| Harlem Valley Herald return to front page |
Dover Knolls, Town of Dover |
CRGD Ends Lawsuit After Town Board Action Press Release (Dover Plains, August 27, 2008). The Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover (CRGD) today announced an end to its recent lawsuit against the Town of Dover. CRGD now considers the case to be moot in view of the Town Board's decision on August 6, 2008 to remove that provision of Local Law #1 which expanded the reach of the MC Overlay District to include properties beyond the boundaries of the former Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center (HVPC). In taking steps to amend Local Law #1, the Town Board recognizes that there is no presumption in favor of expanding the MC Overlay District. The lawsuit had alleged that the Town Board violated the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law by failing to provide adequate public notice of the proposed text, and failing to have the final text of the law on the desks of the Town Board members at least seven days prior to its adoption. The lawsuit also alleged the Town Board violated the General Municipal Law and the Town’s own Zoning Law by not including the proposed change in the draft of the law sent to the Dutchess County Planning Board and the Dover Planning Board for review. "Now that the lawsuit is favorably resolved, CRGD looks forward to working with the Town Board to assure a good outcome with the Dover Knolls development," said CRGD President, Carolyn Handler. She added, "CRGD is not interested in legal wins, but only in sound planning and transparency. We are glad that the outcome of the lawsuit preserves the status quo, which was all that was desired at the time it was commenced. We will work to ensure that the Dover Knolls project concentrates on the core area of the HVPC with a high density development and that any development beyond the HVPC is lower density and occurs only after the core is developed consistent with the long established goals of the Town." CRGD was formed earlier this year by residents and property owners of the Town of Dover concerned that the redevelopment of the HVPC proceeds in a manner consistent with the community’s long-standing vision of environmentally sustainable and responsible development.
|
| Stancy DuHamel Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover Wingdale, New York July 17, 2008 To the Editor, In an effort to move the community input process forward, the Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover (CRGD) will visit the Benjamin Company development sites on Long Island.
If members of the public would like us to observe or research any issues in particular, please contact us through the CRGD website, www.growsmartdover.org and we will do our best to incorporate it into our research.
Stancy DuHamel
Duell Hollow Rd.
Wingdale, NY |
Ryan Courtien, Supervisor Dear Residents, As many of you are aware, on November 6, 2007, we three new members of the Town Board were elected, Ryan Courtien as Supervisor, Chris Galayda and Cathy Frame as Town council members. During our campaign, we were besieged by residents who were frustrated and fed up with four years of promises by the former board members that the Dover Knolls project would move forward. Residents were well aware nothing was happening on the site. They were equally frustrated by their lack of involvement and the lack of communication from the prior Town Board. We were elected on a platform that among other things promised community involvement and communication. Consistent with our promise, this statement is to inform residents of the actions taken by us and the reasons for these actions. The first and most important action taken by this Town Board was to assume full responsibility for the development process of the Dover Knolls site. We believe it is crucial for a project of this size and duration that accountability lies with elected officials as opposed to political appointments. As explained at several prior Town Board meetings preceding this action, many municipalities have taken similar action for specific projects for the same reasons. A resolution was passed by the Town Board on January 15, 2008, directing the town attorneys to draft an amendment to the Town Zoning Code to address this concern. At the January 23, 2008 Town Board meeting, the proposed amendment was presented and discussed. This amendment removed the site plan approval from the appointed Planning Board and gave that approval to the elected Town Board members. The purpose of this action was to ensure that there would be no potential conflict between the two boards which could result in a needless stalemate and unnecessary delays. The need for the amendment was explained and discussed publicly at three town board meetings and two planning board meetings. Members of the planning board were assured that their input and involvement would be protected. Indeed, they were told that contrary to the past town board’s actions, the intention is to bring them into the process at the beginning. To that end, it was agreed that they would receive copies of the developer’s submissions when we, the Town Board, receive them. This was not done by the prior Town Board – in our view a mistake. We further pledge that in reaching our final decision we will ask for the Planning Board’s input in helping us reach the correct decision. However, since the end, we as elected officials are to be held accountable to the residents for the progress of the development, we need to be in control of it. We listened to comments over the course of those meetings and the town attorneys put forth two revisions to the proposed amendment. One was to increase the review time for the Planning Board from the 45 days listed in the original code to 62 days. The second revision involved anticipating that the developer may want to include the contiguous 83 acre parcel known as the Dykeman Farm in the project, as it has always been shown in the conceptual site plans. Language was added to permit the MC Overlay District to extend to lands substantially contiguous to the MC Overlay District. In this way, we the town board would have the final site plan approval over those lands as well. Consequently, after a formal Public Hearing on February 27, 2008, Local Law No. 1 which amended Section 145-16 of the Town of Dover Zoning Code was passed by the majority of the Town Board. It was the later added language that became the subject of a recently instituted law suit against the Town. The purported claim in the lawsuit was that inadequate notice was not given to residents as to the inclusion of this language. There were no stated objections to the part of the local law which removed site plan approval for the various phases from the Planning Board and vested it with the Town Board. Although our Attorneys have assured us the action taken was completely proper and we would prevail should we decide to resist the lawsuit, we wanted to be practical and responsible. Rather then waste taxpayers’ money defending a lawsuit that is purely procedural and not substantive, we have all been made aware and are considering the option of rescinding the part of the local law which is the basis for the lawsuit. Specifically, this is the part which permitted the MC Overlay District to extend beyond the boundaries of the former HVPC campus and to include lands that are “substantially contiguous” to the MC Overlay District. Should this change become needed in the future we will take the necessary actions at that time. Therefore, during our public Town Board meeting tonight the board will vote to see if it will be this boards’ wish to authorize our Attorney to move forward with the necessary legal steps to amend Local Law No. 1 of 2008 to the extent of deleting the reference to inclusion of contiguous properties. Some residents have expressed skepticism at the motives of those persons bringing this lawsuit. They believe it is merely intended to unnecessarily delay the development of this project. If those residents are correct, this good faith effort by this board will do nothing to end this litigation. Moreover, if they are correct, this will just be one of many lawsuits commenced by a group determined to stop this project. We certainly hope this is not the case. The last election proved the majority of the residents of Dover want and need this development to progress in a responsible and timely fashion. As your newly elected Town Board members, we are determined to see this happen. We thank you for your support. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Courtien, Supervisor |
Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover
|
James Utter, PhD TO: Ryan Courtien, Supervisor RE: Final Written Scope for Draft Environmental Impact Statement for DATE: May14, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to continue participating in the scoping process for this very significant proposal. The prospect of having a dynamic economic asset on the grounds of the former Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center (HVPC) is exciting to most, but it is also an opportunity to shape the future of the Town of Dover into an environmental and “quality of life” leader in the region. The current proposal will concentrate 30% of the Dover population into this one site and may change the demography of the Town by the residents it attracts. Thus it is important to assess the range of options on the property and to critically explore and clearly present the potential long-term, as well as short term, impacts of each alternative. Please also consider this letter as a request by Friends of the Great Swamp to continue to be considered A Party of Interest in the proceedings as the Dover Knolls Project goes forward. Our concerns about the project, both as individuals and as an organization, cover a wide range of topics, but our major focus is on the impacts to the Great Swamp and its watershed ecosystems. The Great Swamp is one of the largest wetlands in New York State and has been designated a Critical Environmental Area by both Dutchess and Putnam Counties. This is in recognition of its regional importance and local significance in protecting our water quality, flood prevention, wildlife and rare species support, and other aspects that affect our quality of life. It is vulnerable, however, and requires constant vigilance to protect its ecological integrity or health. The major threats today act indirectly, their impacts result from developments and other activities that occur along the wetland edge and in the uplands of the watershed. Rather than the cut, drain and fill activities of the past, today’s impacts are more insidious. They come from the nutrients, silts, pesticides, road salts, heavy metals, organic pollutants, and alien species, which drain down into the wetland from homes, businesses, roadways, gardens, and farms. Wetlands are also totally dependent on hydrology, the quantitative, spatial and temporal patterns of water inputs and outputs, both surface and subsurface. Major changes in hydrology are often indirect. Therefore, we are especially concerned that indirect impacts, as well as direct impacts, are fully addressed in the EIS, especially for such a large project as Dover Knolls. Alternatives to be considered. We request that the development team seriously evaluate:
We note that the number of housing units has risen from 1338 in the 2006 Proposed Action to 1378 in the 2008 Proposed Action, a trend totally in opposition to our major contention that the project already was too large. Simultaneously, the current Action reduces the retail and personal service use (i.e. commercial) space which the community seems to desire.
This is the largest development ever proposed for Dutchess County and it is an opportunity to produce a model project that sets the environmental standards for future proposals. Dover is the place for this showcase to be developed. We recommend the following strategies be included in all alternatives and
This will reduce the water withdrawal pressures on the aquifer, reduce the nutrient load for the STP and the Great Swamp, and stand as a model for similar projects.
The high concentration of people with the high through-put systems typically found in high-end homes and offices will result in excessive nutrient loading to the Swamp River unless a tertiary treatment wastewater system is utilized. If the hamlet of Wingdale residents and businesses are
Golf courses are notorious for water use and as sources of polluted runoff due to the high levels of fertilizers and pesticides used at most facilities to maintain the quality of the playing surfaces. High run-off from these surfaces aggravates the pollution problems so detention swales are also critical. State-of-the-art management practices minimize watering and applications of chemicals while optimizing their effectiveness.
Wetlands The buffers around the wetlands need to be protected and restored with native plant cover. This protects and enhances the values and functions of the wetlands including:
For the rare, environmentally sensitive fens and vernal pools, the buffer zone should be extended as recommended by Klemens and corridors between them should be preserved. These are especially sensitive habitats and depend on the surrounding uplands for proper functioning. Marble Knolls Water Use Impacts. Management of Open Space and Operation of the Site as a Whole. Elimination of the wording in the March 2008 Scope specifying Conservation Easements and Deed Restrictions, such as in II.D.2.a. (p. 7) suggests there will be no legal protection of the environmental and other open space resources, but if there is any, they will discuss it in the Scope. This protection must not be optional and must not be delegated to a home-owners association or other such arrangement. Recreation facilities impacts. Minimizing road surfaces. Construction Impacts. Monitoring Environmental Impacts The following are additional comments on specific statements in the p.6 II D 1 d. This is an important component, although we encourage the Board to refuse to allow such incursions once the Developer has described what is planned. p. 13 Part III. Impact Analysis p. 22 III E 2 c. Sanitary Sewage Mitigation Measures. We are pleased to see the list of strategies to be examined in the Scope. p.39. V. Alternatives t0 Proposed Action Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this process. Dover Knolls provides an opportunity to create a showcase for environmentally sensitive development and we look forward to working with you in pursuit of such a model. Respectfully submitted, James Utter, PhD |
Don Geramita Supervisor Courtien and Members of the Town Board: I grew up in a “traditional neighborhood” and appreciate the design, benefits and amenities that such a neighborhood offers. At the March meeting here, the Dover Knolls representatives nicely presented their plans for a traditional neighborhood development with a description of all the benefits to those who will reside there. As one gentleman from the public commented, he felt like he was being given a sales pitch to buy one of the units. In this development application process, the focus now has to switch away from the benefits for future residents, and specifically to the impacts of this development on me and all the other current residents. Presented in this letter are my comments and questions regarding the Knolls of Dover Redevelopment Application, amended March 3, 2008, which includes application forms and proposed zoning amendments, a disclosure of interest form, master development plan report, environmental assessment form, amended DEIS scope and master development plan. If you cannot answer all my questions tonight, I request that you provide me with answers prior to the Board’s approval of the DEIS scope, as revised subject to the Board’s and the public’s comments. Your responses may lead to additional comments. Also, I expect that you will include all my comments in your revised DEIS scope and the proposed zoning amendments.
1. Section C.
What is the effect of changing the current zoning with the proposed Section D.? Has this been quantified? I believe this proposed change should be quantified so that the Board and the public can assess the impacts.
This section sets the maximum square footage of non-residential development and refers to section C.2(a) for a definition of part of the calculation. There is no section C.2(a). Please demonstrate how the “floor area ratio” is calculated. 2. Disclosure of Interest Form
3. Master Development Plan Report
Further on the age-restricted units, how will the restriction be enforced initially and then in the future, upon change of resident due to perhaps re-sale, sub-let, or rental? Who will bear the cost of enforcement, initially and in perpetuity? The fiscal impacts on Town and school system services of the answers to these questions need to be considered in the DEIS.
To calculate the fiscal impacts of these types of units, the definition of these units also needs to also include the relative price ranges of the units and their construction time table, by type. Although the future unit prices are currently not known, the fiscal analysis could perhaps be done in today’s dollars as a base. Or, perhaps the applicant’s economic consultants used sales price assumptions in their analysis, which I will also discuss below.
Looking at the plan in a physical way, there are 6, I believe, residential neighborhoods. Of the 6, only 2, or 33%, significantly less than 56%, are “walkable” or “transit oriented”. The remaining 4 neighborhoods are located on the extreme western and northwestern ends of the site, on an eastern hilltop and in the north east area of the site, removed from the inner core. These neighborhoods, or 67% of the plan, are not deemed to be “walkable” to the train nor the retail or commercial sites. Simply, they are stand-alone residential developments. The allure of a transit-oriented development is thus a minor portion of this application plan.
4. Environmental Assessment Form
5. Final Written Scope for Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Real projections of costs per student and the number of school children should be based on recent actual local experience. Thus the applicant’s proposal to delete the Dover school system’s twenty year cost per student trend and enrollment should not be accepted.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, |
Margery Josephson I am writing as both President of Naromi Land Trust, Sherman, CT, and as a resident of the town of Sherman CT, neighbor to township of Dover NY. The north section of Sherman is impacted by development along the Ten Mile River watershed. I urge you to ensure that any development, large or small, that takes place in that watershed not be allowed to degrade at all the wetlands and watercourses that feed the Ten Mile River.
The Appalachian Trail also is nearby the upper eastern hillside of the former Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center. That grand wilderness corridor should have a buffer zone from housing areas. The hill area also contains a large reservoir that was the drinking supply for HVPC. Be certain that all development plans keep the integrity of that water supply; drinking water must always be a protected resource.
The Great Swamp has been recognized by the federal Highlands Coalition as a high priority area for preservation because it is among the upper reaches of the water supply for the City of New York. You must not let development have any negative effects on such an important resource.
One way of protecting the various water supplies and the watercourses is by not allowing development on steep slopes. I understand that the standard in Dutchess County is no development on slopes greater than 15%; please continue that standard for this project.
Another way of protecting water supplies is by the specification of Open Space on the development plans. The most vulnerable areas should be a strong candidate for such designation, in addition to any ridgelines.
For twenty years I worked at HVPC and have an understanding of the need for a commercial center to be an integral part of any large new housing development. At this time of escalating fuel expenses it is incumbent upon those in decision making positions to encourage clusters of housing and businesses. Sprawl will be ever more difficult to support. Please build upon the existing rail and highway infrastructure in the development of Wingdale.
In 1980 I worked on potential plans for new uses for the HVPC campus. One of the difficulties in getting investors interested in the property was the prohibitive expense of demolishing or retrofitting the existing buildings. They are extremely well built, but contain many materials now deemed hazardous. How is this addressed in the overall plan of development of that property?
Wingdale has long needed an economic stimulus and core to replace HVPC and its jobs; I wish you success in that endeavor. However, you must require any developer to either demolish the buildings and build anew, or to create a park on their sites. If you allow unsightly, unsafe structures to remain you will never have much success in convincing more desirable businesses to move in or to convince the potential homeowners to buy into the area.
Margery Josephson, President, Naromi Land Trust, Sherman CT |
Stancy DuHamel To the Dover Town Board: At the Town Board meeting on Wednesday, March 26th, I believe our Town Planner Graham Trelstad stated, and the majority of you agreed, that the current application is "substantially the same" as the last application. As such, I believe you should be using the exisiting 2006 scope and ask that it be included in it's entirety excepting the references to the PADS. As I understand it, the developer believes that the current application is the PADS itself. If that is the case, I request that the developer submit the less dense alternative development scenario required under SEQR. As a contingency, I attach in a PDF some line-by-line comments for the scoping session. I cannot stress enough the return to best practices of restricting development to slopes of 15% grade or lower which is consistent with our Master Plan and the generally accepted practices of the rest of the towns in Dutchess County. We need the developer to go into great detail about the sewage treatment plant. I would like to see the plans for the underground infrastructure and the monitoring of treated effluent which will be entering a very slow moving river. I would like to see the financial costs and the resultant negative impact on our taxes assuming the worst but most likely scenario that the plant will eventually revert to the Town for operation and maintenance. I would like multiple public notices months in advance of asbestos removal. I would like monitoring to be carried out at the County and State level, as asbestos fibers can travel hundreds of miles. I would like the appropriate Connecticut and Massachusetts State Agencies to be notified as I expect them to be negatively affected if the removal is not done properly. I would like the asbestos removal company to be vetted by the DEC. I would like our Supervisor to state publicly and put in writing that he will refuse to allow Dover Knolls to bury construction and demolition debris on the site. Please register the Duell Hollow Conservation Association (DHCA) as an Interested Party, and send communications and documents to my attention at 212 Duell Hollow Rd, Wingdale, NY 12594. Thank you for your consideration, |
Warren P. Reiss, Esq. To Supervisor Courtien and Members of the Town Board: We beleive that all the elements of the initial scope should be reinstated, and the applicant be required to complete a full and thorough EIS on the basis of the scope. |
Jeffrey Baker
|
|
Mark Chipkin To Supervisor Courtien and other Members of the Town Board: The Pawling Nature Reserve Management Committee is composed of over 20 members. We help to maintain the biodiversity and appropriate use of the 1,000 acre Pawling Nature Reserve parcel owned by The Nature Conservancy. The Pawling Nature Reserve surrounds the Dover Knolls Development Site on the east side of route 22. I appeal to you to do all you can to help us maintain this sensitive habitat for present and future generations. It is very important to take the time to do the most diligent and thorough environmental assessment process that you call. Please use the more thorough scoping documents of 2006, as this document better addresses the negative impact of the development. Of particular concern is the view shed from the Pawling Nature Reserve. The current plan shows housing on steep slopes east of route 22 and what could look like suburban sprawl on the lower elevations of the development. Accepting building on grades steeper than 15% would likely cause increased erosion problems and produce a greater number of view shed issues, as houses are placed on higher elevations. Please consider not allowing a greater than 15% grade for building. The following practices would be helpful to wildlife. Some of them were discussed in the 2006 scoping documents:
Thank You, |
Christopher L. J. Wood May 9th, 2006 The Honorable Ryan Courtien, Supervisor Dear Supervisor Courtien and Members of the Town Board; Scoping for Dover Knolls - SEQRA The Oblong Land Conservancy (OLC) is a local land trust established in 1990 to serve the south-eastern Dutchess County area. We both own outright and hold conservation easements on land in Pawling and Dover and own numerous parcels in The Great Swamp which we maintain as preserves. Overall, we protect almost 1,000 acres. The primary function of the OLC is to protect, for the benefit of future generations, our community’s natural assets. The protection of The Great Swamp has long been officially recognized as one of our primary goals. We have been engaged in basic research projects in The Great Swamp for years and have also been engaged in studies of the ecological/historically unique Duell Hollow area. Accordingly, on behalf of the community, we take a keen interest in the proposals for the development of the former Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center and now write to record our views in regard to the scoping for the SEQRA process for Dover Knolls. In the broadest terms the OLC is concerned with land use issues both as to the present and how they will impact the future. Accordingly, our comments fall under the following three general headings: 1. Land Use Impact Issues 2. Transportation Impact Issues
However, before embarking upon our more detailed observations we are obliged to comment upon a strategic matter. In the ordinary course of events there is a division of responsibility between the various functions of government. In relation to land use a Town Board acts in a legislative function and a Planning Board in an executive function within the scope devolved to it. This provides for the checks and balances for which the US system of representative government is held in such high regard. In this particular instance the Town Board has removed from the Planning Board its usual site plan review functions. This creates a situation where the Town Board may be capable of acting as judge and jury in its own case. Indeed there is scope for land use to become politicized – a dangerous precedent. Without in any way opining as to the merits or otherwise of this if does create a situation where the Town Board needs to proceed with the utmost caution to ensure that no stakeholder interest is compromised. This means that the nature of the Scope needs to be drawn with particular care and attention. With that in mind we proceed to identify some issues to which attention should be directed: 1. Land Use Impacts
To the extent that significant demolition is required it should be appropriately justified.
2. Transportation Impacts
In the flood of 1955, the steep roads crossing Hammersley Ridge were totally washed out, and were never re-constructed. These former road extensions: Askins and Leather Hill, followed mountain streams. There should be no plans to reconnect and re-establish these roads. 3. Environmental Impacts
This is one of New York State’s largest and most significant wetlands. Every effort must be made to protect the Swamp, including: (a) An accurate delineation of boundaries by qualified professionals. (b) Extension of the buffer zone to an appropriate depth, as determined by the potential impact of the proposed development in that area. (c) Maintain (or restore historic) hydrology. In this regard, there needs to be comprehensive study of hydrology (surface and groundwater). Existing studies should be re-examined. (d) Maintain and upgrade water quality in the run off to the Great Swamp, including: Stormwater Treatment
Significant areas of prime agricultural soils are present on the project site. It is important that these are protected and incorporated in an overall plan. The Harlem Valley Psychiatric Hospital once produced a substantial quantity of homegrown food on its farms. This agricultural history seems to invite a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) project.
There are a number of issues associated with this facility. First, as a community land use facility it should remain a public resource. Second, alternative management techniques that minimize the use of chemicals and pesticides will result in a reduction or elimination of health threats to the golfers and maintenance staff and will eliminate the potential poisoning of wildlife, water supplies and the reduce the nutrient contamination of The Great Swamp which is adjacent to the course.
Dr. Michael Klemens has worked with the prospective developer to identify significant areas on the site and has proposed measures to minimize development impacts. It will be important to ensure that as part of any overall development plan recommended “Best Management Practices”, as described in WCS’ publications, are fully adopted and implemented. It is not clear to us that the present proposals fully reflect Dr. Klemens’ recommendations. The OLC is keenly interested in participating with the Town Board, the community and the prospective developer in ensuring that the plans for Dover Knolls, as they evolve, meet the needs and requirements of all concerned. Our perspective is that of steward of community resources and as a Trust we have the longest of time frames in view unfettered by personal preferences or profit. Within the OLC Board there is a wealth of experience in dealing with land use issues including its conservation and development. This experience is available to assist your Board in addressing the many and complex issues associated with this exciting opportunity. We look forward to being of assistance. Yours sincerely, Christopher L. J. Wood |
Carolyn B. Handler Dover Knolls Scoping Session Held on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 Comments Submitted by Carolyn B. Handler, Wingdale, New York As President of the Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover and a resident of Dover for close to 20 years, I approve and endorse the comments made on the Coalition's behalf by our attorney, Jeff Baker. The Coalition's stated goal and mission is to ensure that we have a plan for the development of the Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center which we can all be proud of, and to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the project proceeds in the most responsible manner possible. Our scoping comments represent the best of our collective efforts and abilities to achieve those ends. By restoring many of the mitigation measures and protections previously identified and specified in the original Final Scope, we can hopefully prevent our Town from being left with no alternative but to remediate problems which may occur with the site in the future. We believe it to be in our collective best interest to try if possible to address and hopefully avoid those problems at the outset by giving careful, thoughtful and rigorous scrutiny to this scoping process.. My specific comments are directed to phasing of the project: There have been substantive changes made in the proposed amended scope with respect to phasing. For phases other than phase one, Dover Knolls now says it will provide only conceptual rather than detailed plans, heightening a concern that many of us have that later phases may never come to fruition. Each phase of the project should be detailed rather than detailed as to phase one and conceptual as to all later phases. Most importantly, Dover Knolls should restore to the scope a discussion of the steps to be taken in the event the project is not completed at any phase. Similarly, more discussion needs to be given to assure that residential development is done in tandem with commercial development. Part of our concern stems from a change made by Dover Knolls in the proposed amended scope to delete any discussion of providing for ongoing or planned marketing for the commercial space and to reduce the overall retail space by 100,000 square feet (that is from 350,00 square feet to 245,000 square feet). We are concerned that if Dover Knolls is not called upon at the outset to provide sufficient detail on the commercial development we will not have adequate assurance that the project will be built as advertised. On that point, Dover Knolls should be called upon to post a bond large enough to mitigate the financial impacts on the Town and the school district if the project is not completed or if the demands for public services by 1,400 new families exceed the value of their property tax payments. As a corollary to this sequencing discussion, I can not emphasize enough the importance of any residential development beginning on the site of the Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center, that is, on the site that many of us consider to be the eyesore. I am concerned that the Dykeman parcel not, under any circumstance, be allowed to be developed first, a parcel which any of us familiar with the site knows is as remote from the Psychiatric Center campus as is possible while still being contiguous. To permit the Dykeman parcel to be developed first is wholly inconsistent with the original intent of the MC Overlay district law as initially drafted and in our view allows the developer to go for the low hanging fruit. In the proposed scope, the developer has deleted a requirement to address the construction process and needs of each phase of the project. In particular, Dover Knolls should restore specificity to its discussion of the construction process at each Phase and be called upon to address construction for all project components with the expected year of completion for each project component. Given the scope of the project, there should be a more detailed discussion of the general construction process and needs including but not limited to hours of operation, plans for construction monitoring, particularly on local streets, dust suppression, housing for construction workers, schedule and map of construction, erosion and sediment control to be utilized during construction and construction equipment and staging areas. The description of the proposed construction sequencing needs to include a flowchart for the maximum anticipated duration, including start and completion for key milestone tasks such as site clearing and debris removal, grading and fill replacement, infrastructure and foundations. The developer needs to identify staging areas for material handling and storage, including access and egress during construction. Finally, as to all residential development taking place, the scope should discuss the roles and relationship between the developer, homeowners, management of the development and how these roles may change over time. The scope should describe any plans for use of homeowner associations and their areas of responsibility in monitoring and mitigation, if any. The scope should discuss how the undertakings, agreements or representations of the developer will be binding upon successor owners or developers should the project site be sold or conveyed to others. Submitted by Carolyn B. Handler to the Harlem Valley Herald on May 12, 2008 |
Barbara Clay To the Editor: |
|
To the Dover Town Board: I have been a resident of Dover for more than 16 years. I support the positions of the Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover and its actions. I might not have been inspired to state my solidarity for the public record if it were not for a puzzling comment in a letter to the Editor of the Harlem Valley Times. It was alleged that the Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover is in fact for no growth. It is a curious statement. Everyone is for development of the Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center. No one could be satisfied with that deteriorating eyesore. This is not the case with many development proposals, against which a minority or a majority advocates for the status quo. Any of us may disagree on the process - and on the form and extent of that development. But we agree that it is needed. To mischaracterize the motives of our concerned fellow citizens is injudicious and polarizing as we begin a long and vigilant effort together. Indeed, the great strength of this project is the unanimity that action must be taken. We should be respectful of the good intentions of our neighbors. And we should be realistic about what has happened in the world since the first development proposal was withdrawn. The economic climate for it has deteriorated, and a credit crisis is impacting the potential purchasers of these 1,376 units, whoever they may turn out to be, and it is impacting developers. Several developers in the New York area have gone bankrupt in the past few months. This applicant is not seeking financing for this project yet, and by the time the SEQRA process has been completed, the economic climate may have improved, and the credit crisis may have abated. Or they may not have, for a project of this scale in this location. The final scope should be at least as rigorous, thorough, transparent, and verifiable as was the original, before the credit crisis. This scope mentions four phases, not more and not fewer. It is not apparent what they are. By the time the SEQRA process has been completed, we must all know, first, what the phases are in detail and, secondly, how the phasing was determined in a way that can be verified. To what extent is the phasing justified by engineering and construction practices and efficiencies? To what extent is the phasing determined by marketing considerations? And to what extent is the phasing driven by the financial requirements of the applicant or its lack of financing capability at the time? Any of these factors might be valid reasons for the phasing, and it will probably be determined by a combination of them and many others that I am not expert enough to know about. In that context it is mystifying to see the deletions on pages 11 and 12 under “Phasing Plan.” Details on “all project components with expected year of completion for each component and detailed information on areas affected with specific location and acreage and marketing of commercial development” must be required. The “discussion of steps to be taken in the event the project is not completed at any phase” must be restored. Long after this applicant has moved on to new challenges, this community will have to live with the state of the Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center property, what may be done and what may have been left undone. George Nichols
|
Stancy DuHamel A number of residents expressed concern during and after the February Public Hearing with regard to the zoning action. On March 7th, I sent "Adopting and Amending Zoning by Local Law," www.tughill.org, to the Dover Town Supervisor and the Town Board. I voiced my concerns that the Town Board was not following proper procedures when voting to change an amendment to include the Dykeman parcel in the MC overlay district which defines the Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center property. I included my phone number in case anyone wanted further research. When the majority of the Town Board chose not to reconsider their 3-2 vote in light of receiving clear information outlining the proper procedure to follow, I became more concerned. I joined the Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover. I urge the Town Board to do the right thing procedurally: follow the law, and save the expense of litigation. If we can't rely on our elected officials to follow something as simple as a noticing procedure, how can we trust them not to cut corners down the line? They have publicly stated many times they want to "streamline the process." We do not expect them to favor the developer at every step of the way. Everyone wants to see the site developed; we'd like to see the Board and the developer focus phasing priorities on the "eyesore" east of Rt. 22, and not on the residential development of the furthest parcel of land west of Rt. 22 which was the subject of the amendment. As a tax payer, I am concerned that I am paying for the bill for Dover Town Attorneys who appear to be giving our Town Board the wrong advice. Stancy DuHamel
|
Christopher Galayda I believe Dover has tremendous potential to reinvent itself after losing its major employer fourteen years ago. While campaigning, hundreds upon hundreds of people asked me to move the Dover Knolls project forward. Hundreds upon hundreds of people signed petitions in 2007 asking to move the project forward. That is what I am committed to doing. Recently, the Town Board passed a zoning text amendment for the MC Overlay District, a district that was formed in 1999 to attract and encourage redevelopment of the former state facility property. The 1999 zoning gave master plan and conceptual site plan approval to the town board and the recent change gives it final site plan approval as well. I supported the change so that plans stay consistent and elected officials instead of political appointments are held accountable. This practice is seen in other communities facing long-term projects. The change was discussed at several meetings, public comments were incorporated and it passed. Some residents have now chosen to sue the town over that change. I stand firm on our actions. This group states that they are for “responsible growth” however, their swift march to court without approaching the Town Board with their concerns makes it seem that they are in fact for “no growth”. If they really cared about our community and wasting our towns hard earned tax dollars there were many other ways they could have gone about this. Fortunately, the SEQRA process for Dover Knolls can still continue. I am not advocating for any approvals, decisions or short-cuts, just that we get on with the review of the impacts and how they may be dealt with, moving application to the next level. We still have a long way to go to create a plan that works for the town and the property owner. I believe we need to attract investment dollars into our community. Any project needs an expectation that the plans will be reviewed in a reasonable time period. It is shameful and unacceptable that four years have passed without Dover Knolls being able to get into the SEQRA review. Other projects will not come if we continue this attitude. Proudly yet sadly,
|
Carolyn B. Handler I would like to respond to Mr. Muroski's recent letter to the Harlem Valley Herald. As President of the Coalition for the Responsible Growth of Dover (CRGD) and a resident of Dover for close to 20 years, I can reassure Mr. Muroski and others who question our group's motives, that CRGD's primary objective is to ensure that we have a plan for the development of the Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center which we can all be proud of, and to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the project proceeds in the most responsible manner possible.
A number of us in the community grew concerned after recent actions taken by our newly elected Town Board seemed to indicate a willingness to hastily move the Dover Knolls project forward in ways that would appear to benefit the developer over the long term interests of Dover residents and our neighbors. We decided to form a group to more actively monitor the site plan approval process after the Town Board voted to (i) remove site plan review for the Dover Knolls project from the Dover Planning Board and (ii) add the Dykeman parcel into the MC Overlay District without proper notice to the public. Before deciding to commence legal action, a member of the group notified the Board in writing of the procedural defects with the Town's decision regarding the Dykeman Parcel and encouraged the Board to take immediate corrective action. The Board never responded to this correspondence and now appears to be casting itself as the victim by blaming CRGD. Faced with a statutory deadline for seeking legal redress, CRGD hired a land use attorney, Jeffrey Baker, of the law firm of Young, Sommer to assist us in the process. We continue to hope that the Board acknowledges and remedies its error, thereby saving the expense of legal fees in defense of this action. Our most immediate concern is assuring as much participation as is possible in the upcoming scoping sessions for the Dover Knolls Project to be held on Wednesday, May 7 at 6:30 PM and Saturday, May 10th at 9:00 AM at the Dover High School Auditorium. Details can be found on the Dover Town Board website. (http://www.townofdover.us/). We urge as many of you as possible to attend and submit comments. Some points we feel are important to make include: Point 1. As resubmitted, the proposed amended scope is watered down from its original form. Given that the project would put nearly 1,400 units on 937 acres and that the proposed proposal is likely to cause more substantial, adverse impacts than the project for which the original scope was written, it is critical that the scope be restored to its original form. Point 2. The proposed project must be consistent with the Dover Master Plan and the provisions within the MC Overlay District portion of the Zoning Law. At present, it is not. Point 3. The developer should not be permitted to create super-suburban sprawl in direct contravention of existing local laws. Point 4. The scoping process is only effective when there is an application that indicates what is actually going to be built and where it will be built. The details are critical to any thoughtful consideration of the proposal. Point 5. In any detailed phasing, the developer should be called upon to develop the HVPC Campus first, and only then move onto development of the Dykeman Parcel. CRGD is sponsored by The Open Space Institute, Inc., a nonprofit public charity, which makes contributions to CRGD tax deductible as permitted by law. Those interested in supporting us can make checks payable to "Open Space Institute, Inc./CRGD." In the near future, we anticipate getting a website up and running which will provide information about the project, offer links to educational sources and indicate ways to participate in the process. Until we get the website up, you can reach us at: CRGD We welcome your support and are interested in hearing what concerns you have. Sincerely,
|
Pete Muroski It is very frustrating to me that some Dover residents can be against a project that desperately needs to move forward. The recent lawsuit is so ridiculous, it is almost comical. A large piece of undeveloped upland adjacent to the Dover Knolls property, the former Dykeman/Hoag property, should be part of the project for many reasons. The most important reason is under the Dover Knolls umbrella, this will allow the development once it gets back on the drawing board, to be pushed further away from the environmentally sensitive areas. A brief history behind the project. The State of New York drops a bomb on the Town of Dover and pulls out of the Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center. Local groups rally and find The Benjamin Group, a company that has proven themselves as a redeveloper of the psychiatric center at Central Islip State Hospital on Long Island. I know this because I lived in Central Islip for many years, I watched it transform under the watchful eye of the local government, and can tell you first hand the redevelopment has reenergized central Long Island. Economic forecasts tell us we need to move this project ahead now! We should not be wasting our time and taxpayers' money with frivolous lawsuits. Instead, we should be focusing our attention on revitalizing the village of Dover, fixing the drainage problems on Route 22 south of Dover Knolls, educating residents that riparian buffers and adjacent flood plains along the Tenmile River need to be vegetated in woods, not lawn, and the list goes on. This project can and will move ahead when all the satellite and special interest groups come together and work as one team, and build something we can all be proud of. Pete Muroski |
