No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-18TB 2-18 -00 TOWN OF DRYDEN SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2000 Varna H Project Supv Varvayanis called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. Present: Cl Ronald Beck, Cl Thomas Hatfield, Supervisor Varvayanis, Attorney Mahlon Perkins. Cl Deborah Grantham arrived at 6:50 p.m. Absent: Cl Charles Hatfield Board members and special permit applicant Stephen Lucente reviewed the changes made in the Scoping Document prepared by the Town by Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP. S Lucente does not feel that it is appropriate to include consideration of schools in the SEQR process; that it cannot be used as a determining factor. He also feels the availability of sewer and water to the site was addressed in the proposal previously received by the Town. The Town's engineers stated that capacity was adequate. �vai:�c�� Atty Perkins does not believe there was anything in the positive dec about water and (Cl Grantham arrived) S Lucente states he has studied a lot of scoping documents and DEIS's and that type of document in the last couple of months and generally what you see is that the scoping document and the DEIS and the final EIS were all based on and written in light of the developer's proposal. They have dealt with many of the issues listed here, probably most of them, and yet it's as if they have not made any proposal at all and he is wondering why that is. He feels the scoping document was not written according the effect his proposal has on the community. S Lucente - My proposal was not considered when this was written. If it was, you already have your answers. The scoping document is designed to reduce the number of issues on the table so that we can proceed in an orderly, expedient fashion and this is just taking all that stuff and blowing it back up again. All we are going to do is turn around and give you these reports again. We have yet to really be able to sit down with the board and give our entire proposal, as I told you in our meeting two weeks ago. Certainly by now the entire board should have had time to read it very carefully, study it, understand its impacts and call for a scope based on our proposal, not starting from scratch. I don't understand. Supv Varvayanis - I was under the impression that the scoping document was supposed to address all possible questions, and it is in the EIS that your actual proposal and the mitigating factors are discussed. Atty Perkins - I think it is best said if you just refer to the regs, because that is really what you have to look to evaluate the scope. The regs say that the primary goals of scoping are to focus the EIS on potentially significant adverse impacts and to eliminate consideration of those impacts that are irrelevant or nonsignificant. I think the key operative language in the regs is: The final written scope should include the potentially significant adverse impacts identified both in the positive declaration and as a result of consultation with other involved agencies and the public, including identification of those particular aspects of the environmental setting that may be impacted. You don't get another bite at the apple. You don't go back to review of the EAF. We're supposed to move forward from the EAR You moved forward when you made a positive declaration. Now you use the positive declaration and the Page 1 of 15 TB 2 -1s -00 comments from involved agencies and the public to focus what the draft EIS is supposed to _ say. You don't start this review all over again. Ie I haven't had a chance to look at it, and I don't know what Steve is necessarily objecting to specifically, but it seems to me that he is making substantive complaints about what the scope contains. If he doesn't like what the scope contains and if you are prepared to adopt this, then he certainly may take exception to that when he prepares his draft EIS and give his argument why that shouldn't be part of the scope. Then you are going to have to determine whether or not based on everything that has happened today that is the record it's appropriate. I think that you determined if I'm not mistaken (I didn't bring my entire file with me), but I think wastewater wasn't an issue. Water supply wasn't an issue because it was already determined that there was adequate capacity. It wasn't listed as a potentially significant impact in the positive declaration. Cl Beck - But if consultation with agencies and public input brings these issues up? Atty Perkins - Then you may properly consider them, but I'm not sure that anybody has made issues out of, for example, those two things. Cl T Hatfield - I agree with that. I think the issues that were out there that were things like hydrology of the site, the water retention, drainage, traffic. Those issues that were 1sa #a4i#Liny s;Vr cant. S Lucente - But what's wrong with what we submitted. Atty Perkins - You have to prepare the draft EIS. If you don't want to prepare it, then the board can prepare it. S Lucente - If we are going to raise the issue, for example, of traffic, I think the scoping 18 document if it is going to be clear and legitimate, has to say we understand that you think this is how the traffic is going to occur. This is our problem with your plan. My plan cost $6,000. Tell me what's wrong with it and well bring it back. But sending me off and starting me over at the beginning, we're just spinning our wheels. Cl Beck - Isn't that the purpose of this document? To specifically state the concerns and if the information we've received from you isn't satisfactory to us, then we say its not satisfactory and you've got to give us something different? That's how I read it. Am I wrong? Atty Perkins - The final written scope should include a brief description of potentially significant adverse impacts identified which we've been over. This is the important part "the extent and quality of information needed for the preparer to adequately address each impact, including an identification of relevant existing information and required new information including the required methodologies for obtaining new information. That is one of the things the scope is supposed to do. Tell him what it is you want him to produce in the draft EIS and how he is to do it. It also is supposed to include an identification of mitigation measures, the reasonable alternatives to be considered and identification and information or data that should be included in an appendix rather than the body of it. You don't want a lot of tables in the middle of it, just summarize and put them at the end. And those prominent issues that were raised during scoping that were determined to be not relevant or not environmentally significant or that have been adequately addressed in prior environmental review. S Lucente - So it is pretty clear to me that you have to respond to my proposal. :9 Page 2 of 15 TB 2 -18 -00 Atty Perkins - No. The next step is for the board to accept and tell you that this is the • final written scope and that will be your blue print for preparing the draft EIS. That's where we are right now. S Lucente - Then I guess I will rephrase my question and ask why wasn't my proposal considered when this draft scope was put together. Why wasn't the proposal considered? Why wasn't it done in light of it? Why can't I seem to get any answers to those questions? Who is in charge? Atty Perkins - It is up to the lead agency to provide a final written scope to the project sponsor and that is going to be your blueprint for preparing the draft EIS. It is up to this board now to determine how much of this is going to be used for a blue print for the draft EIS. To the extent that this scope does any analysis or anything like that, that's outside the function. It is identification and telling him how to proceed and which issues you want him to address and which issues aren't necessary to address. S Lucente - Have you studied the whole document? Atty Perkins - No, I've just seen it for the first time a few minutes ago. S Lucente - I assume that Clough Harbour just followed the regular final scope and this is the structure of the outline that follows that process. Cl Grantham - Well they looked at the materials that are the file for your project proposal. S Lucente - Well, if they had then why didn't they address those issues? Or why didn't • they come back and say this is sufficient or this is a problem. Why did I go out and get all these reports two years ago while we've been sitting here. Why did Clough Harbour include the bit about measuring the impact on schools when that's clearly against SEQR? It's right in the SEQR handbook. Cl Grantham - Where does it say that? I think there might be some things in here that we could eliminate, but for the most part these are concerns that were raised that the public and the board didn't think were mitigated by your project proposal. S Lucente - Precisely. So why not tell me why my proposal doesn't mitigate those problems. I think it would be fair to adjourn the adoption of this for another week. Sit down with us. Let's work through it piece by piece. Tell me exactly how you want me to modify my proposal and we'll all get together and we'll vote. If you want to get this thing done, that's how you do it. Cl T Hatfield - I think that makes sense. If you are willing to wait another week. S Lucente - I'd be happy to. Cl T Hatfield - Your raising those issues and questions here makes sense to me. I'm willing to be honest. I've never been through this process before in six years on this board. Cl Grantham - You can't circumvent an EIS after you've done a positive dec and that's what he's suggesting. Cl T Hatfield - That's not what he is suggesting at all. He's saying that this as a scoping • document doesn't appear to fit the requirements that we can impose on him. Mahlon told us a few minutes ago we can adopt this and then he has the right to deal with it in any number of Page 3 of 15 TB 2 -18 -00 fashions. The objective here is to try to put on the table what it is we need in addition. Personally, I thought this was an effort to take the whole file and put it into a logical O chronological order with all of the various reports and exhibits and address the things that we identified in the EAF as significant and put them together in a fashion that addresses each of those points. As I read this, I thought it did a pretty good job of that, quite honestly. But I'm more than happy to admit to the fact that this is the first time I've ever looked at the process from any perspective. S Lucente - So we're both uncomfortable with it. Cl T Hatfield - I'm not real comfortable with it and your questions when you ask them, of me at least, I think they are fair questions. I'm a little uncomfortable that we are up against deadlines. That's not fair to you to hold you. My first reaction was let's take this and run with it. If you are saying that with a little bit of interaction and feedback we can get this reduced to something that you would be more comfortable with or you feel would be more fair to you and are willing to give us the time... Cl Beck - The thing I'm uncomfortable with is I don't ever recall saying here's your proposal and we say that's not acceptable. We say here's a proposal and that generates an impact and then we put all these impacts into this document and say okay, here's what we're concerned about, and now you can put the same proposal right back in that we've had before, or if the concern is wider... I Cl Grantham - Right. Cl T Hatfield - That's what I thought. Cl Beck - We act on these proposals, and that's how I understand it. I may be wrong, but... Cl Grantham - That's exactly how it is supposed to work. Cl Beck - We've never said this part is no good, we don't accept that. That's later. Cl T Hatfield - We've got a lot of spokes and maybe part of the wheel. This document is like the hub. Around this document now you put the pieces together and you've got then a proposal that responds to all of the issues that were raised when we did the positive dec. S Lucente - Let me tell you where this is all going. I come back here with my DEIS in ten days. You have 45 days to respond. Because this document is so wide and we've already given you our response to most of it, and at the end of 45 days it comes back. It's not right and you've got to do this, this, this and that and we go off and do it and give it back to you again and its another 45 days. I want to cut off the last half of that whole cycle and I'm willing to take another week to sit down with this board and go through my proposal point by point and find out what the problems are. I don't think that's unreasonable. Cl Beck - Can we legally make a determination? We'll have to look at each proposal with your mitigation and say we accept it or don't accept it and I don't think that is our responsibility at this point until the EIS is done, right? Atty Perkins - No, its not. I suggest.... Supv Varvayanis - I offered to have us write the DEIS and you said no you wanted to write it. Now you're saying... • Page 4 of 15 TB 2 -18 -00 S Lucente - Because we are getting documents that are just mushrooming in size rather • than moving in the other direction. I still would like to sit down with this board and go through the proposal step by step. Like I said, it's a request. But I think that if this a government of fairness that you have look at doing something like that. You can't just keep pushing me back. Cl Beck - I don't see anything wrong with doing that if legally we can do that. S Lucente - Why don't we take my proposal section by section and you guys just vote on it and whatever is left over, throw into the scope and we'll go gather your information. Cl Grantham - I'm not comfortable with that at all. S Lucente - Well, it's the way to be expedient. Atty Perkins - Can suggest maybe that reading a little bit into Steve's objections here, I think he is saying that this really starts him all over again, which he objects to. What might be a way to sort through some of this is to have Steve and his development team go through this in the next week and set forth in writing what it is they object to so that you know specifically what it is they object to and what parts of it they think they've already met and then you can determine whether or not the scope is adequate. Understand that once there is a final written scope on the table, that doesn't commit you to approve his draft EIS. He still has to submit a draft EIS in the appropriate form so that you have got one document that you can look at and assess the culmination of all of the impacts, not piece meal. Cl Beck - By looking at the document and having him say, "I've already submitted this ", why should that eliminate it from being part of the document, just because he's submitted it? • Atty Perkins - It doesn't. S Lucente - That's not what I'm saying though. I'm just saying look at it. Tell me what more we need. How do we perfect this traffic problem, or runoff problem, to address your concerns? That's all I'm asking, very simple. What do you want? Cl Beck - And its the way to move forward, but I'm not sure that we can really do it until we have the whole document and act in our legal manner to say this is the document and this part is unacceptable. To talk about it before the scope, which is certainly the way to proceed in faster manner because you are kind of eliminating a step. But to say okay we'll agree with this, we've already made a decision. Then we look at the whole thing and say no we're going to change our mind, this decision we made back here is different and relevant to this other proposal. I don't think that is what we can do and if we are saying that we tentatively approve this part of it, we may get in trouble later on. Atty Perkins - You shouldn't do it piece meal. Cl Grantham - No. Cl Beck - So I don't know. I agree this has been going on too long. Cl T Hatfield - One thing I'm a little disappointed in is Clough Harbour has been down this road a few times. They've seen all these documents and they know the purpose of the scope better certainly than any of us in here do, and that should be to identify and eliminate and basically focus on issues. The meeting I'd like to have frankly is with Clough Harbour. I'd • like to ask them some of those questions with you (S Lucente) present and your experts present and get to the point. If you are willing to do that. I'd like to see this thing as focused as it can Page 5 of 15 TB 2-18 -00 be because I think the process is, and its only fair to you, to get this process as efficient as we can and let's get it focused and let's get moving. It's not only fair to you, but it's fair to everybody. It is unfair to keep moving barriers around. It's not acceptable to me. I don't think it's acceptable to any of us and it shouldn't be. I've never seen us do that. But this is the first time down this road and I think we need to do it right. I think Ron's points are very well taken. We need to do it the way we are supposed to, but I think there are ways to improve communications. If you are willing to give us a week, let's take it. Monday doesn't count, it's a holiday. We can get Clough Harbour and let's see if we can get a meeting of some sort. Is that legal, Mahlon? We're not stepping out of bounds doing that are we? Atty Perkins - Not if it is acceptable to both sides, the sponsor and the lead agency. The goal here is to come up with a scoping document that meets the regs, not what somebody thinks it ought to be, but what meets the regs. S Lucente - That's all we want. Cl T Hatfield - Certainly that's what I want to see happen. S Lucente - Right now item 13 is outside of the process. It just makes me wonder what's happening with other things. Cl Beck - And I wonder if what you say is in fact true, how come Clough Harbour included it. Cl T Hatfield - That's what bugging me. We are paying for this expertise and what are we getting? S Lucente - What was the reason for moving this to Clough Harbour anyway? Cl Beck - Hopefully to get the most expertise we could I guess. Cl T Hatfield - They had been through this. When we interviewed them one of the things that they gave us a pile of information on and the firm and history, they've done a lot of these things. We thought it would be a positive step to have that additional expertise in hand for everybody. But right now I'm not all that sure. S Lucente - Okay. Another thing is it says economic impacts should be the impact on the community, not the applicant. That's clearly against what SEQR says. You have to take the applicant's situation into consideration. So... Cl Grantham - Well, that's what Clough Harbour said, too. Cl T Hatfield - They did say that. S Lucente - Then why is that here? Cl Grantham - Because when I read it, that's what I thought, that it's the community not any individual. S Lucente - Well; it's against the rules. Capacity of wastewater treatment. Another one. Well, I'm willing to do that if you are. I don't think it can hurt. Another week isn't going to make any difference one way or the other. If we're all working together it could be very good. Cl Beck will be leaving town on Tuesday, February 22. 0 Page 6 of 15 TB 2 -18 -00 Cl T Hatfield - Clough Harbour and Delta need time to talk. Let's get some of this done • and get us together at the end of the week, if everybody is willing to do that. Thursday would be the best day for me next week. Cl Grantham - I can't do it Thursday. Cl T Hatfield - Maybe Friday morning would work. Cl Grantham - I guess we could do it Friday morning. Cl T Hatfield - Charlie's out, so it's just the three of us. That gives Clough Harbour and Delta a week to talk and to chat back forth and get some input going. If Clough Harbour has any questions they can call you, or they call us directly if you want, Mark. That way Steve can work with Delta and let's see if we can't get some communication going and get a document here that meets the requirements of the regs and moves the project toward a conclusion. Cl Beck - Somebody will have to be fairly specific in talking to Clough Harbour as to just exactly what we want and then ... Cl T Hatfield - What we want is pretty simple isn't it? What we want is a document that meets the requirements which I would, and I could be making a mistake every time I make an assumption, I assume that they would know that based on their experience. S Lucente - Let me ask one question. These 17 items. This document has been modified by this document, or this document is a part of this document? Supv Varvayanis - No, this is just a couple of comments that were made to the ori ginal, • and that was... S Lucente - Oh, so this isn't part of the scope. , 0 Cl Beck - No. Supv Varvayanis - No. Cl T Hatfield - Those were comments after the draft scope was delivered and reviewed that came from either members of this board or the public. S Lucente - So what we need to consider is in here? Cl Grantham - Yes. Cl T Hatfield - Right. And Clough Harbour took those comments along with the rest of the record, included some and deleted others, but this shows very clearly when you go through it... Cl Grantham - What they've changed. Cl T Hatfield - They've bolded what they added and if you go back to page 17 or somewhere back in here where they crossed things. Like on page 9. The things they eliminated they crossed out. So we still have the nine pages here of the original scope that incorporate the ... some was incorporated here and some wasn't. Page 7 of 15 TB 2 -18-00 Supv Varvayanis - Like this number one that you complained about, the scope should consider the benefits and impacts to the community, not the applicant. Underneath they said that's wrong. 40 S Lucente - Okay. Cl T Hatfield - Some of the things that you were focused on they agreed with us. That's a positive, but I still think taking a week with this, because you've just seen this now. S Lucente - Yeah. Cl T Hatfield - I'd be more comfortable with you having a chance to have Delta look at it or whoever is on your team that can look at this thing. Let's work toward getting some resolution as opposed to ... Atty Perkins - I'd like to see Clough Harbour identify in as many places as possible what they consider would be the appropriate extent and quality of information needed for the preparer to adequately address each impact. Because once we know what their professional judgement is on that, then we will be in a position to evaluate what you receive. Cl T Hatfield - I would agree with that. Atty Perkins - I think Steve said is just going to attach or refer to some of the reports he's already done, but you are going to know and he is going to know that you have their response to this, what it is you are looking. If he submits that then you will have to make a determination whether that is adequate. S Lucente - Yeah, at least we'd have a way to know... 0 Cl T Hatfield - Now you are starting to take this file that is this thick and starting to put it in an organized fashion that fits the requirements of the EIS. S Lucente - yeah. Cl T Hatfield - Ultimately it is how these things work and why they work, or what is insufficient information provided, what additional information should be requested. That's what I see as how this thing works. Its not an attempt to push or shove but its trying to bring some order out of what right now is a pretty thick set of documents to get your arms around. Supv Varvayanis - We sent over 1500 pages over to Syracuse, or I took it to Syracuse to get read. S Lucente - There was a lot there. I know this is the first time the Town has ever engaged in such a thing. You want to be careful and I understand. It's something with a very big impact and you want to do it right. I do too. Cl T Hatfield - You've made that clear all along. Supv Varvayanis - I was under the impression though when we talked about, you told Delta to be talking to these guys. Have they? S Lucente - I did and our engineer had talked to Delta (Clough Harbour ?), in fact he had worked for the guy who was supervising the people who did this job, I don't know their names. When we heard that there was going to be a change we just decided to wait and see 0 what came out tonight. Page 8 of 15 TB 2-18 -00 • Cl Beck - It bothers me that the school thing is still included. They didn't make any change. S Lucente - It says something about it is included in some other area, but there is state law that clearly prescribes they are not allowed, they must not do that. Cl T Hatfield - I'd like to see this interspersed. My read on what you told us was that they would tie it back to the regs so we can cross - reference these things easily. S Lucente - If they've got to be done, then it will be done. But that's not our information. Atty Perkins - Some of what the scope that you have there clearly requires the sponsor to prepare a narrative based on what he feels are the responses to those concerns. Other parts of it require more scientific analysis and that's what is lacking in the scope as it is right now. Supv Varvayanis - If I'm missing something, but, if we accept this just the way it is written now and you and your engineers are talking to Clough Harbour and they write the DEIS and Clough Harbour at the same time is telling them what we wanted to see and we can get all this done and we actually have a DEIS in front of us at the same time instead of just another scoping document. Atty Perkins - The problem with that is that there is no standard to be governed by. Clough Harbour has unfettered discretion then on what they are going to require. That is not their decision. It is this Board's decision. You can't delegate that responsibility to them. They need to tell us now what it is, in fairness to the sponsor so the sponsor can respond to those questions. That's why the lead agency is given the opportunity to prepare the scoping document. It's the whole purpose of the scoping document. Cl Beck - I guess what Mark is saying is that if they took it just like we have it, it may be wider than what you think, but it might also include all of our concerns and work from there. Then we've got the DEIS to work from. Is that also a fallacious thought process? Atty Perkins - You can certainly accept this the way it is right now if that's what your decision is. Then the sponsor may say I'm not going to address, this wasn't a significant impact, it wasn't in the positive declaration, it wasn't raised anywhere else, it's not a proper consideration. Cl Beck - Then we'll still have to determine that and we can disagree forever. Atty Perkins - At some point you've got to determine those things and whether or not they need to be addressed. Cl T Hatfield - The question I have for Clough Harbour is to take the positive dec lay it here, put this next to it, and tell me how these things affect each other and a little more about exactly what it is we need in order to address the positive impact items, that we have determined were potential adverse impacts, That's what I'd like to see. Isn't that what you said in so many words a little while ago, to cross reference the two, put them side by side? Cl Beck - And get back to the regulations. Page 9 of 15 V0: : ! !, Atty Perkins - But you can't use just the positive declaration. You use that as your starting point. But then to the extent that any public comment or involved agencies have issued any statements, those need to be considered too in writing the scope. Cl T Hatfield - That's the thing. That's what we're doing. They went through 1500 pages of documents. You take the public comment and the involved agencies; those comments are all over the place. Atty Perkins - No. You've got to start with the positive dec because you are going to eliminate.... Cl T Hatfield - You only bring in then from the public and from involved agencies those comments that affect things that are in the positive dec that are potentially... Atty Perkins - Or if there was any newly identified significant potential environmental impacts Cl T Hatfield - That weren't identified in the positive dec itself. Atty Perkins - Right. If you don't start this process all over again. It's not filtering through all of those 1500 pages and starting an environmental review again. That's not the purpose of scoping. It is to narrow the issues. S Lucente - I misunderstood when I started reading these top three pages here. The document probably is okay. But if you all are willing, I'd be willing to go another week. Cl Grantham - Seems like that would be a good idea since you haven't read it and some people on the board haven't read it. I read it fast. I don't have any problems with a week. Cl T Hatfield - I certainly don't. Especially if it can be used to get Clough Harbour and Delta, and Mahlon maybe needs to be a little bit more involved too, to make sure the regs are being adhered to and we're not stepping out of bounds. I would like to request that those three parties, one of them works for you, if you are willing to do that. S Lucente - Oh yeah, well be here. Cl T Hatfield - And what did we decide, the 25th? Cl Grantham - That's fine with me. What time? Cl Beck - I think we need to be very specific when we make this call to Clough Harbour that Mark and Mahlon or somebody decide exactly what it is we're asking them so there is no ambiguity of what we want out of that meeting or that document. I don't feel comfortable doing that, so somebody will have to make that phone call. Cl T Hatfield - I would suggest that we ask Mahlon to write down what exactly it is that we discussed here tonight and what we want from Clough Harbour and have that forwarded by Mark or Mahlon or whatever, makes no difference to me. Get it up to Clough Harbour, if they'll continue to do the work and I'm sure they will, and let's move this thing along. Cl Beck - I think that request might need to be done in conference with their top person up there in charge of those things and that will help you. There may be some things that we're missing yet. Cl T Hatfield - Absolutely. Does 8:00 on Friday morning work? Page 10 of 15 TB 2-18 -00 Cl Grantham & Supv Varvayanis replied it was fine. Cl Grantham - That has to be public right? B Hollenbeck - Is that a meeting and does it need to be advertised? Cl T Hatfield - This was meeting tonight, we got called on a timely basis based on delivery, but it's still a public meeting. Atty Perkins - Mark, what do you want me to do? Supv Varvayanis - I guess making sure that the scoping document is complete and legal and have Delta get together with Clough Harbour, Atty Perkins - That seems to me a result of the contact rather than the contact. Maybe I'll take a crack at drafting a letter and run it by you Monday or Tuesday on what we are looking for from Clough Harbour and specifically which items don't appear to be appropriate because they weren't identified in the positive dec and haven't really been raised and secondly, some more guidance and judgement from them with respect to what we might see or use as a standard in evaluating the draft EIS. Cl T Hatfield -And thirdly, a request to tie the two documents together on some basis. The positive dec and the scoping document. I need some relativity on the thing. Cl Grantham - But it is just as Mark said, what's in the positive declaration does not completely represent what has to be in the scoping because of all the public comment. Cl T Hatfield - I understand. But the public comments that would be included in the scoping document are only those that either identify new significant impacts or are supplemental to the conversation that we had when we identified the potential significant impact. Cl Beck - Who determines whether that in fact is true. We have one person that stands up and says this is a concern... Atty Perkins - It's up to the Board. Cl Beck - and we haven't... Cl T Hatfield - We did that in the positive dec. When we did the positive declaration we went through the.,. Supv Varvayanis - That comes up in the DEIS. He says either here's a complaint in the scope that I think is total bologna, or this is what I want to do about it. And that's when we say we decide we agree with him that he's mitigated it, or that it isn't. Cl Beck - Yeah, that's the next step, or two steps away. Cl T Hatfield - I misunderstood what you told us. Atty Perkins - Well, I'm not sure that there was any new potentially significant environmental impacts identified in any of the public comment period. It seems to me that we • heard a lot of the same testimony and affirmation. Yes, this is a problem. Yes, we see this is a problem, and so forth. The only thing that there might have been in any of that material or any Page 11 of 15 TB 2 -18-00 of the hearings or anything were suggested ways that those impacts might be addressed in the scope and that is what I would like to see Clough Harbour comment on specifically. Cl Beck - And also further information on the problems. We had a problem and we had some information that you gave us and people weren't happy with that, so they are requesting more information, which I think is proper. Then we need to decide whether we need more information. Atty Perkins - I think that's what Clough Harbour needs to do, is be more specific. The way I look at this except for a couple paragraphs, all this is is a detailed outline. It doesn't really get to what kinds of and the extent and the quality of the material you want to see there. Cl T Hatfield - I was happy with that when I read it because I though it was what we were supposed to be doing was getting into an outline and incorporating the thing, but Steve is raising some good questions here. That this document has a different purpose. If that is the case and that's what the regs are saying then we need to make sure that we meet those requirements. Atty Perkins - For example, I think it would be appropriate if the scoping document when it says prepare a phase one site investigation that if they've got something specific in mind, then they identify what that is and what that phase one investigation or environmental audit ought to address. That at least gives... S Lucente - I know what it is. Atty Perkins - I know what it is, too, but I think the public may not know what it is. Everyone on the board may not have the same understanding of what it is. Cl T Hatfield - Precisely and when you don't include that information, it leaves the public wondering and you lose trust. I think that is part of the process here. I'd agree with you. I'd like to see that. Atty Perkins - I'd like to see this as detailed as possible so that you've eliminated as many of those things as you've already determined are potentially large impacts or significant and it gives you something to measure the DEIS against. S Lucente - Now I'm into the back pages and it looks a little better to me. I don't think we'll have any problem. There will probably be no changes. But I don't think any damage will be caused by this decision we are making. C1 T Hatfield - I think we can improve it. B Hollenbeck - Does this go beyond what we contracted with CHA to do, and do you need authorization for another agreement or something? right? Cl Grantham - We approved up to so much anyway and we haven't spent that much Supv Varvayanis - Yeah, we have around $500 or $600. S Lucente - When would you contact Clough Harbour? Atty Perkins - I'll run it by Mark first. Supv Varvayanis - He'll draft it and probably Monday I'll read it. Page 12 of 15 TB 2 -18 -00 • S Lucente - I'm just thinking if we go through this and we don't have any problems with it, we can save the Town the expense of bringing them down. At this point I don't know any longer if there is a problem. Cl T Hatfield - You were reading the first three pages that weren't a part of it S Lucente - Yeah. I can call Mark on Monday or Tuesday and we can make a decision. Atty Perkins - If that's what you want to do. Cl T Hatfield - Personally I'm still unhappy with what we've got here because what I thought we were getting turned out to be different than what we need. Cl Grantham - I don't think it is a bad idea to have them go ahead and have them get more specific about it. I don't know that $500 will do it though. S Lucente - This is pretty specific. I don't mind it being more specific. What I mind is ambiguity. Then you can't write a response. Cl T Hatfield - I still have a problem if you say we are not supposed to be addressing school impacts back on page 8 or 9 on that thing. S Lucente - Item 13, they refer to some section. Section IV. E.1c and IV. E.2i. Already include schools and the potential overload capacity. Cl Beck - All that is is a list. This list right here is what they are talking about. iSupv Varvayanis - Impact on Growth Cl T Hatfield - Community Services. It's on page 7 of the scope. Cl Beck - And all that does is just say schools. It doesn't refer to any regs. It just refers to part of the draft scope. Cl T Hatfield - In all honesty here. The other thing about this with Clough Harbour for me, is I want to sort of see how they work. They made a pretty interesting proposal to us back in November or December and I'm not all that happy with what I have been learning here. I'm a little bit concerned about how they operate and how they work and what they are doing and what their thoughts were. I'd like to have an opportunity for them to be asked some of those questions and given a chance to respond. I'm not anxious to spend a lot of money on it. S Lucente - I withdraw my comments. Cl T Hatfield - I'm just a little concerned. I'd like to see how they respond. S Lucente - Okay. Supv Varvayanis - Do you have the SEQR manual there? Cl Grantham - I have the regulations and I have the manual. Supv Varvayanis - Could you show me where it says you are not allowed to consider • schools? Page 13 of 15 TB 2 -18 -00 S Lucente - I'll try. It's buried in here somewhere. Supv Varvayanis - These guys have been through this a lot. I would hope... Cl T Hatfield - That's the kind of comment. I hear that and I'm thinking what are they doing. S Lucente - This is actually 617. I was quoting out of SEQR handbook. Do you have that? Cl Grantham - The 1992 Handbook? This? You have to go from the regs though ultimately. S Lucente - I know my way more around this book than that book. Cl Grantham - You're not talking about Type H actions are you Steve? S Lucente - Type I actions. Cl T Hatfield - We don't have to solve that tonight. I suggest we have an opportunity to go another week. S Lucente - I'm having trouble finding it. Cl Grantham - Type U means actions that are as if you were coming in here and saying that you are going to build a school or expand a school. Then no, I think it is not subject to SEQR. But your impact on the school system, I have never seen where that can't be considered. You're right that under Type R actions the following actions are not subject to review: Routine activities of educational institutions including expansion and so on. But you might be right. There might be some other place where it says that. S Lucente - Deb, I picked it up somewhere. I'm sorry I can't find it here. I'll track it down and I'll get it back to you. Cl T Hatfield - You've got the time to do that as long as everyone is amenable and agreeable. The 25th at 8:00 am. Atty Perkins - So that the record is clear. With the agreement of the project sponsor the time to submit the final scope is extended until the 25th of February? S Lucente - Yes. Cl Grantham - And you will write a letter? Cl T Hatfield - I would like to see Clough Harbour respond to these criticisms. I really would. I don't think they should be getting paid more to do it either. I don't know what they agreed to do and all that stuff. We can worry about that later, but I would like to see some of the things that we discussed here tonight incorporated into this document. I think it would improve the process. Supv Varvayanis - They obviously thought that this was a scoping document that meets the regulations. Cl T Hatfield - Absolutely, I'm sure they did. is Page 14 of 15 V0: : 11, Supv Varvayanis - The only reason I bring it up is that you say you don't think we should pay them more, but if they think that they've performed ... Cl T Hatfield - and then we want to modify it more. Supv Varvayanis - I can try to get it for free. Cl T Hatfield - Let's see what we can do is all I'm saying. From our perspective I think there are some things that they can do here that would improve this document and I'm sure they must have felt that they did a pretty good job, and I like the way they left the strike outs and the bolds in the thing. That part seems to be pretty adequate and clear, but I'd like to see it tied a little closer to the documents we're working with. Atty Perkins - They did that in a couple of places, but I don't think morning, they took it far enough. I think it would be much easier for you to take a look at the potentially significant impacts you've already identified, and then say how they are to be addressed. Cl T Hatfield - You can draft that and give it to Mark and get it up to them Monday morning, give them some time and get back together on the 25th. Cl T Hatfield and Cl Beck went through the document pointing out the bolds and strike outs indicating modifications. S Lucente - Thanked the board for coming out in the bad weather. On motion made, seconded and unanimously carried the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Hollenbeck Town Clerk Page 15 of 15