Letters to the editor
Don’t rezone Winston Farm
What I love about Saugerties is that it is a small town, with distinctive character and interesting small businesses. We have a thriving cultural and arts community that is vibrant and friendly and centered around a respect for the natural world.
If plans go unchallenged to rezone Winston Farm, Saugerties stands to lose a large portion (50 percent or more) of a flourishing intact ecosystem that supports biodiversity, habitat-rich forests, wetlands and grasslands, a safe corridor for wildlife, and all the numerous health benefits that nature provides for free.
It appears that the owners of Winston Farm want to rezone this undeveloped land as quickly as possible in order to flip it. In their words, ”The adoption of the PDD zoning will allow the project sponsor to market the site…”
The PDD wording relies heavily on platitudes but lacks feasibility. The DGEIS does not adequately address the potential overcrowding, pollution, noise, sewage runoff, protection to habitat, or water usage. Instead, it leans into grandiose talk because there are no actual concrete plans for a Planned District Development. Yes, there have been studies, but many of these contradict other studies.
The rezoning would allow the current owners to sell off parcels of land to the highest (non-local) bidders without accountability. It appears that the local owners have lost sight of the extraordinary natural history and biodiversity that has made Winston Farm and the Hudson Valley so special.
The current DGEIS is simply nowhere near a serious Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Instead, it uses business language like “capitalize on” and “the carrying capacity of the land” and “plant and animal resources”. Resources, simply put, are commodities.
The extensive PDD portion of the document is a combination of incomprehensible jargon that ranges into a mirage of grand empty statements that lack any concrete plans. A highly generic document in both scope and language, it proposes a frivolous and meaningless wish list.
To the Village and Town of Saugerties, this is our chance to speak out against environmental destruction, all manners of pollution, the inevitable tax increases, and suburban sprawl that a mega-development brings. The next public comments hearing will be held on July 16 at the village senior center, written public comments can be submitted to the town board at winstonfarmcomments@saugertiesny.gov until July 28. Now is not a time for apathy. It is a time to take action. Our town has the potential to save a large highly significant landscape.
Come to the next Winston Farm town board hearing and speak out in opposition to the rezoning currently under consideration, it is essential that our community express that at least 75 percent of Winston Farm be preserved as contiguous, unfragmented open space. This must be made firm, with no shifting goalposts. It must be finalized and planned.
Janell O’Rourke
Saugerties
Incredibly broad standards
On Wednesday, June 18, the Town of Saugerties held a public hearing, the first of two (the second will be on Wednesday, July 16) regarding a major rezoning of the 840-acre Winston Farm property into a Planned Development District.
The planned Development PDD concept is being sold to the public as being a more protective and respectful way to develop the property (supposedly more respectful of natural features, inclusion of certain aesthetic building standards, etc.) than what might occur under the current zoning.
However, as it turns out, this appears to be far from the case. While a PDD is meant generally to be tied to a Master Development Plan that lays out the details of a specific proposal — the only way a community can meaningfully assess the impact of what’s on the table — in this case the sponsors have asked the town to pass the zoning change without one.
The result is a laundry list of land uses, objectives, guidelines and thresholds that if taken as the new regulations allow for far more potential destructiveness and intensive development to the site than even the regular zoning.
The stated “purpose,” which is one standard by which the planning board will have to judge any proposed project, advocates for development “that positions the district as an economic center … with regional appeal”. Among permitted uses are amphitheaters, manufacturing, laboratories, conference centers, hospitals — and the list goes on. There is little to limit the number of buildings, amount of impervious surfaces, etc..
Truthfully, I’m barely touching on the smorgasbord of uses, but suffice to say, with language such as “multi-modal transportation” and “vibrant urban center,” the image is of significant development, quite in contrast to what many people might have imagined the mediating and balancing goal of a PDD to be.
The dilemma here is that in the absence of a Master Development Plan any pre-approved goals, land uses, etc., become the regulations that the planning board is obligated to judge a particular project on. The public will have little input on any specific project that is proposed, when it matters most, because the planning board will have to give it a pass if it adheres to these incredibly broad standards.
For those who believe there should be some development but are also genuinely concerned about inappropriate development, a PDD that really addresses the actual felt impacts and issues – i.e. the potential doubling of population, loss of natural habitat, open space, real consistency with aesthetic/historic character of a site and area, noise, climate, etc. — could be a preferred approach.
Unfortunately, the broad language required to provide flexibility that might be desired in specific cases is way too permissive here to fulfill any protective function. Quite the opposite. It has the potential to lead to exactly the kind of development that people are most concerned about.
The solution to this problem is pretty simple: Tell the town board not to approve a PDD in the absence of a Master Development Plan that shows us all what is actually intended for the site.
There is another public hearing on July 16, and written comments are being accepted now until, I believe, the 28th of July.
Michelle Aizenstat
Saugerties
Examine the master plan
I am a Saugerties resident who is concerned about the proposed development at Winston Farm, and I attended the town board meeting on June 18 that was held to allow public comment on the recent new DGEIS, or Environmental Impact Statement.
Some proponents of development comment on those of us who question development as if we are outside the public and uncaring about residents who have spent their lives in Saugerties and wish to stay. Let me assure you that we are as much a part of the public as any other citizens here. Some of us are longstanding residents who intend to stay, and most importantly, we care very much about the well-being of everyone who lives here, including those who disagree with us.
For this reason many of us have carefully examined the new DGEIS, a document that is, as stated, narrower in scope with its purpose of rezoning. It requests a Planned Development District status with 50 percent open space and no Master Development Plan, opening the door for lifting protections over much more of the environmentally sensitive areas of Winston Farm.
While 50 percent might sound like a generous amount of open space, the percentage should be 73 percent open and contiguous space. Crucially, it is the number stated in the Winston Farm High Technology Feasibility Study and Master Plan from 10/30/2009. Further, the new DGEIS does not specify what “open space” means, and its vague and contradictory language in many areas was rightfully questioned by opponents.
I heartily encourage the entire public, including my friends and neighbors who support development, to please review it carefully.
Joanne Pagano Weber
Saugerties
