The fifth and last public hearing on the Durst/Carvel Draft Environmental Impact Statement was held on Saturday, April 5, starting at 9:30 a.m. at Stissing Mountain High School in Pine Plains. The hearing was very well attended, with close to 200 people present when it began. Present representing Milan were Democratic Town Council Members Ross Williams and Diane May. Absent and failing once again to represent Milan were Republican Town Supervisor Dick Barrett and Republican Town Council Members David Byrne and Bobbie Egan. We understand that Mr. Barrett had minor shoulder surgery earlier that week and that David Byrne was in California, apparently on vacation. Bobbie Egan’s absence was unexplained. Jack Grumet, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and Al Lo Brutto, Chair of the Planning Board, were also present. Al Lo Brutto said nothing and left well before the end of the hearing. Jack Grumet remained to the end and made a statement (see below).

After the customary preliminaries from Pine Plains Planning Board Chair Don Bartles, the hearing moved immediately—no statements from the Dursts—into public comment.

The first speaker was Willie Janeway, Regional Director of Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Region 3. Mr. Janeway’s presence was a bit of surprise, but it is a very positive indication that the DEC is following the Durst process with interest. His comments were not reassuring to the applicants. Although he was polite about it and used bland bureaucratic language, it was clear he doesn’t like much about the DEIS. He listed a number of points that were of particular concern: habitat fragmentation, wetlands crossings by new roads, the cumulative impacts of numerous environmental impacts, and the impacts of stormwater on water quality and the regional watershed. He indicated that further clustering and downsizing of the project should be considered and that he had deep reservations about the open space component. Mr. Janeway stressed that the DEC hoped to work together with the applicant, wanted dialogue and hoped to provide guidance. His written comments will be submitted to the Pine Plains Planning Board before the May 5 deadline. We hope to get a copy as well.

Next up was David Clouser, PE, an engineer hired by Pine Plains United to review the project. Mr. Clouser represents five planning boards in our region and is quite familiar with both the DEIS process and with local conditions. His review focused on completeness, substance, and mitigation, particularly with regard to the landscape and land disturbance. In Mr. Clouser’s expert opinion, the DEIS significantly underplays the size and scope of the project. He feels the project will significantly change the landscape and won’t blend with the rural landscape around it. In addition, he feels that no part of the property south of Route 199 is appropriate for development. He then got down to some specific facts and figures. We won’t give them all here—you can see his entire report here [insert Clouser pdf]--but here are some numbers to think about:
● The project will created 11.4 miles of new public roads and 7 miles of private roads.
● The density works out to 1.5 residences per acre (if that’s not suburban sprawl we don’t know what is).
● 385,000 cubic yards of soil will be removed by truck.
● 185 acres of new impervious surfaces (driveways, sidewalks, structures, etc.) will be created.
● 70,000 cubic yards of road gravel will be used in the construction, which works out to 2,800 truck trips.
Mr. Clouser stated that the construction traffic impacts will be major and that they are not considered in the traffic analysis of the DEIS. (Durst claims that using an existing sand and gravel mine on the property will reduce the construction traffic, but the DEIS still doesn’t account fully for this and still fails to consider other construction traffic.)

He also brought out a point that was made at an earlier hearing in another way using photographs (see the discussion of the second hearing below [insert jump here]): This project will require huge amount of land disturbance through bulldozing and blasting. According to Mr. Clouser, 45 percent of the overall site has steep slopes—that is, slopes of 15 percent or greater. Of the land disturbance areas indicated in the DEIS, 34 percent have steep slopes, which in turn means that preparing the house sites will require a lot of cutting and filling to level the areas. Of the lots, 90, or about 10 percent, will need major filling and/or cutting, using blasting and excavating. The DEIS, however, states that blasting and excavating are not anticipated for the single-family structures. The DEC is very concerned about construction on steep slopes because of the erosion, flooding, and damage to surface water, wetlands, and groundwater this causes. (For more on how grading from development causes flooding, see this recent news article [insert link from DE list]). The new state stormwater regulations also strongly discourage construction on steep slopes, for exactly the same reasons.

The DEIS states that blasting may be needed but that this should be explored at the design stage. Mr. Clouser pointed out that given the amount of blasting that will be needed, this isn’t a good idea—blasting needs to be discussed thoroughly in the DEIS. The property is very rocky. On 40 percent of it, the depth to bedrock is only 10 to 14 inches.

Mr. Clouser’s analysis of the impacts on water quality (chapter 9 of the DEIS) were particularly disturbing. The DEIS states that the stormwater drainage model won’t contribute to watershed pollution. This is inaccurate for 160 lots, or about 17 percent of the total. In addition, the stormwater drainage model doesn’t account for stormwater coming off the golf cart paths, and 16 of the proposed stormwater detention ponds are located in wetlands buffer areas.

Of the nine test wells dug on the site, seven didn’t pass bacteria tests, but this is not discussed in the DEIS. The DEIS also contains a very deceptive understatement regarding the impact on wells on property off the site (in other words, on the wells of nearby residents). Only one offsite well was said to be impacted—but only one offsite well was monitored. It is entirely possible that other wells of Pine Plains and Milan residents would indeed be negatively affected by the project.

Mr. Clouser summed up his findings very succinctly: This is more development than the land and community can bear.

The next speaker was John Lyons, a land-use attorney with the firm of Lyons and Grant in Rhinebeck. Mr. Lyons was hired by PPU to review the procedural aspects of the DEIS.
His presentation was eloquent, powerful, and devastating to Durst. We strongly suggest  you read the full statement here [insert Lyons pdf]. The gist of his remarks: The DEIS is so poorly done, contains so many omissions, inaccuracies, and material defects, and gives such lip service to mitigation of environmental impacts that it simply can’t be accepted as written. Its inadequacies prohibit meaningful public comment.

Mr. Lyons urged the Planning Board to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to address the many problems pointed out by the various experts over the course of the public hearing process. The DEIS requires sweeping and fundamental changes, changes so substantive that they can be addressed only with a SEIS—the applicant should not be allowed to just make cosmetic fixes in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). He reminded the Planning Board members that they have the authority and responsibility to insist on real mitigation measures. Most importantly, he reminded the PB members that the developer’s profits are not their concern. They must demand changes and not be deterred by the threat of lawsuits. He sat down to tremendous applause from the audience.

Becky Thornton, executive director of Scenic Hudson, was the next speaker. She spoke specifically to chapter 5 of the DEIS dealing with open space. The DEIS claims that 1,905 of the 2,200 acres of the property remain as open space—by the developer’s definition, which is remarkably loose. Among other things, the applicant’s definition of open space includes the golf course, the clubhouse and other public facilities (including utility lots), front and back yard of the residences, and the roads. This definition is completely unacceptable. The areas designated as “community conservation areas” are mostly wetlands and buffers and steep slopes of 15 percent or greater—areas that are already constrained from development. Very few of these areas are unconstrained. Yard areas should not be considered in open space calculations—these areas are very difficult and costly to enforce.

Ms. Thornton concluded by reminding the Planning Board of two points:
● This development isn’t green at all—it’s a conventional subdivision surrounding a golf course.
● Green space isn’t what’s left over after all the good land is used.

Two speakers from the Pine Plains community were next. Joan Osofsky, proprietor of the Hammertown Barn, spoke eloquently about the excessive size of the project, its disregard for community character, its lack of affordable housing. She pointed out that it is a template for developer profit and that it is not only suburban sprawl itself but will also attract further suburban sprawl. She was followed by her son Greg Osofsky, who stated that the project brings serious financial impacts and risks, isn’t truly green, it very out of scale with the surrounding community, and is inconsistent with the town master plan.

Warren Reese, executive director of Scenic Hudson, spoke next. He began by commending the public for coming, stating that this was democracy in action. (We wish democracy had softer chairs.) He then went on to ask the Dursts to accept the comments they have heard at the hearings. The Dursts now have a choice: They can push forward with an ill-conceived project, or they can take a big step back and reconsider. Mr. Reese urged them to set the bar higher. He then addressed the Planning Board members directly. He pointed out that this is biggest project by far ever proposed for Pine Plains. The decisions they make about it will set the direction for the town for the next century. He urged the Planning Board members to live up to their power and authority. As proposed, the DEIS is so poor that the PB members can’t use it to make the findings the law requires. He went on to say that Scenic Hudson was a party to a legal decision back in 1965 that said planning boards have an affirmative obligation to decide in the public interest.
           
A number of other speakers followed, including Jane Waters from PPU, who addressed environmental issues raised in chapter 8 of the DEIS, particularly the impact on bird life from developing the site (you can read more about this here. [insert Waters Word doc]

Two speakers, Steve Liberta and Brad Mitchell, spoke in favor of the project, claiming it would help business in downtown Pine Plains. Both seem to think, in the face of all the evidence, that there’s nothing wrong with the DEIS and that because the Dursts are trustworthy they should be given a free hand to do whatever they want.

Jack Grumet, the Chair of the Milan Zoning Board of Appeals, spoke to the economics of the project. He pointed out, as he has at other hearings, that when large developers do huge projects like this, the towns become their partners, like it or not—and if the project runs into trouble, so do the towns.

Several speakers, including Democratic Town Council Member Diane May, all made the same basic points: the project is too big, too destructive, and too out of sync with local comprehensive plans and zoning—and it lacks an affordable housing component.

Ray McEnroe, of McEnroe Farm, spoke next. Ray has been a partner with Doug Durst at this well-known organic farm for more than 20 years and feels that Doug Durst’s word is his bond. That’s actually more worrisome than reassuring. What if Doug Durst gave his word that the plan would proceed as outlined in the DEIS?

The audience had dwindled considerably by this point. Those who were left were then treated, for the first time in the lengthy hearing process, to the sound of Alexander Durst’s voice. He spoke, very briefly (less than two minutes) and actually said very little. He thanked the Planning Board for their efforts and thanked the public for the same. He  said they hoped to continue working together with the Planning Board. He concluded by saying that they take the comments made at the hearings very seriously and that they will address them. (Based on their track record so far, we think the Dursts will address the comments mostly by suing the town of Pine Plains, but maybe we’ve become too cynical.)

The last speaker was Democratic Town Council Member Ross Williams, who pointed out the remarkable consensus that has developed among the community stakeholders about what’s wrong with the project. He also pointed out that the Dursts have taken a contentious, not collaborative, approach and that the process has been driven not by planners but by lawyers. He recommended forming an advisory team with members from Milan, Pine Plains, Dutchess County Planning and Development, Scenic Hudson, and other stakeholders to help the process move forward. You can read his comments in full here. [insert Ross Word document]

The hearing wrapped up at 12:15, having lasted 3 ¾ hours—possibly a record.

Back to Milan Insider Home Page