Dover Planning Board Refers Rasco to the Dover Zoning Board of Appeals in light of New Information; COE states 2005 Stop Work Order is still in effect May 18, 2010
May 18, 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
Rasco: “Is [it] a legal pre-existing use?” Dover Planning Board Letter May, 2010 to the Dover Zoning Board of Appeals
May 18, 2010
-Read May 18, 2010 letter to Dover Zoning Board of Appeals
Oblong Land Conservancy questions legality of Rasco Stipulation Agreement: “application should be denied….”
May 17, 2010
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.
Rasco: Public Comment to the Dover Planning Board, May 17, 2010: Friends of the Great Swamp
May 17, 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.
Dover Planning Board Meeting May 17, 2010
May 17, 2010
- Read Dover Planning Board Meeting Minutes, May 17, 2010
Rasco: Public Comment to the Dover Planning Board, May 17, 2010: CRGD
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.
Dover Knolls: Findings Statement
May 12, 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 Public Scoping Notice
May 5, 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 The Millbrook Independent’s coverage, and TMI responds
May 5, 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 Draft Scoping Document
May 3, 2010
– Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Document, May 3, 2010
*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.
