Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board begins EAF Part 2 review; members request focused inventories and erosion controls
Summary
Planning board reviewed Part 2 of the environmental assessment (EAF) for the Homeland Towers application, flagged potential small impacts (erosion, generator fuel, tree clearing) and asked the applicant to confirm wetlands buffer distances and provide targeted wildlife survey data where warranted.
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The planning board worked through Part 2 of the State Environmental Quality Review (EAF) for the Homeland Towers site on Dec. 4, identifying possible environmental impacts and asking for clarifications and supporting documentation.
The consultant leading the Part 2 review asked the board to consider potential impacts on land, wetlands buffers, erosion, and protected species. Board members and Conservation Advisory Council participants raised concerns about several items: the presence of wetlands on the broader parcel and ensuring the construction site is outside the wetland buffer; a small number of trees (seven) slated for removal for an access road; and whether grassland birds or other species of conservation concern might use the cleared area. The applicant’s consultant said the DEC EAF Mapper did not identify state-listed species on the site beyond bog turtle and northern long‑eared bat flags and that the direct disturbance area is small (the applicant cited about 7,900 sq ft). The board asked the applicant’s environmental consultant to double-check state databases and to provide additional field-survey information if available.
The board also discussed on-site generator fuel containment and routine testing. The applicant noted a sound‑attenuated diesel generator with approximately 132‑gallon containment and an environmental-built secondary containment system; the board asked for documentation and standard erosion-control details for the site plan. No formal environmental determinations were made; the board left multiple EAF Part 2 questions open pending supplemental materials.

