GRIP - Gardiner Residents for Individual Property Rights

Hipocrasy of the "Friends" and their friend.

2008-07-13T10:38:00.000-07:00

In a court decision dated February 6, Judge Christopher Cahill dismissed the Friends of the Shawangunks Article 78 lawsuit against the Town of Gardiner Zoning Board of Appeals and the Wustraus, who own the property at issue.

The Friends of the Shawangunks does not believe that the Court substantively addressed our contentions regarding the scope of the Gardiner Zoning Board of Appeals' authority to grant a variance from certain of the Ridgeline restrictions. We continue to believe that the language of the Ridgeline local law precludes certain variances that the ZBA granted in this case.

GRIP copied the information above in blue from the "friends" website, announcing their appeal of the loss of their court case against the Wustraus and the town of Gardiner. They are appalled at the nerve of a landowner to try and put a 3,500 foot driveway on their property so that they can access the land and use it!!!

The paragraph below, on the other hand, is from the Mohonk Preserve website. Mohonk Preserve partners with the "Friends of the Shawangunks" group on their environmentally zealous actions against property owners. As you can see, the Preserve has many many miles of "carriage roads" that they are using our tax dollars to renovate and preserve. The differnce between a carriage road and a driveway are merely technical...but the purpose of each is to allow easy access to property so that people can enjoy it beauty and use it. However, Mohonks' carriage roads are projected as historic wonders deserving of preservation, and their existence is celebrated by all of the land trust groups. However, a single driveway, constructed by landowners of more than 100 years, is considered "scarring" the landscape and a potential environmental disaster.

This is hypocrasy at its highest level. We believe that the Wustrau family will prevail again in the courts, as is only right. "Friends", what will you do when NY State starts to put in a campground with roads galore? We hope that you are as fast to take the state to court as you will be the Wustraus!

A generous grant from the New York State Department of Transportation and the support of members and donors is funding the first major restoration of the Preserve’s 25-mile carriage road network in its more than 130-year history.

Begun in the fall of 2003, the first phase of the project includes the restoration of almost 9 miles of carriage roads in the southern Preserve. This phase is expected to be completed in 2007.

In 2006, the Preserve teamed up with ridge partners to plan expanding this to a multi-agency effort, including restoration of carriage roads on the neighboring Minnewaska State Park Preserve. Through this collaborative effort, partners hope to restore 62 miles of carriage roads over a projected three-year construction phase.

The Preserve's partners in this effort include the Palisades Interstate Park Commission and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

Driveways Bad....Roads OK?

2008-03-30T10:58:00.000-07:00

The town of Gardiner is currently dragging their heels over revising a restrictive law that puts a maximum driveway length in Gardiner at 1200 feet, and 2,500 feet if you can get a variance. The enviro-nuts and some town board members claim that having a driveway will "scar the landscape" and permanently ruin not only the ridge, but the view of the nameless tourists who flock to Gardiner to look at it. Horrors of horrors!

Never mind that meanwhile, some people can't even get to their land because they are not allowed to put a drive way in long enough to get to it.

On the other hand, here's an excerpt from a recent Mohonk Preserve mailing, asking for money for their "carriage road" restoration...

The Preserve's 30-mile carriage road network is currently undergoing a mile-by-mile restoration. In its 138-year history, the carriage roads have grought countless people into this beautiful wild area, providing an easy way for all to access this breathtaking property. ...........this necessary maintenance includes drainage repair, culvery replacement, stone retaining base work, and resurfacing. such repairs prevent deterioration and stabilize the historic road infrastructure, while making your access easier and your journey more enjoyable".

This sounds like "scaring of the landscape" to me. So, the Smiley family wanted to make sure that tourists can easily get to the Ridge and traipse all over it, but the Town of Gardiner wants to make it impossible for a few property owners to be able to access their land...at all.... never mind easily by car.

A non-taxpaying entity is allowed to repair their 30 mile road network....but tax paying private landowners are not allowed to build a single driveway. A very disturbing state of affairs in Gardiner.

Town Board Disappoints Big Time

2008-03-09T10:48:00.000-07:00

What a bunch of losers! The Gardiner town board voted 4-1 the other night to vote in one of the most sweeping and repressive zoning laws you can ever imagine. What doo-doo this town is in for now! One can only wonder which part of the zoning will be the target of a lawsuit first...the cell town height, the lack of due diligence on SEQRA, the fact that it will cost every homeowner or property owner a fortune to even think about using their property for anything but the "view"?

The biggest loser in this whole mess is the people of Gardiner. I'm sure most of them hardly know that the law exists, much less how it will affect them, until it comes time for them to want to subdivide 9 acres (can't!) put a home on the mountain (can't), or even have a favorite backhoe as a lawn ornament (can't!).

They already have a list of items in the law that need to be changed (fat chance) even before the ink is dry on the law. I forsee nothing but trouble ahead for the people of this town.

"Foes of Shawangunks" Losers

2008-03-02T12:22:00.000-08:00

The group calling themselves "Friends of the Shawangunks", (we prefer to call them Foes) recently lost an Article 78 court decision in Ulster County Supreme Court. The suit had been filed against the town of Gardiner ZBA and Joan and Werner Wustrau. The "friends" were upset that they town ZBA was allowing variances for the Wustraus to build a driveway in their ROW allowing them access to their 40 acres on the ridge that has been in their family for over a 100 years. "Friends" stated on their website that they were going go appeal the decision for several reasons, being that the the "Supreme Court was simply wrong" in their decision, and that "this project would set an unacceptable precedent for other property owners to use in seeking developments that would harm the Ridge". How dare those property owners want to use their land!

So, the self proclaimed dictators of the ridge apparently know better than the property owners of 100+ years, the Town of Gardiner ZBA, and the Ulster Country Supreme Court....what is and isn't good for the ridge. They have nothing whatsoever to do with this property.....except that they want to dictate what can or cannot happen on it. What arrogance. And, they want to assure that not only can't the Wustraus' build a driveway, but NO ONE can build a driveway....on the ridge, or any other such "unacceptable signs of humanity!

One has to wonder why the "Friends" are spending so much time and effort (and money) to prevent the Wustraus from using their land instead of railing against Mohonk Preserve, the private park that has thousands of acres and many miles of "carriage roads" that carry hundreds of thousands of visitors up and down the Ridge every year. How many scars on the landscape does that cause.?

Is smaller smarter?

2007-12-21T12:27:00.000-08:00

We attended the Gardiner Town Board deliberations about the proposed zoning law. Many things came up, but among them was one which you would be interested to hear.

Density, or lot size, was the subject they tackled. That being the part of the zoning which had caused the most public objection. They are agreed that a benefit will be given developers who set aside most of their land as open space. The benefit will be more housing units allowed in direct proportion to the amount of open space reserved. So, one can visualize a small corner of a project having a cluster of multi-family units. Little bits of urbanization dotted around the town, surrounded, of course, by the open space desired by some.

The question that was never addressed was this: Do people really want to live that way, all crammed together in a city- like "home"? Our observation has been that people have been moving here, and have stayed here, to live in a home separate from others on a piece of land they can call theirs.

Janet Kern spoke of a need for "inclusionary housing" for teachers and others "who work for us". Look around at some of the fine homes in Gardiner. Many of them are owned by teachers, highway department staff and other town employees. They would not want to live in Janet Kern's 900 SF inclusionary house.

So who would these multi-family versions of urban "togetherness" suit? No one from Gardiner, that's for sure. Outsiders might pour in to fill them. Think about it !

Snow Day

2007-12-14T13:24:00.001-08:00

GRIP has taken a snow day. With almost a foot of snow falling last night, clearing up and getting out took priority. So, with much shoveling, grunting, and snow tossing, and some help from my friend Mike who has plow, we are cleared out enough to get in and out of the driveway. Paths are shoveled to allow the GRIP writers access to the office/computer from the house, and all is well.

GRIP even got out the dusty cross country skis, which had been languishing for a few years in the basement. Like riding a bike....in no time we were gliding across the virgin snow, making tracks and blazing trails. Our trusty dog Tiger was cavorting mightily, and fell for the snow "ball" throwing for him.

Tomorrow, (or even sooner) there will be some stiff and sore muscles to follow up our physical recreation and mini Olympics. Both GRIP writers and trusty dog Tiger will be needing some Ben Gay!

Oh, and it's wonderful to be able to enjoy my property, and "recreate" without the town butting in and telling me I can't!

Hitting a Raw Nerve, or just Right?

2007-12-13T06:22:00.000-08:00

GRIP founders have been speaking out in Town Hall about the proposed zoning changes, and these comments have been picked up and quoted in the local press, most notably the Kingston Freeman, who have been following and reporting on the meetings. We were somewhat surprised by the Freeman's sudden interest, but we welcome their reporting on the subject. GRIP, apparently has come to be known as the "rest of the story" and the voice of many property owners in Town Hall.

How do we know this? Well, people tell us. We get "thank you"'s all the time from ordinary folk who may not feel able to stand up in town hall and speak out themselves. They pat us on the back, say thank you in person, and send us E mails. However, sometimes when we speak out, we hit a raw nerve with those who insist that we are wrong in our views, and even that the newspapers are wrong to quote us!

GRIP was searching on line to read a 12/11 article by Freeman correspondent, William Kemble, when we noticed a "comment" about the article from Mr. Steven Fornal, from Accord, NY. Really, Mr. Fornal wrote a scathing retort to our quoted comments about inclusionary housing that we presented at Town Hall last Monday night. (See previous blog). In it, Mr. Fornal states that GRIP members do not know what we are talking about, and that we are "skewing information to rile people up to defeat the code." Well, we admit that we are riling people up to defeat the code, which is exactly what GRIP is about, and what Public Hearings are meant to be about. But his ire is that his idea of reality, and ours, are totally different.....and that we have the nerve to state our point of view.

Mr. Fornal says that GRIP is "ignorant of the issue being discussed". However, GRIP members have read, many times, every single word of the proposed zoning code, along with the numerous drafts and changes that have been made over the last several years. GRIP members have read all of the EAF documents that accompany the proposed zoning code. GRIP members have also read and studied documents relating to the proposed code from NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, Ulster County Planning Board, Gardiner Planning Board and Town Planner David Church, and others. GRIP members have read and studied all of the town Master Comprehensive Plan that the proposed zoning code is purported to be based on. GRIP members have been present for hundreds of hours of discussion, deliberation, and public hearings about the proposed code, and listened to members of the Town Board, Joel Russell the planner/consultant writing the code, and members of the public who have spoken out, both for and against the code.

Has Mr. Fornal done any of these things? We doubt it very much.

Mr. Fornal did us a favor, however in coming up with his definition of the "property rights issue", which is "unlimited rights for only a certain distinct minority of land users to the abject detriment of the majority residential property owners". GRIP does not agree with Mr. Fornal that this is the definition of property rights, but we find it fits perfectly our idea of what the current proposed zoning code is.

Gardiner Zoning Revisions and Inclusionary Housing

2007-12-04T12:45:00.000-08:00

As Gardiner town board continues the debate and discussions over the new Zoning regulations, it's hard to decide which of the sections of the document are the most oppressive to property owners rights. The one that we object to vigorously is the entire new section on Inclusionary Housing.

The Inclusionary Housing regulation (220-42 ) of the proposed zoning law should be eliminated in it’s entirety from the zoning regulations. Although the law is cited as a goal of the 2004 Master Plan, nowhere in the plan is his type of housing discussed as being mandated by a zoning regulation. Nor does this seem to be the intent of the Master Plan, which mentions “affordable housing” as only one of a list of possible concessions to the town in exchange for more density by builders.

Indeed, this regulation would cause an immediate increase in the size, power and intrusiveness of town government by creating an entirely new group called the Housing Authority. This department could be appointed from untrained volunteers, or worse, delegated to outside third party entities who would determine who and under what conditions ownership of the homes would be allowed. It sets up the town government as a Landlord, real estate agent and “superintendent of buildings” all rolled into one. This new “authority” will oversee the selection of home buyers or renters and have the power to oversee the selection of who be allowed to live in the community. They will have ultimate authority to permit or deny the sale, renovation, or even emergency repair of homes in the community. Free will and choice are taken out of the homeowners hands. This should not be a proper role of town government but instead driven by a natural marketplace where free will and choice can be exercised by both home buyers and builders.

This regulation is also harmful in that it would cap the investment potential of the properties for buyers, eliminating one of the most basic and important reasons for home ownership, which is to create a secure and stable investment and asset that could grow equity over time.

This section doesn’t allow for another basic benefit of home ownership which is the ability to improve and expand ones home as necessary. This regulation discourages healthy family growth, since a homeowner is not allowed to expand the footprint of their property, or make improvements that reflect pride of ownership. Indeed, the regulation institutes perpetual restrictions on occupancy and resale, regardless of the status of neighboring properties in the development or throughout the town.

Homeowners are not the only ones hurt by this regulation. Builders are penalized as well in having this section mandatory, which creates an inequality in housing types in the same neighborhood. This causes non-restricted homes to be more costly which negatively impacts other middle class home buyers. Instead, the town should encourage, but not mandate a diversity of home types by lifting regulations and guidelines, not by creating more. The town should offer tax breaks or other bonus concessions to builders who willingly create lower priced starter and senior homes as part of their developments, but they should not try to force these mandates in areas where there is no proof that these types of housing are either needed or wanted.

For the Birds

2007-12-02T10:43:00.000-08:00

If you love to feed the birds with feeders , but have been dismayed by attacks on the feeders by squirrels, deer, and more recently, bears, I have a solution.

Being old-fashioned and thrifty, I like to dry clothes outdoors. I have a pulley clothesline. It is attached to the house near the back door….about 10 - 11 feet above ground. The other end of the line is attached to a tree on the edge of the yard, at about the same distance from ground level. I attach the filled feeder to the clothesline with a double snap clip (one end clipped to the clothesline, and the other end to the wire handle of the feeder), and pull it out to the middle of the yard. The feeder’s place on the line can be assured with a couple of clothespins. It is too high off the ground for deer or bears to reach it, and squirrels cannot climb out on the line. They have tried again and again to do so, to no avail.

When the feeder is empty, I pull it in and refill it in the warm kitchen, and I don’t have to tramp out into the yard to do it. I’ve been doing this for years, and it really works. Of course, the squirrels and deer (I’ve never seen bears doing it) glean what the birds drop on the ground. They’re welcome to that. And how we do enjoy those birds!!

Marion Kells

Gardiner Rail Trail Saga by Marion Kells

2007-12-01T14:03:00.000-08:00

(Note - this is an article from last year written by Marion Kells. Since then, the Gardiner section of the Rail Trail has been purchased by the town for $70,000. A grant to reimburse the money to the town is not gone through as of this date. The town is now having to take up the burden of cost and maintenance, without adding any benefit to the people that they didn't have before the purchase.)

For more than two decades the question has cropped up in Gardiner -- to take over (buy) , or not to take over the portion of the old railroad bed that runs through our town. Recently, Louis Benson and Joe Katz formed a committee to look into the question. After some investigation they suggested that, in their opinion, it was time for Gardiner to purchase the property. And they gave several reasons for it. They gave none of the reasons for approaching such a purchase with caution, if not downright refusal. And in the ensuing months, the euphoria over possibly owning the rail trail has the Town Board on the brink of ownership. That would be ownership by the taxpayers of Gardiner.

The committee mentioned relatively small sums for the purchase and other costs that would be incurred if the town bought the rail trail. They never were able to give a figure for how much it costs the Town and Village of New Paltz to operate and maintain the rail trail in their jurisdictions. That would be a very important, even deciding, figure to know.

The reasons Gardiner does not now own the rail trail, and some history of the years-long discussion are interesting.

In March of 1982, notices were sent by New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) announcing the abandonment of portions of the Conrail right-of-way (ROW). The notice informed towns through which the ROW ran, that they would have preferential right to acquire the property, and that the towns must advise NYSDOT of their interest by certain date, or those rights would lapse.

In May of 1983, the supervisors of New Paltz, Gardiner, Shawangunk and Montgomery contacted NYSDOT asking that their four towns be granted preferential status. Negotiations concerning purchase price and other considerations would involve the towns, NYSDOT and Conrail.

Following that period, attention to the rail trail was low priority for the Gardiner Town Board. The towns of Montgomery and Shawangunk purchased the ROW in their towns in October 1985.

By 1988 a group calling itself the Wallkill Valley Railroad Associates (WVRA) made a bid for the ROW traversing Gardiner and the Town and Village of New Paltz. A June 1988 letter from Matthew Bialecki, representing the WVRA, apprised the Gardiner supervisor of the intention of the group, if their bid was accepted, to sell off the ROW to the municipalities. He added that if the municipalities were not interested,, WVRA would sell to private individuals, most likely adjacent landowners.

Later in 1988, the ROW came to the interest of the Wallkill Valley Land Trust (WVLT), which had organized for the purpose of furthering land preservation. How the WVRA was eclipsed by the WVLT is not clear, but from that point on, the WVLT controlled the ROW. They stated that their association with the Trust For Public Land made it possible for them “to participate in projects which might otherwise be beyond our financial or technical ability”.

The WVLT issued a Declaration stating what obligations they or any subsequent owners of the ROW would have. These “rules” would be in effect permanently, and dictate how the ROW would be administered. Apparently, the Town and Village of New Paltz agreed to the “rules”, and contracted with WVLT early in 1989, to purchase their portions of the ROW. There followed a flurry of letters to the Town of Gardiner urging them to “sign on”. Clearly, the WVLT, not wanting the responsibility of ownership, hoped to turn over the rail trail, with their added Declaration of restrictions, as quickly as possible.

During that period Gardiner town boards changed from election to election, but those boards were always only lukewarm to any takeover of the ROW. The reluctance by Gardiner in the ROW discussions was for several reasons: the well-known (but now past) Gardiner aversion to spending taxpayer money for non-essentials; the apprehension about taking on a liability with possibility of lawsuits; demands by a few that more and more amenities be added to the rail trail; the demand by WVLT to impose restrictions on use of the trail, even if Gardiner owned it; WVLT would not guarantee title or the value of quit claims; the contention by the Town and Village of New Paltz that they had the power to commit the Town of Gardiner to purchase Gardiner’s portion of the ROW; and, among additional reasons, the correct assumption that the rail trail would benefit New Paltz residents and other outsiders, far more than Gardiner residents and serve as a unique corridor of access to our town, and the properties abutting the trail, that could have undesirable consequences.

In July 1988, the Gardiner Town Board sent a questionnaire to Gardiner residents whose property abutted the ROW. The results of this questionnaire were almost unanimously against the use of the ROW as a rail trail or linear park. Also, the Town Board received letters from other taxpayers in the town, objecting to the use of tax dollars in such a purchase and continued upkeep.

At a meeting in June, 1989 between the Gardiner Town Board and the WVLT, the Gardiner Town Board gave their final NO to any takeover of the ROW.

A February 7, 1991 letter from Steve Ruelke, Project Manager for WVLT, to the Gardiner Town Board, announced that purchases by the Town and Village of New Paltz of their portions of the ROW were completed. He added that the offer to the Town of Gardiner to purchase their ROW portion was now null and void. However, the door was not shut to possible negotiations in the future.

Mr. Ruelke went on to outline some of WVLT’s plans for the rail trail: their intent to improve the trail between 44/55 and the Town of New Paltz; decking the Forest Glen bridge; brush clearing and ditching; working with the Wallkill Valley Railroad Association, volunteers committed to operating, managing and maintaining the entire 12 miles of trail; planning a small railroad museum; organizing nature walks and other activities.

The WVLT’s annoyance with Gardiner’s turn down was thinly concealed. Newspaper reports had then saying that Gardiner was “putting up smoke screens”, and Gardiner Town Board members wouldn’t participate in the rail trail scheme because they were “afraid of new ideas”. And periodically, throughout the 1990s, feelers were sent from the WVLT to Gardiner officials to see if a change in boards might have brought about a change in minds.

An example of such an attempt to spark Gardiner’s interest occurred in 1993. WVLT asked that Gardiner agree to act as municipal sponsor for a grant application under the ISTEA Transportation Enhancement federal program. The plan was that if WVLT succeeded in receiving the grant, the money would suffice as Gardiner’s payment for the rail trail. It was learned that by being a municipal sponsor for the ISTEA grant, Gardiner could be left in the sorry position of being responsible for the rail trail if the other parties failed their part of the agreement. In addition, the town board asked WVLT to release Gardiner from the restrictions placed on the rail trail by the WVLT Declaration. They refused, and once again, Gardiner had to deny WVLT’s request.

CODA: The above decisions of the past Gardiner town boards are proven to have been wise. Time after time stories in the local papers have told of vandalism, intrusion on private property, necessity of police involvement, and continued demands by trail users for additional amenities. All of these problems and costs would have been the responsibility of Gardiner taxpayers, had we bought the ROW.

The facts that Gardiner has within its borders a fine town park, as yet not fully developed, a state park on the Shawangunk Ridge, along with the recently added Awosting Reserve and Tillson Lake land, other parcels in the town set aside for future parks, and expansive yards where most residents do their recreating, all work against Gardiner taking on still more park land.

It is unreasonable that Gardiner should buy the rail trail. Gardiner will not be deprived of it, since it runs through our town. It is owned by a group pledged by their Declaration to continue it as a rail trail. Working with the Wallkill Valley Railroad Association, they have the clout to obtain grants (already proven), and they have the enthusiasm of the people who are interested in such a linear park. It is just and fair that those who believe in it should shoulder the burden, not all the taxpayers of Gardiner.

Save the Property Owner

2007-11-30T10:59:00.000-08:00

Every time I turn around, there's another "Save the" organization popping up to urge us to take action to preserve our "rural character" and prevent us from certain doom and gloom. First there was "Save the Ridge" in Gardiner telling us that the caretakers and stewards of the ridge lands who had been keeping the land pristine for others to enjoy were no longer fit to do so. Now, there's a new crop of savers, called "Save the lakes" who want to prevent private property owners from privately selling and developing their land. "Save the Lakes" wants to have communal, public use of the land, and sponge off private landowners who pay the taxes and upkeep. The Save the Lake people are railing against "gates and walls", because it keeps the riff raft like them out. This is unfair they say, and goes against the wonderful community spirit. However, the Save the Lake people don't seem to have a problem with resorts like Mohonk Mountain House, who has exclusive use of the Mohonk Lake for their high paying, wealthy guests.

But these are different "Save" groups, you might say, who's only interest is in their local community and issue? Right? Not so, as both are connected at the hip with the unfriendly "Friends of the Shawangunks" who are using their not-for-profit status to collect donations for the "Lake-Lovers". "Friends", at their recent annual meeting, made sure to highlight their actions suing the town of Gardiner ZBA and private landowners the Wustraus, and that they (Friends) were taking up the "Save the Lakes" battle cry as part of their main agenda for the upcoming year. And, all of these groups form a far reaching umbrella group called Shawangunk Ridge Coalition, made up of the pseudo local grass roots groups, and local and national land trusts, along with the private parks such as Mohonk Preserve. As a group, they can share resources, knowledge, and technology to raise money, alert the press, create sophisticated mailings, get out the vote, harass and influence local elected officials and generally push their propaganda and agendas.

I have to admit that someone (or many) spent lots of time and effort on the Save the Lakes website to spout all the reasons they can think of to prevent private development. Most of these arguments are easily countered. You can tell where some true local emotions have been enhanced by land trust speak where any building or signs of civilization become potential disasters of global proportions. My favorite on the site is from Mohonk Preserve (a private, non-tax paying not - for-profit members-only park) director Glenn Hoagland:

"Without the economic incentives of eco-tourism, lands may be subdivided for housing developments or condominiums. Both eliminate habitat for wildlife and make the area less scenic. In addition, these alternatives are usually less attractive economically than eco-tourism because, unlike parks and preserves, people move into houses and condominiums. Once they do, they require services (schools, police, fire, etc.) and infrastructure (roads, bridges etc.) This leads to greater spending by the local government and higher property taxes."

I find this so funny because the Preserve pays NO TAXES AT ALL, so I wonder why they are even concerned about us real taxpayers and how much we pay or not to our towns and school districts. In fact, if Mohonk paid their share of taxes, my share would go down a lot! Also, the 100,000-200,000 "ecotourists" who visit Mohonk cause much more damage to our roads and infrastructure than a few hundred homeowners. The "ecotourists" dangling from ropes and hiking the trails of the preserve cause many more emergency situations for our firefighters and emergency personal. The "ecotourists" who makes millions upon millions of footsteps on the ridge probably cause more damage than 10 developments! And, I wish someone would tell the bear, turkeys, deer, coyotes and numerous other wildlife that they are not supposed to use the "corridor" known as my back yard.

I could go on and on.....but I'll leave you with a wonderful letter from a Tillson resident, Thomas Shanley, who is not impressed with the "Friends" or the "Savers" either. This was in yesterday's New Paltz Times. By exposing the groups who try to take away our private property rights, people like Thomas show that you can take a stand!

Friends Expand to the Lakes (New Paltz Times, 11/29/07)

After reading the letter by H. Neil Zimmerman of the Friends of the Shawangunks in your November 22 issue, I felt I had to say my peace. I will have to say that his response is very cold and bureaucratic. Here we have a family that has owned property for over 100 years that have a need to improve their access to it. They are not building a waste dump; they are not adding a casino. They just want to build a driveway to access their property.

Mr. Zimmerman goes into detail on how this project violates the Shawangunk Ridge Protection regulations. He is correct; it does violate the stringent regulations. This is why the Wautraus's filed with the ZBA of Gardiner. We have ZBAs because many regulations can be too strict. The ZBA does the right thing by protecting the little guy and along comes the big land trust to put a stop to that. God forbid we amend the SRP.

So let's say that the Friends win and the driveway is not built what is the Wautraus's next step? They are going to have to sell it. And who's going to buy this nice 40 acres? It won't be an individual or a developer. The Friends saw to that. The only buyer can be the Mohonk Preserve or other land trust who will buy it at well below the market value. And to me that seems to be the real goal.

This brings me to an issue that is closer to my home.

The Friends are now acting as a fiscal agent for a satellite group, Save the Lakes. Here in Rosendale, Anita Peck is selling her more than 700-acre resort to a Canopy Development who plans to turn the property into an upscale resort. They also have plans to acquire other property and possibly add upscale homes. The contracts are signed and the closing is near. Save the Lakes is doing everything they can to stop this.

My problem with here is two-fold. One, we have an organization telling a landowner who is an acceptable buyer. Two, they already have stated that there are other buyers, buyers that are acceptable to Save the Lakes. They do not name the buyer, but their site (www.savethelakes.us) states that it should be protected open space. This would allude to a land trust.

After seeing the tactics that both the Friends and Mohonk Preserve use to preserve open space, I would think twice about supporting "Save the Lakes." It would be a big mistake for Rosendale residents and especially the neighbors. The next thing we will see here is a SRP act of our own. That's bad news.

I think that land preservation is a good goal. Keeping the rural character is a good thing. However, if in that preserving the land, we have to step on local property owners, then I have a problem.

Thomas C. Shanley
Tillson

Meeting of the Mind(ers)

2007-11-29T10:37:00.000-08:00

I attended a meeting of the Gardiner Open Space Commission (or is it Committee, I never could get it right), who have been meeting regularly on the third Wednesday of the month since June. They are now in the process of trying to figure out what the process will be for "willing" applicants to line up for their share of Gardiner tax dollars, combined with rich grant monies from other taypayer supported entities like the Feds, or State environmental funds.

I've been developing some interesting thoughts since attending these meetings. For example, I used to think that all open space was equal, and all bearers of open space to the town were treated the same. However, I may certainly be wrong, and here's the data to back it up.

Open space created as part of an Open Space Development is subject to extensive and expensive "conservation analysis" and and the full cost is borne by the applicant; Open space created as a PDR is being evaluated by the Town (taxpayers) or its agents, at no cost to the applicant.
Open space created as part of an Open Space Development is NOT counted as part of the Town's official Open space inventory in terms of acreage; Open space acreage created as a PDR will be fully added to the rolling total as "official" open space.
Fees like survey, title, engineer, etc creating an Open Space Development are all paid by the applicant; fees involved in creating a PDR open space plan will be paid for by the town taxpayers.

Therefore, anyone coming to the town wanting to to an open space development is forced to go through a lengthy, expensive process, full of exacting requirements and hurdles, and saddled with numerous restrictions and limitations......all at their own cost. They are viewed as the evil developers, not the givers of open space. They pay plently in the process.

On the contrary, anyone taking advantage of open space PDR and conservation easement is treated like a hero....for preserving land that was possibly not buildable in the first place. They get paid in the process, by giving up their rights to develop the property in perpetuity. (However, this doesn't mean that the property can never be developed, just not by them.)

These are the extremes and there are many shades of grey in the middle. I hope that while Open Space continues to be a priority for many property owners in Gardiner, it doesn't come at the expense of all taxpayers. I did hear one rather disturbing comment last evening, from a member of the committee who is a lawyer and should know better. The comment was in regard to the Wustrau lawsuit that is now unfolding, and it pertained to the possibility of that property suddenly becoming available as a PDR because of the lawsuit! How easy that makes it to make a connection between the fact that the SP zoning restrictions force ZBA actions, which can then be used to sue the town and the property owner. Land owners willing to give up their titular rights that they lost to zoning by force!

The Commission will be continuing their work. The meetings are open to the open to the public, like all town meetings. Concerned citizens should make it their business to know what the committee has planned for spending their tax dollars, and I'll try to keep you posted here.

The GRIP Viewpoint (8/23/06)

2007-11-28T08:48:00.000-08:00

(Note: This is a previous letter to the editor explaining GRIP, and we're reprinting it here for your edification.)

I'd like to thank the New Paltz Times for the coverage that they gave to our newly formed property rights group, GRIP. I'd especially like to thank photographer Lauren Thomas for digitally capturing the core members of the group. I had invited reporter Anne Pyburn to meet with various GRIP members to get diverse points of view for the article, but she declined. Instead, the interview was held over the phone by way of being a "chat".

I thank Anne for accurately summarizing my views, but I would like to point out that the quotes given in the article were not my words verbatim. Also, I gave my opinion that Behan Associates had a vested interest in having the proposed open space plan adopted because of the additional business it could bring them from Gardiner. Anne followed my statement with a bracketed addition of her own that pointed out that the plan called for a volunteer advisory board implying that my information was incorrect. I would like to clarify that although the Open Space Plan does call for the formation of a Conservation Advisory Committee to determine what projects get funded, page 55 of the draft plan also recommends that the town "Increase Organization capacity for the Land Conservation Program by hiring a Full-Time Program Manager or contracting for services with consultant planners." This is in addition to the appointed committee, and would be funded by taxpayers. The document then spells out in detail the duties that this Program Manager or Consultant Planner would perform.

As for Behan's presentation given to the town of the draft Open Space, I want to make my view of their role clear. Behan Associates was hired by the town for a fee of $51,000 to create an Open Space Plan. The Town of Gardiner is a client of theirs. The "presentation" given to the town is in effect a sales pitch by them, as it recommends many of the additional services and programs that Behan provides (GIS Mapping, Master Plans, Economic Feasibility Studies, Design Guidelines, Land Acquisition Implementation Services, etc.) Behan has an interest in Gardiner adopting the "Plan", as it would provide them with an opportunity to sell additional products and services to the town for a profit.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this process or Behan Associates, as I'm sure that they are excellent at what they do. However, they are not promoting open space planning in Gardiner (or Marbletown, or New Paltz, or any of our other neighboring towns where they are currently or recently hired) for altruistic or philanthropic purposes. Simply, it is their business and open space planning is their product line, and that's how John Behan and his associates make a living. If Gardiner were to adopt the current draft plan, it would create a basis for many future taxpayer-funded programs, and Behan Associates or some other planning consultant would be able to retire happily from the proceeds.

Each and every property owner and taxpayer should read the draft Open Space Plan for themselves and not rely on biased interpretation. Think about the huge spending commitment it would take by taxpayers to fund it. Mostly, don't believe everything you read in the papers, or see presented at Town Hall. If you are interested in the taxpayer point of view on this and other property rights issues that are now affecting Gardiner, I invite you to www.gripnow.net, and you can make your own decision.

Friends or Fiends to Neighbors and Property Owers?

2007-11-28T08:26:00.000-08:00

The Friends of the Shawangunks website has an article where they are attempting to rationalize their very unfriendly lawsuit against both the Town of Gardiner ZBA and the Wustraus who own property on the Ridge.

As we reported earlier, the Wustraus wanted to be able to have easier access to their property, and asked for and were granted variances by the town ZBA to build a driveway....no more and no less.

The self-appointed defenders against all things having do do with land use on the ridge have also sent a letter to the New Paltz Times (11/15/07 issue) chastising reporter Annie Pyburn and the paper for not getting the facts straight.

So, we'd like to turn the tables for a moment on the "friends", and look at the accuracy of the statements that they make in attempting to justify their lawsuit. In his Letter to the Editor, H. Neil Zimmerman, President of the Friends of the Shawangunks states that "the ZBA was required under the State Environmental Quality Review Act SEQRA to conduct an environmental review of both the proposed driveway and the house at the same time. That the ZBA failed to do so, despite the plans submitted, was a clear violation of SEQRA."

We went to the SEQRA website, and under the FAQ's section, found the following:

"Does a zoning board of appeals, when interpreting a zoning law or ordinance have to apply SEQRA? No. As part of their appellate jurisdiction, zoning boards of appeals (ZBA) are specifically authorized to render interpretations of local zoning laws. Interpretations of the local zoning law by zoning boards are classified as Type 11 actions, which are exempt from SEQRA review."

The fact that the plans submitted to the ZBA showed a home site as well as a driveway (which we're taking their word for, since we haven't seen them) is irrelevant, since the ZBA only was asked to and ruled on the variances for a driveway.

Mr. Zimmerman also states in the letter that "our Article 78 lawsuit against the Gardiner Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) a suit against a particular property owner, when it really is about the ZBA's failure to do its job properly." According to the Gardiner Town Website, the whole purpose of the ZBA is to issue variances to the zoning laws when they are inappropriate, punative, or create an unreasonable hardship for a property owner.

The president of the "Friends" also quotes from the intent of the Ridge law, insinuating that the ZBA ruling somehow goes against it. We were present during the whole time that the Shawangunk Ridge law was being written by the consultants and town board, and time after time, property owners were verbally assured that the intent of the law was not to punish individuals or to keep them from use of their land. The Town Board members said over and over that property owners only needed to get variances from the ZBA to build on or use their land.

As much as they will try, the actions of the Friends of the Shawangunks are pretty hard to defend on any level, but especially in the court of humanity and fairness. If the rationale they use in the courts is as flimsy and shallow as what they present to the public, we have faith that the Gardiner ZBA and the Wustraus will prevail in this matter.