Minutes - 19881010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

b.~ .., ,~ , .u.: ;> a detailed discussion of alternatives to the proposed project; mitigation measures; and social and economic impacts of all alternatives. It must also include a discussion of the affected environment and environmental consequences. The Environmental Policy Act outlines the required format and content of the EIS. In terms of cost, a meaningful cost estimate is not available at this time. An estimate of $8,000 to $20,000 was given for a Stormwater Management Study, depending on such factors as size, complexity and the degree of engineering required. Costs for an EIS could fall above or below this range depending on the nature of the project. The Planning Staff intends to develop cost estimates for a range of sample projects prior to the next hearing. Scearbo reiterated that the document being presented is a draft. The Planning Staff is recommending that the public hearing be continued until November 28 and that a two-week period (as with the Water/Sewer Policy) be allowed to receive written comments which can be considered in developing the next draft. Before the next hearing Staff will be reviewing the integration of state and local timeliness, especially with regard to the processing of an EIS and where state as well as local permits are involved. A draft EA application form and cost estimates far document preparation will be developed. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if Neal Littman's concern regarding exemptions, particularly of utilities had been addressed. Planning Board member Pilkey responded that work on a Water/Sewer Policy had begun six years ago. The Environmental Ordinance is being considered due to watershed problems created by the Treyburn development. Acting Chair Moses Carey asked about the turn-around time for an Environmental Assessment to the State. Scearbo responded twenty-five to forty days. - ,john Link asked when a sample EA foam would be ready for review and Scearbo .indicated that the intent is to have one ready by November 1. Ted Latta, Environmental Affairs Board member, expressed concern that the EAB had not had the opportunity for sufficient input into the Ordinance. He indicated that he has seen no need for an Environmental Impact Ordinance. He expressed the concern that the EAB had been disbanded and that insufficient cooperation had been received from the Boards as well as Planning Staff. Latta stated that an EIS would create an undue burden on developers, create a no growth policy and eliminate affordable housing. He also expressed concern that this draft ordinance is considerably different from the one prepared by Milton Heath at the Institute of Goverrunent.