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