village of kiryas joel planning board for · pdf filevillage of kiryas joel planning board...

VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL PLANNING BOARD

NOTICE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS STATEMENT

FOR PROJECT KNOWN AS VEYOEL MOSHE GARDENS

Date of Adoption: December 3rd, 2017

This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8

(State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the Village of Kiryas Joel Planning Board, as lead agency, has adopted

a FINDINGS STATEMENT for the project known as Veyoel Moshe Gardens, and authorized its

distribution to the Attached List of Interested and Involved Agencies. In addition, a copy of the FEIS

will be posted online on www.vmgardensdeis.wordpress.com and a hard copy is available at the Monroe

Public Library at 44 Millpond Parkway, Monroe, NY and can be foiled at the Village of Kiryas Joel at 51

Forest Road. The adoption of the Findings Statement closes the SEQRA environmental review for this

project.

NAME OF PROPOSED ACTION: VEYOEL MOSHE GARDENS

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

The applicant, MYM Management, Inc. (developer) is seeking Site Plan approval to construct

approximately 1600 dwelling units on approximately 70 acres of property, which is located at the

intersection of Nininger Road (County Highway 64) and Bakertown Road (County Route 105) in the

Village of Kiryas Joel, New York in Orange County, NY. The subject site is served by municipal water

and sewer service.

SITE LOCATION

The Subject Site is identified as parcels within the Village of Kiryas Joel and known as SBL 312-1-1

and 311-1-1.2. The Subject Site is located within the PD zoning district where the proposed use is

permitted by right subject to Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board, which the applicant has

submitted an application therewith.

SEQRA CLASSIFICATION

Upon review of the Application, the Village of Kiryas Joel Planning Board has determined that the

Project is subject to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and its implementing regulations (6

NYCRR Part 617) as a Type I Action.

CONTACT PERSON

If you have any questions or comments on this DEIS or Notice, you may contact Gerald MacDonald,

Planning Board Engineer at (845) 294-8818 or by mailing Mr. MacDonald at P.O. Box 566, Monroe,

NY 10949

NOTICE TO BE SENT TO ALL INVOLVED AND INTERESTED AGENCIES

This Notification and a copy of the Findings statement was sent to all Involved and Interested Agencies

on December 4th, 2017. A copy of this notice was also sent to the NYSDEC Environmental Notice

Publication.

http://www.vmgardensdeis.wordpress.com/

INVOLVED AND INTERESTED AGENCIES

Village of Kiryas Joel Planning Board

P.O. Box 566,

Monroe, NY 10949

Village of Kiryas Joel Village Board

P.O. Box 566,

Monroe, NY 10949

NYS DEC

Region 3

21 South Putts Corners

New Paltz, NY 12561

NYSDOT

Eleanor Roosevelt State Office Building

4 Burnett Boulevard

Poughkeepsie, NY 12603

Orange County Department Public Works, Division of Environmental Facilities and Services

2455-2459 Route 17M

Goshen, NY 10924-0637

OC Department of Public Works, Highway Engineering

Attn: Mike Carroll

2455-2459 Route 17M

Goshen, NY 10924-0637

OC Sewer District 1, reviewed by OC Department of Public Works

Division of Environmental Facilities

Attn: Anthony Griffin

2455-2459 Route 17M

Goshen, NY 10924-0637

Orange County Planning Department

1887 County Building

124 Main Street

Goshen, NY 10924

Orange County Department of Health

124 Main Street,

Goshen, NY 10924

Town of Monroe

1465 Orange Turnpike

Monroe, NY 10950

Village of Woodbury

P.O. Box 546

Central Valley, NY 10917

Village of Harriman

1 Church Street

Harriman, NY 10926

United States Army Corp of Engineers

Brian Orzel 1937 USACE

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278-0090

Public Review Repository:

Monroe Free Library

44 Millpond Parkway

Monroe, NY 10950

A copy of this notice was also sent to the Environmental Notice Bulletin.

Statement of Environmental

Findings

For Veyoel Moshe Gardens Site Plan Approval

Date Adopted: December 3rd, 2017

Planning Board of the Village of Kiryas Joel

of 28 Statement of Environmental Findings Veyoel Moshe Gardens Lead Agency: Planning Board of the Village of Kiryas Joel Last revised: November 29th, 2017

SEQRA FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL

REGARDING THE VEYOEL MOSHE GARDENS PROJECT

Pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (Article 8 of the New York State

Environmental Conservation Law) and its implementing regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 617,

(referenced herein as “SEQRA”), the Planning Board of the Town of Monroe, NY, as Lead Agency,

makes the findings contained herein for the Proposed Action identified below:

Name of Action: VEYOEL MOSHE GARDENS

Lead Agency: Planning Board of the Village of Kiryas Joel

Chairman Gershon Neuman

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 515

Monroe, New York 10949

Contact Person For

Additional Information: Gerald MacDonald, P.E., Village & Planning Board Engineer

(845) 294-8818 (same mailing address as above)

SEQR Status: Type I

Date Final FEIS Filed: Adopted October 22nd 2017, and filed with Agencies on October 24

2017

Lead Agency Adoption of this Statement of Environmental Findings: December 3rd, 2017


Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction .....................................................................................................................3

Section 2: Project Location and Zoning Designation ......................................................................3

Section 3: Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................................3

Section 3.1: Project Construction and Phasing ....................................................................4

Section 4: SEQRA Processing History ............................................................................................5

Section 5: Findings and Mitigation Requirements...........................................................................7

Section 5.1 Zoning and Other Adopted Planning Documents ............................................7

Section 5.2 Impact on Land Resources: Soils, Topography and Slopes .............................9

Section 5.3 Impact on Water Resources ...........................................................................10

Section 5.4 Impact on Flora and Fauna ............................................................................11

Section 5.5 Impact on Traffic ...........................................................................................12

Section 5.6 Impact on Air Quality ....................................................................................15

Section 5.7 Impact on Sewers ...........................................................................................15

Section 5.8 Impact on Water Supply ................................................................................17

Section 5.9 Impact on Archeological/Historic Resources ................................................18

Section 5.10 Impact on Other Residential Utility Services ...............................................19

Section 5.11 Impact on Schools and School Services .......................................................20

Section 5.12 Impact on Public Services .............................................................................20

Section 5.13 Fiscal Impacts ..............................................................................................22

Section 5.14 Visual Impacts ..............................................................................................23

Section 5.15 Growth Inducing Impacts .............................................................................25

Section 5.16 Alternatives that were considered .................................................................26

Section 5.17 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ..............................26

Section 5.18 Adverse Impacts that Could Not be Avoided ...............................................27

Certification to Approve/Fund/Undertake .....................................................................................28

Exhibit A: Notice of Intent, dated August 25th, 2017

Exhibit B: Decision of the State of New York Appellate Court, Third Judicial Department, dated

October 28th, 2017


Section 1: Introduction This Finding Statement is submitted on behalf of the project known as Veyoel Moshe Gardens, a

proposed 1600 residential unit project within the Village of Kiryas Joel. This document was

prepared in accordance with implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617) and in accordance with

the requirements of the Village of Kiryas Joel Planning Board, the Lead Agency on this project. The

Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (As revised

on October 19, 2017 and adopted on October 22, 2017) and all appendices for both documents are

incorporated by reference to this Findings Statement. Copies of both the Draft and Final

Environmental Impact Statement were provided to all involved and interested agencies, and copies

were made available for public review in hard copy and online at www.vmgardensdeis

Section 2: Project Location and Zoning Designation The project parcel can be found in the Orange County Real Property Records under the Tax ID

numbers (SBL) 312-1-1 and 311-1-1.2. The parcel is located on the southeast portion of Kiryas Joel

in the PU (Planned Unit Development) zoning district in the Village of Kiryas Joel, which permits

the project by right with the approval of the Planning Board.

Section 3: Description of the Proposed Action The project is known as Veyoel Moshe Garden, and is proposed on a property located in the Village

of Kiryas Joel on the corner of Nininger Road (County Highway 64) and Bakertown Road (County

Highway 105). These two parcels are combined to be approximately 70 acres, and are mostly

undeveloped, except for the ruins of a home that was built in the mid-19th century located along

Nininger Road. The parcel can be found in the Orange County Real Property Records under the Tax

ID numbers (SBL) 312-1-1 and 311-1-1.2 The project is located in the PU (Planned Unit

Development) Zoning District in the Village of Kiryas Joel, which permits the project by right with

the approval of the Planning Board.

The proposed project would result in the development of 1600 residential units on the

aforementioned property. These units will be a mix of 3 to 5 bedroom units, ranging from 1600 to

3000 square feet, with the majority of the units having less than 2500 square feet and four bedrooms.

The actual layout of individual units will be determined by the needs of the owner, and all units will

be customizable. These units are proposed to be sold as condominium units to individual owners.

The units will have access to onsite amenities, including on site play areas for children, community

rooms, storage and parking. Road access is proposed via the development of roads as depicted on

the site plan that will be dedicated to the Village of Kiryas Joel, as well as a system of sidewalks that

will be connected to the existing pedestrian system within the Village.

This pedestrian system includes a pedestrian bridge that will be constructed, prior to issuance of the

1200th certificate of occupancy, over Bakertown Road in order to minimize pedestrian and vehicle

conflicts, and improve safety. The Project Engineer and the County have discussed this plan and


determined that the construction is feasible. The detailed plans for the bridge have not been

finalized and the final plan will require review and approval by the Orange County Department of

Public Works.

Construction of the project will begin in the Fall of 2017 after the SEQRA process and approval of

the site plan by the Village of Kiryas Joel Planning Board is complete.

3.1 Project Construction and Phasing

The project will be constructed in two phases and each will include the construction of 800 dwelling

units. Buildings on site will be constructed as units are sold, creating efficiency in the building of

the units, which will help to contain the costs associated with construction and make the

condominiums more affordable for residents.

The sizes of the apartments and corresponding floor plan will depend on the needs of the owners that

purchase the units. It is expected that the average unit will have 4 bedrooms with a floor area of

approximately 2500 square feet. The actual size will depend on the owner’s needs. Units are not

planned to be smaller than 1600 square feet or larger than 3000 square feet. All ground floor units

will be handicapped accessible, or be able to be easily converted to allow handicapped access in all

areas of the home. Free-standing community buildings will be a part of the overall development

plan. A 28,000 square foot free-standing community room is shown on the first phase site plan. An

additional 28,000 square foot community room is required to be designed and constructed in the

second phase. The final plans for such community room will require Planning Board approval.

On-site tree harvesting and grading is proposed to commence upon the completion of the SEQRA

process pursuant to the clearing, grading and Stormwater Pollution Protection Plans reviewed by the

Planning Board and its engineering consultant. It is expected that the installation (including

improvement to utilities), which will commence once all conditions of this finding statement and

subsequent site plan approval have been met. This installation will take approximately 2 years

before building construction will begin. The construction of the first building is not expected to

begin until the year 2019, and be ready for occupation by 2020.

The second phase would begin after complete buildout of the first phase, and is projected to start in

the year 2023, and would be completed in 2026. The construction schedule would be dependent on

the sale of the individual units within the buildings.

The sequence for project construction activities for each phase are generally as follows:

1. Obtain necessary approvals and permits from municipal and regulatory agencies.

2. Pre-construction meeting with applicable regulatory agencies.

3. Delineation of limits of clearing and disturbance. Trees to be saved shall be protected

with perimeter fence.


4. Install stabilized construction entrances, silt fence and erosion control measures.

5. Perform clearing and grubbing activities as required for construction. Strip topsoil.

6. Perform mass earth work. Complete rough-grading of roads and parking lots and

building pads. Fine grade and stabilize all embankments upon completion of rough

grading.

7. Begin installation of drainage infrastructure. Install utilities within roadway.

8. Begin excavation for building foundations. Complete proposed storm water conveyance

systems, drainage infrastructure and drainage culverts.

9. Install roadway and parking lot sub-base. Pave roadway with base course if feasible.

10. Construct buildings and utility connections.

11. Complete fine-grading of disturbed areas and embankments.

12. Construct stormwater management appurtenances to permanent size and geometry.

13. Install Landscaping and Lighting.

14. Complete surfacing of roadways and parking lots.

15. Perform any fine-grading and seeding as required.

Section 4: SEQRA Processing History

July of 2016 to November 2016: The Village Planning Board of the Village of Kiryas Joel received

a request to develop property known as SLB 312-1-1 and 311-1-1.2 in accordance with provisions

in the Village’s Zoning Code in July of 2016, which was the subject of several informal Planning

meetings with the project sponsors to review and refine the plan to make it fit well within the

community. This resulted in a proposal to develop approximately 1600 dwelling units, which was

approved conceptually by the Planning Board.

November 20th, 2016: The Village Planning Board declared its Intention to serve as Lead Agency

on this project and circulated a Notice of Intent to all involved and interested agencies. No agency

objected to the Village Planning Board as Lead Agency or did not respond after receipt of the

Notice.


December 19th, 2016: The Village Planning Board confirmed its role as Lead Agency on this

project, having received no objection from other agencies on this project, and declared this project

a Type I Action, and approved a draft scoping document for circulation to all interested and

involved agencies. The public was invited to comment on a scope through an announcement in a

newspaper of general circulation to allow for public comment. The public was made aware where

copies of the scope could be obtained in this notice. The Planning Board received comments from

the following individuals or Municipalities:

1. New York Department of Transportation (Involved Agency)

2. Mary Bingham, 17 Carol Drive, Monroe, NY

3. Orange County Department of Public Works (Involved Agency)

3. Letter Authored by Kelly M. Naughton, Burke, Miele, and Golden on behalf of the Village of

Woodbury (Interested Agency)

4. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Involved Agency)

5. Village of Harriman Trustees (Interested Agency)

6. Orange County Department of Planning (Involved Agency)

7. Tracy Schuh, Preservation Collective, P.O. Box 721, Chester, NY

In addition to these comments, the Orange County Department of Public Works requested a

meeting with the project’s engineers to discuss changes to the Scoping Document. All comments

were considered, and changes were made to the Scoping Document.

February 26th, 2017: The final Scope, incorporating revisions based on agency and public

comment, was formally adopted and this document was circulated to all involved and interested

agencies. The applicant was directed to prepare a DEIS.

June 25th, 2017: The DEIS was accepted as complete and a public hearing on the DEIS was set

for July 16th, 2017, later revised to July 23, 2017.

June 28th, 2017: The DEIS was sent out to all involved and interested agencies, and all copies

were delivered by June 29th, 2017.

July 5th, 2017: Notice of the public hearing appeared in a paper of general circulation advertising

the date and location of the public hearing, location of where the public could view documents in

person and online.

July 23rd, 2017: The duly noticed Public Hearing on the DEIS was held at a Planning Board

Meeting in the Village of Kiryas Joel.

August 6th , 2017: The FEIS was accepted and approved for circulation to all interested and

involved agencies.

August 8th, 2017: The Planning Board received additional comments subsequent to the date of

issuance of the FEIS. It was determined that the best course of action would be to reissue the


FEIS, to ensure a complete record of the discussion of the environmental impacts of this project,

since it is so critical to the Village.

October 22, 2017. The Planning Board determined the revised FEIS was complete and authorized

the distribution of the FEIS. Comments on this FEIS were accepted by the Planning Board up to

November 10th, 2017,

Section 5: Findings and Mitigation Requirements

The following is the Findings of the Planning Board of the Village of Kiryas Joel regarding areas of

impact studied in the DEIS, by topic as it is presented in the DEIS.

5.1 Zoning and Other Adopted Planning Documents

Facts, Findings, and Potential Impacts

The EIS discusses the projects compatibility with the locally adopted Zoning Code of Kiryas Joel,

and other relevant plans adopted by the Village of Kiryas Joel, Town of Monroe, Orange County,

and other Regional Plans. The plans included in this section directly mention or have relevance to

the Village of Kiryas Joel and the current proposal and its effect on development patterns as

discussed in these plans. As presented in the EIS, the project substantially meets the requirements of

the Village’s Zoning Code and is compatible with municipal policies expressed in the locally

adopted zoning code.

The project is compatible with the goals of the various plans that have been adopted by the Town of

Monroe, Orange County and other regional agencies. Planning documents examined as part of the

DEIS in Section 3.1 and discussed in the FEIS include the following documents:

• Kiryas Joel Zoning Code (Article I, 155-27), revisions adopted on 9-4-2007

• Town of Monroe Master Plan, the latest version is discussed, however, the Town is

undergoing an update which is expected to be completed by the end of 2017.

• County of Orange Comprehensive Plan, adopted 2010

• County of Orange, Water Master Plan, draft prepared 2010

• Orange County Long Range Transportation Plan, 2010-2040, adopted November 17,

2015.

• Orange County Economic Development Strategy, Adopted July, 2015

• Mid-Hudson Sustainability and Smart Growth Toolkit, dated March, 2016

• A Three County Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Orange, Dutchess, and Ulster

Counties, 2006 to 2020 (Orange County Data Only), dated April 2009.

• Orange County Open Space Plan, July 2004


• Orange County Greenway Compact, Approved by the Hudson River Valley Greenway

Communities Council, June 12, 2013

The Veyoel Moshe Gardens Project is within the PD District (Planned Unit Development District)

within the Village of Kiryas Joel. This Zoning Code was last revised in 2007.

The EIS examined the projects compliance with the provisions in the adopted Zoning Code and

determines that the Veyoel Moshe Garden Project meets the requirements of the Zoning Code.

There are two waivers requested by the applicant from provisions of the code in Village Zoning

Code which the Planning Board determined to be justified as follows:

• Section 155-25(2) requires that the project create community spaces available for

residential use, and total area planned for this use has been exceeded in the plans.

However, the Zoning Code requires that these spaces be spread out into the

community, instead of creating the larger free-standing community rooms that have

been planned. This waiver is justified, considering the current demand for free-

standing community rooms for special functions in Kiryas Joel. These community

rooms will fulfill the need for independent free-standing facilities that will be in easy

walking distance of the new population, and will be available for private residential

functions.

• Section 47-1 of the Zoning Code requires that all projects of 8000 square feet or more

or 5 or more units on the same parcel of land comply with locally adopted Affordable

Housing Laws, with the number of units dedicated to affordable housing finalized by

the Planning Board. In return for compliance, bonuses for the number of units

permitted in each free-standing building are permitted. Affordable Housing is

defined by cost per square foot, which is adjusted by the Village by vote of the

Village Trustees from time to time. The Applicant has committed to provide homes

at a price point that is below current market value in the Village per square foot, and

the Planning Board determined that it is in the interest in the Village to waive the

standard in this section, since providing a option for all to be below current market

value will provide a great value to the Village even though the strict standards of this

section are not met. Besides being required to offer units at a below-market value

price, the applicant will offer residents special consideration when planning finishes

in individual residential units in order to increase their affordability to average

residents. Final approval of this waiver is formally made by the Planning Board prior

to site plan approval, and the Planning Board agrees that this arrangement will create

more affordable units than with strict compliance with Section 47-1.

Required Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures are required as a condition of approval of the site plan by the

Planning Board to ensure that the waiver granted does not adversely impact community zoning and

planning:


1. Pricing of the residential units will be consistent with the representation in the DEIS, and base unit

pricing of housing within the development meet the criteria of “affordable housing,”

2. Community spaces will be available with this development to the residents at a rate of 25 square

feet per unit, as specified in Section 155-25 of the Kiryas Joel Zoning Code prior to issuance of the

Certificate of Occupancy for such units.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Zoning or Other

Adopted Planning Documents that has not been adequately mitigated by the project design or by the

Mitigation Measures described herein.

5.2 Impact on Land Resources: Soils, Topography and Slopes


The improvements will require modification of 68.5 acres of the 70-acre site. Upon completion of

the project, approximately 42.2 acres of impervious surface will be created. Preliminary cut and fill

analysis indicates that the site is nearly balanced, and results in a net export of approximately 18,000

cubic yards of material. Any material removed from the site will be trucked to a licensed facility.

Blasting is not anticipated. Harvested trees from the site will be chipped, stockpiled and used for

mulch as specified in the erosion control plan.

Once the project is completed, at least 1600 trees will the replanted in accordance with the Village

Zoning requirements and the final approved Site Plan.

Improvements to the sewer system will result in the installation of a proposed sewer main within 10-

feet of the adjacent area of the NYS Wetland identified as MO-11.

To increase efficiencies and reduce the amount of fill that has to be transported off site to be stored,

the Applicant has requested a waiver from the 5-acre of disturbance rule, and the Village Engineer

has recommended approval of a disturbance area of not more than 14 acres of disturbance at any one

time. The Village has the authority to approve such waiver in its capacity as a MS-4 community.

The Stormwater Management and Erosion Control plan has been designed to comply with New

York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.

Prior to construction activities, all temporary erosion control measures include stabilized

construction entrances, silt fences, temporary sediment traps, temporary diversion swales, stone

check dams, inlet protection, mulching, land grading and temporary topsoil stockpiling stabilization

and seeding and haying, and maintenance of the site entrances will be provided as specified in

approved plans and described in Section 3.2.3 of the DEIS as updated in the FEIS.


Required Mitigation Measures:

1. The replanting of the site with trees as specified on the final plan will occur within one

year of completion of each phase.

2. The SWPPP adopted for this project will be enforced and monitored by a professional

engineer who will be on site during construction.

3. Areas to be disturbed will also be clearly delineated with fencing in accordance with the

SWPPP adopted as part of the final site plan approval.

4. The applicant shall file detailed plans and obtain the requested waiver from the five-acre

disturbance limit from the Village Engineer, acting on behalf of the Village as an MS-4

community.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Land Resources

that has not been adequately mitigated by the project design or by the Mitigation Measures described

herein.

5.3 Impact on Water Resources


The Veyoel Moshe Gardens Project Site lies entirely within the Ramapo watershed. Runoff from

this site reaches the Ramapo River via an off-site class C tributary after exiting the site and going

through an off-site state regulated wetland, which lies approximately 200 feet west of the site

adjacent to County Route 105. Based on the analysis performed by the site engineer of the

topographic setting and drainage infrastructure near the site, there are 8 sub-catchment areas that are

fully described in Section 3.3 and illustrated on Figure 3.3-1. To incorporate comments received by

the Lead Agency on the DEIS and agency review of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP), changes were made and reviewed by the Village MS-4 Engineer. The revised SWPPP

was then recommended for Acceptance by the Village Engineer and accepted for filing with

NYSDEC. The Notice of Intent was filed with NYSDEC in October of 2017 (See Exhibit A) In

addition, there is a small federally regulated wetland (approximately one-third of an acre) lying

adjacent to County Route 105. This wetland was created by damming conditions onsite that resulted

from low elevations created by a culvert under County Route 64. An application for the Nationwide

Permit for disturbance to this wetland has been submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for

review.

The Village is an MS4 community in accordance with NYSDEC regulations.

The potential impacts to surface waters include pollution from soil erosion coming from the site

during construction, and the introduction of pollutants into the water resources before and after

construction will be adequately mitigated by incorporating all of the measures set forth in the final

SWPPP, as discussed in the EIS.


There will be disturbance to one-third of an acre of wetlands, as a part of its permit application to the

U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), the applicant has committed to and will be required to

construct new wetlands off-site as required by USACOE, to replace the small area of federal

wetlands on site that are proposed to be filled. The newly created wetlands will be equal to or

greater than the existing wetlands and forever preserved.

There are no anticipated impacts to floodplains, impaired waters or other regulated water bodies

associated with the development.

The approved SWPPP complies with applicable state regulations for construction activities and fill-

in of the wetlands. After site construction is complete, the SWPPP adequately mitigates the impacts

of drainage caused by at least a 25-year storm event, as required by State Law.


1. A requirement of any site plan approval shall be that all stormwater infrastructure and

maintenance is enforced by a program consistent with regulations for a MS4 community.

The provisions of the program have been analyzed by the Planning Board and its Engineer.

The final details will be finalized prior to final site plan approval.

2. Approval of the detailed Final SWPPP by NYSDEC, Orange County, and the Village of

Kiryas Joel.

3. Approval of the detailed off-site remediation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulated

site prior to disturbance of the wetland.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Water Resources


herein.

5.4 Impact on Flora and Fauna


The site was assessed by Ecological Solutions, LLC and the original report appears in Appendix B

and in Section 3.4 of the DEIS. The site is a hardwood forest typical of well-drained sites in

Southeastern New York. There is a small wetland and shallow ponded water on site which is

federally protected.

The report examines whether or not the following species were to be found on the site, in terms of

assessing the ability of the site to support the species found in the Federal and State Databases for

endangered species found to be in general proximity of the site:

• Dwarf Wedge mussel


• Small Whorled Pogonia.

• Indiana Bats

• Northern Long Eared Bat

• Bog Turtle

According to the site ecologist, there was no evidence that species were found on this site. This site

is a common habitat found in many other regions in the state and examination of the site by

Ecological Solutions prior to further clearing is acceptable mitigation and no other mitigation is

required. The final landscape plan, which will require replanting of 1600 trees in addition to other

bushes and lawns on site, will preserve, to the maximum extent practicable, views on and off site,

and provide buffering to residence from local collector roads and from traffic noise from Route

17/future I-86.


1. The property will be replanted in accordance with a final landscape plan, the details of which

will be incorporated into the final site plan approved for this project, and this installation of

which will be a condition of any certificates of occupancy of each phase.

2. The removal of trees will only occur between the months of October and March to minimize

potential impacts on threatened and endangered bats that may find the site attractive as a

summer roost.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Flora and Fauna


herein.

5.5 Impact on Traffic

Facts, Findings and Potential Impacts

The Veyoel Moshe Gardens project consists of the development of 1,600 residential units in two

phases of 800 units each on an approximate 70-acre parcel located in the Village of Kiryas Joel.

Phase 1 is anticipated to be completed around 2021, with Phase 2 in 2025. Access will be provided

via three access roads; two onto CR 105, and one onto CR 64.

Section 3.5 DEIS discusses the Traffic Study that included eleven intersections (including the site

access roads). Intersection turning movement counts and automatic traffic recorders collected

traffic volume information, which was supplemented by data sourced from NYSDOT. Data was

collected from 6 a.m to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. during a typical weekday. Future traffic volumes

were estimated using two methods standard to any traffic impact study, by adding a yearly growth

rate (0.5% per year in this case) and by adding in traffic estimates generated from other nearby


projects that have been approved or are nearing approval, but not yet built for the years this study

covers.

The study area intersections were analyzed based on existing, no-build (future conditions before the

project is complete), and build (after the project is complete) conditions. Questions regarding the

trip distribution and allocation of costs were received during the public comment period and

answered in the DEIS. Questions regarding plans for pedestrian facilities and the park and ride were

also received and answered in the FEIS. No changes to the recommended improvements by the

Traffic Engineer resulted from the discussions in the FEIS.

The recommendations of the Traffic Engineer contained in the Proposed Mitigation Section 3.5.6.3

of the DEIS were analyzed by the Planning Board, its consultants, Orange County DPW and

NYSDOT were its as follows:

• CR 105/Road B intersection would operate adequately with a single exit lane, operating

under stop sign control.

• The CR 105/Bakertown Road/Road A intersection will experience increases in delays due to

other development projects as well as the proposed project. Adding traffic signal control will

be necessary to provide adequate No-Build level of operations; therefore, it is assumed that

this improvement is completed by others prior to completion of Veyoel Moshe Gardens,

which will accommodate completion of the Veyoel Moshe Gardens project.

• The CR 64/Road E intersection will operate adequately as an unsignalized intersection during

Phase 1 but will require additional geometry and traffic signal control through completion of

Phase 2. A traffic signal, southbound left and right turn lanes, and a westbound right turn

lane are recommended to accommodate the project.

• The CR 64/Dunderberg Road intersection currently experiences traffic congestion around the

arrival and departure periods of the Monroe-Woodbury Middle School and High School. The

adjacent Woodbury Junction project is approximately 25% complete and will continue to add

traffic to this intersection. It is assumed that a separate right turn lane on Dunderberg Road

and traffic signal control will be added to this intersection as part of that project. Even with

these improvements, poor operations will exist during the morning arrival of school traffic.

The additional traffic demands due to the Veyoel Moshe Gardens project will necessitate the

separation of eastbound left turn and through traffic by widening CR 64.

• Travel through the CR 64/NY Route 32 intersection is necessary to gain access to the

regional transportation network (NY Route 17 and I-87) for several communities. This

intersection currently operates at an overall LOS C/D with several movements operating at

LOS E/F. Other development projects, including build out of Woodbury Junction and the

Veyoel Moshe Gardens project, will contribute to delays at this intersection. NYSDOT is

currently designing improvements for the Route 17/Route 32 interchange that will

substantially change travel patterns at this interchange. Coordination with NYSDOT is

recommended to determine the adequacy of the proposed interchange improvements.

After consultation with its consultants and other agencies, the Planning Board accepted the

recommendations of the Traffic Study are sufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts of this site.



1. The Planning Board finds that the table presented below for off-site traffic improvements

will be made a condition of the site plan:

Off-site Improvement summary for Veyoel Moshe Gardens

Location Improvement Timing

CR 105/Bakertown Rd/Site Road A

-SB left turn lane on CR 105, signal control - Pedestrian bridge

-Completion before first Certificate of Occupancy (CO) -Completion prior to issuance of the 1200th CO

CR 64 (Nininger Rd)/Site Road E

-EB left turn lane, WB right turn lane, SB left and right turn lanes, open for resident traffic -Signal control

-Completion prior to issuance of the CO of the 800th unit. -Completion prior to the issuance of the CO of 1000th unit

CR 64 (Nininger Rd)/CR 95 (Dunderberg Rd)

-SB right turn lane, signal control -EB left turn lane

-To be completed prior to issuance of the 201st unit CO. -Completion before the issuance of the 201st unit C.O.

2. The project sponsor will be responsible for ensuring that all off-site improvements listed

above are constructed and implemented, based on the above schedule, and on-site

improvements are constructed in each phase, prior to issuance of the Certificates of

Occupancy for residences located in such phase.

3. All traffic improvements on County Roads will require the approval of the County prior to

and after construction.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Traffic that has

not been adequately mitigated by the project design or by the Mitigation Measures described herein.


5.6 Impact on Air Quality


Air Quality in Orange County is most affected by vehicle exhaust, which has been shown to increase

“fine particulate matter,” a type of microscale particle pollution, where particles are less than two

and a half micros or less in width. Section 3.5.6 of the DEIS details existing agreements and

regulations concerning the control of the impacts relative to air quality caused by passenger car

traffic.

Orange County is part of a larger metropolitan transportation area which includes New York, New

Jersey and Southwestern Connecticut. This area was designated by the EPA as the NY-NJ-CT PM

2.5 Non-Attainment area. In order to be compliant with EPA regulations, a regional air quality and

transportation council had to be established, with smaller more localized regional councils created to

implement transportation improvement projects that would do their local share to improve air

quality. A discussion of the terms of the agreement appears in the DEIS in Section 3.5.6. As a

result of the work undertaken by the OCTC, and implemented projects, Orange County’s air quality

has improved, and this area is expected to be re-assessed as an “attainment area,” meaning that the

EPA has determined that levels of fine particulate matter are under recommended thresholds.

As all traffic improvements are implemented as discussed in the previous section, the proposed

project of Veyoel Moshe Gardens should not exceed the traffic emissions thresholds established in

the studies and planning documents for the Village and is not likely to cause Orange County to

exceed its agreed upon vehicle emissions budgets because thresholds for development defined by

previous studies have not been exceeded in Kiryas Joel.


1. Implementation of all traffic recommendations in accordance with the DEIS and preceding

Section 6.5 of this Finding Statement.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Air Quality that

has not been adequately mitigated by the project design or by the Mitigation Measures described

herein.

5.7 Impact on Sewers


Veyoel Moshe Gardens will be served by the Orange County No. 1 Sewer District, in which the

property is currently located. The receiving plant for the Sewer discharge for the project will be the

Harriman Plant in Harriman, NY. This plant is owned and operated by Orange County and has a

permitted capacity of 6.0 MGD. It currently operates at 4.5 MGD.


Anticipated plans of future growth of the Orange County Sewer District No.1 are in the planning

stages for this plant that would bring the total capacity to 9.0 MGD. The anticipated date of the

additional capacity becoming available is unknown at this time.

The County has established a sewer loading value of 400 gallons per day (gpd) for all dwelling units

seeking connection to the County system. Applying the 400 gpd per unit flow computes to 640,000

gpd for the Veyoel Moshe Gardens project. At the date of the acceptance of the findings statement,

there is sufficient additional flow at the receiving treatment plant for this project as documented by

letter written by Anthony Griffen, P.E. of the Orange County Sewer District #1 (OCSD#1) to Kirk

Rother, P.E., the project engineer (Copy of letter was provided in the appendix of the FEIS). All new

infrastructure and allocation of capacity is reviewed and approved by the County before sewers

become operational. Available sewer capacity is allocated on a first come- first-serve basis when the

lateral connections to each building has been accepted by the Orange County Sewer Department,

The district is required to expand when plant capacity reaches 80%. The process of building

expansions to OCSD #1 are currently in the discussion phase, and the Applicant understands that any

sewer capacity issues must be resolved and capacity available for any building or phase prior to

issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for any units in such phase. The applicant is not

guaranteed service based on the remaining capacity of the plant, and any approvals will be pursued

at the applicant’s risk.

Sewer from this project will flow toward the treatment facility toward the branch collector known as

the “North Interceptor,” which discharges under NYS Route 17 and ultimately to the Harriman

Plant. In order to accept the additional flow from Veyoel Moshe Gardens, a new collector main and

line would need to be installed near the project site, and would directly connect to the North

Interceptor. A route was identified that would allow for the installation of such collector line

adjacent to the westbound right-of-way of NYS Route 17 within property owned by the Village of

Kiryas Joel. In addition, the North Interceptor line will need improvements to accept the new flows

directed to it, including increasing the pipe diameter from 15 inches to a preferred diameter of 24

inches to accommodate this project and future Village growth. These recommendations can be

found in Section 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 of the DEIS.

The recommended improvements to the Orange County Sewer District #1 for offsite improvements

will adequately mitigate the needs of the project, and future benefits to the Village. These

improvements will be made a condition of approval of the site plan and are described in the

following section.

The Planning Board notes that the Applicant is proceeding at their own risk in terms of available

sewer capacity of the Orange County #1 Sewer District. Expansion of the Harriman Plant would

ensure adequate capacity for this project.


1. All off-site improvements would be subject to final review, and acceptance by the Orange County

Sewer District #1 to serve this project.


2. The following off-site improvements will be required as a condition of approval of the site plan

(a) Installment of a new collector main north of the site to be directed to the North

Interceptor as described in the DEIS in Section 3.6.2 and 3.6.3. Prior to issuance of

any Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for any dwelling units.

(b) Improvements to the North Interceptor to accept the new flows directed to it,

including increasing the pipe diameter from 15 inches to a preferred diameter of 24

inches to accommodate this project and future Village growth prior to issuance of the

C.O. for any dwelling units.

3. The applicant shall obtain permits for lateral lines to buildings and service to individual units from

the Orange County Sewer District #1 prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each

apartment.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Sewer Supply


herein.

5.8 Impact on Water Supply (See Section 3.7 of the DEIS)


The Village of Kiryas Joel water system is comprised of a network of tanks, pipes and wells that

supply the Villages Water needs. The current water supply is described in Section 3.7 of the DEIS.

The Village of Kiryas Joel will contract with New York City to provide potable water from the

Catskill Aqueduct, and the right to obtain water from this source has been established for all Orange

County municipalities, if they are willing to fund the connection. Once it is completely built and

online in 2020, the Village will apply for an initial taking of 2.0 mgd per day with the City of New

York. The Village has made a commitment in planning for the establishment of a long term reliable

safe and adequate water supply for the current and future demands of the Village. This involves

taking less water from local ground water sources, which has been made possible through the

planned connection to the New York City Catskill Aqueduct.

Subsequent to completion of this FEIS, the State of New York Appellate Court, Third Judicial

Department issued a decision lifting the injunction and dismissal that prohibited the Village from

using the Mountainview Well Fields (See Exhibit B). This well is not the primary source of water

for the Veyoel Moshe Garden Project, but will become a backup source of water once the Catskill

Aqueduct extension into Kiryas Joel is complete, and in operation.

A hydrant test performed on April 21, 2017 at the hydrant nearest the Veyoel Moshe Site indicated

that static water pressure from the system is well above the pressure-per-square-inch recommended

for domestic water supply, and was adequate to serve the needs of the site.

Veyoel Moshe Gardens project will be constructed in two phases, allowing time for development of

new water sources from the Catskills Aqueduct and new wells (as backup) to meet the demands of

the new project. Although evidence supports the finding that the Aqueduct will be in service by the


time that residences are ready to be occupied, the Applicant has assumed all risks and Certificates of

Occupancy would not be issued unless adequate water supply is available and approved by all

involved agencies.

Based on the analysis in Section 3.7 in the DEIS, which states that after consultation with the Village

Engineering staff involved in building the Catskill Aqueduct extension, that there is sufficient

evidence of the availability of water from the completed Catskill Water extension to be able to meet

the water demands of the project by the year 2020, before the first residential unit would be

occupied.

The water supply is based on the use of the water coming from the Catskill Aqueduct and being an

adequate water supply by the time that demands are made of the system in 2020. Use of the water

source from the Catskill Aqueduct will effectively mitigate the negative effects of using groundwater

sources for this project because it lessens the need to draw water from these local sources. The

project requires the use of this new water supply, and use of an alternative source of water would

require an appropriate environmental review as required by SEQRA.


1. Approval of permits issued by the Village of Kiryas Joel, the Orange County Health

Department and NYS DEC for domestic water usage, required infrastructure improvements

and domestic water hookups, as specified in the approved engineering plans for water

infrastructure serving the site.

2. At the time of issuance of Village Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancies for each

dwelling, water resources shall be examined by the Village prior to issuance of permits to

ensure adequate water service for each dwelling.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Water Supply that

has not been adequately mitigated by the project design or by the Mitigation Measures described

herein.

5.9 Impact on Archeological/Historic Resources

Historical Maps were examined by a professional archeologist to determine the likelihood of the

project property to have the characteristics of sites associated with prehistoric artifacts. Based on

examination of mapping and the site, there were no suitable deposits of cherts normally associated

with the presence of prehistoric tools.

In addition, the site was examined for the presence of other historical sites, including mines and

historical sites using known mining sites, and a search of the NYS Cultural Resource Inventory and

Survey (CRIS) and observation. No archeological or historic resources were found within view of

the site.

No comments were received by the Planning Board during the public comment period on the DEIS

regarding Historical or Archeological impacts.


No mitigation is necessary or recommended to protect Archeological or Historic Resources.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Archeological or

Historic Resources that has not been adequately mitigated by the project design.

5.10 Impact on Other Residential Utility Services (Cable, Gas, and Electric)


Electric and Natural Gas is provided by various utility companies, and delivered by Orange and

Rockland Utilities, which has an office within 2 miles of the project site. An application for service

is required to establish a connection to the existing utilities. Improvements to the system would

include utility conduits and connections for the individual users on site. All new utility lines would

be buried underground as required by law. As a part of application approval, Orange and Rockland

Utilities reviews all new proposed infrastructure from the point of delivery from the existing grid to

the buildings before service is activated.

The use of the utility conduits is available for other services providers (normally phone and cable

services) and coordinated by Orange and Rockland Utilities. The use and expansion of these

services are driven by demand from individual unit owners.

The project will create the need to serve the electrical and heating needs for 1600 residential units,

two free-standing community buildings, and two basement community buildings. Many of the

residents do not own televisions, however some residential units may want access to internet service

or home telephones. The current service providers (Optimum and Frontier) welcome new customers

into their systems.

The project would be required to arrange for private carting of the domestic garbage to a licensed

facility.

No additional mitigation is necessary for domestic residential services.


1. The project sponsors will be required to have its utility service plans reviewed by Orange and

Rockland to ensure that connections into the existing grid create a service delivery

infrastructure that can be accepted by Orange and Rockland, and all other service providers

will be provided access to this site through this conduit.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Utility Services


herein.


5.11 Impact on Schools and School Services


Education of the majority of the children that are part of the Kiryas Joel community is provided by a

robust system of private schools. These schools are supported by private donations and student

tuition and expand as needed to serve their populations. Supplementing the private schools is the

Kiryas Joel Union Free School District, which provides transportation to private school students, and

provides special programs to serve the special needs population, and provides Title One remedial

educational services to incoming students, most of which come into the school system from homes

that do not speak English as a primary language. Section 3.10.2 of the DEIS estimated that this

project would generate approximately 4652 school aged children. Most of these children would

attend private schools, which are supported by the Kiryas Joel Union Free School District.

The private schools and the Kiryas Joel Union Free School District have plans to expand schools

within and outside the Village of Kiryas Joel as described in Section 3.10.2 of the DEIS. These

expasions will double the capacity of most of schools that serve the Village. Plans for expansion

were based on population projections prepared by the Kiryas Joel Union Free School District and the

heavy demand for services of the private schools that are located in or near Kiryas Joel.

In consideration of the advanced planning and expansion conducted by the schools, sufficient

resources will be available to serve children on the site. No additional mitigation is necessary.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Public Schools

that has not been adequately mitigated by the project design.

5.12 Impact on Public Services

Fact, Findings, and Potential Impacts

The Village of Kiryas Joel provides a unique living situation unlike the predominately secularized

bedroom communities surrounding it in Orange County. Residents enjoy more fully developed

public services than other communities. It is expected that this site will generate approximately

9120 people living in the 1600 residential units.

Section 3.11 of the DEIS examined the following Village Services as required in the Scoping

Document:

• Village Transportation Department

• Village Public Safety Department

• Fire Department

• Ambulance Services

• Outdoor Recreation and Parks


The Village has planned service expansion of all service districts and Rauch Hachaim Park, knowing

that demand on services would likely increase with the future population expansion. Service to the

development would expand over an eight-year period, as this project is fully built out, allowing

service districts time to assess their needs and expand if necessary. Kiryas Joel residents are also

eligible to receive services from the Town of Monroe, and/or succeeding Town of Palm Tree.

Residents of Kiryas Joel rely on the Town for marriage licenses, and use of the park facilities,

maintenance of town roads that come through Kiryas Joel. Senior residences are also eligible to use

the Monroe Dial-a-Bus service. Residents do not ordinarily use the Monroe Arts Center or Senior

Center Programs, despite paying a share of taxes for these facilities.

Maintenance of the Village roads, garbage pickup, all emergency services, public transportation

services, and Village parks are paid for by a combination of taxes and user fees paid to the Village

for those services.

The creation of the Town of Palm Tree would eliminate the need of the Town of Monroe to provide

services to the residents of Kiryas Joel. Services that are now provided by the Town of Monroe, such

as marriage licenses, would be provided by the Town of Palm Tree. The formation of the new town,

while recently approved and authorized by the electorate of the Town of Monroe, will take time, and

a schedule to transition services from one municipality to another is in the process of being created

and implemented, which will include consideration of necessary services to serve this project.

In recognition of the robust network of public services available to Village residents, services

provided by the Town of Monroe will be minimal, and new residents would not have a detrimental

impact on services currently provided by the Town.

The provision of services to these new residents in the newly created Town of Palm Tree, will likely

consist of marriage licenses, use of some park facilities, road maintenance, and senior transportation

will equally affect all residents in the Village of Kiryas Joel, as these services would no longer be

provided by the Town of Monroe. As such the provision of such services will be considered during

the formation of the Town of Palm Tree.

All Village services providers have indicated that they would be able to serve new residents, and

funding to expand services would likely be sufficient, since taxes for these services are in the

process of expansion and would be funded by increased taxes on the improvements prior to their

occupation by residents and residents would be paying taxes to the Town of Palm Tree for services

currently provided by the Town.

No Mitigation is required.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Public Services



5.13 Fiscal Impacts


Section 3.12 of the DEIS examines the impact of the project on taxing districts that would be

responsible for providing municipal or public services to new residents living in the complex. The

analysis is based on a per-capita basis when possible, based on population values derived from those

affected in the current taxing districts.

As disclosed in the DEIS in Section 3.12.1, as vacant land, the property generated $11,093.52 in

revenue to all taxing districts in 2015. These taxes were paid to the Town of Monroe and the County

of Orange. The DEIS also disclosed, that once completed, the project would generate $5,309,585.84

in taxes, if the value of the property was assessed at the current rates used by the Town of Monroe

Assessor’s Office. Based on the assessment rate, the following table estimated tax generation at full

buildout was provided in the DEIS and appears below:

Total Estimated Taxes Generated from Veyoel Moshe Gardens Condominiums at Full

Buildout, at an Estimated Total Value of $43,973,000

Taxing District Tax Rate (per 1000

value)

Total Estimated Tax

Orange County 20.7324 $911,655.83

Co. 1 Bond STP 2.1983 $96,665.85

Co.1 Bond Laterals .1158 $5,092.07

Kiryas Joel Union Free

School District

73.92 $3,250,484.16

Town of Monroe Town

Wide

7.46 $328,038.58

Village of Kiryas Joel 16.32 $717,639.36

Total to all districts

$5,309,585.84

Source: Veyoel Moshe Gardens DEIS, Table 3.12-4

As the new residents move into the area, they would need to use public services, and participate in

the funding of those services, however, taxes will increase on the site during the construction.

According to the Town of Monroe Assessor’s office, the property and partially constructed

improvements are assessed with a value, and generate taxes to the districts. As a result, for three

years prior to new residents’ arrival, additional funding would come into tax districts with

improvements that increase the value of the property on a yearly basis. The increased revenue from

the partially completed project provides seed money to the districts to help pay for the expansion of

services funded by the taxing districts prior to their use. Because of the size of the project and cost

of the investments, the revenue from the uncompleted project would be a significant contribution to

the taxing districts.


The analysis could not predict how much revenue would go into each taxing district from the

property assessed with partially completed or unoccupied homes over the five to eight-year period of

construction. Thus, it was based on assessments that assumed that the property was completely built

and occupied. In addition, the analysis did not consider the effects of “economy of scale,” or the

likelihood that with more users, some services would have efficiencies that would occur naturally,

creating a lower “per capita” expense once the districts were expanded.

Because of these shortcomings, minor shortfalls of per capita tax revenue were disclosed in the DEIS

for the Town of Monroe and the Village of Kiryas Joel’s general funding tax districts. However, it is

likely that these shortfalls would be funded by increase in taxes paid as a result of assessment

changes over the 5 to 8 year construction period of the unoccupied buildings, which is likely to be

significant, since the completed project has a projected assessed value of just under $44 million

dollars.

When the Town of Palm Tree is formed, the Village of Kiryas Joel , including the Veyoel Moshe

Gardens Property will be part of the new Town, would no longer pay taxes to the Town of Monroe

and would pay taxes to the Town of Palm Tree instead. Prior to the official formation of the Town

of Palm Tree, the Town of Monroe would benefit from the increased revenue from taxes generated

on the partially completed and unoccupied Veyoel Moshe Garden residences.

The analysis in Section 3.12 of the DEIS as summarized and further analyzed above, demonstrates

that sufficient tax revenue will be created to support the ongoing development of services paid for by

property taxes prior to occupation of the residential units.

Sufficient revenue will be generated by all taxing districts to cover the costs associated with the

provision of services to the residents.

When the Town of Palm Tree is formed, the effect of such formation would equally affect all

residents of Kiryas Joel, including future residents of Veyoel Moshe Gardens, and revenue paid from

this project would contribute to the town services that would be transferred from the Town of

Monroe’s responsibility to the newly formed Town of Palm Tree.

The Planning Board determines that benefits of providing needed housing for the Kiryas Joel

community far outweigh slight increases to the costs of providing residents with the benefits of the

services, if there are any increases.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Service Tax

Districts (Fiscal Impacts) that have not been adequately mitigated by the project design.

5.14 Visual Impacts


The project site is located on an undeveloped parcel of land within the Village of Kiryas Joel, and is

visible from the public rights of way of Route 17/Future 86, Nininger Road, Larkin Road (when


viewed across the highway) and Bakertown Road. It is best described as vacant land that has been

cleared at some point for farming activities or tree harvesting, but tree growth has naturally re-

established with a variety of deciduous trees creating a forested area. The value of the visual

resource is linked to the general features of the site common to the Hudson Valley residents, and not

a unique value of the forested area in terms of ecological significance.

Section 3.13 of the DEIS discussed the Visual Impact of the establishment of the Veyoel Moshe

Gardens Condominium Complex on nearby Parks and Historic Resources, including the Long Path

Trail on Schunnemunk Mountain, area parks, and roads adjacent to the site.

Although completely wooded from time to time, this site has been stripped of trees prior to the

clearing as recently as the mid-seventies and has been within the Village of Kiyras Joel since 1983,

and has been zoned for housing of this density since it was annexed.

The Planning Board received comments from the public concerning the views from the site and the

adequacy of the analysis. This discussion appears in the FEIS adopted on October 22, 2017.

Concerns were raised regarding the visibility of the site from Nininger Road, the Long Path, and

from new residential construction in the Town of Woodbury, called Woodbury Junction. Based on

these additional questions, the Planning Board examined the site for potential impacts based on

questions regarding the potential visual impact of the residential buildings on Woodbury Junction.

They study demonstrated that there was a 200 foot treed buffer owned by the Town of Woodbury, a

knoll that was at least 100 feet higher than the rooflines of both properties, and about 1200 feet

between Woodbury Junction and Veyoel Moshe Gardens that is currently forested with full grown

trees. Because of these existing buffers, distance and natural topography, residential views will be

unaffected.

Kiryas Joel requires that a tree be planted at a ratio of one tree per dwelling. This requirement is in

addition to other landscaping, such as grass, bushes and flowers that would become part of the

landscaping plan. These trees would be scattered throughout the site to provide shade and soften the

views of the buildings once they are full grown. The current landscaping plan will also re-establish

the buffer between Nininger Road and the residences to enhance the privacy of the residents and

soften the views off site along the areas where it is most visible outside of Kiryas Joel along Route

17, Nininger Road, Bakertown Road and Larkin Drive near the intersection of Bakertown Road.

Trees used in this landscaping plan will be a mixture of oaks, maples, pines, and other native trees

common in this area, depending on the need for screening and privacy. Once grown, the trees will

blend in with natural areas that have natural cover.

The DEIS provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the site would not have a significant

impact on the Long Trail, because of the distance, intervening topography. There is about 100 feet

of elevation change between the property and portions of the Long Trail that are close to Kiryas Joel.

This property also slopes away from the long trail if viewed from the south significantly.

An additional study of the Visual Impact of the project demonstrated that there will be no significant

environmental impact on the Woodbury Junction project.


The Planning Board determined that when weighed against the critical need for housing in Kiryas

Joel and clearly ambient views from a four-mile distance of portions of the Long Path within the

Schunnemuck Mountain Park, the Planning Board finds that the edges of the property that may be

visible through other development and intervening topography is acceptable.

The re-establishment of 1600 of native trees characteristic with the forest that naturally regrows on

the site will be sufficient to mitigate the loss of trees on site, and once these trees mature, they will

help soften views onto the site and help to protect the privacy of the new residents.


1. The approval of a final landscaping plan and tree plan that will include at least 1600 trees on site,

in addition to bushes and other landscaping on site, and offer buffering for the benefit of the

residents and softening of views on and off site, especially at locations at the property boundary and

Nininger Road.

2. Lighting must be shielded to avoid light spilling onto adjacent properties and into residential

windows, and such lighting plan will be approved as part of the final site plan approval.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Visual Impacts


5.15 Growth Inducing Impacts that will occur upon Implementation of this Project.

Facts, findings and Potential Impacts

As stated in Chapter 4 of the DEIS, the plans for this project are in response to the population

growth in the Village, and would be required to accommodate residents already living in the Village

as they grow up and establish homes of their own. The demand for housing has already increased

housing costs in Kiryas Joel, making housing less affordable for those who are the most vulnerable

to rising costs. Public comments also supported the assessment in the DEIS for the need for new

housing.

Encouraging the development within a community that is compact and efficient is better than

continuing to develop housing in the sprawling pattern of single family housing in surrounding

communities.

Based upon the above, the Planning Board finds that there is no adverse impact on Growth Inducing

Impacts that has not been adequately mitigated by the project design.


5.16 Alternatives that were considered.

Facts, findings and Potential Impacts

The following alternatives were considered in the DEIS in Chapter 5: No Action (meaning that the

project would remain unbuilt); a project with 1500 units, and a project having three phases instead of

two.

If the project is abandoned, the development potential consistent with the current proposal remains

as a potential of the site.

However, because of the critical need for housing in this community and the suitability of the site to

support such housing of the site, alternatives with less housing than what could be suitably provided

in accordance with the Zoning Code was not necessary, and that the request to study 1600 units

instead of 1500 units was entirely appropriate, given the demand for housing in Kiryas Joel, and the

rising costs that have the potential to affect the affordability of decent housing.

The creation of the project in two phases allows for more building efficiency than what would be

created with three phases because of opportunities created to establish shared infrastructure on the

site and decrease disturbance to residences in the Village and to those living adjacent to project

construction.

Based upon the above the Planning Board determined that the alternative as proposed is the most

suitable alternative for development of the property.

5.17 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources


The DEIS discloses in Chapter 6 that these units will require the commitment of several resources

that would become unavailable once the project is constructed as described in Chapter 6 of the

DEIS. This includes utility and municipal services provided to the residences, and changes to the

undeveloped land into a multiple-family residential complex.

The commitment of resources is necessary to the establishment of these residences and is acceptable,

when you take into consideration the need for housing in Kiryas Joel for future residences, and the

current pressure on prices on housing that threaten to displace those that are most vulnerable due to

the cost of rising housing.

Based upon the above the Planning Board determined that the commitment of resources is necessary

for the proposed development of the property.


5.18 Adverse Impacts that Could Not be Avoided


In Chapter 7, the DEIS discloses that the enjoyment of the views offered by the undeveloped

property, which has full grown trees cannot be avoided, nor can the loss of habitat for the local flora

and fauna. Once the property is fully constructed and trees are re-established, it is expected that

some species would find the urban environment suitable for foraging and habitat.

The conversion of the site to residences will require the expansion of municipal services, which

results in the need to expand budgets and property taxes. Expansion would occur over an eight-year

period, allowing for districts to anticipate and begin planning for increased demand.

For reasons stated in previous sections of this Findings Statement, the adverse impacts are mitigated

to the greatest extent possible, and when weighed against the critical need for housing in this

community, the adverse impacts stated in this section are acceptable.


Exhibits

Exhibit A

State of New YorkSupreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: October 26, 2017 524669 ________________________________

In the Matter of VILLAGE OFWOODBURY et al.,

Appellants,v

BASIL SEGGOS, as ActingCommissioner ofEnvironmental Conservation,et al.,

Respondents.

(Proceeding No. 1.) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In the Matter of BLACK ROCKFOREST CONSORTIUM et al.,

Appellants,et al.,Petitioners,

v

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONet al.,

Respondents.

(Proceeding No. 2.)________________________________

Calendar Date: September 8, 2017

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Feerick Lynch MacCartney & Nugent PLLC, South Nyack (DennisE. A. Lynch of counsel), for Village of Woodbury and another,appellants.

��

-2- 524669

Drake Loeb PLLC, New Windsor (Stephen J. Gaba of counsel),for Black Rock Forest Consortium and others, appellants.

Catania, Mahon, Milligram & Rider, PLLC, Newburgh (John W.Furst of counsel), for Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson, appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Philip Beinof counsel), for Basil Seggos and another, respondents.

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Robert S. RosboroughIV of counsel), for Village of Kiryas Joel and another,respondents.

__________

Devine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.),entered May 24, 2016 in Albany County, which, among other things,in two combined proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 andactions for declaratory judgment, granted respondents' motions todismiss the amended petition/complaint in proceeding No. 2.

Respondent Village of Kiryas Joel is located in OrangeCounty and uses several wells for its municipal water supply. Kiryas Joel has been building, in the face of legal challenges, a13-mile long pipeline that would allow it to tap into an aqueductowned and operated by the City of New York for additional water(see Administrative Code of City of NY § 24-360; Matter of Countyof Orange v Village of Kiryas Joel, 44 AD3d 765 [2007]; see alsoMatter of Town of Woodbury v County of Orange, 114 AD3d 951, 952-953 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 903 [2014]). Authorization towithdraw water from the aqueduct will not be granted unlessKiryas Joel demonstrates, among other things, that it has "anadequate backup water supply source" in the event water from theaqueduct is unavailable.

Kiryas Joel acquired property in Mountainville, Town ofCornwall, Orange County that was suitable for a needed pumpstation along the pipeline route and provided access to a

-3- 524669

principal aquifer with "abundant potential water supply" (StateDept of Envtl Conservation, Division of Water Technical andOperational Guidance Series [2.1.3]: Primary and PrincipalAquifer Determinations, at 2 [Oct. 23, 1990], available athttp://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/togs213.pdf [accessed Oct.20, 2017]). Following favorable hydrogeological testing, KiryasJoel applied to respondent Department of EnvironmentalConservation (hereinafter DEC) for a permit to develop a wellfield at the Mountainville site and withdraw water from theaquifer. Respondent Village of Kiryas Joel Board of Trustees(hereinafter Village Board), a respondent in proceeding No. 1,then assumed lead agency status for the review of the welldrilling conducted under the State Environmental Quality ReviewAct (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]). The Village Boardultimately made a negative declaration under SEQRA, finding nosignificant adverse environmental impact flowing from the wellfield development, and a challenge to that determination wasdismissed by Supreme Court (Lefkowitz, J.) in 2014.

The water supply permit application was reviewed by DECwhile the SEQRA process and challenge to it was ongoing, and DECissued a draft permit in 2013 and conducted a legislative hearingto consider public comment. In 2015, DEC issued a final permitthat consolidated all of Kiryas Joel's prior supply permits andallowed the monitored withdrawal of up to 612,000 gallons ofwater a day from a well at the Mountainville site. These hybridCPLR article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actionsfollowed.

Petitioners in proceeding No. 1 sought relief includingannulment of the water withdrawal permit, a declaration that theVillage Board's SEQRA determination was void and an injunctionbarring the permitted water withdrawal from the Mountainvillesite. Petitioners in proceeding No. 2 sought similar relief. Astipulation subsequently joined the two proceedings and theparties agreed to rely upon a single record and filing schedule.

DEC and respondent Acting Commissioner of EnvironmentalConservation served an answer in proceeding No. 1 that raisedseveral objections in point of law, including that petitionerslacked standing to commence it. DEC moved to dismiss proceeding

-4- 524669

No. 2 on various grounds, including standing, and the otherrespondents moved to dismiss both proceedings. Further motionpractice ensued that included a cross motion by the proceedingNo. 1 petitioners for summary judgment. Supreme Court thereafterissued a judgment holding that only petitioners Village ofWoodbury, Town of Woodbury, Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson andTown of Cornwall in proceeding No. 1 (hereinafter themunicipalities) had standing to bring suit. As for them, SupremeCourt noted that the challenges to the SEQRA determination werebarred by res judicata in some cases and untimely in all, as wellas that the claims relating to the grant of the water withdrawalpermit were belied by "overwhelming documentary evidence." Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the amended petitions/complaints in their entirety, prompting these appeals by allpetitioners in proceeding No. 1 and petitioners Storm King ArtCenter and Black Rock Forest Consortium in proceeding No. 2.1

The issue of standing having been raised, petitioners wereobliged to "establish[] both an injury-in-fact and that theasserted injury is within the zone of interests sought to beprotected by the statute alleged to have been violated" (Matterof Association for a Better Long Is., Inc. v New York State Dept.of Envtl. Conservation, 23 NY3d 1, 6 [2014]; see Matter of CleanWater Advocates of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl.Conservation, 103 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 862[2013]). Petitioners must have more than "[g]eneralizedenvironmental concerns" to satisfy that burden and, unlike incases involving zoning issues, "there is no presumption ofstanding to raise a SEQRA [or other environmental] challengebased on a party's close proximity alone" (Matter of Save OurMain St. Bldgs. v Greene County Legislature, 293 AD2d 907, 908[2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002]; see Matter of Shapiro vTorres, 153 AD3d 835, 836 [2017]). Moreover, "[t]he injury infact element must be based on more than conjecture orspeculation" (Matter of Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. vAubertine, 119 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2014]). Standing rules are notapplied "in an overly restrictive manner" that will "completely

1 This Court granted a preliminary injunction pending theoutcome of these appeals (2017 NY Slip Op 74402[U]).

-5- 524669

shield a particular action from judicial review" (Matter ofAssociation for a Better Long Is., Inc. v New York State Dept. ofEnvtl. Conservation, 23 NY3d at 6), however, and we will "deemthe allegations in the petition[/complaint] to be true andconstrue them in the light most favorable to the petitioner[s]"in assessing whether a sufficiently precise injury has beenarticulated (Matter of Town of Amsterdam v Amsterdam Indus. Dev.Agency, 95 AD3d 1539, 1541 n 3 [2012]; see Matter of Powers v DeGroodt, 43 AD3d 509, 512 [2007]).

Supreme Court determined, and we agree, that petitionerBlack Rock Fish and Game Club of Cornwall, Inc. in proceeding No.1, as well as the proceeding No. 2 petitioners, lacked standing. All of those petitioners are organizations who alleged that theapproved water withdrawal might deplete ground water in the areato the extent that "water-dependent natural resources," such asthe nearby Woodbury Creek, will be impacted. Accepting thoseallegations at face value – and assuming that these petitionerseither did, or did not need to, articulate grounds fororganizational standing (see New York State Assn. of NurseAnesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004]) – the harm is "nodifferent in kind or degree from that suffered by the generalpublic in the vicinity . . . and [does] not confer standing"(Matter of Powers v De Groodt, 43 AD3d at 513; see Matter of Savethe Pine Bush, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Clifton Park, 50AD3d 1296, 1297-1298 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 716 [2008]; Matterof Buerger v Town of Grafton, 235 AD2d 984, 985 [1997], lv denied89 NY2d 816 [1997]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properlydismissed proceeding No. 1 with regard to Black Rock Fish andGame Club of Cornwall, Inc. and proceeding No. 2 in its entirety,on standing grounds.

The remaining proceeding No. 1 petitioners – including,contrary to the conclusion of Supreme Court, petitioners Henry N.Christensen Jr., Susan Webber Christensen and Sevinch Bridges –had standing. An impact upon a nearby landowner's water supplyconstitutes an injury specific enough to confer standing tochallenge the action that caused it (see ECL 15-1503 [2] [c],[f]; Matter of Humane Socy. of U.S. v Empire State Dev. Corp., 53AD3d 1013, 1017 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 701 [2009]; Matter ofMany v Village of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trustees, 218 AD2d 845,

-6- 524669

845-846 [1995]), and that is precisely the type of injury theneighbors allege the Mountainville well will cause to theirprivate wells. They further submitted the affidavit of ahydrogeologist in support of their claims, who opined that therewas not "sufficient data available" to justify DEC's lack ofconcern as to the "potential" threat. The neighbors therefore"asserted a concrete interest in the matter [DEC] is regulating,and a concrete injury from the agency's failure to followprocedure" sufficient to confer standing (Matter of Associationfor a Better Long Is., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl.Conservation, 23 NY3d at 7). The municipalities made similarallegations that the approved use of the Mountainville well willeither affect the use of ground water in that area for municipalwater supplies or impact residents who may suffer impacts totheir private wells as a result of the withdrawal. Inasmuch asthese allegations show "how [the municipalities'] personal orproperty rights, either personally or in a representativecapacity, will be directly and specifically affected apart fromany damage suffered by the public at large, and [how they] willsuffer an injury that is environmental and not solely economic innature," they also have standing (Matter of Town of Amsterdam vAmsterdam Indus. Dev. Agency, 95 AD3d at 1541 [internal quotationmarks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Village ofCanajoharie v Planning Bd. of Town of Florida, 63 AD3d 1498, 1501[2009]).

As the bulk of the proceeding No. 1 petitioners havestanding, we turn to the merits of the arguments therein.2 Initially, while we do not agree with its stated rationale,Supreme Court was correct in dismissing the claims in proceedingNo. 1 relating to the SEQRA determination rendered by the Village

2 The proceeding No. 1 petitioners cross-moved for summaryjudgment before Kiryas Joel and the Village Board served ananswer and, having "charted their own procedural course," theywill not be heard to complain that Supreme Court erred inreaching the merits of their claims (Becher v Feller, 64 AD3d672, 676-677 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citationomitted]; see Erie Ins. Group v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 63AD3d 1412, 1414 n 2 [2009]).

-7- 524669

Board. There is no question that a challenge to the SEQRAdetermination itself is time-barred since it was issued in 2012and, regardless of how the proceeding No. 1 petitioners styletheir claims, "[a] four-month statute of limitations isapplicable to allegations of SEQRA violations" (Matter of Eadie vTown Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 22 AD3d 1025, 1027 [2005], affd7 NY3d 306 [2006]; see CPLR 217 [1]; Chase v Board of Educ. ofRoxbury Cent. School Dist., 188 AD2d 192, 195 [1993]). Theproceeding No. 1 petitioners attempt to avoid this problem byarguing that they are not challenging the initial 2012 SEQRAdetermination, but rather the later refusal to reopen the SEQRAreview process when changes in circumstances gave rise topotential significant adverse environmental impacts arising fromthe development of the Mountainville site (see 6 NYCRR 617.7[f]). Kiryas Joel made clear no later than July 15, 2015 that itperceived nothing that would require "further re-consideration"under SEQRA, however, and proceeding No. 1 was not commenceduntil November 27, 2015. Therefore, to the extent that refusalconstituted a new determination capable of review (see Matter ofBoyles v Town Bd. of Town of Bethlehem, 278 AD2d 688, 691[2000]), the attacks against it were untimely.

As for the arguments surrounding the issuance of the waterwithdrawal permit, DEC did not abuse its discretion in concludingthat an adjudicatory hearing on the permit application wasunnecessary. Kiryas Joel retained a groundwater andenvironmental engineering firm to assess the Mountainville siteand conduct a 72-hour water pumping test. The test was conductedin 2011 and found "stabilized yield and water-level drawdown at[the] pumping rate" sought in the permit application. DEC thenconducted a legislative hearing where it heard public comments onthe permit application, after which it expressly found that thepump test had complied with the recommended procedures and thatthe proposed well would "safely yield the proposed . . .withdrawal amount . . . without interference impacts on sourcesof other users." DEC further found that many of the concernsraised in the public comments involved issues irrelevant to thepermitting process and that relevant concerns, includingpotential impacts on nearby surface waters and other users of theaquifer, were either entirely illusory or could be addressed ifmonitoring disclosed them. Indeed, DEC addressed the concerns of

-8- 524669

commenters without placing any major restrictions on thepermitted water withdrawal, ensuring that any negative impacts ofthe water withdrawal would be detected by monitoring andaddressed (see ECL 70-0119 [1]; 6 NYCRR 621.8 [b]; 624.4 [c] [3];Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl.Conservation, 152 AD3d 1016, 1018 [2017]).3 Therefore, mindfulthat "our role is not to 'reweigh the factors and substitute[our] judgment for that of'" DEC, we cannot say that its refusalto conduct an adjudicatory hearing was arbitrary and capricious(Matter of Eastern Niagara Project Power Alliance v New YorkState Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 42 AD3d 857, 861 [2007],quoting Matter of Gallo v State of N.Y., Off. of MentalRetardation & Dev. Disabilities, 37 AD3d 984, 985 [2007]; seeMatter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl.Conservation, 152 AD3d at 1018).4

DEC was authorized to grant a permit after analyzing thefactors set forth in ECL 15-1503 and "suitably explained" thatanalysis in a written response to comments by the public and

3 Kiryas Joel was required to implement a "monitoring andaction plan" for the Woodbury Creek and have approved mitigationmeasures ready in the event that the water withdrawal caused "asignificant lowering of Woodbury Creek water levels." It wasfurther directed to "provide an adequate supply of water" to any"residents whose private drinking water wells are significantlydiminished or rendered non-productive by the" approvedwithdrawal.

4 According deference to the conclusion of DEC that none ofthe public comments raised "substantive and significant issues"that might "result in denial of the permit application, or theimposition of significant conditions thereon" (6 NYCRR 621.8[b]), there was no legal requirement to hold an adjudicatoryhearing. The legislative hearing provided a sufficientopportunity to be heard under these circumstances, and anadjudicatory hearing was not required as a matter of due process(see Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ.Servs., 77 NY2d 753, 757 [1991]; Matter of Akshar v Mills, 249AD2d 786, 787-788 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 962 [1998]).

-9- 524669

rejoinders by Kiryas Joel made after the legislative hearing onthe permit application (Matter of Hudson Riv. Fisherman's Assn. vWilliams, 139 AD2d 234, 240 [1988]). After reviewing the recordourselves, we are satisfied that a rational basis supported theissuance of the permit (see id. at 238). DEC reviewed thesignificant documentation submitted with the application,conducting a public hearing and considered both the submittedcomments and the responses offered by Kiryas Joel. DEC largelyagreed with Kiryas Joel's responses and, indeed, "accept[ed] andincorporate[d]" the bulk of them into its own responses.

Kiryas Joel described the efforts it had made to conservewater, efforts that had resulted in major reductions in waterusage and which it intended to continue, but it simply would nothave an adequate municipal water supply without developing a newsource of water (see ECL 15-1503 [2] [e], [g]). Kiryas Joelexplained that, notwithstanding the spectral suspicions ofperfidy on the part of the proceeding No. 1 petitioners, itintended to complete construction of the aqueduct pipeline anduse water from the aqueduct. DEC acknowledged the existence ofthe aqueduct as required under ECL 15-1503 (2) (a), but notedthat it did not have jurisdiction over Kiryas Joel's connectionto that source. Even if Kiryas Joel had abandoned that plan,however, it provided data showing how, in conjunction with itsalready permitted wells elsewhere, drawing water from theMountainville site could satisfy the maximum peak daily demandfor municipal water for the foreseeable future (see ECL 15-1503[2] [a], [b]; 6 NYCRR 601.11 [c] [1], [2]). The limits placed onthe daily water withdrawal ensured that the needs of Kiryas Joel,which it detailed, would be met without excess (see ECL 15-1503[2] [e]). DEC further cited the pump test – which it noted hadbeen "conducted and reported in a scientifically rigorous manner"that produced valid conclusions – to determine that the proposedmaximum daily water withdrawal would have no impact upon thewater supply of others and would not harm the aquifer or othernatural resources (see ECL 15-1503 [2] [c], [f]).

Kiryas Joel lastly represented, and DEC found no reason todoubt, that the proposed use would comply with other applicableagreements and laws (see ECL 15-1503 [2] [h]). The proceedingNo. 1 petitioners and others submitted evidence in an effort to