Because the haul road passes through two municipalities, the project is subject to coordinated review, which is described in the SEQR Handbook in this way:
Coordinated review is the process by which all involved agencies cooperate in one integrated environmental review. Coordinated review has two major elements: establishing a lead agency and determining the interests and concerns of involved agencies so these interests and concerns may be considered by the lead agency in the determination of significance and in scoping an environmental impact statement.As we know, in November, the Department of Environmental Conservation decided to make the Greenport Planning Board the lead agency. It falls to the Greenport Planning Board, as lead agency, "to decide whether an EIS (environmental impact statement) will be required and to decide the scope and acceptability of an EIS." As lead agency, the Greenport Planning Board also "has an obligation to consider the concerns of other involved agencies." The Hudson Planning Board is one of those "other involved agencies," so dismissing the Hudson Planning Board's concerns about what happens at the dock and between the dock and the western end of the haul roads seems completely inappropriate.
A few days ago, a reader brought this question and answer from page 179 the SEQR Handbook to my attention:
9. Does a municipal board have to consider extraterritorial environmental impacts, for example: impacts occurring in an adjoining municipality?
Yes. For example, a planning board reviewing a cellular communications tower visible from a neighboring community should consider the aesthetic impact of the tower on the neighboring community. A town planning board reviewing a big box development should consider the impact of the development on the community character of a neighboring village that might suffer business displacement as a result of the approval of the big box development. A third example would be a community reviewing a shopping plaza that generates traffic on an adjoining community's roadway system. In that case, the host community's review should consider the traffic on the adjoining community.This question and answer addresses the impacts of a project wholly within one municipality on a neighboring community. If SEQR should look at the impacts of traffic generated by a shopping mall on a neighboring community, then surely what happens when trucks leave the haul road at the western end and what happens at the dock should be part of the "whole action" subject to SEQR review.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK
Does anyone really believe that a town with no zoning has any power at all over a city with zoning specific to the project at hand?
ReplyDeleteLet Greenport segment the proposal all they like; what happens in Hudson stays in Hudson.
Does anyone know if there a difference between an EAF and and EIS under SEQR?
ReplyDeleteAn Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) is a prerequisite to deciding whether or not to pursue an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
DeleteThis, from the SEQR Handbook, addresses your question:
DeleteFor Type I and Unlisted actions, the next step is to systematically consider environmental factors involved with the action to make a reasoned determination regarding the likelihood that the action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The initial SEQR tool used to make this determination is the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF).
If a significant adverse impact is likely to occur, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared to explore ways to avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts or to identify a potentially less damaging alternative. If, on the other hand, the determination is made that the proposed action will not significantly impact the environment, then a Negative Declaration is prepared which ends the SEQR process.
One other question.
ReplyDeleteWhat criteria will Greenport use to determine if Colarusso's permit application is complete? I presume that happens before the EAF is triggered.
The proposed action has already been identified as "Type I."
DeleteFrom "The SEQR Handbook":
"For Type I [actions] ... systematically consider environmental factors involved with the action to make a reasoned determination regarding the likelihood that the action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The initial SEQR tool used to make this determination is the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF).
"If a significant adverse impact is likely to occur, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared to explore ways to avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts or to identify a potentially less damaging alternative. If, on the other hand, the determination is made that the proposed action will not significantly impact the environment, then a Negative Declaration is prepared which ends the SEQR process" (pp. 3, 4).
A positive declaration (pos-dec) starts the EIS process.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf
I'm particularly sorry to post this opinion, but does anyone have any (any at all) downsides to this proposal? If Colarusso can increase their business, a local business mind you, and the only objections are vague "but the waterfront exists and the liberals can't agree what that means!!!" then I say full speed ahead to Colarusso. If you liberals can't figure out any concrete proposals and only insist of bureaucratic stalling, then down with you all. Industry and jobs are important. A stagnant waterfront is not.
ReplyDeleteMr. Duke, please don't be sorry about presenting your ideas. They sound agreeable for the most part - certainly jobs are very agreeable - but let's take the closer look you've invited.
DeleteFirst thing first, the movement you're questioning is better than bipartisan, it's got every manner of political persuasion represented: there are progressives of course, but also conservatives (whom a century ago were the best conservationists), and even Libertarians, which is the hardest to credit.
The controversy which makes common cause of this unusual array is not how you've pictured it. Once you drop the facile politics, and the false either/or, "real jobs vs. confused vanity," the main premise of your depiction is crumbling.
We're agreed that an increase of business is a general good, and that this business in particular represents a societal good. The product is high quality, and we're proud of it. At least I am.
Another thing appreciated by all - and by yourself too - is that no one is talking about eliminating the company's presence at the waterfront. (If that's anyone's idea, then even they know it's too idiotic, and ultimately self-defeating, to express openly.)
But in order to maximize the greatest good at our shared waterfront for the greatest number - which includes the interests of the gravel industry - there must be a balance of interests and uses.
You say that there are no concrete proposals relating to the waterfront and its future, and also that there are no downsides to an intensification of aggregate operations at the Colarusso wharf.
In an important sense, it doesn't matter in the least that these false claims should be contradicted.
What matters is that everyone's interests - including those of A. Colarusso and Son, Inc. - were already balanced and preserved five years ago in the City's waterfront program. The outlines of this balance were codified in the City's zoning amendments, which were hard won statutes some of us believe were disproportionately informed by the previous landowner, Holcim US.
This overall plan was embodied in the City's zoning amendments of 2011, which makes your comment exactly five years late.
The Colarusso proposal itself is five years late, something the company should have considered before it bought the property in 2014.
In that case, did Colarusso purchase a lemon? That's to say it may be a lemon in relation to the growth that you expect the company deserves (even though it didn't participate in the zoning changes), and an expansion you expect the public to absorb (even though residents did participate in the overall plan).
The planning for this, which dates back 10 years and more, was a contentious, years-long, careful balancing of everyone's interests at the waterfront. And now you expect us to chuck this achievement?
For residents of every political color, you're going to have to offer a better answer than "jobs," or the counterfeit alternative that only an expansion plan can get trucks off city streets.
What you're really asking is for the public to subsidize a private interest's questionable investment.
That's what this is about, which is a different kettle of fish from what you presented.
Thank you, Unheimlich, for explaining this so beautifully. Years of thought and planning have been put into Hudson's careful consideration of our waterfront. There are many parties involved and all have to be considered. Participants have to abide by Hudson's Zoning Code, not ride roughshod over it. Checks and balances should apply.
ReplyDeleteYou got that right Jennifer, having played a part in all of it yourself (a lot longer than me I should add).
DeleteIt's a little heart-breaking that people who are centrally involved with the current proposal, and who have the best intentions - even unassailable - are too new to appreciate what others of us went through to get this far. Some of these individuals, some serving in City government, half-suppose that we ought to sacrifice those gains because an investor didn't do its due diligence on behalf of its shareholders.
We hammered out a compromise five years ago, and now we're expected to revise it all in a way that we only lose the advantages we worked so hard to secure?
Why on earth would would we do that, people like you and me, who worked so hard to get here?
Anyone who cared at the time - including Holcim US and O&G Industries - played a part in devising the plan, and that plan is now the law.
If people don't like it then they can try to change the law, but no one should expect that local laws become elastic for their interests alone. It's maddening.