continued Molnar then read portions of a letter received by the planning board on Nov. 16 by CPCS attorney Thomas Fucillo, which also cited concerns over inconsistencies in the VSM plan’s water usage numbers as well as in its expected traffic impact numbers, and stated that certain environmental and archeological issues were not properly addressed by the board in its previous SEQR determination.
All of these inconsistencies demanded that the board need to rescind its previous negative SEQR declaration, Fucillo wrote.
Tucker directed all of these concerns to attorney John Langey, who was present as the VSM representative at the meeting, and requested that VSM supply responses. Langey said VSM will create a “comprehensive package” that would give a “full response” to the board on all of the questions and concerns raised. He could give no timeline as to when the board would receive those responses until after he talked with his client, he said.
Planning board member Donald Kasper then made a motion that the board hold a public information meeting at which concerned citizens be allowed to speak and give input on the project. He said this could be a way for the board to receive further, possibly helpful information while it waited for VSM’s response.
The motion was not seconded and therefore not voted on. Board members Scott Winkelman and Alan Briggs both stated they wanted to receive the VSM response before scheduling any public hearing.
After the meeting, CPCS Executive Director Holland Gregg said he was pleased by the board’s actions. “I think it’s a step in the right direction,” he said. “The planning board now understands the problems inherent in the proposal.”
Fucillo said he was “gratified that they are definitely paying attention to the points we raised … They are definitely taking their job seriously.”
The next regularly-scheduled meeting of the planning board is Tuesday, Dec. 18.
Jason Emerson is editor of the Skaneateles Press. He can be reached at email@example.com.