Silo Ridge consultants begin work on Findings Statement draft

AMENIA — The majority of last Thursday’s Planning Board meeting was spent reviewing matters discussed at the first consultant’s meeting for Silo Ridge.

Recently on the Silo Ridge timeline, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was accepted on Sept. 18. A public comment consideration period lasted until Oct. 24. The Planning Board is now in the position to issue a Findings Statement, the final step before the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) is complete.

The Findings Statement will be drafted by the consultants, which Attorney to the Town Michael Hayes explained would follow the headings used in the DEIS. Each would identify separate impacts and environmental resources impacted by the project and what the applicant planned to eliminate or mitigate those impacts.

Who does what

Certain consultants will be responsible for the different sections, in accordance with their expertise. The consultants were selected by the Planning Board, and their consulting fees are paid for by Silo Ridge.

Michael Klemens is in charge of biological and ecological issues; Michael Soyka handles engineering; George Janes is responsible for visual impacts; Mary Ann Johnson (representing Green Plan) handles planning aspects; Karen Schneller-McDonald manages storm water and water quality issues; Mary Petrovich handles golf course aspects; the Hudson Group is in charge of fiscal impact; Hayes handles legal issues.

Many of these issues are intertwined and overlap. Discussing one issue may evoke several others. Hayes addressed that concern.

“For structural reasons, the discussions should follow section by section [as outlined by the DEIS],� he said. The final, conclusive section would be the real findings area.

The Findings Statement

According to Hayes, the Findings Statement as prepared by the consultants should identify the history of the SEQRA process and the project itself, as well as identifying commitments the applicant has already made toward eliminating or mitigating impact.

The consultants can also suggest to the board that the applicants didn’t go far enough in their efforts to reduce impact, although the findings as presented to the Planning Board in the form of a draft Findings Statement do not have to be adopted as the board’s own findings.

“At the end of the day it’s the Planning Board’s document,� Hayes said. “They will mark it up, whether individually or as a group,� taking the consultant’s advice into consideration but not necessarily adhering to it.

“There are two effects of the Finding Statement,� Hayes added. “When the SEQRA process is complete, then the Planning Board can move forward with things like a Site Plan Approval Application.�

Also, until the board, acting as the lead agency, finishes its Finding Statement, other agencies (like the Department of Environmental Conservation) can’t complete theirs, which would be necessary for things like wetlands and drinking water permits. Other agencies, however, will not have to draw up a new FEIS, and can review to the document already accepted by the board in producing a Findings Statement.

The time frame

Last Thursday, the Planning Board decided that at the next meeting consultants would bring to the table an “aggressive schedule� that would outline the time frame in which the Findings Statement would be produced for the board. Several consultants, including Klemens, expressed concern that a month’s time (a period that Hayes said was “fair�) was “aggressive’ and that there were major issues still unresolved.

Dan Leary, who provides legal counsel for Silo Ridge, pointed out to the board that while the 30-day time frame outlined in SEQRA to complete the Findings Statement is “directive, and not mandatory,� but that Silo Ridge was looking to move forward with the project as quickly as possible. He pointed out that the 30-day period had already passed.

“The first draft [as prepared by the consultants] could be very close to the final draft,� Hayes replied. “But we won’t know until we get there. Right now, the Planning Board and Silo Ridge are of the same mind, trying to get things moving forward.�

The Planning Board agreed that in preparation for next week’s meeting, they would look over the public comments they had received earlier that evening, and that could be a major topic of discussion. There were 141 written comments concerning problems or concerns with the FEIS, as well as 188 yellow cards filled out in support of the document. Unlike the DEIS,  there are no legal obligations for the Planning Board to address public comments on the FEIS.

The next Planning Board meeting will be Nov. 6 at 7 p.m. at Town Hall.