This website has recently been updated; all posts from September 2009 through August 26, 2010 were posted from August 12 – 26, 2010.

- Read Cricket Valley Energy Final Scoping Document

“In recognition for the potential for adverse impacts from the use of the site as a PCS [Petroleum Contaminated Soil] processing facility, the Planning Board has imposed six SEQRA conditions on the Applicant regarding the use of the site to mitigate all significant environmental impacts.”

What is the estimated cost to remediate the potential adverse impacts if they are not properly mitigated? Given the potential for adverse impacts over an aquifer that supplies drinking water to 20,000 residents of southeastern Dutchess, why was this project not subject to full Environmental Review under SEQRA? May we suggest an escrow account be set up by the Town of Dover and funded by Rasco, if the Site Plan is approved, to pay for immediate clean up if our water supply is compromised by the Petroleum Contaminated Soil on the premises?

The Town of Dover spent nine years and a considerable sum fighting to rid itself of a problematic solid waste facility, and passed a Zoning Code prohibiting the industry from operating in Dover.  One would have to think there was an element of doubt that Rasco was compliant to contemplate a Stipulation Agreement determining that Rasco was grandfathered under our current Zoning Code. What were the estimated legal fees for Hogan & Rossi to argue that Rasco was not grandfathered?  How long did the supporters of the Stipulation Agreement, Supervisors Courtien, Board members Chris Galayda and Kathleen Frame, fight to uphold our Zoning Code before Supervisor Courtien signed?

Please see Rasco:Dover Planning Board “Resolution Concerning Signifcance Conditioned Negative Declaration”

- Read Dover Planning Board Meeting Minutes, June 21, 2010

The NYS DEC ran Public Comment Sessions on the Draft Scoping Document on Saturday, June 5 and Wednesday, June 9th. In addition, Written Scoping Comments were accepted through June 18, 2010.

On the plus side of the ledger are job creation, a net positive contribution to the Dover and Dutchess County tax base; a brownfield clean-up and wetlands restoration. On the negative side the the public spoke primarily to the environmental impacts: smokestack emissions contributing to already poor air quality in a valley and close to a school; potential drawdown or contamination of our groundwater even though the Applicant proposes to drill below the Aquifer; noise (a “light rain,”
as the Applicant suggests, or the drone of constant traffic as suggested in the Scoping Comments?)

The environmental impacts that affect our residents and neighbors were raised during the Scoping Sessions. Many of the environmental impacts to the Great Swamp itself are addressed in the Scoping Comments from Friends of the Great Swamp. The Scoping Comments submitted by Robert Herzog, former Director of New York City’s Energy Office and Wingdale resident, argue persuasively for the No Action Alternative.

– Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Comments from Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover

– Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Comments from Robert Herzog

*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.

- Read Dover Planning Board Meeting Minutes, June 7, 2010

The Planning Board refers the Rasco matter to the Dover ZBA for interpretation, referencing a May 5, 2010, letter from the Dover Code Enforcement Officer “indicating he could not find any record of approval for T&T materials, a prior operator at this site…” In fact the COE states that the Stop Work order he issued in 2005 is still in effect. In response to Planning Board concerns has about materials on the site, the Code Enforcement Officer suggests, “If there are concerns then a qualified individual or firm should be retained to examine or test these materials to determine if they are hazardous.”

Please see Rasco: Dover Planning Board Letter to the Dover ZBA requesting review of the Rasco Application

Please see Rasco: Dover COE Letter to the Dover Planning Board, May 5, 2010

-Read May 18, 2010 letter to Dover Zoning Board of Appeals

Sibyll Gilbert read a letter from the Oblong Land Conservancy to the Plannng Board at the May 17, 2010 meeting:

“The Conservancy further requests that the Planning Board refrain from relying on the December 1, 2009 stipulation in making any decision on this application as the stipulation was unlawfully entered into by the Dover Town Board with the applicant. The application should be denied as the proposed use is a solid waste management facility under Section 145-50 of the Dover Code and is not a continuation of a lawful preexisting, nonconforming use. THE TOWN BOARD CANNOT USURP THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OR THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER THE GUISE OF A COMPROMISE OF A CLAIM PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW”

- Read Letter from Oblong Land Conservancy to Dover Planning Board, May 17, 2010

*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.

-Read May 17, 2010 letter to Dover Planning Board

*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.

- Read Dover Planning Board Meeting Minutes, May 17, 2010

Dear Dover Planning Board Co-Chairs Wylock and LaRobardier,

We believe that the Rasco Application should be held  to the same high standards as every project proposed in or adjacent to the Great Swamp Critical Environmental Area.  This should be especially true for Rasco,  a business that relies on bringing Petroleum Contaminated Soils to a site above our single source Aquifer. Why should Rasco be granted an exception that would have been unthinkable for its neighbor, Cricket Valley Energy, or the Dover Knolls and Wind Rose developments up river?

The fact that the application arrived at your desks is another matter all together.

Thank you for doing everything in your power to protect the water supply of the residents of Dover and Wingdale, and for giving the “hard look” to all site plan proposals within the Great Swamp CEA, as required under SEQR.

Respectfully,
Stancy DuHamel
Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover

*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.

The Dover Knolls Findings Statement was adopted by the Town Board on May 12, 2010, in a 3-2 vote. Supervisor Ryan Courtien, and Board Members Christopher Galayda and Kathleen Frame voted in favor; Board Members Lorraine O’Neil and Kaye Surman opposed.

CRGD is pleased that our hydrogeologist’s comments were acknowledged and recommended to the Town Board by DEC and the Dover Town Planner, AKRF, and were incorporated into the FEIS and the Findings Statement. We are concerned, however, that the Town Board has seemingly granted the Benjamin Companies an extraordinarily long period of time (7-15 years) to proceed under the Application as accepted. (The Planning Board recommended three years.) Does that mean the full buildout, and the Benjamins’ projected net revenue benefit to Dover, may not take place for 53 years? To prevent that unfortunate outcome, we expect the Benjamin Companies and Supervisor Courtien and fellow Dover Town Board members Chris Galayda and Kathy Frame to fast-track the Dover Knolls development, just as together they fast-tracked the Application process, so that Dover Knolls will proceed apace with construction and demolition.

CRGD will continue to work with the Town Board and Dover Knolls Liason Kathy Schibanoff to help assure that Dover residents’ concerns are heard with regard to negative fiscal consequences, and that local, regional and national concerns are heard with respect to environmental issues.

- Read Dover Town Board SEQRA findings

*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.

– Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Notice, May 5, 2010

*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.

Dover Knolls Liason comments on TMI’s coverage, April, 2010

To the editor:

A March 31 article on the Dover Knolls Public Hearing states in the first paragraph that John Fila issued the Town Board “a wake up call” asking “the why of this development.” I am guessing a wake up call would be for those people who have not been involved in Dover for the last seventeen years. Those who have closely followed this project know the “why.” The closure of Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center (HVPC) left the region without thousands of jobs, 850 acres off the tax rolls, and 2.5 million square feet of abandoned, deteriorating space that community leaders have been trying to deal with for the past seventeen years. For those people, the question is “when?” When will enough time and effort be spent to allow the redevelopment to take place?

In 1994, the town and county leaders energized the Harlem Valley Partnership to focus on finding the ways and means to recover from losing the region’s major employer and spent years on studies, plans, public hearings, and marketing for reusing the HVPC. In 1999, the Town Board created a zoning overlay district to attract development to the site. In 2002, the County included portions of the HVPC in the Poughkeepsie Dutchess Empire Zone to provide further incentive for a developer. After ten years on the market, state and local leaders approached Mr. Benjamin after he successfully redeveloped two other state facilities and the HVPC was finally sold in 2003. Now, seven years later, a project may be in sight.

The article also states the Town Board did not trust the planning board to handle the SEQRA process, and thus declared itself lead agency and conducted all SEQRA hearings in order to speed up the process. This is a fabrication as the Dover Zoning Code written in 1999 clearly states that the Town Board must approve a comprehensive development plan and a conceptual site plan. To date, Dover Knolls submitted a zoning amendment application to the Town Board as required in the 1999 code for the Mixed-Use Overlay District. The current Town Board picked up where the process left off with the previous board. There was no hi-jacking of lead agency from the Planning Board.

In 2008, the Town Board did change the 1999 code to assume the role the Planning Board had in a site plan application for individual components of the plan, a step that Dover Knolls has not even reached yet. The SEQRA process and Town Board approval of the Master Development Plan needs to take place before that next step can begin. The erroneous implications written in the article are unfortunate and lose sight of the big picture, the benefits of redeveloping a large site that was intensively and extensively used for decades and continues to have a blighting influence on our home.

The developer funded environmental mapping of the site before planning, brought in nationally recognized architects and economic analysts, and spent over $20 million working through almost seven years of process. The Dover Town Board went above and beyond at every step of the SEQRA process by extending comment periods, extending speaking times and posting each and every version of any EIS to the town’s website. Anyone asking “why?” should speak to the over 500 people who have requested an application for work, ask residents who have lost their homes, ask the long-time businesses that couldn’t hang on any longer and ask those that are barely hanging on now, hoping that some new investment monies will begin to come into Dover. The intent of SEQRA is to find the suitable balance of social, economic and environmental factors in planning. Dover has not recovered from the losses in 1994. Lots of time has passed and times have only gotten worse. We all need to pay attention to what is happening to the social and economic health of our community.

Kathleen Schibanoff
Former Executive Director of the Harlem Valley Partnership

Current Local Liaison for Dover Knolls Editorial reply:

Contrary to Ms. Schibanoff’s charges, TMI did not fabricate the view that the town board appointed itself lead agency “in order to speed up the process.” That view was expressed by members of the town board, the planning board and others TMI interviewed in connection with the preparation of the article.

The chair of the planning board submitted a letter in the SEQRA hearings pointing out that the planning board was better equipped to deal with the SEQRA, a view that is generally held in the planning community. Ms. Schibanoff confuses lead agency status under SEQRA with the role of the town board in making zoning changes and approving a master development plan .“Lead agency” is a term unique to the SEQRA process required by the Environmental Law. Zoning changes are, by law, reserved to town boards.

We share Ms. Schibanoff’s desire to see the last of the derelict institutional ghost town that haunts our region, but also know haste in planning a project of the size and complexity of Dover Knolls is not a recommended tactic.

*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.

– Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Document, May 3, 2010

*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.

The Millbrook Independent, one of the local newspapers covering Dover, reported on the Planning Board meeting on April 5, 2010, at which the public commented on the Rasco Application for Site Plan Approval before the Board.

“Many environmental and local watchdog groups made written and oral comments that expressed deep concern about the potential effects of the proposed cold asphalt operation which would store and transport PCS [Petroleum Contaminated Soil] to and from the former Wingdale industrial park. The Housatonic Valley Association stated: “The application, as submitted lacks sufficient information to assure the Town that no contamination of the site and adjacent land and water resources will occur. We strongly urge the Planning Board to require a full SEQRA (State Environmental) review of this application.”

- See article in The Millbrook Independent, April 15, 2010

*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.

[Planning Board] Member Johnson- you had valid permits, there was a stop work order, and the permits were taken away and it took 5 years to get permits, that’s not voluntary. If it was voluntary, your permits would have been kept up and the place would have never been shut down for 5 years. You pull your gas tanks out or you can get rid your permits – it sounds like you lost your permits-

Jon Adams- you’re arguing case law- it’s been established from different attorneys.

Member Johnson- But neither of them represents the Planning Board.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Rasco received a “Negative Declaration” from DEC under SEQR in June, 2006. This document was brought to our attention during the FOIL process and document review conducted by members of the public.

We believe the DEC would have given this project more scrutiny if a coordinated review had been held.  It is now up to the Town of Dover, residents, elected and appointed officials, and the region to protect the Harlem Valley Aquifer (our water supply) and the Great Swamp from potential petroleum contamination, and uphold our Town Code which bans solid waste facilities.

ENB Region 3 Completed Applications 06/28/2006

Dutchess County

Applicant:
Rasco Materials LLC
2241 St Rte 22
PO Box 566
Wingdale, NY 12594-0566

Facility:
Rasco Materials LLC

2241 St Rte 22
Wingdale, NY 12594

Application ID: 3-1326-00144/00005
Permit(s) Applied for: Article 27 Title 7 Solid Waste Management
Project is Located: Dover, Dutchess County

Project Description:
RASCO Materials has applied to this Department for a Part 360 Permit to reuse the former T.T. Materials Corp., facility for the processing of Petroleum        Contaminated Soils (PCS) into a reusable cold-mix asphalt product known as “Earth-Pave.”  The applicant would mix the incoming soils with an emulsion inside the same building at the facility which the previous operator used and temporarily store the resulting material  in another existing building at the facility until it is sold.  RASCO Materials is also applying for the same tonnage limitations as T.T. Materials, which would limit the facility to no more than 1,000 tons of unprocessed PCS at the facility at any time and no more than 1,000 tons of the reusable product at the facility at any time.

RASCO Materials has also applied to this Department for a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) to allow the product they produce to be sold as a newly manufactured product, not as a waste product.

The facility is located on a portion of the 133-acre Wingdale Industrial Park, on the west side of NYS Rt. 22, opposite County Road 26 (Swamp River        Road), in the Town of Dover, Dutchess County, NY

State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Determination:
Project is an Unlisted Action and will not have a significant impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration is on file. A coordinated review was not performed.

SEQR Lead Agency:
None Designated

State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) Determination:
The proposed activity is not subject to review in accordance with SHPA. The permit type is exempt or the activity is being reviewed in accordance with federal historic preservation regulations.

Coastal Management:
This project is not located in a Coastal Management area and is not subject to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act.

Opportunity for Public Comment:
Comments on this project must be submitted in writing to the Contact Person no later than Jul 14 2006.

Contact: Michael D Merriman
NYSDEC Region 3 Headquarters
21 South Putt Corners Rd
New Paltz, NY 12561
(845)256-3054
r3dep@gw.dec.state.ny.us

In 1999, during an almost decade long battle with a solid waste facility proposed in the Town of Dover, and with the help of a local citizen’s group, “Stop the Dump,” the Dover Town Board passed a zoning amendment prohibiting solid waste facilities.  After the considerable efforts and funds spent by prior town administrations fighting to successfully keep at bay the growing number of solid waste projects proposed for various sites around town, it was particularly disappointing that the current administration chose instead to sign a Stipulation Agreement to define the currently proposed solid waste project a “pre-existing” operation and therefore apparently not subject to our zoning laws. And is is proposed for a site above our single source aquifer, “the only significant source of water for Eastern Dutchess County.”

On March 29, 2010, Constance DuHamel sent a letter to Supervisor Courtien and Planning Board Co-Chair Wylock, and attaching an article, “What’s Really Needed to Effectuate Resource Protection in Communities,” by Jayne E. Daley, describing the nine year effort to defeat the solid waste facility, culminating in the passage of a zoning law prohibiting “all classes of ECL Part 360 solid waste management facilities not owned or operated by the Town, and the use of solid waste or material that has previously been part of the solid waste stream … as fill or reclamation material for surface or underground mining:”

Hi Ryan and Dave,

In case you have not read this report recently, it touches on some of  Dover’s history with the solid waste business which led to the Town’s decision to deny further applications from this industry, and in so doing further protect its water supply. The study references the Harlem Valley Aquifer.

From the study:
“In response to public demand, the Town commissioned its own engineering study that identified the existence of “a distinct valley bottom aquifer system composed of glacial sediments and a geographically distinct carbonate bedrock formation”, which met all criteria for designation as a principal aquifer (fn45.)This issue was particularly important because the aquifer supplies water to over 20,000 people (46) and represents the only significant source of water for Eastern Dutchess County (47.) This report and other pertinent information that was gathered by the Town’s consultants were forwarded to DEC for consideration and review.

36 Id. at 2-1. 37 Id. 6 NYCRR part 360 governs permits for C&D landfills. 38 Id. 39 See generally, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law. 40 Letter from NYS DEC to Anthony Palumbo, Dated July 21, 1995, in DEIS supra note 16, Appendix Q. 41 Id. Letter from NYS DEC to Anthony Palumbo, Dated July 21, 1995. 42 A primary aquifer is defined as a highly productive aquifer system used heavily for public water supply. Principal aquifers are of similar value, but not yet as heavily used as primary aquifers. DEC, Final Upstate New York Groundwater Management Plan, May 1987 at IV-19. 43 6 NYCRR Part 360.74(a)(5)(i)(a)(1). 44 DEIS, supra note 16 at 3.7. 45 Letter to Alan Fuchs, Regional Solid Waste Engineer, Region III, NYSDEC, dated October 25, 1995. 46 Harlem Valley Watershed Investigation, supra note 14 at Table 1. 47 Town of Dover’s Memorandum in Support of Adjudicability of Principal Aquifer Issue, In the Matter of the Application of Danny Fortune and Company, Inc. for modification of a mined land reclamation permit, State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation, NYSDEC Project # 3-1326-00031/00003.”

Please view the entire article, “What’s Really Needed to Effectuate Resource Protection in Communities” by Jayne E. Daley

*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.