HomeMy WebLinkAbout900 King Street R. Schlank E-Mail 2021-2-171
Tara Gerardi
From:Michal Nowak
Sent:Wednesday, February 17, 2021 4:46 PM
To:Tara Gerardi
Subject:FW: 900 King Street
Attachments:SEQR Process Flowchart.pdf
For file
From: Rosemary Schlank <rschlank@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 4:07 PM
To: Christopher Bradbury <CBradbury@ryebrook.org>
Cc: Michal Nowak <MNowak@ryebrook.org>
Subject: RE: 900 King Street
Chris,
Just to clarify, I recall that a pFEIS was available for comment as early as Thanksgiving 2020
exactly as you said in your email below. The reason for my confusion is that I do not recall
seeing all the topics from the agreed-upon scoping outline included in that document. In fact,
my memory is that none of the draft impact statements after the DEIS continued past
Construction (Topic 16). They all seemed to stop at Topic 16, resulting in omission of the
discussion of the following topics.
17 Alternatives
18 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
19 Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
20 Growth inducing impacts
21 Cumulative impacts
To me, the above topics are critical to the evaluation of the project, especially in view of the
COVID-related impacts that have surfaced over the past year.
The above topics were addressed in the draft findings statement that was released in time for
the BOT meeting on Jan. 12, 2021. I do not recall seeing any notice that these topics should be
considered a part of the FEIS - or that they had been accepted as final. On the contrary, the
words “draft findings statement” seemed to me to indicate the opposite. But I could have missed
something that was said during the meeting. And am the first person to admit that I am not an
expert in SEQRA law. I rely mostly on the attached flowchart that was provided in the past so
that people like me could understand the process. The flowchart indicates there is supposed to a
notice of completion, followed by a minimum of 10 days to submit public comments before the
lead agency prepares the final findings statement.
Based on all of the above, my reasoning behind the email I sent you was that: (a) It is possible
that something was said during the meeting on Jan. 12th that indicated the discussion of the
topics listed above should be considered part of the final FEIS - and I just missed it. And (b) If
that were the case, and if the public had been given until Jan. 26th (the date of the next BOT
meeting) to submit additional comments, then the DOT’s letter was dated only a few days later
on Jan. 28th. To me, the timing is very close, given the volume of reading involved. I sympathize
with the DOT because I too found the deadline a challenge despite the fact that this subject is
2
very important to me as both a RB senior citizen and a property owner in the same PUD as the
900 King Street site. This is why I was hoping the Village would be willing to reopen the matter.
I hope this makes more sense
Rosemary
From: Christopher Bradbury [mailto:CBradbury@ryebrook.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 2:15 PM
To: rschlank@ix.netcom.com
Cc: Michal Nowak <MNowak@ryebrook.org>
Subject: RE: 900 King Street
I am sorry Rosemary, but your comments below are incorrect about the time frames for the 900 King Street documents
in question.
Below is the actual timetable:
- The NYSDOT received the accepted FEIS around Thanksgiving 2020 (pFEIS publicly available and widely
commented upon for several months prior)
- SEQRA allows Lead Agency to adopt a Finding Statement 10 days after accepting FEIS (as early as 12/4/20)
- The Draft Findings Statement was publicly available around 1/8/21
- The Village Board adopted the Findings Statement on 1/26/21
- The NYSDOT letter was received by the Village on 1/29/21.
The NYSDOT had almost 2 months to review and comment on the accepted FEIS, and 2.5 weeks to review and comment
on the draft Findings. Also, much of the Findings is taken word for word from the FEIS. These time frames are well
beyond those required by SEQRA and were intended to provide plenty of time for comments.
Take care,
Chris Bradbury
From: Rosemary Schlank <rschlank@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 4:26 PM
To: Christopher Bradbury <CBradbury@ryebrook.org>
Cc: Michal Nowak <MNowak@ryebrook.org>
Subject: RE: 900 King Street
Thank you for the clarification. My memory is that it was a very tight timeframe to review the
materials. The pFEIS was available for review ahead of time. But a significant portion of the
critical content seems to have been excluded from the EIS and incorporated solely into the
findings statement instead. There was very limited time to review that 70+ page document prior
to the BOT meeting on Jan. 26th, 2021. And the DOT’s letter is dated just a few days after that
meeting. Given the tight timeframe, I was hoping the Village might be willing to reopen the
matter. Sorry for the confusion.
Rosemary
From: Christopher Bradbury [mailto:CBradbury@ryebrook.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 9:10 AM
To: Rosemary Schlank <rschlank@ix.netcom.com>
3
Cc: Michal Nowak <MNowak@ryebrook.org>
Subject: RE: 900 King Street
Dear Rosemary:
The letter from the NYSDOT was received very late. The FEIS and Findings Statement period is closed, so any concerns
would have to be discussed as part of the site plan review.
Chris Bradbury
From: Rosemary Schlank <rschlank@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 2:36 PM
To: Christopher Bradbury <CBradbury@ryebrook.org>
Cc: Michal Nowak <MNowak@ryebrook.org>
Subject: RE: 900 King Street
Chris - I apologize but I had not yet read the letter from the NYSDOT when I asked about the
next steps on Feb. 9th. Could you please tell me how you expect the response to that letter will
affect the process and next steps? Do you expect that the FEIS and/or the 1-27-2021 draft of
the findings statement will be revised and reviewed by the BOT prior to any review by the PB?
Rosemary
From: Christopher Bradbury [mailto:CBradbury@ryebrook.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2021 3:26 PM
To: Rosemary Schlank <rschlank@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: Michal Nowak <MNowak@ryebrook.org>
Subject: RE: 900 King Street
It will not be scheduled on a PB agenda until they submit all the revised paperwork and plans.
From: Rosemary Schlank <rschlank@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:03 PM
To: Christopher Bradbury <CBradbury@ryebrook.org>
Subject: 900 king Street
Hi Chris – I do not see a site plan review for 900 King Street on the agenda for this week’s
planning board meeting. Could you please clarify the next steps in this project? Do you expect it
will be discussed at the March meeting – or at a special meeting of the planning board?
Rosemary