PINE PLAINS — A topic that was raised at the joint town and planning boards meeting on March 16 to review the Carvel Property Development’s pre-application for New Neighborhood Development (NND) consideration repeated itself at the March 18 Town Board meeting. That subject was whether the town’s consultants should be able to meet with representatives from the Durst Organization Inc., the applicant behind the Carvel project, as they work on the application and fulfilling 18 criteria laid out at the March 16 meeting.
The consensus among board members was that it would be OK for those meetings to occur, but not everyone agreed. Councilwoman Sandra David expressed her doubts about the idea, but Attorney to the Town Warren Replansky (one of the consultants who would be involved in those meetings) said the idea has its merits.
“There are a lot of things in there [the intra-agency memo regarding the pre-application] that need to be addressed,� he said, adding that all of the work would be reimbursed to the town by the applicant. He also added that it would be wise to have one or two members from the town or planning boards sit in on those meetings.
“A similar process took place when the applicant went before the Planning Board to get a better understanding of the technical issues,� Town Engineer and consultant Ray Jurkowski said. “That process is not new; in fact it’s quite common to such a large project.�
The original application for the Carvel project was for subdivision approval, and at that time the town did not have any zoning laws. However, a lot of work has been done by the Durst camp, including much environmental work, and a new application is pending.
“Presumably you’re hammering out the details, for the project just started,� David said to the applicant.
“In no way does the applicant intend to ask for help in this application,� Durst attorney Jennifer Van Tuyl said. “It’s very clear the consultants represent you. It’s certainly not a secret process, but it’s the only way the process works ... to allow us to understand what is being said so we can formulate what will come before you.�
“It seems to me the biggest problem with the memo, or our 18 criteria, is that it’s absolutely impossible for the applicant to fulfill that the way it was written,� David said.
“I think in some instances the applicant had performed a lot of that work during the SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] process,� Jurkowski said. “They should in some form be incorporated to the pre-application and application as well.�
The engineer added that the meeting on the 16th was “constructive� and that the comments made by both boards were “only the tip of the iceberg.� Additionally, those comments are non-binding, he reminded everyone.
David said she didn’t think there’s been much dialogue about the NNDs themselves and that the 18 criteria listed for the NNDs to comply to focused on the “macro-stuff,� and that the “micro-stuff� hasn’t been dealt with.
“I would love to see for the Dursts to re-evaluate ideas for the project that might work better for the town and spend a little more time on the bigger picture,� she said. “I guess that was part of my frustration, too.�
“I would be surprised if the applicant didn’t get that from our memo,� Replansky said. “It’s not our intention to sit down and design this project for the applicant.�
“The purpose of the 18 points is to identify and ultimately build you [what you want] and give you a picture of the whole, because it’s very complicated, and to help break it down a little bit [makes a difference],� Jurkowski said.
“Certainly we take your comments to heart,� Van Tuyl said. “But we would like to move forward talking about these technical issues. Just because they’re technical doesn’t mean they’re not important. You are the decision makers. We’re talking about the memo. We need to discuss it to move forward.�
A motion was made to authorize the town’s consultants, including planners Nan Stolzenburg and Bonnie Franson, to meet with the applicant. With the exception of David, the rest of the board voted in favor of the motion.
