Affordable housing inches closer to approval

MILLERTON — The Millerton Planning Board at a workshop meeting Wednesday, Jan. 27, welcomed Housing Resources, the applicant behind the proposed affordable housing complex called Millerton Overlook.

The small seating section of Village Hall was full, as Planning Board Chairman Gregory Lanphear announced the board had received a letter from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) referencing a number of details it is working on regarding the plans that have already been submitted to them. That letter was not released, as not all members of the board were present and the chair wanted the entire board to read the communication first, before releasing it publicly.

Within minutes of the meeting starting, village property owner (whose property abuts the Millerton Overlook site at the intersection of routes 22 and 44) Brad Rebillard stood to request to be put on the evening’s agenda.

Housing Resource’s attorney Scott Longstreet interjected with a question.

“I’m trying to understand why the public is speaking if you’ve already closed the public hearing,� he said.

“That is true,� Lanphear said, adding that written comments are still being accepted and that he did tell Rebillard that as the adjacent property owner he could speak at the night’s meeting. He also said he wanted to straighten out the comments from the different engineers’ reports, including the Rebillards’. “It’s a confusing thing for me if we have one engineer saying one thing and another engineer saying another.�

“So this is regarding a specific item presented to the board and it’s going to stick to that subject?� asked Longstreet.

Lanphear responded affirmatively. “I wanted to do it in a public forum so everyone knows what we’re doing,� he said.

Rebillard’s wife, Jeanne, then asked for the Planning Board to review the public hearing process. Lanphear referred the request to the board’s attorney, Michael Hayes.

The 62-day rule

“A 62-day rule applies to the special use permits, which is very different to the subdivision  permit. The Planning Board should come to a decision. If the applicant feels like the board is dragging its feet it can go to court with an Article 78,â€� he said. “Here the Planning Board was moving forward and intended to reach a final decision, however with the escrow not being funded the Planning Board could not move forward. Now the board is picking up where it left off.

“I’m not particularly focused on the 62-day rule, not because it’s not important, but because [of the way things have progressed],� Hayes added.

“We’re still going through issues,� added Lanphear. “And we’ve been going through all pages of comments one by one and asking ‘Is this an issue?’ and ‘What can we do to solve them?’�

Rebillard checked to confirm she could still submit her engineering report, which the chairman affirmed, saying the board made provisions to accept written comments still. Moments later Planning Board member John Gilmor suggested the board retreat into an executive session for attorney/client advice. That session lasted approximately 12 minutes.

Hayes came out of the session with advice for the board regarding the 62-day rule in terms of the SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) process.

“The law is clear that you can’t decide [on a negative or positive declaration] until SEQRA is complete,� he said, explaining that the negative or positive declaration is made depending on whether the project will have an adverse environmental impact. “The board hasn’t decided on a negative or positive dec[laration] so the 62-day clock doesn’t start to run until the application is complete and that’s not until SEQRA is complete.�

Until that time the board is not able to vote on a special use permit. What typically happens, according to Hayes, is that the special use permit hearing is combined with the SEQRA hearing; there are still separate hearings when the process gets to the site plans down the road.

There was some question as to whether the 62-day process has already  begun. Hayes clarified that it has not. During the exchange with the public, Longstreet raised a question regarding the matter.

Placating the public

“I understand it’s important for the public to be educated,� he said. “But as the process goes on this is costly to the applicants and we would like to move the process along as quickly as possible.�

Resident Dan Swift took umbrage to the remark.

“You’ve wasted seven years of my time, so 15 minutes isn’t  going to kill you,â€� he said.

“We have a right to be educated,� added Jeanne Rebillard. “It’s not going to be simple, so for him to say we’ve got to move forward because of his expenses is not fair.�

Housing Resources Executive Director Kevin O’Neill had a different view of the “hurry up and wait� pattern that’s plagued his application. He spoke about the time it’s taken to get this far in the process on the Friday following Wednesday’s meeting.

“We’ve probably been more patient and accommodating than anybody else would be and we’re not going to push,� he said. “I would be much happier if it were moving faster and done six months ago, but we’re not going to be contentious about it.�

Project details

Details about the project, like if the aquifer is under the site plan (the Environmental Assessment Form says it’s not and the Department of Health says it is), have yet to be ironed out. That’s an important issue because it will affect the placement of the septic system. Planning Board member Lance Middlebrook said a geologist may have to be brought on board to sort out the issue.

Longstreet said it need not be a problem.

“At the worst it means you have to redesign,� he said. “It’s not like you can’t [adapt to the situation]. Knowing that, it’s an issue that could have potential adverse environmental impacts, but it doesn’t have that because you can design around that.�

“That’s why I’m waiting for something in writing from the Department of Health,� Lanphear replied.

Water lines were also mentioned. Middlebrook said if there’s a loop around the complex, 6 inch lines will suffice; if there’s no loop, 8 inch lines will be OK.

Project engineer Eric Bernardin said there are still “some questions� with SEQRA regarding water lines.

“A system can be engineered for the site,� said Village Engineer Paul McCreary, of Morris Associates.

Lanphear next asked the board if there were any other matters to be addressed regarding the proposal. Planning Board member Carol Gribble said she had a concern regarding the stability of the escrow account.

“Should we change the way we have the escrow set up?� she asked. “Should we address that and go to $10,000?�

Currently the village requires the applicant to maintain a $5,000 balance in the escrow account.

“My personal opinion is I don’t think we need to do more than what we asked,� Lanphear said. “We just need to keep it there.�

Is the end

(of the beginning)

in sight?

“I would like to see us at the next meeting go through the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) line by line and try to make a determination,� Gilmor said. “We started doing so a couple of years ago. Our agenda should be moving through that list.�

“I’m looking forward to getting to that SEQRA checklist and happy they decided to go forward with that,� O’Neill said days later. “It’s the beginning of the process.�

Back at the workshop, Hayes suggested the board have “something in writingâ€� prepared at the   February meeting for the board to vote on.

“I think for a project of this magnitude, line by line, it will be very helpful,� he said.

At that point it appeared the board was going to attempt to go through the EAF and the special use permit then and there, but that wasn’t the case. Instead, at that time, the Rebillards rose to speak. They distributed an engineer’s report regarding how the proposed project could affect their property.

Third party

engineer’s report

“This is the third engineer we’ve had look at it,� Jeanne Rebillard said. “We went out of state to hire an engineer because we didn’t want [our engineer] to be conflicted [by any connections to Dutchess County].�

Their report highlights problems with the project’s plans, including: the septic system design, typographical errors, unspecific descriptions, unanswered questions, possible miscalculations and a myriad of other technical concerns. Their engineer, George Johannesen of Canaan, Conn., specifically addressed the drainage issue.

“I agree with the explanation that the drainage area draining onto the Rebillard property is reduced by the development theoretically,� he stated in his report. “The problem is with the volume of the system which appears to be designed to hold a little more than the one-year storm. If this system is filled by a larger storm or by lack of maintenance, the design provides for a direct overflow onto the Rebillard property which could cause severe erosion of the bank, possibly soil movement onto the Rebillard parking lot and possible water getting into the existing structure through the back door.�

“Are they in good faith going to be able to maintain these systems?� asked Brad Rebillard.

“Site plan approval can require proper maintenance be followed through code enforcement authority,� Hayes said. “There is not bonding opportunity for private improvements.�

Jeanne Rebillard then asked what happens if the applicant goes bankrupt.

“Could the Planning Board refuse the project because of the fear that somewhere down the road the project will not be completed or couldn’t be rented?� asked Hayes. “You can’t get into a fiscal viability analysis.�

“The fears of the applicant [cannot be factors]. They cannot be considerations,� said Longstreet. “The board can factor in to vote for or not for the project.�

Public comments, still?

Resident Sam Busselle then asked about public comments.

“I know the public hearing closed several months ago,� he said. “Did you close the period to accept written comments as well?�

“We just ask they’re all turned in 10 days prior to our meeting,� Lanphear said. “Yes, you can still turn in comments, but the next meeting is going through the EAF, then after that we’re doing SEQRA, so there will be a cut-off.�

Those comments may be sent to or dropped off at Village Hall, at 21 Dutchess Ave., Millerton, NY 12546.

Latest News

Love is in the atmosphere

Author Anne Lamott

Sam Lamott

On Tuesday, April 9, The Bardavon 1869 Opera House in Poughkeepsie was the setting for a talk between Elizabeth Lesser and Anne Lamott, with the focus on Lamott’s newest book, “Somehow: Thoughts on Love.”

A best-selling novelist, Lamott shared her thoughts about the book, about life’s learning experiences, as well as laughs with the audience. Lesser, an author and co-founder of the Omega Institute in Rhinebeck, interviewed Lamott in a conversation-like setting that allowed watchers to feel as if they were chatting with her over a coffee table.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reading between the lines in historic samplers

Alexandra Peter's collection of historic samplers includes items from the family of "The House of the Seven Gables" author Nathaniel Hawthorne.

Cynthia Hochswender

The home in Sharon that Alexandra Peters and her husband, Fred, have owned for the past 20 years feels like a mini museum. As you walk through the downstairs rooms, you’ll see dozens of examples from her needlework sampler collection. Some are simple and crude, others are sophisticated and complex. Some are framed, some lie loose on the dining table.

Many of them have museum cards, explaining where those samplers came from and why they are important.

Keep ReadingShow less