Affordable housing review proceeds

MILLERTON — The village Planning Board continued its review and neared the completion of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) of Housing Resources of Columbia County’s affordable housing application for Millerton Overlook. Millerton Overlook is the proposed 20-unit workforce housing complex at the intersection of routes 22 and 44. The EAF is part of the required State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process.

Legal fee disputed

Before that review got underway at last Wednesday’s meeting, Planning Board attorney Michael Hayes addressed an objection made by Housing Resources’ attorney, Scott Longstreet.

“Scott Longstreet objected to a bill. He does have a right to do so,� Hayes said. “By offering to drop part of my bill we could drop this part of the discourse. I would be willing to do that. The Planning Board is my client … and I feel comfortable with [the charges]. But if we could resolve it [it would be best] because if we can’t resolve it, it would be a part of continuing discourse.�

“People don’t work for free, and certainly not attorneys,� Planning Board member Peter Greenough said, asking Hayes if he was sure he was comfortable making the offer.

“I don’t mind putting that portion of my bill [aside],� Hayes said. “We can work past that. I honestly don’t know [the amount of the bill]. We can figure that out next month [if Housing Resources accepts the offer].�

“I don’t know why that should not be paid by the escrow,� Greenough said.

The board agreed to Hayes’ suggestion and will hash out the issue with the applicant next month.

Hudsonia study

The board then discussed a report done by Eric Kiviat of Hudsonia about the whole project and how it relates to wetlands; it’s waiting for a written report on the subject from Kiviat. Planning Board Chairman Lance Middlebrook, along with Planning Board engineer Ray Jurkowski and Housing Resources engineer Eric Bernardin, attended a meeting with Kiviat to discuss the issue.

“Kiviat opened with a general discussion and overall concerns with respect to the endangered wetland,� Jurkowski said. “He spoke about the transfer of sediment, construction of the project, the influx of salt affecting habitats, bog turtles, chemicals in water, fertilizers and so forth, and the potential for fluctuation of water levels. He also addressed storm waters and indicated the septic system is a concern with regards to nitrogen loading.�

The benefits of the 300-foot buffer around the wetlands and concerns about the storm water system were also revisited. Other topics discussed included stream water protection, attrition practices, roof drain practices, hydrocarbons from oils and fuels left from vehicles that drain into the stream. So, too, were wastewater and drinking water and how to prevent cross-contamination, the separation of ground water and the level of the septic field versus the water level of the wetlands.

Getting to the meat of the EAF

At the conclusion of the open discussion, the board moved onto the review of the EAF; it initially focused on reviewing part one of the form, which had previously been discussed. Hayes said he asked Housing Resources to bring a signed and dated copy of part one to the meeting. He also said he had prepared part two for the board, pending its approval. The board decided it was satisfied with part one, which it had already completed, and was, thanks to Hayes, signed and dated. It then proceeded to review part two.

The board agreed to the following assumptions laid out in part two:

There would be a potential large impact on storm water flows, which could be mitigated by a 300-foot buffer, implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project would affect ground water quality or quantity, which will require a discharge permit. It will allow residential uses for water or sewer. It will alter drainage flow, with small to moderate impact. It will also change the storm water flow from the front of the property to the rear of the property of designated wetlands.

The project will affect endangered species, namely bog turtles; a 300-foot buffer around the wetland is expected to mitigate that potentially large impact. It is not expected to affect any non-threatened or non-endangered species. No non-protected land or agricultural land resources are expected to be affected. It is expected to affect aesthetic resources, with small to moderate impact.

“It is visible to users of and will significantly reduce the enjoyment of resources that will result in the elimination of scenic views known to be important to the area,� read Middlebrook from the application, adding the impact is believed to be small to moderate.

It is expected to impact significant structures of historic, prehistoric or paleontologic importance. That’s because it’s contiguous to the village, which is listed on the state and national register of historic places.

The project is not expected to affect the quantity or quality of open spaces or recreational opportunities. Nor is it expected to impact exceptional or unique characteristics of critical environmental areas.

It is expected to have an effect on the character of the existing community, with a small to moderate impact, causing the permanent population to grow by more than 5 percent. Another small to moderate impact anticipated as a result of the project is a change in the density of land use and a greater demand for additional community services, like schools, police, etc. It is believed there will be a large impact on the community as a precedent will be set for future projects of a similar nature, which the board predicted, cannot be mitigated. The last question asked was if there was the chance for public controversy. An unequivocal “yes� was issued by the board.

Hayes then told the board that it next must work on part three, which he said “relates to some details in the analysis/explanation to those items in part two with potential large impacts.� He suggested the board might want to wait until its next meeting, when it might have the report back from Kiviat, which could weigh into the results. There was a brief discussion about number 19 of part two, which dealt with the precedent that would be set by a project like Millerton Overlook.

“Open spaces are filling and there’s not a lot of green space in the town, and that is a concern,� Greenough said. “[The village] is an increasingly saturated and contained area. This is the last, big piece of land in the village.�

“This is the first time a special use permit will be issued for a development of this sort,� Middlebrook added. “That alone sets a precedent.�

The board agreed to address the remainder of part three at its June meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, June 9, at 7 p.m. at Village Hall.