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”
Comments
Got something to say?
