Loading...
1989-03-07 SP '--/ ------ QUEENS BURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD Special Meeting: Tuesday, March 7, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. SITE PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 4-89 STORYTOWN U.S.A., d/b/a THE GREAT ESCAPE Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman Joseph Dybas Peter Cartier Frank DeSantis Hildagarde E. Mann, Secretary Keith Jablonski Victor Macri Paul Dusek, Counsel Lee York, Sr. Planner John Goralski, Planner Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer Site Plan Review Number 4-89 was the second application on the Agenda for the above-noted meeting; the first application was West Mountain Villages: Planned Unit Development Number 3. Following a short recess, Mr. Roberts resumed the meeting stating that the purpose of this meeting was for: A determination of significance Review Act for the Tahitian Tempest yards north of the intersection Commercial 15 Zone. on the State Environmental Quality Water Park, Route 9, approximately 25 with Round Pond Road in a Recreation James Ryan and Peter Conway, Clough, Harbor Associates, newly-hired Engineering Consultant for this Application, presented a report (on file). Mr. Conway reviewed that on 1/25/89 the Planning Department sent a notice to other involved agencies regarding the determination of Lead Agency status; l/25/89 to 2/25/89 was the thirty (30) day period for Lead Agency determination. From that point until this meeting, the Lead Agency had twenty (20) days in which to make a determination of Negative Declaration. Clough, Harbor has reviewed the project, met with the Engineer represent- ing the applicant (Morse Engineering), and reviewed the impacts in need of clarification (Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 3 - EVALUA- TION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS.) LAND: Development on areas of excessive slopes. WATER: Usage of water and determination of Town's capacity of service. PLANTS/ANIMALS: Wetland possibly contains habitats. AESTHETICS: Views and vistas into the site. HISTORICAL and ARCHEOLOGICAL resources. TRANSPORTATION: Not properly addressed by the EAF: Saturday traffic counts taken during the off-season, generation estimates were not verified, level of service was not substantiated. NOISE AND ODOR: This must be substantiated. GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. 1 r '-.-' Mr. Conway also noted that the review was based on numerous letters received by the Planning Department that the project is controversial in nature. Presently the Planning Board would be looking to conduct a Work- shop to discuss the issues. If a positive Declaration were to be issued, Clough, Harbor suggests that a Scoping Session be held; all involved agencies should be notified, at which time attendance by those agencies is suggested. Specifics of the EIS would be identified at that time. Ralph G. Mancini, Esq.: Jeneroff, Brandow, Mancini & Roth; Guilderland, NY. Mr. Mancini represents "interested residents· (Letter on file), and insisted on making a comment prior to the Board's motion, because of the importance of introducing a jurisdictional defect. "There is another involved Agency that you have not notified ... If you vote tonight, I think you will have to rescind your vote.· Mr. Roberts noted that all involved agencies do not have to be notified prior to making a Negative Declaration; Mr. Mancini disagreed. Mr. Roberts informed the Planning Board that there are two matters on the Tahitian Water Park that are scheduled for the 3/22/89 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA); (Interpretation No. 189 and Use Variance No. 35-1989). Mr. Mancini noted that, because the Use Variance went to the County Planning Board, the ZBA is an involved agency; it did not receive Lead Agency notice. The Applications have a date stamp of 2/22/89 and were filed in the Town Hall three days before Lead Agency was determined. Mr. Macri: That was not the date of acceptance, but the date of receipt. The Variances were not before the Planning Board nor was the Board aware of the Variances, at the time of the meeting at which the determination was made to notify all other involved agencies. Mr. Mancini: Any agency that has to give an action is an involved agency; all involved agencies are listed, with the exception of the ZBA. Three days before it was determined that the Queensbury Planning Board was Lead Agency the applicant filed for two Zoning applications. Mr. Roberts questioned the 2/22/89 date, as the Variances were heard about ·only a few days ago.· Mr. Mancini requested that Counsel review the presented docu- ments (on file) and inquired as to whether or not the Lead Agency is flawed; if so, a vote on either a positive/negative declaration cannot be made. According to Robert Stewart, Esq., Attorney for the Applicant, the Interpretation Application that is pending was filed in February to be heard at a March meeting. Additionally, the Interpretation request does not involve SEQR, and a decision cannot be rendered on the matter until the Planning Board completes the SEQR process. The two proceedings can proceed side by side, so several months are not lost. Ms. York confirmed that on 1/24/89 letters were sent to all involved agencies. Three days prior to the end of the 30 days a Variance was filed for an Interpretation. Mr. Dusek and the Engineers were consulted, and 2 ~' the Planning Department is awaiting a decision pending the outcome of the legal question. The ZBA will have to await the outcome of the SEQR Re- view, before any action can be taken. Since the main problem is notification of the Lead Agency, Mr. Dusek asked the following. Ms. York: ·Was the Zoning Board of Appeals ever notified of the fact that there was a SEQR process on-going and that a Lead Agency had to be selected?" Ms. York: ·Not officially. I talked to Ted Turner, but we did not send him an official notification." Mr. Dusek: "Mr. Stewart, as far as this application is concerned then, if one of the agencies has been left out in the notification process, what is your position on that?" Mr. Stewart: "If the Counsel for the Board feels that an Application for a Variance creates a timing for the SEQR problem, then we will stipulate that we will withdraw the Application for the Vari- ance at the present time, but we will leave on the Application for the Interpretation, as it does not involve any SEQR review whatsoever." Mr. Dusek then brought up the question of whether or not an Interpretation is subject to a SEQR review prior to the time an Interpretation is made. Michael O'Connor, Esq., was of the opinion that a SEQR review is necessary prior to Interpretation; that is contrary to Mr. Dusek's initial opinion. Because of the disagreement, Mr. Dusek requested to study the law further. Mr. Mancini, however, reiterated that the Applications were filed by the Applicant on 2/22/89; they were pending and still are pending, because they are scheduled for a Public Hearing. A ZBA Application cannot be with- drawn by announcing it to the Planning Board. Mr. Mancini feels that the procedure for Lead Agency is quite clear in the regulations, and the neces- sary steps to correct the process are: Zoning Board notification as an involved agency; new determination of a Lead Agency; and schedule a new Hearing night for the purpose of having a positive/negative Declaration. Michael O'Connor, Esq.: representative of the Glen Lake Protective Asso- ciation. Mr. O'Connor informed the Board and the applicant that the subject of jurisdictional flaw was not brought before the Planning Board to cause undue delay. The record should be correct, so that either party will have their rights protected down the road. Factual comments to consider are: 1. On 1/25/89 Mr. O'Connor advised the Board of his opinion that a Vari- ance would be required of the Applicant, because a good portion of the property is located in a zone which does not permit the proposed use. In hindsight, he noted that the record should have been a key to the Planning Board that a permit might be necessary and, at that time, the Planning Board should have put the Zoning Board of Appeals on notice, regardless of the date of filing, etc. 2. In the present Applications that Mr. Stewart has filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals, it states that the Applicant would be going through the entire SEQR review before the Planning Board. He would prefer not 3 '~ to have the duplicated effort before the Zoning Board and ask the Zoning Board to defer to the Planning Board the SEQR handling. That is in the application. 3. Reference was made to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the LC-42 zone and its definition regarding the rights of a party to expand a nonconform- ing use or alter a nonconforming use. A Variance will be needed from the Use Regulations of the Ordinance; Mr. O'Connor felt there were several other sections that would require variances. 4. There has been no comment regarding shoreline protection, which is applicable to lakes, streams and wetlands; any structure of any nature with an excess of 100 square feet requires a Variance. In hindsight, Mr. O'Connor again felt that, after reviewing the Applications, the Planning Board should have notified the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5. Lead Agency status is a jurisdictional defect and the only way to cure it is to make proper notice. 6. The Application as presented is a -nightmare,- and Mr. O'Connor ques- tions the presentation at this meeting, specifically noting the follow- ing reasons: · no Master Map has been submitted, which is a Site Plan requirement; · no Surveyor's map has been submitted nor is there a Surveying stamp on any portion of what has been presented; · no growth indication has been submitted; · the wetlands located on the map were located in 1982, not in the present; · no wetlands or wetland boundaries were defined along the north por- tion of the project, only in the south end of the project; .traffic study was rejected by the Department of Transportation. There has not been enough information presented to conduct a Scoping Session. As Mr. O'Connor stated in the 1/24/89 meeting, there seems to be a sense of -rush- to get the project done; he does not know why and the Application should be treated in the same manner as any other application. The project could affect the quality of water, which is enjoyed by 250 to 350 families at Glen Lake, and the freshwater wetland that serves as the headwaters of Glen Lake. There are also threshold problems that have not been met per the requirements for a wetland review. Mr. Conway noted that several of the issues mentioned by Mr. O'Connor would be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Mr. DeSantis strongly requested that, if there is missing information 4 on the Application as Mr. O'Connor suggested, it be presented to the Plan- ning Board immediately. Mr. Goralski advised that the reason the Planning Department did not review the plan was because, at the time the Applica- tion was received, the Town Board and the Planning Department determined that for any Type I action a separate, independent consultant would be hired for the purpose of reviewing the application. At the time of the January meeting, there was no consultant in place to conduct the review. If Clough, Harbor had been in place at the 1/24/89 meeting, Mr. Goralski assumed that that firm would have reviewed the Application for complete- ness in conformance with the Ordinance. Mr. DeSantis requested that the Consultant be requested to review the application to determine its completeness, in light of the Zoning Ordin- ance and SEQR. The Planning Board needs the information in order to make a determination. Mr. Conway was advised that ~ of the information needed includes: topographical maps, a licensed surveyor stamp on the maps, the maps should be up to date, etc. There are certain dates and requirements which the Planning Board has been applying, before it is determined that an Application is in sufficient condition to be considered -complete- to be presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Macri felt a very pertinent question is: "Was the Application pro- perly submitted as a Site Plan?- Although he did not review the Appli- cation in detail, he felt that all the pieces were there but they may have been deficient. Mr. O'Connor disagreed because, in addition to a juris- dictional flaw being present, he commented that it is absolutely necessary to abide by the Check List for Site Plan Review, so that the application will not have to be delayed again after the next presentation. There are substantive issues which have not been met at the present time. However, Mr. Macri pointed out that that part of the review process has not been reached on the Site Plan Application. The information was presented as a package by a professional engineer, and the Planning Board has taken it as a submission which was intended to be correct; Staff and the Consultants have not looked at it. At the last meeting there was no Engineer on Board; the Application was accepted strictly to start the Lead Agency determination. The procedure should be carried out in an orderly manner and proceed in a normal fashion using the standards that are set forth in the Ordinance. Mr. Roberts advised that the completeness of the Application is handled by the Planning Staff or the Consultants. Mr. Dusek noted that the Ordin- ance says that -all bodies of water and water courses will be located on the maps.- This has not been done; this is an incomplete Application. Richard Morse, Morse Engineering, stated that his firm was responsible for the preparation of the Application along with Coulter & McCormack, Land Surveyors. They were aware of and reviewed the Town's checklist in light of the submission, and he is of the opinion that the Application is complete in light of the Application. There are individual survey maps not stapled to the set, which were submitted by Coulter & McCormack for 5 each Application. The wetlands were flagged by the DEC in areas that had been disturbed from the 1982 submission; that was reviewed with ENCON. Because of the on-going issue that the Application is not complete, that Cough, Harbor Associates have been hired, and there is a file which has been reviewed, Mr. DeSantis firmly suggested that the Consultants make a determination in light of the Zoning Ordinance and the Check List, as to whether or not the Application is complete. Because this is not an issue for the Planning Board, he recommended that Clough, Harbor advise all interested parties of its determination. Counsel advised the Board of the following information. Regarding whether or not there is a jurisdictional problem, DEC's Rules and Regulations 617.6 indicates that the Planning Board does have an obligation to notify all involved agencies of this proceeding for the purpose of the SEQR process. The Zoning Board of Appeals would be an involved agency insofar as the Variance is concerned. At the moment the Zoning Board is an involved agency, which has not been notified; this is to be done. Clough, Harbor would review the Application and make a determination, during the time of notification to the Zoning Board. Mr. Mancini again repeated that the SEQR process must start again, if the Application is not complete; the determination must be made first, after which the thirty (30) day period must start again. The SEQR process is flawed; there can be no Scoping Session unless the Application is com- plete. Mr. Mancini requested to receive any updated information; his card was given to Mr. Goralski. Mr. Dusek commented to Mr. Roberts that it is not a forgone conclusion that the process will have to start again. As far as Mr. Stewart is concerned the Application is complete and, when the Applicant appeared before the first meeting, it was his under- standing that the Planning Board accepted the Application as being com- plete and suggested that the procedure could start. Board members vehe- mently denied that statement; no motion could be made on the Application unless it was accepted as complete. Mr. Stewart further said that, at the 1/24/89 meeting, the Board indicated that it wanted a Variance or some sort of clarification of the parking lot use in a LC-42 zone; this indi- cated that the Planning Board wanted an involvement by the ZBA. Based on that indication, Applications were submitted for an Interpretation and Use Variance. He was not aware that the ZBA was not notified regarding the Lead Agency status. In light of 1/24/89 meeting, Minutes: Mr. Stewart's discussion regarding the results of the Messrs. DeSantis and Macri referred to Page 9 of the 6 "Board members were concerned about the status of the time clock, in respect to SEQR, Lead Agency status and Tabling of the Application. Mrs. York explained that to Table an application means that there is an agree- ment between the applicant and the Planning Board to extend the time frame for however long it takes to satisfy the Board. If the applicant agrees to the Tabling, it is with that understanding. Mr. Roberts advised Mr. Stewart that letters would be sent promptly to other involved agencies regarding Lead Agency status.- -The Town of Queensbury Planning Board TABLED Site Plan No. 4-89, Story- town U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a The Great Escape, for more information. Robert Stewart, Esq., affirmed that the applicant will stipulate that there are no objections or that objections that the applicant might have are waived for the Planning Board to not make a final determination of the Site Plan Review until the SEQR process has been completed in all respects.- -Mr. Macri moved Lead Agency status The Great Escape. agencies.- that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board request for Site Plan No. 4-89, Story town U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a Lee York, Sr. Planner, is to notify all involved Regarding the time clock mentioned in the minutes, Mr. Stewart noted that the Application had been filed since December and the clock required a thirty (30) day selection for a Lead Agency; after the 30 days no Lead Agency had been selected. At that time, the Planning Board wanted to start another 30-day procedure and notify all agencies involved; Mr. Stewart agreed to waive the clock. Mr. Macri did not feel there was enough information presented, there were issues raised by Mr. O'Connor and other participants which the Board could not answer. According to Mr. Stewart, from the time of the l/24/89 meeting the Applicant was not requested to submit further information; however, Mr. Macri insisted that this was not necessary, because the issues were discussed at the meeting. Because Messrs. Macri and Stewart were in disagreement about whether or not the SEQR process should have been started, until all other concerns were addressed, Mr. Dusek recommended that he review the matter with the consultants, including the Check List and the other legal issues. The Zoning Board can be notified and then recommendations can be made at the next meeting. Mr. O'Connor is of the opinion that the Variance Applications are incomplete as well, because they pertain to an activity in a wetland buffer zone with no SEQR Short Form, Long Form or any input, except for a reference to the Planning Board's process that is under way. However, Staff has put the Applications on the Agenda. For the record, Counsel noted that there is nothing improper that has been done; the Variance Applications have been made to the ZBA and, as an involved Agency, it can rely on the SEQR process and not make its decision on the Variance request until after the SEQR process is finished and the SEQR concerns have been addressed. Mr. O'Connor is most concerned about time clocks running; the 7 ~dea of Staff putting Applications on an Agenda means that the Application is complete. Mr. Stewart has stipulated not to invoke the time limita- tions; there is a procedural problem that must be addressed in not putting items on Agendas until the Applications are deemed complete by Staff or by Consultants. Mr. Dusek strongly advised the Planning Board that some of the matters brought up by Mr. O'Connor are for the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the processes should not be mixed up; the ZBA should be treated as a different Agency. Mr. O'Connor took strong objection to the process as described by Mr. Dusek, because it is not prudent to make notice of a meeting, have "l50 or 200 people" show up and then have the Board notify all in attend- ance that the issue will not be discussed at that time. Mr. Conway commented on the Consultant's position. SEQR: Enough infor- mation has been submitted, so that this Lead Agency can make a determin- ation as to the project's significance, whether or not an EIS has to be prepared. Application completeness: The tabling of an application until the SEQR process is completed is a separate issue altogether. He does not believe that any involved agencies have a complete application before them, because they have not reached that point. If the Application is not complete, Mr. Mancini asked Mr. Dusek how the Consultant is going to give an appropriate Scoping of what has to be done in the SEQR. In his conversation with Ms. York, she did not determine the completeness and the Planning Board did not determine completeness; there- fore, completeness has not been determined. Whether or not this fact was known previously it is now known; therefore completeness must be deter- mined, if it has not already been done. Procedures must be followed. Jim Ryan, Clough, Harbor Associates, advised those present of the items which were immediately necessary. 1. Zoning Board of Appeals: Immediately a letter is to be issued from Staff on behalf of the Planning Board to the ZBA requesting Lead Agency status. Let the ZBA send the letter back signing off; a 30-day wait is not needed. 2. Verification of the completeness of the Application: Completeness is not known; Clough, Harbor will make a review and advise of its determin- ation. Experience with SEQR is that many involved agencies are re- quested to sign off, even though many times no application is in front of the agency. The process and the information that the Engineering Consultants have "is adequate to begin the process." It is understood that there are unique requirements in the process, and he advised the Board to "stick to that." The Consultants will secure from the Appli- cant any necessary additional technical information, so that next month the application can move forward. The Board was appreciative of Mr. Ryan's input and suggestions. 8 -- Mr. DeSantis moved to CONTINUE TO TABLE Site Plan Review No. 4-89, Story town U.S.A., d/b/a The Great Escape, until further notice and based on the Recommendations as stated by James Ryan, Clough, Harbor Associates, Consulting Engineer. 1. A letter Queensbury requesting to sign off is to be issued immediately from Staff on behalf of the Planning Board to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Lead Agency status, this will allow the stated Zoning Board and return the letter. A 30-day wait is not needed. 2. Clough, Harbor Associates will review and verify as to the completeness of the Application. 3. The process and the information that the Engineering Consultants have ·is adequate to begin the process.· 4. The Planning Board was advised to ·stick to· the unique requirements that are within the process. 5. Clough, Harbor Associates will secure from the Applicant any necessary additional technical information, so that the Application process can move forward. Seconded by Mr. Jablonski. Passed Unanimously Chairman Roberts adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Richard Roberts, Chairman Date -y.~ .3·;?,d?·~f Da te I Moeller, Stenographer 9 ........... -..../ SU1t1II~ SgCR'8~ARIAL P. O. Bo:r 26SA Queensbury NY 12804 MENORA.DUII TO: Queensbury Town Boa~ Mømbe~s FROM: Ma~y Jane F. Moe tte~~ stenographer March 8~ 1989 DATE: RE: RgS()LU~IO' West Mountain VitZages~ Inc. On March pecommending Inc. PUD. 7~ 1989 the Queensbury Ptanning Boa~ passed a Resotution the estabUshment of the proposed West Mountain VitZages~ Due to time timitations~ Nr. Dusek requested that you ~eceive a copy of the Resotution as soon as possible. In addition~ he advised me to have a verbatim transcript prepared fop your reviørø within one fJeek to ten days of the March 7th meeting. SincereZy yours~ ì~~ Mary Jane F. Moe Uer Attachment cc: PauZ Dusek~ Town Attorney Lee York~ Sr. Plannep Ptanni,ng Boa~ Nømbers QUEENSBURI PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES~ INC. ~ APPLICATION FOR PUD DISTRICTING UNDER ARTICLE L5 OF THE QUEENSBURI ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, West Mountain Villages, Ina., has filed an appliaation with the Town of Queensbury for PUD redistricting under Artiale l5 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinanae, and WHEREAS~ pursuant to said Ordinanae~ the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the West Mountain Villages~ Ina., Sketah Plan and supporting doauments, inaluding the DEIS and other doauments relating to impaats to the environment~ and finds the doaumentation aompZete and in aompZianae with the requirements of Artiale Z5~ and WHEREAS~ the Queensbury Planning Board met with the appZiaant on Marah 7, 1989~ Deaember 12, 1988~ and on a previous oaaasion at the Queens- bury Town HalZ and had open disaussions of the purposes and aoncepts with respeat to the proposed rezoning of the designated PUD area, and after due aonsideration, the PZanning Board reports: A. That the proposal meets the intent and objeatives and general requirements of ArtiaZe Z5 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinanae, and B. That the proposal is aonaeptually aaaeptabZe as meeting a aommun- ity need and aonforms to aaaepted design prinaipals as set forth in said Artiale l5, and C. That adequate serviaes and utilities have been proposed to be made available in the development of the PUD, and "- D. Furthe1'T11ore, we recommend that the Queensbury TObJn Board further investigate the possibiLity of the Queensbury PLanning Board hav- ing the opportunity of reviewing Phases II and III of the West Mountain ViLLages, Inc. DeveLopment. THEREFORE, the Queensbury PLanning Board recommends the estabLishment of the proposed PUD to the Queensbury TObJn Board and that said TObJn Board proceed with the rezoning of the PUD area and that a PubLic Hearing be heZd in accordance with ArticZe Z5 of the Queensbury Ordinance, and directs the Chai1'T11an of the PZanning Board to fOrbJard a copy of this report and a copy of the verbatim transcript of this meeting to the TObJn Board of the TObJn of Queensbury. DATED: ~ 'I, /917 VOTE OF THE BOARD: YES NO Richard Roberts, Chai1'T11an ./ HiLdegarde Mann, Seczoetazoy ,/ Joseph Dybas .r Victozo Macri .' Frank DeSantis / Petezo Cartiezo / Keith JabLonski / I hezoeby certify the within zoeport this .!1..:!:day of Mazoch, 1989. ~/~