Planning board to consider revised scoping document for 6 Senses Hudson Valley after applicants supplement EAF on disadvantaged communities and climate risk

The Town of Hyde Park Planning Board reviewed an updated Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) supplement for the 6 Senses Hudson Valley conference-center project and agreed to take the updated material under advisement while ordering additional technical review and revisions to the scoping document.

Victoria Polidoro, representing CEC NY Land Holdings LLC, told the board the applicant submitted a marked-up EAF that adds two new SEQR Part 2 questions while leaving the existing EAF material in place. "The new questions are highlighted in red," Polidoro said, and the applicant provided a memo and a desktop analysis addressing greenhouse-gas thresholds.

The memo explained the Part 2 climate question asks whether the project would generate or emit greenhouse-gas emissions ‘‘in excess of 10,000 metric tons of total carbon dioxide equivalents per year.’’ The consultant for the applicant said the desktop comparison (citing examples such as 25-lot subdivisions and regional hospitals) showed the applicant "feels as if this project is nowhere near this threshold," and that the EAF supplement answers ‘no’ to the GHG threshold while documenting the rationale for the record.

Board members focused on two new questions: whether the project may affect a disadvantaged community (EAF question 19) and whether it may increase future physical climate risks (EAF question 20). One member flagged item 19(c), which asks if the proposed action may create new wastewater discharges or expand existing discharges within a disadvantaged community, and recommended changing the record-level rating on that subquestion to "moderate to large" because of potential wastewater interactions with nearby communities.

The planning consultant noted a previously provided burden report (April) and said that report, plus additional analysis, will be appended to the DEIS. The board confirmed that a portion of Hyde Park falls within the disadvantaged-community mapping cited in the submission, so the question applies to the project site.

Flood and stormwater risks were another point of detailed discussion. A technical reviewer summarized DEC stormwater rules as requiring design for the 100-year rainfall event and said the SEQR workbook guidance can reference 500-year considerations when critical infrastructure or vulnerable populations are involved. A consultant told the board that under current rules the site's stormwater design is expected to comply with the 100-year standard, saying the full site stormwater design "in compliance with the regulation" is built to that level. The board discussed whether to mark impacts relating to projected future flood elevations as small, moderate or moderate-to-large for Part 2 and agreed to adjust the Part 2 answers to reflect the board's concerns.

Several technical follow-ups were requested. The board has retained (or plans to retain) independent reviewers, including an independent biologist who visited the site (Jason Tesoro), and the planner recommended a hydrogeologist (Frank Getchell of Weston & Sampson) as a potential reviewer of groundwater and wastewater issues. The board and consultants have also been in contact with the Army Corps regarding wetlands jurisdiction and a potential jurisdictional-determination site visit.

Members also asked that scoping address specific public-comment themes: water resources and wastewater (including baseline upstream/downstream sampling and whether PFAS parameters should be tested), possible impacts to Brown's Pond, traffic and pedestrian/bicycle considerations near Route 9G, community services such as fire and emergency response, and the project's relation to local farmland-protection planning (the transcript references Clinton's farmland protection plan). The planning consultant said many comments were duplicative but recommended organizing the scoping response by topic and suggested the applicant append factual program details to the DEIS rather than restating them in each response letter.

The applicant consented on the record to extend the deadline for scoping-adoption review to July 16. The board agreed to review a redlined scoping document prepared by consultants in advance (the planner said members would receive the draft no later than the Monday before the meeting) and signaled an intent to adopt the scoping document "as may be amended" at a special meeting on July 16; the precise start time (5 or 6 p.m.) was left for final scheduling. No formal vote on the scoping document occurred at this meeting.

What happens next: consultants will prepare a redlined scoping draft that highlights items they recommend accepting, items already addressed in the draft, and items the board must decide. Independent technical reviewers (hydrogeologist, biologist) will be asked to provide proposals or cost estimates so the board can authorize their work at the July 16 meeting. The planning board also asked applicants to provide any responses to the redline sufficiently in advance of the meeting so the board and consultants can reconcile outstanding issues.