HARTWICK - The site plan review application for the Cooperstown Dreams Park's three-year, multi-million dollar expansion plan was put on hold Tuesday night after the planning board agreed with a Glimmerglass Coalition attorney and reclassified the project.

The change came at the end of a three-hour meeting after the board had completed its review of the environmental assessment form and appeared poised to give the project a conditional negative declaration paving the way for work to begin on the first phase.

Dreams Park CEO Louis Presutti had already cleared two hurdles in his effort to get the approval to start construction so additions to the facility would be ready when the first teams arrive from across the country to play tournament-style baseball.

The special session Tuesday was called two weeks ago when the planning board told Presutti he would have to do a traffic study. They agreed to the extra meeting in an effort keep the project moving. The study was completed and accepted by the board, but another study again stands in the way of the project.

Earlier this month, Presutti convinced the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to agree to let him begin work on the west side of the railroad tracks where previous ground disturbing activities negated concerns about possible archeological resources. He would, however, have to complete a phase I study of the area on the east side of the tracks.

The planning board had discussed giving the project a conditional negative declaration which would allow him to begin work west of the tracks, but would prohibit work on the east side until the historic preservation office had accepted the archeological study.

But, as the board asked for public comment following its review of the application, Albany attorney Michael Sterthous, there on behalf of the Glimmerglass Coalition, reiterated his belief stated earlier in a letter to the board that the project was mis-classified and should by a type I action.

"I think it would be improper to do a conditional negative declaration," he said.

There were discrepancies in the application in regard to how many acres were being impacted and Sterthous said the application contained statements that indicated the project was large enough to meet the threshold for a type I action.

The planning board's environmental attorney Tom Fucillo went through the application and found reference in two different places to acreage large enough to meet the five acre cut-off.

"It would appear it is a type I," he said. The project had been classified as an "unlisted" action. A type I action, he said, is one which will more likely have a significant impact on the environment.

Fucillo told the board they can not give a type I action a conditional negative declaration. The board would, he said, have to give it a positive declaration which would require an environmental impact statement or wait until the archeological study was completed at which time it could receive a negative declaration.

"It's less than five acres," Presutti said as he tried to dispute the amount of acreage being impacted.

"That's not what it says," Fucillo countered.

But after the board's attorney read the regulation's definition of physically altering land it became apparent that the project would impact more than five acres and must be considered a type I action.

Based on the definition, Presutti admitted they would exceed the five acres.

"We agree that we will disturb over five acres and ask the board to table our application until we come back with an archeological study," he said.

Presutti said they will attempt to get the study done as soon as possible, but that it depends on weather conditions.