’s a subjective document to some degree. MR. LEMERY-No, it isn’t. It’s not subjective, if you read the Zoning Ordinance. It’s in the Comprehensive Plan of the Town. The Comprehensive Plan of the Town suggests the Adirondack style. So what we were trying to do, Mr. Sanford, in these Findings, was suggest, it’s a Comprehensive Plan vision for the Town. We were trying to comply with the Comprehensive vision for the Town. That’s why it says that. If you think that’s not the vision for the Town. MR. SANFORD-I understand, Mr. Lemery, but really I don’t know if that’s true. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, let me ask you a question. Referencing the building design that’s part of the design corridor standards, as part of our Zoning Ordinance. Correct? MR. ROUND-The corridor standards are part of our Zoning Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-And Mr. Lemery’s referencing, or they’re referencing, the Adirondack theme, which is part of that Section of the Ordinance. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you’re on the wrong document. Nobody’s disputing the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Sanford is talking about the Comp Plan. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m getting to that. I’m getting to that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Lemery referenced the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which calls for that style of architecture, which it does. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is a scope. It’s a vision for the Town, as a whole. Correct? Am I missing something here? I don’t want to sit here and split hairs. MR. SANFORD-Well, you are. MR. MAC EWAN-In the interest of keeping things moving along and being cooperative here, the point here is that the design standards that they’re referencing in this is what’s relative to the design corridor standards as part of our Zoning Ordinance. MR. SANFORD-And I don’t dispute that the Adirondack style. MR. MAC EWAN-So take out the Comprehensive Land Use Plan thing, because that’s a vision statement. That’s the point I was getting to. He’s correct. You’re correct, but we’ve just got to make sure we’ve got the right nomenclature to describe it. That’s all. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. SANFORD-Okay. So everybody’s comfortable that we leave the sentence as it is, but remove, “And Comprehensive Plan vision”? That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Move on. What have you got next? MR. SANFORD-All right. The Page Four, Item Twelve, my understanding was, even though both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board were invited to view the balloon elevations, and I did view them. I did go out and check them out, and I’m comfortable with them. I think it’s more appropriate. The way I saw, that is more of a Planning Board, though the Zoning Board was addressing the height variance, and I just don’t like the idea that we’re making a Finding before the Zoning Board has had a chance to make their Finding, and it reads here, the Planning Board finds that the hotel indoor water park resort will not be visible from any of the nearby residential neighborhoods. I don’t know how, the same idea that Mr. Vollaro brought up on another case, I’d like to have it phrased in a way in which we’re not basically taking on an opinion that really is more appropriately that of the Zoning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-I think you have to recognize that nothing in this usurps the ZBA’s authority to rule on the height variance, but visual impact was identified as part of the scope of the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and as a result, it’s not only appropriate for this Board to make a Finding about it, but it’s arguably required. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So it’s different than the height variance. You’re talking visual impact. That’s fine. I withdraw my comment on that one. Item Fourteen on Page Five, I think, did Mr. Vollaro address that one, where he also had a similar concern about. MR. MAC EWAN-Item Fourteen, Page Five. MR. SANFORD-That’s been already discussed? MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And the sentence has been added or not? I didn’t follow that. It was added? MR. RINGER-We had added it, the way that Bob addressed it. MR. MESINGER-I think we added it. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So there’s been a sentence added to that says however the ZBA will ultimately determine the approval or denial of the height variance. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s fine. Again, I think we beat Item C to death. I’m not sure if Chris can just tell me where that is at this point. Pedestrian bridge, is one in with was, or is it out? MR. MAC EWAN-All that we changed, in with was. MR. ROUND-One’s in with was, yes. MR. SANFORD-And Three is, how was three left? MR. ROUND-Three is in. MR. SANFORD-Three is in. Gee, I don’t know how that one got by me. I must have lost a vote, I guess. MR. ROUND-I think that was the case. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. ROUND-Rich, you were asking this. Our understanding of the status of the pedestrian bridge is that the applicant submitted the design to DOT. DOT’s reviewing that design as we speak. I think they’ve also submitted a traffic analysis report, and signal warrant analysis requesting the signal installations. That’s also being reviewed by DOT. The practical impacts about your four or five or eight alternatives about bridge, no bridge, entrance, signal, no signal. The practical impact is that DOT is going to control that decision making, and they’re going to dictate what happens with any entrance and any bridge, and so there will only be one alternative. There won’t be eight options, but I agree with you. You need to know what they are. MR. SANFORD-We need to know what they are, because there could be eight different scenarios, and I’m not doing this to really, I sincerely want to know this information. That’s a sincere (lost word). MR. ROUND-I’m just trying to give you what I know. MR. SANFORD-I’m not trying to just put them through some work to come up with these eight scenarios and come up with them. I do want to know. Okay. Now, this is something that, since I did inherit the seat of Mr. Strough, he would appreciate it. On Page Eight, Item Nine, Sub Section Three, I don’t know what “fro” means, so I think you need to come up with a word that is correct on that. MR. ROUND-It should say for, instead of fro. MR. SANFORD-Okay. For. MR. SCHACHNER-In the chart, on the left hand side, fourth line from the bottom. MR. SANFORD-All right, and that’s it. Now I never did get an answer, Chris addressed it now. Will my eight scenarios be more appropriately addressed on site plan? Is that the conclusion? When do I get those answers, hopefully? They’re not part of the Findings, I don’t believe. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’m not sure we can answer that question. I mean, but you weren’t sure, when you first made your comment, as to whether you have site plan review still, and the answer is you do. When you do the site plan review, I think we ended up, well, no, we may not have another report because I don’t know when the quarterly starts, but the applicant will obviously be forthcoming with what the status is of the various traffic mitigation improvements. I don’t think Chris specifically said this, but correct me if I’m wrong, Chris, but Staff is participating in those meetings with DOT. Correct? MR. SANFORD-See, I’ve got to scratch my head on this, because we don’t know what will happen when the season opens, which one of those eight scenarios will be in place, and so I scratch my head and say if we don’t know how the vehicles are going to travel and how the pedestrians are going to cross, enter the Park, how can we feel so comfortable in concluding that there aren’t still some potential outstanding safety issues? MR. MAC EWAN-The short answer, Rich, the short answer, the proposal that we have basically at this point is the ring road going to utilize, traffic entering from the north, and exiting out at the south end of the Park on the end of the ring road. With the addition of the pedestrian bridge. If we can be assured that the traffic light is going to be put up at Glen Lake Road and at Round Pond Road, that’s a win/win/win/win/win for everybody. It’s not a 100% guarantee that you’re going to get them. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. SANFORD-But if it’s at neither place, or if it’s at one place or not one place but at the other road. I mean. MR. MAC EWAN-At this point, you know, it’s an issue with DOT. I mean, they can’t go back to DOT and ask them for a forceful answer any more than the Town can at this point. All I can tell you is that there’s a lot of different entities. A lot of different people playing a role in this, trying to get DOT to make a commitment to put those lights up at both ends of the Park, at those intersections in question. If we can get that, we can get that, but to put that in to our Findings Statement tonight. MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s never been, Mr. MacEwan, it’s never been a criteria of this Board, you know, that old expression, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. All I’m asking for is I know there was also, in the case of the pedestrian bridge is in, and both lights are in, that parking lot is going to be chain fenced off, and pedestrians would only cross over it from the parking lots and from the hotel, over the pedestrian bridge. Well, in many of these scenarios, that would change, and you would have gaps or holes in the fence for pedestrians to cross the road. I just want to understand this. MR. MAC EWAN-Refresh my memory, but you’ve also indicated in past conversations in front of this Board that there was a shuttle bus that was going to be involved, too, right, one parking lot across, from the parking lot across? MR. COLLINS-To get them to the pedestrian bridge. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. COLLINS-That’s interior flow, but that really doesn’t have anything to do with this question. MR. SANFORD-I just think we need to know this, and I think that as I look at the kind of work that we’ve done on prior projects, and we’ve gone to great length to understand how, before I came on the Board, how cars were going to enter Lowe’s, how they were going to exit Lowe’s. We understood all this. We understand how, in the case of Wal-Mart, how cars are going to enter, and how they’re going to exit. Here we have eight possibilities, and on some of them we know what’s going to happen, but we certainly don’t know, in any one of these, what’s going to happen. MR. MAC EWAN-And very specifically, in the case of the Wal-Mart, you used part of your decision making based on SEQRA, a DOT determination that said another traffic light wasn’t warranted there. MR. SANFORD-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And you based your final approvals, based, in part, on that DOT traffic report. MR. SANFORD-But we knew. That’s my point. MR. MAC EWAN-We had an answer. We don’t have an answer right now. MR. SANFORD-Well, then what I did, you’re missing my whole point. What I did is I came up with all the possible outcomes, and they’re not complicated. I want to know what the applicant envisions for traffic flow and for pedestrian traffic on every one of those eight possible outcomes. That exhausts it. That exhausts the possibilities. MR. LEMERY-It’s all in the Impact Statement and the Supplemental Impact Statement. MR. SANFORD-It is not. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. LEMERY-Absolutely it is. MR. SANFORD-You’ve got to show me. I’m from Missouri. MR. COLLINS-What we’re proposing is that, like I said before, that if we can’t get the light moved, that road would become strictly entering, and exiting would occur on the southern lot that’s existing now across from the main gate. That’s what we’re proposing. That’s in Number Ten, whatever page that’s on. MR. SCHACHNER-Page Nine. MR. COLLINS-Nine, Page Nine, Number Ten. That’s what we’re proposing. If they say there’s no lights, can’t be moved, that’s what we’re proposing. One, enter on the new road, exit via the old, the existing now, light that is right across from the main gate. Okay. That’s what we’re proposing. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s one thing that, if I may just (lost words) there’s one thing that I think Rich hasn’t mentioned, that may be on his mind. When the hotel and water park are operational, yes, there may be people who will not be using their vehicle to get over to the Section A. MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And I think what Rich is trying to determine is how do people move, if they don’t use a vehicle, and for some reason or another, the bridge is not ready? I don’t even want to get into that, but how do you envision moving those people? MR. COLLINS-Well, if the bridge is not ready, they would walk down to the existing crosswalk. MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to have to cross the road. MR. COLLINS-Yes, which is what our guests would do if the bridge is not ready, which is what they’re going to do starting Saturday, and very safely, may I add, because it is a DOT approved crossing. It’s signaled, and it’s been there for 50 years. So let’s, it is a safe situation. If it wasn’t safe, you keep insinuating that it’s not safe. It is. It’s a lighted crossing that the pedestrians now in New York State have the right of way, but not in a lighted crossing, but it’s a lighted crossing. The reason we’re proposing the pedestrian bridge is to improve traffic flow. That’s what it started as. MR. SANFORD-Let me ask you this. If there is a bridge, or excuse me, if there is no bridge, but there is a light on Glen Lake Road, and there is a light on Round Pond Road, and there is the removal of the current lights, how are they going to cross the intersection at that point in time? MR. COLLINS-Well, we wouldn’t move the lights until the bridge was done. That’s not a scenario that would happen. MR. LEMERY-It wouldn’t happen that way. MR. COLLINS-It wouldn’t happen that way. MR. SANFORD-Well, in the final statement, we say that all of these things are outside of the applicant’s control. MR. MAC EWAN-Because it takes DOT approval permitting. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Now they’re saying they control the process. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not what they’re saying. That’s not what they’re saying at all. MR. SANFORD-They are in a way. MR. COLLINS-DOT would not move those lights without some way for the pedestrians to get across the road. They would not approve that. MR. SANFORD-Now you’re answering my questions. There’s eight of these. There’s eight scenarios, and that’s what I’m looking for. As I said, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m trying to understand it, and that’s an answer. You’re answering that, that in that case, you would basically not have, you would not want those lights, okay. MR. COLLINS-Okay. I will tell you, DOT has requested one point person, that was in today’s meeting, one point person to contact them, which is Creighton Manning Engineering. They don’t want to hear from the LA Group. They don’t want hear from, they want one person because they know so many people are going to be asking questions. So we’re trying to coordinate all the questions to them through Creighton Manning Engineering, and they’re going to say, what are you going to do with the other, you know, signals when the pedestrian bridge is done, and so we’re working through that. What we gave you was, with this project, if they don’t approve that, then we will have them enter and exit. We didn’t go through the 32 other things that you think might happen. MR. SANFORD-No. There’s only eight possibilities that I came up with. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, I think that your concerns can be very well easily answered, once we begin the site plan review process, and once we start obtaining these quarterly reports, because the reports will give us an update on how they’re venturing and gaining the permitting for the bridge, and we can also ask them to be inclusive of the light situation. MR. SANFORD-During site plan I appreciate it. Unfortunately, once we sign off and give our approval, it’s not going to help me to get answers to these eight possible scenarios and find that they’re, that they’re not satisfactory because we’ve already given approval, Mr. MacEwan. What I’m trying to say is, we should just know what we can expect to happen, if the lights are a variable and the bridge is a variable. I can’t understand how this is confusing to anybody or seems at all laborious or unreasonable. To me it seems logical. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems to me the only one confused here is you, tonight. I mean, it seems to me everyone else in this room has got a handle on what the expectations are here. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Can I ask you how things are going to flow? MR. HUNSINGER-Can I just make a comment. I’m not trying to speak for the applicant, but I think what the applicant is saying, Rich, is that there’s really only two scenarios. One scenario is basically the traffic pattern that you have now, with the addition of the hotel, that has an entrance and exit only, that would flow with the existing traffic patterns, with the exception of the north entrance, or, the ultimate solution, which is what we’re all hoping for, which is to move the two lights out to the ends and have the pedestrian bridge. So even though there’s potentially eight scenarios, there’s really only two realistically. MR. SANFORD-Well, then answer this one. Let’s say the bridge is in place, which is a good thing, and we’re happy about that, but the Department of Transportation finds that, well, maybe there’s a light that’s warranted on Round Pond, but it’s not warranted on Glen Lake Road. I guess you could tell me right now, because I’m the only one that’s confused, what happens to the existing lights that are there? Do they remain, or is one of them removed? What happens? Do you know the answer, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, certainly one of them would be removed. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. SANFORD-Certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-To move to Round Pond Road. MR. SANFORD-Would two of them be removed, or just one? MR. HUNSINGER-Would it matter? MR. SANFORD-What I’m saying is I don’t know. I can’t know until the applicant tells me. MR. LEMERY-It’s possible that they both could be removed. MR. SANFORD-It’s possible. MR. LEMERY-We don’t know the answer to that. MR. SANFORD-I want to know if one is removed or two are removed, how the people to exit and go over to the entrance of the Park. John, it does bother me when you dismiss it that way. It’s not a very nice manner. I haven’t been rude to you. MR. VOLLARO-I think what Rich is looking for, and maybe we can grapple with this at site plan time, is the movements around the Park, and we might be talking about that, just like you talk about automobile movements with respect to Wal-Mart. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. That’s absolutely right on. MR. VOLLARO-And I think what Rich is trying to say, and I think what he’s saying is that, once we bless this Findings Statement it’s, you know, what we do at the site plan review is kind of on the margins, and we’re not going to be doing very much. We’ve done an awful lot here, right now. So site plan review is kind of going to be sort of tweaking things a little bit, but nothing substantive, that I can see in the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-But part of their proposal to cover that scenario, should those lights not be approved by DOT, is the solution that they’ve got, which is part of what we need to consider. We want to do better than that. They want to do better than that, but we’re all asking for an answer from DOT they’re not ready to give yet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s almost like the chicken and the egg type of thing. MR. MAC EWAN-It absolutely is. It absolutely is, and until DOT gives us an answer, there’s a bunch of people in this room, and a bunch of people who are working for them that are in the dark as to what that answer is. MR. VOLLARO-My only problem with all of that, and John, I know you’ve had a safe thing, but I guess, subliminally, I’ve always considered the safety, I think. MR. COLLINS-Safety is our Number One priority, to say the least. MR. VOLLARO-The way the Park runs now is fine. I have no problem with that. It runs great. MR. COLLINS-I think we’re talking this point as being moot because every indication is we’re going to get the situation we talked about, which is, you know, the lights at Glen Lake Road. It’s warranted. At least our preliminary information, but they got to do their process, and the pedestrian bridge goes up, end of discussion, in and out at the north entrance, but we’re saying, if they said no, we would have to use the southern entrance, which is existing, as the exit only, you know, and DOT, we’ve worked with them. They’ve done a lot of signage. They’ve helped us very much in that area. Like I said, we had another meeting today. DOT wasn’t there. We were just coordinating that they heard from one voice, so that we could be all on the same page, 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) that Creighton Manning would be the point person, and you don’t need the minutes from that, do you? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we do not. MR. COLLINS-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments, suggestions? Staff? Anybody? MR. SANFORD-So, we’re leaving this for site plan? MR. ROUND-I just want to, you know, I think Mr. Sanford is correct. You are, as you read the SEQRA Findings, you are, Mr. Vollaro stated, your scope of what you’re going to change in the site plan is very narrow. So I just want to make sure those folks got due credit. It is problematic, also, being able to issue a site plan review with questions unanswered, again, to Mr. Sanford’s, but I think the way that we suggest that you resolve that is linking the Certificate of Occupancy, which is when the additional folks are going to be reaching the street, linking the Certificate of Occupancy to a DOT work permit. That still leaves some things unanswered, and that’s not. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Round, that was my suggestion last meeting, but unfortunately. MR. ROUND-No, not the issuance (lost words) but a work permit identifying the particular alternatives. I mean, there are a number of different alternatives that are going to play out. What you’re establishing with SEQRA Findings that they’re acceptable impacts, under the various elements, but you’re not comfortable in knowing exactly which alternative it is that’s going to get constructed, and so all I’m saying is that you would, at the time of site plan review, one of your conditions of approval would be the Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until, you know, a DOT work permit has been issued and the work has been constructed in accordance with DOT conditions. Basically, you’re allowing, DOT is the higher authority here when it comes to (lost words). MR. SANFORD-Well, we’re not saying that, though, Chris. That’s not in any of these documents. Is it implied? MR. ROUND-It’s implied, and that’s the way the regulatory community works. MR. SANFORD-So you’re saying there’s some reasonable. MR. ROUND-New York State DOT is going to issue its own Findings, whether they do formally or informally. MR. SANFORD-So you’re saying there’s some reasonable, legitimate questions I’ve asked? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Mr. MacEwan pointed out that I was just confused. I just wanted, for the record, to know that you didn’t think I was just confused. MR. MAC EWAN-More importantly, you’re out there on that limb all by yourself. There’s four of us that want to move on with it. Any other questions, comments? Anybody on the Board? Does somebody want to move it? MR. RINGER-How are we moving this now, to accept what? MR. MAC EWAN-To adopt the Findings. That’s what you’re doing. How do we want to word this? Did you make the editorial changes down there? Can we just say we’re going to accept the Findings based on the changes we made here tonight? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You could adopt a resolution saying, acceptance of the SEQRA Findings Statement as modified through this discussion. That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That sounds like the words, Larry. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE SEQRA FINDINGS FOR THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the draft copy provided, and based on the modifications made by the Board – SEE ATTACHED. (ATTACHMENT) State Environmental Quality Review Statement of Findings Of Town of Queensbury Planning Board Great Escape Theme Park Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement Adopted May 20, 2004 Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act – SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, as the Lead Agency, makes the following findings. Name of Action: Great Escape Hotel Indoor Waterpark Resort. Description of Action (aka the “Project”): A 200-room hotel with an approximately 34,875 square foot attached indoor waterpark, all of which is to be connected to the existing Coach House Restaurant along with appurtenant parking facilities, the improvement of adjacent theme park parking areas known as the green and purple lots with fill and stormwater control infrastructure, and construction of the northern portion of the ring road for use by hotel guests and theme park visitors. Local approvals sought in connection with the Project include: a building height variance, site plan approval, two waivers of the Upper Route 9 Design Guidelines relating to maximum building height and minimum setback from I-87, and a special use permit to treat the indoor waterpark as an “amusement center” so as to permit limited use of the indoor waterpark by non-hotel guests. Location: The Project will be located in “Park Area C” as identified in the GEIS on lands owned by HWP Development LLC, an affiliate of Great Escape Theme Park LLC. Park Area C is located on the west side of Route 9 east of I-87 in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, New York. The affiliate, HWP Development LLC, is bound by the FSGEIS to the same degree as the Great Escape Theme Park LLC.Background: In 2001, the Planning Board completed the review of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“GEIS” or “2001 GEIS”) that considered future development on property owned by Great 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) Escape over the a period of five to ten years, including construction of a 200-room hotel at the Project location. The 2001 GEIS resulted in the adoption of a Findings Statement that approved, among other things, development of a 200-room hotel and requiring various mitigation measures be undertaken by Great Escape when certain thresholds are met (the “2001 Findings”). In December of 2003, The Great Escape submitted a site plan application for a proposed hotel. However, the applicant recognized that the plans it submitted differed from those originally proposed and the applicant also proposed a re-phasing of the traffic mitigation schedule as proposed in the original SEQRA findings. The hotel proposed in 2004/5 was measurably taller than the conceptual hotel reviewed in 2001 and further substituted an indoor waterpark for the convention center. The Applicant simultaneously submitted a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“SDGEIS”) to review the impacts of those changes in the Project in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.9(a)(7). Pursuant to the requirements of SEQR, the Planning Board deemed the SDGEIS complete on February 10, 2004. Duly noticed public hearings were scheduled and conducted by the Planning Board on March 2, 2004 and March 25, 2004 and by the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”), an involved agency, on April 6, 2004. In order to permit interested members of the public sufficient time to review the SDGEIS, the public comment period was extended until April 8, 2004 thereby permitting a 59-day public comment period. At the end of the public comment period, the written comments and public hearing transcripts were analyzed and a Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“FSGEIS ”) prepared, filed and accepted by the Planning Board on May 10, 2004. The Lead Agency, Town Planning Staff, and the Planning Board’s consultants comprehensively reviewed all comments on the Project. This supplemental findings statement is issued in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.11 to supplement the 2001 Findings, meaning that any finding or threshold in the 2001 Findings not specifically revised herein remains in full force and effect. The 2001 Findings are revised and amended only in the manner and to the extent specifically stated herein. These supplemental findings weigh and balance the relevant environmental impacts presented in the SDGEIS and FSGEIS with social, economic, and other considerations and provide a rationale for the Lead Agency’s decision, as well as, certify that the SEQR requirements have been met. Findings, Basis and Rationale for Decision: The following discussion sets forth the Supplemental Findings, basis and rationale for the Lead Agency’s decision, including any required mitigation measures. A. Visual Impact and Height The hotel/indoor waterpark at 67’is taller than the conceptual hotel with convention center analyzed in the 2001 GEIS. The Project height was driven by a number of different factors, including the physical constraints of the site; industry standards for room size and corridor length; the desire for an Adirondack-style of architecture; and the needs of the waterpark. The design of the proposed facilities was further influenced by the need to connect the proposed resort to the existing Adirondack Coach House Restaurant, (which will serve as the hotel restaurant and provide all food service to the hotel)This configuration dictated the location hotel common areas and elevators so as to place these facilities adjacent to the Coachouse and fixing the starting point of all of the guest room corridors. The degree to which the Project room corridors could extend towards the western boundary of the site was limited by the need to provide sufficient space to accommodate a three lane ring road that will eventually serve not just hotel guests but also theme park visitor traffic. The ring road was required by the 2001 Findings StatementThe degree of eastward extension of the room 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) corridors was constrained by the requirements of the zoning ordinance, which require a 75’ building setback from Rt. 9. The extension of the corridor of guest rooms leading out horizontally from behind the Adirondack Coach House Restaurant to the north of the site was limited by industry corridor length standards. If the fourth story of rooms was redistributed to the three stories, all or most would have to be added to the length of the “T” leading toward the north. That would lengthen the corridor by an additional 140 feet, which would result in a total corridor length of 460 feet – 110 feet more than the industry standard, which specifies a maximum distance of 350 feet for resort hotels.With respect to the hotel portion of the Project, the Adirondack-style peaked roof accounts for approximately 15’ of the building height. Given the Project’s prominent location along I-87 near the Exit 20 entrance to the Town, the Planning Board finds that the hotel’s Adirondack design fulfills the Town’s Zoning Ordinance for the Town.. The Planning Board finds that the placement of the hotel immediately behind the Adirondack Coach House Restaurant and the complementary Adirondack-style of architecture of both structures consolidates the structures in a single location and creates a unified architectural statement. The use of a compatible architectural style with the Adirondack Coach House Restaurant is also in keeping with the 2001 GEIS, and the subsequently adopted US Route 9 Corridor Design Guidelines, which recommend that “new buildings relate to the existing context and enhance the positive qualities that currently exist,” and the Zoning Code ’s repeated preference for “Adirondack-style architecture.” The height of the waterpark portion of the structure could not be any lower and still accommodate the mix of attractions deemed necessary to meet guest expectations for a resort of this kind. The slides and the interpretive dump-bucket play structure are a minimum of 55’, and the mechanical systems required to serve them require another 10’ above that. In terms of height, the indoor waterpark planned for the Project is somewhat lower than those indoor waterparks currently in construction across the nation, which, the FSGEIS indicates range generally between 75 to 85 feet in height. Moreover, the Planning Board finds that the visual impact of the indoor waterpark has been minimized through its placement on the lowest grade of the site, which is also nearest to the Northway so that the waterpark is off of US Route 9 and shielded from view from Glen Lake and the nearest residential neighborhoods. The Planning Board finds that the critical trees that screen the view of the Project from the west that are above 450’ in elevation should not be disturbed. Chris: appears correct. As shown on the Project site plan, lighting has been minimized to levels below that which are suggested by the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board finds that the skylight windows in the roof of the indoor waterpark will have a minimal nighttime visual impact given that the waterpark roofline is not visible from any of the residential receptor points; that waterpark interior lights will be mounted high and directed downwards away from the sky; and that no flood lights will be directed up through the skylights. The Planning Board originally defined Glen Lake, the Glens Falls Country Club, and adjacent residential areas (Twicwood/Courthouse Estates) as sensitive visual receptors in the DGEIS Findings. The supplemental analyses included in the SDGEIS and FSDGEIS included balloon tests simulating the building height. The visual analyses conducted for the SDGEIS resulted in a site specific evaluation of the proposed project. Based on the combination of zone of visibility analysis and balloon test observations documented in the SDGEIS and FSGEIS, the Planning Board finds that the hotel indoor waterpark resort will not be visible from any of the nearby residential neighborhoods, Glen Lake, or from Rush Pond, and only a small portion of the hotel wing will be visible from one location on Ash Drive. In conclusion, the Planning Board finds that the Project height has been reduced to the extent possible and will not have a significant visual impact on nearby residential neighborhoods, Glen Lake, or Rush Pond. Furthermore, the Planning Board finds that the visual impact on Ash Drive is not significant and will be minimized through the retention of tall trees near the Project. While the Project will be visible at and near the point of drive-by along Route 9 and I-87, the Planning Board finds that, such 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) impact is consistent with 2001 Finding Section 5(a)(4), the use of an Adirondack-style architecture and placement of the Project behind the Coach House Restaurant, will have a positive, unifying visual effect on this section of the Route 9 corridor, in accordance with the intent of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, based on the above facts and findings, the Planning Board finds that the grant of a waiver from the Upper Route 9 Corridor Design Guidelines for maximum building height and setback from I-87 is justified. However, the Zoning Board of Appeals will ultimately determine the approval or denial of the height variance. B. Special Use Permit The SDGEIS and FSGEIS provide that Great Escape will limit non-hotel guest use of the indoor waterpark to periods when the month to date figures show that hotel occupancy is below 50% of maximum occupancy levels. At check-in, hotel guests will be issued wristbands that give them access to the indoor waterpark. As a general rule, hotel guests will not be allowed to invite non-hotel guests to use the waterpark except for the limited circumstance where non- hotel guests, whether they be invitees of hotel guests or not, may be permitted to access the indoor waterpark for a set fee when occupancy is below 50% of maximum. Issuance of this SUP shall be specifically for this application only and shall not establish any precedent for any future SUP applications on the west side of Rt. 9 by the Great escape or any other applicant. The Planning Board finds that the grant of a special use permit, subject to the operational conditions described in Section B. (1) hereof, would result in no additional traffic or other related impact that those already reviewed and approved by the 2001 GEIS. C. Pedestrian Bridge The pedestrian bridge was not formally a part of this Project; nor did the 2001 Findings condition the grant of local approvals for improvements planned in Park Area C on construction of the pedestrian bridge. Nonetheless, in accordance with 2001 Findings Section 5(e)(5) as further addressed by the Planning Board at its November 25, 2002 meeting in which it acknowledged and agreed to the delay of the start of construction of the pedestrian bridge until after the US Route 9 sewer improvements are completed, the Planning Board finds that construction of the pedestrian bridge should be completed as expeditiously as possible. The Planning Board recognizes that Great Escape has been cooperative with the Town with respect to expediting the Route 9 sewer improvements by granting the Town a permanent easement for the location of the Route 9 sewer district pump station on Great Escape’s property free of charge and allowing the Town to effectively use the Great Escape’s parking area as a staging area for its construction equipment. In addition, the Planning Board further recognizes Great Escape’s engineering consultants have begun the process of obtaining New York State Department of Transportation’s (“NYSDOT”) approval of the bridge design. Following receipt of all necessary local and state approvals, construction of the bridge will begin (estimated Fall of 2004) and is expected to be completed sometime in the Spring of 2005. The Planning Board further recognizes that Great Escape has little or no control over a number of external factors that may affect the bridge construction timeline. Specifically, while The Great Escape is advancing the bridge design approval process at the local and state levels, ultimately, NYSDOT and, to a lesser extent, the Town of Queensbury will determine the pace of that process. Similarly, any delays in the completion of sewer improvements in the vicinity of the theme park will directly and unavoidably affect the timing of construction of the bridge. Moreover, weather conditions, including the timing of the onset, duration, and severity of winter could affect the bridge construction timeline-particularly, since the bridge, unlike the 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) hotel waterpark resort, is an exposed structure that crosses a public and much used road and which cannot be protected from the elements during construction. Work in the US Route 9 Corridor is highly regulated and placement of the bridge deck must occur when risk of frozen precipitation is very low. It will be necessary to re-route traffic for a period of 2 or 3 days, during day light hours, onto the eastern parking lot when the deck is placed. Therefore, the Planning Board finds that Great Escape shall use its best efforts to complete construction of the pedestrian bridge prior to or concurrently with the opening of the hotel waterpark resort. Best efforts shall mean that Great Escape must pursue construction of the pedestrian bridge vigorously and provide the Planning Board with clear evidence on an ongoing basis, including written quarterly progress reports, that the bridge approval and construction processes are proceeding with all appropriate speed taking into consideration any factors or developments outside of Great Escape’s control. So long as Great Escape has provided evidence to the Planning Board that it has met its obligation to use its best efforts in pursuit of the timely completion of the pedestrian bridge, there will be no delay in the opening of the hotel waterpark resort. If the Planning Board finds, after consultation with the Board’s staff, engineering consultant and counsel, that Great Escape has failed to use its best efforts in pursuit thereof, the Planning Board may suspend or withhold the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel waterpark resort until the Planning Board is satisfied that Great Escape has used its best efforts to remove any remaining obstacles to the completion of the pedestrian bridge D. Traffic The 2001 GEIS identified three phases of traffic mitigation measures. Phases 1 and 2, consisting mainly of construction of the pedestrian bridge and the southern portion of the ring road, are required to be completed upon completion of the Route 9 sewer improvements near Great Escape, pursuant to 2001 Findings Sections 5(e)(5) and 5(e)(6) as modified by the Planning Board at its November 25, 2002 meeting. Pursuant to 2001 Findings Section 5(e)(4), Phase 3 traffic mitigation measures, which, among other things, include the northern portion of the ring road and installation of a traffic signal at Glen Lake Road, are required when annual traffic counts collected by Great Escape show that traffic volumes along Route 9 have reached a certain threshold. The 2003 traffic counts show that traffic volumes are well below the Phase 3 thresholds, and the traffic analysis conducted by Great Escape’s consultant Creighton-Manning Engineering shows that even after development of the hotel waterpark resort, traffic volumes will continue to be below the Phase 3 thresholds. Great Escape is moving forward with the Phase 1 improvements and has submitted a request to NYSDOT for permission to install the Round Pond Road traffic signal that is part of Phase 2. However, Great Escape proposes constructing the northern portion of the ring road along with requesting permission of NYSDOT to install the Glen Lake Road traffic signal at the four-way intersection that would then be created at Glen Lake Road, both of which were Phase 3 improvements, at this time, and delaying construction of the southern portion of the ring road and the new southern parking lots related thereto until a later date. That is, rather than just constructing a smaller, less costly access road limited to use by hotel guests, Great Escape proposes constructing the “full” northern portion of the ring road (3 lanes wide) for the use of both hotel and theme park traffic so as to make the northern ring road entrance a primary entrance to the theme park parking areas. The shifting of theme park traffic to the northern ring road entrance will also involve the closure of the two green parking lot entrances and the entrance at the white lot will be restricted to emergency access only on the west side of US Route 9. Without the shift in theme park traffic to the northern ring road entrance at this time, it is unlikely that traffic volumes in the vicinity of Glen Lake Road would meet NYSDOT criteria for a traffic light by 2005 in the absence of some other significant change in traffic patterns. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) Based on data collected and analyzed in the 2001 GEIS, 80% of theme park traffic comes from the north (primarily I-87 Exit 20) and makes a right hand turn into the theme park parking areas. Thus, the southern portion of the ring road, in effect, mitigates only about 20% of theme park traffic with the remaining 80% of traffic to be mitigated once Phase 3 thresholds are reached and the northern portion of the ring road is developed. Therefore, the Planning Board finds that Great Escape’s re-sequencing of the traffic mitigation measures (i.e., putting the northern portion of the ring road before the southern portion) will mitigate 60% more theme park traffic ahead of schedule than it is otherwise required to do. The Planning Board finds that improvement of the northern parking areas and northern portion of the ring road will fulfill the park’s current and near future parking needs while addressing four times more theme park traffic than the southern portion of the ring road was designed to address. Therefore, the Planning Board finds that it is unnecessary to require improvement of the southern parking lots and southern portion of the ring road at this time, which would prematurely remove vegetation and increase impervious surface area. Based on the above, in so far as 2001 Findings Sections 5(e)(4), 5(e)(5), and 5(e)(6) relate to the timing of required traffic mitigation measures, the Planning Board finds that the schedule of traffic improvements shall be revised in accordance with the following: Phase Mitigation Measures Trigger/Threshold Construction of Pedestrian bridge over In accordance with the 11/25/02 Planning Route 9. Eliminate all at-grade pedestrian Board meeting, Phase 1 improvements are crossings. to be completed as soon as possible following completion of US Route 9 sewer Remove existing traffic signal at southern improvements near the park. driveway. See Supplemental Finding Section C hereof 1 Optimize signal timing along the US Route for more detailed information about the 9 corridor for peak hour summer timing of the pedestrian bridge. conditions. Elimination and installation of traffic Install a traffic signal at the Round Pond signals is subject to NYSDOT approval. Road/ Route 9 intersection, and modify pavement markings to create a designated northbound left turn lane on Route 9 from the theme park parking areas. Create a four-leg intersection at US Route 9 Phase 2 improvements are to be completed and Glen Lake Road by constructing the in conjunction with the hotel waterpark northern end of the new ring road. Install resort. 2 traffic signal. Modify pavement markings to create a designated northbound left turn Elimination and installation of traffic lane on US Route 9 from the new ring road. signals is subject to NYSDOT approval. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) Widen the eastbound approach of the I-87 When combined traffic volumes reach Exit 20 northbound off-ramp to create two 1,320 or 1,368 during the Weekday AM 300-foot long turn lanes at US Route 9. peak hour and 1,454 or 1,404 at the Saturday AM peak hour, respectively at the Modify islands at the US Route 9/ I-87 Exit US Route 9/Exit 20 and US Route 9/Gurney 20 northbound intersection to designate the Lane intersections. 3 existing southbound right turn lane as a shared through/right turn lane. Widen the west side of the US Route 9 to create a second southbound through lane between Exit 20 and Gurney Lane. Designate the exclusive right turn lane at the US Route 9/ Gurney Lane intersection as a shared through/ right turn lane. Widen US Route 9 from Gurney Lane to Glen Lake Road to provide an additional southbound through lane for the Great Escape traffic. This additional lane will become an exclusive southbound right turn lane at the US Route 9/ Glen Lake Road/ new ring road intersection. Create a 4-leg intersection at US Route 9 and Round Pond Road by constructing the southern end of the new ring road. Furthermore, in the event that NYSDOT does not approve the placement of a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 9 and Glen Lake Road prior to completion of the northern portion of the ring road, the Planning Board finds that the northern entrance to the ring road shall be limited to vehicle access only until such time as the traffic signal is approved, so that traffic will exit the theme park areas from the south at the existing exit. E. Sewer Given the availability of public sewer, the Planning Board finds that there is no need for Great Escape to construct a wastewater treatment plant to serve the wastewater disposal needs of the Project as previously approved in the 2001 Findings. Therefore, in accordance with 2001 Findings Section 5(i)(4), the Planning Board finds that the Project will connect to the public sewer currently being installed along that portion of Route 9 that includes the Project location. F. Stormwater The impervious area of the Project as currently proposed is approximately 23,668 square feet (.57 acres) less, at this phase of the development proposed in Park Area C, than that originally proposed and approved in the 2001 GEIS. The existing green and purple theme park parking lots adjacent to the planned hotel waterpark resort site do not currently have any stormwater management systems. Great Escape’s plan to use the fill collected from the cuts and grading of the hotel waterpark resort site to raise both low-lying lots and install stormwater control infrastructure therein is in accordance with 2001 Findings Sections 5(a)(2) and 5(c)(4). The decision to improve the green and purple parking areas concurrently with construction of the hotel waterpark project provides for an efficient use of the fill, which would otherwise have to be trucked off of the site (and then eventually trucked 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) back in at some later date to improve those same parking areas), and advances the stormwater improvements required by the 2001 GEIS in Park Area C. The stormwater management plan described in the SDGEIS, FSGEIS, and site plan has been developed to maintain the Project site at pre-development stormwater levels and is in accordance with both the 2001 Findings stormwater-related findings as well as the Stormwater Phase II permit requirements issued by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in 2003 (“Phase II Rules”). The Phase II requirements supercede the Town’s requirements in place at the time of the 2001 GEIS. The Planning Board has been advised by its engineering consultant that the Phase II requirements are at least as protective of groundwater quality as were the requirements of the 2001 GEIS. Therefore, the Planning Board finds that there is no additional stormwater impact beyond that already reviewed and approved in the 2001 GEIS, the Project conforms to all of the stormwater management goals and requirements set forth in the 2001 Findings, and, furthermore, that the Project’s stormwater management plan is at least as protective as that approved by the 2001 GEIS by incorporating changes in the design to comply with the subsequently adopted Phase II Rules. G. Sound Impacts of sound transmission associated with the Project were comprehensively examined in the 2001 GEIS. The project is not anticipated to result in significant noise generation or impacts to nearby neighborhoods. In order to mitigate short-term, temporary sound impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods during construction, the Planning Board finds construction and earthmoving shall be limited to the period between 6 AM-10 PM. H. Socioeconomic Considerations It is anticipated that the Project will directly create an estimated 66 new full-time jobs with salaries that range from $8.00 per hour to $70,000 annually, as well as, an estimated 200 temporary construction jobs. Moreover, it will have a wide range of other positive economic impacts, including: attracting more visitors to the region (especially during the off-season) that will increase spending at other local establishments; generating an additional $1 million in annual sales tax revenues and approximately $0.5 million in annual hotel bed tax revenues; and increasing real property tax revenues for local taxing jurisdictions. The Planning Board finds that the Project will maintain the vibrancy of Great Escape, a significant local employer and major contributor to the local tourist industry, increase full-time year-round employment, contribute to local and regional efforts to extend the largely seasonal tourist industry to year-round, as well as many other significant positive economic impacts. Certification to Approve: Having considered the Supplemental Draft and Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statements and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied on to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, this Statement of Findings certifies that: The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met; and Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is the one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/04) Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Sanford ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. MR. RINGER-John, I’d like to make one comment. The questions from the Board have been hard tonight, but to refer to, our Board member had asked foolish questions, I had a little bit of a problem with that. Okay. Your first statement to Mr. Vollaro was foolish statements, and I’d just like you to know, I had a little problem with it, and I don’t want to argue it with you, but. MR. LEMERY-When somebody impugns the validity of somebody’s integrity. MR. RINGER-Well, he was a gentleman to you, and I would expect that you would have been a gentleman back to him. MR. COLLINS-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Keep us posted on your DOT endeavors, John. MR. COLLINS-We will. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 38