Daily Freeman By WILLIAM J. KEMBLE
TOWN OF ULSTER, N.Y. – Supervisor James Quigley said that Zena Homes developers’ comments to Ulster town officials on April 9 seemed to omit information about what approvals will be needed in the town of Woodstock, which were conveyed there on March 26.
Quigley raised the concerns on Saturday after receiving copies of emails from Woodstock officials outlining the process.
“(Developers) were given an answer in March via email (that they) have to apply to the town of Woodstock Planning Board,” he said.
“This goes … directly to credibility,” Quigley said. “Why would I trust anybody that misrepresents something this basic?”
The developers propose constructing the 30-unit project on 106.6 acres of undisturbed wild forest area with access via a 1,423-foot-long driveway from Eastwoods Drive over adjacent property they own in Woodstock.
The last question during the town of Ulster Planning Board meeting on April 9 was about the status of a Woodstock approval. In a 32-second response, developers said they do not believe the driveway would require significant reviews.
Zena Homes representative Alec Gladd said that a request for clarification on the permits and approvals needed was filed with Woodstock immediately before the April 9 meeting.
“Our view is that it should be just a Building Department permit … but we should, within the next week or two, have clarification from their town whether we do need any Planning Board approvals,” he said.
On March 26, Woodstock Code Enforcement Officer Francis Hoffman sent an email to Gladd and developers Eddie Greenberg and Evan Kleinberg, spelling out the rules that would apply for a Planning Board review.
“Although the proposed subdivision lies outside the town of Woodstock the road to access is proposed in Woodstock and must conform to the standards for development within,” Hoffman wrote.
Hoffman cited requirements in the “wetland and watercourse protection standards” as one reason a referral would be needed and site plan requirements that apply to all projects except for one- or two-family dwellings or agricultural uses.
Developers were further told that the driveway needs a town Planning Board review because the town officials could only exempt the project if the “number of vehicle trips generated during the p.m. peak hour…(would) be increased.”
Kleinberg in an email on Monday wrote that the email was not considered a formal response and the developers “don’t feel as if we misrepresented in any way” information provided from Woodstock.