|
Save
Wiccopee's Additional Questions for Scoping Session:
The issue of
noise was discussed . We definitely 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.
We have a great
concern about any airborne, or water borne run off, from possible
contaminants during digging, testing, and disturbance at this site.
We also 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 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.
Air quality, in
regards to fumes and airborne pollutants, should be studied as far as
airflow directions (different days and time of days), speed, distances
of travel, etc.
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 studied.
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.
On proposed
scoping document… page 16, K. Visual Quality 3. Mitigation measures…
should study impact on historic hamlet, fencing, 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.
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… there is a note stating that there is no
record of any site plan approval... nor has site ever been improved
(landscaped, parking marked, etc.)
We know there is
at least one resident that would like to comment on this proposed
scoping document, whom is away on vacation. Therefore we would like to
request that public input on this stay open for a short while.
We also request
that public input on the revised scoping document be open as we have,
not to date, seen the revised document and we expect there be some
additions from these and other comments received this evening.
Sincerely. Save
Wiccopee Organization
Residents of the Wiccopee Hamlet and Wiccopee area.
|