Affordable Housing Public Hearing

This article appeared in the Townsman, February 12 edition

Woodstock, February 5, 2009

Approximately 130 people crowded into the Community Center to participate in the planning board’s first public hearing for comment on the Rural Ulster Preservation Company (RUPCO) draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) concerning the proposed 53-unit affordable housing development, the so-called Woodstock Commons, to be located behind the Bradley Meadows shopping center. Despite the controversy that has raged around the proposal, first advanced more than five years ago, civility was maintained throughout the near-four hour proceeding. Because the three-minute cap on comment went largely un-enforced only about half of the nearly eighty people who had signed up to speak were heard, and the hearing would be adjourned until February 12.

Aside from Kevin O’Connor, executive director of RUPCO, who outlined the proposal’s environmental sensitivity in positive terms, describing it as “the most innovative in all of New York State,” and Sensible Action for Growth and Environment (SAGE) attorney Warren Raplansky, who presented a number of concerns with the DEIS, there were about 38 speakers or their representatives, 17 offering positive comment on the proposal, and 19 criticizing it. Of the 19, ten identified themselves as neighbors in the area of the proposed development. Two additional comments could not be discerned as for or against.

Technically the hearing was to gather comment on the quality and completeness of the environmental review provided by RUPCO, and in this regard the opponents of the project spoke with more specificity to the matter, citing what in their opinion were deficiencies in the report with respect to protecting wetlands, wildlife and the aquifer reported to lie below the project site, and for failing to take into account the potential for flooding and unsafe traffic conditions, taking too lightly the potential tax impact on the township (as a result of school tax increases), not establishing the legal right to municipal water and sewer service, underestimating lighting impacts, and not securing the eventuality that the housing would be available exclusively to Woodstock residents but instead for all participants of a state-wide lottery.

Supporters of the project spoke in more general terms, citing the town’s acute need for affordable housing, RUPCO’s sensitivity to environmental issues that may not be expected from other developers, the potential boost to local merchants, the fact that the 1989 zoning law supports the clustering of housing on that property, and although theoretically the housing, because it is supported by public financing, must be made available to anyone in New York, in reality it would end up benefiting mostly people currently living within a fifteen mile radius.

Ulster County legislators representing Woodstock, Don Gregorius and Brian Shapiro were the first speakers. Gregorius, prefacing his remarks by stating that as an elected official it should be expected he take a stand, declared that the project’s negatives outweigh the positives, citing increased taxes and the uncertainty of the lottery providing housing to Woodstock residents, and asking rhetorically, “Why can’t we do this ourselves?” Shapiro, first describing the substandard housing he was forced to inhabit when he first came to town, then reminded the planning board of the town’s continued dearth of affordable housing and described RUPCO as a willing partner in addressing environmental concerns. “Work with RUPCO to make this the best project possible.”

Neighbors speaking against the project, or having statements read in their absence, included Iris York, Andrea Winston, Michael and Robin Kramer, Dot Wright, Terry Breitenstein, Judith Emily, Dolores Lynch. Jean White, Barbara Duncan and a Ms Story. All the statements addressed issues in the DEIS and found them deficient. A young man who used to play in the wetlands adjacent the proposed project, and whose family, he stated, had been forced to move from Woodstock because of taxes, also spoke against the project.

Breitenstein, one of SAGE’s more prominent spokesmen, in an eloquent statement described RUPCO as a “fine outfit,” but went on to say that “impacts can’t be predicted.” In response to some voices in the community charging him and his neighbors with less than savory motives for opposing the project, he said, “We are not bad people, we are your neighbors with very deep concerns.”

Other speakers against the project included Peter Remler, saying the project “serves RUPCO, not Woodstock” and described the proposal as “immoral.” Gerri and Laura Ricci, local landlords, thought not enough protection was given to bears, thought the project too large and that there was not enough guarantee locals would inhabit the units. Edgar Rosenblum considered the project to be further assault on a property that never should have seen the development of the Bradley Meadows shopping center in the first place (which had occurred in the late 1960s), let alone the proposed additional project behind it. Tom Jenkins thought that the Town’s failure to adopt an updated comprehensive growth plan led to the proposed project, which he thought unfortunate. Hattie Iles felt “insulted by RUPCO’s stated purpose to bring diversity” to Woodstock, feeling the town was diverse enough. Marge Farnet also spoke against it.

Christine Flomez, identifying herself as a wildlife rehabilitator, objected to the proposed paths and walking trails through the property’s wetlands, but describing herself as “shocked” by rentals in Woodstock she advised the planning board “to make housing happen, but take care of the wildlife.” Allison Gerson expressed concerns relating to water and traffic.

Speakers for the project included Lisa Williams (“I look forward to living in Woodstock Commons”), Steve Yoda (“Providing affordable housing is a matter of social justice”), Clarice Buller (“We’ve paid enough money to slum lords; This is a gift to Woodstock”), Carol Buske (“This project is a win-win”), former chair of the Woodstock commission for civic design Jill Fisher (“You might consider an additional access-egress through Elwyn Lane”), and Nadia Steinzor (“This is a model of ‘green’ design’”). Martin Feinberg read a letter from Susan Goldman expressing strong support.

Tom Collins, who had served on Woodstock affordable housing committees dating back more than 20 years, and Sasha Gillman, former chair of the planning board, spoke in support. Both took current planning board chairman Mark Peritz to task for making public statements that appeared to be against the project and thereby compromised his objectivity, and each made the prediction that once the project was approved that the “controversy will subside” as it has regarding other contentious land use decisions in the past (CVS, highway garage, Woodstock Meadows, cell tower, etc.). Tamara Cooper, Family of Woodstock director, spoke in support, citing her experiences as a single mother striving to find decent, affordable housing when raising her children, and hoping such would be available should her children ever decided to come back and reside in the area.

Jonathan Drapkin, President & CEO of Pattern for Progress, a non-profit, public policy research and planning institute with the stated mission to "preserve and promote the social, economic and natural environments of the Hudson Valley region by building consensus for a pattern of growth that will insure a high quality of life,” spoke for the project, claiming “To the credit of the planning board and the community this is one of the most reviewed projects in the region.”

Pat Courtney, coordinator for the Mid-Hudson Energy Smart/ New York State Energy Research and Development Agency and Woodstock resident praised the environmental features of the project and noted, “Thirty years have gone by and we haven’t done it [provided affordable housing] ourselves.”

Woodstock resident Matthew Rudikoff, a professional planner, dismissed the significance of the environmental concerns raised by opponents, reminded the planning board of its responsibility to administer the zoning law as it is written and not make decisions based on personal tastes, and added that the planning board could establish conditions in the project approval that would make the lottery result in the greater likelihood of Woodstock residents getting to live in one of the 53 units.

At 10:50 the hearing was recessed and will be resumed at 6:00 PM on February 12 at the Community Center