Good morning all
Just look who's guarding the hen house in Patterson?
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.comPatterson
wetland protector charged with harming wetland
By MICHAEL RISINIT
mrisinit@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: December 2, 2005)
PATTERSON — Wetlands, wrote Patterson business owner
Carmine L. Labriola last year in a local business
magazine, are like kidneys. They protect and purify the
ecosystem, and abusing them, like mistreating your
kidneys, carries a steep price tag.
Labriola could find out just how steep next week,
when he, as the owner of Realife Land Improvement, is
due in Town Court for disturbing wetlands on his
Commerce Drive property. Labriola said yesterday that he
regretted the situation and apologized.
Patterson authorities said Labriola had tried to
drain a wetland with trenches, filled sections with
construction debris and built a road through the area.
In addition, he has a mound of top soil and several
metal shipping containers parked on his land — all
no-nos, according to the town.
Patterson Town Planner Rich Williams issued Labriola
a stop-work order last month and mailed him a ticket
earlier this week requiring him to appear in court
Tuesday.
Supervisor Michael Griffin said the town wanted the
property remediated and for Labriola to pay a fine.
Labriola, who lists his environmental credentials on his
company's Web site, was cited for two violations — the
topsoil pile and the wetlands disturbance. Each can
carry a fine of up to $10,000, according to the town
code.
"We need people to understand they can't do things
like this," Griffin said.
Labriola said he "should have known better." He said
he planned to meet with the town and the state
Department of Environmental Conservation to talk about
remediation. Labriola said he also has hired Tim Miller
Associates of Cold Spring as a wetlands consultant.
"I don't disagree with them," he said. "Our intention
is to restore and remediate the situation."
Commerce Drive sits off Fair Street near Interstate
84 and is home to several light industrial enterprises,
including Eastern Jungle Gym and an Utz snack food
distribution center. Williams said he noticed the work
on the wetland when he was driving by recently on the
interstate. The rear and side of Labriola's property are
visible from Fair Street. Photographs by the town show
where vegetation had been removed and sod or other
material deposited.
"The grade is much higher than the surrounding
wetlands," Williams said.
Labriola said he had cut back invasive plants, such
as phragmites — the tall reeds that fill in the region's
wetlands — to raise wetland plantings for horticultural
use. The stockpiled soil, he said, was for the company's
job replacing the Fair Street bridge at John Simpson
Road.
The company's Web site, www.realifeland.com, lists
dozens of other projects that have been completed
throughout the region for various municipalities,
agencies and organizations.
Disturbing a wetland impairs its abilities to filter
contaminants from the water and absorb floodwaters. The
importance of wetlands, Labriola pointed out in the June
2004 Westchester County Business Journal, is evident in
the proliferation of regulations.
"To better assess wetland protection and the growing
importance of water quality concerns, new industries are
forming to guide business and property owners through
the new regulations that are now imposed by agencies and
departments at virtually every level of government," he
wrote.
$9.2M sewage plant on agenda
By MICHAEL RISINIT
mrisinit@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
If you go
The Patterson Town Board will hold a hearing tomorrow
night on plans to build a sewage treatment plant that
would serve Covington Greens, Patterson Village Cornwall
Meadows, the Carmel school district offices, the Matthew
Paterson Elementary School and about a dozen
establishments on Front Street. The hearing will start
at 7:30 p.m. in the Patterson Recreation Center at the
end of Front Street.
August 3, 2005
Sections of Couch Road paved - New York Journal News
Article
And the paving goes on
Ann Fanizzi
$9.2M sewage plant on agenda
By MICHAEL RISINIT
mrisinit@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
If you go
The Patterson Town Board will hold a hearing tomorrow
night on plans to build a sewage treatment plant that
would serve Covington Greens, Patterson Village Cornwall
Meadows, the Carmel school district offices, the Matthew
Paterson Elementary School and about a dozen
establishments on Front Street. The hearing will start
at 7:30 p.m. in the Patterson Recreation Center at the
end of Front Street.
(Original publication: August 9, 2005)
PATTERSON — Dina McGrory and her family moved to
Patterson from the Bronx just two weeks ago, attracted
by the school system and the quiet neighborhood. She
said she's familiar with the neighborhood because her
sister lives nearby.
What she needs to learn about, she said, is the
town's proposal for a new sewage treatment plant — an
undertaking officials said could cost homeowners up to
$1,200 a year.
"I'm interested in what they have to say, if it's
worth it," she said, referring to tomorrow night's
hearing.
Signs informing residents about the hearing are
posted in McGrory's townhome complex, Covington Greens,
as well as in Patterson Village and Cornwall Meadows.
The plant, which would serve the 243 homes in the
complexes along with the Carmel school district offices,
the Matthew Paterson Elementary School and about a dozen
establishments on Front Street, is estimated to cost
$9.2 million.
The new facility would produce cleaner effluent than
the existing sewage plants and septic systems and would
be town-operated — meaning the private complexes would
no longer be responsible for maintenance or
environmental cleanups.
About 80 percent of the cost is already covered.
Borrowing the remainder, almost $2 million, means
passing some costs onto homeowners. Based on a 20-year
bond, those owning a one-bedroom home would pay about
$600 a year and those with two bedrooms would pay $1,200
a year.
A message on the community board outside Town Hall
asks residents to attend tomorrow's meeting. The
hearing's purpose, Supervisor Michael Griffin said, is
to determine whether residents are interested in moving
ahead with the 5-year-old project.
Based on the discussion at the hearing, the Town
Board could pass a permissive referendum, which means
the bond will not have to be approved by the public
unless a resident gathers enough signatures within 30
days to force a vote.
Two things, Griffin said, can kill the project: a
good amount of public opposition or an effort to force a
public vote on the plan. The town's bid price for the
work is good for about a month.
"Either way, it's a dead issue," Griffin said. "It
costs money just to rebid and prices are getting higher
and higher."
If the $9.2 million price tag is out of reach, he
said, another one developed in a few months would be
even higher. Most of the funds on hand, about $4
million, are coming from the city's Department of
Environmental Protection. That money would still be
spent by the city on upgrading the existing Patterson
Village and Cornwall Meadow facilities, if the larger
plant is not built. Most of the town sits in the city's
watershed.
DEP spokesman Ian Michaels said it's unlikely
homeowners would save money if the larger plant isn't
built because they will still be responsible for
operating and maintenance costs on the smaller, upgraded
facilities.
"We'll be disappointed if it doesn't go through," he
said. "From a water-quality perspective, it's an
important project."
Putnam County is contributing about $2.1 million and
$463,500 is coming from the Army Corps of Engineers. The
town is supplying the remainder of the $7.4 million
already on hand.
Martin McGreevy, who also lives in Covington Greens,
said the town should sell the land where its Front
Street disposal system sits and use that to offset the
costs. The town took those four lots from a developer
several years ago in lieu of recreation fees and built a
septic system to serve the businesses on Front Street.
"I have no objections to the sewer," he said. "I'm
interested in what they're going to say."
August 3, 2005
Neighbors suspicious of Patterson's barn-demolition
deadline - New York Journal News Article
Barn burning in Patterson
Ann Fanizzi
A Collection of Letters
Regarding Patterson Crossing:
Fighting a Mall in Putnam County
New York Times
July 24, 2005
To the Editor:
I have lived in Lake Carmel, N.Y., with my husband
and son for
several years. After reading "A Quest for Green, Not
Asphalt" (July
17), I was disappointed that nothing was said about the
significant
Stop Patterson Crossing movement organized by the Lake
Carmel
community. These are the folks who are on the front
lines, defending
a way of life against irreversible and potentially
dangerous changes
in the guise of a seriously oversized retail center.
With stormwater runoff and burgeoning impervious
surfaces (parking
lots) in Putnam County already a serious problem, to add
even one
more acre, let alone more than 30 acres of blacktop on a
densely
populated hillside atop a lake, is simply an unwise and
ill-
conceived idea. Couldn't something more concordant with
the
surrounding area be envisioned?
Kathleen M. Day
Lake Carmel, N.Y.
An Unwanted Mall in Our Backyard
New York Times
July 31, 2005
To the Editor:
"A Quest for Green, Not Asphalt" (July 17) does not
include the opinions of
the hard-working citizens of Lake Carmel, Kent and
Carmel, people who are not
running for public office, yet joined together defending
against a giant
assault on their way of life and their hard-worked-for
homes.
We banded together to represent ourselves, because we
know that our elected
representatives are not standing up for the right thing
for our community. We
are aware that a big-box mall, nearly half the size of
Lake Carmel itself, will
bring crime into our community and increase air
pollution with 1,200
additional cars predicted per hour on the two-lane Route
311, diminishing the
well-being of our seniors, ailing neighbors and
children.
We learned that higher taxes are the burden we will
carry for years to come,
whereas developers and retailers benefit from tax breaks
and tax incentives
for years to come. None of the sales tax will go to the
towns of Kent, Patterson
or Carmel, yet maintenance costs will be higher for the
towns to keep up
roads and provide emergency response.
We do not want this big-box mall in our backyard.
Johanna Groepl
Harry Hitner
Carmel, N.Y.
July 29, 2005
Stop Patterson Crossing Ad
To: Don Hall
Re: Patterson Crossing
From: Ann Fanizzi
Stop Patterson Crossing Ad
July 20, 2005
state: Quarry may expand - New York Journal News
Article
Singing the Praises of Country
Life
NEW YORK TIMES
June 26, 2005
By ELSA BRENNER
FOR Cindy and Mica Block, the move north last year from
the notoriously upscale Scarsdale to the rural, low-key
town of Patterson in northeastern Putnam County was both
a financial and a lifestyle decision.
Sixteen months ago, the Blocks sold their
three-bedroom home in central Westchester for $999,000
and bought a five-bedroom farmhouse for $512,000 in
unpretentious Patterson, 65 miles north of Manhattan.
They made close to a half million dollars in the deal
and are now paying far less per month for a mortgage.
For Mrs. Block, it means she is able to continue to
stay home to raise the couple's two daughters, Jessica,
almost 7, and Hannah, 5. As for Mr. Block, a technical
director for a software company, he is working from a
home office most days, and does not mind the occasional
hour-and-a-half ride by car or train to New York City.
"All around, it couldn't be better," Mrs. Block said.
She praises the low-key atmosphere of country living,
the drivers who rarely honk their horns and who even let
you go first once in a while, and the variety of new
friends from different socioeconomic classes that she is
meeting. Also, she noted, when she takes her daughters
on play dates, she gets to meet other stay-at-home
mothers like herself, instead of just the nannies of her
children's friends.
"It's all so refreshing here, so unlike your typical
upscale Westchester town," she said. "I feel like my
blood pressure has dropped way down."
There is, however, a debate unfolding over a proposed
435,000-square-foot shopping center called Patterson
Crossing on 90 acres at the junction of Interstate 84
and Route 311. The Patterson Chamber of Commerce, which
represents businesses in Patterson and nearby towns,
supports the proposal, claiming a new shopping center
would create jobs and generate taxes for the county, the
town and the Carmel Central School District.
But local environmentalists say the shopping center
would degrade the rural nature of the community and draw
too many people to the town, which now has a population
of 11,400.
Paul A. Camarda, the developer, said the proposed
location of Patterson Crossing just off the interstate
would minimize the impact of traffic on Patterson's
country roads. "Shoppers will get off the interstate,
shop, and get back on," he said.
Michael Griffin, the town's supervisor, says he is
taking an unbiased stance. "I like what I've seen so
far," said Mr. Griffin, a Republican who has held the
town's top office since 1994. "But it's way too early to
jump to any conclusions."
What You'll Find
Upon entering Patterson, one is struck this time of
year by the abundance of greenery and the uninterrupted
stretches of wooded areas, with development set back on
large lots away from the road.
Located just south of Dutchess County, Patterson
straddles Route 22, a roadway lined with restaurants and
businesses that wends its way north from Interstate 684
in Westchester toward the foothills of the Berkshire
Mountains. With Interstate 84 near its western boundary
and Connecticut to the east, the town includes a mix of
picturesque horse farm estates, relatively prosaic
housing developments and a community of modest
wood-frame homes surrounding Putnam Lake.
Most of the residential areas are zoned for four
acres, although the building lots in some areas, like
the neighborhood around the lake, are far smaller, said
Richard Williams, the town's planner.
Also, 15 percent of the town is wetlands, and
therefore not developable, he said. Patterson is home to
a 23-acre portion of the 6,000-acre Great Swamp, the
second-largest wetland area in New York State.
For now, while the shopping center proposal is still
on the drawing board, there is minimal shopping in town
except for an occasional strip mall, the development
along Route 22 and a few stores scattered next to the
Patterson station of the Metro-North Railroad. For a
department store or a discount center, one must travel
to Westchester, Dutchess or Fairfield Counties.
What You'll Pay
"The minute you come over the border from Westchester
to Putnam," said Anne H. Ladau, an associate broker for
Houlihan Lawrence's office in Brewster, "you're saving
money."
In Patterson, the median sale price of a
single-family home during the first quarter of this year
was $410,000, up from $285,000 in 2002, according to
figures from the Westchester-Putnam Multiple Listing
Service. By comparison, the first-quarter median sales
price of a single-family home in Westchester was
$615,000.
For condominiums in Patterson, the first-quarter
median price was $277,500, up from $183,750 for the same
period in 2002. By comparison, the first-quarter median
for condos in Westchester was $354,000.
The smaller houses surrounding Putnam Lake, which
were built as summer homes but have since been
winterized and now serve residents year-round, offer
ownership opportunities for first-time home buyers.
Leslie Burkhardt, a real estate agent with Century 21
V.J.F. Realty in Brewster, has just listed a
four-bedroom, one-and-a-half-bath Cape Cod on a
0.40-acre-lot that is "literally a stone's throw from
the lake," she said. It is listed at $349,999, with
1,600 square feet of living space, and Ms. Burkhardt
said she is marketing the house to young families and
retirees.
At the other end of the spectrum, a new
three-bedroom, three-and-a-half-bath colonial in
Patterson is on the market for $1.485 million. It is
situated on a 10.5-acre lot and has 3,744 square feet of
living space.
More typical of the listings available, according to
Mrs. Ladau at Houlihan Lawrence, is a new four-bedroom,
two-and-a-half bath colonial selling for $728,000. It
has 3,300 square feet and is being built at Windsor
Woods, a new development.
What to Do
Not only does Patterson have slim pickings when it
comes to shopping, it is also far from a happening place
at night, offering little in the way of restaurants or
other entertainment. But it does have at least one
bright culinary draw along Route 22: the more than
30-year-old Texas Taco, a funky Mexican cafe with a
patio for outdoor dining. Adding to the ambience, the
restaurant's parking lot is home to a number of brightly
colored and hand-decorated vehicles.
For outdoors enthusiasts and nature lovers, there are
abundant choices in town. Patterson owns and operates
the 23-acre Patterson Environmental Park/Great Swamp, a
nature preserve in the Great Swamp that offers hiking,
fishing and canoeing. The Great Swamp itself stretches
through the towns of Southeast, Patterson, Pawling and
Dover.
Also, the William Clough Nature Preserve has 63 acres
of trails for hiking. Green Chimneys Farm and Wildlife
Conservation Center in nearby Brewster offers tours,
horseback riding lessons and summer day camps.
In winter, the Thunder Ridge Ski Area bills itself as
a "family skiing" center with ski lessons and 30 trails
geared for a variety of skill levels.
The Schools
Three different school districts serve Patterson
residents - Carmel, Brewster and Pawling Central School
Districts. Most of the students in Patterson, however,
attend Carmel schools, where out of the current
graduating class of 350 seniors, 59 percent are headed
for four-year colleges and 30 percent to two-year
colleges, said Susan Dieck, a spokeswoman for the Carmel
schools.
In all, there are six schools in the district: a
primary school, two elementary schools, a middle school,
the high school and an alternative school.
Last year, students taking the SAT tests at Carmel
High School scored an average of 525 on the verbal
section and 525 for the math test. Statewide, the
averages last year were 496 for verbal and 510 for math.
Mrs. Block said she and her husband originally chose
Scarsdale as a place to bring up their children because
of the strong reputation of its schools and its
students' high average performance scores.
But the Blocks rethought the issue, she said,
deciding that others factors besides test scores should
be considered when evaluating school systems, including
the "overall emotional tone of the learning experience,"
she said.
For example, many schools offer full day kindergarten
for children, although Carmel does not.
"And I'm glad it doesn't," Mrs. Block said, "because
for some children, a full day is too much. When Jessica
came home after a full day of kindergarten in Scarsdale,
she was overtired and unhappy."
History
The area that is now Putnam was purchased in the late
1600's from the Wappinger Indians by Dutch speculators;
it was sold several years later to Adolph Philipse, a
wealthy merchant's son, and became known as the Philipse
Patent.
The town took on the name of Paterson in the early
1800's to honor Matthew Paterson, a Scottish immigrant
who went on to become a state legislator. Like one of
the schools in Patterson, Matthew Paterson Elementary,
the town used to spell its name with one "t." But in the
mid-1900's, the name was changed to "Patterson" because
residents' mail was being mistakenly delivered to
Paterson, N.J.
The Commute
The ride during weekday peak hours on the Metro-North
Railroad from Patterson to Grand Central Terminal is
about 90 minutes. Round-trip tickets cost $30.50;
monthly commutation tickets are $321.
Also, Patterson is next to Interstate 84, which
intersects with Interstate 684 in Westchester and then
connects with north-south roads into Manhattan.
What We Like
As Mrs. Ladau, the real estate agent, said, driving
along Patterson's country roads feels as if you have
entered "a town that time forgot" - a simple town
without frills, yet still within commuting distance to
Manhattan.
What We'd Change
While restaurants like Texas Taco have good food and
can be very entertaining, a few more choices in town
would be welcome.
June 26, 2005
GREAT MEETING on SAT
From: edinputnam <edinputnam@yahoo.com>
To: stoppattersoncrossing@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [stoppattersoncrossing] GREAT MEETING on SAT
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:31:14 -0000
Hello All:
We had a terrific informational rally yesterday. Many
new faces were
in the audience and almost all signed up to volunteer in
our effort.
We have a great new information packet concerning
Jobs, Quality of
Life, and Taxes. You need to see these to believe how
much impact this
project would have on our lake and community. I will
send out a new notice as
soon as it is available on the web. In the mean time,
get involved and start
educating your neighbors as to the reality of this
project.
Thanks,
THE STOP PATTERSON CROSSING GROUP
June 19, 2005
IMPORTANT! Flyer for 6/25
Meeting
Hello All Friends of STOP PATTERSON CROSSING:
Here is a great flyer to promote the Rally/Update
Meeting being held next Saturday at 10:30 AM. Please
print out this flyer and distribute it to all your
friends and neighbors. This is a crucial meeting so
please come and urge everyone you know to attend.
We need your help.
The flyer is made to print out in 2 pages for
xeroxing
the map on the back if you want to. One look at the
map is all you need to convince people about this
project.
Thanks,
The Steering Committee for STOP PATTERSON CROSSING
Asphalt patches irk folks on
Patterson's Couch Road
By MICHAEL RISINIT
mrisinit@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: May
11, 2005)
PATTERSON — Some of Couch Road's potholes are now
patched with asphalt, a move eliciting complaints from
residents of the dirt road fighting to keep it that way
and one forcing the town highway chief to explain his
actions in court.
But Town Attorney Tim Curtiss said the work performed
last week on Couch Road was just routine maintenance —
allowed to proceed despite legal action over the road's
status — and he expects the whole case to be thrown out
before Highway Superintendent Charles Williams has to
answer a contempt order. Residents, however, continue to
keep an eye on the road they want to remain free of
blacktop.
"It's not routine maintenance when you start taking
down someone's stone wall," said longtime resident Edie
Keasbey, referring to the removal of some stones last
week. "They're sacrosanct."
A proposed scenic-road ordinance that Couch Road
residents hope would block the paving plans was
scheduled for a Town Board vote tonight. Supervisor
Michael Griffin said yesterday that the ordinance
probably would be tabled, because officials were still
working on the language.
The battle over paving started in the fall, when
Williams had workers cover sections of the road with
pieces of ground-up blacktop in preparation for paving.
In March, resident Karen Correll filed a lawsuit
against the town, contending that the necessary
environmental study hadn't been done on the plan to pave
the approximately mile-long byway.
State Supreme Court Justice Andrew O'Rourke dismissed
Correll's suit April 28. On May 2, her lawyer, Martin
Ashley, filed paperwork to reargue the case on whether
the town's review considered the paving's effect on the
neighborhood's character. Ashley said town employees
commenced work on the road that day and continued until
Thursday. O'Rourke cited Williams for contempt on
Thursday, a day after he issued a stop-work order.
The work was described as cleaning culverts and
opening swales, "which was certainly not true," Ashley
said. "It exceeded anything ever seen before on Couch
Road," he said.
A drive down Couch Road yesterday found spots patched
with blacktop, some shoulders scraped free of vegetation
and smoothed, and an approximately 2-inch lip cut into
the edge of Route 164 at the road's southern end.
The road runs between Route 164 and Cornwall Hill
Road and could be considered a shortcut between the two
main roads.
About six homes line Couch Road, which is named for
Hezekiah Couch, a farmer and the town's first highway
superintendent.
Williams has said a paved road would be easier to
maintain and safer for the cars, school buses and
emergency vehicles that travel it. Residents of the
road, however, contend that a smoother surface will just
bring faster, more dangerous traffic.
Williams on Monday declined to comment on the latest
developments. Curtiss, the town attorney, said he thinks
the complaint will be dismissed because the state's
regulations concerning aesthetic issues and preserving
neighborhood character mainly deal with the visual
impact created by adding a structure to the landscape.
Laying blacktop on a road, he said, doesn't qualify.
Both sides are due in Supreme Court in Carmel on May
20.
05/06/2005
The Couch Road Saga and perhaps ending
for this day..but None is forth coming
From: Yaggi, Marc <MYaggi@law.pace.edu>
To: Geesewatch@aol.com <Geesewatch@aol.com>
Subject: [RW list] FW: The Couch Road Saga and perhaps
ending for this day..but None is forth coming
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:58:16 -0400
<< Message from the Riverkeeper Watershed mailing
list >>
This is in reference to the Couch Road paving issue in
Patterson. Please
give Edie a hand and make a phone call!
Subject: The Couch Road Saga and perhaps ending for
this day..but None is
forth coming
While the trucks continued back and forth on the
road, Tim Curtiss the
town attorney stated he had an agreement with Charlie to
pull the trucks
off the road this afternoon at quitting time..Then
apparently Charlie
called Curtiss back and said no, he would not be
finished until Friday
afternoon..and he was going ahead..where upon Karen and
Martin our
attorney went back to the Court and Martin huddled in
chambers with
Judge O'Rourke and O'Rourke rewrote in long hand a
amended order to show
cause to stop...And guess what? Charlie is out there
filling the pot
holes with asphalt..and ignoring everything.. Edie
this is what I wrote earlier..
We obtained an injunction to stop the paving of Couch
Road yesterday,
they ignored it, we are back in court, meanwhile the
highway dept
continue to scrape the road, widen it, and get it ready
for paving
tomorrow (we are told that) I am asking a favor, please
pick up the
phone and call 845-878-6500 and call Mike Griffin,
supervisor, to put a
stop to this totally unnecessary expenditure of over
$200,000 of OUR
money to pave a road no one wants paved except Charlie
Williams..This is
the most crazy miscarriage of justice I have ever known,
the man is a
mad man. Thank you..
05/06/2005
Stop Patterson Crossing Motor-Tour
From: Jeff Green <jeff@planputnam.org>
To: PlanPutnam <planputnam@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: stoppattersoncrossing@yahoogroups.com; "Patterson
Crossing PR Group": ;
Subject: [stoppattersoncrossing] Stop Patterson Crossing
Motor-Tour of Possible High Traffic Areas
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 18:22:06 -0400
! Please Post !
Friends,
The long awaited (first)
"Motor-tour of Kent and Patterson"
will be held
Saturday, May 7th - 12:30 PM Sharp!
Here's the deal:
First off, your input and assistance is essential.
Since this is our first public event we don't really
need to be crazy about it. Consider this a test-run for
future events in our efforts to maintain some of the
country where the country is supposed to begin.
Second: I've chosen a 26 mile circuit that will bring
us past some of the areas where traffic may be a problem
if the Patterson Crossing Sprawl*Mall is built - and
maybe a surprise as well.
Third: We'll meet Saturday - rain or shine - at the
Shoprite Plaza on the Kent/Carmel line (Route 52), at
the southern end beyond Orange Pool Supplies where no
one ever parks and will leave there at 12:30 SHARP. So,
when you're done with your weekly shopping, move your
vehicle to that end of the lot so you can free up spaces
for others who are Shopping Putnam!
Here's what we need:
Volunteers:
We'll need volunteers to be at major intersections we
will be passing through (there are 5) to hold up signs
that will serve two purposes:
1) to allow our fellow motor-tourists to know where
to turn and
2) let passersby know why there's so much traffic!
Volunteers will ride in a lead vehicle(s) and be
picked up by a collection vehicle at the end of the
group(s). We can recycle volunteers at the regrouping
areas, of which there are three, so we won't need but a
few. We'll need someone to drive a follow-vehicle with
room for the volunteers who, if the weather prediction
holds, will be wet and cold and possibly cranky. If you
want to volunteer please contact me ASAP.
Signs:
We need signs that say things like:
"Traffic Courtesy of Patterson Crossing"
or
"Here's what 1200 cars per hour looks like"
And be small enough to fit in a car window (legally)
and/or be attached to the outside of our vehicles so
we're clearly identified along the way.
We have some bumper stickers available - (they're a
couple of bucks) and will pass a hat to collect what we
can to further the mission.
Here are the rules:
We will drive at the posted speed limits and allow
legal follow spacing between cars. (remember your
learner's permit book?)
There should be no honking of horns, loud music or
yelling or shouting out of windows. Okay? Good. Wave.
Smile. Be happy.
We're not Connecticut drivers who are exempt from
traffic laws so you'll have to use your turn signals at
the appropriate times and places.
If it's raining, your headlights should be on (state
law, and a good one)
If you *must* make a phone call while enroute, you
are required to use a hands free device. (Sometimes I
think I'm the only one who does.)
No Negativity! If we maintain a high level of decorum
it only helps.
Our goal is not to break or "push" the law but to
visit the places that will be affected by traffic coming
in and out of Patterson Crossing. Okay? Understood?
Good.
Stop signs require full stops, not "California Stops"
and, if you insist on 'Right on Red' at the traffic
lights we'll be turning at, please, again, come to a
full, complete stop before turning. (By the way, 'Right
on Red' is not mandatory.)
Don't worry if people get in our line, they'll just
become part of the tour for a while.
Route maps will be provided on Saturday. For ease of
navigation we'll break into smaller groups and each lead
car will get one.
If you're in a lead car please time your drive
through lights and stop signs to allow others in your
group to get back with you. (this may mean pulling over
for a moment to allow others to catch up.) But, these
smaller groups should be no more than a few cars each
making this pretty simple.
Questions? Suggestions?
Call 363-4308 or 225-2104 for more information or
send email.
My cellphone number is 914 589-6966 - you'll need it
on Saturday.
Jeff
PS: The other day I heard a rumor that the motor-tour
will be going to Ridgefield, CT to the cul-de-sac where
Putnam's favorite developer lives. Now, I don't know
where that rumor got started, certainly not from me, and
since it didn't I cannot confirm its validity. It is,
after all, just an unsubstantiated rumor. Rumors are
bad!
05/06/2005
Letter - Patterson Crossing
Good morning all - in case you missed it, great
letter on Camarda' mega-wreck, Patterson Crossing, by
Coalition contributor and Lake Carmel resident, Joan
Castiner which appeared in last week's Putnam Courier.
Really says it all. Let's have more like this and Liz''s
bullseye letter in the Journal News.
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
Thanks again for contributions received. There is a
great deal to do and every bit contributed is a step
toward reaching our goal. Hope everybody read about the
$20 million Open Space Bond Referendum in the Journal
News.
Eric Gross
Staff ReporterPutnam County Courier
I’m writing in response to last week’s
article “Developer ‘Costco is eager to locate in Putnam
County’”. My husband and I live in Lake Carmel near the
proposed Patterson Crossing. We moved upstate from New
York City almost 13 years ago in the hopes of finding a
less polluted and congested environment. We are both
retirees and have hopes of living out our twilight years
in this community.
Our opposition to the Patterson Crossing
is a result of many concerns. The location of this
proposed 90 acre mall, the size of 130 soccer fields, is
near the Patterson-Kent line. However, the entrance and
exit will actually be on Kent lands.
One third of the site will be buildings
and parking for over 2,000 cars. The remaining land
denuded of many existing trees will not only destroy our
buffer from highway noise but will also exacerbate
erosion and sedimentation from the slopes.
Carmarda’s projected school tax relief of
$750,000 would equal less than 1 % of the $77 million
Carmel School District Budget. Does this $50 a year per
household tax relief compensate for ruining our small
business, overloading our infrastructure of our roads,
overtaxing our emergency services, using Echo Road as an
emergency route thus risking the safety of nearby Lake
Carmel residents and their children, and jeopardizing
hard earned property values.
Mr. Carmarda, the developer of Patterson
Crossing, would have everyone think this is the answer
to Putnam’s high taxes but when there’s so much more at
stake than the average $50 per household tax benefit, I
beg to differ.
You stated that residents whose homes
abut this proposed shopping complex remain wary. It’s
not wariness you see in our eyes, it is anger and
frustration that our neighbors in the Town of Patterson
whose homes and quality of life are not threatened, will
turn a deaf ear and be blinded by the promise of a few
dollars and look the other way while others in this
community stand to lose everything.
Sincerely,
Joan Castiner
Lake Carmel
04/16/2005
Subj: [RW list] FW: Patterson Crossing Scoping Document
Date: 4/15/2005 3:50:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: "Yaggi, Marc" <MYaggi@law.pace.edu>
To: "Geesewatch@aol.com" <Geesewatch@aol.com>
<< Message from the Riverkeeper Watershed mailing list
>>
From Edie Keasbey:
FYI: The scoping document is on the town web site..
Rich just emailed the PDF file, and I just uploaded
it to the Town
website.
It's on the Planning Board page. It can be reached by
selecting "Town
Departments", then "Planning Board", then the "Ongoing
Business" link on
the "At a Glance" page index. There's also a link to the
Planning Board
page on the "Announcements" page.
The "Overview" section has a plain English
explanation of how the
Planning
Board works, and also explains the SEQRA process. It
also has a link to
the New York State SEQRA page. This is good background
information for
people who don't understand the review process.
04/14/2005
Subj: Scoping document for Patterson Crossing
Date: 4/14/2005 8:44:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: "Edie Keasbey" <edie.keasbey@verizon.net>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
The Scoping document for Patterson Crossing was
approved last night in a very short meeting. It will be
posted on the town website in about a week.
The town web site is
http://www.pattersonny.org/
Happy reading! Edie PS But we do have a week off.
04/12/2005
A STOP PATTERSON CROSSING UPDATE
Folks,
The Planning Board of Patterson will be accepting the
SCOPING
DOCUMENT as complete on Thursday APRIL 14th at 7:30 PM.
This meeting will be in
the Patterson Recreation Center.
Although the PUBLIC WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK, it
is VERY IMPORTANT that as
many people as possible be there to reinforce an
understanding that much of the
community is participating in this effort to stop the
development of Patterson
Crossing.
Remember that the Scoping Document is a compilation
of the Planning Board's
assessment of issues and impacts that the developer must
address concerning the
planned development. It is a guiding document that the
developer uses to produce
the "Environmental Impact Statement." The EIS must
detail what the impacts are
and how they can or cannot be mitigated based on what
the scoping asked for.
Sorry for the late notice about the meeting.
Thank you,
THE STOP PATTERSON CROSSING GROUP
03/21/2005
Patterson Crossing - Must Do List
Good morning all -
The Coalition is part of the steering committee and, as
I wrote to you, we have been meeting to strategize and
develop activities that we hope will involve all the
residents, especially Fair St., Rte 6, Rte 52, Rte 311
in Lake Carmel, Carmel, Southeast and Patterson. Without
your involvement, we cannot succeed.
I have cut and pasted the latest activity list. As
you can see, there is much you can do. If you wish, you
can go directly to the Announcement List
that is located at the bottom of
PlanPutnam.org.
Sincerely,
Ann
Coalition to Preserve Open Space
www.putopenspaces.com
! Please Forward !
Friends,
Here's an update of what's been going on this past
week...
1) Community Meeting!
The Steering Committee has planned a community-wide
meeting for Tuesday, March 29th at 7:30 PM at the Lake
Carmel Community Center. This is not a "venting"
session, that time is past: This is a real work and
organization meeting. If you want to get involved please
come! Look for adverts and flyers in your neighborhood
and in the Pennysaver. A printable PDF version of the
meeting flyer is here:
www.planputnam.org/pc/032905_flyer.pdf
Directions to the community center are here:
http://www.planputnam.org/pc/directions.htm
******************
2) Letter Writing Campaign Continues!
This week we're asking you to send letters about
Patterson Crossing to Patterson Supervisor Mike Griffin
and the rest of the Town Board there. For samples of
what others have written, point your browser here:
http://www.planputnam.org/pc
... and scroll down to the letters sent to Kent Town
Supervisor Bil Tulipane or to Patterson regarding the
scoping session. Feel free to lift, copy, and paraphrase
to your heart's content.
Address your letters to:
Town of Patterson
Patterson Town Hall
1142 Route 311
Patterson, NY 12563
If you'd like your letters posted so that others can
view them and get ideas for their own, send an
electronic copy to
jeff@planputnam.org
******************
3) Announcement List!
Thanks to Ed Durkee, a special email announcement list
for information
regarding Patterson Crossing has been set up and I
encourage you all to
sign on as nearly 40 have already done.
To sign on, simply send a blank email to:
stoppattersoncrossing-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
******************
4) Petition Drive!
Many of you have been gathering signatures on petitions
we set up a few
months back. Please mail them back to me as soon as
possible for the time
is coming when those signatures will be important. (you
can also sign
online). There is still some time left to download
copies www.planputnam.org/pc and get them filled out so
if you haven't done so yet... now is the time.
Mail completed petitions to me at:
145 Miller Hill Road
Kent Cliffs, NY 10512
******************
Stay Tuned!
Jeff
03/17/2005
Alert - Patterson Crossing
Good morning all
For several weeks, a small group of us have been
meeting to formulate initial strategy on challenging the
Patterson Crossing project, a mega retail development of
439,000 sq. ft proposed at Exit 18 on Rte 311 adjacent
to homes in Lake Carmel.
The group is a cross-section of individuals
representing environmental and community groups both in
Kent, Carmel and Southeast. This project needs all of us
since it will affect all wherever we live. The impact on
traffic alone, especially on Rte 6/52 will make a bad
situation, intolerable.
You may have seen the first of ads in this week's
PennySaver; there will be others coming. Additionally,
there is a petition on PlanPutnam which if you have not
signed because you felt that you did not live in Lake
Carmel, please re-consider and do so. The impact of this
development will have far-reaching effects on local
businesses, taxes, environment and your quality of life.
Lastly, there will be a meeting on March 29th
at 7:30PM at the Lake Carmel Community Center - Yorktown
Rd off Lake Shore Drive. An announcement will
be forthcoming in next week's PennySaver. Watch for it.
We want to involve as many concerned citizens as
possible in becoming the vanguard of this effort.
Remember: Alone a Voice, Together a Force.
Thanks again and please join us on the 29th and bring
a friend.
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
VIA FAX AND MAIL
February 20, 2005
Mr. Herb Schech, Chairman
and Members of the Town of Patterson Planning Board
Patterson Town Hall
1142 Route 311/P.O. Box 470
Patterson, NY 12563
RE: Scoping Document - Patterson Crossing
Dear Mr. Schech:
The Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open
Space is a not-for-profit, non-partisan,
citizen-directed organization, committed to the
preservation of environmentally sensitive,
ecologically endangered lands, historic sites and
structures and supports the principles of
sustainable development as an anecdote to
development that threatens town character, the
environment, Croton Watershed and quality of life of
its residents. Instead of curtailing auto dependency
and the problems of congestion, safety and health
that accompanies it, Patterson Crossing exacerbates
the very conditions that residents now find
intolerable. We believe that the proposed
mega-retail development, Patterson Crossing is
unsustainable and offer the following items for
inclusion in the Scoping Document.
1a. SAFETY - EMERGENCY SERVICES
Patterson Crossing will be adjacent to
residential properties and the applicant has stated
that Echo Road will be used as an emergency ingress
and egress point. Public safety is the primary
consideration of public officials and Patterson
Crossing has the potentiality to compromise such
safety. With an estimated increase in vehicular
traffic of over 1,200 per hour and with a parking
capacity of over 2,000 cars, incidences whereby
emergency services may be called upon pose a
particular challenge to local units.
Therefore, the applicant must account for strains
on emergency services not only in terms of staffing
but also in terms of average response time to the
site.. Given the problematical nature of hilly,
windy Echo Rd. and the projected increase in traffic
on subsidiary roads such as Fair St. and Rte. 52,
the applicant should be required conduct a study
setting target staffing levels and response times of
emergency services to the site.
1b. SAFETY - COSTS OF POLICE
A February, 2005 article in the Times
Herald-Record entitled “Is Common Worth Costs?”
details the cost incurred by Woodbury citizens in
funding police. “But the outlet center has long been
more whipping boy than savior for residents who once
courted its taxes. For them, hosting the jewel of
Orange County tourism means coping with traffic jams
on weekends and holidays and paying police to arrest
a steady stream of shoplifters.” And the article
continues. “When comparing strictly what Woodbury
Common pays the town in property taxes to what it
generates in police costs - is that the shopping
center is pulling its weight ... Just barely.
The proof is in the 2005 tax bill that its owner
- Chelsea Property of Roseland, NJ - was charged for
its 171 acres. That bill came to $862,720.
On the other side of the ledger, town police
visited Woodbury Commons 2,888 times in 2004 - just
over a quarter of their total calls for service -
and made 71% of their 365 arrests there.” And
lastly, “Chief Kwiatkowski estimates the department
devoted roughly a third of its time to the outlet
center last year.”
Patterson Crossing like Woodbury Commons is
located at an interstate exit but unlike Woodbury it
is located adjacent to a residential, family
community. Although smaller by half, Patterson
Crossing has been potentiality of attracting
undesirables into the community, cutting through
neighborhoods and creating a grave safety issue for
the families and their children.
The applicant must be required to develop a
safety plan and fund any additional police officers
required to provide protection to the community.
2. VISUAL IMPACT
High visibility is a determining factor governing
decisions of “Big Box” developers and hence the
attractiveness of interstate exits, particularly
those that are surrounded by slopes. Exit 18
Patterson Crossing mega- development on slopes,
denuded of approximately 68% of its forest, will
continue the visual and environmental devastation
that was begun at Exit 19 with the Brewster
Highlands Regional Retail Development. The scenic
transformation of Putnam County’s Highlands, will be
almost complete as a swath of “Big Boxes,” with
their lights and signage beckoning customers, will
replace the rural character of the “County where the
Country Begins.”
There can be no doubt that such visual impact
will have a drastic effect on the entire Lake Carmel
Community but particularly those property owners who
are adjacent to the site. Numerous studies have
confirmed that values increase by as much as 15-20%
when property is located adjacent to forests and
wildlife habitat and when property owners can enjoy
the peace of their property without the interference
of the usual ambient noises and lights from cars,
trucks and trailers emanating from a 410,000+
mega-retail regional center.
The applicant should present a mitigation plan
including lighting, signage, landscaping and
redesign of cookie-cutter architecture that is
superimposed on local communities without
recognition of the unique characteristics of
localities.
3. ECONOMIC IMPACT
Within 1 ½ miles, we will have two mega-retail,
category killers, one the 60-acre Brewster Highlands
Retail Center at Exit 19 and the proposed 90-acre
Patterson Crossing at Exit 18. Since Loew’s and Bed
Bath and Beyond are competitors of Home Depot and
Linens n’Things and since the applicant has proposed
another clothing store also in competition with
Kohls and Marshalls, how will Patterson Crossing
increase choice among Putnam County consumers. In
“Cities Back from the Edge (1998), Grantz says that
they acquired the nickname “category killers”
because they don’t mean to compete with existing
businesses. They mean to kill them and monopolize
the market.” The existing businesses which will be
impacted by Patterson Crossing are those that have
been Carmel household names, such as Dills’s Lumber.
But this development seeks to do more; in shifting
the balance of development from the center to the
fringe on the interstate, threatens established
shopping areas such as ShopRite on Rte 52 and Putnam
Plaza in Carmel. And what will be the effect on the
A&P shopping center off Rte 311 and Rte 22.
Indeed since the opening of Brewster Highlands,
Putnam County consumers have had less not more
options as Putnam Plaza stores i.e. Independent
bookstore, Ben Franklin’s, hardware store have
closed to be replaced by one food
services/restaurant/nail salons after another.
The applicant should demonstrate that Patterson
Crossing will have no net effect on the economic
health of the Lake Carmel small businesses nor on
the economic health of its neighbors in Carmel and
in the Town of Southeast. Business plans, market
analysis establishing need, wage rates, employment
opportunities, should be among the documents
submitted by the applicant.
4. CUMULATIVE IMPACT
In addition to Patterson Crossing, other large
scale developments are proposed for Carmel -
Gateway/Summit and Fairways on Rte 6 and Fair St.
and Hillside Commons on Rte 52. The Planning Board
is required by SEQRA to assess all cumulative
impacts in addition to that before the board.
5. ALTERNATIVES
Villages and small town retail centers have seen
a resurgence and have become the choice of many
residents. Indeed, planners i.e. John Nolan have
encouraged this development by eschewing “Big Box”
mega retail centers for walkable, pedestrian
friendly and community enhancing centers. The
Planning Board should scrap Patterson Crossing and
look to strengthening the Town of Patterson’s move
toward such centers i.e. Front St. and work with
Town of Kent officials and the applicant in
establishing a Village Center which recognizes the
inherent small nature of the towns, meets the needs
of the residents without compromising the
environment or disadvantaging one group of residents
in favor of the other.
Please accept the Coalition’s appreciation for
your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Ann Fanizzi, Chair
Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space
SEQRA Scoping Comments for the Draft EIS
Patterson Crossing Retail Center
Town of Patterson and Town of Kent
Putnam County, New York
Comments of the Office of
Watershed Inspector General
February 18, 2005
Thank you for providing this opportunity to submit
comments concerning the appropriate scope and detail of
the draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") with
respect to the proposed Patterson Crossing Retail Center
project (the "Project").
The proposed Project is located entirely within the
New York City Watershed (“Watershed”), an area that
comprises only 4.2% of New York’s lands yet serves as
the source of drinking water for over 9 million
residents. Runoff from the proposed Project drains into
the Middle Branch and East Branch Reservoirs that are
part of the Croton Watershed. The Croton Watershed
provides unfiltered drinking water to approximately
900,000 people on an average daily basis and is the
source of drinking water for upwards of 2.5 million
people during drought or emergency conditions. The only
treatment this water currently receives from reservoir
to tap is disinfection through chlorination. The New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation
("DEC") has classified the Middle Branch Reservoir as a
class “A” water body and the East Branch Reservoir as a
class “AA” water body. Therefore, pursuant to the state
classification, the Middle Branch and East Branch
Reservoirs are to be maintained at a very high quality –
one that allows them to serve as a source of drinking
water.
The Middle Branch and East Branch Reservoirs are also
classified as "phosphorus restricted" basins by City DEP
and were listed by the State DEC on its 1998 list of
impaired water bodies pursuant to Section 303(d) of the
Federal Clean Water Act. As a result, phosphorus levels
in these water bodies must actually be reduced to
achieve water quality goals. These water bodies have
also been the subject of extraordinary and expensive
efforts under the 1997 New York City Watershed
Memorandum of Agreement to better control phosphorus and
other pollutants. Moreover, these reservoirs are the
subject of heightened protection criteria for phosphorus
that was developed pursuant to the Clean Water Act --
known as the "total maximum daily load" ("TMDL")
program. The large majority of phosphorus pollution
entering the Middle Branch and East Branch Reservoirs
stems from surface water runoff from existing
development and new construction.
The detail of analysis, scope of alternatives, and
stringency of mitigation measures presented in the draft
EIS should reflect the sensitive location of the
Project.
I. BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS.
The proposed project involves construction of 439,500
square feet of retail space, including a garden center
and 2,079 parking spaces. The project would be
constructed on a 94.94 acre parcel in both the Town of
Patterson (79.54 acres) and the Town of Kent (15.4
acres). The proposed construction would disturb
approximately 60 acres of forested land, converting it
into 32.4 acres of impervious surfaces and landscaped
lawns. By way of example, one acre is roughly equivalent
in size to a football field including the end zones.
The proposed Project has the clear potential for
significant adverse impacts on water resources. These
include: construction related erosion (e.g., siltation
from excavation); and significantly increased polluted
runoff from additional impervious and less-pervious
surfaces (e.g., fertilizers and pesticides from lawns;
oil, grease and heavy metals from parking lots and
turbidity from increased stormwater flow due to
impervious surfaces).
II. ROLE OF SEQRA LEAD AGENCY
The proposal of a large development Project in a
highly sensitive environmental area warrants the full
use of the assessment and protection tools available
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”). The Town of Patterson Planning Board, as the
SEQRA lead agency for the Project, has the central role
in fulfilling SEQRA’s environmentally protective
purposes. The Town of Patterson Planning Board can and
should retain the necessary scientific and technical
experts (at the expense of the Project sponsor) as
necessary to assist it in conducting this SEQRA review.
The use of independent experts is important to lead
agency efforts to effectively scrutinize the work of
consultants paid by the Project’s sponsor, as well as to
assure a full presentation of Project alternatives and
mitigation measures.
The lead agency’s discretionary responsibilities
include: deciding which environmental impacts are
potentially significant so as to be assessed in the
environmental impact statement; specifying the detail
and required factual analysis (and methodology) that
will be necessary for each environmental assessment;
setting the range of alternatives to be evaluated and
specifying the details of various alternative
development scenarios (so as to make the choice among
various alternatives a real one); determining the scope
and detail of any cumulative and secondary impact
analysis; independently approving the draft and final
EIS as adequate or rejecting it as deficient; assessing
comments on the draft EIS and formulating specific
responses to all substantive questions and concerns;
identifying necessary measures to avoid or mitigate
adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable; and
issuing a findings statement that selects an alternative
(from a range of potential alternatives) that minimizes
adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent
practicable. The EIS process must be completed prior to
any discretionary determination by a governmental entity
to fund or authorize a specific project.
III. SPECIFIC COMMENTS
A. Alternatives.
A frequent defect in the draft EIS is a lack of adequate
detail in the presentation of lower-build alternatives
to the development proposed by the project sponsor.
SEQRA allows the lead agency to require the draft EIS to
contain sufficiently detailed reduced-build and
reduced-impact alternatives so as to make the choice
among alternatives a real one. The Town of Patterson
Planning Board should carefully identify the
alternatives to be developed and specify the level of
detail required to adequately address potentially
adverse environmental impacts to water quality. The
developer’s preferred project should not be studied in
detail while other alternatives are given only limited
review. Any decision to reject a lower build alternative
as not being feasible should be explained in detail. It
is inappropriate for the Project sponsor to eliminate a
lower build alternative simply because it does not fit
in with all of its particular goals. Indeed, the lead
agency can and should select an alternative that may
even be objectionable to the project sponsor when
warranted by the EIS. A standard component of the draft
EIS, the no-build alternative, must also be thoroughly
assessed to give a full sense of the adverse
environmental impacts associated with the proposed
Project and the development it will induce. All
alternatives should be developed to an extent that
“apple to apple” comparisons can be made between them by
the lead agency. A draft EIS that mostly assesses the
proposed Project to the exclusion of other lower build
alternatives, such as the one described above, would be
unbalanced and unacceptable.
We recommend that the project sponsor be required to
develop in detail a lower build alternative that reduces
impervious surfaces by 60%, keeps all development off
slopes that exceed 15%, and which avoid all wetlands and
their associated buffers.
The largest source of pollution in the Watershed is
from “non-point” sources, otherwise known as polluted
runoff. The volume of stormwater that would be generated
by the proposed Project will be dependent, in large
part, on the amount of impervious surface (i.e.,
roadways, roof tops, parking lots) present. In other
words, the greater the horizontal expanse of the paved
development and roof tops, the greater the volume of
stormwater that will be generated. Additionally, the
volume of stormwater that would be generated by the
proposed development is also dependent on the amount and
type of vegetation and soils on-site. We recommend that
the applicant focus on reducing impervious area by
presenting alternatives in the DEIS that are designed to
eliminate this potential problem (e.g., stacked parking,
multi-story buildings, etc.).
B. Stormwater.
1. Conduct a Complete Evaluation of Soil
Conditions.
Examining site soils is an essential element of the
effective evaluation of the impacts of polluted runoff.
For example, some soils are particularly susceptible to
erosion, whereas others tend to promote flooding, and
still others are ill-suited to supporting buildings,
roadways, and parking lots. We strongly recommend that
the DEIS include the following information concerning
the various soils located on the Project site and
organized in understandable charts and maps with an
appropriate narrative. The maps should include an
overlay of proposed building and other disturbances.
(a). Map and Chart All Soils Employing the
National Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”) Putnam
County Soils Codes.
(b). Provide a % and Acreage of each Soil
Type that is to be Disturbed at the Project Site.
(c). Present the Slope (%) of al Soils:
Slopes exceeding 15% are designated as “steep slopes” by
the New York State erosion control guidance manual.
Slopes in excess of 15% are considered too steep and
deemed unsuitable for siting septic systems in New York
by the New York State Department of Health. See 10 NYCRR
Part 75, Appendix 75-A p. 4503). Slope influences the
retention and movement of water, the potential for soil
slippage, accelerated erosion, the ease with which
machinery can be used and the engineering uses of the
soil.
The slopes should be categorized as: 2 or 3 - 8%; 8 -
15%; 15 - 25%; and 25 - 35%; 35 - 45%; etc. to agree
with the “Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester
Counties”.
(d). Hydrologic Soils Group: The
NRCS has grouped soils into four distinct classes based
on how they respond to water. The four classes are
hydrologic soils group:
A: High Infiltration Rate (water “seeps” into the
ground quickly)
B: Moderate Infiltration Rate
C: Slow Infiltration Rate
D: Very Slow Infiltration Rate (if the site is “flat”
water is prone to form puddles, if the site is “hilly”
the water will likely flow downhill)
(NRCS 2003 Part 618.35). Group A soils are often
sandy, whereas Group D soils often have a high clay
content or a restrictive layer (e.g., bedrock).
(e). Erosion Factor (Kf): Erosion is
an important process that affects soil formation and may
remove all or parts of the soils formed in natural
landscapes. Evaluating the degree of erosion that takes
place is important in assessing the health of the soil
and in assessing the soil’s potential for different
uses. Removing increasing amounts of soil alters various
properties and capabilities of the soil. Soil erosion
factors (Kf) were developed to quantify how susceptible
very small soil particles (e.g., clay, fines, <2.0
millimeters) are to being detached from soil and rock by
water. These factors are particularly important in the
Watershed because detached clay particles suspended in
water cause turbidity and adversely impact drinking
water quality. The Kf soil erosion factor also accounts
for freeze thaw cycles and predicts long term average
soil loss. Kf erosion factors range from none (0.02) or
slight to severe or very severe (0.49 in the
northeastern US). The higher the Kf erosion factor the
greater the probability that small particle erosion will
occur. (NRCS 2003 Part 618.55).
(f). Runoff Class: The index surface
“runoff class” refers to the loss of water from an area
by flow over the land surface. Runoff classes can be
estimated using soil slope and permeability. There are
six runoff classes: negligible (N), very low (LV), low
(L), medium (M), high (H), and very high (HV). (NRCS
2003 Part 618.49).
(h). Soil Interpretation Rating Guides:
Soil Interpretation Rating Guides have been prepared by
the NRCS and should be employed to assess a soil’s
limitations for different uses. These soil ratings are
defined in terms of severity such as “slight,”
“moderate,” or
“severe.”
(i) Slight (Not limited): This
rating is given to soils that have properties favorable
for the use. The degree of limitation is minor and can
be overcome easily. Good performance and low maintenance
can be expected (NRCS 2003 Part 620.03).
(ii) Moderate (Somewhat limited):
This rating is given to soils that have properties
moderately favorable for the use. This degree of
limitation can be overcome or modified by special
planning, design, or maintenance. The expected
performance of the structure or other planned use is
somewhat less desirable than for soils rated slight. The
needed measures usually increase the cost of
establishing or maintaining the use, but the cost is
generally not prohibitive.
(iii) Severe (Very limited): This
rating is given to soils that have one or more
properties unfavorable for the rated use. This degree of
limitation generally requires major soil reclamation,
special design, or intensive maintenance. Some of the
soils, however, can be improved by reducing or removing
the soil feature that limits use; but in most
situations, it is difficult and costly to alter the soil
or to design a structure so as to compensate for a
severe degree of limitation. This rating does not imply
that the soil cannot be adapted to a particular use, but
rather that the cost of overcoming the limitation would
be high.
Use of the soil interpretation rating guides in the
planning and evaluation process
allow the user to identify and recommend site selection
and plan measures that
minimize impacts on the soil resource (NCRS 2003 Part
620.05).
The information used to calculate these soil
characteristics should also be available upon request to
those reviewing the DEIS. The information should be an
in electronic format as either CAD or GIS files: 1)
soils data for the project site; and 2) building, road,
parking lot, and all other impervious surface footprints
for the project site. This information will be analyzed
using GIS, which is why the data must be submitted in
either GIS or CAD format and geo-referenced to a
geographic coordinate system, such as UTM or Stateplane.
The electronic data should be provided in the DEIS as
separate files that are clearly distinguishable from any
other CAD or GIS layers.
2. DEP and DEC Permit Approvals for
Stormwater.
The Preliminary Draft Scoping Outline needs to inform
the applicant that they need to comply with both DEP and
DEC stormwater permit requirements. Due to the different
approaches required by these two agencies to acquire
permits, it would be prudent for the applicant to
approach both agencies before preparing the DEIS to
establish a plan of action that will comply with each.
For example, for DEC approval, DEC SPDES General Permit
for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities
Permit No. GP-02-01 needs to be complied with.
The volume and content of runoff (i.e., sediments and
contaminants) from the currently vegetated Project site
should be fully calculated and described in the DEIS for
comparison to the projected level of runoff for each
studied alternative. Real data from other large
development projects that have been constructed in this
area should be obtained and presented for comparison.
Contaminant levels and loads in the runoff (including
phosphorus, turbidity, total suspended solids,
pesticides, salts, and oils) should be quantitatively
presented (i.e., hard numbers with backup calculations
and clearly defined assumptions) for each alternative.
In addition, the specific design, operation and
long-term maintenance procedures for all stormwater
collection and treatment should be addressed in detail
the DEIS.
3. Need for a Fully Engineered Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan.
Section III E. Of the Preliminary Draft Scope
(“Surface Water Mitigation Measures”) only directs that
requests a conceptual Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SPPP) be presented. We strongly recommend,
however, that the applicant submit a complete SPPP in
the DEIS. The SPPP should among other things, fully
engineer the flow of stormwater through the proposed
Project. By an engineered plan we mean a specific
blueprinted program based on actual site conditions,
topography and calculated severe storm event flows that
will, when implemented, act to infiltrate, direct,
detain, and treat runoff so that contaminants do not
reach the reservoirs. State-of-the-art methods should be
employed throughout, as many other construction projects
in the New York City Watershed have failed sending
significant plumes of muddy runoff into reservoirs. An
appendix to the DEIS should contain all engineering
assumptions and calculations with respect to the SPPP.
The applicant should employ the guidance provided by two
State publications when developing its SPPP New York
State Stormwater Management Design Manual (August 2003)
and New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment
Control (April 1997) – as well as other heightened
design methods available in the scientific literature.
We recommend that the applicant retain an expert
technical consultant to undertake development of the
SPPP. For example, to resolve a similar dispute, the New
York State Department of Transportation agreed to retain
a nationally respected stormwater consultant to design
the SPPP for its project to rebuild a highway segment
that traverses the Kensico Reservoir basin.
4. Methods and Criteria for Limiting Polluted
Runoff.
The exact attributes of the SPPP need to be developed
and certified by a qualified professional taking into
account site specific conditions. This office, DEC, and
DEP should be given an opportunity to review and comment
upon the SPPP, and reject it as deficient. The following
methods and criteria should be incorporated into the
stormwater controls during the construction phase as
SEQRA mitigation:
(i) Design the SPPP so that violations of state water
quality standards are prevented under all conditions;
particular attention needs to be given to the narrative
water quality standards for turbidity and suspended
solids, see 6 NYCRR § 703.2.
(ii) Water flowing from areas up-slope of
construction must be fully diverted away or around
exposed construction areas to limit erosion.
(iii) Controls for stormwater should be designed, at
a minimum, for the detention or retention of the 10 year
24 hour storm for the Armonk or Westchester County
Airport area during construction and before full
re-vegetation. More stringent controls are fully
reasonable. These controls should be presented and
supported with specific engineering calculations in the
SPPP.
(iv) Construction phasing is a highly important
attribute of an effective SPPP. No more than three acres
of soils that are not completely stabilized (e.g.,
revegetated, covered with jute matting, etc.) should
exist at the site at any one time. All slopes over 8%,
all soil piles, and lose fill areas should be covered
immediately with a jute or synthetic mat or hydroseeded
with a slurry containing a durable tacking agent.
Stormwater controls and detention basins must be
constructed before other construction excavations,
except for those excavations necessary to construct the
stormwater controls.
(v) Construction timing should be designed to avoid
all excavation or clearing activities from October 15th
to May 1st of the year; this avoids the most likely wet
weather season and allows sufficient time for the
complete re-vegetation of disturbed areas before cold
weather. To the extent possible, construction through
the most sensitive areas (such as streams, wetlands, and
steep slopes) should be limited to portions of the
summer that are historically the driest.
(vi) The applicant’s construction contract for the
Project should not have any fiscal incentives or other
monetary benefits with respect to an expedited work
schedule. Protection of water quality through deliberate
implementation of stormwater controls must be a
contractual priority.
(vii) All surface water released from the
construction site or from associated
stormwater controls must have levels of total phosphorus
and turbidity that do not exceed levels in runoff from
existing baseline conditions at the undisturbed site.
Existing baseline total phosphorus and turbidity levels
must be presented by the applicant in the SPPP.
(viii) The construction site must be assessed and
mapped for clay and colloidal soils; construction upon
such soils should be avoided if at all feasible and
special precautions should be taken to limit the erosion
of these soils. Suspended clay soils can pass through
many erosion controls and remain suspended in water for
over 6 months.
5. Post Construction Stormwater Controls.
Post construction stormwater controls should employ
many of the attributes of the SPPP discussed above.
However, the SPPP as it relates to the post-construction
period should also contain the following:
(i) A detailed site re-vegetation and stabilization
plan that will effectively re-establish vegetation.
(ii) Post construction stormwater controls should be
designed to handle the 2 year 24 hour storm at a
minimum. Engineering design criteria should be employed
that assures the survival and routine operation of
stormwater management devices after major (i.e., 100
year) storm events.
(iii) All wetlands (state, local, and federal) must
be fully assessed and delineated. All wetlands, streams
and adjacent buffer areas should be completely avoided.
(iv) The SPPP should identify methods that will be
employed to relieve the soil compaction (with associated
increased imperviousness) caused by the extensive use of
heavy equipment along and upon the construction site.
The goal should be to re-establish the soil percolation
rates that existed prior to construction. Existing or
baseline percolation rates must be presented by the
applicant as part of the SPPP.
6. Compliance Assurance, Maintenance and
Monitoring.
During all construction within the Watershed, the
applicant should be required to employ a qualified
professional engineer who will be responsible for
assuring full compliance with the SPPP and State water
quality standards. This engineer must be provided with
immediate “stop work” authority in the event the SPPP is
violated or other important deficiencies arise that pose
a threat to water quality. We strongly recommend that
this engineer, or another on-site inspector employed by
the applicant, be a Certified Professional in Erosion
and Sediment Control. In conformity with the State DEC
General Permit for Stormwater, these individuals must
monitor contractor adherence to the SPPP and provide
weekly, certified, inspection reports that will identify
any deficiencies, violations or stop work occurrences,
and discuss corrective actions that were recommended and
undertaken. Stormwater controls during construction and
before complete revegetation must be thoroughly
inspected each week and after each rain in excess of .5
inches.
The applicant should also be required to provide the
technical staff of DEC, City DEP and the Attorney
General’s Office with full site access to conduct
inspections and to review the applicant’s
self-monitoring reports. DEC technical staff must be
provided with binding written authority to order the
immediate halt of all work should DEC staff determine
that a failure to adequately implement or maintain the
SPPP has created a threat to water quality.
C. Fertilizers and Pesticides.
Lawns and landscaped areas generally involve the use
of fertilizers and pesticides. Runoff from these areas
can transport fertilizers and pesticides into nearby
waterways. Fertilizers generally contain large amounts
of the problematic nutrient phosphorus which can cause
eutrophic conditions (algae blooms, etc.) in the
reservoirs. The nearby Middle Branch and East Branch
Reservoirs were listed as stressed by phosphorus on
DEC’s Clean Water Act (“CWA”) § 303(d) list and have
been the subject of a phosphorus reduction assessment
pursuant to the CWA’s total maximum daily load” program.
In fact, limiting phosphorus levels in the Watershed is
one of the major aspects of the entire Watershed
protection program. A key focus of the draft EIS should
be upon mechanisms to prevent the discharge of any
additional phosphorus above natural conditions.
The DEIS should contain a complete description of a
state-of-the-art program to limit the use and
application of fertilizers and pesticides. This program
should provide details concerning staff training and
re-training programs. “No spray” areas, including buffer
zones for all waterways, should be clearly identified
and posted. A program to assure that chemical
application is undertaken under appropriate dry weather
conditions should also be developed and presented.
Beyond the modeling described in the draft scoping
outline, real world case studies and a review of
relevant literature should be undertaken and presented.
The stormwater transport of fertilizers and pesticides
should be fully discussed within the context of an
overall stormwater control program. The use of organic
fertilizers should be fully evaluated as these
substances release phosphorus at a far slower rate
relative to synthetic fertilizers and operate to build
up the soil structure. In addition, all pesticide
ingredients, including synergists and inerts, that are
to be used on the site must be presented and discussed.
Our office is particularly interested in “inert,” yet
often highly problematic, ingredients contained in
pesticides.
D. Induced Development and Secondary Impacts.
Induced growth or secondary impacts associated with
the Project should be thoroughly evaluated in the draft
EIS. A project of this magnitude will undoubtedly
increase traffic along local roads. There will be an
increase in vehicle trips, impervious surfaces,
stormwater flows, construction, and waste water
associated with this induced development – above and
beyond those impacts directly associated with the
proposed Project. All these impacts must be fully
assessed and quantitatively presented for each
alternative reviewed in the draft EIS so that a complete
picture of the Project’s impacts will be revealed.
E. Mitigation.
The lead agency should assure that mitigation measures
and best management practices identified in the
environmental review process are presented in full
detail for public critique. A vague commitment to employ
“best management practices” or to develop mitigation in
the future should be rejected. The EIS and the SEQRA
findings statement should specifically commit to the
implementation and maintenance of all identified
mitigation measures. More importantly, the Town of
Patterson Planning Board should assure that the
mitigation is instituted and maintained in a legally
enforceable manner. The Project sponsor should agree
that all mitigation measures will be incorporated as
enforceable conditions to permits as a predicate to the
Project sponsor receiving any SEQRA approval. By making
the detailed mitigation measures an enforceable
attribute of required permits, it is far more likely
that the mitigation will actually be undertaken and
maintained in the future. Additionally, any supposed
“non-development areas” identified in the EIS as a
mitigation measure justifying other development should
be permanently protected through deed restrictions or
through a conservation easement enforceable by a
third-party action. A legally binding mechanism must
also be developed to assure the continuation of
mitigation when, and if, the present Project sponsor
sells the property.
Respectfully submitted,
James M. Tierney
Watershed Inspector General
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
(518) 474-4843
|
Charles Silver, Ph.D.
Watershed Inspector General Scientist
Environmental Protection Bureau
Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
(518) 473-6620 |
Pros and cons expressed over
Patterson Crossing
By: Eric Gross
02/03/2005
PATTERSON-There was standing room only in Patterson
Monday night when 750 proponents and opponents of the
Patterson Crossing, a 450,000 square foot shopping
center proposed near the Patterson-Kent line was the
subject of a scoping session before the Patterson
Planning Board.
Developer Paul Camarda hopes to construct the facility,
consisting of a Costco Wholesale Warehouse and Lowe's
Home Improvement Center as its anchor stores. Junior
anchors will include a home furnishings outlet, an
electronics store, both men's and women's clothing
shops, a sporting goods store and a restaurant.
The Town of Patterson was designated as the lead
agency to oversee the proposed complex planned for a
90-acre tract of land. Camarda told the audience that
only one-third of the site would consist of buildings
and parking. The remaining property will be landscaped
and turned into a conservation area.
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation decided that Patterson should be in charge
of the project, since despite the fact that the entrance
would be in Kent, the majority of the proposal is
located within Patterson's borders.
Camarda called Patterson Crossing a "win-win not a
win-lose. There will be no environmental impact from
this project when it is completed. As a matter of fact,
it will be more environmentally friendly than the
infrastructure that currently exists on Route 311 in
Lake Carmel."
Camarda told the audience that Patterson Crossing
would have no effect on Lake Carmel since "many
state-of-the art environmental techniques will be used
including using roof water from Costco and Lowe's to
supply the center's irrigation system."
Camarda stressed that the project would have no
negative effect on water quality. "The project's storm
water doesn't even drain toward Lake Carmel," he said.
The developer forecast once completed Patterson
Crossing would result in tremendous tax relief for
county taxpayers. "Millions of dollars in taxes every
year will go to our county, towns and the Carmel School
District. About $1 million a year will be generated in
real estate taxes of which $750,000 will go to the
Carmel school system. Millions of dollars will also be
generated in sales tax revenues to benefit all residents
in a county starving for tax relief," he said.
During the next four hours, 77 people addressed the
planning board. Paul Spiegel of Lake Carmel forecast
horrendous traffic jams along the Route 311 corridor if
the project comes to fruition. "We don't want this in
our backyards. What about the affects of noise and light
pollution?"
Albert DePaul, a 28-year resident of Putnam County,
charged that "quality retail development in Putnam
County was lacking. We must leave our county's borders
to spend tax dollars elsewhere."
Charles Sisto of Lake Carmel feared that the
project's retention ponds would fail over time while
John McGibney, a retired Lake Carmel merchant who owned
a business for some 30 years, charged that "big box
stores cheat the public. The building of such a large
project is not fair to the local businessman."
Tom Murphy, another Lake Carmel resident, favored the
project. "Taxes are killing us. I'm tired of driving an
hour to Connecticut or Westchester to go shopping," he
said.
Nancy Kalbfell of Patterson agreed. "When people say
'Shop Putnam' the question is where! Patterson Crossing
will increase our property values."
Barbara Delduca of Lake Carmel disagreed. "The
project is too large for the area. If Patterson needs
tax relief dump the project in downtown Patterson not
near the Lake Carmel border," she said.
Kathleen McManus of Lake Carmel told the audience:
"The stores may be facing away from private residences
but the sounds of trucks downshifting will be next to my
children's bedrooms."
Ann Fanizzi of Southeast, chairwoman of the Committee
to Preserve Open Space in Putnam County, told the
emotionally charged audience that they were being fooled
by the developer. "If you think your taxes will go down,
you are wrong," she said.
Ross Weale, president of the not-for-profit Putnam
County Economic Development Corporation, was also in
attendance. Weale said the site was ideal for retail
given its "location, location, location. This is a
premier location off the interstate highway. Patterson
Crossing is an incredible opportunity to shore up school
aid and assist the tax structure of the county's
economy."
Nick Columbo, business representative for Local 38 of
the Sheet Metal Workers Union in Brewster was also in
attendance. Columbo endorsed the plan. "Hopefully, it
becomes reality. Putnam County needs work. The
construction alone will create hundreds of construction
jobs," he said.
Jobs were also on the mind of County Executive Robert
Bondi. Bondi said the project would create "jobs for the
young, jobs for the elderly and jobs for people who are
out of work. Great transitional opportunities would be
created by Patterson Crossing. People won't make
$100,000 a year working at the new complex. People
employed there will stay off the unemployment line while
working their way back."
When Camarda announced his plans last year, Patterson
assumed that the town would oversee the review of the
project but last summer Kent officials decided to
challenge the process because of what was called
negative effects Patterson Crossing would have on the
Lake Carmel area.
The DEC investigated both municipalities' claims
before deciding on Patterson because as DEC Commissioner
Erin Crotty explained, "Patterson would have the
broadest authority to shape the project. Kent's
jurisdiction is limited to the project elements actually
located within Kent."
The Patterson Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the
proposal. "I'm confident that the planning board can get
us a good project. It's better to shop Putnam than to
shop Dutchess or Danbury. I applaud Putnam's Shop Putnam
initiative. Now, we must provide our residents with
opportunities to shop," said Supervisor Michael Griffin.
©Putnam County Courier 2005
|
