HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAG-2014-09-08Community Advisory Group (CAG) Minutes for September 8, 2014
APPROVED
Present: Nels Bohn as City Facilitator, Cynthia Brock, Ken Deschere, Regina Deschere, John
Graves, George McGonigal, Michele Palmer
Guest(s): Walter Hang, Jan Lawless, Jean Sutherland, and Mary Yetsko
Agenda Additions and/or Deletions: No update or documents from DEC
PROJECT DISCUSSION: Stone Quarry Apartments
Ken Deschere gave an overview of the project, which the CAG has not reviewed.
Considering CAG’s mission statement, how can this group be involved?
- Can we improve the release of information?
- Comment on work plans etc.?
Jean Sutherland, Stone Quarry Apartments (SQA) neighbor, spoke about events to date, noting
that Cynthia Brock got the word out to the project’s neighbors. INHS did not do a very good job
with neighborhood outreach and many are quite concerned that the project has not obeyed the
letter or spirit of the relevant laws. It was July, Jean said, when neighbors first learned of the
contamination next door, and were told not to worry. INHS knew about contamination for two
years, and reports of the city’s planning and zoning functions contained no information about it.
“HUD regulations were not followed, and now (INHS) are backing over the boxes on the forms.”
Jean said. “I have grave concerns, including the city-revised Environmental Assessment (EA)
filed one day after the Phase I comment period deadline passed. What happens next time?”
Walter Hang gave his view of the SQA site events to date. This project, as well as others, he
said, does not meet applicable standards under the law. There is a fundamental problem, he
continued. The framework of investigation and mitigation must be in compliance with the law,
and it is not. He cited other examples: Ithaca Gun, Emerson, and in his view, Stone Quarry
Apartments. “Dick Brazell (NYSDEC Regional Spill Engineer) didn’t enforce the law. Large
areas of the site have been ignored.” Ken observed that source removal is needed and easiest
when there are no structures in the way.
Cynthia pointed to an amended Planned Unit Development (PUD) resolution that’ll go before an
upcoming Planned and Economic Development Committee (PEDC) meeting, Sept. 9, saying she
does not know what the language contained in the motion means.
[13.] Common Council Consideration of the PUD—
When and if the environmental review of the project has
been completed in such a manner as to permit the owner to
proceed with their project and contingent site plan
approval, it will return to the Common Council for final
consideration of the adoption of the PUD.
The language authorizing the PUD will be revised, so that a finding of environmental impact (a
“Positive Declaration”) will not keep needed work on the project site from occurring. The
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) must be approved before work on the site can be finally
approved.
Michele Palmer said she has authored environmental impact statements: “SEQR (State
Environmental Quality Review Act) law is state law. It must be followed, even if local law says
to go ahead.” Nels Bohn said that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and other City groups
can’t take formal action until the SEQR steps are followed. “The Planning Board may be the
‘Lead Agency’, but a vote must take place,” he said.
Cynthia’s reading of the law is that it contains vague language. “PUD can only be used in
industrial zones where contamination is likely.” Michele said she would look at the language
Cynthia cited and send along to CAG. Ken said the resolution is a chicken and egg problem:
“How do we meet appropriate environmental standards? In terms of being able to be heard,
Stone Quarry residents have a right to be mad. Expertise, honesty and good faith have all been
missing.”
Jan Lawless, who lives near the intersection of Spencer Road and Stone Quarry Road, spoke of a
City Hall disconnect when she was told a one-way traffic study would be using 2- to 3-year-old
data.
Nels said the SQA project had two environmental reviews, and “we made the mistake of piggy-
backing on SEQR.” The developer, INHS, got Phase I (results with pollution), then Phase II and
a Supplemental review. Cynthia asked if the developer did not notify the city of Phase II, or did
the city not follow necessary steps? Is the City ignorant or was information withheld? Nels said
he didn’t have all the information to answer these questions: “We need greater transparency to
understand spill reports.” He also said the developer thought the spill report was made to the
NYSDEC, but the Planning Board did not know. Cynthia said DEC’s Dick Brazell told her it
was very unusual that a funding agency or a government hasn’t done a spill check. He was
stunned that there had not been a single call in this process. If the city is the legal entity to do the
environmental assessment, and we decide it is not a problem, we leave it to the developer to do
the right thing, she said.
Walter noted there was a December NYDEC retirement that was also a factor. He then spoke of
the process, characterizing the required forms as misleading. “When SEQR says it’s no big deal,
that is not true.” He said he has FOILED the city and DEC. He will be charged $600 by the city
to compile their response. “It is absolutely critical to know what did the city know, and when did
they know it.” In sites such as Ithaca Falls, Stone Quarry and Emerson – all considered for
redevelopment – the investigations and mitigations have not been completed up to the letter of
the law, he said.
Nels said that DOH sets the standards for soil and vapor; DEC enforces the rules for soil; an
Article 78 action for the people could be filed. The HUD 15-day comment period deadline is
9/23/14, to Jacob Levine in Buffalo. “Unrestricted residential” standards can be done.
Ken asked, “What should CAG say to HUD? The communications has been flawed with the
Stone Quarry Apartments development, and every urban renewal effort should be trying to do
better. With undesirable sites, understanding is critical so that due diligence is done and people
can live with the work. We want good faith demonstrated.” Cynthia observed that there was a
lack of prior circulation of the amended Environmental Assessment to the public. One day’s
notice before the meeting was inadequate for public comment. None of their comments could be
incorporated.
Michele pointed out that if there is a negative declaration (a FONSI: Finding Of No Significant
Impact), then studies can still happen; a board can disagree and an Environmental Impact
Statement can be required. Walter feels that the Stone Quarry information was purposely
withheld. John Graves asked if the CAG should also get the information. Stone Quarry neighbors
at the meeting said the Mayor never asked to meet with them.
Michele asked if there are environmental engineering experts inside city government who
understand the subtleties of contamination issues. She suggested the city add a fee for such
professional opinion to applications where contamination is expected. Walter agreed. George
McGonigal asked for a list of two or three things we can do, which he could bring to the City
Administration Committee.
Nels replied information was absent from the Planning Board. The form language is flawed and
should be revised. Cynthia agreed, and is in favor of an extended public comment period.
Michele noted SEQR must be followed: A complete submission should take no more than 60
days from application date to deadline. Nels agreed – every action must be according to SEQR.
George asked what was withheld. Walter replied that three reports were withheld from the
public.
We must work to establish Standards of Disclosure such as those which lending institutions
require for industrial/commercial/multi-family. It is routine for them and should be a requirement
for environmental assessment. Walter stressed that we must require clean-up under the letter of
the law.
The SQA neighbors present – one on Stone Quarry and two residing on Spencer Road – all said
they learned of INHS’s project by reading about it in the newspaper. The process is flawed.
Ithaca Falls Overlook:
Nels said DEC’s Gary Priscott reports home testing results in the downhill neighborhood are not
above groundwater standard; analysis continues. A report and more indoor air testing are
expected this winter. So far, 10 bids have been received for island and raceway clean-up work to
be done by end of 2014. The bid deadline is 9/15/14.
Adjournment: 7:45p
Next Meeting: Monday, October 6th, 6:00 – 7:30PM, 2nd Floor Conf. Room, City Hall
Notes Submitted by Regina Deschere