Hay Burns Hot Over Barrett Hill Housing Proposal
Southeast Supervisor Tony Hay held nothing back when addressing the Barrett Hill housing proposal during a public hearing last week that raised tensions on the town board.
While comments from residents and the development team, including principal developer Harold Lelper, were tame, the real fireworks started when town board members discussed their thoughts on the project.
The proposal puts forth a workforce multi-family housing district that would need a text amendment allowing a development like this in only particular zones and only after the town board examined the particular application, said attorney for the developer Richard O’Rourke said.
This type of development could only be placed in the OP2 zone that has at least 25 acres of land, and adjacent to a residential zone with an existing water and sewer system. The plan would convert 168 senior housing units approved in 2006 into partly priority housing for people with developmental disabilities, school district employees, town employees, seniors, veterans, and first responders.
There would be 50 priority units out of the 168 overall and of those 50, 17 would be billed as affordable. There would be no age restriction. The affordable units would be offered to those that make less than 80 percent of the county median income, O’Rourke said.
Planner Terri Hahn said the mass of the new buildings proposed would be “significantly” less than the original senior housing plan. There would only be one or two bedroom units, she added. The project is also subject to planning board review.
Hay said while he supports housing for the groups of society listed by O’Rourke, he wanted the age restriction kept in place. By removing the age restriction, the only benefactor is the developer, Hay argued.
Hay then went over the timeline of the events that led to last Thursday’s meeting. When the town board voted to declare itself lead agency over the Barrett Hill project by a 3-2 vote, Hay said “the project took on a very intriguing political life of its own.” On Sep. 23, 2015, Hay said the town received a disapproval letter from the Putnam County Department of Planning, which would mean in order for the text amendment connected to the project to go though, there would need to be a supermajority vote approval. Putnam planning said the Barrett Hill proposal clashed with the town’s Comprehensive Plan.
Twelve days later, Hay said a person associated with the Barrett Hill project told a Southeast councilperson that the county made a bad decision and they were going to get that county determination changed. Ten days after that, the county send a letter to the town requesting a resubmission of the Barrett Hill proposal. Fast-forward to Aug. 17 of this year, the county has now approved the Barrett Hill development, a reversal from the earlier decision.
Hay also said he was told by residents that people associated with the Barrett Hill development were supporting candidates of the most recent town election that would vote in favor of the Barrett Hill project to ensure a supermajority vote. (Incumbents Edwin Alvarez, a Republican, and Democrat Lynne Eckardt both won reelection, while their running mates both lost, keeping the board the same.)
On December 3, 2015, Hay said he was informed there was a meeting about Barrett Hill that included three Barrett Hill representatives, three county officials, and two town board members, though he wasn’t privy to the conversation.
He accused Barrett Hill supporters of bullying and political intimidation and said his name went through the ringer unfairly for fighting parts of the project. If the Barrett Hill proposal were approved last September, the town wouldn’t have a community benefits agreement, a floating zone put forth, and workforce multi-family development, Hay asserted.
“In my opinion it wasn’t about veterans, it was all about removing the age restriction, it wasn’t about workforce, it was all about removing the age restriction, it wasn’t about the handicap, it was about removing age restriction, and it wasn’t about seniors, it was about removing the age restriction,” Hay said.
Hay also questioned if the applicant’s estimated number of added school children — 26 — is accurate. He said another multi-family housing development in North Salem underestimated the amount of school children produced from the project. Hay challenged the Barrett Hill developer to add a clause that guarantees payments to cover the costs of every school child over the 26-child projection.
After Hay, town board members Alvarez, Bob Cullen, and Liz Hudak voiced support for the project, while Eckardt pointed out issues she had with the development.
Alvarez said it’s the applicant’s prerogative to market their piece of land differently compared to several years ago and because times have changed, the developer lifted the age restriction. As for the school system, enrollment is down so the Brewster school district can easily absorb the additional students from the project, he said.
Alvarez added the affordable housing is critical to retain young residents that go off to college and can’t return to the county.
Eckardt said while a developer can change his mind, “it’s not a right.” The Comprehensive Plan was only updated two years ago and is already being changed, Eckardt argued. She said she doesn’t like the developer essentially rewriting the town’s zoning code.
While the school might be able to take on the students, each student still costs money, Eckardt said. Also, Eckardt believes there should be recreation fees connected to project.
Cullen said some of Hay’s remarks were “out of line.” He noted the school system has never commented on the project and it only has one or two bedroom units.
There aren’t many rental opportunities in the county, which the Barrett Hill development would provide, Cullen said and a pool would also be at the complex, which could result in less residents using town recreation locations.
Hudak, who appeared most irritated by Hay’s comments, said since the first rejection from the county planner, the project has changed in a variety of ways, including that it’s now a floating zone. She called the comprehensive plan, a “living document” that is changeable over a period of time, even though it’s only two years old.
She also noted that while there is no age restriction, senior citizens are still part of the priority housing plan. She charged Hay was floating a “conspiracy” filled with impropriety and wanted to hear “substantive objections” to the project instead.
“I don’t envision this as a heinous plot,” Hudak said, noting there was no opposition by the public during the hearing.
Hay responded that all he did was state facts and can prove “99.9 percent” of what was said. He also disagreed that he was insinuating anything negative about other town board members.
Lepler, in brief remarks, said the county’s original objection to the proposal was in response to only part of the relevant document provided to them. He said there was “crucial” information that the county didn’t have the first time around. Town planner Ashley Ley said the county planner gave a determination before all the updated information was sent, but noted it wasn’t the town’s fault.
Eckardt questioned if the additional information would have prevented the planner’s original objection.
O’Rourke also argued it was wrong to compare the Barrett Hill project to a development in North Salem because of certain differences.
Most people from the public that spoke out were supportive of the project, with just one resident questioning the prospect of increased traffic. The town board kept the public hearing open for another ten days for written comment.
Hudson Valley Cerebral Palsy Association chairman Ken Ford stressed people with physical disabilities struggle to find suitable housing and deserve to integrate into the community. His agency would oversee the units made available to the people with developmental disabilities.
“This is a very vulnerable population in the state of New York and right here in Putnam County, right here in Southeast that needs assistance,” Ford said. “To the point that it’s almost tragic.”
Ken Clair, deputy commissioner for the Bureau of Emergency Service and former Brewster fire chief, said the county is losing volunteers because of the lack of housing at a reasonable price. He approached Lepler a few years back to inquire if he were interested in a project like the one proposed and called it a great opportunity.
“Our volunteers are fading quickly,” Clair said.
