STC has contracted with Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C. to “predevelop” the former Ingersoll-Rand Foundry Site in the Village of Painted Post. The project scope includes completing a draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) informed, in part, by public input gathered through STC-conducted public participation meetings. The GEIS will outline environmental factors affecting the site and define potential impact thresholds to streamline future development.
Funding for this project was through Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and Empire State Development (ESD), and from gracious contributions from the Village and Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (IDA).
Goals of this project are to:
- determine what is acceptable to residents and local leadership, within the site’s deed restrictions;
- determine impacts of potential future development;
- inform potential zoning code changes; and
- streamline potential future development.
A big thank you to all who attended the public participation meetings! We appreciate you being an involved member of your community.
A summary of input gathered from the public participation sessions on are available below.
Alternative of Choice Concept Plan
Landscaping Mockups for Alternative of Choice
The below images envision what landscaping for the theoretical site layout could look like and show how trees and shrubbery act as a natural visual barrier, provide stormwater management, and liven up a more industrial-aligned site use.
Click on images in the gallery to enlarge for easier viewing.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement
The final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (fGEIS) has been accepted by the Planning Board and a Notice of Completion has been submitted to the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB). The Village Planning Board, as the project’s Lead Agency, will prepare a Findings Statement and involved agencies will have the opportunity to compile their own Findings Statements, respectively.
The fGEIS covers changes made to the dGEIS and addresses comments received on the draft during the comment period. The full fGEIS is 304 pages with appendices included. The fGEIS without appendices is embedded below for ease of viewing.
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Fagan Engineers has developed a draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dGEIS) to be reviewed by involved and interested agencies and the public. This draft will inform the final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (fGEIS) after the public comment period and acceptance by the Village Planning Board, as the project’s Lead Agency.
The draft GEIS was made available for public comment for a minimum of (30) days from Friday, August 8th, and a public hearing was held on Wednesday, September 3rd at 5:15 PM at the Village Hall, 261 Steuben Street, Painted Post. The public comment period remained open through Sunday, September 14th.
The dGEIS was updated to reflect recommended changes and updates during the comment period. Substantiative changes and comments are outlined and addressed in the fGEIS. The dGEIS is 1,543 pages with appendices included.
In accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), notice of the acceptance of the draft Scope and availability of the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement was submitted to the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) and can be viewed here: dec.ny.gov/news/environmental-notice-bulletin
Draft Scoping Document
Fagan Engineers has developed a draft scoping document as part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process for this project. The scoping document will inform the development of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) which will eventually become the final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS).
The draft scoping document was available for public comment through Tuesday, June 3rd, 2025.
In accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), notice of the Positive Declaration for this Type I Action and the availability of the Draft Scope has been submitted to the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) and can be viewed here: dec.ny.gov/news/environmental-notice-bulletin
June 18th - Public Participation Session
As attendees arrived, they were given (3) sticky dots to place on any of the (11) Potential Impacts that they felt strongly about, with the ability to place as many of their dots on a particular Potential Impact as they felt suitable.
After all attendees placed their dots, STC staff moved into discussions of the Top Potential Impacts. A three-way tie brought the discussion to (5) Potential Impacts. An overview of each topic’s discussion is highlighted in its respective tab below.
You can also find answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) received during and after the meeting.
What impacts of increased truck traffic do residents think are important? What are their preferred limitations?
- Delivery vehicles (UPS, Amazon, etc.) were generally considered acceptable within residential character
- Weight restrictions on trucks may mitigate resident concerns
- Passenger/employee vehicles going to the site at 9PM is too late for some, though quantity seems to matter; cleaning crews v. beginning of a shift
- Timing conflicts with school bus pick up and drop off along the street
- A typical 2-shift operation’s hours are 7A – 11P; 7A was “not that bad” while 11P was deemed late
- Alternative entryway(s) may mitigate traffic and related noise concerns
- Generally, passenger traffic is more acceptable than truck traffic
- Former amusement park and RV shows, and the accompanying traffic, were acceptable and supported by residents
What are resident concerns with hours of operation? What hours are acceptable to residents?
- Primary concern seems to be late night, with only daytime hours preferred
- 9A – 5P / 8A – 4P
- Prefer hours people are “away”
- Some residents interpreted heavily restricted hours as people not wanting commercial development
What are concerns/thoughts about visual changes?
- Light pollution
- “DarkSky Approved” lighting, a third-party certification for lighting products, seeks to reduce light trespass and pollution, and minimize glare. This approval is becoming more and more common in new construction projects.
- The way the building would look
- Avoid “giant, metal box”; put thought into the aesthetic
- 3-story building(s) would generally be acceptable
- Historic Painted Post façade
- A general consensus that multiple buildings would be preferred over a single large-footprint building
- Windows may improve visual appeal
- Green space
- Trees and bushes for birds
- Incorporate large clusters of currently untouched trees to keep that space; refurbish it via landscaping
- Use landscaping to hide “ugly”, sometimes necessary fixtures
- Avoid huge, wide open parking lots; break up the space with greenery and allow stormwater runoff to effectively drain
- Sometimes, a property that brings money into the community becomes “less ugly”
What are concerns with future contaminants, such as on-site storage or use?
- Air, water, and soil contamination from potential construction and future use of the site
- Toxic fumes and general “bad smells” would both be impactful and undesirable to residents
- High water table and resulting disturbance from laying foundations during potential development
- Uncovered trucks transporting material and blowing into the adjacent areas
- Leaching of toxic chemicals
This topic discussion was highly focused on current contamination rather than potential future conditions. For the purpose of completing the DGEIS, only points regarding future contamination concerns were notated here. Please check the FAQ tab for information surrounding existing contaminant concerns.
What are concerns about municipal utility and resource use?
- Existing grid power capabilities; currently power outages affect all residents
- Fire department’s ability to facilitate and respond to something at this facility
- Neighboring park (Hodgeman) may be impacted; unsupervised children at play
- Snow removal – who would be responsible? Where will the snow go?
- Happy reasons for people to visit the Village soften concerns
- Multiple buildings seem to be preferred, despite typically requiring more resources and a longer construction time; though this may depend on what is in them
What is restricted on the site per the Deed Restrictions?
All residential uses of the site are prohibited; the property shall not make or serve food, provide childcare or healthcare, or utilize the site’s underlying groundwater, among other restrictions.
A full list of restricted uses can be found in the gallery below.
Will the site be able to be developed with the Village’s existing infrastructure and resources?
Yes, any development on the site shall account for existing Village capacity and must ensure Village emergency services can access the site and provide assistance in the case of an emergency.
Does the site have mitigation measures for existing contaminants?
Yes. A Site Management Plan (SMP) for this site is in place – a state requirement of the remedial program which outlines how to manage operations in accordance with all applicable statutes and regulations. This is a common practice for industrial sites and is expected by potential incoming developers.
Any construction and/or development on the site must abide by the rules and regulations of the Village, State, and Federal governments. EPA and DEC have strict regulations to ensure maximum protections from potential environmental hazards. Additionally, to complete a DGEIS, the extents of various environmental impacts are being considered throughout the duration of this project period.
Is the site safe to develop as is?
Yes. NYSDEC has classified the West Water Street Industrial Site a “Class 4”. This designation means the site has been properly closed and does not presently, nor is reasonably foreseeable to, constitute a significant threat to public health or the environment. Continued site management is required, consisting of operation, maintenance, and/or monitoring. Further, the deed restrictions confine uses to those that were considered to likely generate the least impact.
Click photos to enlarge.
July 13th - Public Participation Session
Attendees were given (16) sticky dots to indicate their preferences on various prompts: truck traffic, hours of operation, sound, vibration, and aesthetics.
The goal of this meeting was to gather more quantifiable data on potential impacts discussed heavily during the first meeting. Find a breakdown of the prompts and resident responses below.
Overwhelmingly, residents wanted some change on the site; some with stipulations – to change “only if” – but, of those who attended Saturday, no one indicated they wished for the site to stay “as is”.
Click any image in the galleries to enlarge.
Truck Traffic
Attendees were given the following context to consider when placing their dots for this section:
- ANY use on this site will have some sort of truck traffic
- Trucks for deed-permitted uses = >50 trucks/day
- This site was formerly permitted by the community for 80 trucks/day
- Any facility with supply needs will likely get a minimum of 1-2 trucks a week
- First meeting attendees seemed overall supportive of previous RV shows, a pop-up amusement park, and Colonial Days events held in the area, despite traffic influx caused
Hours of Operation
Sound / Vibration
Aesthetics
Comments? Questions? Concerns?
Connect with Liv Lovejoy by email at llovejoy@stcplanning.org or by phone at 607-962-5092 *205.