Dover Planning Board gives Rasco Conditional Negative Declaration June 21, 2010
June 21, 2010
“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”
Dover Planning Board Meeting June 21, 2010
June 21, 2010
- Read Dover Planning Board Meeting Minutes, June 21, 2010
Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Comments
June 18, 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 Robert Herzog, June 18, 2010
–Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Comments from Wayne Fahnstock Tanner, June 6, 2010
–Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Comments from Dover Union Free School District, June 10, 2010
–Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Comments from FROGS, June 16, 2010
–Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Comments from Oblong Land Conservancy, June 17, 2010
–Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Comments from George M. Janes & Associates, June 18, 2010
–Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Comments from Evelyn and Joseph Chiarito, June 18, 2010
–Cricket Valley Energy Scoping Comments from DC Dept. of Planning & Development, June 18, 2010
–NYS Dept. of Public Service, June 18, 2010
*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August and December, 2010.
Dover Planning Board Meeting June 7, 2010
June 7, 2010
