Additional input from Save Wiccopee on the
Scanlon proposed gas station - Wiccopee
Dated: Tuesday, March 23, 2004:
At Tuesday's March
Hearing on scoping session for the proposed Wiccopee gas station, Save
Wiccopee presented the following list of additional concerns. The East Fishkill ZBA
Board will have the Town planner review the scoping document and hope to
have a revised possible final available by the end of April 2004. They
said they would accept public input till April 13th... but we question
this as we will not be able to review the revised document if it's not
available until the end of April.
Save Wiccopee's March 23rd Input for Scoping Session:
A number of issues Save Wiccopee and the residents have raised are still not addressed in the revised scoping document. Mr. Day has made really minimal changes in the revised scoping document.
The issue of noise pollution is still not addressed adequately in the scoping document. We want a study of all sources of noise; levels, times of day, days of week. Both during and after construction.
Documentation what was brought in this site, and from where, will be difficult, if not impossible. Though a previous study was done, we request additional testing be done to look for contaminants at various, and deeper levels than were previously tested and also “down stream” from site in the aquifer to look for any leeching and plume from this site.
Revised Scoping document only calls for testing of water at the existing well for the store.
We have a great concern about any airborne, or water borne run off, from possible contaminants during digging, testing, and disturbance at this site during the D/EIS. What mitigation will be done to minimize this?
Existing spills should be reported on in a 3 mile range not just a 1 mile area as suggested in the revised scoping document.
We do not agree with the applicant’s representative, that geophysical surveys will show false positives. It is our understanding that these tests are indeed quite accurate, when done correctly, and will no doubt discover that this is a lot of questionable material at this site. In addition, these tests will help to locate some of the locations of items that a random digging may not find. Remembering or guessing at where various items are buried is a poor choice when other alternatives are available.
Who will verify discovery and all tests results?
We also feel that a depth of 7 feet is inadequate to locate many of the questionable items at the site, that a depth of 10 feet be considered for any discovery digging.
Impact on air quality and pollution, in regards to fumes and airborne pollutants, should be studied as far as airflow directions (different days and time of days), speed, specify the possible chemicals released into the air, and distances of travel, etc. Amount of fumes released during storage tanks filling should be defined.
The proposed scoping document does not address the potential damage to the older houses in Wiccopee Hamlet during any construction. As many of the houses have fieldstone foundations, plaster walls and the like, we want to know the potential for damage.
This question was asked at the public hearing on the scoping document… from page 2 of proposed scopng document. “Mitigation measures that are not incorporated into the proposed action should be discussed as to why the applicant considers them unnecessary.” – We want to know what these are? What is considered unnecessary?
On proposed scoping document… page 4, III. Description of the Proposed Action, Item C. Project Location, Description and Environmental Setting… Item 1. We request that this study area be expanded to include a 2 1/2-mile radius as the impact will be at least this far.
On proposed scoping document… page 5, I. Construction and Operation: Repeating… Noise – types, amount, hours, days, etc. should be reported.
On proposed scoping document… page 5, we, Save Wiccopee and the residents of the Wiccopee area are indeed interested in reviewing the DEIS when submitted.
On proposed scoping document… page 6, IV Impact issues. 1. Existing Conditions. E. Discuss know and anticipated nearby developments within 1/2 mile of project… we suggest this be expanded to be 2 1/2 miles as there are many projects in this distance that will have some bearing.
On proposed scoping document… page 6, IV Impact issues. 2. Potential Impacts. B. Cumulative Impacts listed at one-half mile… should be studied to 2 1/2 miles.
On proposed scoping document… page 9 Groundwater resources. 1. C. Water demand. II. Identify developments within one mile… we request that this be studied to 2 1/2 miles.
On proposed scoping document… page 15, Item 3… sewage disposal should include a detailed impact study on neighboring properties, groundwater level and quality, and possible odors. Already since the site filling in the 1980’s many residents have issues with water in basements.
On proposed scoping document… page 16, K. Visual Quality 3. Mitigation measures… should study impact on historic hamlet, fencing, screening, what would be done to retain garbage within site, architectural details for proposal.
There needs to be a study as to quantity of chemicals that will leech off the blacktop surfaces and enter both into the stream, aquifer and groundwater.
Since this proposal will remove much of the land used for parking at the existing store, and that much of that parking area is already now no longer usable due to a septic field ringed by rocks… we would like to have some idea of the use of the existing store building in the future as it already negatively impacts traffic in the Hamlet with illegal on-street parking.
Also we’d like to know the loss of parking and impact on entry and exit on this site should the state decide to expand Route 52 to a three or four lane highway sometime in the future.
We have some grave concerns about why this proposal is still going forward. According to a letter dated December 4, 2003, in the proposal file at the East Fishkill Zoning and Planning office, from the applicant’s engineer… “At this point it appears that the Special Use Permit was never obtained.”
Also in the file, in response to a Freedom of Information filing as to whether or not there was ever a final site plan approval for when site use was changed in the 1980’s… the formal response from the Town of East Fishkill is that site owner/applicant never obtained final site approval nor improved this site.
And… this review should examine and discuss alternative projects for this site that are not so negative and are more appropriate to the property size, and the historical and residential nature of the area. We feel that this proposed use is inappropriate, has major negative impacts, is too large a project for this site and that alternatives should be reviewed in the DEIS.
Since the revised scoping document has not addressed many of these issues, we ask that public input be left open to review additions to the revised scoping document from tonight’s hearing.
Save Wiccopee/Wiccopee.org All Rights