Hotel at SUNY: Legal points brought up

Friday's Town Hall on the hotel issue (see my posts of 11/23, 11/30 and 12/2) was the subject of an email Sunday from the Stony Brook Environmental Conservancy:

Dear SBEC Members:
Thanks to all who attended the Town Hall meeting on Friday. Over 150 people from both the university and community attended; so many the venue had to be shifted to the SAC auditorium. The meeting ran one hour over the allotted time. Many ideas were eloquently expressed on both sides of the issue, mainly against locating the hotel at the designated site. The Setauket Fire Department talked about increased stress from an extra facility in their territory. Craig Lehmann from the Health Sciences Center talked about how important the hospital is to the community (nobody disputes that). A letter was read from the Veteran's Home about the need for respect (they have it) and access to accommodations by visiting families.
I began and ended my presentation claiming that it is a violation of New York State Environmental Conservation Law and Regulations to remove ANY FOLIAGE before the SEQRA review is completed, even for foundation test hole borings. This claim is based on New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Section § 8-0109.
Item 6 states (see <http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS>)
6. To the extent as may be prescribed by the commissioner pursuant to
section 8-0113, the environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to
subdivision two of this section together with the comments of public and
federal agencies and members of the public, shall be filed with the
commissioner, made available to the public, and, unless impracticable,
posted on a publicly-available Internet website prior to acting on the
proposal which is the subject of the environmental impact statement.
AND
Section §617.3 General rules of SEQRA regulations (see <http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4490.html#18109>) states
(a) No agency involved in an action may undertake, fund or approve the action until it has complied with the provisions of SEQR. A project sponsor may not commence any physical alteration related to an action until the provisions of SEQR have been complied with. The only exception to this is provided under paragraphs 617.5(c)(18), (21) and (28) of this Part. An involved agency may not issue its findings and decision on an action if it knows any other involved agency has determined that the action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment until a final EIS has been filed. The only exception to this is provided under subparagraph 617.9(a)(5)(i) of this Part.
We will be reminding university counsel of these statutes and regulations.
SBEC has formally requested to be listed as a Party of Interest to the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (see attachment). This means SBEC must be informed of all reports and dates of public meetings, etc. This letter was hand delivered to VP Barbara Chernow by me at the Town Hall meeting.
What next? If you still have not written a letter to President Stanley and VP Barbara Chernow, do so now. It is important to keep a continuous stream of viewpoints pouring into administration.
Stay tuned,
Malcolm Bowman.
See the December 4 Newsday story by Olivia Winslow "Eco-concerns raised at Stony Brook hotel plan meeting".
.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/eco-concerns-raised-at-stony-brook-hotel-plan-meeting-1.1638019