Source: http://www.hartfordny.com/geis-link/
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 06:12:52
Document Index: 111278482

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 617', 'art 617', 'art 617', 'art 617', 'art 8', '§ 617', '§ 617', 'art 617', 'art 7', 'art 7', '§ 617', '§ 617', '§ 617', '§ 617', 'art 9', '§ 617', 'art 617', 'art 617']

GEIS LINK – Town of Hartford, New York, Washington County
GEIS LINK
FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (GEIS)
Title of Action:	Adoption of a Revised Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Hartford
Project Location:	Town of Hartford, Washington County, New York
Lead Agency:	Hartford Town Board
Contact:	Dana Haff, Town Supervisor
(518) 632-9151
Date of Final Plan Completion:	*date
SEQRA DGEIS Public Hearing:	*date
Close of SEQRA Comment Period:	*date
FGEIS Notice of Completion:	*date
Final Master Plan Approval:	*date
This is a Final Generic Environmental Impact statement (FGEIS) prepared by the Town of Hartford Town Board. The Town Board is the lead agency under Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617), otherwise known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
The proposed action consists of several related steps that collectively constitute adoption of a revised Comprehensive Plan intended to address the existing and anticipated future needs of the Town of Hartford. The Town of Hartford began its initial process of formally updating its Comprehensive Plan in October 2008. The Town Board determined that the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan was a Type I Action under SEQRA and that the proposed project might have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) was prepared in conjunction with, and attached to the town’s revised Comprehensive Plan. The Town Board as lead agency accepted the DGEIS as complete in *date. A Notice of Completion of Draft GElS and Notice of SEQRA Hearing was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin and a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the *newspaper. A public hearing on the DGEIS was held on *date and the formal comment period on the DGEIS ended on *date.
A Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) was accepted as complete by the SEQRA lead agency, the Hartford Town Board. A public comment period extended thereafter. During that public comment period, a public hearing was conducted by the SEQRA lead agency on *date. This FGEIS includes all written comments and public hearing comments on the project and the DGEIS.
Description of the FGEIS. This is a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA), relating to the proposed project described below. The FGEIS consists of this document together with the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), and the final Hartford Comprehensive Plan, which is incorporated into this FGEIS by reference.
Project History. The Town of Hartford began its initial process of formally updating its Comprehensive Plan in October 2008. The Town Board determined that the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan was a Type I Action under SEQRA and that the proposed project might have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) was prepared in conjunction with, and attached to the town’s revised Comprehensive Plan. The Town Board as lead agency accepted the DGEIS as complete in *date. A Notice of Completion of Draft GElS and Notice of SEQRA Hearing was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin and a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the *newspaper. A public hearing on the DGEIS was held on *date and the formal comment period on the DGEIS ended on *date.
*There were some non-substantive comments offered at the public hearing by members of both the Town Board and the Comprehensive Plan Committee. Public comments and the Town Board’s response are incorporated into this FGEIS.
Description of the Project. The proposed action (adoption of a revised town-wide Comprehensive Plan) consists of several related steps that collectively constitute a program intended to address the current and future needs of the Town of Hartford. The plan itself does not commit the Town of Hartford or any other public or private entity to any particular course of action or require taking any action at all. The plan recommends further actions such as adoption of revised and/or new local laws, and further specific planning efforts.
A public hearing on the DGEIS was held by the Town of Hartford Town Board, as lead agency under SEQRA, at *date, at the Town Offices, pursuant to properly published public notice. The following are the responses to both written comments and comments made at the public hearing received by the Town Board regarding the DGEIS during the public comment period which extended until *date.
*include comments and responses here
Town of Hartford, Washington County, New York
Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Town of Hartford Town Board, as lead agency, makes the following findings.
Name of Action:	Comprehensive Plan and Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Town of Hartford
Applicant:	Hartford Town Board
Description of Action:	The proposed action consists of several related steps that collectively constitute adoption of a revised Comprehensive Plan intended to address the existing and anticipated future needs of the Town of Hartford.
Location:	Town of Hartford, Washington County, New York
Agency Jurisdictions:	Hartford Town Board (SEQRA Lead Agency)
Washington County Department of Planning
Date Final EIS Filed:	*date
See attached report for the facts and conclusions in the EID relied upon to support the decision.
A.	This document is the Findings of Fact and Decision made by the Hartford Town Board (HTB) in the matter of the revision of the town-wide Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS).
B.	These findings are made pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act 6 NYCRR Part 617.
C.	These findings are based on the Draft and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the project, the public comment record, and the Town Board, Planning Board and Comprehensive Plan Committee’s combined knowledge of the Town of Hartford.
2.	Standards Used for Review
A.	The State Environmental Quality Review Act (Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York hereinafter SEQRA) requires the HTB to consider the relevant environmental impacts of an action, and facts and conclusions disclosed in the FGElS; to weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations; and to certify that the requirements of SEQRA have been met.
B.	The legal SEQRA standards require that the HTB certify that consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practical by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigating measures that were identified as practicable.
A.	The proposed action consists of several related steps that collectively constitute adoption of a revised Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Hartford and is described in detail in the DGEIS. The principal elements of the proposed action are as follows:
a.	The revision and acceptance of a town-wide Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Hartford, Washington County, New York.
b.	The preparation of a Draft and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
A.	A resolution to revise the town’s Comprehensive Plan was issued in *2008.
B.	The Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement was submitted *date for town review.
C.	The Hartford Town Board voted to file a Notice of Completion of Draft Generic EIS and Notice of Public Hearing in *date.
D.	A public hearing was scheduled for *date, at which time the public hearing was held.
E.	A public comment period was opened until *date. Public Notices were filed in the * newspaper. *briefly describe comments received.
F.	The Final GEIS was prepared and the Hartford Town Board voted to file a Notice of Completion of Final Generic EIS with NYS DEC on *date.
G.	Each involved agency was mailed copies of the Final Plan and GElS in *date.
H.	The Findings Statement was completed on *date and filed with *list. The HTB files contain all SEQRA documents and notices including the positive declaration, minutes from the scoping session, notices of completion of the Draft and Final GElS, notices of hearings and these findings. These documents will be maintained and will be readily accessible to the public and made available on request.
I.	Copies of all correspondence, minutes, public hearing and public comment notices, positive declaration, notices of completion, the Draft and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and this Findings statement are filed at the Town Clerk’s Office.
J.	The HTB finds that the project is representative of a part of the actions of the Town of Hartford, which involves ongoing planning for the community’s future. The HTB further finds that related actions have been discussed to the fullest extent possible and that any additional land uses which may be proposed in the future must be made subject to environmental and municipal laws and regulations which will be in force at the time and that the process described herein and the resulting decision-making do not constitute segmentation and are adequately protective of the environment. The requirements for future SEQRA actions in Part 8 of this Findings Statement provide that comprehensive environmental review will be given to all future land use changes which are subject to municipal approvals and/or regulatory permits.
K.	The HTB finds that the use of the GEIS, rather than a site-specific EIS, is appropriate for the project. The project conforms to § 617.10. GEISs may be broader, and more general than site or project specific EISs and should discuss the logic and rationale for the choices advanced. They may also include an assessment of specific impacts if such details are available. They may be based on conceptual information in some cases. They may identify the important elements of the natural resource base as well as the existing and projected cultural features, patterns and character. They may discuss in general terms the constraints and consequences of any narrowing of future options. They may present and analyze in general terms a few hypothetical scenarios that could and are likely to occur. A generic EIS may be used to assess the environmental impacts of:
a.	A number of separate actions in a given geographic area which, if considered singly, may have minor impacts, but if considered together may have significant impacts; or
b.	A sequence of actions, contemplated by a single agency or individual; or
c.	Separate actions having generic or common impacts.
The HTB further finds that the GEIS for the proposed action and this Findings Statement set forth specific conditions or criteria under which future actions will be undertaken or approved, including requirements for any subsequent SEQRA compliance which include thresholds and criteria for supplemental EISs to reflect specific significant impacts, such as site specific impacts, that were not adequately addressed or analyzed in the generic EIS, in satisfaction of the requirements of § 617.10 (c).
5.	Project Impacts
A.	The revised Comprehensive Plan also functions as a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the purposes of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). As a GEIS, it is meant to describe the potential impact of adoption of the plan. In general, adoption of this revised plan by the Town of Hartford will not have an adverse environmental impact on the town. The plan itself embodies the concept of environmental protection in that it carefully considers the environmental setting of the town. The plan should be viewed as an attempt to mitigate against the impact of development on the agricultural, natural and cultural resources of the town. It also seeks to promote new development that is consistent with and enhances the town’s natural, cultural and agricultural resources.
Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan will not result in the approval of any development activity, either private or public. The proposed land uses and proposed projects contained in the plan must still undergo more detailed, site-specific planning by the public and/or private entities that will undertake these actions. As individual activities are proposed and reviewed, site-specific environmental reviews may be necessary. Among other things, such reviews should consider the scope and scale of the proposed action and whether these are consistent with the concepts outlined in this plan and GEIS.
In general, the plan is expected to have a beneficial impact on the community over time. Updated land use management techniques will help the community to achieve its desired objectives. The HTB finds that any/all potential impacts are fully described in the EIS and summarized below:
a.	Impact on Land. Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan by the Town of Hartford will affect land resources in the town. Some areas that are currently undeveloped or lightly developed are proposed for more intense uses and/or dense pattern of development in the plan. For example, areas within the hamlet planning area are envisioned for more intensive, higher-density land uses. Land suitability and environmental constraints will be among the many considerations that will be part of this decision. The plan calls for guiding development to areas within or near traditional settlement areas and away from the town’s principal agricultural areas.
In other parts of the town, a balance of primarily agricultural uses, low-density rural residences and resource protection is proposed. The plan recommends several tools to achieve this development pattern. Clustering would become the preferred approach for the design of larger subdivisions. By starting with a careful analysis of the environmental setting when designing subdivisions, areas containing environmental constraints or important agricultural resources, would be identified prior to locating homes on only the most appropriate portions of a parcel. The plan also recommends strengthening the provisions of the town’s current subdivision law intended to prevent houses from be placed in the center of productive farm fields.
b.	Impact on Water. Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan by the Town of Hartford will not have an adverse impact on water resources in the town. The plan recommends that development be located away from significant environmental features, including surface waters. It also recommends retention of naturally vegetated riparian buffers along streams. The plan recommends several tools to protect open space, which would also benefit the town’s groundwater resources.
c.	Impact on Air. Because of the proposed increases in commercial and residential development in the hamlet planning area, minor adverse impacts to local air quality could be anticipated. However, these will not be of a type or magnitude that would adversely affect human health or the environment, or to even cause irritation or annoyance. In fact, a more compact development pattern would serve to make walking a reasonable alternative to driving, which could reduce auto dependence and could further limit any air quality impacts. Other recommendations in the plan, and in particular the strategies for protecting open space, will have beneficial impacts on air quality.
d.	Impact on Plants and Animals. Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan by the Town of Hartford will have no direct impact on plant and animal resources in the town. There are numerous woodlots, wetlands, stream corridors and ponds in Hartford. These are home to a variety of plant and animal life. More information about this subject can be obtained from the New York State Natural Heritage Program. Overall, the development pattern and techniques recommended in the plan will lead to greater protection for plant and animal habitat. Where new development is proposed, existing vegetation will be removed and some wildlife displaced. Other areas of town, however, are proposed to remain undeveloped or in agricultural use in this plan.
e.	Impact on Agricultural Resources. Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan by the Town of Hartford will not adversely affect agricultural resources in the town. The overarching theme of the plan is protection of the town’s agricultural resources and way of life. The plan identifies the town’s principal agricultural areas and recommends guiding development away from these areas and/or locating non-agricultural development to minimize impact on productive land. The plan also suggests that the town work with the county, state and regional organizations to support programs that would promote the continuation of agriculture in Hartford.
f.	Impact on Aesthetic Resources. The proposals in this Comprehensive Plan are intended to enhance the aesthetic qualities of Hartford. Protection of rural character is an important goal of the plan. The plan, therefore stresses the value of protecting open lands and minimizing impact on scenic views. Carefully scaled and designed development would be promoted in the hamlet planning area and for commercial or light industrial enterprises along highway corridors.
g.	Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources. Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan by the Town of Hartford will not adversely affect historic and archaeological resources in the town. The plan recommends that the town recognize and support the work of the Hartford Historical Society to preserve the town’s historic assets. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that the town’s historic hamlets be the focal point for some new commercial and residential growth. It calls for new development and rehabilitation of older structures to be compatible with the hamlets’ historical qualities.
h.	Impact on Open Space and Recreation. Overall, adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan by the Town of Hartford will have a positive impact on open space and recreational resources in the town. Some existing open spaces may be lost because of the development patterns proposed in the plan. However, the plan focuses carefully designed development in appropriate locations while protecting important natural features and preventing sprawl type commercial development that would be inconsistent with the community’s desired character. The plan speaks to the importance of the informal outdoor recreation opportunities made possible by the maintenance of large, undeveloped landholdings, and opportunities for further development of trail systems for various users.
i.	Impact on Critical Environmental Areas. There are no Critical Environmental Areas (CEA), established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g), in Hartford.
j.	Impact on Transportation. Transportation impacts of the revised Comprehensive Plan’s proposed development pattern will be mixed. Because of the more intensive development or use of the hamlet planning area, the number of automobile trips generated by these areas can be expected to increase. It is intended that adverse transportation impacts of these proposals will be offset, to some degree, by the creation of a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment that encourages people to walk or ride.
Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan will not result in adverse transportation impacts in the remainder of Hartford. The plan recommends the town strive to maintain a relatively low overall density of development, which will reduce the ultimate build out population of the town and therefore reduced the current growth in vehicle miles traveled. Pedestrian accommodations, as described above, and the development of multi-use trails and improvements to on-road bicycle facilities are recommended to make these transportation modes more attractive as alternatives to the automobile. Focused growth in the hamlet planning area may also allow for the eventual provision of some form of public transportation in Hartford. Finally, the plan recommends continued review of curb cuts, required minimum frontages and shared access in order to limit the impact of driveways on the capacity of town, county and state roadways.
k.	Impact on Energy. Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan will not have a significant impact on energy resources. By promoting a more compact development pattern concentrated in and around the hamlets, it should slow the increase in vehicle miles driven. The plan also promotes use of alternative and renewable energy sources.
l.	Noise and Odor Impacts. Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan will not result in adverse impacts from odors, noise, vibrations or similar undesirable off-site affects. The plan recommends the town develop performance standards to prevent such adverse impacts.
m.	Impact on Public Health. Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan will not result in any adverse impact on public heath. The plan calls for provision of appropriate and safe water supply and wastewater treatment systems.
n.	Impact on Growth and Character of the Community. Adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan by the Town of Hartford will have a positive effect on the character of the community. Hartford is part of the Glens Falls metropolitan area, which has been experiencing some population and housing growth. This rural town foresees that over time such growth will begin to affect Hartford. Residents whose families have been here for generations, and newcomers alike, are attracted to the town’s rural character. They wish to preserve the town’s pastoral landscape and quality of life. The plan addresses these concerns through a balance of approaches for preserving agricultural land and open spaces, and focusing growth in appropriate forms and locations. The plan’s recommendations for focusing growth within and around existing hamlets and preserving agricultural lands, addresses concerns frequently expressed by residents. Most critically is the need to balance the town’s fiscal situation. If it continues to develop as a primarily bedroom community, Hartford is in danger of experiencing large tax increases in the future. Single-family housing does not pay as much in taxes as it consumes in services (primarily schools). To offset this effect, it is necessary for the community to have a sound commercial base. Agricultural and open space lands are also a net revenue generator for the community. By focusing carefully scaled development in and around existing hamlets, the community will be able to accommodate future growth, expand its economic base, and protect and enhance its agricultural economy, natural areas, recreational resources and open spaces.
6.	Consideration of Environmental Impacts
A.	The proposed action will produce no large impacts that will be potentially adverse and many of which will be beneficial to the Town of Hartford and the communities surrounding its borders. Any large impacts that were evaluated to determine their significance according to 6 NYCRR 617.7 (c), in which significant impacts produce adverse effects on the environment and involve:
a.	A substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise levels; a substantial increase in solid waste production; a substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems;
b.	The removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna; substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; impacts on a significant habitat area; substantial adverse impacts on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant, or the habitat of such a species; or other significant adverse impacts to natural resources;
c.	The impairment of the environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area as designated pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g) of Part 617;
d.	The creation of a material conflict with a community’s current plans or goals as officially approved or adopted;
e.	The impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character;
f.	A major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy;
g.	The creation of a hazard to human health;
h.	A substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land including agricultural, open space or recreational resources, or in its capacity to support existing uses;
i.	The encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few days, compared to the number of people who would come to such place absent the action;
j.	The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above consequences;
k.	Changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one of which has a significant impact on the environment, but when considered together result in a substantial adverse impact on the environment; or
l.	Two or more related actions undertaken, funded or approved by an agency, none of which has or would have a significant impact on the environment, but when considered cumulatively would meet one or more of the preceding criteria.
The HTB finds that the proposed action will not involve any of the above adverse impacts.
B.	The HTB finds that the GEIS examined suitable alternatives to each component of the proposed action including no action, adopt an altered plan, or adopt the Comprehensive Plan as proposed and that the proposed action, with the mitigations specified in Part 7 of this Findings Statement, will limit adverse impacts to the greatest extent practicable.
a.	The town can pursue three alternative actions: adopt the revised comprehensive plan as proposed; make changes before adopting a revised comprehensive plan; or do not adopt a revised comprehensive plan. Of the available alternatives, adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan as proposed would provide the best combination of appropriately scaled growth, farmland preservation, and natural resource and open space protection in accordance with the vision and goals expressed by town residents. The plan attempts to balance the town’s residential growth with increased business and job creation opportunities, and agricultural land and open space protection.
i.	It is difficult to anticipate possible alternatives to a plan, as opposed to specific projects proposed within. The most obvious alternative would be to take no action. This, essentially, means that the town would not adopt the revised plan. In light of the effort that has already been made to identify the town’s valuable agricultural, natural, historic and cultural resources, and to solicit input from the community as to the most appropriate ways to enhance and protect these resources while generating economic activity in Hartford, the no action alternative would be counterproductive. It would do nothing to further the town’s goals.
ii.	Existing local, state and federal regulations would likely be sufficient to protect many of the natural and cultural resources in the town. However, the benefit of the plan is that it proposes an approach that would allow the town to grow in a way that enhances the community’s character, incorporates and protects the community’s valuable resources. This balance can only be achieved through a deliberate, collaborative planning process, which looks to the future. In the absence of a plan, and a program to implement the plan, the community must simply react to development proposals as they are submitted.
iii.	Another alternative action for the Town of Hartford would be to adopt an altered plan. The degree to which the plan emphasizes farmland protection or economic development, for example, is a potential area of change. It would be possible to develop a plan that focuses solely on the protection of the town’s agricultural resources and natural features. At the other extreme, the desire to create economic and/or housing development opportunities could be the sole focus of the plan. While each of these scenarios would meet, at least one of the community’s objectives, each would do so at the expense of another important community objective. Neither would achieve the necessary balance between resource protection and economic growth, and neither would address the maintenance of a vibrant, rural community.
Adoption of this revised Comprehensive Plan, as proposed, would best ensure that the community’s multiple goals for the town are achieved. The plan’s combination of recommended actions, which are made in consideration of a careful analysis of the town’s resources and resident’s goals for the town’s future, will enhance the character of Hartford consistent with the community’s vision.
C.	The HTB finds that none of the identified impacts of the proposed action, with the mitigations specified in Part 7 of this Findings Statement, will be significant, nor will those impacts permanently curtail the range of beneficial uses of the area.
D.	The HTB finds that the proposed action will not result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural, manufactured, energy and financial resources.
7.	Project Mitigation
A.	As the proposed action does not have the potential to produce significant adverse impacts, no further mitigation measures are required. Any/all of the identified impacts will be reduced to the “not significant” level as identified in 6 NYCRR 617.7(c). The HTB finds that no mitigation measures will be necessary to reduce potentially adverse impacts to that “not significant” level.
8.	Future SEQRA Actions will be required under the circumstances, as follows:
A.	No further SEQRA compliance is required if a subsequent proposed action will be carried out in conformance with the conditions, thresholds and mitigations established for such actions in the FGEIS or this Finding Statement, § 617.10 (d)(l);
B.	An amended Findings Statement must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was adequately addressed in the GEIS but was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in this Findings Statement for the GEID, § 617.1O(d)(2);
C.	A Negative Declaration must be prepared if a subsequent proposed action was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the GEIS and the subsequent action will not result in any significant environmental impacts, § 617.1O(d)(3);
D.	A supplement to the FGEIS must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the GEIS and the subsequent action may have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts, § 617.10(d)(4.) Site-specific analysis of potential significant adverse environmental impact(s) is needed for actions following a GEIS. The HTB, as lead agency, will require that the applicant submit materials identified in Part 9 to help the HTB evaluate the need for a Supplemental EIS. The project applicant can voluntarily submit a draft supplement with project application materials and avoid the whole decision making process of whether or not to require one. A Supplemental EIS should be prepared by the project sponsor, and is subject to the same acceptance and review procedures as other EISs.
a.	When a supplemental EIS is required, the procedures for preparation and review of EISs established in § 617 shall be followed. A supplemental EIS should:
i.	Be required for environmentally significant adverse impacts and mitigation not adequately addressed in the GEIS;
ii.	Reference the GEIS; summarize its relevant sections and state where a copy of the GEIS is available;
iii.	Incorporate mitigation and alternatives recommended in the GEIS as requirements for the supplemental action, in addition to any new mitigation measures or alternatives developed within the supplemental EIS; and
iv.	Be cognizant of, and consistent with conditions, and thresholds established in the GEIS and this Findings Statement.
E.	Specifically, supplemental EIS will be necessary under the following circumstances:
a.	If quantifiable thresholds established in the GEIS and this Findings Statement are exceeded by 10%;
b.	If mitigating measures are not executed as established in the GEIS and this Findings Statement; or
c.	If additional development activities are proposed by the applicant which is directly interrelated to the proposed action and was not addressed in the GEIS and if they will result in any significant adverse impacts. Direct interrelationship is defined as physical improvements near or adjacent to the elements of the proposed action, which would cause a significant adverse change in cumulative impact(s). Direct interrelationship does not include general support services improvements, and specific physical improvements which are not near or adjacent to the elements of the proposed action. These types of improvements may require separate SEQRA review(s).
9.	Conclusions and Decisions
A.	The HTB, as lead agency, has given a hard look and due consideration to the FGEIS.
B.	The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met.
C.	Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the actions to be approved are those that minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, including the effects disclosed in the generic environmental impact statement.
D.	Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided.
E.	Consistent with standards of the town’s local laws, the action is in harmony with the orderly development of the town and will not discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings
CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO APPROVE
Having considered the Draft and Final GEIS, and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9, this Statement of Findings certifies that:
1.	The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met;
2.	Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable; including the effects disclosed in the environmental impact statement, and
3.	Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigating measures which were identified as practicable.
4.	Consistent with the applicable policies of Article 42 of the Executive Law, as implemented by 19 NYCRR 600.5, this action will achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social and economic considerations.
Hartford Town Board
Signature of Responsible Official	Name of Responsible Official
Title of Responsible Official	Date