Town holds off on Stissing Farms decision
Planners irked at delay

By: Bob Audette 08/05/2004 Register Herald Thursday August 5, 2004

PINE PLAINS - Tempers frayed to the breaking point when planners for the Stissing Farms retirement community were again frustrated at their inability to move forward.
Art Brod of Planners East, Stissing Farms' planning consultant, voiced his frustration during the July 29 special meeting the planning board had set to discuss the 47-unit retirement community, to be located on Route 199, just east of the high school.

Town Attorney Warren Replansky had been asked by the planning board to review the Stissing Farms proposal and present his opinion to the board. "He's an f------ idiot," Brod said to Supervisor Gregg Pulver and Board Member Rick Butler about Replansky. "He doesn't know what he's talking about." Brod later apologized for his outburst, a comment he thought was out of earshot of the audience, but it obviously was loud enough for everyone in the room to hear.

"Everyone has the right to advocate for their project," said Pulver, several days after the meeting. "But that was grossly over the line." "That won't happen again," said Planning Board Chairman Ed Casazza this week. "If it does, we'll stop the meeting," Casazza said. "It was a special meeting for them and to have our people get beat up, that's not going to happen again."

Brod wanted the planning board's approval to start construction on the medical arts building on one of the lots of the proposed development. The building is intended to house a Veterans Administration clinic but, according to Stissing Farms' Attorney Rick Osofsky, if construction is not finished by October 1, the VA will not locate its clinic in Pine Plains.

Planning Board concerns

Several planning board concerns about the development were raised at the meeting. "The major thing (standing in the way of approval of the senior citizens project) was a consideration of the change from a homeowners association to a single owner," said Don Bartles, planning board member, this week.

The project was initially proposed as a condominium project with units to be owned by individual owners, under the guidance of a homeowners association (HOA). Later, the plan was changed to a single owner of the entire development with each unit as a rental. The covenants and restrictions are predicated upon the premise that the enforcement of the restrictions would be a function of the homeowners association. Casazza spoke with The Register Herald several days after the July 29 special meeting. He said that since the project has been changed to a single owner, who would rent each unit, residency enforceability must be addressed.

"It's a memo and not a formal document, which they have presented to the town," said Casazza, about the covenants and restrictions issue.

"They have to develop a method to police the covenants and restrictions," he said. "Now that there's no HOA, they have to come up with a mechanism to make it work that is satisfactory to the members of the board, the town engineer and the town attorney," Casazza said. "It's not a slam dunk anymore," he added.

A non-issue

The actual legality of the covenants and restrictions limiting residency, a concern raised at the regular planning board meeting on July 14, turned out to be a non-issue. "I've pretty much concluded that it's acceptable," Replansky said, referring to the covenants and restrictions document. "I don't find anything illegal about limiting residency to senior citizens," he said.

The covenants and restrictions call for 42 units to be designated for senior citizens only, with five units to be restricted to handicapped persons.

Replansky said, however, that several items needed to be included in the document.

Those items include a declaration binding the document in perpetuity, the designation of the town as a beneficiary, an opinion letter from the applicant's attorney on the enforceability of the covenants, a statement that the document is irrevocable and a letter from the applicant stating the covenants are voluntary.

"As we said since April 2003, we've voluntarily offered age restrictions," said Brod at the special meeting. "We knew that the document had to be approved by the town attorney and filed with the county."

At the last planning board meeting on July 14 the board also raised questions about the validity of the SEQRA process, because the method of ownership had changed. At the special meeting, the question of whether the SEQRA (state environmental quality review act) process would need to be reopened was determined by the board, with Replansky's and Nan Stolzenberg's advice, to be a non-issue. Stolzenberg, the town's consultant on land issues, did not attend the July 29 meeting, but a letter she wrote was presented to the board outlining her advice. Replansky, Stolzenberg and the Town Engineer Ray Jurkowski of Morris Associates, all agreed that the reopening of the SEQRA process was a decision the board had to make. All three said they thought the change of owner/occupancy to a single owner of the property was not enough to warrant a new evaluation. One board member, John DePreter, said he was uncomfortable with the advice because he was not a board member when the SEQRA process was conducted. DePreter voted "no," when the vote was taken not to reopen the SEQRA evaluation. Prior to the vote, Board Member Kate Osofsky, daughter of Stissing Farms' attorney Rick Osofsky, asked Replansky for his advice on recusing herself from the vote. Replansky replied that if she thought she could cast an unbiased vote, she should make the decision for herself. Osofsky voted to keep the SEQRA process closed. The final vote was 5-1 against reopening the review.

Other issue

"The other issue (holding up approval of the retirement community) was the bonding because we hadn't given them complete approval for off-site improvements," Bartles said this week. "I personally believed they didn't need bonding, but the town attorney suggested it, so I have to go along with the attorney."

The planning board requested the bond to guarantee work is finished on such aspects of the project as the common driveway, parking, lighting and drainage. Replansky said the bonding could be resolved if the developers present a letter of credit, or some other sort of security, from their bank to the town. Brod insisted that a bond is not routinely required on private projects such as the Stissing Farm proposal.

"We've been suggesting all along that the certificate of occupancy be withheld until the improvements have been made," Brod said. A certificate of occupancy is issued by the town's building inspector after construction is completed. The inspection is a thorough review of the interior and exterior of the premises and authorizes the use and occupancy of the land or premises as described in the permit application. Jurkowski, however, disagreed with Brod about the bond.

"I believe the town has requested bond guarantees on previous projects," he said. Several board members agreed with Jurkowski, as did Replansky. "You absolutely have the right to bond any improvements, public or private," he said. "The question is what would the board like to see constructed." The issue of easements to provide for storm water disposal, water supply and emergency access, also need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the approval being granted for the retirement community.

Osofsky said the easements are all technical legalities. "I see no reason why these things can't be complied with," he said. "These things are headed in the right direction," added Brod. "They just need some tweaking."

©The Register Herald 2004

AREA NEWSPAPER
CONTACT INFORMATION

ULSTER/ DUTCHESS

Poughkeepsie Journal
PO Box 1231
Poughkeepsie, NY 12602
(845) 454-2000
For an on line letter to the editor. Fill out this form

ULSTER COUNTY

Saugerties Times
Monday deadline
P.O.Box
Phone:334- 8200
FAX your letter 334-8202
saugertiestimes@ulsterpublishing
(Attention Erica Freudenberger, editor)
P.O.Box 3329
Kingston, NY 12402

Albany Times Union
Times Union
90 State Street
Albany, NY 12207
(518) 454-5091
For an on line letter to the editor. Fill out this form

COLUMBIA COUNTY
The Independent
Indenews (online)

P.O. Box 360
Hillsdale, NY 12529
Phone (518) 325-4400
FAX (518) 325-4497
Parry Teasdale, editor

letters to editor require form through website

***NOTE: Our websites make an effort to glean info for our readers from local papers. This is no way a substitute for subscribing or picking up a local paper. We gratefully acknowledge the efforts local newspapers and publications make to our community.