Comments from Ross Williams

Carvel Project Hearing Comments – March 6, 2008
Ross Williams

At the start, I would like to say that I understand that the applicant has a right to develop this property; I also realize there can be distinct advantages to a planned community, whether it be for a second home golf resort, or modest primary homes.  In fact, early in the process, I felt this project could be good for the area.  However, community benefits can only be assessed in the context of comprehensive plans, with decisions guided by the values expressed in the plans.

In this particular case, the decisions the applicant seeks are not consistent with the comprehensive plans of either community.   I will comment on five areas: Open Space,
Green development, Population and Affordable Housing, Viability of the project, and
Durst conduct

Open Space 
Many voices have been raised by responsible experts telling the Planning Board that this is not a green development, but suburban sprawl, and that the open space is a sham.  This is not new feedback, but has gone unaddressed -- I would like to read portions of a memo I wrote in November 2006 during the development of the DEIS as one of Milan’s representatives to the Lead Agency.

“This is not an environmentally sensitive open space plan.  It is an environmentally destructive plan. … Of the 43% of ‘protected open space’, 23%, more than half, is buffer area on developed land.  To suggest that open space consists of residential back yards, and buffer areas around condos, clubhouses, and ‘sport parks’ is a disingenuous and cynical description of open space. The remaining 20%, almost entirely undevelopable land, is fragmented into 29 pieces, averaging 15 acres per fragment!  Twenty-nine 15 acre parcels, in the context of 1000 homes and 2200 acres of land, is not protecting open space.

“The result of this ‘open space’ plan is a traditional suburban land use pattern that bears no resemblance to the rural communities in which this project is proposed.  Of course, no one should be surprised when the average density proposed is 2 acres per residence, not counting the 97 lots in the original Carvel subdivision that have been  excluded (inappropriately, in my view) from the SEQR analysis.”

The memorandum goes on to cover some of the inconsistencies between the DEIS and Milan’s code.  In particular, it notes that what they call “protected developed open space” is first, not protected, is second, an oxymoron, and is third, a cynical attempt to address open space expectations.

The project does not set aside open space that will qualify for clustering under Milan’s code.  Further, their term, ‘formally protected open space’ is meaningless, at least with respect to Milan’s regulations,.  Such land is not ‘open space’ for the purposes of clustering unless it is ‘legally’ protected by conservation easement in perpetuity or by public ownership. 

The DEIS in the final version does acknowledge that, “not all the resources identified as ‘open space’ in this DEIS may meet the definition of open space in the Town of Milan …”.  That is an understatement; this failure to come to grips with open space requirements has a profound impact on the reality of this plan. 

As also noted in the DEIS, the applicant has failed to appropriately address Milan’s planning and zoning regulations in their analysis to determine the number of dwelling units allowed. 

These issues should have been dealt with during the development of the DEIS, so the public could be more adequately informed.  The applicant refused to do so, probably because it would have acknowledged the inappropriateness of their proposal.  In my view, these issues must be addressed before a final EIS can be accepted.

Green Development
The Durst organization gets much credit for its development of green office buildings in NYC.  In that environment, the definition of ‘green development’ seems to focus on energy efficiency.  While certainly laudable, ‘green development’ in a rural context has a much broader connotation.  ‘Green development’ in Northern Dutchess County incorporates protection of water, slopes, aesthetic vistas, open space, biodiversity, and dark skies. And it incorporates ‘life style’ or community character.   It’s in these areas that Durst’s plans are woefully inadequate.   This is not a green development; it is suburban sprawl.  That point has been made repeatedly by professionals in the planning field, including Dutchess County Planning, Scenic Hudson, Dutchess Land Conservancy, and the very able consultants representing Pine Plains United.  The Lead Agency has an obligation to recognize the consensus that these views represent and act accordingly with respect to this Environmental Impact Statement.

Population and Affordable Housing
Early in this process, I pointed out to the applicant’s representatives that I found the DEIS population data to be inconsistent with other sources.  After there was no response, I wrote to the Chair over a year ago on the quality of the DEIS with respect to population and affordable housing.  I’d like to read the first paragraph before commenting on these two issues.

“By and large, the members of the Planning Board rely on the applicant to provide factual information for the analyses that are central to SEQR.  I am concerned, however that the applicant is sometimes providing less than factual data, and is too often marketing rather than analyzing the facts.  Two examples – population statistics, and affordable housing -- will make the point.” 

Regarding population data,  the New York State Data Center website publishes Census Bureau  estimates. As of July 2005, Milan’s estimated population was 2615,  larger  than the year 5 or year 10 projection provided by the applicant.  Further, the Census Bureau statistics exclude those in seasonal households; such people are counted at their primary dwelling location.  Fifteen percent or more of the dwelling units in Milan are owned by seasonal/part-time residents.  The applicant’s projections include the project’s seasonal population, but they do not include these other seasonal populations in their data.  Thus, the population data in the DEIS is incorrect, and inappropriately mixes apples and oranges, to dramatically understate population.

Further, I believe there is inadequate accounting for secondary or induced population growth.  There will be a sizable service community required to support the number of dwelling units proposed.  Their projected 13 million dollar economic benefit to the region will require a lot of employees somewhere.  Part-time residents in the income brackets targeted will demand landscaping, housecleaning, and other services to a much greater degree than do current homeowners and with more providers than is available today, given the area’s very low unemployment level. 

Is it credible to conclude, as the applicant does that “the proposed action is not anticipated to generate a demand for additional off-site residential development, including affordable housing”.  One thousand well-to-do dwelling units - another ‘town’ between Milan and Pine Plains - are not going to result in the need for additional service workforce and their housing?  The analysis and conclusions fit the applicant’s marketing plan, not the facts.  The DEIS puts fancy words on it -- “Homeowner’s Club and related charges and fees, … coupled with the character of the project community, are at variance with the organization of communities where affordable housing may be viable.” In plain English, it says ‘we’re not building affordable housing’!  With due respect, that doesn’t answer the issue at hand.

Without accurate population data, and without a realistic projection of secondary/ induced growth, the base data for evaluating impact is insufficient.

I have cited some areas to demonstrate that the Durst organization has turned a deaf ear to any input it did not want to hear during this process.  It is the Lead Agency’s role to now be sure they listen and respond appropriately.

Viability of the Project/Impact of Failure
Very few of us are competent to question the financial projections for this project.  But as citizens, we entitled to use our common sense.  I have heard many of us locals question the viability of a high-end golf community in this climate. 

Two weeks ago there was an  article in the NY Times on the decline in number of golfers and the amount they golf, and the glut of golf courses.  James Sheldon, a financial consultant and correspondent expert in municipal budgets, also prepared an analysis of the golf resort industry and Landmark National, in particular.  I encourage you to visit James’ website -- LittleTownViews.com -- to review these articles and also to read his comments to the Planning Board last week.  I have a few copies of each available if people want to see me afterward.

These articles make clear that many golf courses go bankrupt and others sell out.  Yet developers continue to build golf courses.  Why is that, you might ask?  Because developers get to charge exorbitant prices for homes on golf courses and make a lot of money.  Who cares if the club fails in the future, leaving the owners without the added value of the golf course?  In some cases, there have then been proposals to develop more housing on the failed golf course.

At last week’s hearing, we also heard testimony that Durst’s marketing assumptions are questionable: they assume a healthy housing market and a lack of competitive offerings in this area within a reasonable commute of the NYC market.  Yet the current housing market has declined substantially, and there are three other golf resort communities and a high-end ski resort community, all within reasonable commute of the NYC area, currently on the drawing boards.  Is there really a valid market here?

So what if there isn’t?  Do you think that Dursts will hold on to these approved lots if this vision fails, or will they cut prices and sell the lots to local builders.  Milan and Pine Plains will then be left with an approved subdivision of high density permanent housing, exploding school and infrastructure costs, and a failed golf course. 

We ask this lead agency and our elected officials to protect our citizens’ interests. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent such an outcome … nothing except good planning,  responsible zoning and the backbone to support them.

Durst Conduct

In preparing this DEIS the applicant has shown an insistence to do things only their way.  I cited some examples above.  In addition, they fought vigorously to avoid some of the required environmental studies on sensitive species; they objected for months to fully completing the archeological review that had been committed at the beginning of the project.  Only after the Pine Plains Planning Board made it clear that it would stand its ground did the applicant complete the work, which did result in some changes to the plan.  As is evident in the DEIS, they have refused to acknowledge Milan’s zoning constraints on their plans.
    
I have heard some who support this project extol the Dursts’ virtues -- what “responsible developers” they are.  The Durst organization is first and foremost a developer, intent on making a substantial return, and they have been very good at it.  Some see them as enlightened.  I would recast this to say they are smart and project their enlightened self-interest.  Their behavior with respect to this project should be analyzed.  They have put together a great fireworks display for the community, they have inundated our mails with wonderful cuddly, family-oriented marketing pieces.  Great PR.  

But, before you embrace their energy-efficient vision for the dwellings in this project, read carefully.  They gloss over the fact that they are really only selling lots, not building homes; their ten year plan is not to construct all the homes, but to sell the lots.  They don’t advertise that all that tax money Milan will receive does not cover the increased town costs they project.  And then, as good neighbors and “responsible developers”, they have sued the town of Milan for their tax assessment, they have also sued to overthrow Milan’s model wetlands law.  If things don’t go their way, they will sue Pine Plains, too.

I leave the Lead Agency with this thought, there is nothing wrong with the Dursts’ hard-nosed approach to business; just recognize it for what it is … and don’t fall prey to their green development claims.  You must be as hard-nosed in your protection of our communities as they are in their business.

Thank you.

 

Back to Milan Insider Home page