Tuxedo Park FYI | Tuxedo Reserve



HOME VILLAGE GOVERNMENT Board of Trustees Planning Board Board of Architectural Review Board of Zoning Appeals VILLAGE SERVICES Village Police Department Department of Public Works Tuxedo Park Fire Department Tuxedo Volunteer Ambulance Corps TOWN OF TUXEDO Town Board Tuxedo Union Free School District Town Planning Board Subdivisions and Development TUXEDO RESERVE COMMUNITY Clubs and Associations Institutions Neighborhood News Local Contractors and Professional Services

LOCAL PRESS EDITORIALS CALENDAR QUIPS & QUOTES ARCHIVE POSTS ABOUT US CONTACT

TUXEDO RESERVE

Proposed housing development abutting The Village of Tuxedo Park

reserve

Tuxedo Reserve Southern Tract, 1200 acres intended for 1200 new housing units in Tuxedo

Link to the Tuxedo Land Trust Website

Related Press

Town Sets Dates for Workshops on Tuxedo Reserve

The following dates have been set for workshop sessions on the DFSEIS for Tuxedo Reserve:

Thursday, July 29 at 5 pm: Section 3.4 – Archaeology (sp) and Section 3.5 – Natural Resources

Thursday, August 5 at 6 pm: Section 3.6 – Hydrology and Storm water Management and Section 3.7- Construction Impacts

Monday, August 9th At 6 pm: Section 3.3 Economic and Fiscal Analysis

A workshop on the Smart Code will be held sometime in the week of September 2nd.

TPFYI would like to suggest to all those people who made statements at the public hearings, go to the Town Website and look at Appendix C in which all comments have been summarized and addressed. Check to see that your statement is summarized properly and that you are satisfied with the answers! This could be your last chance to comment.

Town Board Tuxedo Reserve Workshop Meeting July 8, 2010

The Town Board held a workshop meeting on Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 6 pm. Present were Supervisor Dolan and Councilpersons Phelps and Sprivak as well as Attorney Larry Wolinsky, Planner Bonnie Franson and Engineer Jeff Marsden. Attending for Tuxedo Reserve were Project Manager Andrew Dance and Attorney Steven Barshoff.

The discussion centered on the DFSEIS sections 3.1 (Comments and Responses, Description of the Proposed Modifications) and 3.2 (Comments and Responses, Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy).

During the review, the following points were raised by the Supervisor:

Reduction of units at Mountain Lake from 40 to 20
Opening Eagle Valley Road as a corridor
Possibly increasing the commercial space from 30,000 to 45,000 square feet
Converting the Village buffer (or ìgreen donutî) into Town walking trails so that the residents of the development will be able to reach the Hamlet.

He also expressed his support for the new mix of housing with its increase in the number of multi-family units and stated that he would like the Fox Hill tract to be deeded to the Town so he can build a Town Pool on this site. Currently, the Fox Hill tract is to remain as Open Space in perpetuity.

Attorney Wolinsky counseled that the Town needs to let the applicant know their thoughts and to hear the applicants arguments for and against these proposed changes.

The date for the next workshop is yet to be set. The subject will be Section 3.4 of the Comments and Responses – Archaeological Resources and Section 3.5 Natural Resources. Section 3.3óEconomic and Fiscal Analysis will be the subject of a future workshop after the Board has had the opportunity to meet with its consultants, RES Group.

Download the Tuxedo Reserve DRAFT FSEIS (227 pages, 20.4 MB)

Tuxedo Reserve Plan Revised

TARGET Tuxedo Presents Town Board With List of Tuxedo Reserve Related Issues

Rockland County Sewer District Turns Down Tuxedo Reserve

On April 22, 2010 the Tuxedo Reserve Development was on the agenda at the Rockland County Sewer District meeting. Developers are looking for permission to tie the housing development into the Rockland County system via the new facility located in Hillburn, NY.

The developer was not present at the meeting, however representative from the Tuxedo Land Trust were there and ready to speak out against the proposed connection.

Town of Ramapo Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence put a swift end to the request before anyone could speak by commenting “people in Orange County and Tuxedo need to know that the system that we built here in Rockland County is for Rockland County residents only. We are not spending this money to give an enhancement to anyone in Orange County, nor are we hooking up our system to Orange County.”

The development will not be able to hook into the Tuxedo Sewer plant as per a DEC mandated moratorium, issued in January of 2010.

This leaves the developer with quite a problem on their hands, which, unless rectified, will prevent them with moving forward with the project as approved.

Public Workshop on Tuxedo Reserve's Smart Code January 11, 2009

At the January 11 Town of Tuxedo Board Meeting, the Tuxedo Reserve developers brought consultants from Cooper Robertson to conduct a workshop on their proposed “Smart Code”. This code would be developed by Cooper Robertson and customized for Tuxedo Reserve. As presented, the Smart Code would specify all architectural, site planning and landscape choices for buildings in the development.

According to Tuxedo Reserve’s attorney, Steven Barshoff , this code would not override local, state and federal codes. Mr. Barshoff referenced the PID law adopted by the Town of Tuxedo, which established a zoning code to govern developments. Zoning details were included in the Special Permit of 2004 for Tuxedo Reserve. That preliminary plan established locations for different lot types, design guidelines and bulk standards.

When Tuxedo Reserve received approval for the first phase of their development, called Northridge, the developer realized that the bulk standards in their Special Permit would work only on flat land.

Paul Milana from Cooper Robertson spoke about the difference between the “Smart Code” (SC) and conventional zoning codes. The SC examines different “Use and Density” environments and establishes appropriate numbers of units per acre. According to Mr. Milana, the SC guides communities to build a more predictably better place. The SC considers roads to be more than just conduits but also public spaces for walking, biking, etc. To illustrate the SC plan, the consultants use a transect-based zoning theory. Natural habitats are symbiotic and apply to human habitats. They consider 6 zones ranging from rural to urban and they organize typical elements of each transect that are public, private and civic.

T1 – Natural
T2 – Rural, agricultural
T3 – Sub-urban, detached single family residential
T4 – General urban, apartments, corner store, etc.
T5 – Urban center – main street
T6 – Urban core – civic center

Different districts are also included for airports, industrial complexes, water treatment facilities, etc.

The consultants customize the Smart Code to local character. They analyze site maps and develop T-zones according to the regulating plan. They ensure that the SC is consistent with state and local statutes and that the design guidelines are consistent with local zoning and permits.

In each transect zone the SC looks at thoroughfares (what is allowed on both sides of the street) and frontages ( regulates how buildings meet public space. The SC establishes specifics for setbacks and types of frontages.)

Theresa Coolahan from Cooper Robertson explained how the SC would be customized for Tuxedo Reserve. In the development there would be zones T1, T3, T4 and T5. There would be different lot types: Village; Adirondack,; Hillside, etc. For example, in the Adirondack lots, there would be 95’ minimum lot width and 18% maximum lot coverage. The SC establishes checklists for each type of lot. The lots are defined in the regulating plan. The checklist specifies building height, lot coverage, setbacks, outbuildings and building placement. More architectural details were added than were in the 2004 Special Permit.

The public question and answer period followed the presentation.

Andy Rogers observed that the applicant gets certainty with the SC but there is a need for consistent standards and certainty for the Town boards.

Chiu-Yin Hempel expressed her concern with slope issues on lots with over 20% slope.

Jo Ann Hanson commented that the pictures shown depict flat terrain with trees. She wondered how the developer proposes to achieve that. Andrew Dance replied that only one of the pictures was actually flat.

Larry Darby noted that the overarching document is the Special Permit not the Smart Code. He also commented that under the SC, the Planning Board has broad discretion and is able to authorize variances. Steven Barshoff added that there is no variance process as the Special Permit gives authority to the Planning Board to modify the plan so variances are not needed.

Frank Peverly, Chairman of the Town Zoning Board, questioned the Smart Code’s assignment of responsibility for interpretation to the Town Planning Board. He stated that since the Smart Code is actually creation of zoning regulation, the Town Board should be looking forward to what happens when the developer leaves. The issuance of relief for reasons unknown nor contemplated does not exist. It is his belief that the Town’s Zoning Board should be involved in the process as stipulated in State’s Town and General Municipal Law.

Jim Hays noted that in the 2004 Special Permit, the name of Robert A.M. Stern was liberally used, but now it seems to have been replaced with statistics. He expressed “grave doubts” that Tuxedo Reserve will actually look like the pictures which the developer and its consultants have shown. He noted that wildlife corridors have been obstructed and areas around wetlands developed. In fact, if you look at the plans, it is sprawl. Paul Milano of Cooper Robertson responded that Robert Sterns office has been involved in the creation of all of the plans. He stated that the revisions to the “master plan of Tuxedo Reserve” were presented to Robert Stern. Supervisor Dolan remarked that what he wants for the Town is “what’s in those pictures,” and he feels that the Smart Code represents how the Town will get exactly what they’ve been promised. Mr. Hays responded that he feels there is “too much wiggle room” for the developer.

Peter Regna commented that the transect zones which make up the Smart Code make T3 the “most desirable” kind of housing, even dubbing it the “American dream.” If that is so, why is the developer now seeking fewer of these kinds of homes and increasing the multi-family dwellings. He noted that all the “bad examples” in the presentation had been multi-family housing. Paul Milano responded that the proposed shift in housing is due to the active adult units and the belief that multi family housig would be more attractive to this group.

Jurgen Wekerle asked what, if anything, could prevent a new village with it’s own zoning from being developed on this property. Steven Barshoff replied that while this was theoretically possible, he couldn’t think of any reason why Related would want to do that. When it was pointed out that this scenario might come into play if the property were sold to the residents of Kiryas Joal, Mr. Barshoff responded that the “model didn’t fit” because the price point is too high and there aren’t enough bedrooms.

Patsy Wooters commented that the addition of alleys to the community adds impervious surface to the plan and impacts the storm-water of the project. Andrew Dance replied that alleys take the place of driveways and thus there is no additional impervious surface.

Steve Gross inquired if the Smart Code h ad been “calibrated for Tuxedo,” how were history, geology and botony considered and incorporated into the SC?

JoAnn Hanson requested that the Town Board have the Town Engineers look at the performance standards. She wondered how the Board could maintain for the future the right to modify the Smart Code. If it is put into the Permit (as an amendment) is it there for the life of the development?

Tuxedo Reserve offers rule book

Developer proposes 'smart code'

Town Board to Conduct Public Information Session on Tuxedo Reserve's
Smart Code January 11 2010 at 6:30pm in the High School Auditorium

Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance

Public Informational Meeting

Tuxedo Reserve “Smart Code”

Regular Meeting

1. Resolution to Set Schedule of 2010 Town Board Meetings

2. Resolution to Grant Special Sign Permit for Promenade at Tuxedo Place

3. Any other business as may come before the Board after this Agenda is posted

Budget Transfers
Vouchers

Adjournment

Detailed Account of the November 23 Public Hearing for Tuxedo Reserve

Because non-Tuxedo residents were heard at the end of the previous public hearing, Supervisor Dolan announced that the Board would hear them first.

Robert J. Drennen: Click here to read Mr. Dennen’s remarks

James (“Spider”) Barbour: Click here to read Mr. Barbieri’s remarks

Peggy Wissler: Click here to read Ms. Wissler’s remarks. Download the map here.

Steve Gross: Click here to read Mr. Gross’s remarks

Mary Ellen Shaw representing the Sierra Club of New Jersey, stated that the Club is concerned about stormwater runoff, additional impervious surfaces and the actual flow levels in the Ramapo River. She commented , “the more development you have up here, the less flow we have in New Jersey.” She then informed the Board that In New Jersey, they call this kind of development “uncontrolled sprawl,” and they argue over every acre.

Janet Burnet: spoke as the Executive Director of the Ramapo River Intermunicipal Watershed Committee. She began by showing a map of the watershed, which reaches all the way down to the New York State border and into northern New Jersey. She pointed out that this is a shared watershed and it’s where many people, including many non-Tuxedo residents, get their drinking water from. The Committee has multiple concerns about water quantity as well as water quality. Rockland County gets 40% of their drinking water from the watershed and United Water has recently stated that this is not enough to satisfy the demand for water. This is the same watershed from which Tuxedo Reserve is proposing to withdraw up to 800,000 gallons a day! The Committee is asking for better regional planning—transboundary planning. They feel that Rockland County has not been included in the process.With regard to the quality of the water, the developer has intimated that there is a possibility that they will hook into the Western Ramapo sewage treatment plant, however, this will not happen. The Rockland legislature has said they will not give permission for the hook-up as has the Rockland County Sewer District #1. Ms.Burnet also remarked that she has not seen any plans for a new sewer treatment plant in Tuxedo, but if they have been drawn up, she recommends an independent review of them by an expert in the field before the issuance of any permit. She concluded by noting that when a decision making process takes as long as this one has with the factors needing to be reviewed over and over again, one has to suspect that the project just isn’t a good idea! Good decisions are often clear and easy to make. Perhaps it is just time to say no!

Howard Horowitz: a resident of Warwick.and a Professor at Ramapo College. He pointed out that the issue of Tuxedo Reserve affects the entire region (and not just the Town of Tuxedo) in many ways. The property is part of the open corridor for wildlife, which also includes Sterling Forest. Once corridors such as this one are gone, they are gone forevert and so people have been fighting to maintain them as much as possible. Rock-blasted steep slopes, fractures in the bedrock and chemicals from lawns will all contribute to contamination of the water. In his view, this is a place for which the highest and best use is to be kept open.

Next, the following Tuxedo residents spoke:

David du Pont: Click here to read Mr. Du Pont’s remarks

Gardiner Hempel: As President of the Tuxedo Park Fire Department and a Fire Commissioner for the Town of Tuxedo, Mr. Hempel read a letter written to the Board by the Commissioners. Click here to read that letter.

Lili Neuhauser: Click here to read Mrs. Neuhauser’s remarks

Sally Spooner: stated that as presented, the Tuxedo Reserve development will require substantial taxpayer dollars from residents who are not part of the development in order to sustain itself. The Tuxedo Park Library will require additional infrastructure to seve the population generated by the project. This could run into millions of dollars.. The cost of land, the building, additional furniture and equipoment will be borne by the taxpayers …not the applicant. Ms. Spooner asked the Board to:

Hire a professional to represent the Town’s interest I conducting a fiscal analysis. This should include the true cost of things like the Library as well as Fire Protection.
Protect their constituents from unfair burdens by making sure the applicant pays for the additional services generated by the project. She said it’s fine for the applicant to make money, but not at our expense.

Barbara du Pont: spoke as President of the Board of the Tuxedo Park Library. Click here to read Mrs. Du Pont’s remarks

Paul Bumbar, a 30-year resident of Laurel Ridge, added his voice to those who oppose the project. He is concerned about the development, especially in the Northern Tract, Mountain Lake and the Fox Hill Tract. He is also concerned about the segmentation of Sterling Forest. He expressed apprehension about the additional traffic that will be generated by the project saying that it is already difficult to get onto Route 17 during rush hour. Additionally, he feels the air quality as well as the water quality will be severely compromised.

Mary Graetzer: Click here to read Mrs. Graetzer’s remarks

John Yrizarry: spoke about the Mountain Lake area. He stated that according to the SDEIS there are 6 species of concern found in the vicinity of Mountain Lake and yet the document also states that the area is suitable for development and that the project would have a minimal impact on the wild life. In his view, there seem to be many flaws in the document. Making sense of these flaws will be up to the Board.

Alan Heywood: began his statement by chastising the Board for holding the hearing in the Town Hall. He suggested that since there were over 200 people at the last hearing with additional people who attempted to attend and couldn’t get in, scheduling this meeting for a venue as small as the Town Hall showed total disrespect by the Board. He pointed out that conceptually people had had a hard time imagining what Tuxedo Reserve will look like and suggested that we have a great example of what it might look like in the clearing of power-lines along South Gate Road. Finally, he commented that in his opinion Related will have a great deal of trouble in the present economic climate persuading any financial institution to loan them money to build a spec development in an unproved area of Orange County, NY. He urged the Board to pay great attention to the financing of the project lest the Town is left with a developer than runs out of financing.

Joan Alleman made a statement via a letter, which was read into the record by Jim Hays. Click here to read Mrs. Alleman’s lettter

Earl Stevens: Mr. Hays also relayed a message from Mr. Stevens who was celebrating his 104th birthday. He wanted the Board to consider that the Hudson Highlands are very important and Tuxedo is very important to the Highlands.

Jim Hays: expressed concern about the proposed Smart Code. He mentioned that some time ago Andrew Dance had offered to give a worksh0p on the Smart Code and said that he hoped the Town would arrange for such a workshop because he feels that the Board as well as other interested people in Town could benefit from it.

Larry Darby: Click here to read Mr. Darby’s remarks

Dena Steele: Click here to read Ms. Steele’s remarks

Francine Rauch: Click here to read Mrs. Rauch’s remarks

Tom Wilson: began by stating that the DSEIS admits there will be stormwater runoff into Tuxedo Lake and the Ramapo RiverIt also admits there will be runoff onto adjacent properties. However, the only method of control being proposed by the developer is a pocket pond and swale, which will bethe only thing preventing contamination going into our drinking water! Beside the issue of water contamination, there is also an issue with the sewage plant. The DEC is going to be sending a letter to the Town explaining that the existing sewage plant is not sufficient and changes need to be made. As the plan stands now, the Town will geta new sewer treatment plant after the 80th house is built. That’s not going to be sufficient for the DEC. The Town needs to have another plant. Even if the developer was willing to change the plan and provide a new plant at the beginning of construction, the Town has no guarantee that thie project is going to get built. An alternative plan is needed. Mr. Wilson then stated that as much as many Tuxedo residents have had problems with this developer, that he would like to prose a pubic/private partnership with him. He then proposed an idea where residents could work with the New York State Parks Departments and the Trust for Public Land and offer the developer money to buy the property outright. At current market values, that would be close to $39 million, (The developer would say that its worth far more than that – about $100 million and that he’s got about $50 million into it already.) Mr. Wilson suggested that a Biomass facility could be constructed and opened on the property. The Parks Department would be OK with this idea and money could generated as opposed to the contamination of public waters. A plan like this would generate between $20 million and $30 million per year and would be a way for the developer to earn his money back in 8 years instead of the 12-15 years needed for build out. Mr. Wilson then outlined more of his plans for this partnership. This information can be found on his website at http://tuxedolandtrust.org/

Peter Regna: Click here to read Mr. Regna’s remarks

Tom Bender: Mr. Bender sent a letter which was read into the record by Uli Pendl. Click here to read Mr. Bender’s letter

JoAnn Hanson: expressed her support for the workshop on the Smart Code. She mentioned that she has a degree in urban planning and yet is having a hard time understanding the changes as requested. She wondered how anyone could comment on the changes when they are so difficult to i understand. While she understands there are advantages for Related as it smoothes the process for them, she feels that the public and the Board need to understand the changes that are being proposed.

Allan Barnett: Click here to read Mr. Barnett’s remarks

John Kilduff: remarks forthcoming

Phillippe Seeman: Mr. Seeman sent a letter, which was read into the record by Uli Pendl. Click here to read Mr. Seeman’s letter

Kristia Cavere: Click here to read Ms. Cavere’s remarks

Nadia Cadadero: Click here to read Ms. Cadadero’s remarks

Uli Pendl: Click here to read Mr. Pendl’s remarks

Lesley Devore: Click here to read Ms. Devore’s remarks

Keevie Silvay: Click here to read Mrs. Silvay’s remarks.

Patsy Wooters: stated that one issue that come up in the two public hearings was the welfare of the projected homeowners association. She gave the example of Pierson Lakes in Sloatsburg, Ny. The Pierson family tried to pull off a large development of 74 high-end homes, but it didn’t work out and in 2004, the project was sold to Byron Hill. Since then, Byron Hill has stiffed the Homeowners Association on their dues. They currently owe over a million dollars.They also have submitted annual offerings without notifying the homeowners, which is in violation of their agreements. Tuxedo Reserve is a development that depends on a successful Homeowners Association, but if Related sells it to someone else, there is no guarantee as to who that will be and how they will behave. This is something else to consider in a fiscal analysis.

A Report From Target Tuxedo

TARGET has been busy over the summer and fall and we want to bring you up to date on these activities and provide a general appraisal of where the Tuxedo Reserve Development stands at this time.

In the spring of this year the Town of Tuxedo's Planning Board, after seven months of review, turned a proposed amendment to Tuxedo Reserve's Special Permit of 2004 back to the Town Board with a recommendation that a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) be prepared. The Town Board was at first reluctant to ask for a DSEIS. We pressed them to have one prepared by an independent consultant because; 1.new areas are being proposed for developed, e.g. within the Tuxedo Lake and Mountain Lake water sheds, that could potentially affect wildlife as well as surface and ground water quality and flows, 2. a proposed change in housing mix could have an adverse fiscal impact on the Town and 3. an increase in impervious surfaces, of some 50 acres, will effect the hydrology of the site. In addition the previous FEIS had not required a cut and fill analysis that accurately and quantitatively defines the areas of disturbance, which are needed to calculate surface water run off changes. The Board agreed to do a DSEIS, prepared by the applicant and to include: construction impacts (cut and fill analysis), evaluation of impacts on the Tuxedo Lake and Mountain Lake water sheds, fiscal impacts and impacts related to Development phasing. When finished the DSEIS concluded there would be no adverse environmental or fiscal impacts of the proposed amendment.

TARGET disagreed with a number of aspects of this DSEIS including the fiscal analysis. We again urged the Board to conduct an independent fiscal analysis that makes reasonable estimates of development related expenses and revenues. This analysis should compare the tax impact of the 2004 permitted development with the requested amended development, with and without age restricted housing. Age restricted housing is over built and is not selling.

We are also concerned about the environmental impacts of development within the Mountain Lake and Tuxedo Lake water sheds and our consultant gave a number of presentations to the board and wrote them two long letters detailing our concerns about stormwater calculations, potential groundwater pollution and impacts to wildlife habitat.

We are urging a carefully engineered plan for storm water managementwithin the Tuxedo Lake water shed and the Village is demanding that the present quantity and quality of run off from the development to Tuxedo lake not be adversely affected even by major storms. This is important because the Village has just completed long and difficult negotiations with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to our dam and its ability to withstand severe storms without cresting waters rising above the top of the dam.
Changes to its watershed could adversely affect the hydrology of the lake.

The Town Board scheduled a public hearing on the proposed amendment for October 26. TARGET prepared a letter, sent to all residents of the Town of Tuxedo, that laid out the issues as we see them (letter attached). There was a very big turn-out with standing room only and many people being turned away. We estimate between 150 and 200 people attended and many spoke, all opposing the amendment and urging the Town Board to negotiate a better deal for the Town.

Detailed Account of October 26 Public Hearing on Tuxedo Reserve

Public Hearing on Tuxedo Reserve Proposed Special Permit Amendments, the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and Proposed Resoning held on October 26, 2009:

Supervisor Dolan opened the Public Hearing by reading the official procedures and rules of conduct for Public Hearings. Speakers were asked to confine their comments to the following subject matter:

the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Tuxedo Reserve
a proposed revised Special permit for Tuxedo Reserve
a local law amending Local Law #4A of 1999 as relates to the minimum number of single family residential units required as part of Tuxedo Reserve and
a local law amending the zoning map within Tuxedo Reserve to accommodate the new plan as proposed.

and to keep their comments to 3-5 minutes with no deferrals of time to another person.. Comments from residents of Tuxedo were heard first. It was announced that the hearing would be stopped no later than 10 pm, and would be continued at a later date if there were still speakers to be heard.

Evelyn David spoke first and stated that her comments were in response to the recently received Target Tuxedo letter. She went on to state that that at a time when the world around us seems to be strengthening laws, Tuxedo is loosening theirs. Nowhere in the plans for Tuxedo Reserve can she find any mention of the words “Green” or “conservation” Why is Tuxedo in regressive mode? In her view, the Town should be enactting stricter zoning laws rather than loser ones that make it easier for the developer to build.

Dan Gladding – Click Here to read Mr. Gladding’s remarks.

Sue Scher – Click Here to read Mrs. Scher’s remarks

Kristia Cavere began her remarks by stating that she is strongly opposed to Tuxedo Reserve. She has two main concerns. First is the proposed Smart Code. She feels the Town’s zoning laws, architectural guidelines and landscaping rules must be applicable to the entire town, including Tuxedo Reserve or anyone that they might sell to. Her second concern is downtown Tuxedo. She noted that the original plan had been focused on revitalizing our existing downtown while the proposed plan will add a second downtown area between Tuxedo and Sloatsburg. She questioned how the developer plans to fill 30,000 square feet of commercial space if the Town can’t even fill the new Duck Cedar space or Town Square. Finally, expressed concern with the lack of environmental impact studies from the proposal and stated that these must occur as well as further fiscal analysis before anything can be approved. She concluded by noting that many people have chosen to live in Tuxedo because it is a green oasis located between Bergin County and Northern Orange County, both of which are highly developed. She would like to see it remain green.

Nils Gerling Mr. Gerling is the Chairman of the Town’s Planning Board. Prior to his remarks, , Supervisor Dolan noted that in the years since the Special Permit was approved in 2004 , The Related Companies have spent $1,600,00 on Town Consultants and that 13,000 hours have been spent on project review. The Supervisor thanked Mr. Gerling for his part of those hours.
Mr. Gerling then stated that he had been reviewing the DSEIS and had found the document riddled with errors, both in the form of mathematical errors as well as omitted information. After giving some specific examples, he asked the Town Board to hire capable consultants with “appropriate backgrounds” to “audit the document and verify the veracity of the numbers and their origin.” He also noted that the document states an assumption that a 10,000 square foot Library addition would be required but, in a later table, only offers 5000 square feet on a third of an acre! Additionally, the document states that there is no anticipated negative impact on existing retailers in Tuxedo, however that assessment is for Phases 1 and 2 of the project. There is no mention of the impact of Phase 3. Mr. Gerling feels that if competitive retail is introduced, it might well have an impact on our existing retailers. His recommends that the Town Board meet with Budget Officer Pat Sullivan in addition to their consultants in order to verify the numbers before moving forward.

JoAnn Hanson – Link to her remarks

Jim Hays Mr. Hays, a Trustee of the Village of Tuxedo Park and its Deputy Mayor, began his remarks by commenting that he was not speaking on behalf of the Village, but rather as a town resident. He went on to say that development of this property will move forward one way or another and that it was not his intention to oppose the development Wiith that said, he went on to outline some of his concerns with the project as proposed. It is his understanding that the modification of Local Law 4A requires SEQRA review. This review should include a fiscal impact study of the proposed changes specifically in terms of the housing mixes. Because age-restricted housing is not selling at this time, Mr. Hays feels that the analysis should be done both with and without age-restricted housing. Mr. Hays also expressed concern about the intentions of property owners. He referenced the case of Tuxedo Reserve and Tuxedo TPA vs. Lehman Brothers Holdings, currently before the US Bankruptcy Court and commented that on December 3, 2008 Related Companies had stated that they were going to “rough in” the project’s main spine (Quail Road) in October of 2008. This milestone was critical to the project in order for it to meet its first bulk land sale scheduled for the second quarter of 2009. Mr. Hays feels it is important that the Board knows whether or not the land owners intend to engage in substantial infrastructure construction (such as building a sewage treatment plant) or if they intend to engage in minimal construction and sell all or part of the land.

Mary Hanson Mrs. Hanson, a member of the Town Planningf Board, commented that she had reviewed the DSEIS, and wanted to know what the development will cost the current taxpayers. She fears that the Board is taking the applicant’s word that taxpayers won’t end up paying for a huge amount of fire department and highway departments costs. She noted that in 2003, the Fire Department estimated that it would cost well over $1.5 million to cover the cost of required additional equipment. Will the taxpayers bear the responsibility of paying for this? Mrs. Hanson continued on to report that she has spoken to Tax Assessor Greg Stevens and was dismayed to discover that he had not been asked to review the documents. According to Mr. Stevens a condominium in Southfields presently pays about $1000 a year in taxes. Mrs. Hanson concluded by stating that that the town is looking at some serious expenses and she suggested that they had better make sure that these expenses are funded by the Developer..

Robert McQuilkin, a Village resident and member of the Village Planning Board, stated that he is concerned about the amount of proposed retail space in the project. Because the previous Town Board made it a cornerstone of the special permit to restrict commercial space, Mr. McQuilkin is alarmed by the newly proposed amount. The Town doesn’t have a critical mass of people to fill the Hamlet shops along Route 17 and the Rt 17 shops are already being watered down by the newly renovated Duck Cedar and various other locations.Focus must be placed on the revitalization of Route 17. Mr. McQuilkin thinks it’s a terrible idea to pull retail space up into Tuxedo Reserve. He also raised the question of whether there is money in the budget to cover the increased wear and tear on the roads in Tuxedo Reserve. He noted that the proposed roads are very steep and have many switchbacks as well as lots of steep retaining walls and thus will be expensive to maintain.

Mary Graetzer - Click Here to read Mrs. Graetzer’s remarks

Alyse McCathern As member of the former Town Board, which passed the 2004 Special Permit, Mrs. McCathern began her remarks by disclosing that she is employed by Town Attorneys Jacobowiitz & Gubits but that she was speaking only for herself – not for any other member of the former Town Board and not for her law firm. She stated that she had reviewed the 2004 Special Permit and Findings Statement while preparing her remarks and that in her view, three are four areas of concern.

Financial – The Special Permit sets up PILOT Payments (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) to the Town of $150,000 per year on the Northern Tract which all felt probably wouldn’t be developed. They also put aside $6 million for revitalization of the Town of which $2 million was for low interest loans to small businesses. She trusts that these will not be touched in the new application. The 2004 Permit limited retail in the project to 3000 square feet and this was done to protect the businesses in the Hamlet. Mrs. McCathern hopes there will be a economic impact study done to show what increasing the retail space to 30,000 square feet might do to businesses in the Hamlet.
Environmental – The 2004 Permit preserved over 1700 acres This included the entire Northern Tract, Fox Hill in its entirety, a significant portion of the Southern Tract and Mountain Lake which at the time was determined, by the Town’s own consultants, to be an environmental treasure which should not be built upon. Mrs. McCathern reiterated that she does not believe Mountain Lake should be built upon.
Community Character – the former Town Board had their consultants make a 3D video so they could see what the development would actually look like as opposed to looking at pictures on paper and Mrs. McCathern strongly urges the present Board to do the same thing. In 2004 this resulted in very specific bulk standards and design guidelines and she recommends that these should be maintained. As per the Town Code the Special Permit states that the project would be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board. In Mrs. McCathern’s view, the current Board has not been favorable to the ARB and she finds this very disturbing. Her own personal opinion is that residential development is usually tax negative. The 2004 permit limited multifamily units to 305 and she is concerned about the increase in the new proposal. She hopes the Town’s consultants will advise them on the fiscal impacts of this increase.
Enforcement - Since even the smallest of l projects can be difficult to infoce, the 2004 Permit included a lot of enforcement mechanisms. She trusts these won’t be abandoned. In particular, Mrs. McCathern feels the traffic monitoring mechanism is most important.

(At this time, Mrs. McCathern’s allotted time ran out and despite encouragement from the audience to continue, she was asked to step down from the podium,)

Gary Pompan – Link to his remarks

Kathy Norris commented that residents have been asking the same questions over and over again for years and that no one is answering them. It is inherent in human nature and written in the Constitution of the United States that a property owner tbe able to do with their own property what he or she wishes. However, freedom is not a license to adversely affect other people’s rights to enjoy their own property. Some of her questions were:

What happens when the current owner of the property divides it up between the various developers? Who will be responsible for it’s buildout, architectural appearance, mess and traffic?
When residents can’t take a shower because their neighbor is watering their lawn, who will be responsible?
When the Town is sued by New Jersey residents for water pollution because the Ramapo River can’t take any more effluent, what will they do about it and who will pay for the lawsuit?
When the town has an additional 900 children wanting to come to the public school, who will pay for it?
When residents are unable to get down Route 17 because the traffic is all blocked up, what will they do?

Charlie Hunt, a Clinton Woods resident whose background is in strategic planning and outcomes research, expressed his concern that there is no scalable monitoring. He went on to suggest that Trigger points should be introduced so that if things are not moving along successfully with phase, then phase two and phase three are put on hold. He feels there are optimistic residency figures in terms of school-age children but if that balance changes because of the economics, he would like to see a trigger than let the development go no further.

Ken Magar introduced himself as the previous Supervisor of the Town. As such, he commented that he had spent almost 10 years reviewing this project before voting in the Special Permit in 2004. At that time, both the Town Board and the developer believed they had a viable project but neither of them was naïve enough to think it was cut in stone. He feels minor changes are inevitable. It is his personal opinion that without development, this Town and the school system will die. The Town needs development but it is their responsiblity to make sure that this development is reasonable. Speaking to the developer he said, “if you had a viable development in 2004, you should take it. If you want changes, shelf them. After 10 years(and this is a 20 year project)after you’ve made your initial project, then come back in with your revisions. Get the prpject started!”

Houston Stebbins Click Here to read Mayor Stebbins’ remarks

Mary Yrizarry urged the Board to listen carefully to the statements made by non-residents who are living with real development and not dismiss them just because they are not from the Town of Tuxedo. She reminded the Board that whether they liked it or not, “Tuxedo Reserve is not an island.” It is part of a large mountainous and forrested region whose natural resources we share with our Tuxedo neighbors, the surrounding communities and many, many others downstream and further away. Everyone’s concern for clean water, clear air, safe roadways, adequate Town services, taxes and a natural aesthetic are issues that the Board, as lead agency, must take into consideration. The previous Town Board struggled with these issues over many years. They listened to a plethora of views and did their best to accommodate as many of them as reasonably feasible. Even then, the final document was not perfect and since that time more information has come to light both from the developer and outside observers. So, in reading the DSEIS, when the developer repeats at the end of almost every modification statement, “….no significant adverse impact,” Mrs. Yrizarry suggested the Board take it with a very large grain of salt.

Michele Lindsay inquired as to how the Town plans to control the quality of the building and landscaping of the project. She mentioned that a year and a half ago, she had appeared before the Town Board to speak about Sterling Mine Estates. Her concern at that time was that the project had been allowed to move forward and was then abandoned and left half finished, creating not only an eyesore, but a safety hazard.,. Subsequently, the Town installed deflectors along the ditch that runs along Sterling Mine Road so that people wouldn’t inadvertently drive into it, but these are the only improvements that were made to the the site. Mrs. Lindsay noted that the applicant is pushing for “the Smart Code” and she wondered if they then proceed to sell parcels, or perhaps all of the property, to others, what will be the control mechanism to ensure that the project is finished properly? She also expressed concern about the fact that the water facilities in the project are to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. She further commented that she had heard at a Planning Board meeting that if the Homeowners feel they can no longer maintain these facilities, then the Town woill have to take them over. Finally, she spoke about the proposed land swap noting that the developer is proposing to give land zoned for light industry along Long Meadow Road to PIPC in return for land along South Gate Road. Does it make sense for the Town to give up the possibility of developing businesses along Long Meadow Road in the future when such businesses would be beneficial to the Town in terms of tax revenue?

Ulrich Pendl made his remarks on the Economic and Fiscal Analysis section of the DSEIS. He noted that the revenue numbers were based on figures, which were valid 5 years ago. A particularly glaring example of “wishful revenue data” is that a 4- bedroom house on 1/3 of an acre is to be sold for $1.5 million! The claim that the addition of 1200 units to a Town of our size would be tax positive or even tax neutral is suspect. It is said that one tax dollar received from residents necessitates $1.30 in services to be provided to the community. While ideally these funds would come from business taxes, our Town is geographically unable to handle more than the railroad, the Super Highway, the Highway and the River in our narrow valley. Business will move South. In addition, Mr. Pendl noted that the developer has changed the housing mix to add substantially more housing for families with children. He noted that TUFSD’s cost per student is more than twice the NYS average. Mr. Pendl strongly urged the Board to take more time to listen to more input from residents before voting in any way on this project which will “alter forever the nature of our Town.”

Susan Goodfellow - Click Here to read Mrs. Goodfellow’s Remarks

Peter Regna - Click Here to read Mr. Regna’s remarks

John Kilduff, Preisdent of the Ambulance Corps, speaking as a private citizen, commented “when I connect the dots, there can be only one answer to t his application….application denied!” He went on to note that that the Public Hearing was about process, about all of Tuxedo collectively going through the application with a fine tooth comb. Lots of very dedicated people have done that and the numbers don’t add up. In his view the risks aren’t worth it. Stating “They had a deal in 2004. Sorry if it didn’t work out for you.” Mr. Kilduff noted that Related had also built the “majestic” Time Warner Center in New York City. He suggested that everyone give it some time because perhaps the land here could become very valuable in the future in terms of a carbon offset credit.

Bill Sloe inquired as to the history of the developer? Who are they? What have they done?

Thomas Wilson stated that after 13,000 hours of study, the project is already tax negative. If the Town is being asked to increase the commercial space from 3000 to 30.000 square feet, increase multifamily housing and add new zoning that will supercede the Town Zoning Code, in his view they are basically being asked to subsidize the sale of the property to another developer. He then seconded John Kilduff’s earlier comments….“application denied!”

George Williams, a resident of Tuxedo Park who works for a real estate firm in New York City, noted that Phase 1 consists of 75 units however the town is not requiring that the sewer treatment plant be constructed until 80 units are built. Using the example of a development called “Captains Corners” in Staten Island, he suggested that the developer could build 75 units and then stop for any number of years. In Captain’s Corners it was 16 years.

John Kwasnicki of Sloatsburg found several things missing from the DSEIS. For example, the Town of Tuxedo PID Code history,Tuxedo Reserve PID Code zoning controls, Tuxedo Reserve’s agreements with the Villages of Tuxedo Park and Sloatsburg, the Town of Tuxedo Master Plan of 1972 and the Sloatsburg Stormwater Controls of 2007 are all missing. He submitted several pictures of the rough grade of the roads, which are situated on the 40 acres of Tuxedo Reserve that lie in Sloatsburg as well as pictures of a well. Wells in Rockland County are regulated by the Board of Health and that agency has said that this looked like Tuxedo Reserve would take the water from this well and transfer it over the county line to their development.

Randy George is the Mayor of North Haledon, NJ. He begand his remarks b by saying “development is not the panacea you are led to believe. I’ve been on the Planning Board for 11 years and I’ve never once seen a plan that said it would adversely affect the Town.” His town had an application for 900 units on 100 acres. They bargained them down to 300 units. They were told the development would yield 20 schoolchildren. It yielded 60 schoolchildren, which triggered a $30 million referendum for a new school. The units sold for $200,000 more than they said they would, but now that there is a recession people are coming in and asking to have their taxes lowered. They’re taking the Town to court every year…..and winning. So now these property owners are paying less taxes because their homes are worth less. All this has shifted the burden onto all the other taxpayers in Town. Mr. George commented that the developer is here for only one reason … economics. In Mr. George’s view, the developer cannot build the project because they cannot sell at the price they need. As a result they are asking for more multifamily units and more commercial space. 1600 hundred wells in North Haledon get their water from our watershed. Mr. George commented that he hoped the Board would listen to all of the speakers present and that the residents would continue to keep up their vigilence.

Geoff Welch is an environmental consultant to the Village of Suffern and the Ramapo River Watershed Keeper. He noted that he will give water testimony later in the process and would be making his remarks on natural resources. Mr. Welch disagrees with the DSEIS where it says that the project would have a non-significant effect on natural resources. The DEC listed wetlands on the site are valuable wildlife habitats. 100 ft. buffers on the wetlands are not enough. In particular, Mr.Welch mentioned two species, the red shoulder hawks and copperhead snakes. A field worker doing salamander studies observed a den of 19 copperheads on the site, in an area located in Phase 1 of the project. Copperheads are even more aggressive than rattlesnakes so it’s not good to have houses near their den. Mr. Welch concluded that the property would be much better preserved as a key link between Sterling Forest, the Ramapo River Watershed and Harriman Park.

Betsy Kohn, Co-Chair of the Sierra Club North Jersey Group stated that last summer the Exeutive Committee of the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club had stated it is in opposition to the Tuxedo Reserve Development. One of their main concerns is the adverse impact that the project will have on the health of the Ramapo River watershed, which is a sole source aquifer with headwaters in New York. It provides drinking water for millions of New Jersey residents.
The quality of the water is already severely stressed from the existing level of development. In New Jersey, the water barely meets EPA standards. It makes little sense that this fragile watershed should be given over to massive development. The project undermines all the efforts to safeguard the water supply made by the citizens of New Jersey for years.

Janet Burnet lives in Suffern, but commented that she is a stakeholder in the process because she lives in the Ramapo River Watershed. United Water has said they will be able to meet the demands of the Tuxedo Reserve development by withdrawing from the Ramapo River Watershed, but at the same time United Water says it is running out of water in Rockland County, where they withdraw about 40% of the twater supply from the very same watershed. What is the truth? Is there so little water that United Water needs to build a desalination plant on the banks of the Hudson River or is there so much water that they have no hesitancy in promising that they can supply the Tuxedo Reserve Development. Mrs. Burnet urges the Board to take a very close hard look at the water reserves and United Water’s ability to provide water for the development. She recommended that the Board initiate discussions with officials from Rockland and New Jersey as well as Orange County water officials. She hopes that the Town of Tuxedo can be counted on to protect our regional water supply

Cynthia Sirocco asked for a moment of silence, which she said was not for animals or birds or insects but for human beings because we are destroying our water and air quality. The Tuxedo Reserve development will have an impact not just on Tuxedo, but it will also have have a global impact on water and air quality.

Steve Gross stated that Table 3-20 on page 3-21 of the DSEIS says the project will have a positive fiscal impact on the Town. However, Mr. Gross pointed out that the table only considers the impact on the school budget and does not consider the fiscal impacts to the Town at all. The fiscal impact on the Town, which is already projected to be negative for the General Fund and Fire District, would become negative in all taxing jurisdictions. He went on to say, that Table 1-3 on page 1-8 of the DSEIS lists, among the Neighborhood Amenity Buildings, a Boathouse for the Mountain Lake neighborhood. This is particularly disturbing since in all public representations to date, it would appear that the applicant was respecting the sensitive nature of the lake, avoiding encroaching no further than 100 feet from the edge of the wetland surrounding the lake. There is no other mention of a boathouse in the DSEIS, except briefly in an appendix to the Technical Memorandum where it appears as an item in a long list of recreational areas in the project. Looking at the Tuxedo Reserve website, however, one finds “the Mountain Lake Club” promoted as an “Amentiy” including a boathouse, rock beach, outdoor ice rink, platform tennis courts and a summer lawn, and that these facilities would be open to the public. These activities could expose Mountain Lake to intensive, damaging recreational use over the long term. In the short term, the proposed activities represent a significant encroachment on a NYSDEC regulated wetland, which has not been disclosed to the Town Board. Improvements to provide access to Mountain Lake have not been shown on any map or plan. This is an area of concern that requires much more disclosure and analysis. The DSEIS discusses the importance of un-fragmented forests. This property is presently part of the Sterling Forest un-fragmented forest. Obviously, the approved 2004 plan would already have an impact in reducing this un-fragmented forest, but the DSEIS disclosed that the Mountain Lake area of the development will cause the loss of an additional 94 acres of un-fragmented forest, leaving 202 acres intact. This means that 296 acres of un-fragmented forest would remain under the current Special Permit and that nearly one-third of that – 94 acres – would be lost under the proposed amendments. This is a significant impact, which could be avoided if there were no development in the Mountain Lake area. Mr. Gross had many more points he wanted to make and he was told he would be able to speak again at the continued hearing.

Andrew Lawrence spoke representing the New York Highlands Coalition, a group formed in response to the 2004 Highlands Preservation Act, which conserves the highlands in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. He read a statement, which was submitted as a letter to Supervisor Dolan and which stated that the Coalition does not believe the proposed development “recognizes the importance of the water, forest, agricultural, wildlife, recreational and cultural resources of the Highlands region.” The Coalition believes that the best use of the land would be for landowners and local officials to see preservation of the property thus avoiding the segmentation and further fragmentation of a valuable section of the Highlands.
Click Here to read this statement

Patsy Wooters –Click Here to read Mrs. Wooters’ remarks

Chief Dwaine Perry of the Ramapo-Lenape Nation, who resides in Hilburn, reported that he had heard from a reliable source that Indian artifacts and perhaps remains had been found during the building of the road behind Jesse’s Bagels. He asked to look at the site and was sent to the developers who denied his request. Several weeks later, the developer provided an archaeologist who, together with Chief Perry;s archaeologist, went to have a look They discovered that the site had been “bulldozed, dumped on and altered” so there was no hope of finding either artifacts or remains. Chief Perry requested the establishment of a local oversight person so that if something is found, it can be identified.

Jeff Genser stated that he is not a rocket scientist, but that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the project is bogus. He recommends that residents petition to have a referendum put on the ballot asking residents whether or not they want to see Tuxedo Reserve built. In his view, the development should never be built..

Ed McGowan, Science Director for PIPC as well as Director of the Zoo at Bear Mountain, began his presentation with a statement about the PIPC land swap. He said a letter had been sent to the Town Board in lateJune ,which made it clear that PIPC would not undertake any review of this matter while the applicant was still seeking various approvals for the project. Yet the applicant has clearly sought approval for development on land currently owned by the PIPC. The PIPC would like to make it clear that the land swap is not on the table at the moment. Discussing the DSEIS, Mr. McGowan said that a number of people had addressed the deficiencies of the DSEIS and he would like to add that there were unsupportable statements made in the document. There are some good parts, in particular a discussion of fragmentation where the applicant lays out the significance of the area and then lists the consequences of fragmentation only to sweep aside the project and say that there would be no impact on fragmentation. Mr. McGowan feels that it would be hard to find an impartial expert to read the document and come to the same conclusion. When reviewing an EIS, he likes to look at the species list as he finds it a window into how thorough the review has been. He found some interesting omissions here….copperheads and black rattlesnakes are not listed although they clearly exist on the property. Those species tend to cohabitate with timber rattlesnakes, which makes him wonder if they did sufficient work for timber rattlesnakes. It would be in the applicant’s best interest to do that work properly so they don’t encounter problems down the line. Also missing was mention of the golden wing warbler, a species in dramatic decline, although the Sterling Forest area is one it’s remaining strongholds and there is ideal habitat available. There are species listed as being on the site, which are also unusual. Either these are misidentifications or very exciting finds. One is the norther leopard frog, very common up north but this would be the southernmost occurrence. Finally, there is the Least Shrew, which is the world’s smallest mammal and a speciies that Mr. MdGowan has been looking for for 20 years. These are not known in New York State. They are listed as an historical record for 1900 from West Point and from the 1930’s in the Ithaca area. If they are in fact on the property, they are New York’s most endangered mammal! Mr. McGowan will pass this information along to the State Mammalogist. In conclusion, Mr. McGowan stated there were serious deficiencies in the DSEIS.

Mr. McGowan was the last speaker. After consultation with Town Attorney Larry Wolinsky, Supervisor Dolan announced that the Public Hearing will be continued on November 23rd. At that time, first consideration will be given to people who weren’t present at tonight’s hearing or who had to leave early. After that, if there is time, other comments will be taken as long as they aren’t repetitive or redundant. Mr. Dolan requested all speakers submit their comments in writing as quickly as possible. After the hearing is closed, the Town Board will go to work on the project conducting a number of workshops with the Town Attorney, the Town Planner and the Town Engineer as well as the applicant. These workshops will be open to the public although there may well not be any public comment period.

Sierra Club of New Jersey Opposes Tuxedo Reserve Development in the Ramapo River Watershed

Resolution Opposing Tuxedo Reserve Development
in the Ramapo River Watershed

WHEREAS, an Act of Congress recognizes the national significance of the Highlands region to the United States and the Highlands Conservation Act of 2004 encourages a regional approach and cooperation to protect priority conservation lands by the four states in the Highlands region; and

WHEREAS, the Ramapo River in the Highlands region, with headwaters in New York, is a Federally-designated sole source aquifer that provides drinking water for over two million residents in New Jersey, and also supplies 40 per cent of Rockland County’s water; and

WHEREAS, the Ramapo River Watershed and aquifer are already severely stressed and barely meet US Environmental Protection Agency water standards; and

WHEREAS, unfragmented forest is critically important to protect the aquifer and wildlife habitat; and

WHEREAS, the Ramapo River Watershed upstream in New York State is under threat of development from large-scale housing projects including the Tuxedo Reserve development which proposes to build 1,195 units and 33,000 square feet of commercial space across 2,300 acres of forested steep slopes; and

WHEREAS, the site for Tuxedo Reserve is located in the New York State US Geological Survey Quadrant with the highest level of biodiversity in reptile and amphibian species, including the Timber Rattlesnake, a “threatened species” requiring protection under the New York State Department of Conservation; and

WHEREAS, the construction of Tuxedo Reserve will disturb steep slopes, causing soil erosion to silt up streams and rivers; uncover bedrock to expose cracks, allowing non-point source pollution to migrate directly into the aquifer; and add impervious surfaces, preventing rainwater absorption into the ground and increasing run-off and area flooding; and

WHEREAS, Tuxedo Reserve would destroy land that is a New York State Open Space Conservation Plan priority site surrounded by Harriman State Park, Sterling Forest State Park, the Wanaque Wildlife Management Area, Tranquility Ridge Passaic County Park, Ringwood State Park, Ramapo Mountain State Forest, and Ramapo Valley County Reservation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club finds that the Tuxedo Reserve development would significantly degrade the Ramapo River Watershed, irreparably harm the ecosystem, and adversely affect the priority conservation lands of the surrounding Highlands wilderness; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Chapter opposes the Tuxedo Reserve development and calls upon the Town of Tuxedo, NY to find ways to preserve and protect this environmentally sensitive site as open space.

Date: May 9, 2009 Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter
Ken Johanson, Chapter Chair

Scores pack hearing to question Tuxedo Reserve report

Letter To the Community From Target Tuxedo

Dear Fellow Resident :

Attached is a two page summary of the issues facing our community as a result of new plans proposed by Tuxedo Reserve. It is a factual and fair document based on a report prepared by Mr. Steve Gross, Municipal Impact Analyst. Mr. Gross was hired by the Target Tuxedo Group, an organization based in Tuxedo that has expressed reservations about this large development for many years. His findings should instill concern in all residents, since each of us will be affected in some way by the development plans and alterations proposed by Tuxedo Reserve.

map

Above is a map that shows clearly where this development will be situated. The area labeled Southern Tract is the site of Tuxedo Reserve’s proposed 1195-unit development.

No matter how you feel about the contents of the accompanying Summary – it is meant to give each of us, at the very least, a clear idea of the issues involved. The most important thing is to inform yourself before the hearings on October 26th. The entire plan and impact statement is available at our Town Library.

It is of paramount importance that we all attend the Public Hearing on October 26th, currently scheduled for 7:30 PM at Town Hall. It’s not only we who will be affected, but the future of our community for generations to come.

Sincerely yours,
Target Tuxedo Group

Public Hearing October 26, 7:30 PM Eagle Valley Fire House Scott Mine Road Eagle Valley, N. Y.

T0 Town of Tuxedo residents:

The Tuxedo Reserve Project, which received approval for 1,195 housing units in 2004, is back before the Town Board, seeking amendments to the original plan. Supporters of the project hope for positive tax revenue from high quality housing and commercial development, additional school children to keep Baker High School viable and a fix for the ailing Tuxedo sewage treatment plant.
The question before the Town Board is whether the proposed changes are in the long run, better for the residents of our town than the previous plan.. The Town Board can and should negotiate with Tuxedo Reserve to achieve the best plan for present and future residents.

What changes are being proposed?
The former Town Board spent years negotiating the Special Permit, awarded in 2004. Since that time, the developer, The Related Companies (“Related”), has discovered that the property is not easy to develop. Steep slopes, rock outcrops, and wetlands are obstacles to some proposed road alignments and development areas. Therefore, the applicant has proposed changes that would remove the development from these difficult areas, and place it in other areas some of which were previously considered undevelopable (near Mountain Lake and within the Tuxedo Lake watershed.) Additionally, the applicant proposes to increase the amount of commercial property from 3,000 to 33,000 square feet, increase, multifamily housing by more than 40%, and introduce flag lots and small cottage lots, all of which will increase the urban character of the development. These changes the former Town Board worked to avoid. Further, a new zoning code is being proposed for the development that will supersede the Town’s existing code. Some of these changes may be beneficial for the town, others may not. Either way your town board is being pressed to accept all of the proposed changes now.

Are the tax benefits certain?
The applicant has represented that the project will be tax-positive -- generating more in taxes than it demands in services – despite the fact that this is rarely the case for residential subdivisions. However, this tax benefit is completely dependent on some hard-to-believe assumptions:

More than 500 of the 1,195 tax-generating residential units (nearly half) are valued from just under $1 million to nearly $1.5 million. These units have a maximum of 4 bedrooms, and no more than 1/3 of an acre. By contrast, the only sale in Tuxedo Park this past year was a 7-bedroom mansion on 1.5 acres for $950,000.
The applicant projects that the 998 unrestricted housing units with a total of 2,805 bedrooms (an average of 2.8 bedrooms per unit) would generate 429 school-aged children. This equates to 0.43 students per housing unit, or 0.15 students per bedroom. If these projections seem low, then consider that each student not accounted for would create an additional demand for about $21,849 in costs to the school district.
Of the 1,195 proposed units, 197 (16.5%) are proposed to be age-restricted, and therefore generate no school-aged children. As such, these units would contribute significantly to the school district tax base with no demand for services. However, the bottom has fallen out of the age-restricted housing market. A recent market analysis found the current inventory of age-restricted housing in Orange County alone reflects a 24.5 year backlog! As a result, age restrictions on such units have been lifted in town after town, converting them into unrestricted housing that can have school children. Even if you agree that the housing units would generate only 0.43 student each, the conversion of 197 units into unrestricted housing will result in 85 more school children, or an additional $1.86 million in costs per year.

It is important, therefore, that the Town Board do a thorough and independent fiscal analysis of the proposed amendment, as recommended by the Town Planning Board. This analysis should include a comparison of the fiscal impact of the 2004 plan with that of the 2009 plan with and without age restricted housing..

Phased Approvals?
The proposed development is huge and there are many uncertainties, some of which will not be known until construction is underway. If things go poorly for the developer they can seek another amendment to the Special Permit, but what if things go poorly for the Town? Shouldn’t the project be phased so that the town has the opportunity to review the project at intervals, in the event that projected tax revenues don’t materialize? The Special Permit specifies the number of units allowed, it does not specify unit prices. The developer has the option of building cheaper units, which would adversely impact projected tax revenues.

Construction here will be difficult
The homes in Tuxedo Reserve will be placed on lots of no more than 1/3 acre, meaning massive clearing, grading and blasting will be needed. No less than 50 retaining walls, measuring as high as 30 feet, and as much as a half mile long, and some 25 rock cuts are proposed. Most of the retaining walls and rock cuts are associated with road construction, and these roads will eventually be turned over to the Town to maintain. Maintaining simple roads is expensive enough. How much will it cost to maintain roadways supported by retaining walls as high as 30 feet? Which plan will be more or less expensive for the town to maintain?

New impacts near Mountain Lake
The new plan proposes a new residential neighborhood that would be situated adjacent to Mountain Lake. In the original plan, this area remained as open space, maintaining a very important wildlife connection between Mountain Lake and a large regulated wetland. A major bedrock fracture also underlies this area. Contaminants could enter the fracture from the proposed new neighborhood, and contaminate both groundwater resources and the Ramapo River. The Town Board should insure that development in this sensitive area does not have negative impacts.

What is the rush?
Regardless of whether Related builds the development, which is unlikely, or someone else does, it will be built. Related,does not plan to develop this project until 2012 at the earliest, if at all. In their pleadings before the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy court, December 8, 2008, the developer stated that they had a “.....first bulk land sale scheduled for the second quarter of 2009.” So the project may be partially or completely sold prior to 2012. Construction will be in accordance with agreements between the developer and the Town Board that should be carefully negotiated and there is plenty of time for such negotiations.

The Tuxedo Town Board needs to hear from you
The Tuxedo Town Board will begin public hearings on the proposed amendments on October 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM in the Town Hall. They need to hear from the public. They’ve been hearing from the applicant for quite some time. Now it’s time for them to hear from the people who live here, or live nearby. Let your opinion be heard.

TARGET Tuxedo
October 16, 2009

*For more information about specific aspects of the project go to: http://www.tpfyi.com/subdivisions.html