A map of the proposed new VSM athletic complex
continued — Molnar gave a brief history of the planning board’s work on the project, which included numerous submissions of information and plans by VSM Enterprises, multiple planning board requests for additional information or clarifications and the submission of the full site plans by VSM to the board this past August, with supplemental materials submitted in September.
The Oct. 16 planning board meeting was for the SEQR review, which is a state-mandated consideration of environmental impacts equally with social and economic factors during discretionary decision-making. If an action is determined not to have significant adverse environmental impacts, a determination of nonsignificance (Negative Declaration) is prepared. If an action is determined to have potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, an “Environmental Impact Statement” is required.
Responding to planning board members’ questions, VSM officials and representatives said construction would take more than one year, the anticipated power load for the complex would have no impact on current town utility systems, the typical heavy metal runoff from turf fields (such as zinc and lead) into the local water drainage district would be monitored and ameliorated using best practices, the outdoor PA systems to announce athletic games will be aimed at the spectators, or “distributed,” to help contain the sound and the athletic fields will be used year-round in accordance with favorable weather.
While the project planner from edr companies said the project would be constructed in only one phase of work, VSM Chief Operating Officer Lance Wardell later in the meeting said the project would be built in three phases. Planning board members did not ask for clarification on the apparent inconsistency.
As planning board attorney Molnar went through the SEQR checklist, the planning board members answered ‘yes’ on whether the project would: physically change the project site; effect water quality or quantity; effect aesthetic resources; impact the historical, architectural or paleontological aspects of the site; cause objectionable noise, vibrations or odors; effect existing transportation systems; and effect the character of the surrounding community.
Comments
if 6 months, 4 weeks ago
What a great project for Skaneateles. Dr. Mark if the fine folks in Skan turn you down come on over to Marcellus - we will welcome your project with open arms. We support health, wellness, facilities for our residents and children to use and all that without taxpayer support - come on over.
Askwhythis 6 months, 2 weeks ago
It does sound like a nice project and if it were sized according to the demands of the area, and not in a watershed that provides drinking water to most of the Syracuse region, it might be something to think about.
I happen to love the Marcellus Ultimate Goal. This would certainly put that out of business. But if VSM wanted to expand that piece of property, at least it would not potentially contaminate the drinking water supply for the region and destroy documented wetlands. (Although I would still be very concerned about Nine Mile Creek. )
Askwhythis 6 months, 2 weeks ago
The press may want to correct its headline...the Town DID NOT approve the permit... it only completed a Negative Declaration which allows the developer to move forward with the application for a Special Permit.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID