1 / 10

Response 37 in FSEIS does not adequately address Comment 37 Harris Beach Presentation

Response 37 in FSEIS does not adequately address Comment 37 Harris Beach Presentation On behalf of PEPA Harrison Planning Board Meeting April 26, 2011. The Parcel B Application violates the Town’s Master Plan and New York State Law.

owen
Download Presentation

Response 37 in FSEIS does not adequately address Comment 37 Harris Beach Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Response 37 in FSEIS does not adequately address Comment 37 Harris Beach Presentation On behalf of PEPA Harrison Planning Board Meeting April 26, 2011

  2. The Parcel B Application violates the Town’s Master Plan and New York State Law Source: New York State: Town Law §272-a(11)(a) http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$TWN272-A$$@TXTWN0272-A+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=45641577+&TARGET=VIEW * Note: After Manhattanville sold the land, the “Whitelaw-Reid property” was divided and renamed Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcel C. The Master Plan language is clear "Areas recommended for commercial office expansion include the southern portion only of the Whitelaw-Reid property*, and only on the condition that access is provided through Manhattanville Road to Westchester Avenue.” (Master Plan Town/Village Harrison January 1988, Page 80) According to New York State Town Law (§272-a (11)) once a comprehensive plan is adopted by the local legislative body, all of the local government’s land use regulations must be in accordance with it. Louis Berger Group for PEPA also raised the Master Plan Violation as part of their professional review of, and written findings/comments on the DSEIS on March 19, 2007

  3. Failure to comply with Special Exception Use Permit Harrison Code Section 235-17.J • Planned office park. The intent of this provision is to provide for flexible planned development and future overall control and maintenance of a planned office park site, while conserving the natural scenic environment, implementing the Master Plan and meeting the following special conditions and safeguards: • (1) An overall development plan shall be presented, showing the use or uses proposed, including dimensions, indicating the areas set aside for each use and the locations of all structures, parking spaces and rights-of-way or driveways, and the provisions for drainage, sewer and water service, lighting facilities, signs and landscaping. • (2) All of the site area not specifically covered by a building or structure, including such areas as yards, roadways and parking facilities, pedestrian walks and malls and landscaped areas, resulting from the establishment of a planned office park shall remain in control of one agency which shall be accountable for their control and maintenance. • (3) All of the applicable regulations with regard to uses permitted, accessory uses, bulk regulations and buffer strips of the Special Business (SB) Districts, § 235-12, shall prevail, except that the actual buildings may be grouped and the yard, lot area and coverage provisions applied to the group as a whole.

  4. Failure To Comply With Special Exception Use Permit Requirements Violates the Master Plan • The DSEIS states that ".... Pursuant to Section 235-17.J, the intent of the special exception use permit for a planned office park is to provide for flexible planned development and future overall control and maintenance of a planned office park site, while conserving the natural scenic environment, implementing the Town of Harrison Master Planand meeting the following special conditions and safeguards....“ [Emphasis added]. • Contrary to the statement above, the project is inconsistent with the 1988 Harrison Master Plan Update (the Master Plan that is currently in effect). Therefore the conditions for a special exception use permit have not been met and the permit should be denied. Source : http://www.johnmeyerconsulting.com/parcelb/DEIS/deis.html Page 30; Section III. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANTICIPATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

  5. Applicant’s DSEIS refers to Code 235.17.JSource : http://www.johnmeyerconsulting.com/parcelb/DEIS/deis.html Section III. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANTICIPATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

  6. Town Code 235-17.J • 235-17.J provides • (2) All of the site area not specifically covered by a building or structure, including such areas as yards, roadways and parking facilities, pedestrian walks and malls and landscaped areas, resulting from the establishment of a planned office park shall remain in control of one agency which shall be accountable for their control and maintenance. [Emphasis Added]. • This application proposes control by 2 entities in clear violation of the Special Exception Use Permit

  7. Response 37 in FSEIS does not adequately address Comment 37

  8. Louis Berger’s Comment quotes the Town’s Master Plan [Parcel B construction is allowable] “only on the condition that access is provided through Manhattanville Road to Westchester Avenue.” While the letter from NYSDOT does reject the closure of the connection of Manhattanville Road to Purchase Street, it  does not reject the connection of Corporate Drive/Manhattanville Road to Westchester Avenue. Applicant has failed to address Louis Berger’s comment 37 and provide any explanation of how this application complies with or does not violate the Town’s Master Plan. PEPA has been assured by the Planning Board all comments and scoping issues would be addressed [by the applicant] in the FEIS. However myriad applicant responses including Response 37 are inadequate. Comment 37 There is no mention in the DSEIS of access being provided to Westchester Avenue via Manhattanville Road. (Veraart, March 19, 2007 Letter at 11) Response 37 The NYSDOT determined in a March 8, 2001 letter Appendix L of the SDEIS * that the proposal for the closure is rejected. * Source: http://www.johnmeyerconsulting.com/parcelb/DEIS/deis.html

  9. While the letter from NYSDOT does reject the closure of the connection of Manhattanville Road to Purchase Street, it  does not reject the connection of Corporate Drive/Manhattanville Road to Westchester Avenue. Applicant has failed to address Louis Berger’s comment 37 and does not deal with the matter at hand that is - the Master Plan violations Response does not offer an explanation (of how this application does not violate the Master Plan. http://www.johnmeyerconsulting.com/parcelb/DEIS/deis.html

  10. Where does the Planning Board stand on this this issue of Violation of the Master Plan? Residents want to know! The issues remain unresolved. This application violates the Master Plan and must therefore be denied. PEPA has been assured by the Planning Board all of the concerns we put on the record during the DSEIS scoping issue would be addressed [by the applicant] in the FEIS. Is the Planning Board willing to violate (NYS Law 272- 11 a) a law they are obligated to uphold? Assuming the Planning Board will uphold the NYS Town/Village Law then residents want to know why are you still considering the application?

More Related