158 1 2 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ONONDAGA 3 TOWN OF SKANEATELES PLANNING BOARD 4 ------------------------------------------- 5 In the Matter of SEQR Discussion 6 Major Subdivision. 7 LOVELESS FARM DEVELOPMENT, LLC 8 Tax Parcels 051.-01-39.1 and 051.-02-18.1 9 ------------------------------------------- 10 SEQR DISCUSSION Continuation from June 30th 11 of the above matter, conducted at the Skaneateles Town Hall, 24 Jordan Street, Skaneateles, New 12 York before, JOHN F. DRURY, CSR, RPR, Notary Public in and for the State of New York, on 13 July 28, 2015 at 8:00 p.m. 14 BOARD MEMBER PRESENT: 15 MARK TUCKER Chairman 16 SCOTT WINKELMAN Planning Board Member JOSEPH SOUTHERN Planning Board Member 17 BETH ESTES Planning board Member. DONALD KASPER Planning Board Member 18 SCOTT MOLNAR Planning Board Attorney 19 JOHN CAMP Planning Board Engineer HOWARD BRODSKY Planning Board Planner 20 KAREN BARKDULL Planning Board Secretary 21 FOR THE APPLICANT: 22 ANDREW LEJA, ESQ. from Barclay Damon, LLP 23 24 Reported By: 25 John F. Drury, CSR, RPR Court Reporter 471-7397 159 1 2 INDEX TO SPEAKERS 3 SPEAKERS PAGES 4 Previous three Meeting Minutes Approved 163 5 Resolution 70 6 Resolution Passed Unanimously 187 7 Comments by Mr. Leja 187 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 160 1 Molnar 2 THE CHAIRMAN: At this point we're 3 going to continue with the discussion on 4 the SEQR subdivision for Loveless Farm 5 Development, LLC. Those who represent 6 please state your name for the record. 7 MR. LEJA: Mr. Chairman, Andrew Leja 8 Barclay Damon, representing the applicant. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Mr. Chairman, per 10 instruction from the Board I was to look 11 at and review the transcript of the 12 proceeding provided by Mr. Drury, from 13 the June 30, 2015 Planning Board 14 analysis of the Part 2 questions, which 15 raised a question of whether or not 16 there was an environmental impact 17 identified and whether it was 18 potentially moderate to large. 19 After which the Planning Board went 20 through and did a review of each of the 21 existing open questions, which had a 22 potentially moderate to large impact. 23 And furthermore did an assessment of 24 those impacts according to the DEC 25 Handbook to evaluate Part 3 and Part 2 161 1 Molnar 2 questions open in terms of determining 3 the impact on the land by way of a 4 magnitude, duration and likelihood. 5 So I went through and I summarized 6 each of the open questions that were 7 reviewed by the Board. It was question 8 1a, question 1b, question 1d and 9 question 1f and so forth, and captured 10 the Board's determination of magnitude, 11 duration and likelihood, and I set those 12 forth. And as they came from the 13 transcript I placed them into this Draft 14 Resolution. 15 The Draft Resolution refers back to 16 the transcript as an Exhibit A, made 17 part of, incorporated in and made part 18 of the Resolution to substantiate and 19 provide the rationale for the Board's 20 determination of significance on each of 21 the items. 22 The discussion points and ultimately 23 the votes on each of those questions 24 presented were long and involved. And I 25 felt and recommend to the Board, that 162 1 Approval of Past Minutes 2 capturing them and retyping them into 3 this resolution was somewhat inefficient. 4 And as a result, I would recommend to 5 the Board that we attach the transcript 6 to the Resolution so that it's part of 7 it. And all of the rationale, the 8 supporting discussions, documentation 9 reviewed, are reflected in full in that 10 Exhibit A transcript. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Scott, I was just 12 going to say, I think as you brought 13 that up, we need to maybe approve the 14 minutes from June 1st, June 8th and June 15 30th, which were part of the Loveless 16 transcript. 17 MR. MOLNAR: I agree with that. I 18 recommend you do that. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: So, at this time 20 we're going to look at the minutes that 21 were from June 1st, 2015. Were there 22 any comments on those? 23 MR. KASPER: The transcript? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 25 MR. SOUTHERN: It is what it is. 163 1 Approval of Past Minutes 2 MR. KASPER: Make a motion to accept 3 June 1st. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion to second. 5 All those in favor say aye. Opposed? 6 (Carried) . 7 Okay, we're going to look at the 8 minutes, or did anyone see any 9 corrections in the June 8, 2015 minutes, 10 or have any comments on them? 11 MR. SOUTHERN: Transcript. 12 MR. KASPER: I'll make a motion. 13 MR. SOUTHERN: Second. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion made and 15 seconded. Discussion? All in favor say 16 aye. Opposed? Carried. And then the 17 June 30, 2015 minutes. Any comments? 18 MS. ESTES: Another transcript. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 20 MR. KASPER: Make a motion to accept 21 them. 22 MR. SOUTHERN: Second. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor say 24 aye. Opposed? Carried. Okay, Scott. 25 MR. MOLNAR: Thank you. So as a 164 1 Molnar Part 3 2 result of last month's meeting or the 3 meeting on June 30th, I took the 4 transcript presented, which are now 5 approved meeting minutes, and I 6 summarized the Board's vote on each of 7 the questions presented, which are open 8 in terms of significance. And that is 9 determining the magnitude, the duration 10 and the likelihood for each of the open 11 items. 12 I did that and prepared a Draft 13 Resolution, which follows the history of 14 the project, and also reviews Part 3 15 presented by the Applicant, that's the 16 full environmental assessment form, 17 which I remind the Board requires as 18 follows: 19 Part 3 provides the reasons in 20 support of the determination of 21 significance. The lead agency must 22 complete Part 3 for every question in 23 Part 2 where the impact has been 24 identified as potentially moderate to 25 large, or where there is a need to 165 1 Molnar Part 3 2 explain why a particular element of the 3 proposed action will not, or may, result 4 in a significant adverse environmental 5 impact. 6 Based on the analysis of Part 3, the 7 lead agency must decide whether to 8 require an environmental impact 9 statement to further assess the proposed 10 action or whether available information 11 is sufficient for the lead agency to 12 conclude that the proposed action will 13 not have a significant adverse 14 environmental impact. By completing the 15 certification on the next page, the lead 16 agency can complete its determination of 17 significance. 18 The form, Part 3, goes on to read, 19 reasons Supporting This Determination: 20 And it states, to complete this section: 21 First bullet point: Identify the 22 impact based on the Part 2 responses and 23 describe its magnitude. Magnitude 24 considers factors such as severity, size 25 or extent of an impact. 166 1 Molnar Part 3 2 Bullet 2: Assess the importance of 3 the impact. Importance relates to the 4 geographic scope, duration, probability 5 of the impact occurring, number of 6 people affected by the impact, and any 7 additional environmental consequences if 8 the impact were to occur. 9 The next bullet point: The 10 assessment should take into 11 consideration any design element or 12 project changes. 13 Next bullet point: Repeat this 14 process for each Part 2 question where 15 the impact has been identified as 16 potentially moderate to large or where 17 there is a need to explain why a 18 particular element of the proposed 19 action will not, or may, result in a 20 significant adverse environmental impact. 21 Next bullet point: Provide the 22 reason(s) why the impact may, or will 23 not, result in a significant adverse 24 environmental impact. 25 Next bullet point: For Conditional 167 1 Molnar Part 3 2 Negative Declarations does not apply to 3 this section, it being a Type 1. 4 And then lastly, bullet point: 5 Attach additional sheets, as needed. 6 So taking the transcript from June 7 30th, I went forward and I marked up 8 page 2 of the Part 3 determination. 9 Well, I marked up page 1 as well. At 10 the bottom you'll note that the SEQR 11 status, this is an action, it's a Type 1 12 action. That classification having been 13 made at the time the Planning Board 14 elected to act as lead agency for the 15 SEQR analysis on a coordinated review 16 based on the fact that the property is 17 located immediately adjacent to a site 18 registered on the National Register of 19 Historic Places. 20 The next bullet point check here is, 21 identify the portions of EAF completed 22 for this project, that is Part 1, Part 2 23 and Part 3. I checked all three boxes. 24 Top of the page 2 of 2. It states, 25 upon review of the information recorded 168 1 Molnar Part 3 2 on this EAF, as noted, plus this 3 additional support information -- and I 4 filled in: Set forth in the Resolution 5 of the Town of Skaneateles Planning 6 Board; SEQR Determination of 7 Significance, with attached Exhibit A. 8 Form continues: And considering 9 both the magnitude and importance of 10 each identified potential impact, it is 11 the conclusion of the Town of 12 Skaneateles Planning Board as lead 13 agency. 14 I moved down and checked Box C. Box 15 C reads: This project may result in one 16 or more significant adverse impacts on 17 the environment, and an environmental 18 impact statement must be prepared to 19 further assess the impact(s) and 20 possible mitigation, and to explore 21 alternatives to avoid or reduce those 22 impacts. Accordingly, this positive 23 declaration is issued. 24 The sections beyond that are: Name 25 of Action: Loveless Farm Subdivision. 169 1 Molnar Part 3 2 Name of Lead Agency: Town of 3 Skaneateles Planning Board. 4 Name of Responsible Officer in Lead 5 Agency: Mark J. Tucker. 6 Title of Responsible Officer: 7 Chairman. 8 Signature of Responsible Officer in 9 Lead Agency: And the space is empty. 10 Dated July 28, 2015. 11 Underneath that I inserted my 12 information as contact person for 13 correspondence. And underneath that is 14 for Type 1 Actions. A copy of this 15 notice must be sent to, and there is 16 instructions for where we need to send 17 it. 18 The proposed Resolution I have 19 inserted as the supporting documentation 20 for the first section on page 2 of 2 of 21 that form, I prepared, as I mentioned, 22 summarizing the June 30th transcript. 23 Prior to the summary of the magnitude, 24 duration and likelihood for the open 25 questions of the moderate to large 170 1 Resolution 2 impacts. 3 I stated several historical whereas 4 recitals. And those recitals are as 5 follows. First paragraph. 6 WHEREAS, Application was made by 7 Loveless Farm Development, LLC, of PO 8 Box 866, Skaneateles New York, 13052. 9 The Applicant for property located at 10 2783 West Lake Road in the Town of 11 Skaneateles, to subdivide two parcels 12 totaling approximately 46.55 acres into 13 a 15 lot Open Space by cluster 14 subdivision, located in the RF Zone and 15 Skaneateles Lake Watershed Overlay 16 District, defined as the Premises, 17 Property or Project, as set forth on a 18 Revised Sketch Plan, dated March 13, 19 2015, prepared by Environmental Design & 20 Research, Landscape Architecture, 21 Engineering & Environmental Services, 22 PC. Defined: EDR. And all of this 23 collectively defines the Application. 24 And WHEREAS, the Application has 25 been reviewed by the Planning Board 171 1 Resolution 2 between May 3, 2010 and July 28, 2015, 3 as a Major Subdivision pursuant to 4 Section 131-3(C), an Open Space 5 Subdivision pursuant to Section 6 148-9(C), and a Conservation Density 7 Subdivision, pursuant to Section 131-6 8 of the Town of Skaneateles Town Code. 9 WHEREAS, pursuant to and in 10 accordance with the New York State 11 Environmental Quality Review Act, 12 6 NYCRR 617 et seq, defined SEQR, at a 13 special meeting called for this purpose 14 held on June 11, 2013, the Planning 15 Board declared its willingness to act as 16 lead agency for coordinated review of 17 the Application, thereafter provided 18 notice of lead agency status on June 13, 19 2013, to all interested agencies having 20 jurisdiction of one or more aspects of 21 the Application, advising all that the 22 Application was classified as a Type 1 23 Action as a result of its location 24 immediately adjacent to a site listed on 25 the National Register of Historic Places 172 1 Resolution 2 under 6 NYCRR 617.4(b)(9), among other 3 reasons, and, therefore subject to 4 coordinated review. 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to and in 6 accordance with SEQR, the Applicant 7 submitted its Full Environmental 8 Assessment Form, updated as of April 3, 9 2014, defined as the FEAF, for 10 consideration by the Planning Board as 11 lead agency, and after making changes to 12 the Project which reduced same to a 13 proposed 15-lot subdivision, the 14 Applicant submitted its Revised Sketch 15 Plans and attachments A-A, B-B and C-C, 16 dated March 13, 2015, collectively the 17 Sketch Plan, advising the Board that 18 such Sketch Plan represents the 19 Applicant's preferred configuration of 20 the said Subdivision; 21 WHEREAS, pursuant to and in 22 accordance with SEQR, the Planning Board 23 reviewed the FEAF and Sketch Plan, and 24 held special meetings on June 1, June 8 25 and June 30, 2015, at which time the 173 1 Resolution 2 Planning Board reviewed Part 1 of the 3 FEAF for accuracy to the Sketch Plan and 4 other aspects of the Application, and 5 further completed Part 2 by answering 6 every question presented in the FEAF, 7 determining where the environmental 8 impact of the Project has been 9 identified as potentially moderate to 10 large, including the reasons and 11 rationale in support of said determination 12 of significance, all as more fully set 13 forth on the record at the Special 14 Meeting of the Planning Board held June 15 30, 2015 at 7:30 p.m., a transcript of 16 which is attached hereto and 17 incorporated herein as Exhibit A, at 18 which time the Planning Board discussed 19 Part 3 of the FEAF in detail, following 20 the format recommended by the New York 21 State Department of Environmental 22 Conservation, defined DEC, under DEC 23 website publication, "Understanding 24 Significance - Full EAF (Part 3), Full 25 Environmental Assessment Form Workbook," 174 1 Resolution 2 determining the key characteristics of 3 possible impacts by magnitude, duration 4 and likelihood; and 5 WHEREAS, in addition to the 6 foregoing, the Planning Board has made 7 site visits to the Property, has reviewed 8 and considered all the material in the 9 Board's file, has heard and considered 10 submissions made on behalf of the 11 Applicant, has heard and considered 12 submissions by the public and other 13 interested parties, has considered the 14 Onondaga County Planning Board 15 Resolutions, and obtained engineering 16 consultation; 17 The next paragraph is in draft. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, upon a motion made by 19 Member ____________, seconded by Member 20 _______________, and upon the 21 affirmative vote of all Members present, 22 and set forth in the Record of Vote 23 referenced below, the Skaneateles 24 Planning Board adopts the (A) Findings 25 and Determination of Significance; and 175 1 Resolution 2 (B) Positive Declaration, requiring 3 preparation of an Environmental Impact 4 Statement, as follows: 5 Section A. Findings and Declaration 6 of Significance. As more particularly 7 described in Exhibit A attached hereto, 8 which details the reasons in support of 9 its determination of significance for 10 all questions answered in Part 2 where 11 the impact has been identified as 12 potentially moderate to large, the 13 Planning Board has determined the 14 magnitude, duration and likelihood of 15 each said Part 2 question, a summary of 16 which are as follows: 17 1. Impact on Land. 18 a. The proposed action may 19 involve construction on land where depth 20 of water was less than three feet. 21 i. Magnitude: Large. 22 ii. Duration, long-term and 23 irreversible. 24 iii. Likelihood: Probably 25 will occur. 176 1 Resolution 2 b. The proposed action may 3 involve construction on slopes of 15 4 percent or greater. 5 i. Magnitude: Large. 6 ii. Duration: Irreversible. 7 iii. Likelihood: Probably 8 will occur. 9 d. The proposed action may 10 involve the excavation and removal of 11 more than 1,000 tons of natural material. 12 i. Magnitude: Large. 13 ii. Duration: Irreversible. 14 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 15 occur. 16 f. The proposed action may result 17 in increased erosion, whether from 18 physical disturbance or vegetation 19 removal (including from treatment from 20 herbicides). 21 i. Magnitude: Large during 22 construction and moderate long term. 23 ii. Duration: Long-term. 24 iii. Likelihood: Possibly will 25 occur. 177 1 Resolution 2 2. Impact on Geological Features: 3 a. Identify the specific land forms: 4 That was identified in full in Exhibit A. 5 i. Magnitude: Large. 6 ii. Duration: Irreversible. 7 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 8 occur. 9 3. Impact on Surface Water. 10 l. Other impacts: (Cumulative) 11 i. Magnitude: Moderate. 12 ii. Duration: Long-term. 13 iii. Likelihood: Possibly will 14 occur. 15 4. Impact on Groundwater. 16 h. Other impacts: 17 i. Magnitude: Moderate. 18 ii. Duration: Long-term. 19 iii. Likelihood: Possibly will 20 occur. 21 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources. 22 Section f. The proposed action may 23 result, directly or indirectly, in 24 increased development potential or 25 pressure on farmland. 178 1 Resolution 2 i. Magnitude: Moderate. 3 ii. Duration: Long-term. 4 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 5 occur. 6 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources. 7 a. The proposed action may be 8 visible from an officially designated 9 federal, state or local scenic or 10 aesthetic resource. 11 i. Magnitude: Large. 12 ii. Duration: Long-term. 13 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 14 occur. 15 9 b. The proposed action may result 16 in the obstruction, elimination or 17 significant screening of one or more 18 officially designated scenic views. 19 i. Magnitude: Large. 20 ii. Duration: Irreversible. 21 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 22 occur. 23 9 c. The proposed action may be 24 visible from publicly accessible vantage 25 points. 179 1 Resolution 2 c.1. Seasonally; and c.2 Year 3 round: 4 i. Magnitude: Large. 5 ii. Duration: Irreversible. 6 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 7 occur. 8 9 d. The situation or activity in 9 which viewers are engaged while viewing 10 the proposed action is: 11 d.1. Recreational or tourism-based 12 activities. 13 i. Magnitude: Moderate. 14 ii. Duration: Irreversible. 15 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 16 occur. 17 9 e. The proposed action may cause a 18 diminishment of the public enjoyment and 19 appreciation of the designated aesthetic 20 resource. 21 i. Magnitude: Moderate. 22 ii. Duration: Irreversible. 23 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 24 occur. 25 9 f. There are similar projects 180 1 Resolution 2 visible within the following distance of 3 the proposed Project (for all location 4 intervals): 5 i. Magnitude: Large. 6 ii. Duration: Long-term. 7 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 8 occur. 9 11. Impact on Open Space and 10 Recreation. 11 11 c. The proposed action may 12 eliminate open space or recreational 13 resources in an area with few such 14 resources. 15 i. Magnitude: Large. 16 ii. Duration: Irreversible. 17 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 18 occur. 19 17. Consistency with Community Plans. 20 d. The proposed action is 21 inconsistent with any county plans or 22 other regional land use plans. 23 i. Magnitude: Large. 24 ii. Duration: Long-term. 25 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 181 1 Resolution 2 occur. 3 18. Consistency with Community Character. 4 d. The proposed action may 5 interfere with the use or enjoyment of 6 officially recognized designated public 7 resources. 8 i. Magnitude: Moderate. 9 ii. Duration: Irreversible. 10 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 11 occur. 12 18 f. The proposed action is 13 inconsistent with the character of the 14 existing natural landscape. 15 i. Magnitude: Large. 16 ii. Duration: Irreversible. 17 iii. Likelihood: Probably will 18 occur. 19 And Section B. Positive Declaration. 20 Based upon the foregoing findings 21 and determination of significance, 22 including the magnitude, duration and 23 likelihood of same as more fully set 24 forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, the 25 Project may result in one or more 182 1 Resolution 2 significant adverse impacts on the 3 environment, and an Environmental Impact 4 Statement must be prepared by the 5 Applicant to further assess the impact(s) 6 and possible mitigation, and to explore 7 alternatives to avoid or reduce those 8 impact(s), and the Planning Board hereby 9 authorizes the Planning Board Chairman 10 to sign the Project FEAF Part 3, issuing 11 a positive declaration that the Project 12 may result in one or more significant 13 adverse impacts on the environment. 14 And that is the end of the Resolution. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Scott, back at the 16 beginning there is just the zip code was 17 13152. 18 MR. MOLNAR: My apologies. By the 19 way, I sent this in Word to Karen late 20 this afternoon, so that she can correct 21 typos and reconcile those items. My 22 apologies. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? 24 MS. ESTES: No, well represented. 25 MR. SOUTHERN: Me too. 183 1 Resolution 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Howard? 3 MR. BRODSKY: Scott, on the geologic 4 features, Items 2 and 3 and 4 where you 5 really rely upon Exhibit A. 6 MR. MOLNAR: We should recite those, 7 state those right now for the record, 8 what those are. 9 MR. BRODSKY: Or at least I'm going 10 to suggest make a more explicit linkage 11 to Exhibit A. 12 MS. ESTES: Where are you? 13 MR. BRODSKY: I'm on the second 14 page. 15 MR. MOLNAR: Impact on geological 16 features. a. 17 MR. BRODSKY: 2. Geologic features. 18 3. Impact on surface water. 4. Impact 19 on groundwater; 2, 3 and 4. Where it's 20 not really characterized as to what your 21 concerns are. They are in Exhibit A. 22 MS. ESTES: Right, Exhibit A is 23 attached to this. 24 MR. MOLNAR: I agree with Howard. 25 And I would observe that during the 184 1 Resolution 2 reading of this Resolution, that Item 2, 3 Impact on geological features should 4 identify what features those are. And 5 for purposes of the magnitude and 6 duration of likelihood impact. 7 If you look on page 78 of the 8 transcript, the question is based on 9 impact. On geological features. "The 10 geological features are the classic V 11 shaped shale ravine that has been cut 12 for the last 10,000 years in the 13 landscape. Steep slopes on both sides, 14 tributary at the bottom going directly 15 to the Lake. And there is the deep 16 woodlands that are going to be 17 fragmented by this bridge getting cut 18 through it." 19 "CHAIRMAN: You're opening up the 20 canopy on the ravine, which changes the 21 way it's shaded." And so forth. 22 MS. ESTES: So you're recommending 23 that just that portion of the Resolution 24 we reference page 78, or the section? 25 MR. BRODSKY: Something more 185 1 Resolution 2 explicit be added. 3 MR. MOLNAR: It says (a). Identify 4 the specific land forms. And the Board 5 did that. The geological features of 6 the classic V shape shale ravine. Steep 7 slopes on both sides, tributary at the 8 bottom, deep woodland, to be fragmented. 9 My question: Are there any other 10 geological features or elements that 11 affect, such as the steep slope on the 12 west side properties or any other 13 elements that come into your thinking? 14 Answer is, I think there were, but maybe 15 you have to look back. 16 MS. ESTES: I think we highlighted 17 at that time the major ones. Individual 18 minors, from the other geologic 19 features. 20 MR. MOLNAR: My recommendation to 21 the Board is that 2 a: Identify the 22 specific land forms, to read as follows: 23 The classic V shaped shale ravine, the 24 steep slopes on both sides, the 25 tributary at the bottom, the deep 186 1 Resolution 2 woodland to be fragmented by the bridge. 3 To which the magnitude, duration and 4 likelihood answers apply. 5 MR. WINKELMAN: Sounds good. 6 MR. SOUTHERN: Yes. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Under Section 3 L, 8 other impacts (cumulative), shall be 9 correctly spelled. Are there any 10 questions from any of the Board Members? 11 Mr. Leja? 12 MR. LEJA: I have a statement to the 13 Board, but perhaps it should wait until 14 the Board has concluded its deliberation 15 of the Resolution. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Somebody to 17 make a motion? 18 MS. ESTES: I'll make a motion that 19 we accept the Resolution as drafted by 20 Scott Molnar with the added comment to 21 question 2. And that we authorize -- do 22 we need to follow this, the same word. 23 We authorize the Planning Board hereby 24 authorizes the Chairman to sign the 25 Project FEAF Part 2, issuing a positive 187 1 Resolution Passed 2 declaration. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second on 4 that? 5 MR. WINKELMAN: I'll second. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: There is a second. 7 Anymore discussion? 8 POLLING THE BOARD BY THE CHAIRMAN: 9 Q. Scott? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Joe? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Beth? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Don? 16 A. Yes. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: And I'm yes. So it 18 carries. Mr. Leja wants to make some 19 comments. 20 MR. LEJA: I'll be very brief, thank 21 you. By now you've heard my comments, 22 my questions, my explanations, my 23 objections, my protests throughout the 24 process as the Board wound its way 25 through the EAF process and considered 188 1 Leja Comments 2 Part 3. 3 I will stand by my original comments 4 that I don't believe the pos dec in this 5 case was justified on the basis of 6 failure to take into account the 7 mitigation that was proposed by the 8 Applicant on multiple occasions 9 throughout the process. And failure to 10 tie the findings to substantial, 11 significant and factual elements of the 12 record before you. 13 I don't believe that the causal 14 connection was established by any 15 evidence in the record. Because the 16 evidence in the record, which has been 17 composed of five years of studies and 18 evaluations requested by this Board and 19 evaluated by this Board and it's design 20 professionals, has yet to register any 21 potentially significant environmental 22 impact that can be scientifically based 23 at all. Having that, you've made your 24 decision. 25 But I would also note of interest, 189 1 Leja Comments 2 that in the hour immediately before this 3 discussion you considered a project 4 immediately adjacent to the Lake 5 involving multiple structures and 6 intervening water course with bridging, 7 roadway relocations, storm water 8 ponding, tennis court and 20,000 square 9 feet residence, roughly equivalent to 10 five or six normal sized homes, and you 11 did it all under the umbrella of a Type 12 2 SEQR declaration. Meaning no 13 environmental impact was adduced at all. 14 I just note that. Thank you. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other business 16 this evening? 17 MR. MOLNAR: I need to connect with 18 Mr. Leja to determine the preparation of 19 a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 20 the proposed timing. The procedures 21 that will all follow and the preparation 22 and the review the circulation of 23 notice, the public hearing on the Draft 24 Environmental Impact Statement. And 25 ultimately how we move the entire 190 1 Leja Comments 2 process forward. So I'll do that with 3 Mr. Leja, and I'll report back to the 4 Board. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. 6 MR. SOUTHERN: Do we need to 7 schedule a meeting or is this going to 8 fall on a regular meeting? 9 MS. ESTES: We'll know that after he 10 meets with him. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't we wait to 12 schedule another meeting. 13 MR. LEJA: I should also note, I do 14 appreciate the Board scheduling their 15 special meetings throughout the month of 16 June and taking the time to consider 17 this, and taking their own time out of 18 their schedules to do so. I would 19 respectfully request that that same 20 courtesy be extended during the DEIS 21 process so as not to drag things out too 22 far. 23 But perhaps counsel Molnar and I 24 should discuss the timing of that, and 25 then as he reports back to the Board you 191 1 Leja Comments 2 can then set your dates accordingly. 3 Thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 5 MR. KASPER: We only have the one 6 meeting in August. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: We've only scheduled 8 one meeting. We'll wait to see what 9 comes in and go by that. Have a site 10 visit on the 8th. 11 MR. KASPER: And I will not be here. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, make a motion 13 to adjourn then. 14 MR. SOUTHERN: Second. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Anymore discussion on 16 that? All in favor say aye. Opposed? 17 Carried. 18 [Conclusion of July 28, 2015 Discussion]. 19 * * * * 20 21 22 23 24 25 192 1 Certificate 2 C E R T I F I C A T E. 3 This is to certify that I am a Certified. 4 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and 5 for the State of New York, that I attended and 6 reported the above entitled proceedings, that I 7 have compared the foregoing with my original 8 minutes taken therein and that it is a true 9 and correct transcript thereof and all of the 10 proceedings had therein. 11 12 _______________________ 13 John F. Drury, CSR, RPR 14 15 Dated: July 31, 2015 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25