41- Woodstock Planning Board Hasn't a Clue- see the video

Well, here it is. Here is the discussion from Thursday, Feb. 11, during which Guy Kempe tells the planning board that a traffic issue at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane falls under "site plan" rather than the FEIS.




David Corbett was quick to agree. Nobody else weighed in.

Guy Kempe went on to explain that this issue was a "239-m" which means that in Ulster County, an issue that used to be up to 500 feet from a site, and now can be further away from that site, can be examined under that site plan review IF it falls into one of the following categories:

• Compatibility of various land uses with one another.



• Traffic generating characteristics of various land uses in relation to the effect of such traffic on other land uses and to the adequacy of existing and proposed thoroughfare facilities.



• Impact of proposed land uses on existing and proposed county or state institutional or other uses.



• Protection of community character as regards to predominant land uses, population density and relation between residential and non-residential areas.



• Community appearance



• Drainage



• Community facilities



• Official development policies, municipal and county, as may be expressed through their comprehensive plans, capital programs or regulatory measures.



• Such other matters as may relate to the public convenience, to governmental efficiency and to the achieving and maintaining of a satisfactory community environment.
  

See that second one in the list, the one that I put in bold type? That basically means that the "traffic generating characteristics" of this project, as they pertain to the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212, can be evaluated under the site plan. And of course, safety or lack thereof is one of the characteristics of generated traffic.

And what that means is that the county can address it under site plan, but that for the public hearing, it fell under the FEIS, and could not be discussed since the public hearing that was limited to site plan review.

Although residents were not prohibited from voicing comments on the nights of the public hearings, I followed the stated rules and did not prepare a formal submission since I was told that I was not allowed.

I was also told personally by Paul Henderson on Feb. 11 that even though people spoke about this intersection at the Jan. 14 public hearing, these comments would not be considered, since they lay outside of the site plan.

As you can see on the video, the RUPCO planner in the red sweater, with the white beard, says that he covers the issue at hand in the FEIS. This leads me to wonder how Guy Kempe can claim that the issue is covered under the site plan review, when it has been thoroughly covered in the FEIS.

I am disturbed that nobody on the planning board knows where the issues at this intersection should be covered in the review process. They are silent, or go along with Guy Kempe, and do not think for themselves, particularly ignoring the fact that whatever process they are involved in, this intersection is "covered" in the another process.

I will follow up with the Ulster County planning board to check where this intersection and its traffic characteristics are covered, and whether they are interested in my research, instead of their misguided recommendation to install a left turn lane on Route 212.