HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2016-03-291
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
VERBATIM REPORTING & VIDEO
(800) 368 - 3302
1
CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
PUBLIC HEARING
March 29, 2016
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
MODERATOR:
Adam S. Walters, ESQ., Special Counsel to City
Planning and Development Board
PHILLIPS LYTLE, LLP
One Canalside, 125 Main Street
Buffalo, New York 14203-2887
BOARD MEMBERS:
Garrick Blalock, Chair
Robert Lewis
MaKenzie Jones-Rounds
Mark Darling
John Schroeder
REPORTED BY:
Delores Hauber, Shorthand Reporter, Notary Public
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
MR. BLALOCK: Welcome, everybody, to
the public hearing of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Chain Works District. I'm here as the
chair of the planning board and I believe
we have a quorum of the board here. If we
can have the board members introduce
themselves.
MR. LEWIS: Rob Lewis, member of the
planning board.
MR. DARLING: Mark Darling, member of
the planning board, liaison with public
works.
MS. JONES-ROUNDS: MaKenzie
Jones-Rounds, member of the planning board.
MR. SCHROEDER: John Schroeder member
of the planning board.
MR. BLALOCK: What would the members
of the planning board like to do?
MR. DARLING: I would like to move to
open the public hearing.
MR. BLALOCK: Is there a second?
MS. JONES-ROUNDS: Second.
MR. BLALOCK: All those in favor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
(ALL IN FAVOR.)
MR. BLALOCK: The public hearing is
now open and Adam Walters is going to
explain how the process is going to work.
MR. WALTERS: Good afternoon,
everyone. My name is Adam Walters. I'm an
attorney at Phillips Lytle and I'm special
counsel to the City Planning and
Development Board for purposes of the Chain
Works Project DEIS. My practice focuses on
land use and development and in particular
the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
SEQRA is a complex law. Most people
find, if not very difficult to understand,
at least challenging and somewhat
confusing.
In its broadest possible terms SEQRA
has two basic purposes. First, it requires
governmental agencies to document their
decision making and in particular to
identify adverse environmental impacts that
may result from government actions. In
this case we're talking about specifically
adverse environmental impacts that will
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
result from the Chain Works Redevelopment
Project. Second, it requires governmental
agencies to mitigate to the maximum extent
practicable their adverse environmental
impacts associated with their projects.
This information, the adverse
impacts, is really all spelled out in a
document we like to call the Draft General
Environmental Impact Statement or DGEIS.
DGEIS contains a very detailed project
description, a description of different
alternatives to the project, a description
of the environmental setting, the potential
impacts and mitigation measures proposed
for the project. The identification of
irreversible and irretrievable commitments
of resources and unavoidable adverse
effects. It also contains a discussion of
future environmental reviews for future
project related development.
This afternoon and this evening the
lead agencies will hold a public hearing on
the DGEIS and I've be asked to act as the
moderator for tonight. A notice of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
adoption of the DGEIS and public notice for
the hearing was published in the Ithaca
Journal as well as the Environmental Notice
Bulletin.
And the purpose of tonight's hearing
is really to receive comments on the DGEIS.
I should stress that the hearing is not
intended to be a question and answer
session. All of the comments you make
tonight will be recorded. We will have an
official transcript. Most of the board
members are here. They just introduced
themselves. They will have a full
transcript of everything that is said
tonight on the record. And we'll review
that very carefully after the hearing.
We've kind of taken a little bit of
different format. Usually the project
sponsor starts off with the presentation,
but we wanted to start a little earlier in
case there were folks who wanted to make
sure they got here a little early to get
their comments on the record. So the
presentation by the project sponsor is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
6
going to be at 5:00, or 5:30, an hour and a
half from now. If you would like to make
your comments after you see the
presentation, that's perfectly fine. You
can wait. But if you would like to make
your comments earlier, we would welcome
that.
The kind of rules of order for
tonight, pretty straightforward. If you
haven't already done so, please make sure
you sign in on the sign-in sheet at the
table. That is our official record of
attendance for the hearing tonight. On the
sign-in sheet you will find registration
cards for speakers. If you would like to
speak, all you need do is fill out a
registration card. We'll occasionally
collect those. Bring them up here. We
will call them in the order that we receive
them. If you would like to make a comment,
but you don't want to get up in front of
anybody or speak into a microphone, simply
fill out the registration card. Put your
comments on the back of the card and hand
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7
it in. That will be part of the official
comment record for tonight's hearing.
There is a copy of the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement right on the
back table so feel free to take that. In
light of the break we're going to do and
looking around I see we are probably not
going to have speakers straight through to
5:30, I'm sure we will take a break at some
point. I will also use my discretion as
moderator to say normally we would put time
limits on speaking, at least at this stage
in the public hearing. It makes sense to
let people go for a reasonable amount of
time. We'll say somewhere around eight
minutes. That sounds reasonable. Any
questions before we get started? I do have
one question.
SPEAKER: Can you just remind people
if they are to speak to speak into the
microphone so it can be recorded and if I
can get you to raise your microphone.
MR. WALTERS: You can. Okay. So as
we call speakers, you do not have to come
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
8
up front. You can speak from where you
are. We would just ask you to stand up and
we will hand out a microphone. We will ask
you to speak directly into the microphone
so everybody can hear you as I am now
doing. Shall we take a moment just to pass
out cards if anybody, have any cards come
in yet?
SPEAKER: Anybody else need a card
that wants to speak?
MR. WALTER: Again you can feel free
to wait until after the project sponsor
speaks. That means you'll probably be here
a little later. The project sponsor is
scheduled to go from 5:30 to 6:30. It will
be about an hour. It's pretty detailed
presentation on the project. If we have
got a large crowd after the project sponsor
speaks, we may shorten down the time
periods available. So if you will have a
little more to say, you might want to
exercise your option earlier rather than
later. Just a thought. Doesn't look like
we have any cards yet. I will not tell my
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
9
SEQRA joke. Anybody think they would like
to speak? If not, we can certainly just
table things for a while and pick this up
again in a half an hour and see if there
are more folks that would like to speak.
Wait. There might be a card coming in.
MS. JONES-ROUNDS: I have a question
about point of order. How long will this
public comment period last and how else are
people able to make comments? And at which
point will the planning board be closing
the public hearing?
MR. WALTERS: Those are really good
housekeeping questions. The question is
how long and how else can you make
comments. And this is the commencement,
this is the formal public hearing, but
there is an open public comment period on
the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement. That comment period goes from
60 days from the date of acceptance of the
DGEIS by the lead agency. And you can
submit written comments directly to the
board. Letter format is fine. I believe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
we take e-mails and we encourage that.
Save some paper. And the comment period
ends, Lisa, on?
For the record the public comment
period ends on May 10th, so please get your
written comments in before then. Again if
you would like to listen to tonight's
comments, if you don't want to make a
comment tonight here in the presentation,
you can review the document at your leisure
and write in some comments to the board.
This is part of a Generic Environment
Impact Statement.
The way SEQRA works we do, the
project sponsor has put together a Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement that
the lead agency has accepted as adequate
for public review. That opens up basically
the 60-day comment period. Every
substantive comment received on the DGEIS
must be responded to. There must be a
written response. That will be contained
in a document called the Final Generic
Environmental Impact Statement, or FGEIS.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11
So for the record there will be a response
to every single comment made. To the
extent a comment triggers a modification to
the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement, that too will be contained in
the FGEIS.
Any comment cards? Anybody would
like to kick things off? All right.
Everybody's shy. That's okay. Do we want
to just table things for maybe 20 minutes
and see then if anybody wants to go? The
document is here if anybody would like to
review it. I would suggest based on where
we are, we will check in again at say 5:45
or 4:45 and see if anybody would like to
make any comments for the record. If not,
we will then adjourn until 5:30 when the
project sponsor will do their presentation
and I will go through the rules again. But
again you're welcome to make comments now.
If nobody's interested, I don't think we
need a formal motion from the board. We'll
simply informally table the hearing so that
the transcript reporter can take a break
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
12
because there's been so much so far. Thank
you.
(RECESS TAKEN.)
MR. WALTERS: It's, good afternoon
everyone. It is 4:48. And when we broke
at about 4:20 I said I'd check back in and
see if anybody would like to speak, make
any statements on the record prior to the
presentation by the developer at 5:30. So
I just want to take a moment to ask anybody
if they would like to make a statement
before the presentation? Looking around
the room and seeing no hands, we will take
a break then until 5:30 and the project
sponsor will do their presentation. Thank
you.
(RECESS TAKEN.)
MR. WALTERS: Good evening, everyone.
We are going to, many of you missed some of
the earlier announcements. I, as the
moderator for the DGEIS public hearing, I
will make a number of housekeeping
announcements once the project sponsors
have completed their presentation, but
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
13
without further ado I'll ask the project
sponsor to come up and do their
presentation of the project.
(PROJECT PRESENTATION.)
MR. WALTERS: Again for the record my
name is Adam Walters. I'm special counsel
to the lead agency, the City Planning and
Development Board. As I mentioned earlier
the lead agency is holding a public hearing
tonight right now on the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement and I've
been asked by the lead agency to serve as
the moderator.
A notice of the adoption of the DGEIS
and public notice for this hearing was
published in the Ithaca Journal and
Environmental Notice Bulletin. The purpose
of today's hearing is to receive public
comments on the DGEIS. I should stress
that the hearing is not intended to be a
question and answer session. All of the
comments as Jamie mentioned will be taken
down tonight, they will be transcribed and
they will be responded to individually in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
14
the Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statement.
In terms of the ground rules for
tonight's public hearing; first, if you
haven't already done so we'd ask that you
sign in, sign the sign-in sheet so we have
an official record of everybody that is at
the hearing. If you would like to speak we
would ask you to fill out a speaker
registration form. There's not a lot of
information on there, but it helps us keep
track and helps the stenographer keep track
of who spoke.
I will just pull these in order. If
anybody would like to speak, you do not
need to come up here. We will pass you a
microphone. We just ask that you stand for
purposes of making your presentation. We
would ask you to keep your time frame to no
more than ten minutes just so that
everybody who would like to speak has an
opportunity. Speakers will be allowed to
use their time to their best advantage
without interruption from the floor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
If you are reading from a prepared
statement, please keep in mind you can
summarize your statement and submit the
full text to be entered into the record.
Finally, if you are not comfortable
making a comment tonight, you may certainly
do so in writing. One easy way to do that
is simply to fill out the speaker
registration card and put your comments on
the back. We will collect these. They
will become part of the official comment
record. But you can also submit written
comments again through May 10th, 2016 to
the lead agency. Contact information is
right there on the screen for you if you
would like to write that down. It is also
available on the website
chainworksdistrict.com. If you go to that
website and go to the planning documents,
you can down link to the DGEIS. You can
also enter DGEIS on the website. You can
submit comments directly through the
website. Those comments will come to the
lead agency. So feel very comfortable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
16
doing that if you would prefer that
alternative.
Those really are the ground rules for
tonight. With that, does anybody need a
card who doesn't have one? Lisa will be
happy to deliver one or two. We will take
a minute. If you have your card filled out
and would like to speak, feel free to bring
it up here or pass it back to Lisa and with
that we can call people up.
Okay. The first speaker is going to
be Bob Stundtner.
MR. STUNDTNER: Stundtner.
MR. WALTERS: Stundtner. I
apologize. For my name butchering, I
apologize in advance. Mics are coming
around.
MR. STUNDTNER: So first I think it's
really important for me as a neighbor, I
live at 333 Spencer Road in the City of
Ithaca. I share a 410 foot property line
with this project. One of the streams that
runs through the project passes through our
property, so things flow downhill.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
17
I think it's really important to say
I think this is a great idea to redevelop
this former industrial site into a mixed
use property.
One of the things I'm a little
troubled about is the emphasis on new
development outside the actual previously
developed area and in particular the
development to the south of the site that's
currently wild. What I would like to know
is if the emphasis of approvals is on the
new outside the existing footprint of the
buildings areas, what guarantee do we have
as a community that the former industrial
site will ever be developed?
Two, I think it's kind of a problem
for me thinking about that sewer line that
runs through the southern end of the
property. Back in the '80s there was a
pretty substantial leak in the town portion
of that line. So whenever there was a
substantial rainstorm sanitary products,
feces, urine, obviously you can see the
stuff in the stream flow. So it would be a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
18
wild assumption on my part to think that
NCR, the previous owner of the South Hill
Business Campus, was such a good citizen
that they never dumped any contaminations
into their property and this didn't migrate
anywhere beyond that, particularly when the
sanitary sewer leaked substantially.
I've lived on that property at 333
since 1980. I've seen a lot of change in
the ecology of our two and a half acres.
Deer have a pretty substantial impact on
it. I've had deer shot in my yard in the
city limits. I've had deer hit by cars and
land in the creek bed. I've had to have
city police come over and shoot wounded
deer in the yard. Like oh, my God, I've
never been this close to a deer before,
boom.
So the notion that developing that
south end is going to have some impact with
the deer, the deer moving around. Good
Lord the deer have decimated the hillside
as it is, the ecology of the hillside.
Anything of native species in my yard, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
small things, shrubs, small plants, all
gone. Deer browse them away. So I think
that is an understated impact.
But my principle concern is that the
new portions would get developed and the
existing structures would never get
developed because we're talking about a
huge sum of money here. And I believe your
site plan and proposal emphasizes return on
investment, which I don't have a problem
with, but I would like to see the emphasis
put on the existing structures as first
steps and good indication of the ultimate
development being responsible.
MR. WALTERS: Okay. Our next speaker
is Rich DePaolo.
MR. DEPAOLO: Hi. My name is Rich
DePaolo, a resident of Town of Ithaca. I'm
also on the Town of Ithaca board. I'm
speaking tonight as a citizen and also as a
board member, but not on behalf of the Town
of Ithaca.
I finally got an opportunity to start
reading the EIS and supportive documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
20
today. And I foolishly took it upon myself
to add up the total number of pages
supplied on the flash drive last Thursday.
There are over 80,000 pages including the
appendices to the Phase 1 and Phase 2
Environmental Site Assessment. So first
I'll say that I would hope that the
developer would be open to the idea of
requesting an extension to the comment
period because I don't think it's realistic
to expect residents and municipalities to
provide substantive and comprehensive
public comment in a 60-day timeframe when
we're talking about literally thousands and
thousands of pages of material. I did not
get past chapter five today. I will admit
I read about 20 pages and I came away with
one overarching observation and concern
which is that the proposed, the proposed
remediation and mitigation is so, there's a
laundry list of items that are typically
applied in situations where sites are
extensively contaminated, but there are
virtually no specifics related to this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
21
site. And the entire, the future is sort
of being weighted out as one that is going
to be addressed on a site specific basis as
issues come up.
And I can tell you that is troubling
from a lay perspective and also as a
legislature who is being asked to provide
permission by zoning for the process to
continue. I would like to see more
concrete steps. I would like to know based
on the fact that the site has been somewhat
delineated now and the contamination has
been known about for a considerable period
of time, I would like to see what the
outcome of these discussions between the
developer and Emerson and DEC are going to
be, how these things are going to take
shape over the next however many years it
takes to implement them.
But I'm hesitant as a legislator to
grant what amounts to a blank check to
allow for a significant development to take
place without knowing whether or not the
allowance for the uses that are proposed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
22
are going to be, they are going to result
in uses that are happening on a severely
contaminated site.
So I would say that this has been an
issue for decades and the fact that the
site hasn't been properly remediated or
controlled up to this point does not give
me a lot of confidence that granting this
sort of carte blanche at this point in time
is going to result in the level of
remediation I would like to see on the
site.
MR. WALTERS: Thank you very much.
Next speaker is Walter Hang.
MR. HANG: Hi. I only found out
about this document yesterday evening and I
took a really quick look essentially at
some of the appendices in chapter five.
One thing I would like to clarify is that
class two designation is significant threat
to the public health or environment action
required, closed quote.
So the problem with this site is that
for something on the order of 30 years it's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
never been cleaned up. So the dual phase
vapor recovery groundwater pump treatment
of the fire reservoir is ineffective.
By going through the documentation
the areas of the incredible high level of
pollution are just mind boggling. And
cutting out the little fire reservoir isn't
going to accomplish anything. It's
regulatory exceedances for petroleum
products, corrugated solvents, heavy
metals. It's just absolutely mind
boggling. And so this obviously poses a
threat as was noted through some vapor
intrusion into the possible structures that
are proposed to the site. There's going to
be fugitive dust problems. There's massive
groundwater contamination that's never been
cleaned up.
So with every investigation the areas
of concern, the recognized environmental
conditions just become more numerous. So
before I get around to reviewing this
massive document that is as Mr. DePaolo
noted is 80,000 pages, I will offer written
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
comments. But I think that the bottom line
is that after so many decades of
contamination associated with this site, I
have no faith whatsoever that the
Department of Environmental Conservation is
going to require this site to be thoroughly
investigated or remediated. The original
record of decision was never implemented.
Revised record of decision was not
implemented. Basically there hasn't been
any remedial efforts past the dual phase
recovery groundwater treatment system
adopted circa '86 or something despite more
free flowing product that's not an aqueous
safe liquid. There's more contamination
leaking out of the site you can shake a
stick at.
I urge all city and town officials
not to approve any rezoning or any project
approvals whatsoever until there is an
absolutely comprehensive, viable,
meaningful cleanup plan that is negotiated
openly and transparently so that the public
can have confidence that this incredible
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wide range of toxic hazards is going to be
resolved once and for all. They just
continue to ignore these hazards year after
year while the responsible party does
everything they can to try to reduce its
obligation to monitor the contamination, to
deal with the contamination problems that
are already known about. I think it's just
not a good way to go.
And again I think the key thing is
everyone wants jobs. Everyone wants low
income housing, a good place to live,
commerce. I'm all for that generally
speaking, but the bottom line is this class
two site, it's polluted, massively polluted
and hasn't been cleaned up. That's the
first priority. And I don't think that
engineering, institutional controls, caps
and all that leaving the contamination in
place is acceptable.
I think the bottom line is, and I've
advocated this from the very beginning, the
high level sources of contaminate has to
get dug out. It's source removal and got
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
to go and then ultimately I think this site
perhaps could be remediated to the point
where it doesn't pose a threat to the
people living around it. Many homes have
had sub pressurization systems installed,
but it's not all clear that they are
actually that effective because of the
reason that the aerated zone to allow
vaporization with the depressurization
system since many of the homes are built on
bedrock.
So I think that this has not been a
good situation since I identified the
problems at the site maybe 12 years ago
when your risk rider said there was no
clear declining trend in the groundwater
contamination. I think at that time the
Trexler was like 28,000. The potable
standard is five parts per million. So
this is just a continuing problem.
And it's just I think irresponsible
that it hasn't been resolved and I don't
think that these concerns should be ignored
any longer. And again I would reiterate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
this project should not receive any of the
requested approvals in any way, shape or
form until the site is actually remediated
on a comprehensive basis in full compliance
with all applicable requirements; and I'll
put that in writing. Thank you.
MR. WALTERS: Thank you. Next
speaker is Cynthia Brock.
MS. BROCK: Wow, kind of hard to go
after Walter. I've been looking at this,
I'm Cynthia Brock. I'm a resident of the
city and I also serve on the city council.
And I like many of us have been watching
this project over time before Chain Works
came forward and even the possibilities.
And like many of us here I see this
as an opportunity to try to achieve the
types of clean ups that so far we have had
no leverage to facilitate. So I'm excited
because of that. We have a tool in our
hands we didn't have before and that's a
good thing.
If we all want to see more housing,
safe housing we want to see a vibrant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
28
community and we want to see every aspect
of the city being fully utilized and
contributing to the city. So I come at
that from this perspective.
When I first started thinking about
looking at the DGEIS, I wanted to look at
the little tiny details that we typically
look at when we talk about planning. We
think about population and traffic and
zoning and so forth. In terms of that I do
believe that the DGEIS does not go far
enough in analyzing the population impacts
for the residents there. It uses an
analysis of two people per dwelling unit.
But it does no -- it does provide no
breakdown at all in terms of what the age
of that population might be. And if you
don't know the age of that population,
therefore it doesn't project what kind of
impact on the community it might have.
Rutgers University put out a report
based on New York census data that says in
housing complexes of more than five units
for rent, a two bedroom generally houses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
2.5 people and then it breaks down the
distribution, how many are preschool age,
how many are primary school age, how many
18 to 25, 25 to 45 and so on so you can
come up with an idea of what your community
will be and their needs. Based on that and
the projected 1,830 bedrooms. Instead of a
population of 18,030 -- actually no, I
guess you would put one, instead of a
population of 18,030, it would create a
population of 2,300 individuals just about
of which about 460 would be in primary
school, 230 would be 18 to 24, 970 25 to
44, 311 between 45 and 64. 72 in the ages
of 65 to 74. And 109 individuals age 75 or
older. That helps us inform when we think
about recreational resources. The DGEIS
talks about SW1 as being an open green
space, but makes no mention of recreational
resources that would support 480 primary
school individuals that would be living on
the site or 230, 18 to 24 year olds. What
kind of playground, green space, soccer
fields. A population of 2,030 individuals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
is probably the entire population of the
flats of which we have several parks,
several playgrounds and several community
areas and supports and we have replicated
that here and the DGEIS has not described
how it would mitigate the need for
recreational space for the population it
will have.
The DGEIS also does not include King
Street and Stone Quarry in terms of its
parking, traffic impacts and for the volume
of individuals who are coming down from out
of town, I do believe that it will impact
those individuals who will just bypass
Aurora and go down Stone Quarry to get into
town and that should be included in the
traffic analysis. I requested it in the
scoping document. I was told that it would
be included in the scope so I was surprised
that it indeed was not included.
So once you get away from the sort of
nitty gritty, fun things we like to think
about when we envision the future and as I
started delving into what some people have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
31
said not only 80,000, over a 100,000 pages
of this document I am reminded that first
and foremost, even though we like to look
at the pictures and envision all of this,
first and foremost we are dealing with a
class two superfund hazardous waste
setting. And that in and of itself makes
me think, when I'm thinking about traffic
and playground feels like I'm putting the
cart before the horse because in my
understanding the sources of the
contamination that they are drawing out of
the fire water reservoir has never clearly
been identified. They don't know where
that source is coming from. They do know
that when they go through that pump and
treat system year after year after year
after year, the level of contamination that
they are pulling out is not going down.
It's staying pretty much the same. So
there is a tremendous source of
contamination likely under those buildings
that will continue to be a concern.
And I do know that when we talk about
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
32
systems and homes, whether or not we're
talking about heating systems or air
conditioning, water, sewer and so on, they
don't work all the time. And we put a
tremendous amount of faith in mitigation
systems. And when we know that there is an
danger underground, I don't have the
reliance or the confidence that leaving it
there and putting in a soil vapor intrusion
system or other system or capping it is
actually going to ensure an environment
that is going to be protected and safe for
the residents who will live there, many of
which as I've indicated will be primary
school and our youth.
So it brings me back to what Rich has
said. Until we know what the cleanup plan
will be, the comprehensive cleanup plan of
the area will be, it is very hard from a
zoning standpoint, from a planning
standpoint, from a legislator who
ultimately will represent a significant
portion of these residents, it's hard to
put forward a plan that says we want
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
33
residential housing here. And I feel stuck
in this chicken and egg scenario.
The underlying fact is is that like
others have mentioned I have not seen the
DEC compel clean up of the area. And I
don't have faith that even though we are
given the opportunity when the record of
decisions come forward to comment on that.
I don't have faith that the DEC will compel
remediation of the area so that we can be
insured that for generations and the future
of our children will be safe.
And so I'm stuck because I know we
have 60 days. There's a lot to look at.
There's a lot to analyze. There is a lot I
do want to talk about, but I'm not quite
sure where to go from there. I will echo
Rich's request to extend that 60-day
comment period. Not only in looking at the
regular planning, traffic, population, all
of these other impacts, environmental
impacts as it was mentioned here earlier
today there were at least, if I can tell,
15 new areas of concern that are delineated
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
34
and outlined in the DGEIS which will, which
will need and can benefit from a closer
look and we will need additional time just
to look at those things. 60 days might
have worked for a regular development, but
this is a whole different kettle of fish
and it deserves a longer period of comment
and input.
MR. WALTERS: Thank you. Our next
speaker is George McGonigal. Anybody else
has cards to pass up, now would be the
time. This is my last card.
MR. MCGONIGAL: Thank you. Like
Cynthia, I represent the first ward in the
City of Ithaca which includes South Hill.
And I won't repeat what has already been
said, but I will say I agree with extending
the comment period past 60 days. And I
agree that this place has to be cleaned up
before it can be redeveloped.
I've been extremely excited about
this project and reusing these buildings
and opening up this part of the city and
the town is full of possibilities. These
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
35
particular drawings, when it comes to the
part of the city that I represent, I have
to say I'm shocked at how dense and tall
these apartment buildings are. This is a
neighborhood of single family homes and
you're proposing putting six story
apartment buildings in people's backyards.
I think that is out of line and I think
they will too. Thank you.
MR. WALTERS: All right. Would
anybody else like to make any comments for
the public record on the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement? Yes,
please. Can you just fill out a card?
MR. DESCHERE: I did fill out a card.
My name is Ken Deschere. I lived in one of
the houses that were shown on your map in
South Hill Terrace for the last 35 years.
Raised a family there. I worked in the
late '70s in the Morse Chain building 21.
I'm familiar with the area and some of the
problems that are faced by anyone trying to
clean up effectively the remediation.
And I just want, my biggest thing to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
36
say is thank you to Mr. Lubin and his staff
and the people he is willing to spend money
on to develop the project. I worked with
environmental investigations and developed
the website looking at all the pollution
and took courses at Cornell and answered
all kinds of questions trying to better
understand all the pollution and the things
left behind by a century of industrial
operations. And the more we looked, the
more we found, the uglier it was and also
the clearer it was that the DEC and
Department of Health don't have the time,
resources and even inclination to try to
really work on solving these problems.
What it takes is an investment in time and
effort and expertise to try to bring some
meaningful project that hopefully will pay
good economic rewards to all of us to bring
that to fruition.
Just looking at the 80,000 documents
and the list of acronyms that extends for
six pages, it's pretty easy to see this is
complicating material and a lot of details
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
37
and a lot of bases that have to be touched
and I'm very grateful that someone, an
organization is willing to do that to try
to improve what's a very big part of the
city and has been for a very long time.
MR. WALTERS: Thank you. Okay. Did
anybody else fill out a card that might not
have made its way forward. Okay. We'll do
a final call. Would anybody else like to
speak tonight and comment on the Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement?
Okay.
With that this hearing will remain
open. It will be continued to the next
planning board meeting and at that point
the board will decide whether to close the
hearing. But we thank you for your time
and attention tonight and for your comments
and everyone drive home safe.
* *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
38
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I hereby certify that the proceedings and
evidence are contained fully and accurately in the
notes taken by me on the above cause and that this
is a correct transcript of the same to the best of
my ability.
___________________________________
DELORES HAUBER