DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Road Scenic Alternative Phasing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Road Scenic Alternative Phasing Figure 4: Public Road Scenic Alternative Phasing Plan BT Holdings - Chester Development Village of Chester, Town of Chester, Orange County, New York Source: Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, 08/18/11 Scale: As shown File 05009 08/26/11 JS/05009 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516 (845) 265-4400 Fax (845) 265-4418 Project Description August 18, 2011 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comment 2.0-1 (Public Hearing, January 7, 2010, Steven Neuhaus, Town of Chester Town Supervisor): On August 10th, 2009, I sent a letter on behalf of the Town to the Village of Chester regarding our DEIS comments. We feel that there are at least twenty comments that weren't answered as thoroughly, or to our liking. I'd like to suggest or recommend that the BT Holdings engineers and architects or planners sit down with the Town's engineers and consultants, and just go through them item by item, so they are thoroughly explained and looked at. Response 2.0-1: During the course of the environmental review of the BT Holdings project, the Village of Chester circulated a notice of intent to be lead agency which the Town of Chester acknowledged. However, due to the nature of this specific project, the Village of Chester went above and beyond the measures normally taken to insure that a coordinated review of this project was conducted. To that end, in order to have benefit of the Town's comments as early in the process as possible, the Village gave the Town a preliminary working copy of the DEIS prior to its being accepted as complete by the Village. The numerous comments identified by the Town at that time were subsequently addressed during the process of working on the DEIS to achieve the "completeness" required by the Village. Given those changes made to that preliminary working copy, many of the Town’s comments in that memo were no longer relevant due to changes made to the completed DEIS. The Applicant has conducted a series of technical meetings with the Village and its consultants with the objective of reviewing and modifying the project to address comments raised during the environmental review. In a similar manner, the Applicant and his technical team plan to meet with the Town Engineer and consultants to detail the project changes which have been made and to resolve any possible remaining issues identified by the Town. Comment 2.0-2 (Public Hearing, January 7, 2010, Dawn Guevara): At no point did you guys mention how much the units are going to be. Response 2.0-2: As discussed on page 3.8-6 in Section 3.8.3 of the DEIS, the projected sales price of the 2-bedroom units is estimated to be $333,333 and the projected sales price of the 3-bedroom units is estimated to be $455,455. These prices are subject to market conditions at the time of construction. It should be noted, that the tax projections which are the basis of the economic analysis, are based upon the projected assessed values of the units, not the sales price. Assessed values are far less volatile than sales price. Comment 2.0-3 (Public Hearing, January 7, 2010, Matilda Bendix, Hambletonian Avenue): I know there was a lot of things when I was thinking back there -- but really, I just hope the village doesn't annex this thing to us. We have enough that we don't need any more. Response 2.0-3: As indicated by the increase in population, there is a continued need for housing both in the region and in the Town and Village of Chester. Municipal master plans are expressly designed to map out the future growth of the community, locating development in certain areas that can support growth while identifying other areas for preservation of open space and lower intensity development. This specific parcel was identified in the Town's Master Plan as the future site of needed senior and multifamily housing, thus providing a diversity of housing options while enabling preservation of other areas of the community in a more rural land use. BT Holdings / Chester Development FEIS 2-1 Project Description August 18, 2011 Comment 2.0-4 (Public Hearing, January 7, 2010, Clifton Patrick, Town of Chester Historian): I don't see any direct connection between this proposed development and the mall -- I don't even see a sidewalk connecting the two, and I think it would be much better if there was a better connection to where these facilities are, for the residents, for this proposed -- for this processed development. Earlier you talked about sidewalks being on all roads in here. Where do those sidewalks go? Go out to 17M. There is no sidewalks. Response 2.0-4: There are sidewalks and walking trails shown on the conceptual plan to facilitate pedestrian movement within the proposed project. Additionally, as shown on the Public Road Scenic Alternative Site Plan, the Applicant has agreed with the owner of the Chester Mall to provide a direct connection between the BT Holdings property and the Chester Mall. This connection is most practical from the clubhouse area, in the vicinity of the gazebo, connecting with the northern side of the mall in between the Tractor Supply store and the Monro Muffler building. The BT Holdings development will be the closest residential housing to the Chester Mall and the only one directly connected to the mall property via a pedestrian accessway.. The Applicant is also retaining the Oakland Avenue connection from the northeast corner of the BT Holdings site to the Chester Village historic downtown to be used as an emergency access until such time as the public through road is completed. This connection may be retained as a pedestrian connection upon completion of the public through road. Comment 2.0-5 (Public Hearing, January 7, 2010, Steven Neuhaus, Town of Chester Town Supervisor): I'd just like to address something Tracy brought up, about the posting of having the second public hearing last week. There was some confusion on one end or another but it was posted in local newspapers that it would be open, so even if you guys do not have it next week I'd ask that you send out some kind of press release letting the public know that there will be a public comment period and when that period will be. Response 2.0-5: Comment noted. In order to be proactive, the Village reserved the Chester School Auditorium for a second public hearing date, should it be have been necessary or should inclement weather have required the published hearing date to be canceled. Comment 2.0-6 (Public Hearing, January 7, 2010, Phillip Valastro, Mayor of the Village of Chester): Yes. Let me explain that reason why we had two dates. In that public notice it says the 7th. We did have the 14th for a snow date, because we're trying to be proactive for this time of year, because to have it scheduled on the 7th, and then not have it, to do it again maybe would be the end of the month or next month. We're just trying to be proactive. So that's why possibly the 14th was given out, when the Village Hall was called. Response 2.0-6: Comment noted. BT Holdings / Chester Development FEIS 2-2 Project Description August 18, 2011 Comment 2.0-7 (Letter #1, January 6, 2010, Tracy Schuh, The Preservation Collective): Page 1.2 - The DEIS states "This proposal directly responds to community growth goals as set forth in the Town of Chester Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2003". These goals should be referred to as Objectives of the Plan (page 24 attached). Note, there are others that related to this project that need to be considered such as: y to mandate the preservation of ridge lines, wetlands, flood plains, stream corridors, and natural contours of the land which forms the scenic backdrop for most areas of the Town. y To consider, protect, and retain all environmental assets such as groundwater supply, topography, and scenic vistas when reviewing development projects. Response 2.0-7: Refer to Response 3.11-2, 3.11-11, 3.6-8 and 3.6-9. One of the key sensitivities of the community has been the placement of units on the ridge line which overlooks the Talmadge Farm. In an effort to be responsive to this concern, the Applicant has removed buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan in the DEIS. The revised concept plan which includes the removal of these buildings is entitled the Public Road Scenic Alternative. The net result of the removal of these buildings as well as other changes to the plan has been a reduction of 22 townhomes, from the 358 in the DEIS to the 336 as proposed in the Public Road Scenic Alternative. The vacant area where the 22 units contained in Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were previously located is herein referred to as the "Scenic Area". A revised Conceptual Landscape and Lighting Plan has also been prepared which shows the inclusion of landscaping in the Scenic Area which specifically incorporates deciduous trees with vibrant fall foliage to enhance the natural view of this spot. At the discretion of the Planning Board, this area could include a walking trail and other recreational amenities such as a gazebo and a scenic overlook area. Besides the removal of 22 units from the Scenic Area, implementation of earth tone colors on the building facades, substantial landscaping added along the property line buffer and landscaped groves added at the north end and south ends of the site are additional mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project which would further serve to preserve the scenic vista and reduce the visibility of any buildings from off-site locations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Town of Chester CPP Plan 3-26-19
    Community Preservation Plan Town of Chester, NY March 26, 2019 Committee Draft Prepared by the Town of Chester Community Preservation Plan Committee Prepared with technical assistance from: Planit Main Street, Inc. Preface The Town of Chester has long recognized that community planning is an ongoing process. In 2015, the Town Board adopted a Comprehensive Plan, which was an update of its 2003 Comprehensive Plan. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan recommended additional actions, plans and detailed studies to pursue the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Among these were additional measures to protect natural resources, agricultural resources and open space. In September 2017, the Town Board appointed a Community Preservation Plan Committee (CPPC) to guide undertake the creation of the Town’s first Community Preservation Plan. This Community Preservation Plan is not a new departure - rather it incorporates and builds upon the recommendations of the Town’s adopted 2015 Comprehensive Plan and its existing land use regulations. i Acknowledgements The 2017 Community Preservation Plan (CPP) Steering Committee acknowledges the extraordinary work of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Committee in creating the Town’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan. Chester Town Board Hon. Alex Jamieson, Supervisor Robert Valentine - Deputy Supervisor Brendan W. Medican - Councilman Cynthia Smith - Councilwomen Ryan C. Wensley – Councilman Linda Zappala, Town Clerk Clifton Patrick, Town Historian Town of Chester Community Preservation Plan Committee (CPPC) NAME TITLE Donald Serotta Chairman Suzanne Bellanich Member Tim Diltz Member Richard Logothetis Member Tracy Schuh Member Robert Valentine Member Consultant Alan J. Sorensen, AICP, Planit Main Street, Inc. ii Contents 1.0 Introduction, Purpose and Summary .............................................................................................. 4 2.0 Community Preservation Target Areas, Projects, Parcels and Priorities .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Army Corps of Engineers Response Document Draft
    3.0 ORANGE COUNTY Orange County has experienced numerous water resource problems along the main stem and the associated tributaries of the Moodna Creek and the Ramapo River that are typically affected by flooding during heavy rain events over the past several years including streambank erosion, agradation, sedimentation, deposition, blockages, environmental degradation, water quality and especially flooding. However, since October 2005, the flooding issues have severely increased and flooding continues during storm events that may or may not be considered significant. Areas affected as a result of creek flows are documented in the attached trip reports (Appendix D). Throughout the Orange County watershed, site visits confirmed opportunities to stabilize the eroding or threatened banks restore the riparian habitat while controlling sediment transport and improving water quality, and balance the flow regime. If the local municipalities choose to request Federal involvement, there are several options, depending on their budget, desired timeframe and intended results. The most viable options include a specifically authorized watershed study or program, or an emergency streambank protection project (Section 14 of the Continuing Authorities Program), or pursing a Continuing Authorities Program study for Flood Risk Management or Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 205 and Section 206 of the Continuing Authorities Program, respectively). Limited Federal involvement could also be provided in the form of the Planning Assistance to States or Support for Others programs provide assistance and limited funds outside of traditional Corps authorities. A watershed study focusing on restoration of the Moodna Creek, Otter Creek, Ramapo River and their associated tributaries could address various problems using a systematic approach.
    [Show full text]
  • SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) Facilities
    SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) Facilities Status DEC Region NPDES ID Terminated 8 NYR00B679 Terminated 4 NYR00E979 Terminated 4 NYR00E094 Terminated 3 NYR00F907 Terminated 4 NYR00F128 Terminated 3 NYR00F294 Active 4 NYR00F440 Terminated 5 NYR00E193 Active 8 NYR00F759 No Exposure 1 NYR00G254 No Exposure 2 NYR00F729 Active 4 NYR00B055 Active 4 NYR00B054 No Exposure 8 NYR00G118 Active 3 NYR00B923 No Exposure 3 NYR00E656 Terminated 2 NYR00D894 No Exposure 1 NYR00F797 Active 3 NYR00B036 Page 1 of 1078 09/28/2021 SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) Facilities Name of Facility Location of Facility J A YANSICK LUMBER CO STATE RTE 70 LOCHVUE SPRING AVE EXT MAIN BROTHERS OIL CO INC - ROXBURY TERMINAL 25 LOCUST ST MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC - NEWBURGH 800 CORPORATE BLVD TRAVIS 8412 STATE HWY 7 WASSAIC PIT BOX 221A P&M BRICK LLC MARINE TERMINAL 2170 RIVER RD CLINTON QUARRY LOST NATION RD ELMIRA ROAD MATERIALSLLC 1 COUNTY ROUTE 77A AEROFLEX PLAINVIEW 35 S. SERVICE RD. PRATT INSTITUTE MANHATTAN CAMPUS OPERATIONS 142-144 W 14TH ST WEST SAND LAKE PIT 3600 STATE RTE 43 HEMSTREET PARK BANK 3040 RIVER ROAD LOVE BEETS 1150 LEE RDSECT A FIRST STUDENT INC #12370 32 FITCHETT WAY UNITED STATES MINT NYS RTE 218 SWING STAGING INCORPORATED 55-51 43RD ST L-3 NARDA-ATM 49 RIDER AVE JOSEPH Y. RESNICK AIRPORT 199 AIRPORT ROAD Page 2 of 1078 09/28/2021 SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) Facilities City of Facility Zip of Facility County Name Sector Code HUNT 14846 Livingston POESTENKILL 12140 Rensselaer ROXBURY 12474 Delaware NEWBURGH 12550 Orange MARYLAND
    [Show full text]
  • REVISED UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN for the TOWN of GOSHEN Goshen, New York
    REVISED UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF GOSHEN Goshen, New York PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT Prepared for: Town of Goshen July 17, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Town of Goshen, New York 41 Webster Avenue Goshen, NY 10924 Prepared by: Town of Goshen Town Board Douglas Bloomfield, Supervisor Kenneth Newbold Louis Cappella George Lyons Philip Canterino Legal Counsel Dennis Caplicki, Attorney for the Town Richard B. Golden, Planning Board Attorney Kelly M. Naughton, Planning Board Attorney And Edwin Garling, Planner for the Town Prepared with the assistance of: BFJ Planning: Frank Fish, FAICP, Principal Georges Jacquemart, Principal Sarah K. Yackel, AICP, Associate Alireza Rabiee, Senior Transportation Planner Áine Balfe, Planner T. 212.353.7474 And Riddick Associates, P.C. Dennis Lindsay, Town Consulting Engineer T. 845.357.7238 July 17, 2008 Updated Town of Goshen Comprehensive Plan, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 What is a Comprehensive Plan? 2 1.2 Goals and Objectives 4 1.3 The Planning Process 4 1.4 Planning in Goshen 5 1.5 Regional Planning Context 11 2.0 Existing Conditions 16 2.1 Geography 16 2.2 Water Supply 16 2.3 Political Structure 18 2.4 Demographics 23 2.5 Existing Land Uses 26 2.6 Review of Existing Zoning 31 2.7 Traffic Analysis 34 3.0 Comprehensive Plan 51 3.1 Goals and Objectives 51 3.2 Key Elements 52 3.3 Land Use Recommendations 55 3.4 Open Space and Recreation Plan 58 3.5 Economic Plan 64 3.6 Other Plan Recommendations 66 4.0 Implementation 67 4.1 State Environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Town Board SEQRA Findings Statement
    LEGOLAND NEW YORK TOWN OF GOSHEN TOWN BOARD INVOLVED AGENCY SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT WHEREAS Merlin Entertainments Group US Holdings, Inc. (the “Project Sponsor” or “Merlin Entertainments”) submitted an application for site plan, subdivision and special permit approval for a commercial recreational children’s theme park on approximately 150 acres of a 521.95 acre site consisting of 15 total parcels located off Harriman Drive, as well as an application for a clearing and grading permit, known as LEGOLAND New York (the “facility”, “Project”, “Proposed Project”, “Proposed Action” or “LEGOLAND New York”), to the Town of Goshen Planning Board on June 3, 2016; and WHEREAS the Town of Goshen Planning Board declared its intent to serve as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and typed the Action as a Type I action on June 16, 2016. A Notice of Intent was circulated to the Involved Agencies on June 17, 2016; and WHEREAS after waiting the required 30 days and receiving no written objections, the Town of Goshen Planning Board assumed Lead Agency on July 21, 2016; and WHEREAS on July 21, 2016 the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Positive Declaration requiring the submission of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”); and WHEREAS the Planning Board held a public scoping session on July 21, 2016 and the scoping process culminated in the acceptance of an adopted scope, which final version incorporated the Planning Board’s required modifications on August 18, 2016 (the “Adopted Scope”); and WHEREAS the Applicant submitted a proposed DEIS on September 28, 2016, and, following the receipt of comments from the Planning Board and its consultants, submitted a revised proposed DEIS on November 3, 2016; and WHEREAS the revised DEIS was accepted by the Planning Board as complete in terms of its adequacy to commence agency and public review on November 17, 2016, subject to several revisions which were made prior to the filing and distribution of the DEIS on November 21, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Maps (5.61MB File)
    Village of Florida Park @ Glenmere Walter R. Sturr Memorial Park Br Greater Warwick owns Cree ST k L r AL e D iv N RA Orange County, New York R T l E S VE VE l YN IES A A Warwick Sports Complex i JA FARR RE Sherwin Little RD E k L NM l HIL E Draft - Park and Recreation Map l D GL League Park UN E a RO V A E D R AV N E Black Meadow Creek Reservoir W ERN S A W S L K M Y S I W H FLORIDA N H T G A I B I N SK R LA I H I Glenmere Lake E PU M G E N A R O H S I U S L C S U N M N V T H L T P L S L Union Corners Park I N D I R K D R L O N T IC A E L M R O k Riv N N l E e e A l R R i D S V k r D e l G r I E L l R E C V a R W S D D E I D R D w D R R E o O L R T T E d I E A L H D a KESH Parks W e N R I S L P T M U h D R k Pine Island Park ch c S R it it S OR T c L E a D h E Y l e D J TA l c B o d t S 9 D o i PANKT g n D OWN RD 4 R m a D u C l D R N Miles r s R L D O I n L e K S I a Airport Park R N n L R R H T i GE RD S m E ID 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 P O D R E O e N X D l R Y 1 R O D N o JA F L E k O E R C EVA L e C N RD E G S e S S S T r D N t D R U K o R T C I D I O AR O n E E I r I N D H L L R G RD y R e N N l D E N I D C D e U R N D R C e R A R I D r L O L S F R H h e E R R e O N E Y A C D Proposed Wickham Lake O N A W k B I R K R Y S O E E R K IS C uri D L W Y ch U R M T Di A C H Park Legend T R tch E A S BE V V H O S P G I F L O A E G Y B U H L R N T I R P L Y E IL I Minor Roads E o IT K R T D TL N D H R E S R A c E B G H D E B S h RO E E G V I N T L u O SARGENT RD I A A I N K R S H E Major Roads L N c LY O W N D R ID IL S E k R S C D D D E L
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity of the Moodna Creek Watershed: Important Resources and Conservation Recommendations
    Biodiversity of the Moodna Creek Watershed: Important Resources and Conservation Recommendations 19 June 2008 DRAFT Photos by L. Heady Laura Heady, NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program in partnership with Cornell University Department of Natural Resources Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT Acknowledgements Special thanks to Tom Lake, Chris Bowser, and Leah Abuza of the NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program for sharing their observations of the Moodna mouth system and providing valuable natural history information. Leslie Zucker, also from the Hudson River Estuary Program, contributed the “Streams and Riparian Corridors” section and Trout Brook analysis. Kelly Dobbins of Orange County Planning provided GIS data layers, and Gretchen Stevens and Bob Schmidt of Hudsonia offered assistance with identifying past studies of Moodna biodiversity. Jamie Deppen of Hudsonia helped with checking breeding bird data for the watershed. Prepared by: Laura Heady Biodiversity Outreach Coordinator NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program in partnership with Cornell University Department of Natural Resources 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561 Moodna Biodiversity L. Heady, 19 June 2008 DRAFT Table of Contents Introduction 1 Significance of Biodiversity to Watershed Planning 1 Threats to Biodiversity and Associated Impacts to Watershed Health 1 Biodiversity of the Moodna Creek Watershed 2 Priority Habitats of the Watershed 3 How to Use This Information 3 Hudson River Shoreline: The Moodna Mouth 4 Lower Reach of Moodna Creek 4 Confluence
    [Show full text]
  • Gruber, S., J.K. Nolan, and D. Reed. 2008
    ORANGE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY WATER QUALITY BIOMONITORING PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT FOR YEARS 2004 - 2006 ORANGE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY WATER QUALITY BIOMONITORING PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT FOR YEARS 2004 - 2006 Field Work and Data Analysis by Hudson Basin River Watch: J. Kelly Nolan, Principal Investigator Doug Reed, Executive Director Project Design, Site Selection and Report by Simon Gruber, Project Consultant, Orange County Water Authority Project Management and GIS Mapping by David Church, Orange County Water Authority Kelly Dobbins, Orange County Department of Planning Orange County Water Authority 99 Main Street, Suite 1 PO Box 118 Goshen, NY 10924 Tel: 845-291-4861 Fax: 845-291-4828 Web: http://waterauthority.orangecountygov.com/ February 2008 2 Table of Contents Page Project Overview 5 Background 6 Project Goals and Methods 7 Results and Interpretation 8 Map of All Sites Sampled – Figure 1 follows page 8 Distribution of BAP Scores for All 10 Samples from 2004-2006 – Figure 2 Impact Source Determination - Findings 11 Education, 2007 Sampling and Additional 11-12 Project Elements Summary of Findings 13 Next Steps and Additional 14-15 Recommendations BAP Scores for All Sites Assessed 16 Literature Cited 22 Rationale of Data Collected and Methods Appendix I Glossary Appendix II Excerpts from NYS DEC QAPP Appendix III 3 Acknowledgements (in alphabetical order): Robert Bode, Alexander Smith, and Margaret Novak, NYS DEC; Kelly Dobbins, Orange County Planning Department; Marcus Kantz, US EPA; James Kurtenbach, USEPA; John Mello, US EPA; Daniel Munoz, Orange County GIS Department; Tony Olsen, USEPA; William Schuster, Black Rock Forest Consortium; Kevin Sumner, Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District 4 Project Overview and History This Water Quality Biomonitoring Project was conceived in early 2004 by the Orange County Water Authority (OCWA) and implemented using Federal funding, with additional financial support from OCWA.
    [Show full text]
  • 11:30 AM ET Master Page # 1 Of
    NYS Urban Development Corporation Meeting Via Teleconference Thursday, 9/17/2020 9:30 - 11:30 AM ET I. Corporate Actions A. Approval of the Minutes of the August 20, 2020 Directors' Meeting 082020 Draft ESD Minutes - Page 4 B. Investment Report Approval of Investment Report and Investment Guidelines and Authorization to Take Related Actions Annual Investment Report Memo - Page 48 Annual Investment Report - Page 51 C. Delegation of Authority to Enter into Contracts - COVID - 19 Pandemic Relief Assistance - Extension of Delegation of Authority Delegation of Authority - COVD-19 Contracts - Extension - Page 85 Oral Reports A. President's Report B. Loans and Grants - Summary of Projects II. Projects A. Regional Council Award – Priority Project – Niagara Falls (Western New York Region – Niagara County) – Aquarium of Niagara Shark and Ray Bay Interactive Touch Pool Capital – Regional Council Capital Fund (Capital Grant) Findings and Determinations Pursuant to Section 10(g) of the Act; Authorization to Adopt the Proposed General Project Plan; Authorization to Make Grants and to Take Related Actions; Determination of No Significant Effect on the Environment Aquarium of Niagara Shark and Ray Bay Capital - Page 88 Aquarium of Niagara Shark and Ray Bay Interative Pool Touch Capital Photographs - Page 98 B. Regional Council Award – Buffalo (Western New York Region – Erie County) – SMART 71 Training Center Capital – Regional Council Capital Fund (Capital Grant) Findings and Determinations Pursuant to Section 10(g) of the Act; Authorization to Adopt the Proposed General Project Plan; Authorization to Make Grants and Take Related Actions SMART 71 Training Center Capital - Page 99 SMART 71 Training Center Capital Photographs - Page 109 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Orange County Stormwater Management
    County Of Orange, New York Stormwater Management Plan INTRODUCTION Regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and commonly referred to as the Phase II Stormwater Program requires certain municipalities and other entities that operate Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (“MS4’s”) to prepare and implement a Stormwater Management Program. Based on NYSDEC’s criteria, the County of Orange is considered to be a regulated MS4. Even without this regulation, it would be environmentally responsible for the County to address stormwater runoff concerns. In fact, the County had numerous proactive water conservation programs in place before the ‘Phase II’ regulations. This document will describe the County’s Stormwater Management Program with a focus on the ‘six minimum measures’ that are required components as determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) and NYSDEC. Orange Counties Stormwater Contact(s): Orange County Department of Planning/Water Authority: Stormwater Management Officer (“SMO”) David Church, AICP Commissioner of Planning 124 Main Street Goshen, NY 10924 Phone: 845.615.3840 Orange County Department of Public Works: Charles Lee, P.E. 2455-2459 Route 17M P.O. Box 509 Goshen, NY 10924 845.291.2750 Orange County Department of Parks and Recreation: Richard Rose, Jr. Commissioner of Parks and Recreation 211 Route 416 Montgomery, NY 12549 845.615.3830 Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District: Kevin Sumner District Manager 225 Dolson Avenue, Suite 103 Middletown, NY 10940 845.343.1873 The County of Orange, in compliance with the General Permit, shall prepare an Annual Report. The Annual Report will portray to the public and the NYSDEC a summary of activities performed throughout the reporting period, March 10 of the previous year through March 9 of the current year.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Warwick Comprehensive Plan Orange County, New York
    Town of Warwick Comprehensive Plan Orange County, New York Prepared for: Town Board of the Town of Warwick Edgar Houston, Supervisor Leonard DeBuck, Councilman Lorraine Gamache, Councilwoman James Gerstner, Councilman Michael Pillmeier, Councilman Prepared by: Town of Warwick Comprehensive Plan Board with Technical Assistance from INC. Adopted August 19, 1999 TOWN OF WARWICK, NY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Prepared by: Town of Warwick Comprehensive Plan Board Technical Assistance Provided by: GREENPLAN INC., J. Theodore Fink, AICP Comprehensive Plan Board Public Hearing: September 17, 1998 Comprehensive Plan Completed: November 16, 1998 Plan Adoption Recommended to Town Board: December 10, 1998 Town Board Public Hearing: July 29, 1999 Date of Town Board SEQR Determination: August 19, 1999 Date of Plan Adoption: August 19, 1999 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Development Pressures in Warwick ........................................................... 1 1.2 Regional Planning Efforts .......................................................................... 3 1.3 The Warwick Comprehensive Plan Process ................................................ 4 1.4 Goals of the Community........................................................................... 6 1.5 Summary of the Plan................................................................................. 7 2.0 WARWICK IN 1998 2.1 Regional Context .................................................................................... 10 2.2 Local Context ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan (2005)
    $8.00 Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan Balancing Development and the Environment in the Hudson River Estuary Watershed Metropolitan Conservation Alliance a program of MCA Technical Paper Series: No. 8 Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan Balancing Development and the Environment in the Hudson River Estuary Watershed by Nicholas A. Miller, Michael W. Klemens, and Jennifer E. Schmitz Metropolitan Conservation Alliance Wildlife Conservation Society Bronx, NY Cover photograph: Black Meadow Creek, Orange County, NY. ©WCS/MCA, Kevin J. Ryan Suggested citation: Miller, N. A., M. W. Klemens, and J. E. Schmitz. 2005. Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan: Balancing development and the environment in the Hudson River Estuary Watershed. MCA Technical Paper No. 8, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York. Additional copies of this document can be obtained from: Metropolitan Conservation Alliance Wildlife Conservation Society 68 Purchase Street, 3rd Floor Rye, New York 10580 (914) 925-9175 [email protected] ISBN 0-9724810-5-2 ISSN 1542-8133 Printed on partially recycled paper Gette © Linda In memory of Ann Botshon Her tireless work to conserve the Wallkill Valley continues to inspire us all iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without the enthusiastic collaboration and support of our key partners: the towns of Chester, Goshen, and Warwick, and the Village of Warwick. These communities have helped to guide this project and have contributed to its success through outreach to their citizenry and active engagement at meetings and planning charettes. We extend thanks to all of our partners within these communities (including many elected and appointed officials, town staff, volunteer board members, and concerned citizens) who have moved this project forward and who continue to make conservation of biodiversity a priority within their towns.
    [Show full text]