September 25, 2006
Mr. Herb Schech, Chairman
Town of Patterson Planning Board
P,O, Box 470
1142 Route 311
Patterson, NY 12563
Re: Patterson Crossing Retail Center
Dear Mr. Schech and Members of the Planning Board,
On behalf of the Croton Watershed Clean Water
Coalition, Inc. (CWCWC), I am submitting comments from three professional firms
regarding serious traffic and water quality concerns in connection with the
Patterson Crossing project.
In addition, our attorney James B. Bacon, Esq.
is submitting comments regarding legal concerns associated with this project.
As you will see, these experts express
well-founded reservations regarding the capacity of the area itself and
surrounding areas to absorb the impacts of a project this size. Therefore, we
are urging your Planning Board to have the applicant consider drastically
downsizing this project and to submit an accompanying SEIS.
Engineering professionals, David Clouser &
Associates, clearly show that this project does not conform with the Town of
Patterson’s zoning criteria, particularly in regard to the siting of a
commercial sanitary waste disposal system in an area zoned residential. Unless
the applicant can obtain a variance - an unlikely event - a site within the
area zoned commercial will have to be found. Other zoning criteria that are not
conformed with in this project are
·
“The minimum setback of all buildings, structures, parking areas
and access drives shall be 65 feet” (Section 154-111(B)) and that sixty-five
feet from any rear or side property line shall be maintained as vegetative
buffers.
·
The project does not conform to the requirement that “..total
area of all impervious surfaces shall not exceed 50% of the total lot area.”
(Section 154-111(C)
This last comment points to a particularly
serious consequence in terms of stormwater management. As has been confirmed by
countless studies, forested lands such as the present Patterson Crossing are
among the best barriers to the ravages of stormwater runoff. Here, not only
will considerable areas of forest be decimated, but they will be replaced by
impervious surfaces that will further exacerbate the runoff – a double whammy.
The regulatory agencies – NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) – are mainly concerned with
the increase in phosphorus to the already phosphorus-restricted reservoirs
(Middle Branch, East Branch and Croton Falls) in the Croton Watershed. But we
must also be concerned with other pollutants that will contaminate the drinking
water of local as well as NYC residents. These pollutants from parking lots
include motor oil, grease, petroleum and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) that are classified as bioaccumulative carcinogens. There is nothing in
the applicant’s DEIS that mentions mitigation of these contaminants.
Clouser Associates also clearly point
out serious deficiencies in the applicant’s stormwater analysis in terms of
using input data that do not conform with the most recent data recommended by
the agencies that regulate the NYC watersheds, namely, DEP and DEC. This leads
to the applicant over-estimating the pollution reduction capability of the
proposed stormwater management system. Rather than a decrease in
phosphorus-loading as claimed by the applicant, there will, in effect be an
increase in phosphorus loading to the afore-mentioned phosphorus-restricted
reservoirs.
The analysis by Adler Consulting of
the applicant’s traffic submission also points to serious defects. We draw your
attention to the following points - to the applicant under-estimating the
increase in traffic due to the project; to the likelihood that the State and
the taxpayers will end up paying for the road improvements needed to
accommodate the increased traffic; to the fact that the site’s solitary
1,300-foot long access driveway will carry approximately 17,000 vehicles per
day and that both Echo Road and Concord Road are incapable of handling the
inevitable emergencies that will occur on that road. In our experts’ opinion,
the applicant’s traffic analysis is so inadequate that an SEIS is called for.
Based on these expert opinions, we
urge you to consider a much-reduced project. It is clear that the land itself
cannot sustain a project of this size and that this will result in the
applicant having to apply for zoning variances. In addition, it is clear that
the surrounding roads are totally inadequate and would eventually have to be
reconfigured at considerable expense to the towns and their residents. Also,
the applicant has far from complied with the regulatory agencies’ required
phosphorus reductions to the phosphorus-impaired reservoirs.
Most egregious will be the negative
impacts on the neighboring community. A quiet, semi-rural community that has
enjoyed the peace of a nearby forest and the amenities of a lake will be
suddenly confronted with drilling and blasting; the destruction of the forest;
the rising up of huge buildings and parking lots; noise; traffic; polluted air
and water. What effect will this have on property values and will the residents
be compensated when those values decrease? The DEIS does not provide any
answers.
These devastating effects on the
residents must be taken into account. Merely owning the land does not give the
applicant the right to harm the neighbors. But unless this project is reduced
very considerably, the neighbors’ standard of living will be severely
compromised.
Again, CWCWC urges you to call for a
drastically reduced project and for the applicant to provide a suitable SEIS.
Thank you for this opportunity to
comment.
Sincerely yours,
Marian H. Rose, PhD
President, CWCWC
