Saugerties to put Winston Farm plans back online after getting panned over removal
A section of the Winston Farm in Saugerties, N.Y., is shown in July 2014. (Tania Barricklo/Daily Freeman file)
By William J. Kemble | news@freemanonline.com
UPDATED: September 13, 2024 at 4:27 p.m.
SAUGERTIES, N.Y. — Town officials have agreed to repost the Winston Farm draft generic environmental impact statement after being criticized for removing the document outlining a zoning change request.
Objections to the removal were raised Thursday at a forum intended to keep residents appraised of the Town Board zoning change request for a sprawling residential and commercial development on about 840 acres along state Route 32.
“This is what makes the public feel like they are being hoodwinked,” resident Gilda Riccardi said.
“A draft is a draft,” she said. “We all know what a draft is. A draft means that things get to be changed for whatever reason. It happens all the time. But to be told by our Town Hall that it wasn’t filed when I know it was filed, when I actually saw an email with it, was disingenuous and I think that’s what makes many people nervous.”
Supervisor Fred Costello on Friday said the document should reappear as soon as it can be clearly labeled as an application that is still being reviewed for completeness.
Developers on Aug. 15 submitted the draft environmental impact statement to the town and posted a version on the winstonfarm.com website. However, the online version was removed at the request of the town’s planners, with leading consultant Adriana Beltrani contending it is a “preliminary” document that can be withheld to avoid “misinformation” being conveyed to the community.
“This is not a document that should be released to the public or any of the agencies because we don’t know if it is a complete document, yet,” she said. “We have 45 pages of scoping notes to compare against what was submitted and it’s not released for review because if it’s incomplete we send it…back to the project sponsor to be fixed so that it is complete. That process can go back and forth quite a bit, so we don’t want to release it to the public because we need you to save your time and energy (for) the review of the final document.”
The draft impact statement calls for 155 single-family homes on various lot sizes, 110 townhouses, and 650 condo/apartment units. There would also be a 100-cabin campground; 419,800 square feet of commercial retail space; a 150-room boutique hotel; a conference center with 250 hotel rooms; a 5,000-person performing arts center; and 250,000 square feet of lab or light-industrial space.
Developers are asking for the entire area to be designated as a Planned Development District. It is currently in the General Business, Moderate Density Residential, Hamlet Residential, Gateway Overlay, Aquifer Protection Overlay, and Sensitive Area Overlay districts.
While some members of the audience on Thursday did have copies of the draft generic environmental impact statement from its brief time on the website, there was a concern raised by village Planning Board member Bill Barr that the town had done a disservice to the community by taking it down.
“The SEQR (state environmental quality review) handbook seems to contradict you,” he said. “It says they should make copies for those interested agencies, organizations and individuals requesting copies prior to lead agency acceptance.”
State Committee on Open Government Assistant Director Kristin O’Neill on Friday said a draft environmental impact statement, even in preliminary form, should be available to the public.
“If it was submitted by an applicant. …I can see no reason why it wouldn’t be,” she said.
Opinions provided by the state Committee on Open Government dating to 1994 cite the same provisions that Barr used during his comments and note that the state Department of Environmental Conservation has made a point of explaining that “draft EISs” are available to the public.
“All SEQR documents and notices…must be maintained in files that are readily accessible to the public and made available on request,” state officials wrote.
Barr was among the speakers who lauded developers for providing the information and initially putting on a website for easy access.
“Many of us have been following this for years … and we were pretty happy when the sponsors put the DGEIS out online so we could get started looking at it,” he said.
Costello said discussions about the availability sidetracked a public forum intended to provide confidence in the system.
“I think this particular topic for some folks eroded a trust in the process and in that context, we’ve asked (consultant planners to) help me understand what we’ve gained by doing this,” he said. “So long as it’s clear this is a draft subject to change, let’s avoid having to answer the (availability) question…and just put it out there. I think people need to embrace and believe in this process in a meaningful way.”
