All The News Caruso Would Choose

Swiller in for Betty.

There have been a couple of interesting pieces in some of the local papers recently. The first was in the Photo News a little over a month ago. Since then I have spoken to Bob Quinn, the editor there, about correcting a one sided and totally error filled story. He has yet to say what he intends to do, so meanwhile, here is the article (in its entirty) with the worst mistakes in bold followed by my comments in blue.

Highland Mills - To build or not to build, that is the question in the Town of Woodbury. Zoning and land development, always a dominant issue there, has become white hot — with three of the town residents suing over the matter.

The year 1988 is as good a time as any to begin this tale, although the last two years are when the excitement takes place. Woodbury adopted its current Master Plan in March 1988.

The Planning Board, appointed by the elected Town Board, has the authority to approve or deny land development applications. In doing so, the Planning Board referred to both the zoning laws passed by the Town Board and the Master Plan written by the Planning Board itself.

An amendment to the Town Law of the State of New York changes the “Master Plan” to a “Comprehensive Plan,” which is to be prepared and adopted by the elected Town Board. This leaves the Planning Board with a narrower role of interpreting the zoning laws and Comprehensive Plan — both written by others.

Like the Master Plan, a Comprehensive Plan includes goals and objectives and the principles and practices to achieve them; finer details are left to the zoning laws. The Woodbury Town Board set out to write a Comprehensive Plan in July 2004.

That November, representatives of Rockland County developer Bill Brodsky of Carteret Group, Inc., asked the Town Board to amend the zoning law. The amendments, passed a year later on Nov. 3, 2005, as Local Laws 4 through 8, allowed for Brodsky’s Woodbury Suburban Project (WP3) located between Dunderberg and Nininger Roads and for increased development throughout the town.Due to the size constraints, the water and sewage requirements and the required givebacks to the Town, these laws could affect 6 or 7 properties, not the entire town. They are the Niemand property, the Central Valley Golf Course, Legacy Ridge, WP3, Noah Weg’s property, the Arden Convention Center (there may be one other). Further, each of these would have to be decided on separately.

It took 30 years, from 1973 to 2003, for Woodbury’s population to double from 5,000 to 10,000. Local Laws 4 through 8 would have the effect of an immediate pursuit of the 20,000 mark. This number is inflammatory and baseless, nowhere in the article does Houston even attempt to justify it.

The allowed housing units on the 400-acre WP3 project would increase from 147 or 175 to 451, 460 or 652 — depending upon who is doing the counting. The number is 451, if there is any justification for these other numbers it is not presented.

Among the other effects of the new local laws would be to allow 281 units on two-acre lots in the Legacy Ridge project, up from 164 units on three-acre lots.

Enough already, said John Seyferth, Karin Ungerer and Don Siebold, who on last Dec. 4 filed an Article 78 lawsuit against the Town Board, Planning Board and developer.

These Woodbury residents are asking a state Supreme Court judge to “annul, vacate, and in all aspects void” the Town Board’s enactment of zoning amendments contained in Local Laws 4 through 8 and the Town Board’s statement of findings pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the WP3 project.

Siebold is an appointed member of the Town of Woodbury’s Zoning Board of Appeals and, like his fellow petitioners, Siebold lives in the vicinity of the WP3 project. “My only concern is to preserve the character of the Town by controlled growth and not over-development, and being able to afford to live in Woodbury,” said Siebold. “The Town never mitigated the traffic.” Many of us feel there are other reasons, none of us were approached by Houston.

The Woodbury Town Board passed Local Laws 4 through 8 while it was working not only on a Comprehensive Plan, but on an Open Space Plan as well. Obviously, town business goes forward. The Town is bound by SEQRA to follow a given time frame.

Released during this time was a draft of the Southeastern Orange County Traffic and Land Use Study, which recommended that the Town of Woodbury “reduce permitted intensity of residential development on land located along the north side of Dunderberg Road/Nininger Road,” just the opposite of the new local laws. This was not part of the study group’s recommendations and was attached, unilaterally, by the County without the imprimatur of the group, in violation of the groups own rules. The same rider called for increased development on Route 32 - calling for an increase in density there to 4 units per acre - this is also unacceptable. The rider appears to be aimed at preserving Woodbury’s Nininger Road as an “access route” for Kiryas Joel traffic.

Included in the Article 78 legal papers is a Nov. 17, 2005, letter from Orange County Planning Commissioner David Church, Orange County Commissioner of Planning, in which “the petitions to rezone the subject properties (Local Laws 6, 7 and 8)” were disapproved. Local Laws 4 and 5 were mentioned in the letter, but were neither approved nor disapproved. This was the third such letter From the County Planners office on these laws, which were submitted to the planner in June (and in slightly amended form in July). Under SEQRA, only the first letter carries any authority. That first letter had no objections.

“That was not an oversight,” said Church. “We often remain silent on some of the issues brought to us.”

The letter of disapproval was not received by the Woodbury Town Board prior to its passing Local Laws 4 through 8. A supermajority of four votes of the five-member Town Board is needed to override a recommendation of such a disapproval. As stated above, this letter had no relevance to the process and so there was no need for a supermajority.

Church’s letter referred to “significant public and private speculation” surrounding the potential sale and annexation of the 400-acre WP3 properties to the Village of Kiryas Joel if the new Woodbury local laws were not enacted. Church favored the analysis of alternative “as a means of comparing and contrasting significant adverse and beneficial environmental impacts with that of the preferred 451-unit alternative.”
The town made no such analysis, although it would have improved its case for amending the zoning laws. The likelihood of a lawsuit from the land-owning arm of Kiryas Joel is a near certainty. The realities of the situation demands that the Town remain circumspect. To deny this is to live in a fantasy world.

The petitioners list three courses of action. The first is that the Town Board acted too soon, despite the four yes votes, by not allowing 30 days to pass after its October 21 submittal to the county. The second is that Local Laws 4 through 8 do not conform to the Town’s 1988 Master Plan. The Master Plan remains in effect until superseded by a Comprehensive Plan that has yet to be passed by the Town Board. The third cause of action would be that the Town Board failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of SEQRA.First, as stated, once the County Planner submitted its first response there was no legal need to resubmit or to lend any weight to any further responses. Second, as shown by pages 34 and 35 of the Master Plan, this project is in full compliance with that document. There are no violations of SEQRA, nor does this charge state any - merely saying “It’s illegal” with no further details is of no value.

Five days after the passage of Local Laws 4 through 8, a new supervisor and a new councilman were elected to the Woodbury Town Board. The new board was seated in January of this year.
If Local Laws 4 through 8 are voided by the court, a re-vote could be quite different. Or exactly the same.

Town Supervisor John Burke defeated incumbent Sheila Conroy, who cast one of the four “yes” votes. He said this week that he didn’t know how far the lawsuit had gotten in the legal process.
“I’ve heard nothing about it since the December filing of the suit,” said Burke.

When asked about a possible re-vote if the petitioners won in court, Burke said “that is speculation — we’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there. The Town Board will sit down and decide where to go once the court rules.”