Twenty-three residents, who are impacted by the flood zoning, filed the lawsuit against the New Paltz Town Board, on Sept. 25 with the State of New York Supreme Court in Ulster County claiming that the laws are “arbitrary and capricious.” Neighbors also complained that the Town Board did not “take a hard look” at potential environmental impacts the law might create and also accused them of ignoring “potential economic hardship to property owners within the area of special flood concern.”
New Paltz’s new flood law, which followed on the heels of a floodplain building moratorium, prohibits subdivisions in areas of special flood concern, and it focuses primarily on a section of Springtown Road between Dug Road and Cragswood Road west of the Wallkill River.
“We asked the board not to pass this unnecessary law; then we asked them to repeal it. Their arrogant desire for control prevents them from listening to the very people they are oppressing with this dictatorial law. They just don’t care whose lives they affect,” said Bob Gabrielli, a petitioner on the lawsuit.
Town Supervisor Toni Hokanson said that the Article 78 had been “referred to our attorney” and said that she believes that the town’s law will “stand up in court,” and that it was passed, unanimously, after “much discussion, deliberations, public hearings,” because “it addresses public health and safety.”
She went on to say that “the flooding in that area has only gotten worse, not better, and I don’t want to put any more residents in harm’s way, nor do I want to put any of our emergency service workers and volunteers in more harm’s way.”
Councilman Jeff Logan said that he felt “saddened that these residents would move so quickly towards legal action. From the very first time when they approached us, they said they would file a lawsuit. We’d been working on this for months, under the advice of our engineer, our attorney, our supervisor and we held public hearings, which directly impacted our revision of the law,” Logan said. “After it was passed these residents came to us and said they would sue us.”
The councilman said that at that point the Town Board -- threatened with legal action -- could not have an honest discourse with those in opposition to the law. “We’re a small community and many of these people I grew up with and deeply respect. I would much rather have a civil discourse with them and work together to strengthen our zoning than waste taxpayers’ dollars with a lawsuit.”
The petitioners and their supporters have said that they will continue to come to Town Board meetings, showing their solidarity by wearing the same colored shirts, and express their ongoing opposition to the law. They have said many times that the law has a negative economic impact on them, and some have said it precludes them from being able to subdivide property for their family. Others in the Red Shirt group have stated, as the lawsuit does, that there was not enough research done, nor proof that the floods cause public harm or safety to enact such zoning.
Ray Lunati has been one of the most vocal residents in opposition to the town’s floodplain zoning. He’s also listed as one of the petitioners of the Article 78. “I’ve been asking them for a year not to pass this law and they didn’t listen,” said Lunati. “I guess you listen to lawyers? That was the only action they left us with.”
The petitioners are being represented by Salvatore D. Ferlazzo of Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C. based in Albany.
I have had significant experience working on general environmental and SEQRA review associated with the laws of the Town of New Paltz. I was a member of the Town of New Paltz Planning Board for approximately 7 years, a member of the town’s Economic Development Commission as well as member and Chairman of the Town of New Paltz Zoning Board of Appeals for 5 years. I have made my home on Springtown Rd. for the past 33 years.
I have had the opportunity to review the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared by the Town as Lead Agency for establishing these laws. Based on my experience with the SEQRA requirements of a quality environmental review I consider the Assessment in this case to be significantly deficient in a number of areas. It is clear to me the Town failed to meet its obligation to conduct a thorough environmental review. The Town Board as Lead Agency did not take the “hard” look at any impacts the new law would have and ignored citizens’ legitimate concerns. These obligations are clearly enumerated in Parts 2 and 3 of the Assessment Form. Additionally, other “Concerned Agencies” were left out of the review process and therefore did not provide necessary feedback on the proposed law. There is also speculation the Town should have conducted a separate review for each law and or amendment they passed instead of grouping all actions under one Assessment form.
Specifically, with regard to the Full EAF, the Town failed to consider any impact to be large and therefore clearly, and perhaps purposefully, ignored significant areas of the review by failing to provide any approach to mitigating those impacts. They include;
• Impact on Agricultural Land resources: Should there be an event that results in the law’s enforcement the subsequent impact will likely result in the loss of several local farms. These family run farms produce significant crops for local resident consumption as part of CSAs as well as commercially grown crops for local markets and the tourist trade. Additionally, since these are family farms, homes, barns and sheds will not be able to be replaced should floods, or damage by other means, cause them to be partially or fully rebuilt. There is no evidence the Town took a hard look at any of the impact on the business or operations of local family owned or other agriculture as part of their review. Nor did they ascertain the impact on the potential for removing agricultural resources from the area if the people who own them are removed as a result of the implementation of the law. In effect the actions of the Town are more apt to create a ‘blight” to the area’s agricultural economy than any flood would.
• Historic and Archeological Resources: There are a number of homes and barns and other structures in the area dating to the earliest settlement of New Paltz in the late 17th century and after. Many have significant potential to be included in historic registers and as archeological sites. Additionally, historically significant bridges crossing the Wallkill River at various locations, including pedestrian, automobile and rail bridges could also be impacted. In short, structures of historical significance could not be restored or not replaced under the terms of the new laws should they be partially or full destroyed by flood or other means. There is no indication the Town took a hard look at any of the impact on historic structures as part of their review.
• Aesthetic Resources (Recreation): Should the former Wallkill Valley railroad bridge, now part of the rail trail, be partially damaged or destroyed (most likely at its abutments or central pillar), it could not be repaired or replaced in its current form. There may be other areas along the trail south of the town that might also be impacted by this law. This would have significant impact on the hundreds of town residents, tourists, etc. who use the rail trail almost daily and benefit from the recreational and aesthetic value it provides. There is no indication the Town took a hard look at any of the significant impact on Aesthetics as part of their review.
• Public Controversy: The Town indicated on the Assessment there would be public controversy but clearly did not look at the impact the laws would have on the town as a whole or on the quality of live or economic viability of residents who live in the designated areas and who voiced their strong opposition to the law.
o The Town made no effort to interview local residents or members or leadership of the Springtown Home Owners Assoc. (an associated whose origin in the 1960’s sought to protect resident’s rights against laws severely limiting development in the area, as these laws now do). Nor did the Town make an effort to work with residents and invite input as to how the future law may impact quality of life in the area.
o There was no analysis of the impact of the law on the town’s tax base. Removing land, homes and home based and agricultural business from the tax roles will have a significant impact on the entire tax paying population of the town requiring them to pay increased taxes to meet the town’s needs. This flies in the face of the purpose of the law as the immediate economic impact will, over time, exceed the short term impact caused by a one in 100 year event.
o There was no analysis of the potential loss of value to individual home, land and business owners in the area proscribed by the law. There may very well be hundreds of millions of dollars of value of land and property associated with the areas covered by the law. This would certainly “blight’ the communities/localities impacted as well as destroy the economic and financial condition of residents affected. The law intends to ensure residents take responsibility for their actions but creates conditions that do not allow home owners any affordable options and in some cases, no options at all except to abandon their homes. No provisions in the law are established to compensate homeowners who are denied the opportunity to rebuild and in this case shows the Town’s lack of interest in taking any responsibility for the punitive outcomes created by the law.
o The new law severely restricts any future residential development and thus denies the town the opportunity to provide sorely needed affordable housing for the local workforce and senior citizens. Additionally, this creates a significant economic loss to those who own tracts of land or parcels that could be subdivided under prior laws but held by owners for a time when market conditions improved.
o No attention was paid to the possibility and or likelihood that current residents would find their home uninsurable and or subject to significantly higher costs for standard home owners or FEMA required flood insurance.
o No study was conducted on the impact of this law and the ability of current residents to sell (at current market prices), finance or refinance their homes. There is a high probability lending institutions will deny mortgages, refinancing, equity loans, etc. on homes that cannot be rebuilt if damaged by flood and or other means.
o Denying the right or ability to build/construct and maintain structures to support emergency services runs counter to the intent of the law supposedly designed to improve safety in the designated flood areas.
o There is no indication the Town, as part of their responsibility as Lead Agency, took a hard look at any of the concerns of local residents and the controversy the law created. Some of theses same concerns date as far back as 50 years with the creation of the Springtown Home Owners’ Assoc. Public comment periods offered by the Town produced only a small number of non area residents in favor of the legislation. The majority who did voice opinions were opposed to the law. Multiple changes in the law as well as the nearly 6 months of review has to be seen as an attempt by the Town to dissuade public comment as a strategic effort to “wear down”, confuse and misdirect public opposition. Yet, the controversy expected and noted in the EAF seems to have been ignored in the review as there is no comment provided in the section of the Assessment and no indication as to what the controversy created might be, its strength, or how it will be mitigated by changes in the proposed law. Additionally, there was no effort to seek input from other “concerned agencies” as might be expected with a law of this scope.
Curiously an additional technical item points to the inability or failure of the Town to take a hard look at the impact of the law on residents and resources. The official Town copies of the Full Environmental Assessment Form are not signed on page 1. The Town may argue the failure is simply an administrative oversight. However, it must be viewed as an example of the failure of the Town as Lead Agency to take a careful and hard look at the impact of the law beyond the minimal benefits indicated in their review. In fact, it might be considered and there is no evidence to show they took a look at all on the issues delineated above.
Jules Traugot