Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-03-14 Approved 6127/95 Planning and Development Board MINUTES Special Meeting March 14, 1995 Present: David Kay, Chair;Susan Blumenthal;Carolyn Peterson;Denise Rusoff;John Schroeder;Sarah Adams. Staff: H.Matthys Van Cort;Scott Chaff eld, Special Counsel to the Planning Board;applicant;other interested parties. It was stated that there were four items on the agenda, the first one being the closing of the public hearing comment period for environmental review,which was not formally closed; secondly,the continuation of the public hearing on site plan review for an indefinite period; thirdly, a discussion of the process and schedule from this point on;and fourth,discussion of mitigation and addressing deficiencies in the DEIS. 1. Closing of Public Hearing on Environmental Review and Continuation of Public Hearing on Site Plan Review. There was some discussion that the public hearing for environmental review was not formally closed. Susan Blumenthal made a motion to close the public hearing on the draft environmental impact statement as of 1:00 a.m. March 1, 1995. John Schroeder amended Blumenthal's motion adding that the public hearing on the site plan review was continued. Carolyn Peterson seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. 2. Discussion of Process and Schedule Chatfield stated that the City has employed a consultant to prepare a draft FEIS,which incorporates the DEIS by reference and all the comments made by the public. The draft FEIS is then submitted to the Board and reviewed by the Board, and when that document is accepted,there is an additional comment period on the FEIS for written comments only. This will provide information to the Board to assist the Board in reaching a determination with respect to the underlying permitting process. With respect to the Board's comments on the DEIS, which the Board would like to see included in the FEIS, Chatfield suggested they submit their comments to Clough Harbor so that those comments could be included in the FEIS as well. He stated that the Board was not subject to the same constraints timewise on commenting as the public is. A question was raised as to whether there were any omissions from the third DEIS that were in the first two drafts and whether those get incorporated. John Schroeder stated that the only difference he noted was that the first DEIS had a map with topographic lines in it, and in the current DEIS there is no map site plan with topographic lines. Minutes of March 14, 1995 Meeting 2 There was some discussion about all the materials that were received by the Board before the public hearing from the time the DEIS was accepted until the first day of the public hearing. Chatfield stated that every document received is part of the record; even the DEIS' that were not accepted as adequate are part of the record, and when the Board makes its ultimate decision on the site plan,they may review and refer to and use appropriately any documents in the record. There was a question as to why the Board has a public comment period that closes if everything that is submitted is part of the record. Chatfield stated that the reason for going through the process of accepting a DEIS as to scope and content and available for public review is so that there is a finite number of documents which are made available to the public, circulated and can be commented on. The record of proceedings is different than the DEIS. When it comes time to make the determination on site plan, any evidence in the record can be utilized by the Board. There was some concern that all the Board members have access to the same information and whether each Board member should submit all of the materials they have collected personally. Chatfield stated that whatever decision the Board makes,it must be supported by evidence in the record. Chatfield stated that the SEQR process and the Findings Statement,which concludes the SEQR process, are a part of the site plan decision process. There was a question as to whether the Findings Statement has to be based exclusively upon information that is part of the FEIS. CEQR states that the FEIS must consist of the DEIS,including any revisions or supplements to it,a copy or summary of the substantive comments received and their source,whether or not the comments were received in the context of a hearing, and the lead agency responses to all substantive comments. There was some discussion as to when the public record gets closed and what the timeframe is for submitting material. It was stated that the timeframe for the preparation of the FEIS is 45 days from the close of the hearing on March 1,but that the Board could have additional time,if that becomes necessary. Van Cort stated that staff would get out a memo on the exact scheduling. There was a question as to when Board members need to submit all the material they have received prior to the official comment period. Chatfield stated it was part of the public record which is the record of the site plan process; not a comment on the DEIS and need not necessarily be incorporated into the FEIS. Chatfield stated that the public comment on the DEIS does not necessarily have to be included in the FEIS unless the Board includes it in their comments. There was a question as to whether the Board is required, or if the Board has the option of having other meetings in which they receive potentially significant amounts of public C:KellyThy s\Planbrd'3-14mtg.doc Minutes of March 14, 1995 Meeting 3 input orally. Chatfield stated that since the public hearing on site plan review has been continued, future public comment would be received by the Board on site plan, and it is the Chair's prerogative to set the ground rules for what kind of information it receives. The Board requested copies of the transcript of the public hearing and the written comments from the public. It was decided that three copies be made available for the Board to distribute among themselves, and the public could come in to review copies of all materials submitted by the public. There was some discussion as to exactly what Clough Harbor was supposed to do. Schroeder stated that they were supposed to summarize the issues as part of the process of preparing the FEIS,but that the Planning Board could modify that. He stated that he thought Sear-Brown would have the opportunity to respond to the substantive issues, and then Clough Harbor would take over and work towards preparing the FEIS. Van Cort stated that he told Clough Harbor not to come to the meeting because they were already through the number of meetings they had contracted to go to, so the Board would be extending their contract and extending their fee if Clough Harbor came today; Van Cort thought it would be adequate to send them the Minutes of the meeting and a tape. There was some discussion as to what the FEIS consists of, and it was stated that it consists of the DEIS and comments, but all the comments received do not have to be specifically addressed in the FEIS. There is some element of judgment involved on the part of the Board as to what is not substantive comment does not need to be specifically addressed. It was stated that at some point Clough Harbor needs to submit something to the Board so that the Board can agree on issues that need responding to. Schroeder stated that he had prepared a first draft of what could be Planning Board comments on the DEIS. It was decided that the Board needed to meet to discuss these things. Rusoff volunteered to schedule meetings and contact each Board member. There were questions as to the weight of experts reports and whether the Board has to agree with an expert's opinion, and whether they have to accept all expert opinions or whether they can use non-expert analysis. The Board questioned how it would evaluate that information if there were contradictory expert opinions. Chatfield stated that the Board should not go against expert opinion if that is the only evidence received in the record. If there is contradictory expert opinion, it is part of the Board's job to assess credibility where there are differences, as long as the Board's decision is reasonable. 3. Discussion of Mitigation and Addressing Deficiencies in the DEIS Schroeder stated again that he thought it would be wise for the Board to make comments on the DEIS. Rusoff suggested that each member try to read Schroeder's comments within a couple of days in order for the Board to make their final comment. This was C:Ke11y\'Ihys\Planbrd\3-14mtg.doc Minutes of March 14, 1995 Meeting 4 agreed to,and the Board would have their suggestions ready for the next meeting. It was decided to continue the meeting. Schroeder stated that he got a copy of the map that the BZA used giving the conditional variance. It was noted that the site plan the BZA gave the variance for was considerably different than the preferred site plan in the DEIS. Schroeder stated that there is some evidence the FW-1 line is actually closer to Elmira Road than the FW-1 line used by the BZA. Building Commissioner Rick Eckstrom,is to review this and respond. There was a question as to whether some information regarding the flood plain was new information that the BZA did not have and how that would affect their ruling and the Board's ability to move forward with site plan review. It was requested that Board members be sent a copy of the BZA ruling,the court's decisions in the Article 78 proceeding and the site plan used by the BZA. It was decided the Board would talk about their comments on the DEIS at the next meeting,which would be a continuation of this meeting and which was scheduled for Sunday,March 19,at 2:00 p.m. The Board will not accept public comments,but the public is welcome to come and listen. C:Kelly\Thys\Planbrd\3-14mtg.doc