Expansion of Pine Plains environmental area challenged

PINE PLAINS — The public hearing regarding the “creation of the expanded Stissing Mountain Critical Environmental Area [CEA],” which impacts Stissing Lake, Twin Island Lake and Thompson Pond, drew a full house at Town Hall on Thursday, June 16. The cars of those attending the meeting even lined the shoulders of Route 199 for lack of parking in the Town Hall lot.

Leaning in favor of ...

The overwhelming majority of those present opposed the proposed expansion — as was demonstrated by a show of hands after resident Pat Nannetti stood among the 60 or so people in the audience and asked who was in favor of the expansion and who was against the idea.

“Much of [the proposed CEA] involves land designated for commercial use or private homes,” said resident Lyndon Chase. “It begs the questions — why do we really need it?”

Which was exactly the point Jennifer Van Tuyl, attorney for the Carvel Property Development, tried to get across to the Town Board at the outset of the hearing.

It’s a numbers game

“More than 50 percent of the place where you want to channel development to is in the Critical Environmental Area,” she said. “This creates a huge disconnect because there’s no question the CEA can be used to oppose development.”

Van Tuyl also questioned how the CEA expansion will relate to town zoning, a theme that was repeated throughout the public hearing.

“The center of town, the heart of cultural activity and the economy, there are various zones within the Pine Plains hamlet,” she said. “This is the place where you put all of your eggs in one basket for development.... This is a critical issue because if the CEA is enacted there will be no guidance for the Planning Board.”

Zoning now exists, so does a petition

The attorney went on to say that when the original CEA was instituted the town did not have any zoning laws, something that has since changed.

A petition that was presented to the Town Board at the end of the public hearing, with more than 100 signatures included, agreed with that sentiment.

“While we applaud the efforts of the town to protect environmentally-sensitive areas within it,” it stated, “we contend the existing land-use regulations, including the new zoning ordinance, provide more than enough protection.”

CEA boundaries

The proposed expansion has the following boundaries: The eastern border runs from the Stanford town line/Upper Wappinger CEA boundary from the western steep slopes border to Route 82. The northeastern boarder continues following the Stissing Lake watershed boundary northwest across Route 82 to the junction with the Twin Island Lake watershed boundary south of Route 199. The northern border connects and follows the Twin Island Lake watershed boundary north across Route 199 in its entirety.

The western border continues following the Twin Island Lake watershed boundary west and south back to its junction with the boundary of the Stissing Lake watershed. It continues following the steep slopes border (as delineated by Dutchess County Natural Resource Inventory GIS data) to the Stanford town line/Upper Wappinger CEA boundary.

Resident Wesley Chase  rose to add his comments to the discussion. He referred to an environmental assessment map done for the town by Hudsonia in the last year or so.

“I have been doing some work with the Planning Board and have to deal a lot with the Hudsonia map,” Chase said. “What threw up a red flag to me was that the high school parking lot is in the CEA [expansion area]. That didn’t make sense to me.”

He then went to the Hudsonia map and made some calculations. According to Chase, 830 acres will be added to the Critical Environmental Area if the expansion is approved; 318 of those acres, or 38 percent, qualify as developed areas and nonsignificant habitats. Likewise, another 157 acres, or 20 percent, is dedicated to the town’s well-head protection area. In total, Chase said, 57 percent has no business being placed in the CEA.

“For me, that’s a little much,” he said, adding it also makes him worry about the cost. “I believe we have a competent Planning Board. They will review what comes before them. We have a Planning Board for a reason. If there’s an environmental hazard, these people are not going to throw it out, they will review it.”

Chase added his advice as to what will truly best protect the town’s assets.

Longer reviews, more money?

“It’s education, in my opinion, that protects things,” he said. “To go through a long form [environmental review] can cost more money and then [businesses] have to charge more for their services.”

Attorney to the Town Warren Replansky clarified that statement.

“Filling out a long-form [environmental review form] is not a costly experience,” he said. “It’s discretionary for all other actions. It’s conceivable that the Planning Board may require a long form in a CEA. What gets expensive is if the Planning Board declares a positive SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] ... that triggers specific environmental issues within a project. But it is more  time consuming to fill out a long-form EAF [Environmental Assessment Form].”

Harder scrutiny to come, harsh words now

Former Planning Board Chair and town Councilman Rick Butler said the CEA was designed to include significant areas and exclude those parts of the hamlet that have already been developed.

“It’s fairly obvious to me that undeveloped parcels, or the existing CEA, would come under close scrutiny, and likely to have a long-form EAF,” Butler said, adding the current zoning is “fairly environmentally conscious.”

He also reprimanded the Town Board for doing a “shoddy and incomplete job in presenting the information to the public” about the night’s public hearing. There were murmurs of agreement from the crowd, which had complained about insufficient notice prior to the hearing, although the town had sent two separate mailings of post cards to residents within the proposed CEA about the hearing inviting them to attend. Residents said there also should have been more information made available on the town’s website, including a map of the proposed expansion, perhaps with a copy of the Hudsonia map.

Caution: abuse of power?

Resident Dan Adams agreed with Butler’s statements, and read additional comments made by his brother, Jon Adams, an attorney and “a member of an affected property owner,” according to his letter.

“The Town Board ... has a responsibility to act only where a clear demonstrated need is present. Any other exercise of those powers is irresponsible and an abuse of those powers,” he wrote. “Courts have steadfastly reinforced the common law tenet of free use of property. That property rights should not be diminished by responses to whims and those rights should only be impaired after the showing of a demonstrated need, which is absent at this time.”

Those in favor of the CEA

Although the majority of those present clearly wanted the board to vote against expanding the CEA, there were some at the public hearing in favor of the expansion. Former Conservation Advisory Commission Chairwoman Joan Redmond was among them.

“Enlarging the boundaries will create a more protected buffer zone [for Stissing Lake, Twin Island Lake and Thompson Pond],” she said. “It should be enlarged and the land that would be added will help preserve water quality and the health of the lakes.”

Resident Jane Waters echoed those sentiments.

“Milfoil is moving into Stissing Lake and some of the septic systems around Twin Island Lake. The lakes are fragile,” she said. “We are already seeing the impacts of development on the lakes. In terms of species of special concern, the more we do willy-nilly in terms of development, the less we’ll have of animals. It doesn’t mean development will be stopped.”

“We need watchdogging,” added resident Joan Franzone. “The Planning Board can’t do it all — that’s what the problem is.”

Wrapping things up

After the hearing was closed there was more discussion among the Town Board members. The town’s attorney also had a worthy comment to make.

“Before you do anything, have [Town Engineer] Ray [Jurkowski’s] office look at what was submitted by the CAC,” Replansky said. “Look at the rationale. There may be no need for the CEA expansion, or it may be [necessary only] for a much smaller one. Then we can reconnoiter.”

Pulver addressed the concerns of the crowd when he said there will definitely be a second public hearing before the town makes any decisions regarding the CEA expansion.

“It sounds like you’re going to make a new map and go forward with that,” Dan Adams said.

“We’ve not going to vote on this without another public hearing,” Pulver replied, adding the town was not going to put the issue out to referendum, as suggested by the crowd, because it is the job of the Town Board’s to consider, discuss, weigh the public’s opinion and then vote on tough issues. Referendums cost towns thousands of dollars and could go on indefinitely, issue after issue, if the town allowed it.

“This is what politics is,” Pulver said. “You elect people to sit on a board to represent you. If we had a referendum for every issue we’d have a referendum for everything.”

The board promised to provide more information on its website prior to its next public hearing, and to do a better job notifying the public before the next hearing as well. With that, the discussion ended, the meeting moved on to an executive session and the crowd dispersed.