FEIS Chapter III - Comments and Responses

III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

INTRODUCTION
This section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses the comments
received on the October 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Comments
include those presented at the DEIS public hearing held at 7 p.m. on Thursday, November
30, 2006, at The Town of Wawarsing Town Hall in Ellenville, New York, and written
comments submitted to the Town of Wawarsing Planning Board during DEIS public review
period held from October 31, 2006, to December 26, 2006.

The following table presents a list of individuals and agencies that submitted written
comments during the DEIS public review period; comments received verbally at the DEIS
public hearing are also included.

Table III-1: Written Comments Received on the DEIS
Letter Author Author Affiliation Date of Letter
1. Davidson, Chuck None. Oct. 26, 2006
2. Cragsmoor Fire District Same. Nov. 15, 2006
Board of Commissioners
3. Lesikin, Joan Member, Cragsmoor Association. Nov. 22, 2006
4. McCombs, Harry Cragsmoor resident. Nov. 25, 2006
5. McCombs, June Cragsmoor resident. Nov. 25, 2006
6. McCombs, Scott Cragsmoor resident. Nov. 25, 2006
7. Beinkafner, Katherine Mid-Hudson Geosciences Nov. 27, 2006
8. Seeland, Irene Cragsmoor resident. Nov. 27, 2006
9. Markunas, Kenneth NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Nov. 29, 2006
Preservation, Historic Sites Restoration
Coordinator.
10. Porter, David Consultant to Cragsmoor Association to Nov. 29, 2006
review DEIS traffic analysis.
11. Damsky, Russell & Monica Cragsmoor residents. Dec. 4, 2006
12. Wiebe, Dianne Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 4, 2006
13. Horn, Ted Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 19, 2006
14. Harris, Wendy Cragsmoor resident, professional Dec. 20, 2006
archeologist.
15. Lanc, John Lanc & Tully Engineering, Town Engineer. Dec. 20, 2006
16. Matz, Sally Cragsmoor Historical Society, President. Dec. 21, 2006
17. Rogers, Linda Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 21, 2006
18. Slade, Jeffrey The Cragsmoor Conservancy, President. Dec. 21, 2006
19. Wagner, Heidi The Nature Conservancy, Sam’s Point Dec. 21, 2006
Preserve Manager. Cragsmoor resident.
20. Clouser, David David Clouser & Associates, engineering Dec. 22, 2006
consultant to Cragsmoor Association.
21. Franke, Jakob; Meyer, Members of Long Path South committee of Dec. 22, 2006
Eric; Hangland, Gary; New York/New Jersey Trail Conference.
Spector, Malcolm;
Garrison, Andy
22. Brown, Wayne Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 24, 2006

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS III-1
April 2008

Table III-1: Written Comments Received on the DEIS (Continued)
23. Lesikin, Joan Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 24, 2006
24. Rubin, Paul HydroQuest, consultant to Dec. 24, 2006
Cragsmoor Association.
25. Bierschenk, Joanne & Cragsmoor residents. Dec. 25, 2006
Richard
26. Williams, William Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 25, 2006
27. Barbour, James Ecological consultant hired by Received by
Cragsmoor Association and Wawarsing Building
Nature Conservancy. Dept. Dec. 26, 2006
28. Beinkafner, Katherine Mid-Hudson Geosciences Dec. 26, 2006
29. Benton, Blake Cragsmoor resident. Received by
Wawarsing Building
Dept. Dec. 26, 2006
30. Broderson, Cynthia Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 26, 2006
31. Gale, Tom Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 26, 2006
32. Gordon, David Attorney for Cragsmoor Dec. 26, 2006
Association
33. Matz, Sally Cragsmoor Historical Society, Dec. 26, 2006
President.
34. McAlpin, Mary Kroul Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 26, 2006
35. Williams, Dolores Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 26, 2006
36. Mackey, Douglas NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Dec. 28, 2006
Historic Preservation, Historic
Preservation Program Analyst -
Archeology.
37. Swentusky, Jane NYS Dept. of Environmental Jan. 23, 2007
Conservation.
38. Crist, Rebecca NYS Dept. of Environmental Feb. 2, 2007
Conservation.
Note: In addition to the above comments, a review letter based upon a GML 239-m referral was
received on December 27, 2006, from the Ulster County Planning Board. This letter, and the
Applicant’s responses to it, are attached as Appendix M to this FEIS.

April 2008

Table III-2: Commenters at the Public Hearing
Speaker Affiliation
1. McKenney, Jim President, Cragsmoor Association
2. Gordon, David Attorney for Cragsmoor Association
3. Beinkafner, Katherine Mid-Hudson Geosciences (Cragsmoor Association consultant).
4. Barbour, James Ecologist representing Cragsmoor Association
5. Sherman, Henry Cragsmoor resident
6. Wagner, Heidi Preserve manager for Sam’s Point Preserve, Cragsmoor resident
7. Grace, Karen Cragsmoor resident
8. Matz, Sally President, Cragsmoor Historical Society
9. Radl, Maureen VP, Cragsmoor Historical Society, VP, Friends of the Shawangunks
10. Grace, William Cragsmoor resident
11. Nolan, Dick Cragsmoor resident
12. Lesikin, Joan Cragsmoor resident
13. Benton, Blake Cragsmoor resident
14. Wiebe, Dianne Cragsmoor resident
15. Hoff, Barbara Cragsmoor resident
16. Muller, Lucy Cragsmoor resident
17. Ditar, Ruth Cragsmoor resident
18. Peters, Dick Cragsmoor resident
19. Sergenic, Phil Cragsmoor resident
20. Muldoon, Kathleen Cragsmoor resident
21. Grace, Karen Cragsmoor resident
22. Rogers, Linda Cragsmoor resident
23. Meily, Walter Cragsmoor resident
24. Kraft, Jeff Cragsmoor resident
25. Dunn, Irene Cragsmoor resident
26. Beinkafner, Katherine Mid-Hudson Geosciences (consultant to Cragsmoor Association).
27. Blake Benton Cragsmoor resident

The following section summarizes and responds to the comments; copies of all comments
received, including transcripts from the public hearing, can be found in Appendix A
(Comments Received on the DEIS). A summary of the comments made in each of the
above referenced comment letters and public testimony is presented and a response to
each comment listed is provided. The commenter’s name is listed after each comment.
The responses to comments are organized as follows:
A. General Comments
B. Executive Summary
C. Description of the Proposed Action
D. Land Use and Zoning
E. Community Character/Visual Resources
F. Flora and Fauna
G. Topography, Steep Slopes, Soils and Sanitary Sewage Disposal
H. Hydrogeology, Groundwater Resources and Water Supply
I. Surface Water and Wetland Resources
J. Stormwater Management
K. Traffic
L. Community Facilities
M. Socioeconomic/Fiscal Impacts
N. Cultural Resources (historical and archeological)

April 2008

O. Noise
P. Analysis of Alternatives
Q. Unavoidable Impacts

A. General Comments

NOTE: This section addresses general comments, and, accordingly, the responses
are set forth in somewhat general terms. More specific comments on the same topics
are responded to with corresponding specificity in later sections of the FEIS (see titles
set forth above).

A.1 Comment: What Cragsmoor is, is because of what Cragsmoor isn’t. It isn’t foul
water and earth quality that can’t support its pristine habitat. It isn’t an imbalance of
people to environment. It isn’t a place of stress. (Chuck Davidson, memo dated
October 26, 2006).

A.1 Response: The Mahamudra Buddhist Hermitage would not result in an imbalance of
people to environment, nor would it be a place of stress. The goal of the Hermitage
is to provide a place for retreatants to immerse themselves in quiet, contemplative
practices and teaching. Because the Hermitage’s sole purpose is the development of
inner awareness, the activities that will occur on-site will focus completely on the
inner, personal interactions within oneself during meditation. The activities on the
site will not involve celebratory, external, interaction with large audiences, or any of
the noise associated with such activities. The existing natural environment is a major
element of the atmosphere required for the Hermitage, and preserving the quality of
that environment – in terms of water, soil and wildlife – is a central element of its
mission.

A.2 Comment: Please have both SHPO and the Preservation League of New York State
review the final DEIS (Joan Lesikin, member of Cragsmoor Association, memo dated
November 27, 2006).

A.2 Response: Both agencies had the opportunity to review the DEIS. The Applicant
received comments from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation, of which SHPO is a part. Responses to these comments are contained
in Section E, Community Character/Visual Resources, and Section N, Cultural
Resources (historical and archeological).

A.3 Comment: Has any thought been given as to the impact on the environment of the
surrounding area (Harry McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November
25, 2006)?

A.3 Response: As per the Scoping Document, the following potential environmental
impacts to the surrounding area were evaluated in the DEIS: land use and zoning;
community character/visual resources; flora and fauna; topography, steep slopes,
soils and sanitary sewage disposal; hydrogeology, groundwater resources and water
supply; surface water and wetland resources; stormwater management; traffic;
community facilities; socioeconomic/fiscal impacts; cultural resources (historical and
archeological); and noise. The DEIS concluded that potential adverse impacts of the

April 2008

project include a small increase in local traffic, incremental increases in demand on
community services, a slight increase in demand for utilities, an increase in
impervious surfaces, some possible disturbance of wildlife habitats, a small decrease
to the Town of Wawarsing’s potential tax base and minor visual impacts. The DEIS
concluded that these potential adverse impacts can be appropriately mitigated
through a range of measures, as more fully explained within the document.

A.4 Comment: What will happen to the value of our property (Harry McCombs,
Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)?

A.4 Response: The proposed project will be a very quiet land use that has very limited
visibility from the road. Its development will prevent the site from being subdivided
and cleared for a number of residential lots. The modifications to the project, which
have reduced its size, visibility and occupancy, will further limit the impacts. Because
of the nature of the proposed project, it should not result in any visible impact or
significant adverse environmental impacts that would negatively affect property
values in the surrounding area. In fact the quiet use of the retreat facilities and the
preservation of landscape buffers and restrictions on future development would
protect the neighborhood from an as-of-right residential subdivision, thus preserving
and enhancing property values.

Given the proposed quiet use of the land, the use’s prevention of future subdivision
and the lack of visible impacts or other significant adverse environmental impacts,
property values in the surrounding area should be preserved. Furthermore, the
certainty provided by the Applicant’s proposed restrictions on future development, in
the form of a permanent buffer around approximately 77 percent of the property
perimeter, including all portions bordering public roads, will provide additional
protection of property values in the vicinity of the project site. This proposed
restriction is discussed in greater detail in Response A.10, below.

surrounding area (June McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November
25, 2006)?

A.5 Response: See response for A.3.

A.6 Comment: What will happen to the value of our property (June McCombs,


surrounding area (Scott McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November
25, 2006)?


A.8 Comment: What will happen to the value of our property (Scott McCombs,

April 2008


A.9 Comment: The DEIS states that there will be no fragmentation. This ten-year, 4-
phase development of buildings, roads, water drainage, sewers, parking, etc. will
result in ripping apart the landscape. There will be fragmentation (Linda Rogers,
Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

A.9 Response: The project has been planned to have a measured development pace
consistent with the low-impact nature of the proposed use, which will minimize
construction-related impacts. The internal road, with attendant utilities, is scheduled
for completion as part of Phase I, to avoid any necessity of repeated disturbance of
that area. No blasting is expected to occur during any phase of construction, and
the project will not require relocation of any existing projects or facilities. The project
layout has been designed to minimize construction in areas of steeper slopes,
meaning that significant areas will not be re-graded. While approximately 33.5% of
the project site with the modified layout will be re-graded and temporarily exposed
during construction of the project, the phased process will assure a slow pace of
disturbance, limiting areas disturbed at one time. In addition, site plan modifications
since completion of the DEIS will reduce final build-out in terms of occupancy,
number of buildings, total square footage and parking. These changes will generate
decreases in water usage, septic capacity, electrical loads, disturbed areas, parking
and landscaping.

As discussed in Chapter IV.C (Flora and Fauna) of the DEIS, fragmentation can be
described in two fashions: forest and habitat fragmentation. Forest fragmentation
results from the practice of opening up closed forest canopy, allowing edge-oriented
species to penetrate into areas of the forest that they could not reach before. Habitat
fragmentation is the separation and isolation of habitats and wildlife populations by
placing impenetrable barriers between habitats that prevent mixing of formerly
connected or adjacent wildlife populations. The site planning for the proposed
project has created a layout that will minimize the clearing of forested areas and the
creation of barriers for wildlife migration. Furthermore, the proposed modifications
to the proposed site plan have reduced the amount of disturbance on the site.
During construction, special measures will be taken so that construction limits are
clearly defined to prevent disruption of areas that were to remain undisturbed (See
Response G.8).

The DEIS stated that there may be temporary disruption of wildlife migration
corridors during construction; however, long-term, they should remain intact. The
phasing of the project, as described in Response J.3, will minimize these temporary
disruptions, thus minimizing fragmentation impacts. Phase I, which is further divided
into several separate sub-phases, involves the construction of the main roads,
utilities and infrastructure and the Milarepa Center. The sub-phases were
established so that less than 5 acres are disturbed at any one time. The initial two
sub-phases involve the road construction from Cragsmoor Road to the Milarepa
Center site, leaving the section north of there to Old Inn Road undisturbed. The third
sub-phase is the construction of the Milarepa Center buildings, with the final sub-
phase being the completion of the road construction to Old Inn Road. This will allow

April 2008

any temporary habitat disruptions caused by the initial road installation to
reestablish while the building construction takes place, which in turn will help
mitigate any impacts caused by the construction of the balance of the road. Since
Phase I includes all of the work that transverses the site from Cragsmoor Road to
Old Inn Road, upon completion, any temporary disruptions of wildlife migration will
cease to exist. Future phases involve construction of individual building complexes
within contained areas. Due to the limited development area of each site, during the
construction of any of these future phases, disruption to wildlife migration is not
anticipated. See Response J.3 for a detailed discussion of phasing, and alternate
phasing.

While the time for completion of the project in its entirety may vary somewhat, the
minimum anticipated time for such completion is estimated to be approximately 7
years. Even at this maximum building pace, construction periods of 12-18 months
would be followed by quiet periods between phases with no construction activity,
and it is not anticipated that there will be significant fragmentation impacts, as
discussed herein. It is also possible that the time period for completion of the project
may extend to a longer period of time, such as the ten year period of time
suggested by the commenter, by virtue of longer periods of time between phases.
The total length of actual construction activity would be expected to remain constant
under any of the potential scenarios for phasing and total project completion. The
longer periods between one or more phases will not generate any additional
adverse impacts.

A.10 Comment: Additional consideration should be given to a well-defined, 360-degree
“buffer zone” – a Conservation Easement guaranteed, in perpetuity, never to incur
future fragmentation or further development (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident,
memo dated December 21, 2006).

A.10 Response: As discussed in Chapter II, the Applicant is proposing greenspace buffers
along approximately 77 percent of the site boundary, as follows: A buffer
approximately 100 feet deep is proposed along the entire frontage of the property
along Cragsmoor Road, and the entire frontage along Old Inn Road. A buffer
approximately 200 feet deep is proposed along the southern and western
boundaries of the property. A buffer continues at a depth of 100 feet along the
northwest boundary of the property. These buffers are substantially deeper than the
applicable 50-foot yard requirement in the R/C-3A zoning district. The proposed
buffer area is depicted in Figure II-4. The purpose of the buffer area is to provide
landscaped buffer areas which generally limit placement of facilities above ground
level within the buffer area and provide reasonable amounts of natural screening
along areas viewed from public and private roadways. In total, the proposed buffers
would cover an area of 26.6 acres, or 29 percent of the site.

Dharmakaya would have certain limited reserved rights within the buffer areas,
including the right to place walking and meditation trails and religious statuary; to
selectively prune vegetation; and to remove dead or diseased trees. Dharmakaya
would also, upon approval by the Planning Board and in the manner shown on
approved site plans, be allowed to place structures and facilities within the buffer
areas, including access drives, entrance lighting and directional signage; water and

April 2008

stormwater facilities; septic and other underground utilities; and such other
structures and facilities as the Planning Board may deem appropriate in support of
the use of the property and consistent with the function of the buffer areas.

The buffer areas would be noted on any approved site plans, with appropriate notes
to implement the restrictions as approved by the Planning Board. In addition, the
Applicant would file appropriate covenants and restrictions to implement the buffer
restrictions and reserved rights as set forth in the approval resolution, in a form
approved by the Planning Board Attorney, additionally naming the Town of
Wawarsing as a benefited party with ability to enforce the provisions of the
covenants and restrictions. Additionally, the Applicant will offer to the Town of
Wawarsing a Conservation Easement, in form approved by the Town Attorney,
setting forth the same substantive restrictions and reserved rights as in the covenants
and restrictions, and granting the Town the ability to enforce the Conservation
Easement. Both the covenants and restrictions and, if accepted by the Town, the
Conservation Easement, would be recorded no later than simultaneously with the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a building within the project.

A.11 Comment: The Planning Board can require Dharmakaya to enter into a
conservation easement with the Cragsmoor Conservancy or another suitable not-
for-profit entity to limit both the current use of the property and any further
development. Such a conservation easement could limit the size and location of
buildings, require specific landscaping, prevent the use of undeveloped land and so
on. Any community concern about the size, impact or future use of the project could
be met through this conservation easement device (Jeffrey Slade, The Cragsmoor
Conservancy, President, memo dated December 21, 2006).

A.11 Response: See Response A.10. The Applicant is proposing to create buffers around
77 percent of its perimeter, covering approximately 29 percent of its land.
Dharmakaya believes that its proposal to create these buffers is not necessary to
mitigate adverse impacts, but is consented to by Dharmakaya as a neighborly
gesture in a mutual effort to preserve privacy, quiet, and the nature of the
community.

A.12 Comment: Due to sensitivity of the site, we urge the Planning Board to consider
requiring a conservation easement on the undeveloped portion of the property, to
assure that the undeveloped land be protected in perpetuity (Heidi Wagner, The
Nature Conservancy, Preserve Manager for Sam’s Point Preserve, Cragsmoor
resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

A.12 Response: See Responses A.10 and A.11.

A.13 Comment: The figures identified in the DEIS as Site Plan, Schematic Landscaping
Plan, Buffer Area Plan, as well as other mapping within the DEIS, are represented at
a scale of 1 inch= 300 feet, which is a scale typically used for very general mapping
of large areas, without any significant design detail. For a project of this scale and
scope, the DEIS mapping typically has a maximum scale of 1 inch= 100 feet. This
larger scale mapping format would allow a proper review of site design elements

April 2008

(David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor
Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

A.13 Response: Appendix F of the DEIS contained 1inch=80 feet scale drawings of the
proposed site plan, which is less than the maximum scale of 1 inch=100 feet that
was requested. These plans were included in the copies of the DEIS that were
distributed to all involved or interested agencies. This included copies that were
available for review at the Town Hall and the libraries. Updated plans, showing the
revised site layout at a 1”=80’ scale have been included as Appendix B of the FEIS.
In addition, proposed landscaping plans at 1”= 40’ scale for the Construction
Phase I Milarepa Center (as were previously submitted for site plan/special permit
review) are included in Appendix B. These plans have been revised since the original
submission to indicate to scale plant sizes at initial planting and at seven year
growth. The scale provides clear view of the site design elements including the
proposed plant materials in the landscape buffer between the Milarepa Center and
Old Inn Road.

A.14 Comment: The Erosion and Sediment Control Plans were not available on the DEIS
website, thereby preventing review by the public of this important and required
element of the site’s environmental protective measures. This omission might be
considered a serious flaw in the project’s SEQRA review process, where public
review and participation are fundamental tenets of this procedure (David Clouser,
David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association,

A.14 Response: These plans were available from other sources during the DEIS review
process. Hard copies of the full DEIS and the maps were available at the Town Hall
and the libraries and were sent to all involved and interested agencies, including the
Cragsmoor Association, the commenter’s client. The Notice of Completion on the
Web site included a list of these locations where these hard copies were available.
The revised plans that are part of the FEIS will be posted on the Web site.

A.15 Comment: As one who spent most of his working life as a plumber on construction
projects, I knew immediately the impact of this extensive project. It would mean the
destruction of the fragile ecosystem and the way of life that Cragsmoor residents
have maintained over generations (Wayne Brown, Cragsmoor resident, memo
dated December 24, 2006).

A.15 Response: The DEIS concluded that the proposed project would not result in any
significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. See Responses
A.3 and A9.

Regarding the project’s impacts on habitats, the modifications made to the original
site plan will substantially reduce the area of disturbance on the site. The initial site
plan described in the DEIS resulted in a total site disturbance of 35.61 acres, or
39.32 percent of the project site. Due to the Applicant’s reduction in the size and
number of proposed buildings and in parking spaces, this total site disturbance will
be reduced to 30.38 acres, or 33.5 percent of the total project site. Site disturbance
is discussed in greater detail in Response A.32, below. The decrease in the project’s

April 2008

anticipated disturbance to the site will preserve more than five additional acres of
the total project site. In addition, the Applicant’s proposed restrictions on future
development, in the form of a permanent buffer around the property perimeter, will
preserve approximately 26.6 acres, or about 29 percent of the 91-acre project site.
This buffer is discussed in greater detail in Responses A.10 and A.11.

A.16 Comment: The projected buildings are massive compared to the scale of present
buildings in Cragsmoor. Since a retreat center is in the business of growth, I don’t
think restricting size now will prevent future growth. What limits can the township
impose that will stick (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 24,
2006)?

A.16 Response: While the buildings are larger than the existing buildings in Cragsmoor,
they are also on a much larger property, and much further set back from the outer
boundaries of the property. Furthermore, all proposed buildings have been sited so
as not to create undue disturbance to the existing landscape. For example, the
Milarepa Center has been designed to “step down” the natural terrain and therefore
be substantially obscured from views from Old Inn Road. The project’s minimal
impacts on views are fully discussed in Section E of this chapter. In addition, as
detailed above, the Applicant is proposing a permanent buffer of approximately
100 to 200 feet around approximately 77 percent of the property perimeter, which
will provide additional setbacks and screening of the proposed buildings from
surrounding areas. See Responses A.10 and A.11.

The DEIS has addressed the proposed total ultimate size of the project for purposes
of the special permit application. The Town will enforce these maximums in its
special permit. The special permit will not allow any development in excess of the
limits studied in the EIS process. The Town also has an additional review authority,
in that the Applicant is only seeking site plan approval for the first phase of the
project. The Town will enforce compliance with the conditions of the special permit
and site plan through its Building Inspector. The site plan approval processes will
also be public review processes. It is not anticipated that any additional SEQRA
review will be required at the time of additional site plan approvals, because the
SEQRA impacts of the whole project were already addressed in this EIS process.
Dharmakaya is not in the business of growth, but is a not-for-profit religious
undertaking to provide worship and meditation in a quiet environment.

A.17 Comment: The DEIS presented and discussed at the last meeting this month was
irredeemably flawed. The DEIS is diametrically opposed to the opinions of the
experts hired by the Cragsmoor Association and as such we are requesting that the
Board hire experts that will receive their funding from the Planning Board and be
responsible solely to the Board to prepare another DEIS. The Dharmakaya should
supply funding to the Board (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents,

A.17 Response: The Town of Wawarsing Planning Board has hired several experts to
review the DEIS, and their comments form part of the record and are responded to
in the FEIS. Specifically, the Planning Board hired the planning firm of Frederick P.
Clark Associates to review the DEIS for initial acceptance. It also hired

April 2008

hydrogeologist Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. to evaluate the Applicant’s hydrogeological
studies. The Town’s engineering firm, Lanc & Tully, also reviewed the DEIS. These
experts are responsible solely to the Board. The Planning Board has required that
the Applicant fund an escrow account which is used by the Planning Board, at its
discretion, to pay expenses of the review, including the cost of these experts hired by
the Planning Board, even though the experts are responsible solely to the Board.

A.18 Comment: One cannot place any confidence in the work of the so-called experts
who were totally debunked, for example by Spider Barbour’s assessment of their
inclusion in the DEIS of rare plants found solely in Australia. We would love to see
their credentials. In fact, the Board should ask for, and scrutinize that information
(Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25,
2006).

A.18 Response: The project team for the Mahamudra Hermitage DEIS consists of a
number of established professional consulting firms with expertise in the area of
environmental analysis. The following is a list of all preparers of the DEIS, as well as
a summary of qualifications for each contributor:

Cuddy & Feder LLP (Attorney)
Responsible for overall document review.

Cuddy & Feder LLP is a law firm with a land use practice representing a diverse
client base, including local, regional, national and multi-national clients with
sites located throughout the Hudson Valley, the metropolitan New York area and
Connecticut. The firm’s practice areas include zoning, land use, environmental
and municipal law before state, county and municipal boards. The firm has
acted as counsel in connection with the development of waterfront sites; large
residential communities; retail; commercial, office and industrial buildings;
shopping centers; apartment buildings; museums and institutional developments
such as nursing homes schools, assisted-living facilities and continuing-care
retirement communities. Cuddy & Feder has also acted as special counsel to
municipalities in the review of complex zoning and planning matters, and the
drafting of zoning and planning regulations.

BFJ Planning (Planner)
Responsible for document assembly.
Contributed to the following sections: Executive Summary, Project
Description, Land Use and Zoning, Community Facilities,
Socioeconomic/Fiscal Impacts, Noise, Analysis of Alternatives, Unavoidable
Impacts and Other SEQR Environmental Impacts.

Founded in 1980, BFJ Planning is a multi-disciplinary consulting firm offering
services in planning and zoning, environmental analysis, transportation, urban
design, site planning and real estate analysis. For over 25 years, the firm has
provided clients with high-quality planning and design solutions to a range of
complex problems. BFJ’s work is distinguished by a high degree of principal
participation in the technical work of each project, exceptional capabilities in
graphic design and presentation and a strong commitment to participatory

April 2008

planning. The firm has taken a leading role in providing environmental review
services in New York City and New York State.

Chas. H. Sells, Inc. (Engineer and Traffic Consultant)
Contributed to the following sections: Topography, Steep Slopes, Soils and
Sanitary Sewage Disposal; Hydrogeology, Groundwater Resources and
Water Supply; Surface Water and Wetland Resources; Stormwater
Management; and Traffic.

Recognized by the Engineering News Record as “One of the Nation’s Top 500
Firms” in the transportation industry, Chas. H. Sells, Inc. specializes in bridge
design and inspection, transportation engineering, civil engineering,
surveying/GPS and comprehensive mapping services. With more than 82 years
of experience and a large staff of engineers, surveyors and photogrammetrists
in nine office locations, the firm is dedicated to providing innovative, quality-
driven and cost efficient services to exceed its client’s needs. Chas Sells’
continual reassignment by numerous agencies and municipalities is testament to
the firm’s commitment brought forth by encompassing the very best resources to
every endeavor it undertakes.

Cerniglia Architecture and Planning, P.C. (Architect)
Contributed to the Community Character/Visual Resources section.

Cerniglia Architecture and Planning, P.C. provides architectural design and site
planning services to both the public and private sector. Its diversified client and
project portfolio includes municipal governments, institutions, corporations, the
development community and private individuals. The firm has endeavored to
achieve a tradition of excellence in architecture through the strict enforcement of
high, companywide standards of professionalism and service.

As a general-practice architecture, planning, design and interiors firm, Cerniglia
Architecture and Planning is licensed in New York and Connecticut. Its range of
architectural services include, but are not limited to, comprehensive
programming, space analysis, conceptual, schematic and final design,
construction cost analysis, presentation drawings, construction documents and
specifications, bidding administration, contract negotiations and construction
administration. Site planning services include land use analysis, zoning analysis,
environmental evaluation, master planning, site design, re-zoning procedures,
municipal approvals and ADA (American's with Disabilities Act) facility surveys.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. (Environmental Consultant)
Contributed to the Hydrogeology, Groundwater Resources and Water Supply
section.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham (LBG) was the nation's first firm to provide
specialized consulting services in the field of groundwater geology. The firm has
been in business for 64 years, longer than any other firm committed to the
original core specialty of hydrogeology. LBG has maintained state-of-the-art
expertise in the areas of groundwater movement, utilization, modeling,

April 2008

contamination and remediation. Technical personnel receive extensive field
training in all aspects of hydrogeologic and soils investigations, as well as in
remedial engineering functions. Each project is completed under the direct
supervision of a principal of the firm. The activities of the firm involve providing
investigation, design, management and advisory services to public and private
organizations, both foreign and domestic, on problems that lie within the
specialized fields of hydrogeology and environmental engineering. The firm
undertakes only the type of work for which it is qualified and for which there is a
genuine need for environmental engineering and/or groundwater specialists.

LBG has been providing public and industrial water-supply consulting since
1944. Assignments have included municipal and community well-field
development, design, testing, maintenance and expansion. The firm has
extensive experience with water-supply development in both bedrock and sand
and gravel aquifers. LBG has developed numerous supplies in bedrock and
sand and gravel in New England and southern New York. For most of the
water-supply development projects, LBG has been involved in all aspects of the
work, from performing initial hydrogeologic studies and exploratory drilling to
well design, construction oversight, well testing and permitting. Many of the well
sites have required wetland studies. The more recent projects have required
compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule regulations.

Within New York State, LBG has extensive experience in water supply analysis,
and has conducted groundwater assessment for numerous municipalities in
Dutchess, Westchester, Rockland and Orange Counties. The firm’s long record
of work with water-supply development, contamination problems and computer
modeling throughout the Northeast establishes LBG as a firm uniquely qualified
to prepare all aspects of water-supply studies.

Ecological Solutions, Inc. (Environmental Consultant)
Contributed to the Flora and Fauna section.

Ecological Solutions staff has more than 18 years experience completing natural
resource inventories. The firm has analyzed the life history requirements of
several endangered plant and animal species, including Blanding’s turtle, bog
turtle, bald eagle, Indiana bat and Karner blue butterfly. This analysis allows the
firm’s staff to determine the extent of rare, threatened or endangered species
and the potential impacts presented to a project.

Ecological Solutions’ vegetation and wildlife surveys:
o Determine the density, frequency and dominance of plant
communities through aerial photography and on-site field
reconnaissance
o Conduct surveys of endangered, threatened and rare wildlife
populations;
o Determine the presence of specific fish and wildlife species on
individual sites or areas.

April 2008

o Design and supervise ongoing monitoring programs to assess status
and impacts to ecological communities.

Kathy Michell (Biologist, Environmental Consultant)
Evaluated the site for potential for timber rattlesnake habitat.

Kathy Michell is a New York State-certified biologist, and holds a Class 1,
Federal Migratory Bird License, a License to Collect or Possess Animals and is a
NYSDEC wildlife rehabilitator. Ms. Michell is one of three people certified by
Region 3 of NYSDEC for the assessment of timber rattlesnake habitat.

Tim Miller Associates, Inc. (Environmental Consultant)
Contributed to the Cultural Resources (historical and archeological) section.

Tim Miller Associates, Inc. provides land planning and environmental services to
developers, corporations, municipalities and community planning associations.
These include services in the areas of municipal planning, zoning and
community development, development feasibility studies, environmental impact
statements, wetland delineation and analysis, groundwater and geotechnical
sciences, air quality, noise and traffic studies, phase 1 and 2 environmental
audits and site assessments, stage 1 archeology studies, landscape design and
related advisory services. Tim Miller Associates has active projects throughout
the greater New York metropolitan area, including New Jersey; Connecticut;
New York City; and Westchester, Putnam, Orange, Rockland, Dutchess, Ulster
and Sullivan Counties.

The firm’s in-house staff offers a depth and breadth of experience rarely found
in small- to mid-size consulting offices. In-house capabilities include
transportation planning, traffic, environmental and community planning,
economics, water resources, biology and natural sciences, environmental impact
assessment, hydrogeology, hazardous waste investigations, asbestos services,
landscape design and wetland delineation.

CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants (Environmental Consultants)
Contributed to the Cultural Resources (historical and archeological) section.

CITY/SCAPE provides a variety of services to organizations requiring cultural
and environmental analyses; open space planning; and presentation surveys of
historic sites, including landscapes and architectural elements, lectures,
interpretive programs and exhibitions.

A.19 Comment: The Planning Board should be aware that although the Dharmakaya
claims that theirs will be a religious endeavor, there will be a great deal of tax-free
money generated as income to the organization. Will the Dharmakaya offer its
conference facilities to other corporations for meeting purposes? It would certainly
be a grave injustice to the Town of Wawarsing residents to pay extra taxes to
support the expense caused by the Dharmakaya community while they are earning
hundreds of thousands of dollars and are not supporting the community (William
Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 25, 2006).

April 2008

A.19 Response: Dharmakaya has no plans to offer any of the Hermitage facilities to
outside organizations or to corporations for meeting purposes. All facilities at
Dharmakaya will be focused on the space and infrastructure for Buddhist teachings
and programs, especially the core three-year meditation retreat. As a non-profit
organization, Dharmakaya’s activities (and those of its affiliate organization, the
United Trungram Buddhist Fellowship (UTBF) are made possible through the support
of its members and private donations. This is not dissimilar to other religious groups
and churches, which take collections or rely on donations for part of their support.
The Hermitage is not expected to achieve a “profit,” as all program income will be
used to pay operating expenses. Income above and beyond operating expenses is
not expected.

A.20 Comment: Planning boards and town boards sometimes are not aware that the
services of consultants to the town can be charged to developers. This is a provision
of state law. It’s a good idea to have the town hire more experts because a poorly
designed project or a project whose impacts are inadequately and inaccurately
described and assessed is bound to cost the town eventually, in remediation of
damage, increased services and legal defense (James Barbour, ecological
consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy, memo
received December 26, 2006).

A.20 Response: See Response A.17.

A.21 Comment: Why did the Planning Board allow the Applicant to decimate the content
of the scoping document? And why did the Applicant elect to ignore the public
request for hydrogeologic information (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson
Geosciences (consultant to Cragsmoor Association), memo dated December 26,
2006)?

A.21 Response: Actually, the Planning Board expanded the scoping document from the
initial submission to include additional requirements. Nor has the Applicant ignored
the public request for hydrogeologic information. The study done for the DEIS was
very robust, and performed by a recognized consulting firm, Leggette, Brashears &
Graham, Inc., who in its 64 years of business has competed over 6,000
groundwater projects for more than 4,000 clients. The firm has received numerous
awards from both engineering associations and private entities for its work, and is
recognized in the engineering community as an expert in the field of groundwater
and environmental services. (See Response A.18). The Town hired an independent
consultant, Malcolm, Pirnie, Inc., to review all the hydrogeological reports generated
under the DEIS review process. The review comment letter from Malcolm Pirnie, and
the response of Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. are both included in Appendix
D of the FEIS.

A.22 Comment: I have personally investigated many of the cited Centers for Buddhist
Worship cited in the DEIS (the Karme Choling Retreat Center; the Shambhala
Mountain Center; the Zen Mountain Center), and found another common thread
throughout – the impact of these centers on the surrounding communities was and
continues to be that of devastating consequences. For example, the DEIS cited the

April 2008

Karme Choling Retreat Center as a project of similar nature to the proposed
Hermitage in Cragsmoor – this center started out as a small weekend retreat and is
now one of the largest centers of its kind and supports a local factory that
manufactures articles related to Buddhist practices (Blake Benton, Cragsmoor
resident, memo received December 26, 2006).

A.22 Response: People in Dharmakaya’s organization have approximately 30 years of
knowledge about these other centers, and we know of no such “devastating
consequences.” Based on this experience, it is the Applicant’s opinion that all
Buddhist centers mentioned are good neighbors and have a harmonious and
positive relationship with their local communities. Karme Choling does not have a
factory but a small cottage business that makes meditation cushions, to support its
programs. Nevertheless, the examples of Buddhist centers provided in the Appendix
A of the DEIS were selected for the fact that places of Buddhist worship have been
successfully integrated into other communities, not as direct comparisons to the
projected size, scale and use of the proposed Hermitage. One important difference
is that the proposed Hermitage will be exclusively used for worship and meditation,
study and retreat, with the most serious students participating in the traditional
three-year retreat. Retreats of such intensity and duration are not offered at any
other center in the U.S. of which we are aware. Mahamudra Hermitage will be a
worship and retreat center, perhaps more similar to a small religious community,
while the other centers named function as program centers, which may offer a wide
range of activities. Also, see Response A.16.

A.23 Comment: We read in the DEIS that Rinpoche, the spiritual leader of the
Dharmakaya, is regarded as one of the top Lamas of Tibetan Buddhism. Isn’t it
therefore natural to assume he and his followers will attract this type of future
growth cited above in our comparatively small community? I ask, what will the town
Board do to prevent this development in our community (Blake Benton, Cragsmoor
resident, memo received December 26, 2006)?

A.23 Response: The principal function of the proposed Hermitage will be for meditation
and study for serious Buddhist practitioners, with the most serious students
participating in the traditional three-year retreat. Casual use of the Hermitage
facilities by drop in visitors will not be allowed and is inconsistent with its quiet
retreat use. See Responses A.4, A.16 and A.22.

A.24 Comment: I don’t believe the people behind the Center care a hoot for their
neighbors. This is all about their own selfish ambition to turn a dollar under the
guise of a spiritual retreat. We will be yet another casualty at the price of what?
Some sort of spiritual gentrification (Cynthia Broderson, Cragsmoor resident, memo
dated December 26, 2006)?

A.24 Response: Throughout the planning process for the Hermitage, Dharmakaya has
conducted outreach efforts in the Cragsmoor community, and the Applicant’s
spiritual leader, Rinpoche, has traveled to the area to discuss the project with
residents and conduct teachings and meditation sessions for the community.
Regarding any intention of Dharmakaya to earn a profit through the Hermitage,
please refer to Response A.19. In the fall of 2003, before Dharmakaya bought the

April 2008

land, its representatives asked to meet with the Cragsmoor community and did so in
the Stone Church. At that time, Dharmakaya laid out plans for a community of
approximately 100 full-time residents on the site, focused on short- and long-term
meditation practices, with six to eight larger teachings each year (each a single-day
event with no additional overnight guests). The Applicant also discussed the various
buildings types that would be needed to make the facility work. Since then,
Dharmakaya has had meetings with the community each year: one large
community meeting, multiple meetings with abutters of the land (in addition to
offering teachings/meditation sessions each June at the home of a neighboring land
owner for anyone who wanted to come) and a meeting with various representatives
of the Cragsmoor community groups in the spring of 2007. The Applicant has
consistently stated its goals to neighbors and intends to continue to be a good
neighbor by preserving the intent of the community – an atmosphere of quiet
retreat.

A.25 Comment: It would be better if you would look to preserve and protect what lies in
your own backyard, namely Cragsmoor! (Cynthia Broderson, Cragsmoor resident,

A.25 Response: The proposed Hermitage would preserve far more land and result in
significantly less development impact than would a conventional residential
subdivision allowed under the site’s current zoning. In addition, the proposed project
would generate less traffic and demand for utilities and community services than
such a subdivision.

A.26 Comment: I recommend that Mahamudra include in the Final EIS a statement of
intent to pursue the program consistently presented to the township and the
Cragsmoor community and only that program (Tom Gale, Cragsmoor resident,

A.26 Response: The Applicant intends to pursue only the program as consistently
presented, which is set forth in this EIS. See Responses A.16 and A.22.

A.27 Comment: Further, I recommend that Mahamudra provide a statement in the Final
EIS offering discussion intended to lead to granting conservation easements on
selected areas of the site in furtherance of joint Mahamudra, township and
community recognition of intent to harmonize Hermitage activities and
environmental amenities (Tom Gale, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December
26, 2006).

A.27 Response: The Applicant has proposed to create a 100- to 200-foot permanent
buffer around approximately 77 percent of the perimeter of the project site, covering
approximately 29 percent of the property. For detailed discussion of this plan, see
Responses A.10 and A.11.

A.28 Comment: The conclusions in the Environmental Impact Statement about the
impacts on biological resources are at least in the preliminary draft we put together
worthless. Too little information is provided to support any conclusions regarding

April 2008

impacts to the project (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, at public
hearing November 30, 2006).

A.28 Response: As discussed above, the DEIS was accepted as complete on October 25,
2006. This acceptance came after a full review of the draft DEIS by Frederick P.
Clark Associates, and resultant modifications to the draft by the Applicant. The
information in the DEIS regarding Flora and Fauna (biological resources) was
studied by an expert in the field, Michael Nowicki, of Ecological Solutions, Inc. (see
Response A.18). Mr. Nowicki has more than 19 years of experience in the field of
natural resources investigations. The Natural Resources Survey completed for the site
took a hard look for species of special concern, threatened and endangered species
that occur in New York State as listed by the NYSDEC during the appropriate
seasons. Common species were also catalogued on the site. Breeding birds,
herptiles, plants and other vegetation were also observed and documented on the
site. All of the species observed on the site were identified and included in the
Natural Resources Survey. In addition, as part of the FEIS and in response to
comments raised, the Applicant had the site assessed for rattlesnake habitat by
Kathy Michell, who is licensed by NYSDEC in this field. The NYSDEC also has a copy
of the DEIS for review and offered no comments on the Natural Resources Survey.
Also, additional field surveys were conducted by Mr. Nowicki, on July 24, 2007, and
August 8, 2007. During these additional field surveys, no additional species of
special concern or threatened, endangered or rare species were observed

A.29 Comment: With respect to the SEQR timeline, the one thing that wasn’t put up was a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Every one of the impacts I’ve cited
would be sufficient to require a SEIS to be certain that you are viewing the
significance of this site (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, at
public hearing November 30, 2006). [Note: the impacts referred to by the
commenter relate to the project’s compliance with Town zoning, community
character, traffic, wildlife and habitats, viewsheds, hydrogeology, analysis of
alternatives and the potential for future project growth. The full text of the comments
is found in Appendix A of this FEIS.]

A.29 Response: See Responses A.17 and A.28. A supplemental EIS is not required. The
DEIS adequately and fairly evaluated all potential impacts. Comments raised by the
public are appropriately addressed in this FEIS.

A.30 Comment: You don’t have the road frontage. The road facilities. You don’t have the
water means. My question to you is do you want to ruin that community with
corporate America? It is time for our Board to stand up and say no (Henry Sherman,
Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.30 Response: As shown in Table IV.A-1, on page IV.A-14 of the DEIS, the project site
has 1,949 feet of road frontage, more than 10 times the minimum 175-foot
frontage required by the Wawarsing Zoning Code. Cragsmoor Road is a County
highway, and road improvements including shoulder widening and drainage
improvements will be completed as part of the project. In addition, the site plan
proposes an internal road network that will adequately address the needs of the
site’s occupants, and that will be privately maintained at no cost to the Town.

April 2008

Regarding water issues, see Response A.21 and Section H. The proposed use has
little in common with a corporate campus. There will be far less traffic than on an
office site. The buildings on the site are not adaptable to corporate office structures.
The interests of the project sponsors are religious, not “corporate.”

A.31 Comment: Due to the sensitivity of the site and the concern of residents in
Cragsmoor about the potential for additional development on the site, we urge the
Planning Board to consider requiring a conservation easement on the undeveloped
portion of the property to assure that undeveloped land be protected in perpetuity
(Heidi Wagner, preserve manager for Sam’s Point Preserve, Cragsmoor resident, at
public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.31 Response: See Response A.10 and A.11 for a full discussion of the Applicant’s
proposal for a buffer around the property perimeter, which is discussed at various
points throughout the FEIS.

A.32 Comment: This plan has only outlined a construction sequence for Phase I, which is
proposed to be just under 12 acres. Soil disturbance must be limited to 5 acres or
less at any one time during the construction phase. A phasing plan, with detailed
construction sequence for each phase at full build-out, must be included on the site
plan and must limit areas of disturbance to 5 acres or less. These phases must be
clearly delineated on the site plan (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

A.32 Response: The Applicant acknowledges the obligation to limit disturbance to 5 acres
or less at any one time during the construction phase. Site plan approval is only
being sought for Phase I at this time. Each phase subsequent to the first shall be
required to obtain Planning Board site plan review and approval prior to
construction. Detailed construction sequencing will be developed for the particular
phase under review at the time of site plan approval. All construction sequencing
and soil disturbance will be done in accordance with NYSDEC Phase II Stormwater
Regulations. As described in Response J.3, Phase I will be broken down into sub-
phases to assure that the amount of disturbance is less than 5 acres. During this
Phase, a maximum of 4.3 acres will be disturbed in any one sub-phase. Subsequent
phases will involve the construction of the individual building complexes or
combinations of buildings. As described in Response J.3, only Phase IV will exceed 5
acres (8.0 acres). However, work during that phase will be broken down into sub-
phases so as to assure that disturbance is limited to less than 5 acres at any one
time See Tables III.A-1 and III.A-2, below, for a revised summary of site disturbance
to reflect the modified site plan.

April 2008

Table III.A-1: Area of Disturbance Breakdown
AREA OF DISTURBANCE PERCENT (%) OF TOTAL PARCEL
USE
(Acres) AREA
Buildings/Landscaped
9.89 10.92%
Areas
Roads 7.54 8.33%
Parking 1.75 1.93%
Septic Systems * 2.64 2.92%
Drainage Facilities 8.56 9.45%

Total 30.38 33.54%
• There is an additional 1.46 acres or 1.61% of the site that is designated as SSDS expansion areas
that would remain undeveloped unless the area is needed for expansion. There may be some
variation in the area of disturbance due to the SSDSs, based on final design and permitting.
However, large variations are not expected. Any additional area of disturbance will be in the SSDS
areas shown in the modified site plan and is not expected to create any additional environmental
impacts.

Table III.A-2: Disturbance by Cover Types
AREA OF DISTURBANCE PERCENT (%) OF TOTAL PARCEL
NO. COVER TYPE
(Acres) AREA
1 Wetland/Watercourse 0.00 0.00%
2 Mature Forest 16.82 18.57%
3 Young Woods 9.35 10.32%
4 Upland Meadow 4.21 4.65%
TOTAL 30.38 33.54%

A.33 Comment: I recommend the creation of conservation easements on all lands which
will not be used in the project proposal (Maureen Radl, VP Cragsmoor Historical
Society, VP Friends of the Shawangunks, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.33 Response: See Responses A.10 and A.11.

A.34 Comment: I can’t figure out in all of this that who is the legal entity that somebody
would go after when and if they don’t do what they are supposed to do (Dick Nolan,
Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.34 Response: The project Applicant, Dharmakaya, Inc. is a not-for-profit organization
registered in the State of New York and an affiliate of the United Trungram Buddhist
Fellowship (UTBF), a nonprofit organization established in 1992. In the United
States, Dharmakaya fills the role of all dharma teaching activities for UTBF and
oversees meditation groups in New York City, Boston and Seattle. Contact
information for Dharmakaya is found on its Web site, http://www.dharmakaya.org.
As noted in Response A.16 above, the Town will enforce compliance with the
conditions of the special permit and site plan, through its Building Inspector,

April 2008

reserving to the Town all additional authority of a Town under New York State Law
to enforce its zoning and planning laws.

A.35 Comment: The Board should consider an escrow account for the mending and
complete repair of the terrain for each phase of the project, should the Applicant
ever abandon any part of it, at least there would be finances to repair the ground
(Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.35 Response: The Applicant will abide by all Town requirements concerning this issue,
and will not be treated any differently than any other applicant for site plan
approval. Additionally, applicable stormwater regulations limit the amount of land
that can be exposed at one time. The Town will require sedimentation and erosion
control measures, and landscaping bonds relating to certain improvements.

A.36 Comment: I would like to inquire as to whether this Planning Board has found this to
be an overwhelming project and has employed outside, independent consultants
focused entirely and only on this DEIS as provided by SEQR. This project is of
monumental size and although I realize many New York State agencies have been
requested to comment, I ask if you clearly understand (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor
resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.36 Response: See Response A.17.

A.37 Comment: Cragsmoor residents are already speaking with independent and skilled
consultants, and I believe it appropriate to ask this Planning Board to require the
Applicant to pay these professional fees. The proposed cost is beyond the ability of
Cragsmoor residents and the figures rise daily (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident,
at public hearing November 30, 2006.

A.37 Response: As discussed above and in Response A.17, the Applicant is providing
funding, through a lawfully established escrow account, for the experts hired by the
Planning Board to review the DEIS, as required by the Town. The Applicant is not
required to fund the professional fees of consultants hired by project opponents.

B. Executive Summary

No comments received.

C. Description of the Proposed Action

C.1 Comment: Please upgrade Old Inn Road (off of Cragsmoor Road) to accommodate
two-way fire apparatus and please keep road maintained during course of
construction (Cragsmoor Fire District Board of Commissioners, memo dated
November 15, 2006).

C.1 Response: Old Inn Road is a privately owned road. Other commenters, including
owners of properties with rights to use Old Inn Road, have expressed concerns

April 2008

about preserving the quiet nature of the road, and avoiding “over-improvement”
that would change its character (see Comment and Response N.23 and N.24, for
example). Based on meetings with the fire district, as represented by Commissioner
Jack Kissel, the fire district has indicated that Old Inn Road will not need to be
widened from its current width. They indicated that pull-off areas need to be
provided along the road’s length so vehicles during any emergency would be able
to pass. Upon further field investigation and discussion with the Old Inn Road
Neighborhood Association, the applicant is proposing that the existing driveways at
each residential driveway entrance accommodate this requirement. It is important to
note that Old Inn Road will function only as a secondary emergency entrance back-
up to the primary Cragsmoor Road Hermitage entrance. Further, it should be noted
that all construction will be mobilized and serviced from Cragsmoor Road only.
Hence, Old Inn Road will not experience any construction traffic during the course of
the project’s construction and will not require any maintenance associated with such
use.

C.2 Comment: The request by the Fire District to widen Old Inn Road is unreasonable
and excessive. The road is currently quite adequate for large vehicles and will not be
a primary access road for the Dharmakaya Center (Irene Seeland, Cragsmoor
resident, memo dated November 27, 2006).

C.2 Response: See Response C.1.

C.3 Comment: The scale of the proposed project, both its size (Disneyesque) and
timeframe for its execution, is unacceptable. We strongly believe that a 70,000+ sq.
ft. construction project smack in the middle of the hamlet will irreparably detract
from the bucolic charm that has been intrinsic to Cragsmoor since its establishment
(Russell and Monica Damsky, memo dated December 6, 2006).

C.3 Response: As has been noted in previous responses (see A.1 and A.4, for example),
the Dharmakaya project was designed to be a place of quiet meditation and repose.
While the buildings are larger than others in Cragsmoor, the site is also far larger
than other sites in Cragsmoor. The buildings suit the function of the center of
worship. However, they are not visually intrusive, and have deep setbacks from the
property line. They are designed to be visually attractive when seen. Even in the
initial proposal (as evaluated in the DEIS), the project had deep setbacks and
proposed a less intensive development scenario than the clearing and development
necessary for single-family development permitted as-of-right. Deep
buffer/landscaped areas along Cragsmoor Road screened the site from viewing by
passers-by and nearby residents.

Moreover, in response to public comments on the DEIS, the Applicant has made
numerous substantive modifications to the project. As described in Chapter II of this
FEIS, overall, the site plan changes result in a reduction in final build-out in terms of
occupancy, number of buildings, total square footage and parking. These
modifications would generate decreases in water usage, septic capacity, electrical
loads, disturbed areas, parking and landscaping. The alterations also include the
relocation of certain buildings, which would significantly improve views from
neighboring properties. The changes include a reduction in the footprint of the

April 2008

proposed Hermitage from 78,246 square feet to 67,557 square feet, a decrease of
approximately 14 percent. As a result of this decrease in total footprint, total
occupancy of the Hermitage, on a day-to-day basis, would be reduced from 107
people to 85 people, or approximately 21 percent. Finally, the changes would result
in a net reduction of total parking spaces on the project site, of 33, from 112 spaces
to 79, or approximately 29 percent. A rendering of the revised site plan is provided
in Figure II-1, of this FEIS, and full-scale engineering drawings are provided in
Appendix B. Refer to Chapter II for a detailed discussion of changes to the original
site plan.

C.4 Comment: The proposed time frame of up to 10 years for construction, which
entails extensive blasting and other noise pollution connected with the massive
clearing and construction processes, is a real long-term threat (Russell and Monica
Damsky, memo dated December 6, 2006).

C.4 Response: See Response A.9 for a description of the overall plan for development,
and Response J.3 for a description of phasing and potential alternate phasing
plans. No blasting is expected to occur during any phase of construction. While the
time for completion of the project may vary somewhat, the minimum anticipated
time for such completion is estimated to be approximately 7 years. Even at this
maximum building pace, construction periods of 12-18 months would be followed
by quiet periods between phases with no construction activity. The phased process
will assure a slow pace of disturbance, limiting areas disturbed at one time. It is
also possible that the time period for completion of the project may extend to a
longer period of time, such as the 10 year period suggested by the commenter, by
virtue of longer periods of time between phases. The total length of actual
construction activity would be expected to remain constant under any of the potential
scenarios for phasing and total project completion. The longer periods between one
or more phases will not generate any additional adverse impacts. As noted, the
extended period of a slower paced development is itself a method of limiting the
intensity of construction-related impacts at any one time.

Regarding noise, it is expected that site clearing and other construction of the
proposed project may result in some short-term noise-related impacts, although the
noise levels will diminish in intensity as site preparation, excavation work and
foundation development are completed. To mitigate these impacts, the Applicant
proposes to limit construction to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Mondays through
Fridays, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays; with no construction activities occurring
on Sundays. This construction schedule is more stringent than that provided in the
Town of Wawarsing Noise Ordinance. Because some short-term noise levels at
adjacent property lines may, without mitigation, exceed levels permitted under the
Town of Wawarsing Noise Control Law, the Applicant will use noise damping
practices during construction to minimize the impact on surrounding properties, and
all mechanical construction equipment will be maintained in good working order to
minimize noise levels. See section O for further discussion of Noise impacts.

C.5 Comment: Does the project need to be so large? If so, is this tiny hamlet an
appropriate place to build it? What of the potentially long-term, irreversible negative

April 2008

impacts on residents living in such quarters to its location (Russell and Monica
Damsky, memo dated December 6, 2006)?

C.5 Response: Regarding the project’s size, see Response C.3. The Applicant believes
that the present location is the appropriate place for its proposed project. Because of
the quiet nature of the activities and the inherent respect for the setting by the
owners and occupants of the Hermitage over time, the Applicant believes that the
interests of the project proponents and the neighboring residents of Cragsmoor are
entirely congruent. The Dharmakaya project proponents chose this site because of
the qualities of the Cragsmoor hamlet, and believe that the Hermitage will enhance
the character of the hamlet. The project proponents also believe that their project is
more compatible with the neighborhood than a conventional subdivision
development. Regarding potential negative impacts to surrounding residents, see
Responses A.1, A.3, A.4, A.10, A.11, A.16 and A.24.

C6 Comment: There is a real possibility of a large corporate campus, not just a retreat
(Ted Horn, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 19, 2006).

C.6 Response: First, corporate office complexes are not a permitted use in this zoning
district. Second, it is the Applicant’s opinion that there is virtually no likelihood that
this site would be deemed desirable as a corporate office or research and
development site because of its remote location from highway access. Moreover, the
layout and design of the buildings, including the meditation center, is inappropriate
for corporate office purposes. The largest building on the site is now 16,500 square
feet in size (reduced from 18,500 square feet in the DEIS). This is much smaller than
the usual corporate office building. In general, developers of corporate office
buildings in the greater New York City metropolitan area seek a building area of
20,000 to 30,000 square feet per floor, with buildings typically encompassing
several floors. Therefore, none of the buildings on the project site would be readily
adaptable for use as a corporate office. See Responses A.16 and A.30.

C.7 Comment: We are concerned that the intensive use of the site mostly as the result of
the construction of more than 75,000 square feet of space in seventeen buildings,
with traffic brought by significant periodic visitation and significant water and septic
use, will threaten the current balance of the area (Sally Matz, President of
Cragsmoor Historical Society, memo dated December 21, 2006).

C.7 Response: As discussed throughout this FEIS, Dharmakaya’s purpose is to provide a
place for retreatants to immerse themselves in quiet contemplation and meditation,
with the most serious students participating in the three-year retreat. See Response
A22. The existing natural environment of Cragsmoor is a key factor in the
atmosphere needed for the Hermitage, and preserving the quality of that
environment is a major element of its mission. This proposed use is a much less
intensive use than a conventional as-of-right residential subdivision, which would
result in significantly more impacts relating to traffic, water and sewer use and
community character. See Responses A.1., A.3, A.4, A.9 and A.16. In addition, the
Applicant has substantially reduced the size and intensity of its proposed use. The
total size of the proposed project is now 67,457 square feet, a reduction from the

April 2008

initial size (as described in the DEIS) of 78,246 square feet. See Response C.3 and
Chapter II for a full discussion of these site plan modifications.

C.8 Comment: Are the three detention ponds and two water quality basins for use in
case of fire, and, if so, are they constructed to contain appropriate water levels at all
times, or are they constructed so that in dry/drought months the ponds will be vastly
reduced or completely dry and useless to the Fire Department (Linda Rogers,
Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006)?

C.8 Response: The intent of the detention ponds are for stormwater mitigation and
reduction of peak flows. They are not intended for use as fire ponds. A separate
underground storage tank has been proposed to supply water for fire fighting. See
Response A.32.

C.9 Comment: The Applicant indicates the intention to celebrate eight individual
holidays scattered throughout the year. It is important that the number never
increase because of negative visual, traffic, sewerage and water-use impact (Linda
Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

C.9 Response: The Applicant has agreed to limit the times of visitation to the eight times
per year which are significant dates on the Buddhist calendar. It should be noted
that the activities planned for these days are teaching activities. The activities will not
be noisy or involve loud music or celebration through noise-making activity. While
the number of people on the site would increase on these days by approximately
143 people, the total site population on these days would still be approximately 228
people, which is not an overly intense population for a 91-acre site. This population
is less than the visitation experienced in the area for Cragsmoor Day or other
celebrations at Sam’s Point and other scenic attractions. The Applicant does not
believe that the environmental impacts on these visitation days are significant,
considering the size of the site, the nature of the visitations, the accommodations on
the site for parking and the nature of the area. Conditions relating to maximum
population are expected to be among the conditions of the special permit and/or
site plan approvals.

C.10 Comment: As the Conservancy sees it, the Cragsmoor community is particularly
concerned about the size of the project and the possibility of more development in
the future, and the Conservancy shares these concerns. The development appears to
be vastly larger and grander than necessary to support the current announced use.
For example, the “teacher’s house,” which is said to be the home for just two
persons, is almost 5,000 square feet in size. This would make it the grandest house
in Cragsmoor by a huge margin- just for two people. This immense size is not only
unnecessary but tends to support a suspicion that the occupancy of this building will
grow exponentially in future years, belying any current statements about limited
usage. And the same could be said about the other buildings (Jeffrey Slade, The
Cragsmoor Conservancy, President, memo dated December 21, 2006).

C.10 Response: First, it is noted that many of the buildings have been reduced in size,
including an approximately 20 percent reduction in the size of the teacher's house.
More importantly, the Applicant has expressed its commitment to the program it has

April 2008

proposed and also expressed its willingness to have the maximum occupancy and
use set forth as conditions in the special permit and site plan approvals. These
commitments are reinforced by the fact that occupancy and use cannot exceed the
parameters studied within this environmental impact statement. The Applicant is
bound by its special permit application and the EIS. The Planning Board will only
approve what is justified based upon the review.

As a center of worship and quiet meditation, spacious facilities both within the
common buildings and without – the natural beauty of a 91-acre woodland – are
conducive to the very purpose of the project. A spacious and natural environment
contributes to a spacious and loving state of mind during meditation. This is a center
of worship, meditation and repose. Cramped facilities are not conducive to the very
purpose of the project. It is inappropriate to oppose an acceptable use based on
speculation about potential future violations, when there is no factual basis upon
which to determine that any such violation will occur. The larger facilities about
which fear has been expressed (e.g. “corporate campus,” “corporate America”) are
not even permitted in the zoning district. As noted elsewhere in this FEIS, the
conditions on maximum occupancy will be enforced by the Town. In addition, the
public will have continued opportunities for input as the subsequent site plan
applications are reviewed. No activities of any greater intensity or size than those
approved in the present review process can be placed on the site without a further
application process, which would entail revisiting the SEQRA process. Both these
steps (site plan review and SEQRA) would involve a further public review process.
See Responses A.10, A.16 and C.3. For a discussion of the need for the size and
number of buildings as described in this FEIS, see Response C.27.

C.11 Comment: There are concerns that the usage of the site will grow well beyond what
is currently proposed, both through increased usage of the current buildings and
perhaps through increased development on the site (Jeffrey Slade, President, The
Cragsmoor Conservancy, memo dated December 21, 2006).

C.11 Response: See Responses A.10, A.16 and C10.

C.12 Comment: The only full scale drawings found in the binder were the Erosion and
Sediment Control Plans. Very little information with regard to other associated
necessary plan details has been provided. The currently submitted DEIS plans are
too general and do not provide the minimum information necessary to allow a
proper determination of the environmental impacts associated with this project
(David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor
Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

C.12 Response: Appendix F of the DEIS that was distributed to all involved or interested
agencies contained not only “Erosion and Sediment Control” plans, but also “Layout
and Utility” and “Grading and Drainage” plans, each of which was prepared to a
scale of 1 inch = 80 feet. These drawings were prepared at a scale that exceeds the
one the commenter has requested of 1 inch = 100 feet. Additional copies of the
DEIS were available for review at the Town Hall and the libraries. See Response
A.14.

April 2008

C.13 Comment: I dread the long-term project including the cutting down of 30 acres of
forest in four phases of development over 10 years (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor

C.13 Response: The development of this project also involves the preservation of
approximately 60 acres of open space, the imposition of restrictions preserving
buffers around the perimeter and the allocation of this site to an extremely quiet use.
See Responses A.1., A.9, A.10, A.11, A. 15, A.16, C.4 and C.10, among others.

C.14 Comment: Cerniglia Architecture and Planning is recorded in the B scoping
transcripts most emphatically correcting Lucy Dart saying there were no 17,000-
square-foot buildings in the project. Apparently, the architecture firm is somehow
unaware of the 18,500-square-foot building mentioned in project C
correspondence (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo

C.14 Response: The comment in the November 30, 2005, public scoping session
transcript, stating that there were no 17,000-square-foot buildings in the project,
was made in error. However, that error was fully corrected in the DEIS, and there
has been a full opportunity to comment on the size of the buildings. As noted
elsewhere, this largest building on the site is set deep into the site, with ample
setbacks and screening from views from other properties. As further noted, site plan
modifications made in response to public concerns since completion of the DEIS will
reduce the size of the Bodhisattva Dharma Center from 18,500 square feet to
16,500 square feet, a decrease of approximately 11%. Also please refer to
Responses A.16 and C.3.

C.15 Comment: Last December several petitions were submitted to the Planning Board
signed by 92 town residents complaining about the sheer size of this project. Since
then the plan as described in the DEIS is even larger (William Williams, Cragsmoor

C.15 Response: The original plan included fewer buildings (14) of much larger scale and
size. The succeeding plan increased the number of buildings (18) in order to reduce
the scale and size of many of these buildings to create building sizes and profiles
which keep more in character with the scale and size of existing buildings within the
Cragsmoor Historic District. Throughout this process, the project program, including
the total square footage, has remained consistent with original proposals (in the
approximate range of 75,000 to 78,000 square feet). Any marginal increase in this
area is not the result of increasing the project in terms of programs offered or
occupants served. Rather, in an effort to decrease building size and scales by
creating more buildings, inefficiencies result and additional space is required to
accommodate more individual spaces where such spaces were once shared in
common in a larger building (these spaces include facilities for building services,
storage spaces, mechanical spaces, circulation spaces, toilet and shower facilities,
etc.). As has been noted in other sections of the FEIS Chapter III (see Response C.3
for example) the Applicant has proposed substantial reductions in the project size
and scope as part of the FEIS in response to public comments.

April 2008

C.16 Comment: Pre-construction activities can be devastating on flora and fauna. The
DEIS claims there will be minimum clearing, preservation of habitat, phasing of
construction, erosion control and water-saving techniques. Are these claims
substantiated with facts and sound analysis (James Barbour, Ecological consultant
hired by Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy, memo received
December 26, 2006)?

C.16 Response: The DEIS contained information on each of the items listed in the
comment. Furthermore, the Town of Wawarsing hired several experts to review the
DEIS, and their comments form part of the record and are responded to in this FEIS
(See Response A.17). The Planning Board's SEQRA Findings in this regard will be
enforced by conditions of the special permit and site plan approval.

C.17 Comment: The project is far too large and inappropriate for the site, and will have
far too great an impact on the environment to allow for approval. The project will
damage the quality of life and ecological resources of Cragsmoor in direct relation
to its scale (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated
December 26, 2006).

C.17 Response: See Responses A.1, A.9, A.10, A.11, A.16 and C.3.

C.18 Comment: There is no control over the likely expansion of the project far beyond the
current excessive scope, exacerbating all of the prospective impact to the
surrounding community (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo

C.18 Response: See Responses A.10, A.11, A.16 and C.10.

C.19 Comment: I request the Town of Wawarsing officials question how the
Dharmakayas will address future expansion even though they stated in the DEIS that
there will be no requirements for such. It is hard for me to believe that a World
Center could be built at this time and know they will not have a need to expand in
the future (Dolores Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26,
2006).

C.19 Response: See Responses A.10, A.11, A.16 and C.10.

C.20 Comment: I am truly afraid that a development on the scale of the Dharmakaya
would overwhelm tiny Cragsmoor with its needs, and our lovely community would
be unable to withstand the onslaught (Mary Kroul McAlpin, Cragsmoor resident,

C.20 Response: See Responses A.1, A.9, A.10, A.11, A.16 and C.3.

C.21 Comment: I’d just like to take a minute of your time to explain the general feelings
of the Cragsmoor residents about this project. In short, it’s just too big and not in
keeping with the residential and historical nature of our hamlet (Jim McKinney,
Cragsmoor Association, President, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

April 2008

C.21 Response: In response to public concerns about the potential impacts of the
proposed buildings on the Cragsmoor Historic District, the Applicant has relocated
the Teacher’s House to the southwest, further into the interior of the project site,
from its currently proposed location just off of Old Inn Road. This relocation will
ensure the preservation of the viewshed from Old Inn Road down the former golf
course fairway, and the building will sit approximately 30 feet lower relative to Old
Inn Road. In addition, the Teacher’s House will be moved approximately 225 feet to
the southeast from the neighboring residence, eliminating the need for the curb cut
off of Old Inn Road previously proposed to provide access the Teacher’s House;.
While both the Teacher’s House and Guest Teacher’s House will remain within the
Cragsmoor Historic District, the relocation of the Teacher’s House will ensure that
neither structure will be visible from off-site. See Response C.3.

As to other issues relating to size and potential future uses, see Responses A.9, A.10,
A.11, A.16 and C.10.

C.22 Comment: Imagine what a corporate campus sized facility at 78,000 square feet
could become. It would swallow up all of Cragsmoor, 470 odd residents. Our
concern is the potential to vastly overwhelm our small community with this huge
facility which could serve a vast number of people. The facility needs to be smaller
(Jim McKinney, Cragsmoor Association, President, Public Hearing November 30,
2006).

C.22 Response: See Responses A.9, A.10, A.11, A.16, A.30, C.3, C.6 and C.10.

C.23 Comment: There is no indication in the EIS of the potential for growth of this site
(David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, at public hearing November
30, 2006).

C.23 Response: In keeping with the requirements of SEQRA, the DEIS was prepared to
address the “whole action,” including the ultimate planned development for the site.
The Applicant does not foresee any future growth of the site beyond the maximums
studied in the DEIS. The Applicant further believes that the speculation that this site
will become a “corporate office complex” or some other large-scale institutional use
in the future is not based on factual evidence, market trends or zoning. Although
there is no reasonable basis for forecasting further expansion or change in use, it is
also true that even in the unlikely and unforeseen event that any change was
proposed by anyone at any point in the future, it would be subject to a zoning
review and a SEQRA review, with opportunity for public comment. See Responses
A.10, A.11, A.16, A.30, C.6 and C.10.

C.24 Comment: The proposed development is, we believe, a compatible use for the land
in concept, but we are concerned that the intense use of the site, mostly as a result
of traffic brought by significant periodic visitation and by significant water and septic
requirements threatens that balance. The society asks the Board to protect the
resources and community character by asking the Applicant to reduce the scale of
the project as a matter of buildings, roadways, parking lots and landscape
modifications desired are out of balance with the surrounding community (Sally
Matz, President, Cragsmoor Historical Society, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

April 2008

FEIS Chapter III - Comments and Responses

FEIS Chapter III - Comments and Responses

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (10)

Mais de WSP_SELLS

Mais de WSP_SELLS (10)

FEIS Chapter III - Comments and Responses