The fourth public hearing on the Durst DEIS was held in Pine Plains on March 6, once again in the school cafeteria with its unusually hard chairs. The hearing was well attended, with about 120 people. Present from Milan were Democratic Town Board members Ross Williams and Diane May. Absent as usual were Republican Town Supervisor Dick Barrett and Republican Town Board member Bobbie Egan; Republican Town Board member David Byrne was absent as well, apparently on military duty. Jack Grumet, Chair of the Milan Zoning Board of Appeals, was present.

The hearing opened with the usual preliminaries. After the debacle at the hearing in Milan, Matt Rudikoff wisely chose (or was told) not to make an opening statement. There was also no presentation by the applicant, so the hearing moved directly to public comment. The first speakers were once again the experts hired by Pine Plains United, and they were once again excellent.

First up was Lisa Nagle, AICP, of Elan Planning and Design in Saratoga Springs. Ms. Nagle gave a presentation focusing on chapter 3, Land Use and Zoning, and chapter 7, Community Character, of the DEIS. In summary: The DEIS is not compatible with the Pine Plains Comprehensive Plan, not compatible with existing Pine Plains land use law, and not compatible with Pine Plain’s proposed zoning. Among other things, the DEIS conveniently neglects to discuss comprehensive plan goals that aren’t favorable to Durst, quotes the comprehensive plan out of context, and doesn’t come close to fulfilling the goals of the comprehensive plan. The density of the project, for example, is far too high, and over half the proposed housing units are in existing conservation and agricultural districts. (We hope to bring you a link soon to this very revealing presentation.)

Next up was Michael N’dolo, MPA, of Camoin Associates, an economics consulting firm based in Saratoga Springs. He was hired by Pine Plains United to perform a peer review of chapter 14, Economic and Fiscal Impacts, of the DEIS. A peer review looks at the data, assumptions, and methods used to draw the conclusions and assesses their validity. Once again the results weren’t very positive for Durst. Mr. N’dolo found numerous omissions and material errors that render the chapter and its conclusions (which are, needless to say, positive for Durst) invalid. His recommendation to the Pine Plains Planning Board? Reject this chapter and insist of substantial revisions. Interestingly, PPU’s previous economic consultant, Hudson Associates, made very much the same objections to the preliminary version of this chapter back in 2006. Although these objections were given to Durst, the current chapter continues to ignore the material deficiencies pointed out then and basically restates the same flawed arguments. You can see the whole report here.

Mr. N’dolo recommends rejecting the chapter because he says it doesn’t contain enough information for the public to make informed comment on it. He pointed out seven major material deficiencies:
1. Durst presents only their preferred rosy scenario of 90 percent part-time and 10 percent full-time residents. A more realistic scenario, such as a 50-50 split isn’t discussed, though it should be. The difference in the cost implications for the towns could run into the millions.
2. The costs of adding full-time police service are not adequately represented. The capital cost of adding new facilities isn’t included.
3. The costs of transitioning from a volunteer fire and rescue service to a full-time paid service are not adequately represented.
4. The calculation used to determine the cost to the Pine Plains Department of Public Works for maintaining the six miles or so of new roads is incorrect. It’s based on the number of full-time residents, not on new road miles. The costs are substantially understated.
5. The additional capital costs to the Department of Public Works are substantial but are not addressed.
6. The costs to the school district were patently wrong. It’s a complex calculation, but the gist of it is that the combined wealth ratio (CWR) of the community, which is based on property values, will go up when 951 high-end houses are built on expensive lots. As the CWR goes up, state aid to the school district goes down. The CWR in the DEIS is significantly understated, which means that the loss of state aid to the district is understated as well—potentially by millions of dollars.
7. The case studies of budget items related to debt service and capital costs for comparable towns once a  “master-planned resort communities” is built are seriously flawed. These items could actually raise anticipated expenditures by the towns of Milan and Pine Plains by 30 percent.

As Mr. N’dolo pointed out, any one of the seven items above would be enough to call the completeness of the entire chapter into question. In combination, he says, they completely invalidate the findings. (We were watching Alexander Durst throughout the evening. He usually clasps his hands in front of him on the table, and this presentation made him literally white-knuckled. We think this presentation is a good example of how green the Durst organization is—green as in the color of money.)

Mr. N’dolo was followed by a number of other speakers. Jane Waters, a member of the steering committee of PPU and a master birdwatcher, spoke to some of the environmental findings in chapter 8. She noted that the chapter reported seeing 18 barred owls on the site, an unusually high number that indicates the presence of unfragmented woodland habitat—habitat that the development will break up into much smaller pieces. She also noted that including the golf course as part of the habitat available to ground-nesting birds such as bobolinks and meadowlarks is incorrect—these birds nest in unmowed grasslands, not on manicured golf courses. She also expressed some concern about the impact on local traffic from trucks hauling material from the existing gravel mine. (You can read her remarks here.) About ten other Pine Plains residents spoke, all but two in opposition to various aspects of the project. Matthias Kessemeier of Hicks Hill Road had an intriguing suggestion for the Dursts: Scale back the development significantly and turn most of the property into a nature preserve. Create a lasting environmental legacy called the Durst Land Conservancy. (We would rephrase that: Put your money where your mouth is.)

Joel Tyner, a Democratic member of the Dutchess County Legislature representing district 11, Rhinebeck and Clinton, spoke in opposition to the scale and negative environmental impact of the project. (Mr. Tyner has introduced a resolution to that effect in the DC Legislature—see it here. See here for the newspaper report and our comments, and see here for Ross Williams’ letter of support [insert Word doc of Ross letter]. To send a letter of support for the resolution, write to countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us. As Joel correctly points out, the impacts of this project will be felt throughout the county.)

Gary Cooper, the Republican member of the DC Legislature representing district 19, North East, Milan, and Pine Plains, has yet to speak out on this issue, even though it directly affects his entire constituency. He did attend the hearing, and may have been at others (we forgot to look for him). State Senator Leibell has also not been heard from as far as we know, but then that’s to be expected. He has taken substantial campaign contributions from Durst—see here for more. We also don’t think anything has been heard from State Assembly Member Mark Molinaro. (We could be wrong here—let us know if we are.) It’s disappointing to see our elected representatives hide behind supposed “objectivity” and local home rule as an excuse to avoid alienating a powerful and wealthy company like the Durst Organization. They should be paying more attention to their constituents. 

Jack Grumet, chair of the Milan Zoning Board of Appeals, discussed the economic aspects of the project. He pointed out that like it or not, if this project goes through the towns of Milan and Pine Plains are going into partnership with Durst. If the assumptions in the DEIS are flawed, the towns will pay the price.

The hearing wrapped up early, at least relative to the earlier hearings in Pine Plains, at 8:45.

Back to Milan Insider Home Page