Gardiner: Save the Ridge, Inc. a non-partisan, not-for-profit corporation, announced the results of its survey of Gardiner Town Board and Supervisor candidates to determine their position on issues related to protection of the Shawangunk Ridge. The survey asked candidates to indicate whether or not they agreed with statements related to measures to prohibit development of the ridge and slopes, titled "Save The Ridge Electoral Platform."

Carl Zatz, Nadine Lemmon, and Matt Bialecki endorsed the entire Save The Ridge Platform, while Supervisor Jack Hayes, candidates Peter Licis and John Turner did not. "We are pleased that all six candidates stated unequivocally that they were personally opposed to development on Awosting Reserve and they would like to see it remain as undeveloped open-space." Said Kathy Muessig, long time resident of Gardiner and volunteer officer with Save the Ridge. "However, the difference between the candidates who endorsed the platform - Zatz, Lemmon and Bialecki- and those who did not, is the proactive approach the endorsing candidates would take in reaching those goals as town officials."

Gardiner's Comprehensive Masterplan calls for preserving "...all of the remaining open mountain areas and much of the remaining river valleys for public enjoyment" and protecting " special natural resources and areas, unique geological and open space area, and key water bodies and watersheds."

Citizens of Gardiner called for the Town Board to institute a moratorium on development in order to provide the Town with the opportunity to improve the town codes so that they are consistent with and provide the legal means to enforce these Master Plan objectives, before development proposals overwhelm the community. Jack Hayes responded to repeated community requests for a moratorium by refusing to hold a public hearing to allow discussion of the issue. Therefore he has placed the Town of Gardiner in a vulnerable position.

"A proactive approach, at the very least, would have been to immediately take the steps to enact a moratorium with the intent of changing the zoning codes to comply with the masterplan. That is the leadership for the future of Gardiner we want to see, and an example of how a town official can use the law to protect the public's interest." Said Muessig.

Save the Ridge views elections as an opportunity to raise vital issues regarding protection of the ridge and its contiguous slopes. Save the Ridge is not a political party, is not partisan, and has no preference for any political party. "We urge the citizens of Gardiner to closely examine the candidates for Town Supervisor and Town Board on the issue of protecting the Ridge for Gardiner's future. Those candidates that have clearly indicated their unequivocal commitment to protection of the Ridge by whatever legal means available to them are Carl Zatz, Nadine Lemmon and Matt Bialecki."

###

SAVE THE RIDGE- Electoral Platform

Core issues that our members care about and actions we would like candidates to take include:

• Oppose the development of land known as the "Awosting Reserve," work to help secure funding to purchase that land for open space, water and wildlife habitat conservation
• Designation of a Ridge Protection Zone for the ridge and contiguous slopes that would include maximum restrictions on development
• Undertake an inventory of open space, surface and groundwater resources, wildlife habitat and other environmentally sensitive and needed areas
• Work with neighboring communities on regional growth and open space issues
• Prohibit development in environmentally sensitive areas
• Secure funding to help purchase ridge lands and other critical open space, as well as the purchase of development rights for open space
• Development and implementation of design standards for viewshed areas
• Restrictions on cell tower placement in order to protect viewshed areas

You have doubtless read that the town of Gardiner has ruled there can be no central sewage treatment plant in the ridge district, thus effectively cutting down the possible number of houses from the proposed 349 to 49. We wonder why it took so long, since the Clouser report explaining that was submitted to the town in March. It seems to us that the town government has wasted a lot of people's time and energy (and money), only to release a decision just before the elections, when appearing to oppose development on the ridge will clearly be a vote-getter. And in fact it isn't even a decision; it is an interpretation of town law by the building inspector Don Otis, which will be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and that result will then probably be litigated. Be warned also that after 8 points explaining why current zoning forbids the central sewer, Mr. Otis' 9th point states, "The Town Board has authority under section 264 of New York State Town Law to approve changes to the Zoning Law and Under Section 190 to establish municipal sewer districts as they may deem to be in the best interest of the Town."

The price of conservation is eternal vigilance. We must make sure no such change to town law comes about; clearly the purpose of forbidding central sewers on the ridge was to prevent large developments and that is the way it should stay; if there is any ambiguity in the town's language the protection should in fact be strengthened.

And of course we will also oppose a 49-house development. The land should remain undeveloped and added to Minnewaska State Park Preserve.

(I wrote the following 6 paragaphs in July, but they are still applicable:) Currently, in a sense, there is no development application. The original plan (349 houses in a so-called cluster development with golf course), presented to the Gardiner and Shawangunk Town Planning Boards on December 23, 2002 (and very slightly modified to eliminate flag lots), has been withdrawn pending revision. Modifications are necessary to bring the main roads in the gated community up to town specs, and then there is the central sewer catch-22: county health rules require central sewage treatment for any subdivision over 49 lots, but Gardiner zoning laws allow central sewer only in the hamlets, not in the mountain or agricultural areas. (See Clouser Report #2 on our website, www.savetheridge.com.)

The plan that was before the Gardiner Planning Board had not gone past the sketch plan stage anyway; it was bogged down in determining how many lots would be permissable in a conventional site plan before any clustering could be considered. The developers' claim of allowable lots was clearly way off, since they had just laid a 5-acre grid over the whole area, buildable or not.

The Gardiner Boards have nevertheless been considering the "concept" of a cluster for the project. The law states that the Town Board has to give the Planning Board permission to consider a cluster; in a peculiar pingpong maneuver the Town Board asked the Planning Board whether the PB recommended that the TB give permission to the PB - and the PB answered Yes. We consider this all premature and probably illegitimate and have at least succeeded in getting further action on clustering by the TB tabled. In fact, final approval for a cluster plan cannot really be given until the environmental review (SEQRA) is finished, because only then will the number of permissible lots in a conventional plan be known.

Similarly, the environmental review process SEQRA is stalled, waiting for the developers to present a draft scope, which in turn is presumably waiting for them to come up with a new plan. Once the draft scope is in, a public comment period will begin. Organized by Save the Ridge, Friends of the Shawangunks, and the Shawangunk Ridge Coalition, many environmental and community organizations have been coordinating expert input into the scope. (You can view the contribution by the Biodiversity Partnership on the Mohonk Preserve website, www.mohonkpreserve.org.) However, the concerned public is also welcome and important at that stage, and we will let you know when the time is ripe to contribute your requests about what studies you would like to see done. (Letters of general concern to the DEC are appropriate at any time - and please send copies also to the newspapers and local and regional politicians - but letters specifically about the scope should wait till the developer's draft scope has been submitted, in order to receive proper consideration.)

When the revised plan is submitted it will inevitably be smaller. Whether it will only be a few lots smaller because of road changes or whether it will go all the way down to 49 lots because of central sewer, or anything in between, we don't know. Our position remains that the entire ridge property should be purchased at a fair market price and should become part of Minnewaska State Park Preserve. Partial development, on the lower slopes, might be less of a viewshed, water, and traffic problem, but it would still drastically change the character of the ridge, while fragmenting habitat and making access to necessary migration and prey areas impossible for animals, also encouraging invasive species, etc. etc. The land is part of an ecological unit.

You really have to come and view the projected area of development to understand what an outrage building a subdivision there would be. This was brought home when State Assemblyman Tom Kirwan, Republican, who represents the town of Shawangunk, joined two of us in a guided jeep tour of the viewshed from Minnewaska State Park conducted by Park Superviser Tom Cobb. We had previously attempted to explain the gravity of the situation to Mr. Kirwan, but it wasn't until he saw it with his own eyes that he understood. At the end he said, "This was like an epiphany. What a devastation it would cause. You have to consider private property rights, but public interest trumps private property, and this is not in the public interest. It's not a question of 350 or 50, it's a question of no development. It would just be an abomination."

Though there is little action about the plan itself at this moment there is significant action going on in Gardiner. A petition for a building moratorium while the master plan is revised and zoning laws brought in accord was signed by around 1000 Gardiner residents, a huge number for a small town, and presented to the Town Board. Again the TB asked the PB for a recommendation, and the PB responded by recommending against it, while admitting they didn't really understand it; the town planner agreed, saying there had been a dropoff in subdivision applications in recent years so it wasn't necessary. The public and one board member, Bill Richards, wanted a public hearing; instead the superviser and the rest of the board asked for written comment with a very short deadline. Around 100 letters were submitted, running 75% pro-moratorium with carefully reasoned arguments, but the town board ignored not only the petition but also the results of its own procedures, and let the whole issue die for lack of a second to Bill Richards' motion. It was quite a stunning display of thwarting the public will, and will come back to haunt them in the upcoming town elections.

The Town Board will meet Tuesday, June 3, at 7:30 pm at the Gardiner Firehouse. On the agenda: 1) the Board¹s reaction to the Planning Board¹s recommendation that it (the Board) give the P.B. permission to consider a cluster development there. See FAQ for our response to that. 2) Save the Ridge will present the 1100+ signatures on the Gardiner Moratorium petitions and the Board has allotted time to discuss it. Come and see how the Board members individually react, and keep in mind that some of them are up for reelection in November.

What stage is the proposal at before the Planning Board? Technically there is not even an application yet. The P.B. is reviewing the applicant's conventional site plan (what the applicant claims would be allowable under 5-acre zoning) in order to determine how many lots would be allowable in a cluster plan. At this point the town planner and the P.B. have sent the proposal back to the drawing board because the two main access roads need to be "suburban" roads (because they have 2 or more intersections), and the roads currently designed are too steep and narrow.

What about the Clouser report on central sewage? Why hasn¹t the P.B. responded to that submission of March 17? This report by expert engineer David Clouser (on the website) states that the proposal is caught in a Catch-22: county health requirements state for a subdivision of over 49 lots there must be central sewage treatment, but Gardiner zoning states that in the AR-200 area there cannot be central sewage, and furthermore no variances allowed there. The developers (and, presumably, those P.B. members who want the project) are looking into a way around this but we don¹t think they'll find a legal one. No official response has come yet.

As for SEQRA, the ball is currently in the developers' court; the next step is for them to present a draft scoping document. They may wait until they have a better idea of what the town is going to allow, or they may forge ahead. It could be tomorrow or it could be months away. Once they have filed their draft, we will go into action with responses. A committee of all the major players in the scoping process has met twice now to make sure all bases will be covered and to coordinate expert submissions when the time comes. But at that stage ­ not beforehand! - the public is heartily invited (this is one of the purposes of the SEQRA law) to submit every concern it has about potential impacts to the natural environment or to community quality of life, etc. Feel free to write the DEC about your general unease at any point, but letters about specific impacts will only be really effective if submitted at the appropriate point in scoping. We will of course announce far and wide when that time comes.

Save the Ridge itself continues to solidify its organizational structure. We are in the process of incorporating. We need to make the committees more functional; Events Committee just met to plan its own structure, under the new leadership of Josephine Bloodgood and Warren Christopher. Petitions Committee is focusing on tabling at major events, under Kevin Schochat, Mark Ferri, and Julie Anselmo. However, many other kinds of petitioning are important: door to door in areas that are bereft of lawn signs, at post offices or other public venues ? use your ingenuity, and whenever you do petition, remember that signing the form is the least important aspect; the most important is to get people writing letters to the town, to politicians, and to the newspapers. (And if they want a sign, so much the better.) Anyone can do this, anytime, without being on the committee. Petitions are available to download from the website, signs are available from Irwin Cantor at signs@savetheridge.com, and all materials should be at our meetings. We also have T-shirts, hats, and buttons, available at meetings or from the website.

We had two very successful and inspiring public event lately. 1) Brenda Bufalino's benefit tap dance and music performance on May 10 was a thrilling opportunity to see a local talent. All proceeds went to Save the Ridge. (We are raising money for materials, publicity, expert studies for SEQRA, and a legal fund. Financial statements are available on request.) And Daniel Brownstein's "protest hike" on May 17 took over 100 people to Castle Point for a devastating view of just some of the area the development would fill.

Listening to the request of the last STR public meeting, we have decided to have a regular, predictable public informational and business/organizing meeting once a month, on the first Sunday. (With an exception for Labor Day weekend and July 4 weekend) You can mark your calendars now. Other events like speakers, films, etc. will probably also be on Sundays, but not regularly scheduled. Watch the home page of the website or sign up for email on the website to be informed.

We are pretty sure we're going to win this.

And it has been a great pleasure working with so many enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and principled people. If you have any questions please write me at info@savetheridge.com. If you are offering help, please state something about where you live and what kind of thing you are interested in doing. Also look around the website ­ a lot of your questions may already be answered thanks to the fine job by Kerry Clair, our webmistress.

The meeting last night appeared to be for the purpose of having the developers (Chaffin Lights) come back to the planning board with an updated plan that responded to concerns members of the planning board and their professional planner had raised. Many of these concerns have not yet been fully addressed but apparently addressing them will be an ongoing process. The revised plan presented last night is still only a draft. The next step is apparently a "sketch plan" and then there will be a "preliminary plan" etc.

These concerns were raised that would be of particular interest to environmental groups:

• Questions regarding lots on the "rise" (steeply sloped portions of the plan): are these "buildable" according to town codes?
• Questions regarding road grades (in steeply sloped areas)
• Question whether central sewer system is preferrable to individual septic systems
• Question as to adequate water supply (plan assumes individual wells, but planning board wants to ensure there will be enough water to provide for the increased usage entailed with development)

Developers seemed confident that all these matters could be satisfactorily addressed, but the town planner, who had numerous questions, apparently wanted more complete answers. He will be putting together a letter addressing his various concerns and points of disagreement to be endorsed by the planning board and sent on to the developers. This letter, once endorsed by the planning board, will become part of the public record and members of the public can obtain copies under FOIA .

This was not a public hearing, so members of the audience (a lot!) were only given about ten minutes to ask questions, but they were assured that there will be further and more expanded opportunities for that, in the form of public hearings. It seems that the sequence in the review process is something like this:

1. Planning board and Town board, in consultation with one another, work with developer to make sure their plans are in accordance with town building and zoning codes, and that appropriate variances are requested and obtained where applicable.
2. At some point along in there, these entities hold public hearings.
3. The plan goes to DEC for SEQRA process
4. More public hearings (under SEQRA)
5. Developers make recommended revisions (or abandon plan, in best case scenario!)
6. Revised plan comes back to town boards/DEC

I'm not sure about all the precise steps, but it was made clear at the meeting that there is a back and forth.

While the town planner and some members of the board (eight of them, not including the professionals -- planner and attorney) seemed appropriately astute in raising concerns and questions, it was pretty clear that people in the audience were wary that they might nevertheless give the developers too much latitude in deciding certain key items. Example: A question arose as to how it would be determined which lots were "buildable" The planner asked the developers if they could have their engineer submit a report on each lot, and at that a noticeable murmer of "No!" went through the audience. (Please note: Thank you to Marion Kells for pointing out the following: "The PB attendee no doubt mistook the secretary, Margaret Wagner, as one of the board members. There are seven members, thus preventing tie votes.")

I imagine at some point groups in opposition will want to find our own engineers to independently determine these kinds of things (same with water supply, road grades, etc.) But maybe that can wait for the time of the SEQRA hearings. Groups like Friends of the Shawangunks may already be thinking about that, as they brought together those kinds of expertise in fighting Marriott.

We spoke with Hinchey's office after his great speech at the public meeting last week and he advised that we must pick up the ball and run with it now, and not let it drop after the momentum he started for us. We discussed the silent involvement of the major organizations involved with us and we decided that we need to get them to start becoming more public. They are mostly of the opinion that this is going to be going on for a long time and they will be there when we need them. We feel we started a fire and we need them to step in now and no longer be silent partners in this. The liaison committee is going to get to work on this, because we are concerned that some of our efforts may be being duplicated and also to touch base with other organizations to see which of their resources (lawyers and experts) we can utilize.

We also discussed the importance of raising more "big" money and getting more involved in fund raising to further this cause. We are at the point where we need to start hiring professionals and the cost may be extensive. We will be having some fund raisers - March 21 will be a tap dancing benefit at Unison, and we have an art auction in the works - local artists please donate. We also have something planned at Whitecliff winery. More details to come.

We are also planning a big hike in the spring to show people the ridge area and also have a picnic and general "fun" day.

We also discussed our new billboard - please check it out - it is located southbound on RTE 208 just north of 44/55.

We discussed the fact that the Awosting Reserve (Bradley and Chaffin Light) have been kicked out of biodiversity partnership! This is MAJOR as they promote themselves as being a part of it and a part of conserving the environment yet the major organization in this area has kicked them out stating that their position is no longer in synch.

Our petition now has well over 700 signatures - to push for a Gardiner moratorium. This issue is NOT dead as posted on the web site and reported in the paper.

Clouser report is done - this is something that the Shawangunk Conservancy put money up for to do a professional review of the proposed development plan. It compares the plan to the issues we are raising. The report is in and we will put in on the web site shortly.

The next general meeting will be February 23rd at the Shawangunk firehouse at 6:30 PM. All welcome.