Newport Archaeological Site
Basically, the NYSDEC sent a letter to RSM on February 11, 2010 in reference to the incomplete application RSM submitted on January 27, 2010. RSM has also failed to provide the separate application to the DEC in regards to off site storm water drain work associated with Newport Road. The attachment at the bottom is the list of items that the environmental analyst for the NYSDEC sent to RSM.
The e-mail above the attachment is from March 21, 2010 and links to the D&C article about final site plan approval happening the next day. The person is surprised that the early (19th & 20th century) reports about the archaeological site on which the Newport house is built has not come to anyone's attention.
The e-mail above that one is from the NYS Archaeologist and Director of the Cultural Resource Survey Program at the NYS Museum in Albany on March 22, 2010 - and she wonders if anyone in the DEC was notified and why a "red flag" did not "pop up" somewhere during the review process.
The e-mail above that one is from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation on March 22, 2010 - and he states that they do have the Newport project in their database and that they received notice in June 2009 from Costich Engineering about the project - and they responded to RSM that the info they provided was not acceptable and asked for more detailed info. He says they never received a response back. Their records, as well as the State Museum's records indicate that there are archaeological sites within the boundaries of the proposed project. He also states that he does not know if the Planning Board has adequately addressed the potential impacts...and that according to their records and the news article - the project will require DEC permits which RSM will not be able to receive until they address this issue. He also states that he is copying in the NYS Museum person, the Agency Preservation officer for the DEC, the DEC Permit Person, as well as the planning board and town historian "so that they are all aware of this concern".
The e-mail above that is from the NYSDEC dated March 22, 2010 and says that they did receive an application from RSM on January 27, 2010, and on February 11, 2010 sent a notice of incomplete application letter to RSM detailing the missing/incomplete info (see attachment at bottom). Item #11 of the "incomplete list" requires that RSM send in a copy of the NYS Office of Parks & Recreation and Historical Preservation determination of impact on cultural resources for this project since the project is located in an archaeologically sensitive area.
The e-mail above that is from the Historic Preservation Specialist at the Archaeology Unit of the NYSOPRHP, stating that he has requested a Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for the site.
Here is the link to the full letter from the NYSDEC to RSM, the "Notice of Incomplete Application" - dated 2/11/2010 - on the Town Website for the Newport project.
Here is a link to the applicant documentation on the town website for Newport, and on page 9 is where the Site Plan Review Submittal Checklist starts. Stamped "received" on January 8, 2010 (page 13), you can clearly see that there are "missing and incomplete" notations on that document that were not rectified before the site plan was approved on Monday March 22.
Here is a link to the SEQR Newport Findings Statement where RSM claims the site is of little value as a historical resource. (On page 10)
Now....I'm pretty sure I remember that the Planning Board and PB Attorney all assured us that the process was followed, and all the "i's" were dotted and all the "t's" were crossed before they voted to approve this final site plan application, and considered the LWRP and IBHMP and IBHML and all that....right?
Great job, guys! Kudos to you!
8 comments:
Is it your position that the Planning Board is responsible for making sure the contractor fills out his DEC permit application properly? LOL You don't think they can do their basic tasks. Do you want them crossing the line to give legal advice?
Lack of hand-holding is hardly a disservice to RSM, who's done this sort of thing once or twice before. I think the Planning Board does give a list of the applicable permits that the developer is responsible for obtaining, yes?
I'm comfortable that the Planning Board acted within the scope of their authority by recommending the Town Board accept the project when all the pending permits are issued.
I'm not happy that they took so long. I think they gave RSM too much time to reconsider building in Irondequoit right now. He's got a tax deal on the land for a while yet.
RSM sued Canandaigua for arbitrary obstruction of a project there. He won and then ditched the part of the project he'd fought for.
I'm laughing about the archeologically sensitive area issue. If that site had any perceived importance, based on earliest maps, native folklore or science-based probability, it would be registered and restricted. The developer says it's not registered. That should be all there is to it. (He gets to keep the dinosaur.)
Parts of my back yard haven't been disturbed in well over a hundred years - maybe not since the glacier went through. My yard is not registered, either. I would like to see anybody interfere with my right to excavate for a swimming pool because my gully MIGHT have an embedded dinosaur grave or an arrowhead or a 1950's discard pile . . .
Well RSM said that "the site is of little value as a historical resource."
They can say whatever they want but they really don't know!
They didn't hand in the proper paperwork. Statements like these is exactly what the whole FEIS of 1,000 pages or more is filled with!
SPIN!
It was up to our planning board to not just swallow every word or correct grammar in the written pages of minutia.
The public expected and was entitled to hear questions answered on this application.
So why hasn't RSM gotten in all of the proper paperwork into the DEC yet? They've known for quite sometime what is expected of them. There is a whole check list.
I'd also like to know why these emails from a Historic Preservation Specialist at the Archaeology Unit of the NYSOPRHP were in the planning dept. on Monday and there wasn't one drip of conversation about them at the meeting?
It's evident to me that the planning board just wanted this application to be over and done.
So they could then say NOT MY PROBLEM!
"my right to excavate for a swimming pool because my gully MIGHT have an embedded dinosaur grave or an arrowhead or a 1950's discard pile . . ."
Why would you put a swimming pool in your gully?
I'm just relaying information about the 'historical site' because I knew nothing about it.
I still don't know the height of the condos either...but...whatever.
Hey Jax, you said, "I still don't know the height of the condos either...but...whatever."
You sound just like a planning board member. ;)
Have a GREAT weekend!
Ok, I was in a hurry this morning and didn't have time to answer your question completely, Canem.
It is my position that the Planning Board is responsible for making sure that the "archaeological" questions about the site were addressed during the SEQR process.
I don't remember any discussion on it, and I will re-review the videos after I am done reading the DEIS and FEIS again to see if they did actually address it......that is when they should have addressed this issue - during SEQR.
The e-mail from the gentleman in the OPRHP office states that if the town (the pb) did not adequately address these issues during SEQR - then it does a disservice to the developer because he won't get his permits from the DEC if he doesn't address the issues presented to him.
Never mind that RSM never responded back to the letter sent to them last year about prior disturbance and that they needed to provide more detailed information......
In answer to your question - Yes, I do believe it was the PB's responsibility to make sure this was addressed during SEQR - for several reasons.
They are the led....er...I mean LEAD agency. It's within their realm of responsibility to make sure all environmental impacts are addressed. The archaeological part of it is included in that.
"The developer says it's not registered." So? Is it really up to him to determine that? Why bother having a planning board then?
I also believe that "they" do cross the line to give legal advice - that's what the PB Attorney is for.
The PB Attorney also either put the wrong code in the resolution (that all but one PB member voted for) pertaining to condo height (he had section 235-33(C)(4) in the resolution), or they had the wrong code in the SEQR findings statement. That document said that town code section 235-33(C)(2) determines the height of the condos and that it is the at the discretion of the PB to determine the height.
The PB voted on that resolution. It was either wrong, or the SEQR code was. Since the resolution was inconsistent with the SEQR findings statement, which is the "culmination" of the DEIS and FEIS.....I wonder how they could have voted on the resolution.
How can you vote on a resolution that is incorrect?
.......and I STILL don't know the height of the condos.......
If the Planning Board is tasked with giving the go-ahead for this project, then it makes logical sense that the onus is on them to ensure all the necessary paperwork is in order before they proceed. It's like the DMV - if you don't have all your paperwork in order then you don't get your license. To do anything less would constitute negligence.
The only form of government the people of this Town should tolerate is one that is open, accessible, effective, and accountable. The Planning Board needs to remember who they serve and why.
Hi Tom! Welcome and thanks for your comment!
"The only form of government the people of this Town should tolerate is one that is open, accessible, effective, and accountable."
I absolutely agree with you!
"We" - the voters - should really take more responsibility for the way things are - "we" voted these people in office, and "we" can vote them out if we feel that they aren't being open, accessible, effective, and accountable.
It is our responsibility to make sure that happens!
"The Planning Board needs to remember who they serve and why."
Except for one PB member recently appointed (who I think is knowledgeable, intelligent, and "serves the people")- all I can say to that is LOL!
Post a Comment