As per the Town’s zoning regulations, the submission of a NND floating zone petition application requires that the applicant appear before the Town Board and Planning Board at a pre- application meeting. The purpose of the first meeting is to:

• solicit preliminary non-binding comments of the Town Board and Planning Board with regard to the consistency of the NND proposal with the criteria set forth in §100-28.B;
• identify any issues that would need to be addressed during the NND review process; and
• review a sketch plan that conveys conceptually the use and site improvements being proposed.

Download the PDF

Following the review of the individual criteria, the newly elected town board member Sandra David read her comments in full into the record, speaking more broadly to the issues at hand. Plainly stated, the purpose of the NND is to allow our community to negotiate with the developer and issue bonus units insofar as there are correlating community benefits. Her comments speak directly to the open question of whether or not the Durst Development will benefit our community or not. It is a must read. Please forward widely.

Sandra David’s comments on the Durst pre-application for an NND.

March 16, 2010 – My comments tonight will be to give a broad brush response to what Jennifer Van Tyle characterized as a broad brush approach to the pre-application.  Although, as a group I believe we will be reviewing the 18 criteria that we must consider before approving the NND, I would like to address the issues, on balance, that need to be considered when assessing the benefits to the Town of Pine Plains.  All  residents want what is BEST for the Town.  What that “BEST” is will be the debate during this process.

It is my understanding that the purpose of creating an NND is so the Town will achieve more environmentally and socially desirable development, as well as gain more economic benefits than a conservation subdivision can provide.  Since the NND was tailored for the Durst project, indeed even changing the outline of the Pine Plains hamlet to extend to the Durst land, it is now an opportunity for the Dursts to reward us with a really creative, innovative project that will benefit the town for many years to come.  I would like to see some sort of mechanism for the residents of the town to give the Durst’s their ideas and feedback for a project that citizens can really get behind.

The question for the Town is not growth vs no growth.  There will be the potential for a great deal of growth whether or not we approve the NND.  With an NND plus incentives, which by the way are discretionary, we are looking at the maximum of 572 new residences.  With a standard conservation sub-division dictated by our new zoning law, with incentives only for affordable housing, we are looking at about 370 homes.  The question is what the Town of Pine Plains will be getting in return for those extra 200 homes and how it will benefit the town environmentally, economically and socially.  Indeed we have to ask if those extra 200 homes could actually hurt the town environmentally, economically and socially and how the disadvantages balance out with the proposed benefits.

I should clarify at this point that the benefits for NND approval are basically spelled out in those 18 criteria on page 42 of the zoning law.  Those benefits are in return for much higher density than that found in a conservation subdivision. The benefits for “incentive units” should be different from, and in addition to, the benefits given for NND status.  I would ask that the benefits for NND status be distinguished from the benefits given for incentive units.  These should be large benefits, not tokens.

Another concern I have deals with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.  If and when the applicant submits a formal zone petition for an NND, (see page 45) that petition MUST be in accordance with procedures set forth in Article XVII, Amendments of this Zoning Law.  On page 176-7 Article XVII  REQUIRES that the applicant adhere to the Comprehensive Plan.  Some of the Goals and Strategies listed in Chap. 11 of the Comprehensive Plan are farmland protection, rural character, future growth consistent with rural character, maintenance of PP Hamlet as Town center, historic preservation, etc.  I would ask that your plan better adhere to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.  At this point, many, if not most of those goals are ignored.

I think a subject dear to the hearts of most people in Pine Plains are taxes and jobs.  Before we are willing to give up the rural character of the town and look at houses perched on the ridge lines, there have to be big time economic benefits.  To quote from p. 29 of the Comprehensive Plan “Pine Plains has continually had one of the lowest unemployment rates in New York State.  In 1980, there were 43 unemployed persons in the Town (an unemployment rate of 4.5%).  According to the US Census, the town’s unemployment rate was 3.7% in 1990, lower than the country’s figure of 4.2%.  It was about the same in 2000(4.1%).  The low unemployment rate in both the town and county (3.6% in 2000) indicate a strong employment base in the area.”  Everyone is hurting more in 2010 in this poor economy, but historically jobs have not been the issue.  I suspect it is the level and quality of those jobs that need improving.  I would like to know not only how many jobs will be added to the town with this development, but what level and kind of jobs.

Another very important factor for the people of Pine Plains is taxes.  The Cost of Community Services Studies by the American Farmland Trust in cooperation with Cornell indicates that for every dollar collected in taxes, working and open land use only 37 cents, and residential uses $1.19.  The “COCS studies conducted over the last 20 years show working lands generate more public revenues than they receive back in public services.  Their impact on community coffers is similar to that of other commercial and industrial land uses.  On average, because residential land uses do not cover their cost, they must be subsidized by other community uses.  Converting agricultural land to residential land use should not be seen as a way to balance local budgets”.  In other words, residential development uses up more money than it gives back in taxes.  Additionally, that fiscal deficit increases linearly with each new residence according to the fiscal impact study prepared by Phillips, Preiss, Shapiro Associates, Inc. (for PPU 2006).  Thus, the more residences built, the higher the fiscal deficit for the Town.

You might say that because your houses will be marketed to high end second home owners that would not be the case.  However, there is no guarantee your units will be second homes, and even if it were the case, there are pitfalls to that scenario as well. Very high end homes can result in huge state aid cuts to our schools based on the towns perceived needs.  We have just witnessed this in Pine Plains.  Our taxes are bound to go up.

Another potential financial cost to the town may very well be the management of the open spaces, and conservation lots.  I have just started my research on conservancy stewardship, but have been told by some land trust organizations that they would never consider taking on that stewardship the way your project has been designed.  If you are not able to find a conservancy group to manage the open and conservation spaces, it would be left to the town to maintain and enforce.  It is my understanding that this is not cheap and could end up costing our town quite a bit of tax dollars.

Economic development is also very important to our town and the establishment of economic development can earn you some incentive units.  What you have proposed in this pre-application is the establishment of a club house that will not be used by the residents of Pine Plains.  The golf course and Vintage Woods are already there.  So, where’s the beef? Will the tax revenues from these businesses offset the costs of maintaining the infrastructure that is needed for this project for years to come?  What happens when the golf course fails?  Golf courses are failing all across America and this one is in the cold North East.

We need a thorough market feasibility study to explore the viability of this project as well as a very thorough, independent fiscal impact study.  It is imperative this project doesn’t end up costing Pine Plains tax dollars, either in the short term or long term.

This NND is an opportunity to do something really exciting that will benefit the town for many years. I’m open minded to a project that is innovative and stimulating and will create a magnet for recreational and agricultural tourists.  I’d like to see a project that will link the NND to the Towns hamlet, both physically and socially.  Do something that will enhance your reputation as a cutting edge developer who really cares about the town that has bent over backwards for you. As is, I fear the plan will do nothing but burden the town with taxes, all the while compromising its rural character.

After the overwhelmingly negative reaction from the public and many experts representing PPU, Scenic Hudson, the Dutchess Land Conservancy, the county planning office and even the State Department of Environmental Conservation in the series of public hearings held in the spring of 2008; the Carvel/Durst team had submitted a major revision of their original large golf development proposal to the Planning Board.  Work on this new “preferred” alternative plan initially was led by Alexander (Alex) Felson, an expert ecological planner now on the faculty at Yale, and the multinational planning firm EDAW.  This plan had widened buffer zones around important wetlands and vernal pools and has much more dedicated connected open space. It clustered most of the development around the golf course, away from both the Ham Brook and the Route 199 view shed.  The number of housing units was reduced to 648 (576 in Pine Plains, 61 in Milan and 11 on lots that are partly in both towns).  The 18 hole golf course was redesigned with the second nine extending towards 199 on the west side of the property.  There will no longer be an additional 9 hole academy course.  The new NND proposal retains many of the features of this plan, with the layout only slightly revised to cluster it slightly more and a small reduction in the total numbers of units.

The Planning Board also must continue its work on their review of the comments about the original DEIS and reach decisions about what must be done to address them (probably in a Supplemental DEIS).  The redesigned project will probably be part of that process and additional studies may be required as needed, for example, in reviewing the fiscal impacts, school impacts or other environmental impacts and to examine the impacts of the revised layout.

The original proposal was for 951 new units (some houses are already on the property) on 2,200 acres (1,772 acres in Pine Plains and 428 acres in Milan).  The Dursts had also planned 71 additional units on the “previously approved” 99 half acre lot subdivision west of Carvel Lake that was carved out of the original plan (on approximately 55 acres), making the actual original total 1022 new units.  The property is on both sides of 199 beginning just west of the hamlet area of town (including the first farm before you come to the wetlands) and it includes sections on Hicks Hill Rd., Stissing Mountain Rd. and Sherwood Rd. and small sections even cross the Taconic Parkway.  It includes all of the original Carvel Golf Club.  This first proposal included 563 houses and 388 attached units:  526 detached houses on 988 acres in Pine Plains and 37 houses on 142 acres in Milan; and 4 clusters of 358 attached units on 75 acres in Pine Plains and 30 units on 8 acres in Milan.  The overall density of the project in Pine Plains was 2 acres per unit and 2.3 for the whole property.

In addition, the Durst Organization recently purchased a contiguous 98 acre farm on Mt. Ross Road.  This purchase brings the total acreage they own to nearly 2,300 acres.  This recent purchase is not included in the proposal currently before the town.

• It divides the town into various zoning districts with differing lot sizes or densities, varying from 20,000 square feet (15,000 if central sewer is installed) in the central hamlet districts to 5 acres in the rural district, including the agricultural overlay and the wellhead protection district.
• Although a number of commercial uses are allowed throughout the town (i.e. home businesses and other smaller impact commercial uses) major commercial development is concentrated in the hamlet center and hamlet main street districts. The latest zoning map now includes the flat land behind Stewarts on the Village Green property in the hamlet main street district.
• The agricultural overlay zone covering about ¾ of the rural district includes properties currently or previously used in agriculture (raising crops or pasturing livestock), properties with prime soils or soils of statewide importance and properties included in the County Agricultural District. However, none of the Carvel property is included in the Agricultural Overlay even kthough it meets the first two criteria. The zone
  does not differ from the underlying rural district in allowed density but it restricts placement of houses on agricultural fields to the extent practicable.
• The subdivision regulations require that environmentally constrained acreage (steep slopes, wetlands, flood plains, etc.) be subtracted from the total acreage prior to calculating the net buildable acreage.
• Major subdivisions outside of the hamlet districts are in most cases to be designed as conservation subdivisions, with most of the units
  clustered on small lots and at least 50% of the land preserved as open space. In the agricultural overlay (A-O) district this requirement applies to any development of 5 or more housing units. In the rural and well head protection districts not included in the A-O overlay developments of between 5 and 14 units may be of a more conventional layout with Planning Board
  approval; although the preferred layout is still the conservation subdivision layout. Additionally, in all conservation subdivisions after deducting the environmentally constrained land an additional 15% of the
  remaining acreage is deducted from the total prior to determining the net buildable acreage.
• The zoning draft includes a New Neighborhood Development (NND) overlay that can be applied to a development in single ownership of at least 750 acres. The base density in an NND is one unit to 3 net buildable acres rather than one unit to 5 acres. The open space requirement is increased to 60% of the entire parcel from 50%. Prior to approving an NND rezoning
  application the developer will be required by the Town Board to commit to providing a number of community benefits and infrastructure improvements to the town beyond those obtainable through SEQRA review.
• The regulations also include generous bonus density awards for various community benefits-up to 40% additional units in a regular conservation subdivision and 50% in an NND.
• Affordable housing provisions apply to all developments of 10 or more units.

Jane Waters
November 9, 2009

While this process of redesign and updating the Planning Board on it continues; the Planning Board must also continue to work on their review of the comments about the original DEIS and reach decisions about what must be done to address them. While the redesign may be part of that process; additional studies may be required as needed, for example, in reviewing the fiscal impacts, school impacts or other environmental impacts. It is not clear at this time whether the board will require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement based on the revised plan and/or detailed corrections required to address deficiencies in the data in the original DEIS. Alternatively the board could proceed directly to a Final Environmental Impact Statement which must include all the substantive comments and the responses to them by the developer that also might include the new plan as a part of the response.

Regardless of which of these choices the Planning Board makes there are a number of new and revised environmental studies that will need to be completed to address the criticism of the project expressed in the 2008 hearings and to examine the impacts of the revised layout. The experts for Durst and the town have recently met to discuss what additional studies can be initiated now.

If/when the new zoning law is enacted by the Town Board, the Durst Organization is expected to apply for a New Neighborhood District zoning change. Doing so might entail some additional revisions to the new plan, although a review of the NND criteria has led us to conclude that the new plan already meets many of the criteria. We estimate that the maximum number of units allowed on the whole property (including 42 affordable units and up to 70 units in Milan) would be approximately 663. Because Durst has the option of building the 42 affordable units off site or paying a fee in lieu of building to a dedicated fund for affordable housing the town will set up, it is more likely that the development will have about 621 housing units.

The original proposal was for 951 new units (some houses are already on the property) on 2,200 acres (1,772 acres in Pine Plains and 428 acres in Milan). PPU recently learned the Dursts had also planned 71 additional units on the “previously approved” 99 half acre lot subdivision west of Carvel Lake which was carved out of the original plan, making the actual total 1022 new units. The property is on both sides of 199 beginning just west of the hamlet area of town (including the first farm before you come to the wetlands) and it includes sections on Hicks Hill Rd., Stissing Mountain Rd. and Sherwood Rd. and small sections even cross the Taconic Parkway. It includes all of the original Carvel Golf Club. This first proposal included 563 houses and 388 attached units: 526 detached houses on 988 acres in Pine Plains and 37 houses on 142 acres in Milan; and 4 clusters of 358 attached units on 75 acres in Pine Plains and 30 units on 8 acres in Milan. The overall density of the project in Pine Plains was 2 acres per unit and 2.3 for the whole property.

In addition, the Durst Organization recently purchased a contiguous 98 acre farm on Mt. Ross Road. This purchase brings the total acreage they own to nearly 2,300 acres. This recent purchase is not included in the proposal currently before the Pine Plains Planning Board.