34- RUPCO Tap Dance

Today in my email, I received a copy of a letter sent to the Woodstock Planning Board addressing comments that I made at the January 14 Public hearing.

First, I will show you my response, which I am bringing over to the Planning Board this afternoon. It's in blue. After that, if you have the stomach for it, read the RUPCO lawyer's greasy fare. That one's in green.


Robin Segal, “Contiguous Neighbor”
Evergreen Lane
Woodstock, NY 12498


Feb. 4, 2010



Town of Woodstock Planning Board
Mr. Paul Shultis, Jr., Chairman
Town Offices, 45 Comeau Drive
Woodstock, NY 12498


Re: Woodstock Commons: Ulster County Roadway Specifications and Traffic




Dear Paul and Board Members:

A memo from Michael Moriello to the Woodstock Planning Board, dated January 22, 2010, and refuting my comments to the Board during the Jan. 14, 2010 public hearing on the site plan and special use permit for Woodstock Commons, has come to my attention.

This memo attempts to mislead you from both my message, and the contents of the document that I cited at the public hearing.

Mr. Moriello asserts that I claim that “somehow the 2003, ‘Access Management Guidelines’ for Ulster County Roadways should apply to the intersection of the local Town of Woodstock Roadways, Playhouse Lane and White’s Lane.

This statement is incorrect. First of all, the Access Management guideline document that I have read over and over again NEVER asserts that it is “for Ulster County Roadways,” as Mr. Moriello would like you to believe. It is a document prepared FOR the Ulster County Transportation Plan, but it is not limited to Ulster County Roadways. Mr. Moriello either tried to mislead you, or failed to glean the correct meaning from the relevant document.

The Access Management Guidelines specifically state that they are a collection of guidelines that include safety guidelines, and that they are for use in not ONLY county roadways, but MANY types of roadways segments, including:
“Most Village and City Streets.”

The Access Management Guidelines are, in part, safety guidelines. They might not be legally binding, but they are not legally binding for county or state roads either. Mr. Moriello would have you believe that town roads have different safety standards, but if you take a look at the guidelines, you will see that the safety standards are universal, and that no divisions or legalistic language is used to give RUPCO an out because it cites that only two town roads will be involved.

In addition to the access road, there is the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212, which certainly DOES involve a road that is larger than a county road. So, if in fact there is a differentiation of safety standards made outside of this document, thank you to Mr. Moriello for alerting us to it. If the project access road intersection does not count, according to him, but larger classified roads do, then he just backhandedly admitted that the access management guidelines ARE intended for that very dangerous intersection.

These guidelines may not be legally binding, but they will hold a lot of weight in court when the Town of Woodstock gets sued after an accident, either at Playhouse Lane & the new access road, or at Playhouse Lane & Route 212. It does not take a math whiz to figure out that where there are now accidents, and if you send more cars through that place, and if accidents then increase, that a causal correlation exists. Any jury will see this causality plain as day.

Mr. Moriello goes on to write that three separate traffic engineers have studied and analyzed the Woodstock Commons Site Development Plans and attendant traffic issues. However, in reading the FEIS for this project, I was only able to find one direction by RUPCO, to study one aspect of the new access road site, and that aspect was line of sight. It had nothing to do with driveways.

I would like to know which other two traffic engineers studied and analyzed the Woodstock Commons Site Development Plans and attendant traffic issues for the plans featuring the revised access road. I could not find anything of the kind, except for one other firm measuring line of sight from the new access road, but that hardly amounts to a study and analysis of all of the attendant traffic issues. Does Mr. Moriello consider line of sight to be the only attendant traffic issue that is relevant? Also, I would like to know if Mr. Moriello considers the traffic and the three recent accidents at the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212 to be “attendant” traffic issues. Since the vast majority of the traffic going into the project will go through that intersection, it seems pretty much “attendant” to me.

As for none of the three agencies agreeing with my characterization of the Creighton Manning Traffic Studies as “selective reasoning,” that might be because no traffic engineer was asked to analyze access management for the project. Traffic engineers do what you ask them to do. When the access road was moved, one civil engineering firm was asked to look at the line of sight. I have no problem with the line of sight at the new access road. However, there is more to the new location than line of sight, and if you do not ask a firm to analyze something, they cannot disagree with you.

I could go on and on about this legalistic and misleadingly worded garbage that Mr. Moriello is throwing at you, but by this point, either you see what is happening to you, or you don’t.

[signed: RSegal]

The following is an imperfect copy of the RUPCO legal letter (as regards signatures, and other images, since I had to import it as a text document,) but the substance is there intact.)

RISELEY & MORIELLO
AITORNEYS AT I.AW
111 Green Street


Tel: (E45) 33E-6603

Post Offie Box 4465

Richard F. RIseleY

Fa:<: (845) 340-1614 Kingsoon, New York 12402 Michael A. Morhllo 'January 22, 2010 Town of Woodstock Planning Board Mr. Paul Shultis, ,Jr., Chairman Town Offices, 45 Comeau Drive Woodstock, New York 12498 RE: ?{oodstock Commons: Ulster County Roadway Specifications and Traffic Dear Paul-and Board Members: This is offered in response to the claim made by Ms. Robin Segal that somehow the 2003, "Access Management Guidelines" for Ulster County Roadways should apply to the intersection of the local Town of Woodstock Roadways, Playhouse Lane and White's Lane. Town roadways and county roadways have completely different jurisdictional predicates. The town roads in Woodstock are governed under the Town of Woodstock Code, while county roads are governed pursuant to applicable provisions of the New York State Highway Law. With further respect to the specific call for the Town of Woodstock Planning Board to apply county access guidelines, the same have no applicability; in that requirements for obtaining Ulster County aid for construction, improvements and maintenance of the ' town roadways at issue have not, been undertaken by the Town of lr]oodstock. Morris v. CahiII , 96 ADZd 88 (3'd Dept, L9B3) . See a]so, Sections 131-k and 195 of the New York State Highway Law. The Woodstock Commons Site Development Plans and at.tendant traffic issues have been studj.ed and analyzed by three (3) separate traffii engineers, the Town of Woodstock Highway Superintendent, the Town of Woodstock Building Inspector, the Town of Woodstock Fire Chief , the County of Ulster Planning Board: and the Ne.w Yoq,k State Department of Transportation. ,. '-.,, 0b Otoz e €aJ((lgft>

d L/:€,f,'/:}€,€;'r.,-'oH'/gtt:o!

z "t'slg!:oL