Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seqr Eaf Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clinton Planning Board begins Part 2 EAF review of proposed development, requests more studies
Summary
The Town of Clinton Planning Board opened a Part 2 SEQR (EAF) review of a multi‑phase development, tentatively classifying several impact areas as 'moderate to large' and directing the applicant to provide additional studies on wetlands, wastewater options, well testing, and habitat before any final decisions.
At a meeting in Clinton, New York, the Planning Board opened a detailed Part 2 review of the environmental assessment form (EAF) for a proposed development, clarifying process steps and asking consultants and the applicant for additional studies before making final determinations.
The board chair said the session would focus on Part 2 of the EAF — the step that asks whether specific impact categories should be scored "No/Small" or "Moderate/Large" — and reiterated that the meeting was not a public hearing and that public comment would not be taken that night.
Adriana Beltrani, the board's environmental planner, explained that the draft Part 2 responses were prepared by the board's consultants and that the Planning Board, as lead agency, will have final authority over those responses. She told members that if the board needs more information on any question they could table it for further study.
Board members and consultants worked through multiple EAF topics in sequence, from land disturbance and steep slopes to wetlands, wastewater, groundwater, habitat and historic resources. In several areas the board flagged concerns and asked the applicant for follow-up information rather than making final determinations:
- Wetlands: consultants identified about 0.56 acres of DEC‑regulated wetland disturbance (inclusive of buffers) and asked for a clearer delineation of Wetland F.
- Wastewater: engineers described a proposed wastewater treatment plant and noted DEC effluent limits; board members asked for an alternatives analysis rather than assuming a stream discharge.
- Groundwater/wells: the applicant presented 72‑hour pump tests (August 2023) for two production wells; members requested monitoring‑well locations relative to neighbors and seasonal testing information.
- Habitat: consultants noted Blanding’s turtle habitat and asked for additional biological assessments and clarity on an incidental take permit.
The board repeatedly emphasized that Part 2 classifications are preliminary and that a part‑three review and additional studies could reduce identified impacts through mitigation. The meeting closed with the board instructing staff and the applicant to supply the requested materials — including wetland re‑delineation documents, hydrogeology reports, a construction‑phasing schedule, DOT input on the proposed left‑turn lane, and an alternatives analysis for wastewater disposal — and to return at a future meeting to finish the Part 2 vote.
