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.
~/~