What Does Shovel Ready Mean?
Recent community discussions and
concerns surrounding the actions of the Town Board related to the 2012 Shovel
Ready Feasibility Study Grant Application have led to questions about the Town
Board and the community’s understanding of what shovel ready designation means, why it is being pursued, and the
ramifications of land parcels being deemed shovel
ready for a particular type of development.
The term shovel ready refers to a type of incentive for economic
development. Essentially, parcels of land can be designated shovel ready. In a nutshell, this means
that they are “pre-approved” for specific types of uses. When a parcel of land
is designated shovel ready, the Town
Board may choose to allow a developer to forgo a specific environmental review
(known as a SEQRA.) This is done by allowing the developer to use a General
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
from the past rather than convening a new, in depth assessment of a particular
site. In the Town of New Paltz, the 1995 GEIS for the South Putt Corridor, or
an updated version (yet to be conducted) could be used in lieu of a SEQRA for shovel ready parcels. In order to be considered shovel ready, the town must also show
that a parcel of land has access to basic infrastructure, including water and
sewage. Thus, a Shovel Ready designation expedites approvals process, reduces
the cost for potential development and makes the parcels of land more
attractive for developers.
An undated document located on
the New Paltz Town site titled Sustainable Development Statement of Work states
“Specifically, plan development will include going through the SEQRA process
for the Putt Corners Road corridor to make a ‘shovel ready’ area which will
reduce approval times and costs for interested developers.” The shovel ready
status for non-developed land assumes that when infrastructure and
environmental reviews are already in place, developers will be enticed to come
to New Paltz. It is a build it and they
will come mentality that involves speculative infrastructure. In light of the
current shovel ready feasibility study, one must raise the question: Is there a clear Board and Community
understanding of shovel-ready and the
more limited opportunities for review and public comment that this designation
implies?
What is the historical Impetus for discussion and
interest in increased sewage infrastructure in Town of New Paltz, particularly
the South Putt Road Corridor?
v
The desire
for increased economic development to alleviate disproportionate tax burden on
residents and a desire to expand employment opportunities.
v
The existing
problems of the North Ohioville plant and rates, plus a FEMA grant that
requires 75% grant funding to be used for 1) Mitigation of Sewer 6 issues, 2)
extension and looping of water supply for North and South Putt Corners Rd and
Rt. 32 and 3) Cherry Hill water line relocation.
v
The desire
to combine sewer and water projects in the South Putt corridor with the
widening of South Putt Rd and the ensuing issues of immediacy and coordination.
What does the public record
indicate?
The following documents were examined
and considered:
●
1990 Sewer Feasibility Study
●
1994 Putt Corridors Road Corridor Development Plan Draft GEIS
and 1995 Findings Statement
●
1995 Town of New Paltz Comprehensive Master Plan
●
Town of New Paltz 2010 Comprehensive Plan
●
2012 Shovel Ready Feasibility Study Grant Application
●
(Date Unknown, 2013?) Sustainable Development Statement of Work -
Executive Summary
●
2014 Wildberry Lodge Final Scoping Document (9/14)
·
Town
Engineer Dave Clouser’s 12/18/14 Presentation
In 1990, the Town of New Paltz
commissioned a Sewer Feasibility Study to evaluate the “feasibility of sewage
alternatives that would not only provide for existing needs but also for future
development in the area. Ultimately, the study identified three alternatives:
1.
Tie into
Village facilities
2.
Expand the
existing Ohioville Road facility
3.
Build a new
facility south of the high school (which would appear to be close to the
current site under consideration)
The report concludes that best
option is alternative number one, tying into the Village facility, as “the use
of an existing treatment facility greatly reduces operation and maintenance
costs and would likely be more satisfying to the Department of Environmental
Conservation.”
It should be noted here that the
2012 Shovel Ready Feasibility Study Grant Application states
“The recommendations in the 1990 Sewer Feasibility Study were based on
several assumptions that are no longer valid and did not consider future development
in this area to the extent analyzed by the South Putt Corridor Development Plan
GEIS which was completed 5 years later.”
Next multiple attempts were
made to look at the Final 1995 South
Putt Corridor Development Plan GEIS, however it could not be located despite
extensive searches. The reason that it
is so important is that the DRAFT GEIS, states that an alternative among the
three listed below would be selected and elaborated on in the final GEIS, but
no evidence has been unearthed that this decision occurred.
The Putt Corners Road Corridor
Development Plan Draft GEIS of 1994 was prepared by Saratoga Associates and
addressed the entire Putt Corridor (North and South), including both town and village properties.
The DRAFT GEIS refers to 3 possible patterns of development:
1.
Maintain
existing pattern of development
2.
100% office
or 100% light industrial with existing infrastructure
3.
100% office
or 100% light industrial with enhanced infrastructure
Page 1-21
cautions that “development under
alternative three will require municipal water supply. At present the water
supply is at or near its per capita limitation. Office or light industrial
development will increase water use without increasing population, thus raising
the usage rate per person in the communities. In effect, there may not be water
available to service full development of the corridor.”
Page 2-25 goes on to state that
“Provision of sanitary sewers would increase property values substantially,
conferring a windfall on the landowners. This windfall could be recouped as the
time of development by imposing development fees. In the interim, the community
would have to pay the costs of site preparation through general tax revenue.
Unfortunately, public funds for infrastructure development are much more
difficult to obtain than was the case in the past. …….At the present time there
are no known public funds for speculative infrastructure extensions.”
This document clearly raises
several concerns regarding speculative infrastructure extensions such as a new
sewage facility and refers the reader to the final document for elaboration,
yet this document cannot be located.
Around the same time, the 1995
Town of New Paltz Comprehensive Master Plan was created. Page 16 of the 1995
Master Plan states, “The New Paltz
Economic Development Corporation has obtained State Economic Development
Assistance Grant funding to finance a generic EIS for the Town's and Village's
Putt Corners Corridor Development Plan. The plan has provided an objective
analysis of alternatives for development of the Putts Corners Road corridor to
assist the Town and Village of New Paltz in adopting a land use plan for the
corridor that encourages growth within the parameters of existing zoning,
provides jobs for residents of the town and village and surrounding area,
increases the tax base without significantly impacting community services, and
maintains the character of the community and
potential
for tourism.”
Page 29 of same document states:
“The
industrial area shown on the Land Use Plan is located in the Town, to the east
of the Village along the New York Thruway. Despite
its thruway accessible location one
constraint
upon research office or industrial development is the lack of a fully developed
public
utility system in this area. The creation of major office research or
industrial
centers
without central sewer and water facilities would not be recommended. The Putt
Corners
study will be utilized for guiding the development.”
Page 43 of the 1995 Town of New Paltz Master Plan
further states:
“If the
community requires or needs additional sewage treatment facilities, the ideal
locations
for these facilities are:
1. North
along the Wallkill corridor near the Camp Dineen property. Site #1 is
downstream
from the current facility. Because of the proximity to the Rail Trail it
can provide
easy expansion of routes for underground pipes. Also, nearness to the
Wallkill River
provides a convenient location for discharge of the treated effluent.
2. In the
Ohioville/Putt Corners area, preferably replacing the existing, undersized
Ohioville
facility with one on the south side of Rt. 299 with enough capacity for
this entire
industrial area and allowing residential tie-in.”
Fifteen years later, the Town
Board adopted the 2010 Town of New Paltz Comprehensive Plan. Page 210 of 2010
Plan states:
“There is
also a study underway to determine the feasibility of the Town building a new
wastewater treatment facility near South Putt Corners Road where sewer
districts one and five are located. The advantage of a plant in this location
is that the properties already have
sewer lines
which feed to the Village system.”
Page 208 of the 2010 Master Plan
contains a map of the town’s sewer districts. These sewer districts are in the
vicinity of Rt. 299 and S. Putt.
To recap:
1990 – Sewer Feasibility Study
identifies a new facility near New Paltz Senior High School as a possible
alternative but concludes that this is not the best option.
1994 Putt Corridors Road Corridor
Development Plan Draft GEIS - Does not identify specific location for potential
expansion of sewage infrastructure, but cautions, “there may not be water
available to service full development of the corridor.” The report appendix contains three maps that
show sanitary sewer options for connection.
All of them are in the Rt. 299 vicinity.
1995 Town of New Paltz
Comprehensive Master Plan - Indicates that the ideal location for additional
sewage treatment facilities are “North along the Wallkill corridor near the
Camp Dineen property” or “In the
Ohioville/Putt Corners area, preferably replacing the existing, undersized
Ohioville facility with one on the south side of Rt. 299.”
2010 Town of New Paltz
Comprehensive Plan - “There is also a study underway to determine the
feasibility of the Town building a new wastewater treatment facility near South
Putt Corners Road where sewer districts one and five are located.”
The 2014 Wildberry
Lodge Final Scoping Document prepared by the Town Planning Board Line 126 states, "The project proposes to develop
necessary water and sewer services." However, line 324 states, "The project sponsor
has been asked to consider the alternatives of supplying its water and
wastewater needs through municipal districts or extensions, should those be
formed within a time frame to allow connection of the project at the time of
commencement of operations."
Again, the 2013 Sustainable Development Statement of Work
outlines plans to streamline “environmental review by use of a GEIS that
reduces the cost and time of site specific environmental review” and outlines a
timeline for a SEQRA assessment to update and expansion of the generic GEIS
done in 1995 for the Putt Corners Road corridor.
Summary
The public record is far from
definitive in terms of the type of increased infrastructure needed, the
cost/benefit ratio, and the identification of an optimal location for said
infrastructure. The record also raises important
questions that should be addressed before determining when, where, and how any
new municipal sewage or wastewater infrastructure is to be built or
considered.
Questions:
●
The 1994
GEIS Alternative 3 presents figures on projected wastewater flow per day for
both office and industrial development.
The December 18, 2014 Progress Review and Update on the Feasibility
Study presents vastly different figures on projected wastewater flow. What
accounts for the variance in projected wastewater flow based on the same kind
of future development? (See table below)
PROJECTED
WASTEWATER FLOW IN GALLONS PER DAY
|
||
Office
|
Industrial
|
|
1994 GEIS, Alt.3-“Enhanced Infrastructure”
|
79,965
|
118,625
|
12-18-14 Progress Review & Update
|
281,700
|
144,500
|
VARIANCE
|
201,735
|
25,875
|
●
Will the
Town Board allow shovel ready site developers to forgo a full SEQRA , thereby instituting an expedited
shovel-ready review process, by referring to previous GEIS and if so, what GEIS
will they use? A parallel question: Does
the Town intend to designate the entire S. Putt corridor as shovel-ready and if
not, which parcels?
●
Please
explain the numbers shown in the Feasibility Study for existing sewer use in
the S. Putt Corridor. Do those figures
reflect the current sewer district’s use in the Rt. 299 vicinity, or projected
use of sewer by existing uses along the corridor (e.g. school)? Will existing uses be required to join a S.
Putt sewer district or will it be optional?
How is this usage reflected in any proposed rates/financial analysis?
●
Were the
properties North of the Wallkill suggested as “ideal” in the 1995 Town Master
plan considered? Was the land surrounding sewer districts 1 and 5 as suggested
in 2010 Master plan considered as part of the feasibility study?
●
What are the
terms of the FEMA grant for Sewer 6 updates and the water loop? Is there a firm commitment? Is there at 25% match or is that covered by
grants? Does the commitment expire if
funds are not used by a certain date?
●
Did the Town
Board or town engineers request that the DEC conduct site visits of properties
other than the Copeland/Barry properties as part of the feasibility study? If so,
which parcels and what was the DEC feedback on these alternate parcels of land?
●
Has a study
of the feasibility of utilizing village facilities been included in the S. Putt
Feasibility Study?
●
Have any
studies been done of the available real estate and market trends to assess
whether or not there is demand in Ulster County for land zoned “light industrial/office?” Is there evidence to suggest that taxpayers
will see a return on speculative infrastructure development in the near future?
●
Are there
any currently existing sewer problems (as evidenced by an engineer’s report)
along the S. Putt corridor?
● Perhaps most
importantly, has an analysis been done of the increased tax benefits to the
community of developing this corridor considering the variety of tax abatements
that are currently being used (PILOTS, Start-up NY, etc) by developers? Does
this analysis show a significant net gain in taxes?
Visit https://considerationofnewpaltzsewageinfrastructure.wordpress.com/ where via a feedback form you can submit suggested annotations or clarifications.
No comments:
Post a Comment