Rasco Materials
Rasco Materials has submitted an application to the Planning Board for site plan approval of a solid waste recycling located adjacent to the Great Swamp Critical Environmental Area and above the Harlem Valley Aquifer.
Dover ZBA rules in favor of allowing the Rasco project to proceed
December 9, 2010
Read Dover Zoning Board Special Meeting Minutes, December 8, 2010
Rasco decision delayed; More evidence weighed
October 21, 2010
By Antonia Shoumatoff
The Dover Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) listened to Michael Liguori, the ZBA’s attorney, describe and read from 100 new documents about previous uses on the Mid-Hudson Recycling Industrial Park at the October 20 meeting which had been thought to be the date of a final decision. He painstakingly read the documents that had been discovered on microfiche over the course of three hours, getting through less than half of them.
- See article in The Millbrook Independent, October 21, 2010
Will Dover Evade its own Zoning Law?
October 14, 2010
By Stephen Kaye and Tonia Shoumatoff
The Dover Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is weighing a decision on whether a pre-existing use for processing solid waste was abandoned or whether that use is entitled to continue by a different company under a grandfathering doctrine. If the decision favors the grandfathering interpretation, the Dover Planning Board could be pre-empted from having to review the application which would also mean that the town would never have reviewed the site properly for the processing of hazardous materials.
- See article in The Millbrook Independent, October 14, 2010
Dover Zoning Board Meeting October 6, 2010
October 6, 2010
- Read Dover Zoning Board Meeting Minutes, October 6, 2010
Rasco Application at Dover ZBA
September 23, 2010
By Antonia Shoumatoff
On September 1, the Dover Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed the record and heard comments at its second public hearing on the Rasco application to operate a processing plant to convert soil contaminated with oil to asphalt. The attorney for the applicant, Jon Adams, was not present so the applicant, Jack Nelson of Rasco, spoke for himself. He stated that he was sure the NY State DEC would make regular inspections of the site to assure that the operation was being conducted properly and that there would be no violations.
- See article in The Millbrook Independent, September 23, 2010
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
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 Residents Question Legality of Rasco Application”
April 24, 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.
Rasco: Dover Planning Board continues Public Hearing, April 19, 2010
April 19, 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.”
Rasco: DEC gave the project a Negative Declaration under SEQR in June 2006, but adds “A coordinated review was not performed.”
March 29, 2010
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
Dover prohibits solid waste management facilities; Harlem Valley Bottom Aquifer is “sole source aquifer for Eastern Dutchess County’s 20,000 residents”
March 29, 2010
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.
Rasco: DuHamel Letter in Response to Stipulation Agreement
March 29, 2010
This letter was written in response to reading the Rasco Stipulation Agreement, produced in the FOIL process. The Dover Town Board determined Rasco was a pre-existing facility, effectively allowing a solid waste project, banned under current Town Code, to begin operation, pending Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board. Surprised the Town Board chose not to to fight this determination, Stancy DuHamel wrote,
“It would appear that the alternative method of determining whether the project is grandfathered is to take it thru the courts. That route would necessarily involve legal fees, and I am curious to know the amount of the legal fees our Town Attys estimated it would cost to argue that the project was not grandfathered, and moreover should not be located above our water supply.”
This letter was read into the record at the April 5th Planning Board meeting.
*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.
“Petroleum Contaminated Soil Re-use Application in Dover,” TMI, March 17, 2010
March 17, 2010
The Millbook Independent covered the Dover Planning Board Meeting of March 15, 2010 at which the Rasco Application was discussed:
“We have concerns about the contaminated soil leeching through the Swamp River and traveling up to our reserve,” [Sibyll Gilbert, Vice Chair of the Oblong Land Conservancy] said from the podium. “Why should the Harlem Valley be the site for contaminated soil dumping from other areas?”
Gilbert suggested RASCO go through the State Environmental Quality Review, or SEQR, and that the planning board extend the public hearing period. She also submitted at letter to the Planning Board that stated: “The Oblong’s preserve, located downstream on the Swamp River, could be damaged by spills of soluble contamination, and the conservation of amphibian and reptilian species, for which this preserve was created, could be irreparably harmed. These species are particularly vulnerable to low levels of contamination.” She also stated that the environmental impacts are very complicated and “require knowledgeable technical support to provide adequate advice to the Planning Board. The SEQR process must be used to advantage to provide adequate time and the necessary resources to review this application.”
The Housatonic Valley Association stated in their written comments that they are concerned that the proposed operation involving the storage and use of petroleum contaminated soils (PCS) is close to a New York State-designated Critical Environmental Area (CEA) and that they would like to see a full environmental review (SEQR) conducted for the project: “We believe that the DEC permit was issued prematurely and that a more thorough review should have been taken by the agency to account for any remnant contamination that may be present on the site.”
- See article in The Millbrook Independent, March 17, 2010.
*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.
Rasco: Public Comments to Dover Planning Board, March 15, 2010: CRGD, OLC & HVA
March 15, 2010
The Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover, the Oblong Land Conservancy and the Housatonic Valley Association submitted written comments at the March 15th meeting of the Dover Planning Board.
Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover
Oblong Land Conservancy
Housatonic Valley Association
*Note: printed post date is for chronological clarity. Actual post date is August 13, 2010.
