The "public hearing" was pretty predictable. Many people attended, some spoke, mostly complained of RUPCO's illegal and blatant disregard for private property and the terms of their Special Use Permit. The glaring and disgusting and unfortunately also expected aspect was that Planning Board Chair Paul Shultis, Jr. asked RUPCO personnel to stay away. Now, it seems as though the point of a public hearing is so that RUPCO can actually HEAR the complaints, however it is obvious that Shultis wants to string this out as long as possible, in order to give RUPCO two more weeks to violate the terms so that they can then, two days later, do what they want, when it becomes legal (Oct. 1).
By way of clarification, the bats are protected on the site until Oct. 1, so by giving RUPCO until Sept. 29 to respond to complaints, the planning board will have only one more day before RUPCO can come around to the other side of the project, which is where they were supposed to be working the last two months.
Woodstock Land Use attorney Drayton Grant was there, sleazy as ever, claiming that she was not prepared to produce the notice of revocation that would be required to get the ball rolling to revoke the special use permit. She claimed more research on the documents needed to be done. To this I must counter that this public hearing was set two weeks ago, and any person who was taking this seriously would have prepared by reviewing the documents on the topics of the already alleged violations.
I remember a couple of year ago when I first attended planning board meetings. My neighbor Iris York told me who all the RUPCO personnel were, and their functions. Then I asked her who that woman was who frequently showed up and worked for RUPCO. Iris said that it was Drayton Grant, and that yes, it did appear to an outsider that she does work for RUPCO, not for the town. She had a great time last night, laughed a lot. That's because she lives in Rhinebeck, where there are no trucks driving over her property, none of her trees being cut down, no trucks idling in her driveway, etc. Plus, she gets paid, unlike everybody else in the room last night except for RUPCO's attorney.
RUPCO's attorney, Michael Moriello, reported that he was trying very very hard to get the DEC to allow RUPCO to build the bridge over the creek before October 1. This is the equivalent of trying very very hard to get the DEC to NOT protect an endangered species. He also said that in his opinion, RUPCO was not violating any terms of the special use permit. All one has to do is hear that to know that these are NOT people with whom we want to negotiate.
So, of course, at the end of the meeting, Moriello asked Shultis the chair to sit down with the attorney Drayton Grant, and one other planning board member, before Sept. 29, to try to work some things out. Yes, in the face of violations, the town is going to sit down and negotiate, instead of enforce the terms of the special use permit.
RUPCO is a bunch of bullies, and central to their arguments these days is "responsibility to investors," which seems to have taken the place of their angelic self-representation as providers of affordable housing for the people in need.
Last night, I introduced myself anew to the planning board, citing my professional experience with cars, urban issues, planning, and that experience is ample. I told the planning board that many lawsuits as a result of accidents would occur, and there I will be, with everything on tape, and ready to repeat everything, and there they will be, called to testify, with no good reason they did not listen to reason and stand up to the violations when they had the chance. Paul Shultis Jr. once said to me, "What are you going to do to me, Robin, I'm a volunteer!" Well, volunteer or not, he chose to work on the planning board, to uphold town law, to protect the public safety through his decisions. So what is going to happen to him and others in the town who cower to the bullies with the deep pockets, is that he will have to face the music when accidents, resulting from these violations, occur, and when legal action against the town, and him, occur.
What nobody is talking about is that what results from violations are accidents. Sometimes. Sometimes it is merely a truck running over a lawn, or pollution coming into somebody's house, but the RUPCO that does these violations and does not have any construction oversight is certainly violating codes and regulations in other ways. And the town should be much more interested in stopping these violations immediately.
I tried to explain this last night. It appears that Shultis is penny wise pound foolish. This will result in his being pounded later on, and I will have done my part to prevent it.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
136- That New York Times Article
Thanks to Peter Applebome for a good overview of a town in conflict. While it is true that space limitations can be blamed for many omissions in a busy newspaper, I would like to point out the important fact that this blog began not because I was opposed to this housing project, but because the traffic study used seemed incomplete, and seemed to ignore what was and is, to the eye, and to any statistician, an unsafe intersection at the project's main access road. I have shown the traffic study to be indeed manipulated to ignore car activity in that intersection. I also have shown that the width of the access road is not as wide as the developer claimed, and narrower than universally used design standards.
I also have shown that RUPCO, the developer, intentionally misquoted a town official in the environmental impact statement's water supply section in order to have the town approve the project. RUPCO also claimed that the project site is in the town water district, and in fact it lies outside the water district. Later, through quite an effort, some citizens and a consulting hydrogeologist convinced the NY Department of Environmental Conservation that there is not necessarily enough water, and this is why the town now has to spend $100,000 on well testing. That test would have been paid by RUPCO if the test had been ordered before the project had been approved by the town.
All this to say that my opposition, and this blog, began because of two SAFETY concerns: traffic and fire protection. The New York Times article is fine, but as far as I am concerned, its referenced "errors and problems the planning process missed" that I found and wrote about, are life and death problems of ignored safety precautions, and trump anything else on the table.
I also have shown that RUPCO, the developer, intentionally misquoted a town official in the environmental impact statement's water supply section in order to have the town approve the project. RUPCO also claimed that the project site is in the town water district, and in fact it lies outside the water district. Later, through quite an effort, some citizens and a consulting hydrogeologist convinced the NY Department of Environmental Conservation that there is not necessarily enough water, and this is why the town now has to spend $100,000 on well testing. That test would have been paid by RUPCO if the test had been ordered before the project had been approved by the town.
All this to say that my opposition, and this blog, began because of two SAFETY concerns: traffic and fire protection. The New York Times article is fine, but as far as I am concerned, its referenced "errors and problems the planning process missed" that I found and wrote about, are life and death problems of ignored safety precautions, and trump anything else on the table.
Friday, September 2, 2011
135- PUBLIC HEARING ON RUPCO SITE VIOLATIONS
135- PUBLIC HEARING ON RUPCO VIOLATIONS
Thursday, September 15, sometime around 5:30, Woodstock Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the construction site violations RUPCO is committing on the housing project site. This was decided on last night at Planning Board meeting, as a result of reviewing Iris York's excellent work to alert the building inspector, planning board, deputy supervisor, to the problems, as well as coordinating neighbors.
By law, the planning board has the authority to hold this public hearing, and if RUPCO does not cease the violations, their work will be shut down as a result of a rescinded Special Use Permit.
Nice to see the planning board has a spine. Chair Shultis has been driving around, yelling at various RUPCO officials, and with good reason. As he pointed out last night at the meeting, RUPCO submitted the plan, and all the planning board did was authorize it.
Now let us get into the violations themselves:
First, and most obvious, RUPCO has been bringing all their heavy machinery, and everything and everyone, in and out on the Elwyn Quarry side, even parking in residents' driveways. The entire act of site access from the western side is a violation, as the initial work to clear the trees from that side over to the east/Playhouse Lane side was the only work permitted to commence from that western side. I found out the reason RUPCO is doing this, but when I told the planning board last night, Alan Duane tried to shut me up, arguing that the meeting was not a public hearing. Alan Duane was very concerned that a fight might break out between town departments, and it seems much more important to him to have interpersonal harmony, even if it leads to accidents or fires, (which are, by the way, not exactly harmonious events for those involved,) than to face the music and deal.
Anyway, enough about foolish Alan Duane. The reason RUPCO is doing all the work from the unauthorized side is because they did not clear all the trees in which the protected Indiana bats are nesting. Nesting, protected, until November 1 (correction: Oct.1). I am guessing that RUPCO finds it easier to meet the DEC conditions than the conditions imposed by the Woodstock Planning Board. It is the DEC that protects the bats, and the town that says which road to use. If were caught between a DEC and a group of tired volunteers, I know whose rules I'd try to violate.
Shultis told me to submit my comments in writing. He was trying to keep harmony with Alan Duane, or stop me before I told the board any worse news. I got the news about the bats from construction site personnel, (addition Sept. 15: although he said November first was the date they could build the bridge,) at the edge of the site, just walking my dog, sometime last week. That's about it, and now here it is, submitted in writing. Submitted to everybody.
So there it is: RUPCO cannot build the bridge until November. RUPCO will continue to violate the access condition until then, or it will have to stay off the site.
Another violation: RUPCO has no person overseeing the project on site, and a condition of the Special Use Permit, as described in the DEIS section 2.5, is that an independent inspector be engaged by RUPCO. RUPCO's Chuck Snyder claims that the contract engineer Darin Dekoskie is the inspector, (who is not exactly independent of the project anyway,) but Darin told Iris that he is only overseeing stormwater management. This leaves the entire remainder of the project with NOBODY looking out for the town's interests. And another thing, we just had a hell of a storm, and to my eyes, Ferguson was absolutely unprotected. There is a little mesh fence delineating the 5 or so acres of serious digging into the berm, and then downhill from that is the brook. Imagine how much of that construction debris ended up in the brook. I hate to think about it. Nice going Darin.
The public hearing will be good entertainment. RUPCO personnel certainly will wear their best tap shoes and do some slick numbers. The key will be what the planning board does with it.
Thursday, September 15, sometime around 5:30, Woodstock Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the construction site violations RUPCO is committing on the housing project site. This was decided on last night at Planning Board meeting, as a result of reviewing Iris York's excellent work to alert the building inspector, planning board, deputy supervisor, to the problems, as well as coordinating neighbors.
By law, the planning board has the authority to hold this public hearing, and if RUPCO does not cease the violations, their work will be shut down as a result of a rescinded Special Use Permit.
Nice to see the planning board has a spine. Chair Shultis has been driving around, yelling at various RUPCO officials, and with good reason. As he pointed out last night at the meeting, RUPCO submitted the plan, and all the planning board did was authorize it.
Now let us get into the violations themselves:
First, and most obvious, RUPCO has been bringing all their heavy machinery, and everything and everyone, in and out on the Elwyn Quarry side, even parking in residents' driveways. The entire act of site access from the western side is a violation, as the initial work to clear the trees from that side over to the east/Playhouse Lane side was the only work permitted to commence from that western side. I found out the reason RUPCO is doing this, but when I told the planning board last night, Alan Duane tried to shut me up, arguing that the meeting was not a public hearing. Alan Duane was very concerned that a fight might break out between town departments, and it seems much more important to him to have interpersonal harmony, even if it leads to accidents or fires, (which are, by the way, not exactly harmonious events for those involved,) than to face the music and deal.
Anyway, enough about foolish Alan Duane. The reason RUPCO is doing all the work from the unauthorized side is because they did not clear all the trees in which the protected Indiana bats are nesting. Nesting, protected, until November 1 (correction: Oct.1). I am guessing that RUPCO finds it easier to meet the DEC conditions than the conditions imposed by the Woodstock Planning Board. It is the DEC that protects the bats, and the town that says which road to use. If were caught between a DEC and a group of tired volunteers, I know whose rules I'd try to violate.
Shultis told me to submit my comments in writing. He was trying to keep harmony with Alan Duane, or stop me before I told the board any worse news. I got the news about the bats from construction site personnel, (addition Sept. 15: although he said November first was the date they could build the bridge,) at the edge of the site, just walking my dog, sometime last week. That's about it, and now here it is, submitted in writing. Submitted to everybody.
So there it is: RUPCO cannot build the bridge until November. RUPCO will continue to violate the access condition until then, or it will have to stay off the site.
Another violation: RUPCO has no person overseeing the project on site, and a condition of the Special Use Permit, as described in the DEIS section 2.5, is that an independent inspector be engaged by RUPCO. RUPCO's Chuck Snyder claims that the contract engineer Darin Dekoskie is the inspector, (who is not exactly independent of the project anyway,) but Darin told Iris that he is only overseeing stormwater management. This leaves the entire remainder of the project with NOBODY looking out for the town's interests. And another thing, we just had a hell of a storm, and to my eyes, Ferguson was absolutely unprotected. There is a little mesh fence delineating the 5 or so acres of serious digging into the berm, and then downhill from that is the brook. Imagine how much of that construction debris ended up in the brook. I hate to think about it. Nice going Darin.
The public hearing will be good entertainment. RUPCO personnel certainly will wear their best tap shoes and do some slick numbers. The key will be what the planning board does with it.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
134- Letter to RUPCO
I learned in last week's Woodstock Times that Supervisor Moran "estimates" that there is enough water in town, so will issue a building permit to RUPCO. So why did DEC do all that work and issue all those instructions and conditions? Was it for Moran to ignore? No. But he did anyway. So here we go, using the legal system to stop Moran from another violation...
Here is an email I sent to RUPCO moments ago, copied to the Woodstock Town Board and a couple of others, but on its way to a scroll of other recipients:
Attention RUPCO:
Here is an email I sent to RUPCO moments ago, copied to the Woodstock Town Board and a couple of others, but on its way to a scroll of other recipients:
Attention RUPCO:
Town of Woodstock issuance of a building permit to RUPCO prior to all other permits, including the water permit, is a violation of the final resolution that was passed by the Planning Board last year, which states that no building permit shall be issued before “Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Force Main on behalf of Hamlet Sewer District, acceptance of Public Access Easement for public access to the on-site trails, acceptance into the Town Lighting District of the Project Sponsors’ infrastructure & Acceptance of Water Main on behalf of Town Water District by the Woodstock Town Board.”
Clearly, the Town Board has not granted RUPCO the water main. At the time of the writing of this email, at least two town board members have stated vehemently, to Building Department personnel, that issuance of a building permit at this time is prohibited. I have been told that Supervisor Jeff Moran has stated that town attorney Futerfas will look at this issue on Friday of this week. This can only mean that it is an issue that needs to be examined. There is no reason for the town attorney to look into it if action will be taken prior to his examination of the issue.
However, should RUPCO receive the building permit anyway as a result of Supervisor Moran's failure to adhere to the conditions of the final resolution, and to disregard several town board members' insistence on examining this issue and abiding by the condition to grant RUPCO the water main through a normal Town Board vote, and instead commands the building inspector to sign the building permit, citizens of Woodstock certainly will file an Article 78 petition against Town of Woodstock, naming RUPCO as additional respondent. RUPCO will not be able to argue that this petition came as a surprise, and therefore RUPCO will be liable for all expenses incurred should it break ground as a result of a building permit issued in violation of the final project resolution, should a judge decide that the town acted erroneously and has the building permit revoked. In other words, RUPCO will be estopped from claiming costs or arguing work underway as a defense, merely by having read this warning email.
Please note that I am away from my office right now, and so I have included only the recipients I could find easily, but be aware that this email will be forwarded to dozens of people in Woodstock, as well as posted on my blog, thetroublewithrupco.blogspot.com, momentarily.
Have a great day!!
Robin Segal
Friday, May 27, 2011
133- MisGuyded Again
The debate as to whether Woodstock has enough water to add large users continues. There is not too much evidence supporting the "yes there is" side of the debate, so guess who dusted off some 80 year old document and drummed some up.
Yesterday in a letter to the editor to the Woodstock Times, [note: this link will not work once next week's letters are posted,] RUPCO director of Community Development, Guy Kempe, made a huge error in that he claimed that Woodstock can hook up to the Kingston water supply in order to have plenty of water to supply Woodstock Commons or whatever else the Woodstock Water District needs to hose down.
Right after the letter appeared, I received several helpful emails explaining to me that the Kingston water supply, which comes from Cooper Lake, is untreated, while the place that it is "ready" to join the Woodstock water supply is where Woodstock's water has already been treated. Therefore, joining the two supplies without building further infrastructure such as a treatment facility or intake of Kingston water to the Woodstock treatment facility, produces only a contaminated water supply to the entire water district.
No thanks, Guy Kempe.
Also in the letter, Guy Kempe referred to my "busy law practice." I do not know why he wrote that, since I believe he is aware that I am not an attorney. Furthermore, I never claimed to be an attorney, and do not practice law without a license. I have written two Article 78 petitions and filed them, clearly signing both as a pro se litigant. It is neither funny, clever, nor helpful to anybody for Guy Kempe to mislead the public.
Yesterday in a letter to the editor to the Woodstock Times, [note: this link will not work once next week's letters are posted,] RUPCO director of Community Development, Guy Kempe, made a huge error in that he claimed that Woodstock can hook up to the Kingston water supply in order to have plenty of water to supply Woodstock Commons or whatever else the Woodstock Water District needs to hose down.
Right after the letter appeared, I received several helpful emails explaining to me that the Kingston water supply, which comes from Cooper Lake, is untreated, while the place that it is "ready" to join the Woodstock water supply is where Woodstock's water has already been treated. Therefore, joining the two supplies without building further infrastructure such as a treatment facility or intake of Kingston water to the Woodstock treatment facility, produces only a contaminated water supply to the entire water district.
No thanks, Guy Kempe.
Also in the letter, Guy Kempe referred to my "busy law practice." I do not know why he wrote that, since I believe he is aware that I am not an attorney. Furthermore, I never claimed to be an attorney, and do not practice law without a license. I have written two Article 78 petitions and filed them, clearly signing both as a pro se litigant. It is neither funny, clever, nor helpful to anybody for Guy Kempe to mislead the public.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
132- Please Ask the Town Board to Make Comments to DEC
Hello. I have a small video submitted to run on the carousel this week, (that's channel 23, our local cable access station here in Woodstock, NY) and I post the video here as well. It is self-explanatory, roughly an update on the RUPCO proposed project and the status of the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) application for water for this project.
In the video, I speak about some comments that were submitted to the DEC and I have provided some of those documents. I am requesting that you contact our Town Board members and ask them to review these documents and tell DEC what they think about adding RUPCO's project to the already stressed water district.
You can access the documents here:
This is hydrogeologist Paul Rubin's letter to DEC (May 13, 2011,) about Woodstock's water supply and delivery capacity:
http://murrayhillbooks.com/hydroquestreport.pdf
This is my letter to DEC (March 28, 2011,), along with the 14 attachments:
http://murrayhillbooks.com/Segalcomments20110329.pdf
Iris York dug up this Woodstock Times article from 2006. It's about the potential contamination of water due to the shallowness of the wells in Woodstock.
http://murrayhillbooks.com/ShallowWellsArticle9-21-06.pdf
Here are the Town Board members' email addresses:
Jeff Moran jmoran@woodstockny.org
Terrie Rosenblum TRosenblum@woodstockny.org
Cathy Magarelli CMagarelli@woodstockny.org
Bill McKenna BMcKenna@woodstockny.org
Jay Wenk JWenk@woodstockny.org
And, the video:
In the video, I speak about some comments that were submitted to the DEC and I have provided some of those documents. I am requesting that you contact our Town Board members and ask them to review these documents and tell DEC what they think about adding RUPCO's project to the already stressed water district.
You can access the documents here:
This is hydrogeologist Paul Rubin's letter to DEC (May 13, 2011,) about Woodstock's water supply and delivery capacity:
http://murrayhillbooks.com/hydroquestreport.pdf
Jerry Washington's comments:
This is my letter to DEC (March 28, 2011,), along with the 14 attachments:
http://murrayhillbooks.com/Segalcomments20110329.pdf
An additional brand new letter from Paul Rubin but without attachments:
Iris York dug up this Woodstock Times article from 2006. It's about the potential contamination of water due to the shallowness of the wells in Woodstock.
http://murrayhillbooks.com/ShallowWellsArticle9-21-06.pdf
Here are the Town Board members' email addresses:
Jeff Moran jmoran@woodstockny.org
Terrie Rosenblum TRosenblum@woodstockny.org
Cathy Magarelli CMagarelli@woodstockny.org
Bill McKenna BMcKenna@woodstockny.org
Jay Wenk JWenk@woodstockny.org
And, the video:
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
131- Paul Rubin on Woodstock Water Capacity, Testing, with community discussion
Earlier this evening, (the evening of May 16, 2011,) thirty people at Woodstock community center were treated to a fabulous, informative talk by Paul Rubin, hydrogeologist based right here in Ulster County. The talk was followed by a lively discussion among concerned and increasingly informed Woodstock residents.
- Here is the entire video of the May 16 event, in eight parts.
- Mr. Rubin's presentation slides currently are available on his website: www.hydroquest.com/Woodstock
- I will make an edited version of this presentation for public access TV, and may or may not post that version also on this blog.
- Here is the entire video of the May 16 event, in eight parts.
- Mr. Rubin's presentation slides currently are available on his website: www.hydroquest.com/Woodstock
- I will make an edited version of this presentation for public access TV, and may or may not post that version also on this blog.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
130- Woodstock Water Seminar with Hydrogeologist Paul Rubin: Monday, May 16, 7 PM, Woodstock Community Center
Sensible Action for Growth and Environment (SAGE) is sponsoring a presentation about Woodstock's water supply on Monday, May 16th at the Community Center.
The presenter is Paul Rubin, a hydrogeologist with 30 years experience and who has researched Woodstock's water supply. This presentation was part of a submission to the NYS DEC that is currently evaluating RUPCO's application to attach to Woodstock's water system.
The presentation will 1) assesses what is actually known relative to the safe yield of the Woodstock water supply system and 2) concludes that it would not be prudent to add large-scale users to the system in advance of a scientifically and legally defensible safe yield determination based on empirical data collected during rigorous hydrogeologic testing. In fact, water restriction advisories provide evidence that, at times, the existing Woodstock well field may already be stressed beyond its safe yield if water usage is not limited. The safe yield of the existing Woodstock public water supply system has never been determined in accordance with standard hydrogeologic groundwater testing procedures.
The implications of this presentation are important not only for RUPCO, but for other proposals for expansion of commercial activity within the water district.
(This notice was lifted in its entirety from Ken Panza's email. Thank you Ken.)
The presenter is Paul Rubin, a hydrogeologist with 30 years experience and who has researched Woodstock's water supply. This presentation was part of a submission to the NYS DEC that is currently evaluating RUPCO's application to attach to Woodstock's water system.
The presentation will 1) assesses what is actually known relative to the safe yield of the Woodstock water supply system and 2) concludes that it would not be prudent to add large-scale users to the system in advance of a scientifically and legally defensible safe yield determination based on empirical data collected during rigorous hydrogeologic testing. In fact, water restriction advisories provide evidence that, at times, the existing Woodstock well field may already be stressed beyond its safe yield if water usage is not limited. The safe yield of the existing Woodstock public water supply system has never been determined in accordance with standard hydrogeologic groundwater testing procedures.
The implications of this presentation are important not only for RUPCO, but for other proposals for expansion of commercial activity within the water district.
(This notice was lifted in its entirety from Ken Panza's email. Thank you Ken.)
Friday, April 15, 2011
129- Elsewhere in Ulster
Been reading up on surrounding towns' water laws and how they compare to Woodstock. How about this: in Rosendale, right here in Ulster County, there are, I think, five people, all of whom live in the water district, who meet monthly to manage the water district. These residents make the budget, and do all kinds of stuff. As volunteers. Meaning, Rosendale actually WANTS its concerned citizens to govern its natural resources. In Rosendale, during a drought, it is permissible to water plants that yield fruits and vegetables for human consumption. Also, a drought is defined by levels in certain reservoirs, the levels expressed in inches, not as a function of the eyeball of an untrained elected official.
How refreshing, Town of Rosendale!
I have one word for Rosendale's approach to water district management: sane.
The more I live in Woodstock, and the more I see how the wheels of inaction are greased to spin in futility, harnessing no productivity, the more I think that RUPCO is but one opportunistic bad bacteria in an already infected, if not rancid, human settlement, where everything is broken or well on its way to being dead, and where some voices rise in the obvious and painful last stages of an embittered passed glory.
Have a great day!
: - )
How refreshing, Town of Rosendale!
I have one word for Rosendale's approach to water district management: sane.
The more I live in Woodstock, and the more I see how the wheels of inaction are greased to spin in futility, harnessing no productivity, the more I think that RUPCO is but one opportunistic bad bacteria in an already infected, if not rancid, human settlement, where everything is broken or well on its way to being dead, and where some voices rise in the obvious and painful last stages of an embittered passed glory.
Have a great day!
: - )
Monday, March 28, 2011
128- Empire State Law
Here, below, is some New York State Law. It says that if an entity like RUPCO wants the town to extend the water district (since RUPCO property is not in the water district, and DEC declared RUPCO property OUT of the water district according to state law,) the entity (RUPCO) has to petition the Town Board, and then the Town Board has to vote yes or no. This is not part of SEQRA. This is not under DEC, except that DEC declared the property out of the district. This is just plain state law. Woodstock Town Attorney does not seem to understand that DEC's jurisdiction over this water system extension is not the ONLY state jurisdiction in existence. There are many different jurisdictions, and they coexist and overlap. Federal, state, local. Water, historic preservation, health, etc. All of these have different standards and their own processes.Town Attorney Futerfas was mistaken in writing that RUPCO's land was in the water district. He retracted the citation of non-existent law that supported the "in the district" opinion he held. Now, he has no reason to claim the property is in the district, yet he refuses to contend with this reality. The property is outside the district, and that means the water district must be extended. (DEC wrote that in a letter to Town of Woodstock on March 9, 2011.) And the following New York State law, requiring RUPCO to petition the Town Board for inclusion in/extension of the district, and a Town Board vote, is the required process. This means that Woodstock Town Board has discretion in the decision to hook up RUPCO to town water.
Now, isn't that rather simple? I think it is, but Futerfas would have to admit a really big mistake if he agreed with me, in fact that "little" error he made and has since corrected is so central to his entire argument that the town's role is ministerial, that if you follow it to its logical conclusion, his whole position unravels. Rather than have that happen, Futerfas made a motion to dismiss our second Article 78 petition, claiming that everything the Town Board does with regard to RUPCO and water is to be ministerial. Well, that would be true, maybe, if the property were in the water district, but since it's not, the (below) state law applies.
Remember at the Oct. 5, 2010 Town Board meeting, (the one with the banjo and the singing,) RUPCO's attorney Mike Moriello stood there and said that RUPCO did not need to petition the town board for inclusion in/extension of the water district because, he claimed, the land was IN already. Well, DEC says the land is OUTSIDE the water district. Therefore, let RUPCO petition the Town Board for inclusion in and extension of the water district, and then let the Town Board vote on it. In Futerfas’ motion to dismiss, he never touches the in versus out of the district conflict. He is pretending there isn’t one!
I suggest Town of Woodstock look over this law and get some legal advice on it. But don't use Futerfas, for he is busy covering his own backside, not the town's.
2010 New York Code
TWN - Town
Article 12 - (190 - 208-B) DISTRICT AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENTS
§ 190. Establishment or extension of improvement
districts. Upon a petition as hereinafter provided, the town board of any town may
establish or extend in said town a sewer, drainage, water, water quality
treatment, park, public parking, lighting, snow removal, water supply,
sidewalk, a fallout shelter district or refuse and garbage district,
aquatic plant growth control district, ambulance district, and in any
town bordering upon or containing within its boundaries any navigable
waters of this state, a harbor improvement district, a public dock
district, or beach erosion control district, and provide improvements or
services, or both, in any such district, wholly at the expense of the
district; but no water supply district shall be established or extended
to include lands situate within the boundaries of a water district. No
such district shall be established or extended in a city [Woodstock is not a city] or in an incorporated village [Woodstock is not an incorporated village] provided, however, that such a district may be
established or extended wholly or partly within an incorporated village
on consent of the village expressed in a local law, ordinance or
resolution, subject to a referendum on petition under section
twenty-four of the municipal home rule law or a permissive referendum
under article nine of the village law, as the case may be, and except,
in the case of a water quality treatment district, on consent of a
village expressed in a local law or by resolution of the board of
trustees and not subject to any referendum.§ 191. Petition. Except as otherwise provided in the case of a water
storage and distribution district, water quality treatment district or
sewage disposal district, a petition for the establishment or the
extension of an improvement district shall be signed by the owners of
taxable real property situate in the proposed district or extension
thereof, owning in the aggregate at least one-half of the assessed
valuation of all the taxable real property of the proposed district or
extension thereof, as shown upon the latest completed assessment-roll of
said town; provided, however, that if there be any resident owners, the
petition shall include the signatures of resident owners owning taxable
real property aggregating at least one-half of the assessed valuation of
all the taxable real property of the proposed district or extension
owned by resident owners, according to the latest completed
assessment-roll. If a portion only of a parcel of such real estate
appearing upon the assessment-roll is situate within the proposed
district or extension thereof, then the town board may determine the
relative value of the part thereof within the proposed district or
extension thereof, based upon the valuation of the entire parcel as the
same appears upon the assessment-roll. Such petition shall describe the
boundaries of the proposed district or extension in a manner sufficient
to identify the lands included therein as in a deed of conveyance, and
shall be signed by the petitioners, and acknowledged or proved in the
same manner as a deed to be recorded, or authenticated in the manner
provided by the election law for the authentication of nominating
petitions. If such petition shall request the construction or
acquisition of an improvement, it shall state the maximum amount
proposed to be expended therefor. If the petition shall not request the
construction or acquisition of an improvement but shall propose the
performance or supplying of certain services, it may state the maximum
amount to be expended annually for such services. In addition, a
petition for the establishment or extension of a park or public parking
district shall describe the property proposed to be acquired for the
purposes thereof.
Friday, March 25, 2011
127- "Notice of Incomplete Application"
RUPCO's application to DEC for water hookup received a "Notice of Incomplete Application" response. Are we surprised?
No.
First of all, RUPCO did not specify whether the Town of Woodstock was applying for an extension of the water district OR for service to the housing project as an out-of-district user. This lack of specification is a product of RUPCO's feeling that no application is really necessary at all. They just want what they want. More about these two choices (and their consequences) later.
DEC specified several things RUPCO/Woodstock need to send in. One of those things is a map delineating the NEW water district boundaries, if application is for extension of water district.
DEC told RUPCO that its previous application, which I saw, and was basically a fifteen-pounder, meaning it was a binder of papers weighing about 15 pounds, was not succinct enough. Ya think so? RUPCO likes to bury information in a lot of fluff. Apparently DEC will brook no such nonsense.
DEC noted that Woodstock's Water Conservation Program form is not complete. Want to know why? Because Woodstock has no water conservation program. Oh, wait a minute. Yes it does. The form was filled out on Wednesday, so technically I guess Woodstock has had a water conservation program for two days. Don't you feel better now? Me neither.
The most important recent information from DEC is the notice appearing in yesterday's Woodstock Times (page 22.) This notice invites comments on this project, as regards several DEC-related issues, including extension of the water district.
If you have a comment on Woodstock Commons application to join Woodstock Water District, send it to:
Rebecca Crist, NYSDEC
21 South Putt Corners Rd
New Paltz, NY 12561-1620
If you want to go to the DEC office and view the application materials, make an appointment with Rebecca Crist (845-256-3014.) This number appears in the announcement as well.
No.
First of all, RUPCO did not specify whether the Town of Woodstock was applying for an extension of the water district OR for service to the housing project as an out-of-district user. This lack of specification is a product of RUPCO's feeling that no application is really necessary at all. They just want what they want. More about these two choices (and their consequences) later.
DEC specified several things RUPCO/Woodstock need to send in. One of those things is a map delineating the NEW water district boundaries, if application is for extension of water district.
DEC told RUPCO that its previous application, which I saw, and was basically a fifteen-pounder, meaning it was a binder of papers weighing about 15 pounds, was not succinct enough. Ya think so? RUPCO likes to bury information in a lot of fluff. Apparently DEC will brook no such nonsense.
DEC noted that Woodstock's Water Conservation Program form is not complete. Want to know why? Because Woodstock has no water conservation program. Oh, wait a minute. Yes it does. The form was filled out on Wednesday, so technically I guess Woodstock has had a water conservation program for two days. Don't you feel better now? Me neither.
The most important recent information from DEC is the notice appearing in yesterday's Woodstock Times (page 22.) This notice invites comments on this project, as regards several DEC-related issues, including extension of the water district.
If you have a comment on Woodstock Commons application to join Woodstock Water District, send it to:
Rebecca Crist, NYSDEC
21 South Putt Corners Rd
New Paltz, NY 12561-1620
If you want to go to the DEC office and view the application materials, make an appointment with Rebecca Crist (845-256-3014.) This number appears in the announcement as well.
Monday, March 21, 2011
125- BeGuyling Study
Guy Thomas Kempe has produced a "study" that is designed to show that RUPCO's land parcel is entitled to town water, even though the building site is not in the water district. I produce the body of Guy's study, without all of the land parcel and tax information, and I comment in red throughout the text.
Report of Established Precedents Concerning Town of Woodstock Water System Boundary, Bisected Water District Properties & Tax Parcels, Pertaining to Woodstock Commons
Excerpts Concerning Municipal Water from Lead Agency Finding Statement
According to the adopted Finding Statement (7/01/2010) of the Woodstock Planning Board, lead agency for the environmental review for Woodstock Commons, “the EIS addresses as follows the probable effects of the proposed development on Municipal and Franchise Utilities:”
“1. Portions of the Project Site lie within both the Woodstock Town Water District and the Woodstock Town Hamlet Sewer District. This circumstance provides the owner of the Project Site legal access to both municipal water and municipal sewer facilities subject to Town Board approval.” The sewer law provides partially included parcels hamlet sewer access. There is no corresponding law for the town water district. Grouping the land parcel as partially in "both" water and sewer districts is pointless. There are separate laws for water and sewer, so no grouping has any relevance.
“2. RUPCO intends to meet as an in-district user the water supply and sanitary sewage requirements of Woodstock Commons by installing on-site improvements and off-site connections to the municipal infrastructure.” Who cares what RUPCO's "intentions" are if they are not supported by law?
“3. The Woodstock Water District operates a Public Water Supply (NY PWS No. 5503394) and serves 743 customers (i.e. metered connections) within the hamlet of Woodstock and extending from the vicinity of Bearsville on its west to The Route 375 vicinity on its east. Portions of Project Site are located within the Water District and Woodstock Commons will utilize the Water District as its sole potable water supply source.” Again, who cares what RUPCO's "intentions" are if they are not supported by law?
“The Water District secures its water supply from drilled gravel wells in the western portion of the District near the Saw Kill. As indicated in the Engineer’s Report these wells have a reported estimated combined capacity of 575 gallons per minute (GPM) [Untrue. This was the design capacity, never tested, and never claimed.] and estimated total safe yield of 400 GPM [Yes, in 1985.] . On the basis of this estimated total safe yield of 400 GPM and based upon 12 hours,
or 720 minutes, of well pumping per day, the estimated daily safe yield of the District’s wells is reported to be 288,000 GPD.” It does not take an engineer to point out the difference between "design capacity" and "reliable capacity." This difference is purely one of language, manipulating it to change the meaning. RUPCO changed the meaning in the water superintendent's letter, and nobody noticed... for a while. RUPCO, in the DEIS, wrote that former Water and Sewer Superintendent Kevin Hunter, in a letter about town water and sewer capacity, "indicated the safe yield of the District's wells to be about 300,000 GPD." This is a quote from DEIS Section 3.9.1. Now let us look at the actual letter written by Kevin Hunter. It says: "The Town's water system was designed to produce 300,000 per day." See, taking the phrase "designed to produce" and rewriting it as "the safe yield" when the last time the water was studies is 24 years prior to the statement, now 26 years ago, is fundamentally dishonest.
“The estimated daily safe yield of 288,000 GPD is more than twice the Water District’s reported 2005 estimated average demand of approximately 140,000 gallons per day (GPD), as set forth in the most recent annual drinking water quality statement (2005) for the District.” Again, 288,000 is not the safe yield. It is RUPCO's lie.
“The Project Site lies within the only area of the Town, the hamlet of Woodstock, within which municipal water and/or municipal sewer facilities have been made available through the creation and operation of special utility districts to accommodate the residential, commercial, civic and institutional uses either existing or proposed to be located there in accordance with Town and County land use plans and related land use and development regulations.” This does not mean that all parcels in the hamlet have legal access to these utilities. More misleading language.
“The Woodstock Commons development will be served by the Woodstock Water District including the District’s water supply wells located near Bearsville and not draw upon the groundwater resources of the Project Site for its domestic water supply. Provision of domestic water service to Woodstock Commons will increase average daily water demand within the
2
District by 8.2% to 162,500 GPD and consume only 9.1% of the District’s safe yield residual supply of 138,000 GPD.” Again, this statement assumes that Woodstock is capable of producing the quantity of water that individual well tests showed in 1985. No simultaneous well tests were conducted, and no tests have been conducted since 1985. RUPCO simply misleads, lies, and distorts facts at every turn.
Now, a word about "precedent." Guy Thomas Kempe uses this word in the title of his "study," and then once again when showing properties bisected by the water district boundary. However, Guy Thomas Kempe fails to discuss the issue of precedent.
Guy Thomas Kempe is completely off base categorizing activities that occurred prior to the creation of DEC as “precedent.” Precedent is a practice that can be cited when all other conditions and laws are the same. I could cite precedent that says that it is acceptable for women to not be allowed to vote, because it was precedent for so long and for so many women. However, since that time, women have been granted the right to vote, and so that particular precedent is irrelevant. It's hard to believe that I have to explain this, but apparently it is necessary...
Report of Established Precedents Concerning Town of Woodstock Water System Boundary, Bisected Water District Properties & Tax Parcels, Pertaining to Woodstock Commons
Excerpts Concerning Municipal Water from Lead Agency Finding Statement
According to the adopted Finding Statement (7/01/2010) of the Woodstock Planning Board, lead agency for the environmental review for Woodstock Commons, “the EIS addresses as follows the probable effects of the proposed development on Municipal and Franchise Utilities:”
“1. Portions of the Project Site lie within both the Woodstock Town Water District and the Woodstock Town Hamlet Sewer District. This circumstance provides the owner of the Project Site legal access to both municipal water and municipal sewer facilities subject to Town Board approval.” The sewer law provides partially included parcels hamlet sewer access. There is no corresponding law for the town water district. Grouping the land parcel as partially in "both" water and sewer districts is pointless. There are separate laws for water and sewer, so no grouping has any relevance.
“2. RUPCO intends to meet as an in-district user the water supply and sanitary sewage requirements of Woodstock Commons by installing on-site improvements and off-site connections to the municipal infrastructure.” Who cares what RUPCO's "intentions" are if they are not supported by law?
“3. The Woodstock Water District operates a Public Water Supply (NY PWS No. 5503394) and serves 743 customers (i.e. metered connections) within the hamlet of Woodstock and extending from the vicinity of Bearsville on its west to The Route 375 vicinity on its east. Portions of Project Site are located within the Water District and Woodstock Commons will utilize the Water District as its sole potable water supply source.” Again, who cares what RUPCO's "intentions" are if they are not supported by law?
“The Water District secures its water supply from drilled gravel wells in the western portion of the District near the Saw Kill. As indicated in the Engineer’s Report these wells have a reported estimated combined capacity of 575 gallons per minute (GPM) [Untrue. This was the design capacity, never tested, and never claimed.] and estimated total safe yield of 400 GPM [Yes, in 1985.] . On the basis of this estimated total safe yield of 400 GPM and based upon 12 hours,
or 720 minutes, of well pumping per day, the estimated daily safe yield of the District’s wells is reported to be 288,000 GPD.” It does not take an engineer to point out the difference between "design capacity" and "reliable capacity." This difference is purely one of language, manipulating it to change the meaning. RUPCO changed the meaning in the water superintendent's letter, and nobody noticed... for a while. RUPCO, in the DEIS, wrote that former Water and Sewer Superintendent Kevin Hunter, in a letter about town water and sewer capacity, "indicated the safe yield of the District's wells to be about 300,000 GPD." This is a quote from DEIS Section 3.9.1. Now let us look at the actual letter written by Kevin Hunter. It says: "The Town's water system was designed to produce 300,000 per day." See, taking the phrase "designed to produce" and rewriting it as "the safe yield" when the last time the water was studies is 24 years prior to the statement, now 26 years ago, is fundamentally dishonest.
“The estimated daily safe yield of 288,000 GPD is more than twice the Water District’s reported 2005 estimated average demand of approximately 140,000 gallons per day (GPD), as set forth in the most recent annual drinking water quality statement (2005) for the District.” Again, 288,000 is not the safe yield. It is RUPCO's lie.
“The Project Site lies within the only area of the Town, the hamlet of Woodstock, within which municipal water and/or municipal sewer facilities have been made available through the creation and operation of special utility districts to accommodate the residential, commercial, civic and institutional uses either existing or proposed to be located there in accordance with Town and County land use plans and related land use and development regulations.” This does not mean that all parcels in the hamlet have legal access to these utilities. More misleading language.
“The Woodstock Commons development will be served by the Woodstock Water District including the District’s water supply wells located near Bearsville and not draw upon the groundwater resources of the Project Site for its domestic water supply. Provision of domestic water service to Woodstock Commons will increase average daily water demand within the
2
District by 8.2% to 162,500 GPD and consume only 9.1% of the District’s safe yield residual supply of 138,000 GPD.” Again, this statement assumes that Woodstock is capable of producing the quantity of water that individual well tests showed in 1985. No simultaneous well tests were conducted, and no tests have been conducted since 1985. RUPCO simply misleads, lies, and distorts facts at every turn.
Now, a word about "precedent." Guy Thomas Kempe uses this word in the title of his "study," and then once again when showing properties bisected by the water district boundary. However, Guy Thomas Kempe fails to discuss the issue of precedent.
Guy Thomas Kempe is completely off base categorizing activities that occurred prior to the creation of DEC as “precedent.” Precedent is a practice that can be cited when all other conditions and laws are the same. I could cite precedent that says that it is acceptable for women to not be allowed to vote, because it was precedent for so long and for so many women. However, since that time, women have been granted the right to vote, and so that particular precedent is irrelevant. It's hard to believe that I have to explain this, but apparently it is necessary...
Above all else, there IS no town law that says properties bisected by the water district automatically are entitled to service. Somebody on the RUPCO team appears to have invented that law. It does not matter whether the Planning Board slept through the process, the citation is simply incorrect, and even Woodstock Town Attorney Futerfas said so, finally, officially in a letter to DEC, Feb. 2011.
But more about the particulars of the properties in Woodstock that Guy Thomas Kempe says are partially in the water district, and enjoy water service:
Kempe cites all these properties that are quite old, let’s say ranch houses for the most part, built in the 1950’s or 60’s, before the creation of the DEC, and so exempt from DEC rules. I believe the DEC and many of its rules were created by passage of the Environmental Conservation Law of 1970. Some of these houses joining the water district could have occurred with the expansion of the capacity in 1965, when the district approximately doubled in capacity. I do not know what laws governed district expansion then, but Kempe certainly does not report any such laws, which means he does not know what they are, OR they state that these additions were permitted.
As for applications to extend the district in the 1970’s, I am not sure Guy Thomas Kempe is equipped to know whether the water district had approved extensions to partially included districts, in the 1970’s, or on a case by case basis. He is completely off base in trying to apply a 2005 town water law retroactively to activities about which nobody seems to know any details, that occurred in the 1970’s or earlier. He also failed to cite town water law from the period in question, meaning the 1970’s until passage of Town water law of 2005.
Friday, March 11, 2011
124- Water Water Water (and I don't mean this rain)
Hello. I have been busy doing research. Here is some of what has been happening:
A.
I found out that Town of Woodstock gave RUPCO the go-ahead to send the applications to DEC, even though DEC required that the applicant be the Town of Woodstock.
The town, and also the Woodstock Times, has been writing about a "Joint Application," however this is the name of the application, not a description of an application with several applicants. The application itself, if they had bothered to look at it, is designed to be sent to several agencies, for several purposes. The functions and the recipients are the "joint" parties. The applicant is supposed to be singular: Town of Woodstock.
To be fair, RUPCO could have prepared the documents, in the same way that an accountant prepares tax returns, in the name of the filer. However, RUPCO applied in its own name.
So, here is an example of what DEC got: In the section that was supposed to describe Woodstock's water supply sources, meaning the names, (and instructions even say to name each well,) RUPCO writes that ITS water source is Woodstock's water system!! ("We'll turn on the tap. That's where our water is coming from.") Not really what DEC had in mind... I have a feeling this application ain't gonna fly with DEC, in the application's current form.
B.
The new water numbers are here!! 2010 numbers. Remember how in 2009, 32% of the district's pumped water was lost, and an acceptable percentage is around 10%? Remember how Jeff Moran said last September 14, that there was a broken altitude meter on the Yerry Hill Tank and that it had been repaired finally around the first of the year (that means Jan. 1, 2010)? I remember because I just watched the Town Board Meeting from that September evening. So, given this explanation, we should see our water loss back down to about 10%, right?
Uh-oh. 2010 losses are 24.4% Now, remember that we had a two months long water emergency. This means that water consumption was quite a bit lower than in 2009 (actually nearly 7 million gallons, or 12% less.) However, we still lost 12 million gallons out of the 49 million gallons pumped. Compare that to 2008, when we lost 4.3 million gallons out of 43 million gallons pumped. Now that the Yerry Hill tank problem cannot be factored in, and the leak detection equipment is working, where IS the missing 15%, or 8 million gallons?? (I'm talking about 8 million gallons OTHER THAN the expected 10% loss to fighting fires, flushing hydrants, etc.)
Looks to me like our water district is terribly mismanaged.
C.
If you look at all of this from a water district customer's perspective, we see that during the SEQRA process, the planning board did not study the water district capacity. Neither did the town board or the planner or the town attorney or the water superintendent. And after the SEQRA process, RUPCO and town attorney said it was too late. This leaves the water district customer with the absence of management of his/her district in the form of studying whether there is sufficient capacity and pressure to add RUPCO's demand.
Now, RUPCO did do the analysis, they say. Fine, RUPCO is entitled to write whatever they like. RUPCO used the DESIGN CAPACITY instead of the actual capacity. Ours is a sixty year old water system. There is decay, mismanagement, leaks, expansion after expansion, and it is clear that design capacity is not real capacity. However, the town did not challenge RUPCO. Even Kevin Hunter, the then Water and Sewer Superintendent, wrote a one page letter stating that the water system was designed to pump 300,000 gallons per day. He did not write that this was current capacity. In fact, he did not state what current capacity was, in 2007. Whatever it WAS in 2007, it certainly is less now, since now we had a water emergency with demand as low as about 150,000 gallons per day, when no other town had water emergencies.
So, what's a group of water district customers to do? How about bring an Article 78 petition against Town of Woodstock, joining RUPCO and EVK Realty, LLC, (the current landowner,) to challenge town's mismanagement of water district over several years, and triggered by the consent to allow RUPCO to apply to DEC for water hookup???
Great idea, we thought. So we did that. Seven petitioners filed the petition on Wednesday.
By the way, if you are a property owner in the Woodstock Water District, and also live in your property, and you feel left out, would like the town to know that you agree with us and will not stand for this mismanagement, and would like to join this petition, please email me: robinsegal@rocketmail.com
More later.
Bye.
A.
I found out that Town of Woodstock gave RUPCO the go-ahead to send the applications to DEC, even though DEC required that the applicant be the Town of Woodstock.
The town, and also the Woodstock Times, has been writing about a "Joint Application," however this is the name of the application, not a description of an application with several applicants. The application itself, if they had bothered to look at it, is designed to be sent to several agencies, for several purposes. The functions and the recipients are the "joint" parties. The applicant is supposed to be singular: Town of Woodstock.
To be fair, RUPCO could have prepared the documents, in the same way that an accountant prepares tax returns, in the name of the filer. However, RUPCO applied in its own name.
So, here is an example of what DEC got: In the section that was supposed to describe Woodstock's water supply sources, meaning the names, (and instructions even say to name each well,) RUPCO writes that ITS water source is Woodstock's water system!! ("We'll turn on the tap. That's where our water is coming from.") Not really what DEC had in mind... I have a feeling this application ain't gonna fly with DEC, in the application's current form.
B.
The new water numbers are here!! 2010 numbers. Remember how in 2009, 32% of the district's pumped water was lost, and an acceptable percentage is around 10%? Remember how Jeff Moran said last September 14, that there was a broken altitude meter on the Yerry Hill Tank and that it had been repaired finally around the first of the year (that means Jan. 1, 2010)? I remember because I just watched the Town Board Meeting from that September evening. So, given this explanation, we should see our water loss back down to about 10%, right?
Uh-oh. 2010 losses are 24.4% Now, remember that we had a two months long water emergency. This means that water consumption was quite a bit lower than in 2009 (actually nearly 7 million gallons, or 12% less.) However, we still lost 12 million gallons out of the 49 million gallons pumped. Compare that to 2008, when we lost 4.3 million gallons out of 43 million gallons pumped. Now that the Yerry Hill tank problem cannot be factored in, and the leak detection equipment is working, where IS the missing 15%, or 8 million gallons?? (I'm talking about 8 million gallons OTHER THAN the expected 10% loss to fighting fires, flushing hydrants, etc.)
Looks to me like our water district is terribly mismanaged.
C.
If you look at all of this from a water district customer's perspective, we see that during the SEQRA process, the planning board did not study the water district capacity. Neither did the town board or the planner or the town attorney or the water superintendent. And after the SEQRA process, RUPCO and town attorney said it was too late. This leaves the water district customer with the absence of management of his/her district in the form of studying whether there is sufficient capacity and pressure to add RUPCO's demand.
Now, RUPCO did do the analysis, they say. Fine, RUPCO is entitled to write whatever they like. RUPCO used the DESIGN CAPACITY instead of the actual capacity. Ours is a sixty year old water system. There is decay, mismanagement, leaks, expansion after expansion, and it is clear that design capacity is not real capacity. However, the town did not challenge RUPCO. Even Kevin Hunter, the then Water and Sewer Superintendent, wrote a one page letter stating that the water system was designed to pump 300,000 gallons per day. He did not write that this was current capacity. In fact, he did not state what current capacity was, in 2007. Whatever it WAS in 2007, it certainly is less now, since now we had a water emergency with demand as low as about 150,000 gallons per day, when no other town had water emergencies.
So, what's a group of water district customers to do? How about bring an Article 78 petition against Town of Woodstock, joining RUPCO and EVK Realty, LLC, (the current landowner,) to challenge town's mismanagement of water district over several years, and triggered by the consent to allow RUPCO to apply to DEC for water hookup???
Great idea, we thought. So we did that. Seven petitioners filed the petition on Wednesday.
By the way, if you are a property owner in the Woodstock Water District, and also live in your property, and you feel left out, would like the town to know that you agree with us and will not stand for this mismanagement, and would like to join this petition, please email me: robinsegal@rocketmail.com
More later.
Bye.
Friday, February 11, 2011
123- The Value of a Local Economy
Until now, I have not seriously discussed the problems with RUPCO's big box style of affordable housing, but it is time to do that now.
Although RUPCO has done great work in providing various services to people in need of affordable housing, RUPCO's model of new affordable housing, which is the model for Woodstock Commons, is the retail equivalent of Costco and the other big box stores. RUPCO gets its funds from afar, its labor from afar, and its residents from afar. In some cases, financing can come from anywhere in the nation, residents from anywhere in the state, and materials and contractors from probably not quite as far, but certainly not from the Town of Woodstock.
When towns decide to refurbish existing housing stock, using local labor and materials, and local investors, and house locals in need of housing in the refurbished structures, everybody works together, AND everybody wins.
This is a very simplified version of the case for local self-reliance, but a simplified version is great for illustrating a point.
Here in Woodstock, there are many industries that could be more localized than they are now, therefore benefiting all of us here in Woodstock.
In the spirit of this local driving force in our economy, and in our lives in general, The Woodstock Land Conservancy and the Woodstock Farm Festival are organizing and hosting a speaker on local farming and the local food supply chain.
On Saturday, February 19, at Woodstock Elementary School, from 10 AM to about 2:30 PM, Joel Salatin, renowned Virginia meat farmer and advocate of a local food supply, will be speaking to the first couple of hundred to buy tickets. As of a couple of days ago, there are only about 30 tickets left, believe it or not. Salatin has a very loyal following. He is a superb speaker. I offer you this youtube clip, a sampling of Salatin's wisdom and wit:
And the effort to support a local food supply does not end with the farmer. After lunch, which is provided at the event, attendees will be treated to a panel discussion of local farmers, food processors, and others who are trying to get all of us here in the Catskills and Hudson Valley to eat more locally produced food.
But that's not all. After listening to talk of local produce, meat and food processing all day, you might wish to sample a dinner prepared by one of Woodstock area's talented chefs. But Saturday February 19 will not be any normal night to eat out in Woodstock. At four local restaurants, the main ingredients of special prix fixe menus will be sourced locally, meaning basically within fifty miles of their restaurants. Right in the middle of February!
I will spend more time later writing about the general dissonance between RUPCO's big box housing solution and the locally inspired, locally innovative, locally involved, and locally rewarding economic engine.
I wanted to offer you a way to have a taste of the whole local concept in the most tangible way possible: listen to the farmer, ask questions, and then go out to a local restaurant and taste how good it is.
For now, here are the February 19 locally sourced prix-fixe dinner participating restaurants, and their offerings:
New World Home Cooking
Local 50 Mile Prix Fixe:
“From Apples to Apples”
4 courses $35, With Wine Pairing $55
•Amuse Bouche
Nettle Meadows Kunik, Black Walnut and Lenny B Honey Tostada
•Soup
Apple-Potato Leek Soup
Wine: Millbrook Chardonnay
•Choice of Entree
Pan Roasted Local Oceans Sea Bream (Hudson)
Slow Roasted NorthWinds Farm Pork Shoulder (Tivoli)
Sauteed Shamah’s Seitan (Kingston) with Davenports Corn Succotash (Marbletown)
Wine: Lamoreaux Landing Pinot Noir
•Dessert
Hudson Valley Cheese Plate with home grown apple butter
(Coach Farm, Sprout Creek, Nettle Meadow)
Wine: Brotherhood Riesling
1411 Rt 212
Saugerties, NY 12477
845-246-0900
Garden Café on The Green (Vegan)
Four Course $30 Prix Fixe Menu including a glass of wine or beer
•Polenta Mushroom Tart (Wild Hive Farms Polenta)
•Tofu Cacciatore
•Walnut Pesto Roasted Vegetables
Sauteed Kale
•Apple Crumb Pie with Vanilla Cashew Ice Cream or
Gluten Free Apple Crisp with Cashew Ice Cream
LOCAL INGREDIENTS:
•Polenta and Bread Flour for •Foccacia from Wild Hive Farms
•Apples-Sunfrost Farms Market
•Maple Syrup-Breezy Mountain Farm
•Cashew Ice Cream-Organic Nectars
•Organic Wine and local Ommegang Beer
6 Old Forge Road
Woodstock, NY
845-679-3600
The Red Onion Restaurant & Bar
Joel Salatin Prix Fixe Dinner Available 5-10pm
$37.95
•Lenny Bee’s Locally Smoked Trout Salad
•Stone Church Farm Duck Breast, Spiced Honey Sauce, Parsnip Puree, Slow-Roasted Brussels Sprouts
•Local Fuji Apple Crisp Topped with Jane’s Vanilla Ice Cream
1654 Route 212
Saugerties NY 12477
845-679-1223
Violette
This dinner menu will feature an omelet with local eggs, local potatoes, local smoked trout, and something for dessert with local apples. Call for details and price.
85 Mill Hill Road
Woodstock, New York 12498
845-679-5300
Although RUPCO has done great work in providing various services to people in need of affordable housing, RUPCO's model of new affordable housing, which is the model for Woodstock Commons, is the retail equivalent of Costco and the other big box stores. RUPCO gets its funds from afar, its labor from afar, and its residents from afar. In some cases, financing can come from anywhere in the nation, residents from anywhere in the state, and materials and contractors from probably not quite as far, but certainly not from the Town of Woodstock.
When towns decide to refurbish existing housing stock, using local labor and materials, and local investors, and house locals in need of housing in the refurbished structures, everybody works together, AND everybody wins.
This is a very simplified version of the case for local self-reliance, but a simplified version is great for illustrating a point.
Here in Woodstock, there are many industries that could be more localized than they are now, therefore benefiting all of us here in Woodstock.
In the spirit of this local driving force in our economy, and in our lives in general, The Woodstock Land Conservancy and the Woodstock Farm Festival are organizing and hosting a speaker on local farming and the local food supply chain.
On Saturday, February 19, at Woodstock Elementary School, from 10 AM to about 2:30 PM, Joel Salatin, renowned Virginia meat farmer and advocate of a local food supply, will be speaking to the first couple of hundred to buy tickets. As of a couple of days ago, there are only about 30 tickets left, believe it or not. Salatin has a very loyal following. He is a superb speaker. I offer you this youtube clip, a sampling of Salatin's wisdom and wit:
And the effort to support a local food supply does not end with the farmer. After lunch, which is provided at the event, attendees will be treated to a panel discussion of local farmers, food processors, and others who are trying to get all of us here in the Catskills and Hudson Valley to eat more locally produced food.
But that's not all. After listening to talk of local produce, meat and food processing all day, you might wish to sample a dinner prepared by one of Woodstock area's talented chefs. But Saturday February 19 will not be any normal night to eat out in Woodstock. At four local restaurants, the main ingredients of special prix fixe menus will be sourced locally, meaning basically within fifty miles of their restaurants. Right in the middle of February!
I will spend more time later writing about the general dissonance between RUPCO's big box housing solution and the locally inspired, locally innovative, locally involved, and locally rewarding economic engine.
I wanted to offer you a way to have a taste of the whole local concept in the most tangible way possible: listen to the farmer, ask questions, and then go out to a local restaurant and taste how good it is.
For now, here are the February 19 locally sourced prix-fixe dinner participating restaurants, and their offerings:
New World Home Cooking
Local 50 Mile Prix Fixe:
“From Apples to Apples”
4 courses $35, With Wine Pairing $55
•Amuse Bouche
Nettle Meadows Kunik, Black Walnut and Lenny B Honey Tostada
•Soup
Apple-Potato Leek Soup
Wine: Millbrook Chardonnay
•Choice of Entree
Pan Roasted Local Oceans Sea Bream (Hudson)
Slow Roasted NorthWinds Farm Pork Shoulder (Tivoli)
Sauteed Shamah’s Seitan (Kingston) with Davenports Corn Succotash (Marbletown)
Wine: Lamoreaux Landing Pinot Noir
•Dessert
Hudson Valley Cheese Plate with home grown apple butter
(Coach Farm, Sprout Creek, Nettle Meadow)
Wine: Brotherhood Riesling
1411 Rt 212
Saugerties, NY 12477
845-246-0900
Garden Café on The Green (Vegan)
Four Course $30 Prix Fixe Menu including a glass of wine or beer
•Polenta Mushroom Tart (Wild Hive Farms Polenta)
•Tofu Cacciatore
•Walnut Pesto Roasted Vegetables
Sauteed Kale
•Apple Crumb Pie with Vanilla Cashew Ice Cream or
Gluten Free Apple Crisp with Cashew Ice Cream
LOCAL INGREDIENTS:
•Polenta and Bread Flour for •Foccacia from Wild Hive Farms
•Apples-Sunfrost Farms Market
•Maple Syrup-Breezy Mountain Farm
•Cashew Ice Cream-Organic Nectars
•Organic Wine and local Ommegang Beer
6 Old Forge Road
Woodstock, NY
845-679-3600
The Red Onion Restaurant & Bar
Joel Salatin Prix Fixe Dinner Available 5-10pm
$37.95
•Lenny Bee’s Locally Smoked Trout Salad
•Stone Church Farm Duck Breast, Spiced Honey Sauce, Parsnip Puree, Slow-Roasted Brussels Sprouts
•Local Fuji Apple Crisp Topped with Jane’s Vanilla Ice Cream
1654 Route 212
Saugerties NY 12477
845-679-1223
Violette
This dinner menu will feature an omelet with local eggs, local potatoes, local smoked trout, and something for dessert with local apples. Call for details and price.
85 Mill Hill Road
Woodstock, New York 12498
845-679-5300
Thursday, February 10, 2011
122- Basic Review Expanded
The other day I made some comments about water and wastewater and the local laws governing their access. Here now is the backstory:
Back in December, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation wrote a letter to the Town of Woodstock, telling the town that several applications had to be made in order to extend town water to RUPCO's Woodstock Commons project. This was a matter of New York State Law, not Woodstock Town Law.
First, where there are two overlapping jurisdictions such as Woodstock Town and New York State, it makes sense and is in fact the case that both jurisdictions have standing, which means that the more restrictive law is the one to worry about. In the case of RUPCO, this means that although Woodstock Town law might allow anybody in town on any property to hook up to town water, New York State Law, if it is more restrictive, (and it is,) State law defines the rules.
State Law says that if a development is on a property, and the property is split into two parts, one within and one outside of the water district, there are some applications necessary on the part of the town, to serve the part of the property outside of the water district. This is why the DEC wrote a letter to the town. DEC told the town to make a decision whether to make the applications, and if that decision was in the affirmative, the application process could start. It was estimated that approval of these applications might take half a year, but that is an estimate, hearsay, but a period that seems reasonable, given all of the opinions and information I have gleaned.
So, what we have here is the Town of Woodstock, in a position to either apply or not apply to extend water access to the other end of the RUPCO project property, the end NOT in the water district. The bottom line of that story SHOULD HAVE BEEN that the town would discuss and make a decision either way, at a town board meeting, by resolution, and then there would either be opposition or not (we do not have to wonder all that much whether or not there would be opposition.)
But of course that was not the bottom line of that story, not at all. What happened is that Woodstock's attorney, Rod Futerfas, sent a letter to the DEC, arguing "the" law. He "cited" town law, explaining that if a property is partially in the water district, then all of the property gets water access.
There are two problems with Futerfas' argument. First, the DEC does not care about town law. The DEC is a state agency, and it cares about New York State law, which is more restrictive than the town law Futerfas supposedly quoted, and so the law that matters in this case.
The second problem is that even if town law mattered, Futerfas misquoted Town Law. Yes, that's right. Rod Futerfas misquoted Town Law of the town for which he is town attorney. There is no law stating that a property partially in the water district is entitled to water access anywhere on that property. There is such a law pertaining to wastewater service, but not to water access.
Citizen Iris York brought this up at a Town Board meeting earlier this week. Somebody said that Futerfas was aware of and had already corrected this error. One board member spoke up, saying that he had not seen any correction.
When a lawyer misquotes the law, it is incumbent upon that lawyer not only to correct the error on the phone in a casual conversation, let's say, but also in all correspondences in which he misquoted the law.
I am not accusing any lawyer here or anywhere of intentionally misquoting any law in his or her practice of law. To make such an unsubstantiated accusation would be foolish of me. What I do know for sure though, and what I will accuse Woodstock town lawyer Rod Futerfas of is extremely sloppiness. And, I do not trust him for one single second.
More later.
Back in December, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation wrote a letter to the Town of Woodstock, telling the town that several applications had to be made in order to extend town water to RUPCO's Woodstock Commons project. This was a matter of New York State Law, not Woodstock Town Law.
First, where there are two overlapping jurisdictions such as Woodstock Town and New York State, it makes sense and is in fact the case that both jurisdictions have standing, which means that the more restrictive law is the one to worry about. In the case of RUPCO, this means that although Woodstock Town law might allow anybody in town on any property to hook up to town water, New York State Law, if it is more restrictive, (and it is,) State law defines the rules.
State Law says that if a development is on a property, and the property is split into two parts, one within and one outside of the water district, there are some applications necessary on the part of the town, to serve the part of the property outside of the water district. This is why the DEC wrote a letter to the town. DEC told the town to make a decision whether to make the applications, and if that decision was in the affirmative, the application process could start. It was estimated that approval of these applications might take half a year, but that is an estimate, hearsay, but a period that seems reasonable, given all of the opinions and information I have gleaned.
So, what we have here is the Town of Woodstock, in a position to either apply or not apply to extend water access to the other end of the RUPCO project property, the end NOT in the water district. The bottom line of that story SHOULD HAVE BEEN that the town would discuss and make a decision either way, at a town board meeting, by resolution, and then there would either be opposition or not (we do not have to wonder all that much whether or not there would be opposition.)
But of course that was not the bottom line of that story, not at all. What happened is that Woodstock's attorney, Rod Futerfas, sent a letter to the DEC, arguing "the" law. He "cited" town law, explaining that if a property is partially in the water district, then all of the property gets water access.
There are two problems with Futerfas' argument. First, the DEC does not care about town law. The DEC is a state agency, and it cares about New York State law, which is more restrictive than the town law Futerfas supposedly quoted, and so the law that matters in this case.
The second problem is that even if town law mattered, Futerfas misquoted Town Law. Yes, that's right. Rod Futerfas misquoted Town Law of the town for which he is town attorney. There is no law stating that a property partially in the water district is entitled to water access anywhere on that property. There is such a law pertaining to wastewater service, but not to water access.
Citizen Iris York brought this up at a Town Board meeting earlier this week. Somebody said that Futerfas was aware of and had already corrected this error. One board member spoke up, saying that he had not seen any correction.
When a lawyer misquotes the law, it is incumbent upon that lawyer not only to correct the error on the phone in a casual conversation, let's say, but also in all correspondences in which he misquoted the law.
I am not accusing any lawyer here or anywhere of intentionally misquoting any law in his or her practice of law. To make such an unsubstantiated accusation would be foolish of me. What I do know for sure though, and what I will accuse Woodstock town lawyer Rod Futerfas of is extremely sloppiness. And, I do not trust him for one single second.
More later.
Monday, February 7, 2011
121- Basic Review
I'm sorry. I apologize. This is going to be very insulting to most of you. But one or two of you, and you know who you are, really need to read this.
This is water. It is clean. It comes into our homes through pipes. Some of us in Woodstock buy this water from the town of Woodstock.
This is wastewater. It is dirty. It leaves our homes through pipes. Some of us pay the town to take our wastewater away.
This is water. It is clean. It comes into our homes through pipes. Some of us in Woodstock buy this water from the town of Woodstock.This is wastewater. It is dirty. It leaves our homes through pipes. Some of us pay the town to take our wastewater away.Woodstock is a town with laws. The laws are divided into chapters. Chapter 245 pertains to wastewater. Chapter 250 pertains to water. In Chapter 245, which is about wastewater, not fresh water, we find this:
Those properties which are now divided by the District boundary line shall be considered to be wholly served by the District.
Notice how the number starts with "245"? That is how we know it is part of Chapter 245, and therefore part of the wastewater law, not the water law.
If you try to find this same law in Chapter 250, meaning in the Woodstock Water Law, you will not find it, because it is not there.
Well, I guess it's kind of confusing, and so perhaps it really IS a mistake somebody might make if there had not been years and years of attention, light, discussion, investigation, and debate in this subject. And also it is a mistake that somebody who is not a lawyer, and especially not the town's lawyer, might make.
Um...
Sunday, January 2, 2011
120 - "Site Control"
RUPCO writes, in their application for money to the Housing Trust Fund, that they have enjoyed site control since December 2004. Control, that is, of the roughly 28 acres they propose to develop. Here is a quote from attachment F9 of RUPCO's application:
"RUPCO signed the Second Amendment an (12/31/2009) to the contract of sale (dated 12/31/2007) that provides an additional 18 months of site control through 06/30/2011."
Hmmm. I dug up this "Second Amendment to Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property" dated Dec. 31, 2009, and the first point of agreement reads as follows:
1. Purchaser Contingencies. The Purchaser Contingencies Expiration Date under Section 7(b) of the Pruchase Agreement is hereby extended through December 31, 2010.
Now, is there some OTHER second amendment that is NOT in the Housing Trust Fund Application? Is site control covered under some document other than the agreement for the purchase and sale of real property?
Because, it really looks to me, from here, which is my office, where I looked at every single attachment and enclosure to RUPCO's funding application, that RUPCO simply claimed an extra six months of site control so that the Housing Trust Fund would not give them a hard time about the land sale contract timing out.
(By the way, if you want to plow through the paperwork, the documents can be clicked open from here:
http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/Funding/Awards/UnifiedFunding/2010CapitalProjectAwards/Applications/retrieve_app.aspx?app=20106044)
I could be wrong, but if I am, where is all the other evidence to show what this 18 month extension is all about?
And, I sure hope RUPCO and EVK Realty, LLC (the land seller) have already coughed up, somewhere, a third amendment to the agreement for the land. Otherwise, it might be back to the drawing board for RUPCO, in terms of site selection....
Here's to a fresh start and a cleaning out of old and outdated papers!
Happy New Year.
"RUPCO signed the Second Amendment an (12/31/2009) to the contract of sale (dated 12/31/2007) that provides an additional 18 months of site control through 06/30/2011."
Hmmm. I dug up this "Second Amendment to Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property" dated Dec. 31, 2009, and the first point of agreement reads as follows:
1. Purchaser Contingencies. The Purchaser Contingencies Expiration Date under Section 7(b) of the Pruchase Agreement is hereby extended through December 31, 2010.
Now, is there some OTHER second amendment that is NOT in the Housing Trust Fund Application? Is site control covered under some document other than the agreement for the purchase and sale of real property?
Because, it really looks to me, from here, which is my office, where I looked at every single attachment and enclosure to RUPCO's funding application, that RUPCO simply claimed an extra six months of site control so that the Housing Trust Fund would not give them a hard time about the land sale contract timing out.
(By the way, if you want to plow through the paperwork, the documents can be clicked open from here:
http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/Funding/Awards/UnifiedFunding/2010CapitalProjectAwards/Applications/retrieve_app.aspx?app=20106044)
I could be wrong, but if I am, where is all the other evidence to show what this 18 month extension is all about?
And, I sure hope RUPCO and EVK Realty, LLC (the land seller) have already coughed up, somewhere, a third amendment to the agreement for the land. Otherwise, it might be back to the drawing board for RUPCO, in terms of site selection....
Here's to a fresh start and a cleaning out of old and outdated papers!
Happy New Year.
119- The Grocery Analysis
RUPCO claims that Woodstock Commons will be situated within 500 feet of a "grocery store." This is important information for the Housing Trust Fund, which funded RUPCO's project to the tune of $2 million plus.
I bet you the Housing Trust Fund has no idea that Sunflower Natural Food Market is the ONLY "grocery store" in Woodstock, and the one at which RUPCO assumes Woodstock Commons residents would shop for groceries. Sunflower is a fine store, but it should not be labeled a regular grocery store. Sunflower carries ONLY certified organic produce. In short, it is a very very expensive place to shop.
To illustrate the problem of sending low-income residents to shop at Sunflower (because it is close by,) I did a little price comparison study, and would like to present it to you now.
Methodology: I made a list of 18 standard grocery store items, and I found the least expensive available product in each category, at each of three "grocery stores." I tried to compare like sizes, however some of the jars of jam and peanut butter came in non-standard sizes, so I equalized the prices by adjusting the sizes proportionally to the prices. I took prices from Hurley Ridge Market in West Hurley, Hannaford Kingston Plaza in Kingston, and Sunflower in Woodstock. I presented each item in the left column, with corresponding prices for the item at each store, with notes to the right of some of the prices. I put all of this in a simple spreadsheet, which appears below this text.
First column is Hurley Ridge Market. Total bill is $49.22. Hannaford in Kingston Plaza total bill is $40.94, which is 17% less expensive than Hurley Ridge. Now let's look at Woodstock Commons' grocery store. Sunflower Natural Food Market sells ONLY organic produce, and I believe only organic dairy and meat products as well. The total bill for the same list of items, and the same quantity of each item, is $96.47.
Sunflower is 96% more expensive than Hurley Ridge, or roughly double the price, on average. Sunflower is 136% more expensive than Hannaford Kingston Plaza, or roughly two and one third times more expensive, on average.
Woodstock Commons is being advertised, by RUPCO, as a low income housing project that is walkable to commercial services, and close to public transportation. If a Woodstock Commons resident works regular business hours and wants to shop for groceries on Saturday, but has no car, or shares a car with somebody else, and wants to save 58% on groceries by taking the bus to Kingston to shop at Hannaford Kingston Plaza, that Woodstock Commons resident would have exactly ONE bus to take to Kingston in the morning, and ONE bus to take home, after a 3.5 hour shopping sojourn. That's a full day project. That's not convenient.
RUPCO misled the Housing Trust Fund in their application.
I bet you the Housing Trust Fund has no idea that Sunflower Natural Food Market is the ONLY "grocery store" in Woodstock, and the one at which RUPCO assumes Woodstock Commons residents would shop for groceries. Sunflower is a fine store, but it should not be labeled a regular grocery store. Sunflower carries ONLY certified organic produce. In short, it is a very very expensive place to shop.
To illustrate the problem of sending low-income residents to shop at Sunflower (because it is close by,) I did a little price comparison study, and would like to present it to you now.
Methodology: I made a list of 18 standard grocery store items, and I found the least expensive available product in each category, at each of three "grocery stores." I tried to compare like sizes, however some of the jars of jam and peanut butter came in non-standard sizes, so I equalized the prices by adjusting the sizes proportionally to the prices. I took prices from Hurley Ridge Market in West Hurley, Hannaford Kingston Plaza in Kingston, and Sunflower in Woodstock. I presented each item in the left column, with corresponding prices for the item at each store, with notes to the right of some of the prices. I put all of this in a simple spreadsheet, which appears below this text.
First column is Hurley Ridge Market. Total bill is $49.22. Hannaford in Kingston Plaza total bill is $40.94, which is 17% less expensive than Hurley Ridge. Now let's look at Woodstock Commons' grocery store. Sunflower Natural Food Market sells ONLY organic produce, and I believe only organic dairy and meat products as well. The total bill for the same list of items, and the same quantity of each item, is $96.47.
Sunflower is 96% more expensive than Hurley Ridge, or roughly double the price, on average. Sunflower is 136% more expensive than Hannaford Kingston Plaza, or roughly two and one third times more expensive, on average.
Woodstock Commons is being advertised, by RUPCO, as a low income housing project that is walkable to commercial services, and close to public transportation. If a Woodstock Commons resident works regular business hours and wants to shop for groceries on Saturday, but has no car, or shares a car with somebody else, and wants to save 58% on groceries by taking the bus to Kingston to shop at Hannaford Kingston Plaza, that Woodstock Commons resident would have exactly ONE bus to take to Kingston in the morning, and ONE bus to take home, after a 3.5 hour shopping sojourn. That's a full day project. That's not convenient.
RUPCO misled the Housing Trust Fund in their application.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
118- 1030 is greater than 999
I have been looking over RUPCO's application materials for the funding they have been bragging about, that Housing Trust Fund money (about $2.5 million.) There are some pretty interesting nuggets in the application. As a happy new year salute, I'd like to point out first that the "1,030 feet of new sanitary force main," (meaning new sewer pipe,) which is specified in Section 3.9 of RUPCO's Draft Environmental Impact Statement, is GREATER THAN the 999 feet of new sewer pipe allowed for RUPCO to justifiably claim that their project is within "Proximity to Existing Development."
First, let me break this down.
Second, let me expand on it.
The Housing Trust Fund has several categories of funding. One category is called the Green Building Initiative. One section, called LOCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC contains seven categories. RUPCO needs four of the seven to qualify for the Green Building Initiative funding. One of those categories is: "Smart Site Location: Proximity to Existing Development: Locate on a site with access to existing roads, water, sewers and other infrastructure within or contiguous to existing development."
OK, so first of all, the water might not be available at all, but RUPCO thought it would be when they applied, so they are forgiven for getting that one wrong. However, in the handbook that defines what it means to be in close proximity, it is clearly stated that LESS THAN one thousand feet of new sewer pipe qualifies the project as close enough to existing infrastructure to qualify the project for funding. Big F for RUPCO on that scetion.
RUPCO has claimed to check off five of seven sections in the affirmative, in The Location and Neighborhood Section, which is one more than they need. The two they do not claim are the presence of passive solar heating/cooling and compact development. Let's see how many of the five sections RUPCO has lied about!!
(1) Proximity to Existing Development, and we already know this is an incorrect affirmative claim (the sewer pipe length disqualifies it.)
(2) "Protecting Environmental Resources." In this section, RUPCO claims that no part of the project, including parking lots and roads, is within one hundred feet of wetlands. Well, actually, the access road to the housing is planned to barrel THROUGH wetlands, so this is a false claim. Whether or not RUPCO has a mitigation plan in place, this is a yes or no question. There is no "Yes, but...." checkbox.
So there we go, RUPCO has at most three of seven boxes checked, and should be disqualified from receiving funding under the Green Building Initiative.
But wait, I'm not quite done with the other sections. Of the three remaining five sections, we have (3) Proximity to Services. RUPCO claims that their housing will be "close" to at least four of these services: convenience store, public school, laundry, library, bank, grocery store, medical office, usable park space, post office, licensed child care facility, and there may be a couple more on the list. What does "close" mean? Well, for family housing, "close" is half a mile, which is 2640 feet. For senior housing, which Woodstock Commons is planned to be, "close" is a quarter mile, which is 1320 feet.
Now, according to a mapping website, it is 0.23 miles AS THE CROW FLIES from where the RUPCO housing is planned to be, to the center of the Bradley Meadows shopping area. This covers grocery store, pharmacy, and bank, as the crow flies. Unfortunately, senior residents are not crows, nor do they fly. Nor will they walk through a right of way that has not been negotiated yet, in a wetlands, full of ticks, with no lighting, and nobody to shovel snow from it, even if it was perfectly straight and less than a quarter mile. It is only reasonable to assume that the Housing Trust Fund means the distances to correspond to sidewalks, or in the absence of sidewalks, existing roads, not rights of way through wetlands where no boardwalks exist, that deliver people to the back of grocery stores where there are huge dumpsters of garbage, generators, trucks delivering produce, and no pathway of any kind for pedestrians.
Just for the sake of completion in this analysis of RUPCO's interpretation of distance, the distance from the intersection of Whites Lane and Playhouse Lane, (which is still far enough from the housing complex but at the border of the property where people will actually walk out in all-weather conditions,) it is 0.34 miles down to Route 212. It is 0.4 miles to Bank of America, the pharmacy, and the grocery store, and the doctor's office.
In the summary of the application for funding, RUPCO claims that Woodstock Commons "site" will be the following distances from services. Remember that a quarter mile is 1320 feet.
Service Distance
Grocery Stores Within 500 feet
Other Retail Stores Within 500 feet
Schools Within 1000 feet
Bus/Subway Lines Within 500 feet
Municipal Services Within 2500 feet
Libraries Within 2500 feet
Pharmacies Within 1000 feet
Health Facilities Within 1000 feet
It is clear that RUPCO is measuring the distance to these services from the corner of the property, not the buildings. So, if a property is a mile wide, for example, and the buildings are put at one end, is it fair to measure the distance from the undeveloped end? I would say no, if the purpose of measuring is to inform how far PEOPLE, COMING FROM THE BUILDINGS, need to travel ON FOOT, to the services in question.
Either way, the Woodstock library is just about one mile from the site, not half a mile. Also, Woodstock Elementary School is 0.43 miles AS THE CROW FLIES to the buildings site of Woodstock Commons. Are your elementary school age children crows? Do they fly? From Whites and Playhouse Lanes to the elementary school, along actual roads, my mapping website measures 0.52 miles, which is 2746 feet. That's a lot more than 1000 feet.
All in all, I would say that RUPCO has misled the Housing Trust Fund in claiming that this development is sited "in close proximity to community and retail facilities." Another failing grade for the boys from Kingston.
Hang in there, there are only two more sections.
The next section RUPCO claims, (4) which is absolutely wrong, is "Walkable Neighborhoods: Sidewalks and Pathways: Connect project to the pedestrian grid." Of course RUPCO checked this in the affirmative. The definition of "connect" is to connect to existing sidewalks. That definition is in the manual for filling out this application, not MY definition. The sidewalks in Woodstock run along Route 212. Neither Playhouse Lane nor Elwyn Lane have sidewalks, nor are either of them lit at night. Perhaps RUPCO considers the wooded right of way through which a path will be cut, also not a sidewalk, not lit at night, full of deer (ticks) and muddy soil, dumping walkers into the back of the grocery store dumpster colony, to be a connection to the pedestrian grid. Well, I do not buy it, and neither should the Housing Trust Fund.
The last of the five affirmative sections claimed by RUPCO in the Location and Neighborhood Fabric Division of Green Building Criteria is (5) "Transportation Choices: Locate project in close proximity to public transit services." Once again, "close proximity" is a quarter mile for senior housing, which Woodstock Commons is planning to include. Once again, a quarter mile is much less than the distance from any point of the site that a PERSON ON FOOT would need to travel to get public transit." The only exception is if the UCAT bus travels up Playhouse Lane, to the entrance of the project site, or onto the project site. However, even if this happens, and there is no guarantee that it will materialize, will the bus service be frequent enough for the residents? The traffic studies for Woodstock Commons do not include very many "new" public transportation trips up Playhouse Lane, so I suppose there will not be that many. What with the distance problem, and the murky prognosis of bus frequency, it is absolutely unfair to claim that Woodstock Commons will be reliably "close" to anything resembling regular public transit services.
Just an FYI about existing UCAT service through Woodstock: There are seven trips per weekday to Kingston. On weekends, there are two buses to Kingston and one bus from Kingston, for a single possible round trip each weekend day. So, if a resident wants to go to Kingston on a Saturday, say to go shopping at Hannaford Kingston Plaza (we'll discuss THAT soon in another post,) they must leave in the morning, stay in Kingston 3.5 hours, and return on the only return bus. On a weekday, the frequency of service is still very sparse, sometimes 3 hours between buses, and no service at all after 7:30 PM.
I have a personal story about UCAT, which was my only attempt to use this service. One day last year, I tried to go to Manhattan on the bus. The bus through Woodstock was understandably late, and I missed my connection in Kingston. It was the end of a storm, but 87 looked treacherous and backed up. So, I decided to go back to Woodstock and take the trip another day. Well, the next bus to Woodstock was in a couple of hours, so I walked through the snow to Kingston Plaza to see if I could catch a UCAT bus up to Woodstock. I was informed by a UCAT driver that no buses were driving to Woodstock all day, even though the snow had stopped falling, it was sunny, and the roads were clear. So much for reliability. I called my friend Frank, who put his grandson in his truck, and they picked me up at Deisings Bakery, (shout out: http://www.deisings.com/ ) where, while waiting, I ate a superior cinnamon roll that cost only 95 cents. Anyway, I think RUPCO misleads the Housing Trust Fund once again by claiming that Woodstock Commons will have public transportation service of any reliability and frequency.
Thus concludes this rather lengthy analysis of the "Location and Neighborhood Fabric" Section of the Green Building Criteria Checklist. And the total number of categories that Woodstock Commons qualifies for is..... zero out of seven.
So, I guess all this commotion about the site being suboptimal is right on the money, and these criteria are objective, selected by the Housing Trust Fund, not the neighborhood opponents.
Shame on you, RUPCO. Shame shame shame. (By the way, this section of the application was signed by Brad Will, the architect, and Charles Snyder, the real estate guy for RUPCO.)
And for everybody else, happy new year, there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of application materials still to go look over, to analyze, the results of which are going straight to the Housing Trust Fund people. I'd be boiling mad if somebody lied to me the way RUPCO has lied to the Housing Trust Fund.
First, let me break this down.
Second, let me expand on it.
The Housing Trust Fund has several categories of funding. One category is called the Green Building Initiative. One section, called LOCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC contains seven categories. RUPCO needs four of the seven to qualify for the Green Building Initiative funding. One of those categories is: "Smart Site Location: Proximity to Existing Development: Locate on a site with access to existing roads, water, sewers and other infrastructure within or contiguous to existing development."
OK, so first of all, the water might not be available at all, but RUPCO thought it would be when they applied, so they are forgiven for getting that one wrong. However, in the handbook that defines what it means to be in close proximity, it is clearly stated that LESS THAN one thousand feet of new sewer pipe qualifies the project as close enough to existing infrastructure to qualify the project for funding. Big F for RUPCO on that scetion.
RUPCO has claimed to check off five of seven sections in the affirmative, in The Location and Neighborhood Section, which is one more than they need. The two they do not claim are the presence of passive solar heating/cooling and compact development. Let's see how many of the five sections RUPCO has lied about!!
(1) Proximity to Existing Development, and we already know this is an incorrect affirmative claim (the sewer pipe length disqualifies it.)
(2) "Protecting Environmental Resources." In this section, RUPCO claims that no part of the project, including parking lots and roads, is within one hundred feet of wetlands. Well, actually, the access road to the housing is planned to barrel THROUGH wetlands, so this is a false claim. Whether or not RUPCO has a mitigation plan in place, this is a yes or no question. There is no "Yes, but...." checkbox.
So there we go, RUPCO has at most three of seven boxes checked, and should be disqualified from receiving funding under the Green Building Initiative.
But wait, I'm not quite done with the other sections. Of the three remaining five sections, we have (3) Proximity to Services. RUPCO claims that their housing will be "close" to at least four of these services: convenience store, public school, laundry, library, bank, grocery store, medical office, usable park space, post office, licensed child care facility, and there may be a couple more on the list. What does "close" mean? Well, for family housing, "close" is half a mile, which is 2640 feet. For senior housing, which Woodstock Commons is planned to be, "close" is a quarter mile, which is 1320 feet.
Now, according to a mapping website, it is 0.23 miles AS THE CROW FLIES from where the RUPCO housing is planned to be, to the center of the Bradley Meadows shopping area. This covers grocery store, pharmacy, and bank, as the crow flies. Unfortunately, senior residents are not crows, nor do they fly. Nor will they walk through a right of way that has not been negotiated yet, in a wetlands, full of ticks, with no lighting, and nobody to shovel snow from it, even if it was perfectly straight and less than a quarter mile. It is only reasonable to assume that the Housing Trust Fund means the distances to correspond to sidewalks, or in the absence of sidewalks, existing roads, not rights of way through wetlands where no boardwalks exist, that deliver people to the back of grocery stores where there are huge dumpsters of garbage, generators, trucks delivering produce, and no pathway of any kind for pedestrians.
Just for the sake of completion in this analysis of RUPCO's interpretation of distance, the distance from the intersection of Whites Lane and Playhouse Lane, (which is still far enough from the housing complex but at the border of the property where people will actually walk out in all-weather conditions,) it is 0.34 miles down to Route 212. It is 0.4 miles to Bank of America, the pharmacy, and the grocery store, and the doctor's office.
In the summary of the application for funding, RUPCO claims that Woodstock Commons "site" will be the following distances from services. Remember that a quarter mile is 1320 feet.
Capital Project - Exhibit 8 - Site and Building Information
Project Name: Woodstock Commons 2010
8B2. Building Space Breakdown
8A. Site InformationService Distance
Grocery Stores Within 500 feet
Other Retail Stores Within 500 feet
Schools Within 1000 feet
Bus/Subway Lines Within 500 feet
Municipal Services Within 2500 feet
Libraries Within 2500 feet
Pharmacies Within 1000 feet
Health Facilities Within 1000 feet
It is clear that RUPCO is measuring the distance to these services from the corner of the property, not the buildings. So, if a property is a mile wide, for example, and the buildings are put at one end, is it fair to measure the distance from the undeveloped end? I would say no, if the purpose of measuring is to inform how far PEOPLE, COMING FROM THE BUILDINGS, need to travel ON FOOT, to the services in question.
Either way, the Woodstock library is just about one mile from the site, not half a mile. Also, Woodstock Elementary School is 0.43 miles AS THE CROW FLIES to the buildings site of Woodstock Commons. Are your elementary school age children crows? Do they fly? From Whites and Playhouse Lanes to the elementary school, along actual roads, my mapping website measures 0.52 miles, which is 2746 feet. That's a lot more than 1000 feet.
All in all, I would say that RUPCO has misled the Housing Trust Fund in claiming that this development is sited "in close proximity to community and retail facilities." Another failing grade for the boys from Kingston.
Hang in there, there are only two more sections.
The next section RUPCO claims, (4) which is absolutely wrong, is "Walkable Neighborhoods: Sidewalks and Pathways: Connect project to the pedestrian grid." Of course RUPCO checked this in the affirmative. The definition of "connect" is to connect to existing sidewalks. That definition is in the manual for filling out this application, not MY definition. The sidewalks in Woodstock run along Route 212. Neither Playhouse Lane nor Elwyn Lane have sidewalks, nor are either of them lit at night. Perhaps RUPCO considers the wooded right of way through which a path will be cut, also not a sidewalk, not lit at night, full of deer (ticks) and muddy soil, dumping walkers into the back of the grocery store dumpster colony, to be a connection to the pedestrian grid. Well, I do not buy it, and neither should the Housing Trust Fund.
The last of the five affirmative sections claimed by RUPCO in the Location and Neighborhood Fabric Division of Green Building Criteria is (5) "Transportation Choices: Locate project in close proximity to public transit services." Once again, "close proximity" is a quarter mile for senior housing, which Woodstock Commons is planning to include. Once again, a quarter mile is much less than the distance from any point of the site that a PERSON ON FOOT would need to travel to get public transit." The only exception is if the UCAT bus travels up Playhouse Lane, to the entrance of the project site, or onto the project site. However, even if this happens, and there is no guarantee that it will materialize, will the bus service be frequent enough for the residents? The traffic studies for Woodstock Commons do not include very many "new" public transportation trips up Playhouse Lane, so I suppose there will not be that many. What with the distance problem, and the murky prognosis of bus frequency, it is absolutely unfair to claim that Woodstock Commons will be reliably "close" to anything resembling regular public transit services.
Just an FYI about existing UCAT service through Woodstock: There are seven trips per weekday to Kingston. On weekends, there are two buses to Kingston and one bus from Kingston, for a single possible round trip each weekend day. So, if a resident wants to go to Kingston on a Saturday, say to go shopping at Hannaford Kingston Plaza (we'll discuss THAT soon in another post,) they must leave in the morning, stay in Kingston 3.5 hours, and return on the only return bus. On a weekday, the frequency of service is still very sparse, sometimes 3 hours between buses, and no service at all after 7:30 PM.
I have a personal story about UCAT, which was my only attempt to use this service. One day last year, I tried to go to Manhattan on the bus. The bus through Woodstock was understandably late, and I missed my connection in Kingston. It was the end of a storm, but 87 looked treacherous and backed up. So, I decided to go back to Woodstock and take the trip another day. Well, the next bus to Woodstock was in a couple of hours, so I walked through the snow to Kingston Plaza to see if I could catch a UCAT bus up to Woodstock. I was informed by a UCAT driver that no buses were driving to Woodstock all day, even though the snow had stopped falling, it was sunny, and the roads were clear. So much for reliability. I called my friend Frank, who put his grandson in his truck, and they picked me up at Deisings Bakery, (shout out: http://www.deisings.com/ ) where, while waiting, I ate a superior cinnamon roll that cost only 95 cents. Anyway, I think RUPCO misleads the Housing Trust Fund once again by claiming that Woodstock Commons will have public transportation service of any reliability and frequency.
Thus concludes this rather lengthy analysis of the "Location and Neighborhood Fabric" Section of the Green Building Criteria Checklist. And the total number of categories that Woodstock Commons qualifies for is..... zero out of seven.
So, I guess all this commotion about the site being suboptimal is right on the money, and these criteria are objective, selected by the Housing Trust Fund, not the neighborhood opponents.
Shame on you, RUPCO. Shame shame shame. (By the way, this section of the application was signed by Brad Will, the architect, and Charles Snyder, the real estate guy for RUPCO.)
And for everybody else, happy new year, there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of application materials still to go look over, to analyze, the results of which are going straight to the Housing Trust Fund people. I'd be boiling mad if somebody lied to me the way RUPCO has lied to the Housing Trust Fund.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
