Edenville residents raise environmental questions over subdivision

Twenty-four homes proposed on former Luft farm Warwick - The landscape of Edenville may be changing dramatically. But not without strong input from a group of neighbors who have filed suit against the town’s planning board in hopes of keeping their neighborhood safe and rural. The Warwick Town Planning Board has granted preliminary approval to a proposed 24-home subdivision on the Luft farm, which is located on the corner of Blooms Corners Road and Newport Bridge Road. But the process is far from over. Residents, who call themselves ACCORD (Abutters and Concerned Citizens for Responsible Development), have filed an Article 78 against the planning board. They claim the board failed to do an adequate environmental review of the property and called the decision “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” ACCORD’s concerns include safety, endangered species, water supply and the possibility that the Luft subdivision will eventually connect with an adjacent property - the Stanford farm - that was sold in March. “We wanted them to consider this project with the other parcel,” said Charlene Anderson, a neighbor of the Lufts. “That’s all. There are many issues here. They are putting too many homes and septics on the parcel. There are wetlands surrounding it and with the septics so close, there is the possibility of pollution. What are we left with if our water is polluted?” Second development in the offing? While the Luft application has been in the works for some time, ACCORD members had heard rumors of the 280-acre Stanford property also being sold for development. That happened on March 29; on April 13, an application was made to the planning board for a 53-home subdivision, called Warwick Views. Kirk Rother is the engineer for both projects. These developments, if approved as is, would add 77 homes to what have always been two farms. “I can honestly say, the Stanford property is definitely the most beautiful land in Warwick,” said Kathryn Lomax, a resident of Blooms Corners Road and former real estate developer herself. “But it has much wetlands and the aquifer is all over the property. How are they going to protect the wetlands?” Lomax, whose backyard borders the Stanford property, added: “It infuriated me that Mr. Stanford did this with his land. I understand business, but this could have been sold for PDR rights or as a gentleman’s horse farm. Instead it is sold to a Rockland County developer. Now it’s time to ruin Orange County.” On the Luft map, a road dead ends at the property line. It is not shown as a cul-de-sac, which made neighbors wonder where the road would be going. According to the Planning Board minutes of May 18, 2005, Rother said the road was built to allow access for the Warwick Views subdivision. The minutes are quoted in the Article 78 action with Rother saying, “We have 280 contiguous acres of land next to us that is currently for sale. That is why we are planning on a through road in this area.” However, when ACCORD members asked the planning board on May 18, 2006, to consider Warwick Views while making the decision on Luft, they were told Warwick Views had been withdrawn. On May 1, Rother asked that the Warwick Views application be withdrawn. On May 17, he again wrote to the planning board requesting that the application be reinstated. That evening, at the May 17 planning board meeting, Anderson asked about traffic impact with the potential subdivision of the Stanford property and Ben Astorino, the planning board chairman, said it was no longer before this board. “It is intellectually dishonest to say they are not aware of what is going on next door,” said Ben Ostrer, ACCORD’s attorney. “It is safe to say they didn’t want to complicate Luft. Luft is just a link in the chain.” Company response Calls to Rother’s office were not returned. A message left with Harry Fried, a senior vice president of Fairmont Funding in New York City and listed as a managing member of the LLC that owns the Stanford property, was returned by Barry Katz, who identified himself as an employee of Fairmont Capital. Katz declined to answer any questions regarding Warwick Views, saying all questions will be answered at a future planning board meeting. Katz also would not answer questions regarding other properties in Warwick owned by the company, nor would he give names of other developments built by his company. He did say his company “develops all over.” In the application to the planning board, Warwick Views LLC c/o Horizon Acres in Spring Valley is listed as the owner of the property. A message was left at that location. A man who would not identify himself but said he was returning the call made to Horizon Acres regarding Warwick Views would not answer any questions about the development or anything else. Environmental reviews What was not included in the Article 78 application but will be used if ACCORD gets to go before the judge is a letter from the state Department of Environmental Conservation dated July 13. In it, Michael D. Merriman, deputy regional permit administrator, said the wetland boundary shown on the Luft subdivision plan does not match the wetlands delineated by his department in January 2004. “We also caution the developer not to commence any construction at this site until these jurisdictional determinations and all necessary state environmental permits are obtained,” Merriman wrote. ACCORD had requested that the planning board perform a full environmental impact study for the Luft property. The planning board has completed a shorter version of the environmental impact study and issued a negative declaration, saying there would be no significant environmental impact if this project is built. “That is just irresponsible,” said neighbor Elizabeth Fisher. “We’re just saying ‘put our minds at ease.’ Our well is very deep. Others in this area have had to drill 650 feet to get water. We’ve run out of water many times in the summer. I can’t imagine this won’t impact our water supply.” Appropriate procedures John Bollenback, attorney for the planning board, said he is confident the Article 78 will be dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Joseph, just as the four others which had been filed against the town so far this year have been. “I believe the planning board followed the appropriate procedures and the Article 78 will have no impact on this process,” said Bollenback. “I’m sure this one will be dismissed also.” Ostrer has a different view. “They are asking for a dismissal based on a technicality,” said Ostrer. “I believe the judge will see that this has merit.” The complaint went to Owen on Monday. Ostrer said the judge is ‘usually prompt’ and predicted a decision within a month. If the judge dismisses the complaint, the project proceeds. If he finds validity in the complaint, the town and Luft would have a specified amount of time to respond, and Ostrer may submit other evidence, including the DEC letter. It is rarely done, but the judge could call for a hearing on the matter. Ostrer said these are usually determined based on the written documentation submitted.