Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Agency sends Spring Motor Inn cabin proposal back for EAF corrections and wetlands clarification
Summary
The planning agency returned an application for seven seasonal cabins at Spring Motor Inn, asking the applicant to correct discrepancies on the Environmental Assessment Form related to wetlands, archaeological sensitivity and hazardous-waste cleanup status before further review.
The Washington County Planning Agency voted to return an application from Spring Motor Inn for a seven-cabin seasonal expansion and asked the applicant to correct discrepancies on the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). The action was taken after staff said the EAF answers did not match the state mapping data.
Pam, a planning agency staff member, described the proposal as seven seasonal cabins, each about 30 by 36 feet with two rooms and a 6-by-30-foot porch, elevated on summer tubes. The project would include a new rear ingress at Marion Street and hookups to public water and sewer; the village had already contacted the sewer district and indicated the sewer main had adequate capacity, Pam said. The application is subject to the agency's 500-foot review for properties along New York State Route 4.
Pam told the agency she ran the applicant's EAF through the state's mapper and found inconsistencies: the state database shows wetlands and other flagged conditions that the applicant's EAF checked "no." She also identified questions about archaeological sensitivity and whether the property adjoins a parcel subject to hazardous-waste remediation. Pam recommended the applicant resolve those discrepancies with corrected EAF answers or documentation from state agencies.
After discussion about the mapper results and the EAF entries, a planning agency member moved to send the application back with a request that the applicant correct the identified deficiencies and resolve discrepancies; the motion carried. The agency's action was procedural: it returns the submission for correction rather than imposing a permit denial or approval.
Details the agency flagged for correction include the presence of mapped wetlands, archaeologically sensitive areas, and whether adjacent property is subject to hazardous-waste remediation. The applicant must confirm the EAF entries and supply any missing letters (for example, from the local water district) before the agency proceeds with site-plan review.
