Last week, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a “Notice of Cleanup Decisions” regarding Captain’s Cove, which is a parcel of land that is a part of the Garvies Point proposed land development.
According to the DEC’s decision, the remedy will be “an enhancement of the excavation conducted earlier to reach site-specific soil cleanup levels necessary to achieve groundwater standards, and to revise soil cover requirements to allow restricted residential use for the site. Under this remedy, isolated hot spots of arsenic and lead soil contamination will be removed and disposed of properly.”
This exact quote from the DEC’s decision unequivocally demonstrates, proves, and supports the arguments in the lawsuit filed by over 100 residents which claim that the site was not cleaned up to “site-specific cleanup levels,” the soil was not suitable for restricted residential use as claimed by the City of Glen Cove, and “hot spots” exist which contain contaminants which need to be removed—these facts have been continuously denied by the City of Glen Cove.
Furthermore, on May 16, the Town of Oyster Bay sent a letter to the City of Glen Cove which equally supports the arguments in the residents’ law suit and confirms the very reason for the filing of the Article 78 petition in the first place—a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is required.
As stated by the Town of Oyster Bay, “It does not appear that the impacts of the project amendments on water quality have been adequately addressed, in terms of stormwater management, including imperviousness bordering ecologically sensitive tidal wetlands, and measures to mitigate same.” The town, through its expert consultants, states, “We do not believe that this project should be held to the lowest possible standard for stormwater management given the size of the development and associated magnitude of stormwater runoff volume, and the site’s location adjoining critical coastal resources.” Thus, the town maintains that the impacts of the project amendments on water quality have not been adequately addressed and that stormwater management plan for this project is not competent—these are the very reasons that SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) requires a SEIS.
Additionally, the Town of Oyster Bay states that “it would be beneficial if elaboration were provided to demonstrate that the project will achieve the necessary levels of remediation to prevent public exposure and environmental impacts due to site contaminants.”
Once again, these statements of the town establish the residents’ claims that SEQRA requires a SEIS when it has not been demonstrated that “the project will achieve the necessary levels of remediation to prevent public exposure and environmental impacts due to site contaminants.”
Finally, the Town of Oyster Bay notes that during the SEQRA process for the original application, the town “asked about project-related impacts at the intersection of Northern Boulevard (NYS Route 25A) and Glen Cove Road. The response in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) indicated that adequate mitigation was not practicable to address project-related impacts, and that the project would contribute to deteriorated operating conditions at this location.” The town states that it “would be helpful to know whether this conclusion may have been altered in the intervening years—e.g., by new data, changes in background conditions circumstances, etc.—either in a positive or negative direction” thus, once again proving that an SEIS is required. Disturbingly, the Town of Oyster Bay was provided with comments regarding a recent SEQRA review of a proposed expansion of the New York Institute of Technology’s Campus which specifically addresses impacts to and studies regarding this very intersection. Shamefully, the town did not even address this in their letter to the City of Glen Cove.
It is important that the public understand that the City of Glen Cove has not provided residents with accurate information. Once again, the city has just recently announced that the developer will not be taking ownership of the entire acreage as originally stated, instead claiming now it will only buy approximately half that amount. Leaving the city to manage and pay for the property as well as denying the city of the revenues it planned on receiving and it used to balance its current budget, even after being cautioned not to do so by the state comptroller.
The city is heading for another disaster as it has already demonstrated with the Piazza, which has now become another eye sore. This administration cannot be counted on, history continues to repeat itself. The people of this area must inform themselves and must understand that this is not fiscally responsible, but a disaster.