(1) Town Board - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone. This is the Red Hook Town Board special meeting of Wednesday, November 19th. May I ask you to join me please in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much. Uh for the folks at home, if you'd be kind enough to uh pan over the screen, we can let them know what we'll be discussing tonight, what's on the agenda. Uh the first item is a public hearing regarding the Winnicky Land Trust Camp Rising Sun project. Uh with if you've been following the last several months, um it is a preservation project uh that also includes walking trails and uh it's going to have a contribution if the board uh moves it forward from the community preservation fund program. We are going to open that public hearing but we are going to extend it to the first meeting in February. We need additional information from Winnicki from February. the first meeting of February 7:35. We have a public hearing uh for proposed amendment of the town of uh for the town of Rto community preservation plan local law a proposed of 2025. Um that is uh two um one addition of a property, the wreck park west property and language uh with is already uh authorized in the community preservation uh state enabling legislation to pay down debt on uh projects that have already been completed. At 7:55 or thereabouts, we have a public hearing related to local law B. And at 8:15, a public hearing related to local law C. And just as a sort of a quick refresh for the folks watching at home. Um when uh we passed local law number one in February, believe February 11th of 2025, it was a law that was introduced many

months earlier in 2024. After we passed it, there was a challenge to the law based upon segmentation. Um it went to the Supreme Court. Judge Rosa uh ruled that uh we in fact had segmented uh the review. Um we disagreed with that decision. We have since uh filed a notice of appeal and uh we intend to uh if necessary to go ahead and appeal that decision. We believe that that uh decision was uh incorrect and we believe actually that the judge's decision itself highlights that there was no overlap um in either one of the two actions. Um so we have uh B and C we have uh as we've mentioned months ago we decided the easiest course might be just to resubmit the law and now that the action was completed in July uh as it relates to the eminent domain and the bow club that we would then uh review essentially the same law split into two uh two sections uh including uh that acquisition. ition. So that's what we intend to do this evening. We are not going to take action on B or C. Um we will uh extend the public hearing until our first meeting in December which is December 9th for uh the folks in the audience and the folks at home. So that's uh public hearings. Uh the first thing is on the agenda is a resolution um to authorize letting bids for the Sill Aspen Wall Bridge. And I know it may be confusing to the folks at home. We have two bridge projects along the Salt Hill. This is for Aspen Wall um by um Westb and Bard Avenue. This is

that bridge there that's being redone. We've received uh several grants and are funding u most of that project with grants. Um we have also uh a resolution to authorize the DOT right of way. So there are three properties there that we need either a temporary easement or to acquire a tiny bit of property the state does um in order to uh perfect that project. Number three, we have a resolution approving bids for hot mix asphalt. Uh the highway superintendent needed to go out and rebid for that aspect of the highway materials. Um, we are going to approve our snow clearing uh vendor for this winter season. Um, we're going to have a discussion and potentially resolution to pass local law A and discussions on local law B and C. Uh, we have a little bit of reorganization for climate smart committee members. We constituted the committee um one or two meetings a month and now we are going to populate them with individuals and then it's the second meeting of the month. So we'll have department board and committee reports uh for discussion later on. So we'll jump quickly into announcements um and then we'll get to our public hearing so we don't run too late. The first announcement we have is related to

to the comprehensive plan. So, uh, as you all know, we're in the process of updating the comprehensive plan. I'm chairing the steering committee for that effort, which I will continue to do after my term on the board concludes at the end of the year. We had our first public workshop in late October. That's the first of three. We would encourage you to come to the following two. Um, and that's only one of the ways that we're reaching out to the community. So uh we're in what I would call a kind of visioning vision setting phase right now. We'll move subsequently later in 2026 into goal setting and developing recommendations. Um but right now we have a survey open. We're encouraging everybody throughout the whole community to take the uh survey, express your opinions. Um it's basically the same questions that were discussed at the workshop if you were there in person, but um it's fine if you want to fill that out as well. Uh and it's available in English and in Spanish.

Thank you very much. uh flyer as well and you can scan it on our website I think. Yep, it's on the website.

On the website as well. Thank you, Julia. Um our second announcement is a very exciting announcement for us. Uh today we closed on uh the property with RCO, our affordable housing uh project that was um one of the many uh public purposes for the acquisition of the Red Hook Gateway, Cookingham Farms, both sides of Route 9. Uh we had a successful closing. Here are uh some of the initial uh sketch designs that were completed by the architects. Uh many of you were sent this um if you're a Reuk resident quite some time ago, but just to give you some idea. Um we just want to thank a lot of folks who participated in this effort. Um, not the least of which, uh, I think we really need to thank the governor who really made affordable housing a priority and the, uh, prohousing communities program, which she established uh, a couple of years ago. You may or may not know that as soon as it was announced, the town of Red Hookup got to work on supplying data uh that was necessary in order to be designated a pro housing community. We were the very first township in the town of Red Hookup to have that designation. And working handinhand with Ruckco, who uh we sold the property to, they were able to acquire $3.4 $4 million grant in order to provide infrastructure up towards that portion of the village. Um, subsequently they've uh obtained other grant awards including from the Duchess County Housing Trust

Fund. So, we want to thank uh Duchess County as well uh county executive Sue Serino and the legislature for appropriating money towards these uh projects. Um, it's no secret that the number one challenge in our community uh today and moving forward will be affordability for those who live here, those who want to live here, those who have families and generations that want to continue to remain in this community. And uh you've seen the uh rapid escalation of uh property values as well as uh commensurate uh increase in interest rates, mortgage interest rates that have made it nearly um impossible for many individuals to acquire properties um here in Red Hook. What's unique about this project is that often times when you um hear about affordable housing monies that get dedicated, it's for multif family, for apartments, and for many of us in this community. Um we want to uh establish roots by having uh homes. Many of you, I'm sure, know somebody who is finding it difficult to uh purchase a home here in Red Hook. And so there are dollars that are being allocated to uh single family ownership and that's where Rupco is going to get those dollars for the actual construction. Um the programs uh come with covenants on the property so it will continue to be affordable. Um they need to be sold to individuals who meet those income uh guidelines as well. So, it's not a situation where somebody could acquire the property and then turn around and and flip it for a good deal of of money. So, um many others to thank uh the Hudson Valley uh conservation and

affordable affordable housing consortium um who's been promoting this. Um, I'm sure I'm going to forget others, but we'll we'll send a thank you note to to everyone who was involved. Not the least of which was this town board who sprung to action to uh preserve the Red Hook Gateway. Every acre that was uh being farmed on on Cookingham was pres preserved with uh permanent conservation easements. Um, one side of the road has been sold to an organic farm and now that 3 years have uh or transpired or will have transpired by the springtime uh they will be able to sell product from that side. Um, for those of you who are not into farming, in order to have uh your uh produce designated organic, it must be on property that's not sprayed for at least 3 years. Anyway, I've said enough about the project, but it's a great day. Um, we have financially approved all the money uh for acquiring that property and uh we're now in the next phase which is doing the uh community solar farm on the west side. So, um that's what I want to say about that announcement. Anybody else have any announcements?

Well, I'll just jump in quickly on that topic. I just wanted to say so I work um in my day job I work in the land use planning land conservation world um and this project gets highlighted at conferences throughout the region and actually even the country so I think it's one of um really one of the proudest achievements in my time on the board uh and I'm excited to see it moving forward and come to full fruition

thank you um any other announcements does anybody have very good Um, with that being said, why don't we open our first public hearing since we know that we are going to extend that into uh February. Uh, for the folks uh at home or in the audience, if you have not been following along, we've had several meetings on this project. Um, this is off the Camp Rising Sun property off of Boreal Mills Road. Um, over 100 acres is going to be preserved and they're going to be walking uh paths on this property as well. Okay. Uh, Deanna, may I ask you to please read the notice of public hearing?

Notice of public hearing regarding Winnicki Land Trust Incorporated, Camp Rising Sun Project under the town's community preservation fund program, Town of Red Hook. Please take notice that a public hearing will be held by the town board of the Town of Red Hook on November 19th, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. local time at the Town Hall, 7340 South Broadway, Red Hook, New York. pursuant to town's community preservation fund CPF program to hear all interested persons regarding the acquisition of an interest or right in real property to preserve open space pursuant to section 247 of the general municipal law including the purchase of contractual right necessary to to achieve the purposes of such provisions for the project described below. Camp Rising Sun applications submitted by Winnicki Land Trust Incorporated for acquisition by the town of Red Hook of a conservation easement and public access easement with respect to an approximately 142.62 62 acre parcel of property tax map ID number 134889-6372-0000-313070 located at 1 110 oral mil mills road town of Red Hook Duchess County New York total project cost of the property acquisition by Winnicki Land Trust Incorporated including proposed program partner funding is estimated not to exceed 1,600,000 and the town cost of acquisition of the easement and related cost is estimated not to exceed $390,000. With respect to such project, the town's project partner, Winnicki Land Trust Incorporated, a notfor-profit 501c3 corporation organized for the conservation or preservation of real property, has entered into a department of environmental conservation water quality improvement program grant agreement for 75% funding for the win for Winnick Land Trust Incorporated's costs of acquisition of the property. It

is proposed that the town will acquire a conservation easement and public as access easement in the property. The town's cost to acquire such interest is estimated not to exceed 25% of the acquisition costs plus estimated additional project related costs and the town's cost is proposed to be financed from the CPF program. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard in person or by directing comments in writing to the town board, 7340 South Broadway, Red Hook, New York. All reasonable accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities in such a case. Please notify the town clerk in advance at the above address or by phone so that arrangements can be made. Please take further notice that copies of said application is available for review at the town at the office of the town clerk, Red Hook Town Hall, Red Hook, New York. by order of the town board of the town of Red Hook dated October 14th, 2025. Diana Cochran, town clerk, town of Red Hook.

Thank you, Diana. This time, I'd like to make open a public hearing. Second. All in favor? I. Is there someone tonight who'd like to speak on this issue for the public hearing?

Okay, we're waiting for additional information. There needs to be an updated appraisal on the property. um appraisals go stale and so uh we anticipate to have an updated appraisal um in time for our first February meeting. So, um, with that being said, I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn the public hearing or continue the public hearing until February 10th at 7:35. Is there a second to the second? Thank you. Any discussion? If not, all in favor? Right. Uh there's information on our website about the project if you'd like to find out more about it and certainly you can give us a call or stop if you have any questions.

Okay. Uh let's move right to our 7:35 if we could of public hearing. Diana up again. Notice of public hearing of the proposed on the proposed amendment of the town of Red Hook Community Preservation Plan Local Law number A proposed of 2025. Notice is hereby given that that the town board of the town of Red Hook, Duchess County, New York, will meet at the town hall, 7340 South Broadway, Red Hook, New York, on the 19th day of November, 2025 at 7:35:00 p.m. prevailing time for the purpose of conducting a public hearing upon a proposed local law a proposed of 2025, including the 2025 amendment of the Town of Red Hook Community Preservation Plan. The town of Red Hook community preservation plan in accordance with section 64H of the town law and chapter 57 of the Red Hook Town Code establishes a plan for the preservation of community character to acquire interests or rights in real property for the preservation of community character within the town including villages in accordance with such plan and in cooperation with willing sellers and to provide a management and stewardship program for such interests and rights. The town board will meet to consider such amendment and hear all persons interested in the subject thereof and concerning the same. Please take f further notice that copies of said local law number A proposed of 2025, including the 2025 amendment to the community preservation plan is available for review at the town hall. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard in person or by directing comments in writing to the town board. All reasonable accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities. In such a case, notify the town clerk by order of the town board of the town of Red Hook, Red Hook, New York, October 14th, 2025. Diana Cochran, town clerk, town of Red Hook.

Thank you, Diana. Um, and information again is available on the town's website. Um, I know this is quite voluminous, the community preservation plan, as well as the list of parcels. Um, I think we have a redline version of it now on the website. um for view as well. Um there are two proposed uh uh changes to the plan. One is to include Ref Park West. If you've been watching for the last several um meetings, uh we would like to include that parcel, which wasn't included cuz it was uh acquired right at the same time as we uh went through the uh community preservation fund initiative back in 2007. We'd like to pay down the debt associated with that acquisition and two farm acquisitions in order to free up some budgetary funds. we've had additional requirements from uh fire, police, so on and so forth. Um so this will enable us to include that parcel in the other two that we can already uh pay down. So uh with that being said, uh I'd like to make a motion to open the public hearing for local law a second.

Okay. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor? Hi. Hi. Very good. Would anybody like to speak on this issue? Thank you, Bob. Would you uh Yeah, this is my Thank you. Bob, if you would just kindly state your name for the record, please. Yeah, this is Bob Ross of long-term tenants. I'm going to speak to local law A. Okay.

We understand that the proposed local law A is written to include Reg Park West property avenue to the community preservation fund. It's clear enough that would allow the town to use community preservation funds to pay part of the remaining debt or all the remaining debt. Correct. At the November November 5th hearing, several people expressed concern that this would set a precedent for adding a town owned property to the community preservation plan to use those funds to pay off debt. The concern is that if the town were to acquire the boat club, this is where it gets personal with everybody in this room, through imminent domain, the town would eventually use the fund to pay off its boat club debt. You cannot purchase. We know the the We know the fund cannot be used to purchase property if you don't have a willing seller. But proposed local law does not clearly say you cannot use the fund to pay debt on property previously taken from an unwilling seller. So in other words, if it was previously taken, you can go ahead and do it. Apparently, once the town owns the property, regardless of how it was obtained, if you say it's it's a park and it meets the criteria of the plan, you can do as you please. It seems to be your current interpretation that the fund cannot be used to pay off debt on property taken from an unwilling seller. You know, this goes back to May when we had a meeting at the high school and over 500 people showed up and I don't think I ran into anybody. Let's say out of 500 people, I didn't see 10 people. I don't know anybody who was in favor of taking the boat come over. But yet here we have a divided

board. Two and two. Two one imminently demand it. Two

don't. And we have a supervisor who wants to take this thing. It's just it's a it's a mess. The board So all I can say is the board has given the entire town plenty of reason to doubt its word and integrity. We cannot trust you or your motives. So in instead of your worthless words and changing interpretations, put in writing from one of the three law firms and seven lawyers you're currently paying to try to take the boat club. And right over here we have what we have an estimate. We have we put a foil in. We know you're at about 150 well over 200 probably now that you spent by December. This whole thing is getting spinning out of control guys. It's crazy. We're not going to give in. Thank you.

We cannot take only your word on this statement from the town's legal council is needed in order to conform otherwise every everything regarding the adoption of local law a suspect. It's a rope a dope deal. Try to get in my opinion you you take the wreck park property you put in there and say oh we bought it with CP community preservation fund so we can do it here on the boat club. Well, no. Thank you. Roman page. We are having these public hearings because this town board is trying to rectify serious zoning flaws identified by Judge Rosa by taking the easiest and quickest route while still ignoring the hard hard look required in the comprehensive seeker process. The public is slowly becoming aware of the multiple law firms planners contracted to reach this point. This board speaks for itself. The financial burden by the taxpayers of Red Hook rose daily with no end in sight. In addition, the the suspicion, motives, and secrecy increases daily. I'm looking at all of you because you're all involved.

This board has been anything but transparent during its this debacle and it is a debacle. Look it up in the dictionary if you want to get a good comprehension of it. The supervisor refuses to publicly disclose any expenditures and we only know what we have known so far due to multiple foil requests. The foil responses often take more than a month. Why are you not forthcoming with cost information which is the taxpayers's responsibility? Why is it necessary to consistently file foil requests to find out how many law firms are involved? How much has been spent on planning costs, drafting local laws, and litigation? Proposed local law a points to a disturbing juggling of town accounts to further fund an action that has no community support. You refuse to publicly disclose how much has already been spent and how much is projected to be spent. There's no cap on it. You have no plan. You don't know where you're going. If any of you, and I'm looking at all of you, do not know it. You have an obligation to stop this disaster,

this debacle. Most disturbing is this fact that all five Tom board members are culpable with secrecy and what can be only described as a covert operation since the start. to claim the board is transparent is easily debunked by your actions. Anything you'd like to hear more? Well, just want to remind you that as you know from many years ago, there's a threeminute limit to make sure that everybody has time.

Okay. Thank you, John Douglas. Now, a lot of you on the board don't understand what happened at St. Marvin St. Margaret's a long time ago was given to the town of Red Oak for free by hands. So what did that do? We were told by the then town supervisor that St. Margaret would cost zero, no money. Wouldn't cost us a dime to have the property. Well, think about what you have approved over the years for St. Margaret's a very underutilized piece of property. What has St. Margaret's given to the town. Well, when it became the town property, what did you do? You took away the town taxes, the village taxes is not in the bill, excuse me, county, town, and school taxes. So, that put a burden on the rest of the residents of the school district and the town to pick up that sum of money that that property used to pay in taxes. Now, Red Bull Club pays approximately right now $25,000 in taxes. So, what are you going to do to the town taxpayers? If you do eminent domain, you're going to all of a sudden increase the taxes of everybody here. Now, you talk about affordability for Rupo, right? So, what are you doing? One minute you're talking about affordability for citizens of Red Oak and next minute you're saying okay well we're going to take over the town of Red Oak Red Club and we're going to increase everybody's taxes. So what does that do with affordability for everybody? Increases their taxes. So are we about affordability or are we about spending over $200,000 just for legal fees and counsel and

consultants etc. Think about what you're doing. For example, eventually Teresa Burke's going to have to come in here and say, "I need a plow truck." Do you know how much a plow truck costs presently right now? Wings and a plow. It's about $330 to $360,000. EV plow trucks aren't even invented yet. I just spoke to a safety director for county yesterday that the new EVs they cannot they do not have hydraulics. So there's no way to lift up the plows or the wings. There's a county in New York State that they've already estimated that they have about 100 bridges that the EVs cannot tr go over. Now EV dump truck is more than $360,000. So now we spent $225,000 approximately that we're aware of that we think we're aware of, but you won't give us the information. So we know the exact number. And now all of a sudden Teresa Burke is going to be forced by New York State to buy very expensive vehicles that may or may not do the job to plow the roads in the middle of the winter. But we can spend money on council fees.

John, I'm sorry. I could spend three minutes. This is this is appropriate. Thank you. John, the school buses have worked out. The EV school buses that worked out. They they have one school bus at TV. You can only do one run. John, please let

Hi, my name is Shelley Day and I have a statement I would like to read into the record. Many of us have experienced how difficult it is to get clear and concise information from the town board. This makes us wonder if information is also withheld from members of the board. To illustrate this, posted to the town website is the 145page document about the community preservation plan. Somewhere in those 145 pages, the public was supposed to determine what changes were being proposed prior to this public hearing. During their review, the planning board indicated the same issues with being able to determine what specific changes were made from the previously adopted 2019 plan. The planning board also stated that while local law A is not part of the seeker action for local laws B and C, its reauthorization of the community preservation fund prioritize has potential implications for future waterfront acquisitions. This is exactly what several speakers at the previous meeting were concerned about, but those concerns were dismissed. Um, actions happen for a reason, and having local law a proposed simultaneously to local laws B and C makes the reason even more sus suspect. The community and your colleagues on the other town boards, the other boards of the town deserve full transparency and clear information. We should not have to spend hours sifting through hundreds of pages to determine what the board is attempting to do. Please do better.

Thank you.

I'm reading on behalf of Carrie Kitner from Barry Town Road. She couldn't make it tonight. Um, to the town board, please submit to the public record. I live in Barry Town, but have been a resident to the town of Red Hook since 1972. I've never seen Red Hook so divided by the actions of the town board, and it is very distressing. I usually have no trouble following complex issues. So, I'm sensing that the town board's lack of clarity and unwillingness to engage in a forum where residents can ask questions is intended to obscure planned actions. This public hearing is ostensibly meant to gain comments from the public on laws that you are hoping to pass. But I personally am finding it hard to understand why you are proposing these laws in the first place. This makes it difficult to comment when I have so many questions. The laws you propose seem to be about zoning, but we know you're trying to pass them to help make it easier to create a public park in our hamlet at the river's edge. I can comment directly on your proposed laws because there is not enough information. Sorry, I can't comment directly. There's not enough information to fully understand their consequences given the lack of public dialogue. So I have to by default oppose them. This is not how I would prefer my town government to engage with its constitu constituents. As a resident of Barry Town, I'm restricted by the Hamlet rules. and then it creates more complications when I want to do something on my land. I understand that those rules are what make my neighborhood the wonderful place that it is. I personally feel a stewardship to this land and given that the town board was the one to make these rules, I both thank you and expect you to respect

these rules. We also have the river and state environmental region here which further restricts the usage. The way you are presenting your proposed laws does not identify how you will be in compliance with those regulations. So given the lack of information and refusal to engage in conversation about it, I must oppose them on these grounds as well. Also, we elect people to the town board to represent us because we all have our own lives that take up our time and energy. I recently learned that some of my frustration is due to the fact that the full text of local laws A, B, and C does not appear to be posted online and instead must be reviewed in person at town hall during business hours. If you do not understand how that would appear appear as a barrier to understanding by the public then my confidence in you as a government body is further eroded and I pose these laws on the basis of a distrust of all your actions. It's also my understanding that the planning board is not in agreement with these laws for various reasons including a lack of information. to my office.

Anyone else would like to speak on local law? A yes, a lot of what I want to say has already been said by others because it's pretty obvious. Before we can really get to the content, I'm sorry. My name is Linda Cassidy Burke, 211 Barry Town Road. Thank you. Before we can as a community get to the content or the intent of these laws, we have to be able to see them. That's not happening. It's not readily available. You have to dig through. You have to come up here during working hours, which means that the entire working population of your town can't access the law. All of this strikes me as unethical and intentional.

Mhm. And it's becoming a pattern since February until now. So many of the actions of this board have been int or seem to be intended to obscure information from the public rather than help the public understand what's at stake here. So I have lost faith in this governing body. I'm very happy that the two women on the board have voted against eminent domain, but I'm shocked, honestly shocked and very dismayed that you, Mr. Hamill, and you, Mr. Ta, would allow your good names and reputations to be drawn into this type of public discourse. I very much doubt that that's why you got into public service. I'm calling on you tonight to really contact your conscience and vote no on these laws because we have had no way of truly understanding what they involve. We have we all have our suspicions. We all have we understand that there's evasion involved. But I also want to remind everyone in the room and you too especially Mr. Hamill, Mr. Ta, that you have the power to instantly end this whole thing. We send you your vote ON IT. He wants to restore some integrity and dignity to the Red Hook Temple. Thank you.

AMEN. Anyone else like our local office?

Yeah. Uh Jeff Carter, town, New York, probably familiar with me. Uh thank you for the opportunity to address the honorable board. Uh now uh this obviously isn't working the way a lot of people want it to work. Excuse me, but I'm going to turn and face away from you. I respect you for all the things that you've done to this point. I no longer have that respect or that faith. So I'm going to turn my back to the people that you represent. Okay? And I'm going to continue my statement. I'm not okay with what's going on here. It isn't just about poor communication. It's about violating the very laws this town has adopted to serve the hamlet. The waterfront. I've been on a committee back to Jack Gilfeather. I've served under four supervisors in the Hamlet committee to protect this area. I've gone through hundreds of applications. I've been the chairman of that. I've watched the planning board squirm under the edicts of the people that were given behind us. Deaf ears. The Hamlet protections are there for a reason. Read section number 1436. They're violating their own law. There's going to be a fire a torch underneath that bolt. They're not following their own rules here. Okay. So, keeping up the steam here. Seeker matters. Hamlet protection matters. This can't be pushed through without consequences. This isn't the end of the story. Okay. Got to go through the process. The town spoken. They're not listening. Thank you. Thank you. ANYONE

else like to speak on local law? Well, let the local people get their words out on that here. Go ahead. No, no, go ahead. I enjoyed this. Mine's very uh I'm Jill Lungquist. I've been a resident of um for 50 years and Barry Town for 41. I can't hear her. Can you hear me now? Yes.

Okay. Um so, first of all, I want to say that I'm full in full agreement with and support the concerns and recommendations made by Jeffrey Carter in his two submissions to the town board which are copied in below in my uh statement which I submitted today electronically. But I add in addition I want to once again express my frustration with a process which allows for no meaningful conversation or discussion between the board and the public. We cannot ask questions or engage in any substantial dialogue with you. I ask again for you to hold community meetings where actual conversations and give and take can take place. The proposed changes to local laws A, B, and C will have a significant impact on the hamlet of Berry Town. Its residents deserve an opportunity for in-depth discussions with you about these issues before any further actions are taken on these three laws. I would also like to state that it has been unreasonably difficult to even obtain the text of these laws you are considering. It is certainly not evidence of the transparency you claim to provide to the citizens of Republic. THANKS. CURTIS.

OKAY.

HELLO. Curtis Sto4 Chelsea Road, Southern Duchess, Southern Illinois, and South of the Asian Dixon Line. I'm here to support like both sides. I I believe in good government. I have studied good government. I've been around good people. Grew up around good people. My mom had the most popular beauty shop in the neighborhood. So I had to behave in a certain manner. My dad was a drill sergeant. So I know how to, you know, conduct myself. But what brings me here is that I'm interested in feuds. I mean this is, you know, like basketball rivals, you know. Uh, I mean, I I come from Ben Davis. My kids went to Ben Davis High School, one of the top taught national rank teams and I watched a lot of these, you know, uh, people battle it out like in the stands or down the thing. And one time I'd said something about, you know, if you can't do your job, you know, as a referee, I'll do it. And he threw me his whistle. So, I went out on the basketball court and I conducted just like it was in my house. I mean, road shoes, but you know, I was there. And I feel like being here, I uh I tell people I'm in George Washington's army. You know, I'm a Freemason. I'm a Shriner. And I'd like to, you know, to see some kind of negotiation to where everybody can go home, smile, and put your feet up on the couch and call it a day. And I thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. Um, why don't we Oh, Sarah, sorry. Sarah Bowen, six road, New York. Um, also on the village board, but I'm not speaking in that role. I'm just, um, speaking as a citizen. Couple things. Um, speak up. Okay. I'll try. This mic's not very loud.

Um, okay. Couple things. one, um, like other people have said, it's extremely disturbing to me that none of the laws were posted online. I don't understand why. You routinely post laws that are up for discussion online with the public hearing notice, and these were not posted. Um, what I hear from people around town pretty much constantly at this point is that they have very low trust in the town board. And what really makes me sad as somebody who has been involved in the town government and village government um in politics around here is that you keep doing things that make that impression worse instead of better. If I receive feedback like that, which I know you've received many times this year because I've been here in the public meetings, so it's not news to you, but people have low trust in your process. I would do some different things like for example, post the laws online so people can read them. Just as one small example, local law A is about CPF. CPF is funded through um a a percent tax on more on on home sales in this town. And it's money that we're supposed to use as as funding to preserve parcels that have been identified by a committee of the town um that are important to the town um and and its character. And um what's so frustrating to me, so what I understand from members of the CPF committee, assuming you still have one, it's posted online, was that this was never brought to them for review.

Um and I know because I served on the town board the last time it was updated that routinely the CPF committee is supposed to review it and make those changes and then recommend them to you. As far as I know, that hasn't happened. Um, what I understand from a lot of people that serve on committees and boards of the town is that they're very frustrated serving in their positions. And I I try my best to promote volunteerism in this town, send people to boards and committees so that they can serve because we're stronger when we all are part of this. But what happens here with your board is that you don't consult the boards and committees that are there to serve and do the purpose like for example this law review it and give you recommendations. Um and there's a lot of other committees in town in boards that are feeling the same way. Some of that's been very publicly covered like the planning board. Some of it's less less so. But if you look at committee membership it's going down. and that's really sad and and frustrating and disappointing from where I sit. Um, so those are the concerns I have specific to public law uh local law. Thank you. Okay. Uh, anyone else want to speak on local A? If not, we'll we'll go ahead. Hi, my name is Matthew Donghue. I live at 60 Garden Street. I'm a Pete Riley's son-in-law and uh good friends with Ed Edundell. Um I've lived in Red Hook for quite a while. And I just want to appeal to your conscience and your intelligence and not only look at this room, but everything that's going on in Red Hook is just I mean, come on, we're all on the same page here, right? Like this isn't how how small town America is

supposed to be. So I just ask you a huge favor on behalf of the entire town village bread hook. My family the Donny Hughes my in-laws the Riley's P. Riley was the Commodore lifelong member of the boat club and Dian's grandfather was a founding member. I ask you please shoot this DOWN to local law. Hey, I'm going to ask if we could just combine our comments to this. I would like to address that. Al Tres, 77 West Curly Corner, New York. Robert, you mentioned local law number one. Local law number one failed because you got very poor legal advice. Not only did they draft it properly, but then they advised you to try to slip this by saying you weren't going to make any changes and you did not need to do a full of sec secret report. Well, guess what? It was shut down by the court. For that reason, you really need then to add insult to injury. Your attorneys moved to rear this case. And before our attorney could even put in an opposing paper, before we could even put in any answer to your motion to rear, the court on her own motion summarily dismissed that case. sumarly dismissed your argument to reargue. Now why how much of this money have we spent the keen bean for preparing this stuff uh and then uh fighting us and then trying to fight us a second time and filing an appeal to the court. I think you really need to find another attorney. I really do. I'm not volunteering. Don't get me wrong attorney. This is wrong. And as far as

Robert, you're saying you're passing this law for the specific purpose that you That's not true. Robert, be honest. For once in your life, be straightforward. You're doing this so you can use the community preservation funds to pay for the boat club because you know and I know that you've already had an appraisal on his property on a QT and you know what what it's appraised at and you're afraid you're going to have to ask for a bond for more than 5 years which which would then allow us to have a permissive referendum on whether we want to spend that money. And this is what you're doing Robert. You're sneaking around a back door like you've been doing for the last 10 years. Be straightforward with us. We're your constituents. Tell us the truth for change. Thank you.

Speak on local law. Okay. If not, at this time, I'd like to make a motion that we close the public hearing for local law A. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion? Um, all in favor? I I Okay. Um, like to address a couple of items. Again, once again, I'd like to remind the folks at home and the folks in the audience now, please. We can hear you. Thank you. Is that better?

Thank you. Uh once again, I'd like to remind the folks at home that none of the local laws that are proposed tonight will have an impact on the BOAT CLUB. I'M GOING TO ask you I'm going to ask for a local law a the proposal for local law a is just to include one parcel so that we can pay down the entire serial bonds that were associated with two farm preservation projects and the boat flow I WOULD I'M YOU'RE VERY CLEAR.

CATCH YOUR LIVE STREAM. I want I want I I want to also let you know if you haven't had a chance to look at the list of parcels that one of the parcels associated with the boat club isn't even listed in the plan. We have no intentions to add that to the plan because as we have said that to Brother, please let me finish. Please let me finish.

As we've said to you in previous meetings, we cannot use it to acquire the B club. We cannot use CPF funds to pay down uh debt associated with an acquisition that is not from willing sellers. We cannot use these funds either way. We are doing it because we want to retire this debt. We are accumulating CPF funds faster than we are using them at this moment. We have other demands instead of paying down debt. Please let me finish. We have been approached by both fire departments. We have been approached by police and villages who need our financial assistance. Now, I appreciate that many of you have mentioned the amount of money that we've spent with legal fees and defending.

We have no idea. Please let me finish. Please don't interrupt because there are people there are people who would like to hear my response. So, if you're going to refer to it, we don't know what I mean. I think we'll just move on. If you're going to interrupt me, I think if you're going to interrupt me, then I won't be able to try TO ANSWER. YOU DON'T answer the question.

Folks, we have online, you can not only read the local laws, but online, you can look at the monthly financial reports. You can also look at our annual report. You can see how after 10 years, the amount of taxes that residents pay in town taxes is actually lower than what it was 10 years ago, we are doing our best with please do not interrupt. Please do not interrupt.

Okay. So, I think I I've tried to address a couple of your questions. All the laws were posted online. Please let me finish. All the laws were posted online. I want to remind you if you sign up for notifications, all the laws get sent to you either by email or text as well as as well as that. These laws are placed online weeks in advance and they are also placed online prior to the meeting and requirements with open laws. As far as being able to have neighborhood uh meetups and answer questions, we have done that on several occasions. I've done that in Barry Town. Unfortunately, when we are in litigation and again, we are the defendant in in these actions. Um there's very little that we can uh discuss publicly and uh we are in negotiations with the boat club and we do hope as Curtis had asked that we do end up with something that works for everybody. So I do appreciate that sentiment. Um okay. Uh I think that's all I've got for local. Let's go through some of the items. Where are we on time? We're pretty late. Why don't we uh hold off for the time being on taking action on local law A and let's get to the public hearing for local law B since we're running late. And again folks, I just want to remind you that we are resubmitting local law one in the form of B and C. This has impact on local law one and whether or not we perfect an appeal. This does not have any impact on the book club acquisition. That determination was made back in July. Okay.

With that being said, could we read the notice of public hearing? Robert, are you saying that you're not going to take any action on a tonight? I did not say that. I'm saying we're going to do the public hearing. No, he said it later. We are. We are going to do it later tonight. We are going to open the public hearing cuz we're running a little late. How much session? anything. Why can't you do it now? He did. Can you do it now? What do you mean by close? I'm going to ask you please don't interrupted. Oh my goodness. Little public hearing.

If you'd be kind enough to read the public hearing notice.

Notice of public hearing. Town of Red Hook. Please take notice that a public hearing will be held by the town board of the town of Red Hook on November 19th, 2025 at 7:55 p.m. local time at the town hall, Red Hook, New York to hear all interested persons on a proposed local law number B proposed of 2025 entitled local law number B proposed of 2025. A local law updating and amending the town zoning law has been submitted to the town board of the town of Red Hook. the proposed local law. The town board has classified the action as a type one action and declared its intent to serve as lead agency for the matter. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at said hearing. All reasonable accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities. Please take further notice that copies of said proposed local law are available for review at the town hall, Red Hook, New York, by order of the town board of the town of Red Hook, October 14th, 2025. Deanna Cochran, town clerk, town of Red Hook. Thank you very much, Diana. At this time, I'd like to make a motion that we open the public hearing on local law B proposed of 2025.

Is there a second? Second. Thank you very much, Jacob. All in favor? I

I And again for the public, will this uh will be continued to our next meeting December 9th? Is there somebody who would like to speak on local law B? Local law B. Um, just as a refresher for folks is a a resubmission of uh most of the aspects of local law one that was submitted uh for consideration back in 2024. It deals with subject matters as regulations for cannabis. Um it clarifies um some aspects of short-term rank uh rental regulations that were adopted previously. Um it speaks to uh Is there a word you're saying? I know

it. Sorry. Thank you. It speaks to issue uh with um use tables, a non residential uh uh principal uses, supplemental uh regulations and uh agricultural business district uh the uh permitted density with the limited uh development option. It clarifies um some section of the office industrial subd district and special permanent uses cannabis uh retail facilities and non-conforming uses and non-complying uh structures and bulk regulations. And that's what it deals with.

Excuse me, they can't hear you out in the hallway. Sorry. Yeah. If you come closer, there are a few seats. Use your microphone, folks. There are a few seats here. Is that better? Thank you. Okay. Uh, let's get started, please. Robert, if you'd be kind enough to say your name.

Yes. My name is Robert Singleton. I'm on 19 Smith Street in the Village. Board members, I'm sure that you have all received and reviewed the local waterfront revitalization program consistent determination provided to you by the town of Red Hook planning board. But for the record, I'd like to share the planning board's consistency determination with respect to local laws B and C. Therefore, I'm going to quote the document that was provided to you. Quote, "The Town of Renook Planning Board has reviewed the proposed action against the policies of the LWRP and has determined that the proposed action is inconsistent with the LWRP." The document then goes on to list those inconsistencies. I'm not so sure that you've received and reviewed the consistency determination provided by the planning board acting in its capacity as a waterfront advisory committee on the proposed action of the town of Red Hook's acquisition of the Revok Oak Club property and the related local laws B and C. But again, for the record, I'll share part of the determination. Quote, "This review builds upon the committee's prior consistency determin determination issued in June 2025, which found that the town's proposed acquisition of the Red Hook Boat Club property is inconsistent with six LWRP policies." The determination process determination further states in light of these ongoing deficiencies, the waterfront advisory committee reaffirms that the proposed action is inconsistent with the LWRP policies. The document then goes on to list those policies. These two documents show that the town

board has two advisory committees that have said that your proposed actions are not consistent with the LWRP. It seems to me that there are clarifications to zoning rules that are important to small businesses and families in the town of Red Hook. And these important clarifications are being muddled and held up by the gymnastics that you're trying to do with the local laws. I urge this board to do the zoning work needed by the small businesses and people of this town by stop wasting taxpayer dollars on legal fees associated with the town's proposed acquisition of the Red Hook Boat Club property which now exceeds $200,000 by dropping the local law changes which are intended to facilitate the acquisition. I think that if the board doesn't drop these unnecessary inconsistent changes, then I predict that we will see you in court.

Thank you.

Thank you,

Linda Stoddard, Red Hook, New York. I'm speaking in objection to the town board naming itself itself as lead agency on local laws BNC. The town board is fixated on a specific outcome, namely the acquisition of the Red Hook Boat Club by eminent domain on a self-imposed timeline. They cannot be objective in the required extensive review, nor are they qualified to assess potential environmental and other impacts. In their role as the waterfront advisory committee, the planning board noted repeatedly that the town had provided them insufficient information for them to do their due diligence. Whether this was intentional by the town or reflective of their inability to do the intensive analysis necessary remains an open question. However, it did result in one planning board member remarking. The crux of our issue is that the town board didn't provide us with any information because they think they can do whatever they want without further review by anybody. The August court ruling which triggered the new local laws stated that considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of seeker and that the town board failed to take the requisite hard look at the potential environmental impacts. Attempting to break former local law one into now local laws B and C does not adhere to the spirit or letter of the court ruling. These are only meant to do an end run around that ruling, putting the town at further risk for litigation. To eliminate perceived bias, the town board must remove itself as lead agency for local laws BNC. And to ensure transparency, competency, and adherence to a court order, name the Red Hook

Planning Board as lead agency to conduct a full seeker review. WOULD anyone else like to speak on B or Well, then we could uh get to see Marshall Cordell, Town of Stanford, where the planning board and the town board answer my letters. Not unlike the board here in Red Hook. I've been ignored since May.

I asked what the price was going to be, how much you gonna spend, where you get the money. No answer. I don't expect one now. I'm asking the board to delay any vote on the proposed local laws. The entire process feels very rushed. In order to push these through before the new board members are seated, I propose the proposal local laws fail to answer the issues Judge Rosa stated in her ruling in August and the planning board also found them to lack details needed for a complete review. This board continues to take action that fails that feels very targeted and personally against the vote collap. Please take the time to listen to the people of the community and act in good faith. We deserve that from our elected officials. Allow the new board members to be part of this process and show us that you really are interested in transparency and interested in creating more no more distrust or anger. Thank you much. Well, you know, I'm just

welcome. John Douglas. Now, Robert, in April, you continually said at the Bard College conference where there was over 100 individuals from the town of Red Hook or people who own parcels in the town of Red Hook were at that meeting and you continuously said that there would be no money spent for the boat club. Zero. Well, we spent over $200,000. And at that meeting, you said you had $3 million and you used that number numerous times when you were at the podium at the Bard College campus in April this year that you could spend on the boat club. $3 million. I have $3 million. I have three. You said that numerous times. Well, where is this $3 million come from? And how do you have $3 million stashed away someplace in the town budget? I mean, where where is this 3 mill? How did you accumulate this 300 this $3 million? I I'm very confused about all this. You say, "Oh, it's not going to cost us a dime. You spent over $200,000. And now you and at that meeting in April, you have 3 million." I'd like you to explain all these issues on where you said there's going to cost nothing to get the vote up and you have $3 million. Please explain this to us.

Yes, we're waiting for the explanation that he just asked.

Hi, my name is Shelley Day. I'm uh reading the statement to put in the record. Local laws B and C were sent to the planning board for review and consistency determination with the LWRP. For local law B, the planning board noted that section subsection 5C under permitted uses is overly restrictive, possibly resulting in economic hardship for owners and conflicting with the TND's intent. Are you taking the planning board's recommendations to remove the business and professional office location requirement from local law B? The planning board also recommends that site plans be required for the creation of public parks and a special permit requirement for public parks in all but one zone and district. Are you taking the planning board's recommendations to modify the use regulations? The planner board also recommends removing the vague term adequate in section 143-107A to state that the water supply and restroom facilities comply with the DO standards. Are you taking the plan and board's recommendation to modify this language? The plan and board exercise due diligence in their review of the current and proposed doning codes. A failure to act upon their recommendations displays a shameless disregard for their work and professionalism. The town board must now act in good faith to delay action on local law B and incorporate the recommendations into any proposed changes put for put forth in the future. Please do the right thing. Thank you.

Thank you. B. Okay. At this time, I'd like to make a motion to accept point of procedure. A public hearing. Does that require that you answer questions? They're asking you. Now the public hearing is to solicit input from the and from the community. But we will I will try along with the planner when we get to the section of discussion on local law B and C we will try to address the the the questions as best as we can. Okay. But not during the public hearing uh portion that's going to be tonight.

Okay. That's going to be tonight. Yeah. Okay. Um, so I'd like to make a motion that we extend this public hearing until December 9th um at 7:35 to extend uh the public uh further discussion. If not, all in favor I Okay. Uh we're now going to the public hearing notice for local law.

Notice of public hearing town of Red Hook. Please take notice that a public hearing will be held by the town board of the town of Red Hook on November 19th at 8:15 local time at the town hall, Red Hook, New York to hear all interested persons on a proposed local law number C proposed of 2025 entitled local law number C proposed of 2025. A local law updating and amending the town zoning law has been submitted to the town board of the town of Red Hook. the proposed local law. The town board has classified the action as type as a type one action and declared its intent to serve as lead agency for the matter. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at set hearing. All reasonable accommodations would be made for persons with disabilities. Please take further notice that copies of said proposed local law available for review at the town hall by order of the town board of the town of Red Hook dated October 14th, 2025. Diana Cochran, Town Board of Town of Red Hook. Thank you, Diana. At this time,

Albert, I'm sorry. I'm going to ask you to please not interrupt. I'm going to now uh make a motion to open the public hearing for local law C. Is there a second? All in favor? I Okay. Um would somebody like to speak on I see Susan? My name is Susan Quasha.

Louder. My name is and I've been very fortunate to be a resident of the nationally recognized historical hamlift of Barry Town for 50 years. In my experience, some of the special qualities of life in Barry Town include the quiet, low density, light traffic, the lack of street lights, beauty, safety, and complex animal and bird habitat, much due to the rural scale of the hamlet. We have eagles nesting in Barry Town. Much of Barry Town looks like it did from the 19th century with its stone walls, towering trees, orchards, and beautiful old farms. There's a long-standing cultural aspect to Barry Town which includes a long list of well-known artists, writers, sculptors, composers, curators, actors, architects, playwrights, and filmmakers, etc. showing the interplay of the natural environment and creativity. The quiet beauty allows the mind reflection and the imagination freedom. Also of special interest is the hamlet's architecture including Edgewater, the octagonal gate houses designed by AJ Davis, Sylvania, Rogby farm, Msina, the chapel owned by Alan Porter where Greta Garbo often visited and Alan Porter has naked photo of her in the very room which he showed me and Episcopal and and Catholic churches also in a time when supportive culture in This country is seriously declining. We need to be reminded of how critical the arts are to the quality of life. It is up to local communities to value, preserve, and support the arts. This is its heritage, what makes civilization.

We are supportive of Bard, but now that BART has brought the Msina campus to life, including Simon's Rock, there are numerous shuttles, vans, buses, and cars going back and forth on the once light traffic Barry Town Road. For all these years that I have lived here, I would walk the quote loop around Barry Town and I now I no longer do because of the increased traffic. It is a small shoulderless road with blind turns bounded by poison ivy with a very narrow bridge and an excessive speed limit. I fear for the high school students out for a walk. I was told on numerous occasions by the town supervisor that the Barry Town hamlet would be preserved. We need to safeguard the unique quality of this historic hamlet and protect its nature, quality, and characteristics. How can decisions be made without carefully consulting, respecting, and listening to the citizens who live there and have helped make the community what it is, including its values?

THANK YOU, SIR. PETTY BLIND, CLAREMONT, NEW YORK. The process of taking the Red Hook Folk Club by eminent domain first came to light earlier this year with local law one. Since then, this town board has repeatedly disregarded public input and feedback from the planning board. The entire process has been shrouded in secrecy with no plans put forward, no site review, and no financial analysis. Now, after having local law one struck down by Judge Rosa and your appeal denied, we have local laws A, B, and C proposed. All which appear to be designed to circumvent the court's findings and facilitate the taking of the boat club for which, you know, you have no community support. The planning board as the waterfront advisory committee concurred that the proposed local laws failed to provide adequate detail and documentation needed for their proper review. In addition, the advisory committee found local laws now have eight inconsistencies with the LWRP and collectively failed to address the hard look referenced in the August court ruling. The town has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars so far in your quest to take the Red Hook Poke Club with nothing to show for those expenditures except questions and speculations as to why you continue to pursue such an unpopular and unwanted action. While two of you voted against voted against eminent domain action in July, your continued support for wasting taxpayer money on appeals and proposed laws that aid in the eminent domain action contradicts your votes and calls their sincerity into question. If you voted no on the eminent domain action in July, you cannot possibly support these proposed laws knowing their true intent. If you voted yes in July, I hope you

have since examined the fiscal damage you are causing and how you contribute to an atmosphere of distrust. Your loyalty has been misplaced. It is time to listen to the community. Read the many comments online. Pay attention to the signs throughout the town and abandon your pursuit of the boat club. You can start by tableabling the resolutions for these local laws. You do not have to these do not have to be done now so quickly and inadequately. Doing so will only invite more litigation and needless expense and responsibility for that will rest squarely on this board. Ronald Reers Red Hook. First and foremost, I would really like to give recognition to be in the presence of the most transparent form of town government. And most importantly, it's fiscal request compliance or or or guy, which is you, Robert, who deals with the foil requests, right?

You're not in charge of the foil request. I'm not the Okay. All right. But let's give them a round of applause for such a job. Well, he answers that. Okay. Right.

For as long as the the board has been discussing and planning the acquisition of the boat club through eminent domain, which these proposed local laws are intended to facilitate, you've never mentioned that CSX and Edgewater should be part of the conversation. H there's no public asset access to the boat club property. Doc Road beginning immediately after the railroad overpass is owned by Edgewater under the name classical American Homes Preservation Trust. When did they get that, Robert? I'll tell you. The property was purchased from CSX and the deed contains many use restrictions and was conveyed for industrial or commercial use only. The deed specifically prohibits use as a public park or public gathering space. The deed further states that if the restrictions are not upheld, CSX may request property conveyed back to them. Copy of the deed was provided to the planning board and included in their Dropbox Dropbox documents for their November 10th meeting. Has the town board brought this to the attention of any one of the three law firms under contract? Did the town board disclose this information to the planning board when referring to local laws for review? If the town board continues pursue acquiring the boat club, how do you plan to address this serious issue as would I with a deed restriction on my property conveying to somebody else? This cannot be addressed through zoning changes. How much more expense will be added to an action that has already cost the taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money which we have no idea because of undue fulfilled foil requests because who knows who's in charge. Failure to share this information with the planning board and the public or consider it or consider it an impediment

to establishing a park on the boat club property further erodess any trust in transparency. the most transparent board of town government far and wide per Mr. McCon. Thank you.

Lisa Murray, is this on?

Yes, it is. I believe we were in the gym of the high school. I believe that was May. And we had over 500 people that had a discussion with all of this board about eminent domain and why it was being pursued. And I think I stood up and I asked everybody that was in that room who would vote against it. And everybody's hand went up and that was only 500 people. I asked you to put it to a vote to see if that's really what Red Hook wanted, but I didn't see that happening either. So, you know, I'm a busy woman. I really don't have time to be here to come and talk again and again and again like the rest of these poor people, okay? Cuz we're busy to tell you stop it. Just stop it. Okay? We don't want I'm a town resident. Can I just stop paying my taxes because I don't want to pay for you going to lawyers and lawyers and lawyers and you're going to lose because we're not going to back down. All right. How long is this going to go on before this board says, "Okay, we better stop because the town doesn't want it." Do you want your hundred people that want it? Are your 2,000 letters that came in and said, "No, we don't want it." Just stop. Yeah.

Get on to something that's better that we can use for our town that will benefit our homeless people, okay, that we have running around here. Just stop with the boat club that's going to need millions of dollars that I am not going to put my tax money into because it's not my property. Number one. Number two, I am not going to access it because I can go other places. And number three, maybe I won't pay in my taxes if you guys keep this going. Mhm. How's that? And then where's the wedding going to come from? Please just stop this madness and just end it. Thank you, Lisa. Thank you,

Lisa Polero, Tana Red Hook. What a mess. That was the succinct comment by Claudine Close to the Daily Catch article following the November 10th planning board meeting. Those three words perfectly capture public sentiment. I mean, you would know that if you've been reading the social media and news comments, maybe you've avoided them because you know what they say. But what a mess indeed. Yet somehow you all seem to manage to keep making it worse. First, I'd like to commend the planning board for not only for their meticulous re review of the local laws, but for their transparency, complete and easily accessible documentation, and engaging with the public. They're a model and a refreshing contrast. With these local laws, you continue to contour every possible law and regulation to fit your agenda. You're attempting to circumvent a court order for a Riverside Park that does not need to be done now and certainly not in this way. But the supervisor isn't acting alone. He always has at least two willing accompllices, often four, voting in lock step. And the question is why? It's your job to act in our best interest and not as a rubber stamp. And if that label offends you, stop being a rubber stamp. M in 153 meetings since January of 2020. Bill only voted differently than Robert twice.

Jacob, you deviated on four occasions. Now, I will say that in a display of humanity that we hope you can muster again, you were the lone board member in 2020 to vote against staff reductions that impacted or perhaps targeted the town clerk's office and the highway department. So, at what point does reason prevail? You've already had local law one struck down and your motion to rear denied. Yet, you continue on the path of litigation and legal fees. Are you taking advice from anyone, your elected colleagues, legal counsel, your insurance carrier, family members, anybody? This crusade defies logic and puts this town in great peril. We know that Robert is laser focused on owning the boat club and his true motives will eventually be revealed. But the question is how does he get the rest of you to go along with him? The focus has shifted from Robert's potential gain and there's plenty of speculation on that front to why haven't you put a stop to this? If passed as prologue, when these three laws come to vote, we have a pretty good idea of what the outcome's going to be. But prove us wrong. Don't let years of litigation which will outlast your tenurs on this board, wasteful spending, and the inappropriate use of the power of government be what defines you. Stand up for the people in this room and the community at large and vote no on these laws and the continued pursuit of the Red Hook Boat Club. THANK YOU again related to local law. Thank you, John. Robert, you and I were on the zoning review committee for many years. Mr. Finel came in with a long litany of of items that he wanted us to review for zoning law in the town record. Mr. Singleton has a very valid

point. There's a lot of different things that need to be done. And I don't even know if you have a zoning review committee, but if you do that, this laws should have gone to the zoning review committee as previous laws have in the past cuz I was on the board. I was on that committee. You were on that committee and they should be reviewed by that committee if it's still in existence. If you haven't abolished it, Robert, I understand that you abolished numerous different committees and that should be reviewed by that committee if it's still in existence. The second thing,

the situation here is that you continuously tonight say that you need a law to pay for local law. A and it just popped in my head previously, Mr. Mr. Gill Feather or Mrs. Crane, previous town supervisors did not need to create a law to pay off a bond. All they need was the approval from you guys that were going to take the money from this fund to pay off this bill. So, I don't know why you need to create a law local a to pay off a bond. That doesn't make sense to me. If any of you, Jacob, Christine, Julia, or William, get on the phone and ask Miss Crane how she did it before, because Mr. Gilfather's no longer around. He has passed, unfortunately, on how they how you paid for this sort of thing. Did you need a special law in the zoning to pay for bonds? And I bet you she'll tell you how they did it. And they did not need a law. You should do your homework. Thank you, John. ANYBODY WELL, IT'S UP TO ME.

I just have Linda Cassidy. One quick comment. Uh, Robert, about foil. You, at least on the website, are listed as the appeals officer for foil's request. Is that wrong, Robert? So, you do have something to do with foil request. And if we have a problem with foil request, we are supposed to be So, is it wrong? We have a problem question. Is it wrong? Please have to answer. She's made her She's made her comments.

But it's wrong. You're transparent. It obviously might not be because it could be wrong by Chelsea Rose other Dutch. U my father was a long time sales promoter Texico and you know I've seen a lot of the things with Texico. I've seen a lot of cash. I've seen a lot of oil production. I probably thought I had a career in oil production in the Illinois basin in southern Illinois and what happened in ' 82 EPA come in and eventually closed out uh text refinery. Well, right now it's sitting there uh still under construction cleaning up that thing. And uh they said it probably take another 200 years to clean that up. Now, I noticed the boat club here had took over Hess and uh they basically, you know, didn't do anything, didn't dig or whatever, but I'm just saying in my experiences, you start digging down there, you'll probably get down about 10 ft and you're going to find oil. I mean, lots of spilled oil that's been there. I mean, I'm surprised, you know, they have the environmental studies I've read from some of the other my constituents. You know, I think you're going to get into way over your head with the expenses of the EPA if they come in here and actually go in and test test the soil. So, I just, you know, and I want to say to the crowd here, you get more flies with sugar than you do with vinegar. Thank you. Thank you. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ROXAN Fiser and I just want to make a statement for this local law and some of the items on my list of course have been already covered, but this is to emphasize how important they are to so many people. Uh

two weeks ago, the town adopted a 2026 budget that contained not $1 for this project. Residents do have a right to know before any zoning change is approved exactly where funds will come from. The general fund reserves or borrowing acquisition costs should be known. Mandatory code compliance upgrades and long-term maintenance will conservatively exceed many millions of dollars. The foil request that we have over here says that we have estimated with that data 2 $225,000 on legal and consulting fees with additional invoices pending and that meter continues to run. On November 11th, the planning board identified eight specific inconsistencies with the town's local waterfront revitalization program. The response was, quote, from the town, it need only review acquisition and not subsequent development. There will be no changes. That is incorrect. Converting a private club into a public park plainly constitutes development under Seeker and triggers New York State building code operations, ADA accessibility, storm water management, pumpout facilities, and substantial shoreline stabilization. Judges Jud Justice Rose's 2025 decision clearly prohibited segmentation of this unified action. Most critically, this is the wrong site for a public waterfront park. It has a narrow shoulderless access road, a single lane bridge, severely limited parking, no beach, a 6-foot vertical drop to strong Hudson River currents, and a short slippery

boat ramp functional mainly at high tide. These conditions create inherent public safety and liability concerns that cannot be remedied at any reasonable cost. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the board to vote no on local law C. May I also remind the three members who supported the eminent domain resolution on July 15th that any one of you may still move tonight to resend that resolution. Doing so would halt further expenditure, end prolong litigation, respect private property, listen to community opposition, and spare the taxpayers a very costly and inadvisable project.

Thank you, Marshall. Marshall Cordell, town of Stanford, where politicians answer my mail, not unlike any of you. I invested $2.35 in a registered letter and I expect a reply. I have the same thoughts that I had previously and I just like to submit that under law C. Thank you. ANYONE else want

I have the same thoughts on

Okay, thank you. Anyone else on same senior? Um, a couple things. So, you know, the planning board recently found that B and C are both um not in line with the LWRP. Your LWRP was submitted. You know, it's it's relatively new. You just went through the process of renewing it, but then it has to be reviewed by the Department of State. It was just returned to you with a lot of comments for changes. So, my question to you would be, you know, if I was on your board, why are you proceeding with something that has to do with an algebra when you don't have an updated one? and the changes that you do propose through these laws are not in line with your update.

Um, again, going back to what I said, it's about process. You know, you have these committees and boards of the town for a reason and more voices in the room is better. More review is better, like many people have said. And two really important committees and boards, planning board, LWRP, have not reviewed this favorably. So, that raises a lot of flags for me. It raises flags for me as a taxpayer that doesn't want so much of my taxes, frankly, going toward lawsuits. Um, and you have shown that you are very uh what's the opposite of risk averse? Embracing a risk when it comes to our tax um taxes and going being sued. Um, you mentioned that the local laws are available online. They are not available online. I've checked the website. I wrote the RFP for the website. I helped design the website. I taught Katie how to use the website to make public notices. When you look at the planning board notices, there's a public notice. At the end of the public notice, it says the documents related to this public hearing will be available on the website and then there's a little link below with all the documents that you need to review that public notice. That is not the case for any of your public notices. It could be the case. It's very easy. I'm happy to teach you, Diana. I'm sure Katie would be, too. I can only assume that this is a choice. And again, it goes back to trust. Um, it's impossible for people to find these local laws online. I tried searching through the general search function. It's not in the document section. They're not there. If they're there, I would love for you to show us so that we can all learn online how to find the local laws that you claim are posted for our review because I can assure you it is very hard to find if they even exist at all. Back when a lot of this started, I asked you in comments to move at the speed of trust. And I did that because when you're in public office, that's really all you have. You know, I mean, you can be voted out, right? But we are operating in the US in general at a at a

time when trust in government is extremely low. And everything you're doing with this process, like I said before, is just decreasing the trust further. And it's so sad. It it honestly it breaks my heart. None, like Lisa said, citizen of the year. I told her she gets to say citizen of the year, Lisa Murray, every time she stands up here for the next year if she wants to. Our citizen of the year just pointed out she's busy. I'm busy. I rushed here after a village board meeting. But it's important for all of us to show up and tell you what we think because there's no you you're clearly not listening, but we still it matters. I just want to say that to you all. It matters what you're doing here. Even if they don't vote the way you wanted, it still matters that you showed up.

Thank you. Thank you. ANYONE else on local? Sure. Yeah. Hi, it's Matt Donn here again from 60 garden street. I would just like to say respectfully, gentlemen. You mentioned just be respectful, right? Respectfully, you please, please not let this go any further. Will you please shoot down A, B, and C? Can I ask you that from the bottom of my heart? Thank you.

Thank you. Albert on

Al Tres. Again, just for fun, I made a list of the people who might who have opposed this whole thing from the beginning. We have three board members in favor. Listen to this. County Executive Sue Sereno. Former County Executive Marcus Molinaro opposes Red Village Mayor Karen Smite opposes. Former Reick Village Mayor Ed Blondelle opposes. Ryan Beck Town Supervisor Elizabeth Spanza opposes. Duchess County Association of Realators who sent you a letter opposes. Current town board members Christine Kaine and Julia Solomon by their vote on July 15th, 2025. opposed. Newly elected town board members Christine Fucher and Ken Regler opposed. And by the way, thank both of you for showing up tonight. I really APPRECIATE you lick of over 92% 846 of 916 named individuals of those that sent letter statements andor spoke at the May 16th 2025 public hearing which includes 693 residents who signed an online petition prior to May 16th public hearing. 76 speakers at the May 16th public hearing. All 100% of them opposed. 12,699 signatures on paper petition submitted for the May 16th, 2025 public appear hearing opposed. Okay. Then on top of that, other things impacting your decision. An order and judgment issued by Judge Maria G. Rosa, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Duchess County, August 154, 2025. throughout your law. Re planning board waterfront advisory committee found six inconsistencies on June 10th opposing this thing. Re planning board

waterfront advisory committee finding eight inconsistencies with the LWRP November 10th, 2025 opposed. Now look, I don't know what you three guys are doing. I honestly don't want to know. It's not fair. All right. And furthermore, Robert, before the you reconvene this public hearing, the town board is obligated by the local waterfront revitalization plan to set forth in writing their reasoning for overlooking or ignoring the planning board's inconsistencies. And I haven't seen that anywhere in your record yet. You haven't bothered to do it. You're holding this public meeting without telling us why or how you're going to oppose. I've read those four of four statements that you have to prepare and you can't honestly answer any of them negatively. You have to agree with them. Take a look at them. I don't know. Have you read the LWRP as to what you're obligated to do? 1 2 3 4 5. Have you read it? Answer me honestly. Starting with you, J. Have you read? Will you obligated?

Have you Bill will either mooch your mooch's over or you Bob? Are you Christine or you Jacob? Have you read them? No, you haven't. Are you? So, please the next meeting have those statements prepared so we can review them. Okay. And our attorneys can review them. Thank you for that. HANG ON. Let me just I'm going to give you

um somebody read the letter that I wrote sent that in. But I just want to say that not having a forum in which we can ask a question even if it's a being confrontational with you and asking he's serious he wants to know the answer to these questions we don't get answers to our questions Robert you say come to my office we'll talk to you we don't want to talk to you alone Robert because you have given me wrong information multiple times Mhm.

I want I want a meeting where the public can ask questions because it's number one, you don't post it, so we don't have time to read it. I just got off a plane and I came here. You're wasting my time. Okay. You're as a as a town board, you're not supposed to be making our lives harder. You are supposed to be doing the work that the public wants. Can we please have a forum? Okay, that's what I'm requesting. A forum so that we can ask questions and get answers because we can't figure out why you're doing this. I said in my first statement ever when I found out that you guys were going after eminent domain for the book club, my response was I couldn't believe it because it's so stupid and cruel. Okay. And I and and I thought no, that's not going to happen. But it keeps happening and now you're trying to change this law. I'm sorry. Please, can we have a forum? I'm going to say it every time I come here. Thank you.

Okay, folks. That's okay. It's okay, sir. I'm very shy.

Bonnie, if you would just speak. Bonnie Day. Sorry, it's been a long night and I got a plane to catch. Um, I have a written speech, but I do want to say I heard your speech at Memorial Park Veterans Day. You said that you wanted to do for veterans. I am one and so are a lot of people in this room. So, we would appreciate it if you would drop this. Yes. Oh, the word I was supposed to say was withdraw this motion. Uh, I agree with what Susan Clash was. Actually, I agree with everybody, but

uh Susan Kasha mentioned the students at Bard. Well, we already have some climbing water towers, so maybe they're going to do other things by the river. John mentioned a prior supervisors. I happen to know of one who has four bacon acres down by the book club. Maybe the town could do something there. We would help. Um, okay. In August, Judge Rosa found that the town board That's not my timer.

Judge Rosa found that the town board failed to consider end uses for which a resoning is contemplating and this is the intermissible segmentation of the secret review process. Local law C does not rectify this. The planning board noted the town's continued reliance on the assumption that no work or physical damage physical change will occur at the site and unsupported by it's unsupported by evidence. In their June review, the planning board wrote, "The town has provided no plan for expanding or improving visitor facilities, parking, sanitation, boat launch area, or interpretive materials. This was echoed in their November 10 review. The town has not provided any plan for addressing the obvious safety issues with the boat club property to become a public park. The boat ramp, bulkhead, and cliff pose clear risks to the public who are unfamiliar with the facilities. Also, as a public park, the property would have to be ADA compliant. To assert that no work or physical change will occur at the site is patently false and ironic given the town code requires home pools to be enclosed by fencing but no work is planned by the river or undisclosed expenses. The town has not detailed ongoing maintenance which is currently done on volunteer basis by members or staffing needs both of which are expensive and recurring costs. The town has not upheld their obligations to provide a full and intensive secret review to the planning board or to consider the eminent domain action without proposed zoning changes. They are again prioritizing a want over a fiscal realities and the safety of the public in a hurried fashion to avoid debate or push back on incoming board members. Local law completely disregards Judge Rose's ruling, exposing the town

to further litigation. Any board members voting to pass it is derelct in their duty to protect the town and the residents. Enough is enough.

Rich Ross, founder of Reddit Club. Can you hear me? No, it's weird.

Uh 772 772 days left in office. Why do I bring this point up? What I want to share with you in my profession, I see anywhere between 35 to 40 people throughout our surrounding communities. And Robert, what I want to share with you, and this has been shared with me several times, Rich, I want you to know that I voted for Robert McKon three the last three the last three terms. I like a lot of the things he's done. I've supported a lot of the things that he's done for this community. And they follow up with he will never get my vote again. I I'm being sincerely honest with you.

So why why do I bring this here tonight? William and Jacob, I think you guys should be aware of this as well. I I I will encourage you that or I I will explain to you that if you continue to follow Robert McKe's agenda, I I fear that perhaps you may fall in that same situation. So take that with with a little bit of uh

what whatever you will and think about it because that's what's truly being discussed amongst the town people. So, let me share with you here what I put together. Local laws B and C were sent to the planning board acting as the waterfront advisory committee for a consistency determination with the LWRP. Judge Maria Rosa's August ruling required that these local laws be reviewed together with the proposed property acquisition. The town board has behaved as if ruling as if the ruling was nothing more than an inconvenience, treating a clear directive from the Supreme Court as something to brush aside rather than uphold. The planning board was never given the necessary information to conduct the consolidated review the courts required. With only bits of information to work from, the planning board reaffirmed the six inconsistencies identified in June and uncovered two more, bringing the total to eight. They also reported they were unable to assess a ninth policy due to missing information. Among the def uh deficiencies are failure to provide a plan to encourage tourism, failure to demonstrate the infrastructure is adequate to address safety, traffic and use concerns, failure to conduct a required fish and wildlife consultation or habitat analysis. Failure to provide an analysis of ADA compliance and public safety considerations. Failure to demonstrate demand and non-competition with existing facilities. Failure to provide a plan for protecting the historical and cultural significance of a long-standing institution. Failure to provide a plan for protecting, enhancing, and improving scenic resources. Failure to provide a plan for updating sanitary sanitary waste facilities. This is what the town board produced after pouring taxpayer money into legal and planning fees. One failure after another. And while certain town board members seem all too willing to block and delay development when it affects

their own neighborhoods, they suddenly fasttrack an agenda fueled entirely by one man's ego. Now the question is whether the town board will once again disregard the planning board's findings and Judge Ros's rulings and force this forward anyway. We'll soon find out. Very good. Uh, anyone else before we get started on our agenda items? Okay. At this time, um, I'd like to make a motion that we extend the public hearing. Uh, Chris, can we combine B and C 7:35? Um,

oh, Diana, can we combine B and C? Uh, let's let's make them concurrent. 7:35 on December 9th. I want to thank everybody coming out to share uh their thoughts. Um we're going to get to the agenda items uh in order to sorry a motion to extend the public hearing. Thank you. To 7:35 concurrent with local law December 9th at 7:35. Is there a second for that? Please

second. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor? I. Thank you. Okay. What does that mean? Continued until December 9th. BNC is continued.

Uh we again encourage folks, thank you uh for those of you who sent in your comments as well in writing. That's helpful to us. We would like to remind you please folks don't interrupt so I can try to address some of your answers. We'd like to remind you that all of the documents are available on the town website. If you go to agenda please please let me finish. If you go to agenda for a particular meeting you'll see all the documents. We however we however recommend strongly as we have for years that you sign up for notifications so you can because that was our intent to make it easier for you have it sent to you either by email or by text. So if you sign up for notifications you'll get everything. You can just ignore it if you don't want to um you know read all the documents but you'll know exactly what's going on. And the agenda is the first page of each of those uh uh communications that you will receive and you'll get to see what's on there, all the laws and and and so on and so forth. So they're not show us where they are. PROPHETS AND SHOW US.

JESUS CHRIST, SHOW US. Show us.

What I am looking at now is the website with the local laws on there. I received I am I am posting this to this screen from the website. So again, if you go to agendas and minutes and you click on this particular night, you will see the packet and the packet includes all of the local laws that are associated with tonight's meeting. Okay? And they were included uh as required by law in OML at least 24 hours in advance. Okay?

Can I just say one brief thing? All these text of these laws was included in the agenda and meeting documents for the October 14th meeting. They're on the website as of October 14th. Very.

Yeah. But not with the public notice, which is where people will see it. Just know when you get the email, the notification, it is not in there. So don't say that because it's not in there. I I again if you sign up if you sign UP if you sign up for the meeting materials you'll get it sent to you and thank you for the suggestion which I already gave to Deanna earlier today to make sure that the link is on that public so you will see folks we have had these local laws for a couple of weeks. Again, I will just remind you we are addressing the uh requirement by Judge Rosa. We spent many months on this local law last year in 2024. We had several public hearings. We got lots of input. In fact, it is extended all the way into 2025. And therefore it came close to when we started discussing uh the boat club and a public private partnership which is hor we need to get on

because you're a liar Robert. You lie through your teeth every day of the evening. I ask you to please I ask you to stop lying to the public. How's that sound? Can you get that in your head? Robert, stop with your lies. I ask you to please not interrupt. be happy to leave, Robert, because you are a lying sack of and you're two little freaking cronies there are no better. Thank you. Bring people together, Robert.

Two little Folks, we're going to move on to our agenda now, please. Uh item number one is a resolution authorizing lighting heads for the soft Aspen Wall Bridge is one of two bridge projects we are currently working on. We received Bridge New York funding for the Aspen Wall uh bridge replacement. Um it's more than now $2 million project perhaps. Uh we have that much money in grants. So let's get to that resolution.

No, please. No. Sorry. We are We are not We are moving on to the agenda items, please. so we can get our work done this evening. Is there any kind of public comment for the Saltill Bridge project to do? Uh we've had our uh public hearing related to the Salt Hill Bridge. Let's let's get to the authorizing the solicitation of the the bridge uh bids so we can get that back closed. Robert, I think we should have our public comment period before you Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, we didn't take that. So, this is your chance. Go ahead. All right. So, regular public comments. Go ahead. Thank you.

I spend a lot of time with public entities, DPWs. Right now, because of the EV law, towns have are going to be forced in 2027 to buy 10-wheeler dump trucks, okay, that are electrically run. One of my counties has over a 100 bridges that they cannot handle the weight load of that truck over the bridge and they say, "John, how are we going to do this? We got all these bridges and we're not going to be able to plow in the winter. We can't drive over them with these with these new trucks that the state says we must buy." So, when you're looking at this bridge, you got to take that into your consideration. So, you need to sit down with Teresa to make sure that the weight distribution of the bridge is going to handle the new proposed trucks that are coming down the line. Okay. Second consideration, when you come across that bridge from Kelly Road, I've been told by one of my neighbors that you're going to take 6 ft from the neighbor directly across the bridge and his driveway is practically next to the bridge and it's a very short driveway. So I'm like, why they want to do that? Because now that person's going to have a very difficult time to get in and off of Asperol. Can't we take the property from the Winnicki side that's six feet so we don't have to shorten the driveway of my neighbor down this down the road and make it more perilous for him and his uh family to get on and off of Aspen Mall Road. He's got very if you drive down there take a look his driveway is very very short and is right next to the bridge. If we can angle that bridge so we can take that 6 ft on the other side which is basically vacant land. All right. And it's under

easement. But if we can do a deal with Winnie it's only 6 ft. I'm sure we can do something where we can not have to take the property from the present land owner on the right side. So those those are two considerations that you should really think about. Weight load that crosses the bridge. make sure this bridge is going to be able to substantially withhold the weight of the new vehicles. Okay. All right. And the second thing is maybe we can get to the left side instead of the right side. And that's coming from Kelly Road. So when you cross the bridge, the the driver's right there on the right. Thank you.

Um the engineers have uh been working with DOT on the design of the bridge and uh the three property owners that they've been working with. um and um they uh reach agreement on temporary easements and the like. That's actually the second item on the agenda for tonight. Okay. Any other public comments? All right. So, we have um Deanna a resolution number 87.

87. Thank you. uh dated uh tonight, November 19th, 2025, authorizing the solicited solicitation of public bids for the DOT soft bridge project. We talk about the resolution dated January 14th. The town board authorized the project uh the bridge replacement for town of Duchess County PIN 8762.65 eligible for funding under title 103 US code as amended 95% federal funds and 5% non-federal fund. Um whereas the engineering firm Hudson Valley Engineering Associates doing the HBA engineers entered into an agreement with the town all the way back uh in January of 2023. The engineer has prepared plans for the project and has requested those plans have been reviewed by DOT and uh re review now have been settled. Um and they have uh requested that the town proceed with advertising the request for bid for the proposed project substantially in the form on file with the town clerk. Now therefore uh being resolved the solicitation of bids for the project is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the specs on trial with the town park subject to do requirements with bids to be received until 10:00 a.m. Did you get anything from the engineer? Otherwise, you normally would go 3 weeks out cuz it's going to be later depending on when do it. So, do you want to go 3 weeks out and then it'll be what? You know, you can set it.

Yeah, I think we need at least 3 weeks given the holiday. Um, why don't we wait for approval? Well, then we might want to go into January. You think that's too long? I would want to be asking. So, you may want to just say like December 17th and then for such later date as you know the engineers, right? 4 weeks. Um well or December whatever you want to go earlier than that, but I doubt they would take it earlier. Yeah.

What do you all think? You want to do four weeks and see? I think that's a good suggestion. December 17th for for such date, right? Have a date with the consultation with the engineer to tell you what's seems reasonable. All right. Um that's 87. Somebody like to move resolution 87. I would like to approve the resolution.

Thank you. As amended. Um is there a second? Second. Thank you, Bill. Further discussion? If not, all in favor? I

There's reference to uh adjoining property owners. Um the engineering firm has worked with the adjoining property owners. Um which temporary and other necessary acquisitions and they've reached agreement. Um here are the maps associated with that. Wy land trust is on those properties as was earlier. We have a uh resolution number 88 authorizing the DOT Silk Bridge right ofway agreement. Uh resolution again referencing January 14th, 2025 town board authorizing a project for the soft hill bridge replacement town of red of Duchess County PIN B762.65 eligible for funding and the resolution goes on to talk about these three parcel tax map numbers. The maps are on with the town clerk, the engineer and its consultants have prepared proposed forms of rightway agreements for conveyance of such rights to the town so that we can construct this uh replacement bridge. The town board has determined under secret that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. These plans have been reviewed by DEC as well. This is resolution number 88 also dated November 19th authorizing the soft hill bridge right ofway agreements. And who would like to move those?

So moved. Thank you, Jacob. Is there a second? All seconded. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor? anything.

All right, moving right along. Hot mix asphalt. Um, our highway superintendent asked that we go out and rebid or that uh department go out and rebid. They uh received each of the following submissions. recommendation is being received from Colorado pack materials in Kalan. man tabulations. The highway superintendent has recommended award of the bids to such bids as listed here. Different items a little bit. I mean that does a little bit. This is resolution number 90.

Oh 89. I thought we did 89. No, we did 88. Didn't we do 88? Oh, sorry. 88. Thank you. 89. Resolution number 89. Highway Jacob. Would you like to move that? Is there a second? Two seconds. Thank you, Julian. All in favor?

I um each year we also go out to bid for snow clearing. Um but both the sidewalks and the parking lot is here recycling and um a town hall. Um the low bid was again from Boser uh and Suns. There's some the various uh amounts for the particular activities. Snow removal on the sidewall more or less than 12 in to de ice also to put in the parking lots wall and recycling and to deise them as well. Here are the amounts. I'd like to make a motion that we approve. award to boss bourbon son. Is there a second?

Okay. Thank you, Bill. Um, any further discussion? If not, all in favor? Okay, let's get to item number five, local law a

uh for the folks at home, uh the community preservation fund monies can be used to pay down benefits associated with already completed projects, but those projects must be in the plan. So the amendment to the community preservation plan that is proposed as a part of local law A is to include Wreck Park West as it was part of serial bonds associated with two farmland preservation projects and the acquisition of W Park West. And when we acquired Re Park West, uh we did uh the environmental review for the acquisition of the parcel. Um the other is to add the language, the authorization that already exists with the law to pay down debt. And so we wanted that sentence in in the uh plan itself so people would be aware of that. Um, this will free up money. As we've explained to you before, we've had asks from uh the village for both fire, police, and so on and so forth. These are budget lines. These monies will not be used for the book club acquisition, CPF. These monies will not be used to pay down debt associated with a future acquisition of the book club. It cannot be, as you've heard us say before previously, Deputy Supervisor Michael, it cannot be used in that manner. It must be willing sellers. And so, we would once again remind you there's also not, for some reason, there's only one parcel of the book club included in the CPF plan. We have no intention of including the other parcel in the CPF

plan because we have no intention of using CPF for both club parcels. Um,

okay. Local law a um I want just uh some input. We did receive a few comments in writing and we thank you again for coming tonight to contribute your thoughts with local law a um we did refer to the planning board and the planning board finds local law a consistent with the goals and policies of the town's comprehensive plan. The update maintains existing preservation objectives and supports the protection of open space farmland scenic views and waterfront resources. The board notes, however, that no red line or comparative version of the plan was provided, making it difficult to identify substantive revisions. And I don't know if that red line that's on the website now,

it was not. It was not when we when we tried to review.

No. And and the document from 2019 is also not searchable. So, um, as Steve could attest, I spent many, many, many weekend hours pouring through this and it was it was impossible, um, to discern what y'all were doing. Um, and I think in the in in this environment of of of trust and mistrust, it's that did not um that didn't feel good for for planning board members to try to just even understand. We like we had a time clock. We had to respond and um the information just wasn't there.

So that's the feedback. Yeah. I I hope I hope it was adequately adequately described. Um we do have Ted Frink with us tonight uh remotely. Before we go there, Robert, I do want to point out

the supervisor indicated that the villages of Tivoli and Red Hook, their fire departments, police are in need of funds. The tax base of the villages is really insufficient to support those kinds of inflation. The village of Tivoli is re trying to rebuild their firehouse. They needed $2 million. That's not a small amount of money. The village of Reds Fire Department may need a new fire truck, which they cost about a million dollars. So, we want to help them, and this is a way for us to free up funds to help the villages provide lifesaving services to our residents. I don't think that's not a noble thing. I think it's the right thing to do. And as I said previously, it's illegal. It's a state law. You cannot use these monies for any kind of eminent domain in any way, shape, or form. If somebody were to suggest that to me, I'd be the first one to pick up the phone and call the Attorney General's office. It It's infuriating that somebody would try to do that. So, we're not going to do that because that would be illegal. I I I'm I'm kind of bewildered by the public uh comments suggesting that somehow we're going in that direction, cuz we're not. at least not while I'm on this board. Um, and I do want to help our fire department and our police department the best we can. They do a great job. They're great professionals. They save our lives. We want to continue to have them do that.

It's not the villages fire department. You know that, right? It's it's a town fire department. It's like a private fire department. Okay. The Red Hook Village. The Red Village. Thank you. All right. Um, we want to stick to local We want to stick with local law. A uh folks if we could that was the input that we received from uh the planning board and I think it's a good good advice to make sure that the document is searchable because it is exhaustive we have had it up on the website for a few weeks um if you search this meeting's uh agenda you know all of it's there but yes it is it is laborious um

well I think is there that is searchable and that the red line is available and and that the red line is available for that. Yeah. Uh Ted, is there a way that we can make that easily searchable for the future? Yeah. Uh yes, they I always prepare PDF files and they are easily searchable for uh any word term that you put into the search bar. Okay. They tend to lose the searchability when they're scanned in. Okay. So, is that is that the case? Maybe we lost it in the in the scanning into the placing online. Is that is that the deal?

That's the deal. Yeah, that's that's what happens. If it's scanned by a by a machine, you know, photocopy type machine or a scanner, that's going to lose the ability to be able to do the word term searches. So, you need the original PDF file in order for that to work. Okay. So can we can we uh would you answer one question work on work on that to to make sure that that gets online in a searchable format. We worked uh with our clerk's office the website.

Yep. Yeah. You have those files and uh it can easily be uh transmitted and uh your web master should be able to place those files on the website so they can be downloaded or uh viewed on the website. Okay. We do we do that in house? That's run through the firm's office. um other helpers but okay very good thank you we appreciate that Ted and we'll need to get that taken care of question

just one question will you state unequivocably that you will not use CPF funds later after you've acquired something like the boat club against you know an unwilling seller that you'll now have the park but now you may incur fees many many fees to change it to upgrade it to do anything to it. Will you say that this law will not allow you to do that?

That is correct because the the funds need to be used for projects that are with willing sellers. We have several individuals that were here uh who have uh properties for example on West Curly Corners. I see Mr. Tres I think was here. Um we worked with We've worked with those individuals. Those are those are willing sellers of conservation easements. Yes. And we've used funds for that. But we've said it at nauseium. I don't know how to say it again. No, it's not.

In the future, I understand for maintenance or anything else. We cannot because the project was not with willing sellers. Okay. So, no funds can be associated with those properties.

Thank you. I think we've answered it. We We're on the We're on the record. We're on the record as saying that we are not going to This board has said we are not going to We do not believe it is legal to do so. We are not going to utilize funds for these the purposes that you have just talked about acquisition um pay down debt or future uh work. Should there be future work on the parcel, we will not use any CPF funds for that. I think we've made it as clear as we possibly can. We've told you, you've asked us why we were doing these laws. We've told you we are doing it to free up budgetary lines for other things that are important to this community to try to maintain this what we believe is a really terrific tax rate for town taxes. And we provide tremendous services thanks to many of the volunteers that are referenced to our employees in the case of the police. And that is why we are doing it. Okay. Um so with that being said, um let's go take a look at any other comments that uh we received um in writing. We have by the way our uh part one which we did review previously. Are there any questions about that? Uh the description is the town board has proposed amendments to the 2016 and then further amended in 2019 uh comprehensive plan update. Two amendments are proposed. The first amendment will add one parcel that is wrecked park west. Under the categories of agriculture, water and protection, ecologically significant areas, scenic features,

trails and gateways and significant biodiversity areas. The total acreage affected by the addition of the one parcel 28.4 acres. The second amendment will clarify the manner in the fund language. It is already authorized in our law and in the state enabling legislation that funds may be used to repay any indebtedness or obligations incurred pursuant to the local finance law in occurrence in accordance with New York State part one. Um that's the description of the action. Um and those are the entities that have approval. It is uh only the town board because it's the adoption of the local law application of which was in October planning and zoning actions. Now board members stop me if there's any uh anything again. We're reviewing part one. Any questions on zoning? Is the site of the proposed action located in the municipality with the zone of ordinance? Of course. Um, is a zoning change requested? No. Project details? No. The project is the inclusion of a parcel in the plan. the language that I've already described, we can only include in our seeker the action we are taking.

And that is that is the complete sum of part one. It's part two. Ted, would you like to walk us through part two? Do you have my team talking uh a break? Sorry.

Sure. Um part two is the identification of the potential impacts and there are a number of different impact categories that are reviewed uh with questions to be answered yes or no. uh first whether or not uh for instance impact on land will involve the construction on or physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed site. In this case, this is a townwide action. So it doesn't apply to an individual site and it is a uh a document that uh once it's amended will allow for the inclusion of a additional parcel uh to be considered for funding under the committed preservation fund. So, it doesn't have any effect on that this will alteration or involve any construction uh on the wreck park site. Um nor would the um uh proposed amendment to the language that would allow for the community graduation fund to be used to repay indebtedness. So, um the first question is answered no. Um the rest of the questions um in fact all of the other questions with one exception are all answered no because they all pertain specifically to whether or not the action will cause any sort of a uh a negative environmental impact um having to do with uh for instance the second one geological features will it modify or destroy um any sort of unusual landforms on the site. So again, this is uh something that pertains uh to a specific site uh whereas this is a a townwide uh proposed action. So in many cases with uh the seeker form, it's designed to uh uh to consider and assess a variety of different impact uh types. But in a case like an action uh as the

one that's proposed in local law a most of these questions do not apply. Uh so the one question uh where it is important to um to consider uh is the impact on historic and archeological resources. And the reason for that is because this one particular question uh asks um asks the um uh about the impact in a different manner than uh whether or not it involves a physical alteration. In this qu case, uh the question is the proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. and Red Hook. Uh because this is a townwide action in the community preservation fund and the community preservation plan all apply townwide. Uh and so in this case um because the action occurs uh at different locations within the town and the town has a number of historic pictures that have been listed on the state and national registers and historic places uh pre both prehistoric and historic uh resources. This question is answered yes. And once a question is um is answered yes, then there's a series of additional questions that will apply. In this case, the proposed action may occur wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any buildings, archaeological site, or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the state register of historic places. And so the only option you have here is to check a column that uh has um as a header either no or small

impact may occur or a moderate to large impact may occur. And if it's a no or small impact may occur then you can move on to the next question. If it's a moderate to large impact may occur, then you would move to explaining what the impact is um whether or not it it constitutes a significant adverse impact and whether or not um any mitigation is necessary or any further assessment of impact would be uh appropriate in a case like this uh involving a more detailed environmental assessment. And so, um, what should be checked, uh, in answer to the last question about whether or not it's within a national estate register of historic places district, um, is that it is no or small impact may occur. The next question, the proposed action may occur only or partially within or substantially continuous to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the New York State Historic um preservation office archaeological site inventory. Red Hook is filled with um archaeological sites that have been previously um studied um as a result of a variety of different uh state and local actions. Um and so yes, the answer to that is it will. Um but that is also a small um impact may no or small impact may occur because again there's no disturbance of archaeological sites that would um occur as a result of the proposed action. Third question, the proposed action may occur fully or partially within or substantially continuous to an archeological site not included on the New York State Shipo inventory. So again, this is a no or small impact

occur because we um uh we do know that there are archeological sites uh that likely exist throughout the town, especially in association with privately owned uh uh and that may not be chippo inventory because they've never been studied. Um the next question um really pertains to an open-ended one. It's a simple are there other impacts? Uh and in this case the proposed action is designed to preserve and protect historic resources which is one of the functions of the uh community preservation plan that has been prepared that identifies historic resources in the town that may be worthy of preservation. uh and that is one of the allowed purposes of the community preservation fund. So again um this is a uh no or small impact payment. Then um that's pretty much the end of this and there are other questions about open space and recreation of local areas, transportation, energy, um noise over light, human health, um consistency with community plans and consistency with community character. And in each of those cases, um, uh, the answer that was, uh, listed is that it will not, uh, result in any adverse impacts. And so those questions are all answered. No.

Okay. Okay. And we don't we don't have any critical environmental areas in the town, so that'll always be a no. Uh, that's always going to be a no. Correct. Yes. Yes. And then um yeah, and I think that's the end of the part two.

Okay. And obviously this the CPF fund um the town of Red Hook, one of the first two communities within the Hudson Valley to have the CPF. Ted, you've worked with the other one for quite some time. Um it's uh we have deployed um we've raised over $7.5 million and leveraged with county land trust uh state and even the federal government in order to protect many properties. You hear me talk about seven or eight along west curly corners but farms throughout. Um and also the funds can be used to acquire historic properties though we have not had an opportunity yet to do that as well. Those are sort of the limited um you uses for the CPO fund.

That's correct.

Okay. And then there's a total of 14 different categories of of um natural agricultural resources that are eligible for community preservation. Right. And then the update and the um substantial updates that were uh conducted by the community preservation advisory board and we will probably need a a substantial update next year as well. Um they uh focused in one of the previous iterations on protection of uh waters, right? So we have a very long part of the reason we have such a long list right is their focus and their recommendations back then to include uh water protection parcels um which has been um important because we've uh partnered with uh Winnipeg for the soul uh projects that are in place and those that are um being contemplated and underway. Okay. Um, that's part two. Did we look at what? Let's see if we've got some more. Scroll past. I did I did scroll past three. I wanted to look at um the LWRP determination from the planning board. We have from uh Sen. The planning board acts as the waterfront advisory uh committee. I think somebody referenced two two committees, but it is the planning board that packs in that capacity. Doesn't have to be, but the town chose the planning board as the waterfront advisory committee. Um the uh proposed local law a a amendment to the community preservation project plan acting in its uh waterfront

advisory committee has reviewed local law A. Um it notes that this update coincides with other proposed actions involving the Hudson Riverfront including the readoption of B and C in the proposed boat of acquisition. While local law is not the heart of that integrated seeker action, its reauthorization of community reservation fund priorities, excuse me, has potential implications for future waterfront acquisition, not sure I understand what that means. It's reauthorization of community preservation fund priorities has potential implications for future waterfront acquisitions. I don't believe that there were any changes to any waterfront properties included in the plan. Is that correct, Ted?

That's correct. The only parcel that was listed in the update was the 28 acre parcel um at um Red Hook um you know the Recre Park West. That was the only parcel that was added and it was added as you me mentioned before for a number of reasons uh having to do with water quality um and scenic views and trails and so forth was yeah because those were the those were the criteria that were listed in the community preservation plan um for parcels in the town that possess certain characteristics um that made them eligible for the use of the community preservation fund. uh when it involved land owner that was a willing seller.

Right.

I can tell you what that sentence is about. It's it's a response really to the spirit of Judge Rose's ruling and being called out that the secret process has to collectively review the totality of what's going on. And while this local law a might have nothing to do with the boat club or any any acquisition like that, we didn't know. We didn't have a redline version. It was hard to understand. We're talking about hundreds of pages of documents to be reviewed. And um and that was the planning board's discussion was to say that like we don't really know what you're doing. Nobody understands. And yes, we as the waterfront advisory committee, we have a limited role of saying that yes, it's consistent. It seems consistent, but that that sentence is to call out to y'all that it like it we don't know what you're doing and um there are potential implications for future waterfront acquisitions. Like that's that's the circle that Judge Rosa closed in her argument of saying look at it all together and be honest about what what your intentions are.

Thank you. And I think we I think we have addressed um uh the concerns or questions related to that. Um and uh we take that recommendation to make sure that a red line is available. Um we did uh make it clear that those were the two only changes that were proposed. Um but yes, it should be searchable and uh the red line should be uh sent to you especially with a document this this big in the future. So I think that recommendation is a very good recommendation uh from the planning board and truly the entire packet should be should be searchable. Yeah, that's a that's a very easy thing to do.

Yeah. Okay. Um the uh does not alter land use or zoning provisions provide the policy framework. Um yeah. Okay. Good. Thank you for that. Um the consistency form uh that was uh sent along with it. Um there is a description in the consistency form

that does address the question that we're ready. Um Ted, is there anything in particular you would like to like us to uh zero in on on the planning board's LWRP consistency form? I mean it all seems to be appropriate for what this action is. Yes. Um I believe that it is. Okay.

All right. Then we have our own uh consistency determination uh town board uh to take a look at um a draft of which has been prepared for us. The LWRP plan, the one that is currently adopted um dates back to 1995, but as was mentioned earlier, there is one in front of DOS now with some comments coming back. Um, and I I would uh maybe we should put that uh draft also on the website so you can take a look at that because it does reference a recommendation by that committee to enter into a public private partnership with um okay uh let's see the LWRP for the town. Let's go through it. Um you could see that it similarly describes the action which is the inclusion of the parcel um the amendment to 2011 and 2016 and 2019 update to 2025 that's necessary to include the wreck park par parcel so that we can utilize funds to pay down the debt associated with that. um so that we can open up budget lines uh to use for other purposes that have been uh discussed this evening and are indicative of uh what was included in the 2026 budget which is available online as additional funding for uh fire and police as was mentioned earlier. Um the uh Redmond adopted a community preservation uh plan in 2011 and updated the CPP in the various

years. Inclusion of the parcel uh clarification on how funds will be used. No changes to Red Hook's land use controls is proposed. Uh going down to uh fish and wildlife policy is not applicable. Continuation uh water and air resources policies not applicable. The action is just the inclusion of the verbiage and the one parcel the coastal uh management program. There's the form. This is a description of the uh New York State Legislature which amended article four four of the New York State town law adding a new section 64H to authorize the town board to establish through a local referendum a community preservation fund supported by revenues from a 2% real estate transfer tax. There was much talk tonight about a division of opinion on an issue and contra controversy and um this fund while it has been enormously successful in protecting community character at its adoption because of the timing and we talk about that timing now uh for other actions as well but because of the timing and the uh beginning of the real estate downturn. Um this measure barely passed unlike a previous similar measure in 2003 where 83% of the voters approved. And if you look at other communities now um many of which I've worked with and other organizations I've worked with their very high approval rates in large part because they see how well it's

worked in in community life now. Um but back then it it it was a squeaker. um over a thousand people voted against it and a few more people voted for it. And that was a required uh public reference and that's uh listed here in this description. That's why I'm referencing it. Um there was a requirement to adopt the plan. you know, but when we worked with the home rule and a request, which I did with um back then with the the board at the time and uh state senator and state assembly person, um we did get um a special permission to work with the open space plan that we then adopted for the first couple years until there was a community preservation plan. also subject to public uh input, public comment, public hearing and adoption by the board of 2011. Um again we talk about uh the various updates. Um we have had uh we have had um a couple of occasions where we've amended it just to include a parcel. This is not the first time we've done it. Um we uh looked at some point uh to include I think the St. Sylvia's property in Tiboli. At the time there was the thought that we could assist the village of Tivoli. We had been requested um to assist them in protecting that property from what they felt was inappropriate development. Um so we included the parcel. Ultimately, um we had to act quickly and we actually um held a public hearing related to eminent domain of that property um to protect it from the developers that were circling. This was at the request of village officials, at the request of

village residents and those who uh felt that St. Sylvia's was very special to the community character of the area. Um so we would not have been able to use uh CPF funds for for that acquisition had we uh needed to do that. We were able to have a successful negotiation which was led by the village because it was not within our municipality. Um they were able to uh obtain um a facade easement an easement on the property to protect against inappropriate development. Um and they were able to get a second municipal parking lot in Tibi for a dollar. Um so that's how uh that uh situation unfolded with a small change in the CPP which ultimately could be utilized. Um and that all right uh let's go to the location of the action. Um obviously it's the town it's town wide. uh coastal assessment. Um will the proposed action be located in or contiguous to or have a significant effect upon any of the resource areas? Um the answers that are proposed here are no for all of these categories. Again, um this is a preservation tool and so it um is a resource that's available. The action is just In this case, the addition and um uh Ted, you with us on uh can we take a look at the um

colleagues? Do you have any any comments about any of those any of those categories? Um, do you recommending any changes on that?

Said we have a draft neck. Uh, yes. uh resolution dated November 19th. Yes, we do have it from you. And there's the part three. Once again, uh discussion of

the environmental review. Well, there's no um requirement that there be a part three when all of the categories in the part two EAF are denoted as either no or small impact may occur. Um but there is a part three full environmental assessment form that also acts as a negative declaration document that um uh is the also known as the determination of significance and uh there is a um a very short um uh narrative that applies a couple of paragraphs um but basically it was um classified by the town board as a type one action. Um the part one, part two, and part three were all um all completed. If you'd like, I can read to you the narrative uh of the part three.

Would you please?

Sure. Uh and this again goes back to that one category impact on historic and archeological resources that was checked as a yes because Red Hook uh townwide does include a number of of historic resources of local, state, and national significance. So the discussion here um the narrative states as follows. The proposed action involves two amendments to the town of Redville community preservation plan that will apply townwide, including lands designated as state, national, historic, and/or archeological resources. No construction or other land disturbance activities are proposed as part of the action. The action is designed to add one parcel of land currently owned by the town of Red Hook and used as parkland which qualifies for inclusion in the CPP because it contains important resources under the community car character categories of agriculture and water protection, ecologically significant areas, scenic features, trails and gateways and significant biodiversity areas. All five categories are appropriate for inclusion in the uh in the CPP under the town code chapter 57. Uh the total acreage affected by the addition of the one parcel is approximately 28.4 acres. The second amendment will clarify the manner in which community preservation funds may be used to repay indebtedness or obligations incurred pursuant to local finance law in accordance with New York State law. The part two EAF did not identify any other environmental topics as having the potential for creating adverse environmental impacts including impacts on land, geological features, surface and groundwater, flooding, air quality, plants and animals, agricultural

resources, aesthetic resources, open space and recreation, critical environmental areas, transportation, energy, noise and light, human health, consistency with community plans in consistency with community character. Rather, the proposed action continues Red Hook's community preservation fund program for protecting its community character and environmental quality by continuing to fund the acquisition of lands and easements for such purposes. That's it.

Thank you, Seth. So, I want to go back in time with you, please, just for the maybe for the public's benefit. Um the town acquired the property in 2007 for recreational lands. Um the town board and I uh was not on the town board but did participate as the uh member or chair of the Agon and open space committee in negotiations to acquire the land. And when we did the acquisition for that parcel, we did a secret review and um we stated that the purpose of the acquisition was for uh future development for athletic fields, expansion of the recreational park. We did not have a plan at the time. Um but we did do the secret analysis for the acquisition at the time. years later um under the previous administration there was a a comprehensive uh plan uh developed for that parcel. Seeker was conducted at that time for the development of that recreational parcel that transpired quite a few years later. Um, fast forward, the property just sat there. Um, I believe it was during my first term perhaps. Uh, we, uh, decided that we were going to overhaul the wreck park and do lots of renovations and to also, um, start to implement that adopted plan. We did, uh, receive u some public input and a desire to reopen that plan. we did to to public input and ultimately after several public hearings and info sessions that was mentioned tonight um we modified the plan uh substantially

um and we conducted seeker then for what is now a uh second version of a comprehensive plan for that property uh some of the features uh of that plan uh have been constructed And some of the features of the plan uh have not yet been constructed, but we did during the environmental review um uh uh assess uh the implications of of the development of that parcel.

Robert, can I just interject to clarify terminology because you're using the term master plan as related to a specific comprehensive plan. I would I would say it's more of a master plan in the case of a property, not to be confused with the comprehensive planning process underway for the whole town. I don't use that term master. I I think it's inappropriate. Um but uh the overall plan for that parcel um and uh so we did the environmental review, we did the secret analysis at that time. So my question for you Ted is there additional seeker that we would do by including this parcel into the CPP plan. Is there any other seeker associated with this parcel?

There should not uh this would be the seeker that would cover the town board's adoption of including this parcel um within the CPP and once the parcels have been included uh they then qualify for use through the community preservation fund. Okay. And then there's been a suggestion that somehow we include the seeker analysis perhaps of the other laws um and the acquisition of the vote club with uh local law a we are doing the seeker analysis now. Um but does the secret analysis for local law a need to include that secret analysis? Well, I don't see that uh the inclusion of the um Rec Park West um as being related to the acquisition of the book club site.

I think that's a separate action and it was not this was not included in the uh local law number one secret review that was subject to the court determination. Okay. Okay. All right. Um, can I suggest one edit to the part three form of the narrative? There's just a typo um on the word indebtedness. It just has a should have a typo on indebtedness. Yeah, the second the second small paragraph in the narrative. Yes.

Yes. There's no spell check on the uh the seeker forums. Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. I think we are ready to consider perhaps resolution. Are we on 90 Deanna? Yes.

This is adopting a secret determination of non-significance regarding an amendment to the community preservation plan. Whereas the town uh board Red Hook is considering the proposed adoption of local law a uh providing for an amendment to the community preservation plan in the town of Red Hook. Uh October 14th um the town board classified the action as type one. Uh the law has not changed in its form since then. Uh whereas the town board has reviewed a full environmental assessment form and a coastal assessment form for the proposed action and the forms on file with the town clerk. And whereas the uh on November 17th, 2025, the planning board of the town of Redham determined that the proposed action is consistent with the applicable local water front revitalization plan. And whereas the town board has reviewed a draft notice of determination of non-significance, what we refer to as a neg setting forth reason supporting a determination that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. And whereas the town board has reviewed the proposed local law and its consistency with the applicable LWRP and has reviewed the planning board's finding regarding consistency. Now therefore be it resolved that the town board of the town of Red Hook, Duchess County, New York, by the favorable vote of not less than a majority adopts the findings and conclusions related to probable environmental effects contained in the EAF for the FEAF and negative declaration of file with the town clerk concluding that the amendment to the community preservation plan described above will not have an adverse impact on the environment. The supervisor is authorized to execute um those forms as

mentioned and the town board authorizes and directs the town to distribute a copy of this resolution to all involved. And that is resolution number 90 on the secret determination. And would somebody like to move resolution number 90? So moved. Thank you Christine. Is there a second? Second. All right, Jacob. Um, is there any further discussion on that? I think we've sort of exhausted this topic and the reasons for doing it. Um, we've mentioned it in previous meetings. Um,

I mean, I'll just state for the record that uh and and you've stated it already quite clearly. So, I opposed taking care of the book club by eminent domain. I remain opposed to the taking the book club by eminent domain. I would not support this action if I believe that it would be used for the acquisition, the pay down of indebtedness or the future maintenance of that property. Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay. Um if not hearing uh any more uh discussion uh a vote all in favor Christine I Jacob I myself I Julia

I resolution number 90 passes thank you very much okay uh let's do discussion of local law B we've heard tonight that Mr. supervis it would be nice if we pass so even before that could you could you have the board take an official action on I know you discussed and and reviewed uh the consistency determination by the town board but you need to actually take a formal action and then you need to consider whether you're going to adopt local right so I think you wanted to put that yeah the LWP

thank you I apologize yes I I did go through all that and I meant to include it in the resolution. Um let's once again motion separate motion on the LWRP consistency to approve the form and you have that form in front of you that Ted reviewed with you. Yeah. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the findings? So moved. Thank you Christine. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? William. Myself. Hi, Jacob. Hi, Christine.

And Julian. All right, that's elder 4 P on the postal assessment form. A motion to approve as prepared. So move. Thank you, Christine. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, William. Further discussion? If not, all in favor? I I um we're on 91 approving the adoption of local law a proposed of 2025. So this will become local law one just to confuse matters won't it? local action two. Yes. It's always in order of what's filed with the state.

Filed with the state. And just again for the folks at home, local law one, the subject of uh now a notice of appeal, local law one 2025 is in place. Um we have 6 months to uh perfect the appeal uh to the court. Our hope is to avoid additional um legal costs by resubmitting taking the guidance of the court um and resubmitting the law and including the secret review. Um

right now we are has nothing to do with this law but I want to remind the folks um that that's where where we are tonight. Um, local law A is resolution number 91 approving the adoption of what is now going to be referred to as local law number two. I was there was a roundabout way of explaining why it's local law number two. It's local law number one is still in place. No, well, it doesn't have anything to do with that. It has to do with the fact that it was filed secret and that's all. Right. Okay.

Um Okay. uh approving the adoption of local law A proposed. Now number two regarding an amendment to the community preservation plan. Who would like to move a resolution number 91 which uh discusses the review um its conformance with chapter 64H of the town law and chapter 57 of the code. Um the previous uh dated uh community preservation plan iterations public hearing has been noticed on the amendment. Um whereas on November 10th, the planning board did have the opportunity and did review and determine that the proposed action is consistent with the LWRP and submitted its determination to the town board on the 12th. Uh pursuant to resolution on the uh of the town board adopted on the 14th of October um a public hearing was held uh November 19th. That's this evening at 7:35 and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to proposed local law and any part thereof. Um, on this evening, the town board serving as lead agency under their seeker review act adopted a determination of non-significance determining that no significant adverse impact would result from the proposed action and that a draft environmental impact statement would not be prepared. And the town board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the town's LWRP. the town. Whoops. Um, town board believes that such actions are in the best interest of the town. Roll over there on technology. Um, now

therefore be resolved by the town board of the town of Red as follows. The town board hereby adopts said local law A of 2025 now to be referred to as local law number two as previously discussed adopting an amendment to the community preservation plan. Who would like to move resolution number 91? 91. Yeah. 91. So move. Thank you, Christine. Is there a second? I'll second that. Thank you, Bill. Further discussion.

Um, if not, all in favor? Julia. Hi, William.

I That's local law number uh sorry, a now number two. Let's get to local law. Um, got a bunch to review there. Let's look at the comments that we received. Um, we heard uh verbally a lot of the comments that were sent in writing. I think we had about four prior to uh tonight. We had a couple come in. uh before we were able to contribute to the online packet. Um let's take part one, shall we? Ted, do you want to uh quickly uh take us through part one if you would? I'm going to step away for a minute and use the L as they used to say. William, if you'd be kind enough to run for a couple minutes. All right.

Section one. Uh, part one. Part one. Ted, if you'd be kind enough to walk us through part one. Ted to

Sure. That would be fine. Um the part one full and normal assessment form is a uh a long form that consists of about 13 pages of which only 23 are actually applicable to uh the adoption of local law um uh like local law of 2025. Um and so it um it asks a variety of questions about maybe the project, the location of the project. Um and um um that asks for a a brief description of the proposed action. Um and there is a attachment, it's referred to as attachment F that provides a description of uh local law. And so I can go to that and uh that's actually um goes on fully pages. Uh there's about four pages of text. Um so that bill did you take over from Robert?

Well on the uh let me just scroll up. Yeah. Um cuz there we're Ted we're on the 13 pager. Okay. Well, after the 13 pager, there's a little um uh three and a half more pages of text that um describes the local law. It goes into detail about each of the various things about that local law. Um and uh I can read that if if you'd like. Ted, before you start that, can I ask a question? This is Julia.

Yeah. What's the rationale for um doing the combined seeker for local lobby and local law C rather than separate? Well, um because local law B and and local law C were originally linked and because the court uh found that um that was segmented from the um from the acquisition action, the eminent demand action um I think the decision was reached that um it should continue in uh in following the court's direction that the two different actions be linked together. Uh, and because both local law B and local law C contain elements of local law number one, 2025, um, it seemed to make sense that, um, they should be bundled together, even though local law B um, primarily is concerned with things like, uh, cannabis, short-term rentals, um, and, uh, and that sort of thing.

Okay. Thank you. Can you have a point? I I thought this was tabled to December 9th. Well, why is this going on now without everyone being aware of it? This is just we're reviewing the secret documents. We're not But that's important to hear. That's the public that's important to the public hearing. Well, we have the public hearing that's been extended.

We started tonight. That's been extended and then we have these documents to review. So, we're reviewing them. Well, shouldn't they be reviewed at the public meeting when when you have your audience when people are expecting to have that review? That was the assumption when you said you're postponing all of these actions to December 9th.

We we are adjourning the public hearing to get more input or this is the uh war uh time of the meeting uh where the board discusses the impact. This is something that we must do and all of this is available. Um folks can not only review the minutes but they can review the video tape which is why we work uh so hard to keep these meetings televised so that uh people can see um we uh you need to continue along with the environmental group. Okay. Where where are you on part one? F.

Okay. Ted, do you want to continue, please? Yes. I was about to read a description of the action.

Okay. It is a a fairly complex description. Uh it's not something that fit within the uh the form on page one. even though it's supposed to be a brief description of the action um I think the um because of the complexity of it and the nuances with uh the court determination um the uh the full description of the action um is as follows. The proposed action includes three components. One, adoption of local law number B proposed of 2025, which amends the zoning law regulate the time, place, and manner of adult cash retail campus dispensaries that provides amendments for accessory short-term rental uses, public parks, and trail systems would become a permitted use in all zoning districts rather than subject to site plan approval. changes the definition of wetlands based on New York State's outdated freshwater weapons program, modifies the provisions governing residential development in the AB district non-conforming uses and clarifies the design standards for the TMDC zoning district. Two, adoption of local law number C of 2025 amends the zoning law to remove marinas as as a special permit use. amends the definition of a club and adds new definitions for boat club, boat ramp, dock, and marina and amends special permit conditions for new boat clubs, docks, and boat ramps. And three, pursuant to a decision order of judgment dated 81425 issued by the honorable Maria G. Rosa, JSC, and Red Hook Boat Club, Inc. versus the town board of the town of Red Hook at all. Duchess County index number 2025-50908.

The proposed action also includes the town's proposed acquisition of a 2.37 acre property for dedication as parkland as a town dark dock I'm sorry town dock and park area. The property is located at 256 Dock Road in the hamlet of Berry Town. Uh parcel 672-02-897911 and parcel 6072-2-897893. The proposed action is consistent with the town comprehensive plan. So, can I can I interrupt you for a second just cuz I want to reference some comments that were made earlier as we do this environmental review. We did hear from members of uh the public um many of them members, some of them Barrytown members and then others that are just members of the general public. Um, one of the things that we heard was um that we are not taking the input um that is being proposed to us. Um and then we heard this evening that someone said there's important zoning that needs to occur and because the decision says that we shall uh that we need to review the acquisition of the boat club as part of our uh resubmission of what was local law number one. So in response to that, and that was not the first time we've heard that, in response to that, we separated out the law so that there would be B and C. B would be everything except for those issues that seem to be in debate, if you will, relating to uh the definition of club, which needed to

be redefined. and uh Marinos. And so we separated out. We also heard tonight of a desire to limit to the town board to take action to reduce legal costs. And we want to remind the public that our legal costs that we incur in defense of what is both the town board and the planning board in these legal actions. uh many of them um which we do and we have historically done throughout the years. Um we have defended uh the decisions of the planning board. We have defended the decisions of our enforcement officers and zoning officers and we have defended decisions of uh the town board as well. Um we are taking recommendations to try to limit those costs by isolating the issues that are in contention um into uh two parts. So that once again by taking the advice of the court we are resubmitting and doing so and taking to account the secret while we disagree with the court while we have filed our notice of appeal while we intend to appeal if these laws are not adopted. Um we are taking uh what we think and hope is an action to reduce the legal expenses associated with adopting these laws. We have said to you um before that these laws have nothing to do with the acquisition of the vote club. They are not dependent upon it. That action took place in July. We did our review back then in July. this law, local law number

one that is that issue which is uh the subject of an appeal perhaps perfected um uh was already adopted. So there was no question whether or not we took into account when we made our decision in July the adoption of local law number one. So there is nothing that can happen with A, B, or C that will have any impact on uh the eminent domain. And in fact, the boat club through its attorney filed in Supreme Court a challenge to the eminent domain proceeding. that challenge was dismissed by Judge Rosa because that is not the appropriate venue um to uh it's not the appropriate court to challenge an eminent domain proceeding. Um, but once again, for those of you who are suggesting that the town board is not taking into the input, I would like to just show you in this brief description and the comments you've made tonight why it is that we think that we are at least very much attempting to take that advice that we've been given um by others and to respond to the court. We could simply say we are just going to file an appeal because we disagree and we strongly do disagree with that decision by Judge uh Rosa in in this case. Um but we just thought it'd be easier to refile and to in full disclosure review uh this uh local law and um to try to limit the legal expenses associated with it. So, I'm sorry for the long response there, Ted, but I did want to get that on the record uh for the folks to understand

because there was a question. We want to know why the town board is doing what the town board is doing. Okay. Uh can we go on with the narrative summary, Ted? Sure.

Okay. So, um, in 2024, the town board of the town of Redwood proposed a series of zoning amendments addressing issues identified by town officials or needed as a result of recent changes to applicable state and federal laws. Local law number one of 2025 was adopted by the town board on February 11th, 2025. Local law number one 2025 was challenged in a hybrid proceeding pursuant to New York civil practice law and rules article 78 and 30 in Red Hook Book Club Inc. versus the town board of the town of Red Hook at all Duchess County uh Mangex number 2025-50908 and on August 14th 2025 a decision order and judgment was issued by the honorable Maria G. Rosa, justice for the Supreme Court of the state of New York for Duchess County. The decision anulled and set aside local law number one of 2025. The secret review addresses three separate actions of the town board. One, adoption of local law number B proposed of 2025. Adoption of local law number C proposed of 2025. and three pursuant to a decision order and judgment dated 8:1425 issued by the honorable Maria G. Rosa JSC in Red Hook Bub Inc. versus the town board of town of Red Hook at all. Uh and then the index number again, this seeker review also includes the town's proposed acquisition of a 2.37 acre property for dedication as parkland as a town dock and park area. A narrative summary of the two proposed local laws is set forth below. For a complete understanding of the changes proposed to the zoning law, readers are referred to the proposed amendments documents available from the town clerk. First, local law number one proposed in

2025. Number one, public parks and trail systems. public parks and trail systems is currently in permitted use in all zoning districts in the town of Red Hook subject to site plan approval and additionally a special use permit in the waterfront conservation zoning district. The zoning amendments have been proposed to continue to permit this use but would remove the requirement of site plan approval in all districts and special permit approval in the WC waterfront conservation district. So Ted, if I could a if I could ask you to pause for a moment because I think this um question has come up and I'd like to answer the question. Um again, uh there's been an assertion that public parks were not allowed and all of a sudden the town is going to allow public parks within uh these districts. And very clear for the for the folks at home, I want to let you know that public parks have been allowed in all these zoning districts for decades. The recommendation is to remove the special permit requirement. It's not to shut out the planning board in the process. It would normally go through the planning board for a special permit, but um as a reminder, there's only one entity that doesn't have to follow zoning, and that is actually the municipality cuz it created the zoning. But more importantly, so you understand from a logistic and a practical standpoint, the reason that it can't be a special permit to establish parks is because there is only one entity and that is the legislative body who can negotiate. So you've heard me speak earlier about uh the acquisition of RK Park West in 2007. You've heard me speak about the Cookingham Farm project and uh you've heard me talk about um our proposed uh uh public private partnership with Bard

College when the UTS property was put up for sale. And many of you, by the way, called me to say, "Please put something together uh for the UTS property." The reason that it can't be subject to a special permit is because when you're negotiating, for example, with Bard College, I'll use this and I I I won't be uh divulging anything that uh uh Bard College would would uh be upset with. Um as they're trying to figure out where the trail should be, for example, um in the whether or not we can put together a project, where the conservation would be, where they would need expansion on that project. um only the town board can decide whether or not to move forward with an acquisition of an easement or uh with trail design and so on and so forth. you find yourself in this situation and I'm sure that you all uh uh would imagine uh this being the case that sometimes you have to act very quickly and we're fortunate that we have things like a CPF fund that give us the ability to act quickly in order to do uh these projects when um lands or communities or hamlets are threatened. And so um it would not be possible to negotiate with uh sellers of property if we then had to tell them it was subject to uh site plan review or subject to whatever we have to go ahead um and uh you know conduct these negotiations knowing that we can fulfill those negotiations. So I hope that's helpful for the public to understand why public parks cannot be subject to a special permit. Um, and I hope that uh when you're looking at some of those examples that I've quoted that you also find that it was important for us to act quickly in order to uh convey the public

purposes that we did in those acquisitions. So again, Ted, I apologize for the interruption, but people have asked questions and we want to uh to the best of our ability give answers to those questions. Okay. The second provision in local law number B uh pertains to cannabis sales. Uh under New York State's 2021 marijuana regulation and taxation act. Um the uh the acronym is is known as MRA. The town of Red Hook opted to permit cannabis retail facilities which are analogous to wine and liquor stores but not onsite consumption premises which are analogous to bars. While the use is considered a retail trade recent experience in other states that have regulated that have legalized cannabis have identified a number of unique characteristics to this land use. The state murder contains numerous provisions that affect local regulation of cannabis retail dispensaries identified in the proposed zoning amendments as cannabis retail facility that are different from most other retail uses including wine and liquor stores. This includes hours of operation, a minimum distance of 2,000 ft between cannabis retail dispensaries, a minimum distance of 200 feet to houses of worship, and a minimum distance of 500 ft to schools and public youth facilities. Other merchant rules govern such as outdoor lighting, security, odors, and signage requirements. Parking for cannabis dispensary uses has been shown in nationwide surveys by the Institute of Transportation Engineers to have greater demands than most other retail trades. Therefore, the town board has proposed that a cannabis retail facility be subject to issuance of a

special use permit by the planning board. The proposed conditions for this retail trade acknowledges the special characteristics of use and requires that new cannabis retail facility be approved conditioned on obtaining a special use permit based on adherence to such unique characteristics. As with most special uses, each must conform with both general and where specified special conditions to asssure the use is in harmony with the zoning law and will not adversely affect the neighborhood if the requirements are met. The proposal will allow new cannabis retail stores to be located in the HB and B2 zoning districts, which currently also permits wine and liquor stores. The TND commercial center subdist also permits wine and liquor stores as general retail business store or specialty shop. The zoning amendments proposed that the TND office industrial subdist would allow for the establishment of new cannabis retail facilities subject to special use permit approval by the planning board in compliance with the special conditions in the proposed new section 143-67. Many of Red Hook's proposed special conditions have been designed to comply with Murda and to allow for local enforcement of their potential negative effects. New cannabis retail facilities will be limited to a maximum gross floor area of 2,000 square ft. Outdoor displays would be prohibited. Suitable trash disdains would need to be cited away from any residential properties. The proposed new real rules for retail cannabis stores include proposed definitions for cannabis and cannabis retail dispensary. Number three, short-term rentals. The town of Redbug regulates short-term rentals, STRs,

uh, as they're also known, as an accessory use of single family dwellings through section 143-32.1 of the zoning law. All STRs require an operating permit from the zoning enforcement officer. There are four types of STRs in Red Hook. A farm stay farm stay STR. B hosted STR. C registered STR and D unhosted STR. The proposed amendments would add a clause to the subdefin of a farm stay STR that clarifies the purpose of such a set STR is for uh quote participating in or enjoying agricultural related activities end quote. Farms day STRs are only permitted in the agricultural business zoning district. A clarification of the Austrian parking and loading standards for STRs is also proposed. Number four, conservation option for the AB district. That's the Agricultural Business District. Amendments to section 143-39.1 of the zoning law that apply to the Agricultural Business District have been proposed. The current rules allow applicants three different options for new residential development in the AB district. One of the three options is the conservation option. The owner of a farm in the AB district is permitted a specific development density based upon the size of the farm. The proposed changes would allow for additional development density and this has been illustrated in the table below. The table has three columns in it. Um and it u there are three different categories uh that are based on the size of the farm and acreage. So, under a far a farm with under 40 acres, uh the existing rule would permit one dwelling unit

where the proposed rule would permit two dwelling units. For farms that are between 40 and 80 acres, the existing rule currently permits two dwelling units and the proposed rule would allow three dwelling units. And so for farms that are over 80 acres, the current pro uh rule permits three units where the proposed rule would permit four dwelling units. So a uh a small incremental change um in the allowance for um for residential units on the proposed changes to the conservation option would provide farmers with the right to build additional homes in a farmstead complex without the need to subdivide. This would benefit farmers who need to provide for their families and farm hands to provide for the farm's continued operations. Changes are also proposed for the second of the three options, the limited development option. This option currently allows density to be calculated at one dwelling unit per 10 acres. The amendments propose that the limited development option would allow one dwelling unit to be developed per 40 acres. Number five, traditional neighborhood district. In addition to the above proposed change to permit cannabis retail facilities in the TNB office industrial subd district, there are other changes proposed for the TND student district. These include a rule for the commercial center subd district that would clarify that on main commercial streets. Buildings must be designed for multiple uses. Retail service and office uses would only be permitted on the first floors of buildings on main commercial streets, side streets, or the rear of the building. and business professional and medical offices would only be allowed on the upper floors of mixed use buildings on main commercial streets, side

streets, or in the rear of the building. Six, non-conforming uses. The zoning amendments include clarification for changing a non-conforming use to another nonconforming use. The current rules allow a non-conforming use to be changed to another non-conforming use with the approval of the zoning board of appeals, the ZVA. The ZVA is currently empowered to determine whether the proposed change to another non-conforming use is the same or of a more restricted nature. The planning board is empowered to improve the changed use subject to site plan review and approval. The proposed change would not allow a non-conforming use to be changed to another nonconforming use. So Ted, if I could ask you to pause for a second on local law B, um with the exception of severing uh from uh certain portions of of what was local law one of 2025, are there any changes to uh uh the uh description or the language or the law that is referenced in those topics or is this literally a resubmission of those items uh that you just described?

Um you mean from local law number one? Exactly. Exactly right. Yeah. I don't see uh anywhere in 1 through six that there are any uh changes as local law 1 which was uh submitted for uh public uh input for several months and input from the planning board and the waterfront advisory committee. I'm not seeing any changes. Um

that's correct. And I I think that is because there was um there were none of the aspects related to cannabis to short-term rentals. Uh the AB district um the TND district or non-conforming uses that related to the vote club uh and the uh the court determination. Okay. And that's why they were um put into a separate local law.

Okay. So, we've heard about wanting to have public input into these laws and to be able to ask questions and answers. We did have several months. Um, it did uh was in front of the planning board, I believe, for a few meetings as well and we did get um responses from them then. Um, of course, anytime you look at something again for a second time, you know, you always find um more input. So we do want to take in that input and we also want to update um you know based upon things that have occurred since then. Okay. So uh a brief description of local law C please Ted if you would.

Okay. Um local law C. Um number one local waterfront revitalization the removal of marines from the district district schedule of use regulations. uh that is section 143-11 of the zoning law has been proposed. The use appears in the schedule under non-residential principal uses waterfront uses as a single row where marinas, boat clubs, docks and boat ramps are currently permitted in the WC uh LD and I districts. That's the waterfront conservation limited development hamlet and in um institutional districts. Subject to site plan and special use permit approvals from the town planning board. Local law number C of 2025 proposals is the elimination of marinas but retention of the remaining three uses. The addition of a proposed new rule in the district schedule abuse regulations indicates marinas will not be permitted in any zoning district in the town. Old clubs docks in both would continue to be allowed as a special permit use in WDH and I zoning districts subject to the special conditions found in section 143-107 of the zoning law. Ted, I'm going to ask you to pause again just because we've had some comments uh related to it. Um we had um suggestions that we for some reason aren't taking in the input of the uh committees uh that are formed to discuss these matters. Um the elimination of marinas came to the town board uh did not come from the town board. It came to the town board by the uh local waterfront revitalization

committee. Um you you worked with them as well, Ted, as part of that grant funded project. Um that recommendation came several years ago to eliminate uh marinas because the WRP called for uh removing commercialization of the river. We've heard about how it had a uh commercialized path. Um I would also like to add though I don't believe it's in uh your description that Judge Rosa did rule that the elimination of Marinas was consistent with the LWRP. Thank you. Uh Ted, if you would continue, please.

Okay. Um, number two, special permit standards. Section 143-107 sets forth standards for approval of the special permit for boat clubs, docks, and boat ramps. Amendments to this section include removal of the prior allowance for establishing marine pumpout facilities and marine fuel facilities, incorporating new storm water management requirements, incorporating the best management practices for maintaining water quality by avoiding runoff polluted with oils, grease, organic and inorganic waste and other potentially harmful substances from reaching the Hudson River. Conducting maintenance stretching so it doesn't increase sediment transport or interfere with fish and wildlife habitats. Est establishing special rules for use of preservative treated wood for peers, docks, and piles, including a prohibition on the use of creasso treated lumber, and permitting the moing of boats up to 40 ft long for up to 30 days, provided any state and federal permits are secured, and the boat is not used in sleeping quarters and prohibiting the moing of vessels more than 40 ft long within,500 ft of the shoreline. Okay.

Okay. Um on on one and two, Ted, I'm not seeing any changes from the law that was submitted back in 2024 that is being resubmitted now. Um are there any changes uh as you've described there? I know you're going to get to some changes in number three, but prior to number three uh no three is is where the primary change uh resides. Okay. Definitions.

Very good. And we did hear from the public especially people in Barry Town uh how they want us to protect the hamlet. Um and uh you know again these this is just resubmission of of laws um that were on the books but the elimination of fuel pumping stations and so on and so forth of course is protective of of Hudson River and the hamlet of Barry Town. You want to go to number three uh Ted cuz this is a change proposed.

Yes, this is the change. Um, and this was one of the ones that the court um made a determination uh that the definition of boat club uh contained a flaw that the court wanted to see removed. So, local number C of 2025 proposes to include a new definition of boat club by referring to an updated definition of claw. And I should explain that um I think because this might be confusing. Uh the the zoning law prior to the enactment of local law number one of 2025 contained a definition for club. And that definition included a phrase uh to the effect of um a boat club members would be dues paying members. Um um and the court objected to that. Um, and when local law number one of 2025 was um was enacted, the definition of boat club mirrored the definition of club with that phrase pertaining to bonafide dues paying members. Uh and so the new definitions include a the updated definition of a club that removes the language that the the court um was not in favor of. And so rather than um um repeating the definition of a boat club, it simply refers a boat club to the updated definition of club that no longer has that reference to bonafide dues paying members. Um and that is similar to um the definition of a membership club which also refers to the definition of club. Um there's two other

clubs that are found um within the table of uses for many uses in the town and that's a hunting club and a fishing club, but neither of those are defined in the um in the zoning law at the present time.

Okay. And and um two things to add to that. Um there was uh some discussion uh way back when uh during the formulation of local law. One uh concerns by the boat club uh that there would be a nonconforming uh grandfathered status. And uh we we thought we were being helpful by defining uh giving a definition to to boat club and and uh ensuring that it was um legally conforming as opposed to uh grandfathered non-conforming. And uh as it turns out, the definition that we chose, which was an extension, as you explained, of of club, uh was not something that the uh judge thought was uh permissible because it uh reference uh dues paying members. And I think that's a very good uh suggestion uh by the the judge to uh remove that language. And so, um, I I think, you know, we have to obviously in our resubmission make that change. I don't know that that's it would be worthy of resubmitting the law without uh taking the council of of the court,

right? Okay. Um, yeah. So, there's al So, there are also new definitions for a boat ramp, dock, and marina. uh have been included in local law number C of 2025 to clarify the parents intent in regulating those uses.

Yeah. So for instance, marinas uh in the um table of uses um if it's a permitted use there's a P. Um if it's subject to site plan approval there's an asterisk. Uh if it's subject to special use permit um there's also a SP next to it. But uses that are prohibited uh clearly the intent of the zoning uh is to permit uh is to prohibit certain uses. And so you'll find in a number of uses within the uh town zoning law X's in the uh columns that pertain to each of the um districts in the town where a specific use in this case a marina would be prohibited. And the table of uses that um was proposed for amendment um has X's across the board for all zoning districts in the town.

Okay.

Um and then uh let's see uh yeah and that is basically what what it says in the rest of of the um the narrative here. The addition of a proposed new law in the district's schedule use regulations indicates marinas will not be permitted in any zoning district in the town. docks and boat ramps would continue to be allowed as the special permit use in the WC LDH and I zoning districts subject to the special conditions found in section 143-107 of the zoning law. And that concludes the narrative description of the proposed action as it's um you know is to be assessed in the seeker and assessment form. Okay. All right. Uh, that description, uh, I think is helpful. The only one for cause change. May maybe we jump around for a moment and take a look at, um, the input that we received from the planning board um on their acting as waterfront advisory committee.

Robert, did you did you receive the comments? I don't see them in the packet that the um the planning board's general comments on local laws B and C as the planning board.

Um I will uh pull that up if we don't have it in the packet and we will read that um as part of our review. Um Let's while I'm searching cuz it's getting late. while I'm searching, maybe uh review uh the LWRP that was sent to us and I'll make sure to have those comments up and read them fully for consideration. Ted, do you want to go ahead and uh just isolate um the two additional inconsistencies that were uh identified by the planning board as part of their uh waterfront advisory committee role and I'll try to find the comments that not in the pack.

They're not in the packet. No, that's it. I believe they are in the package. Oh, they are in the pack. Okay. Um I I'll go ahead and read those. Um and I'll I'll try to scroll to the right page. I apologize if somebody knows the page number. Yeah. Um they are in the packet. Page 74 of the PDF. 74 the PDF. think of course I don't have page numbers when I don't

earlier on in the packet you know here we go thanks um thanks for Um 20 point out Jacob uh November 10th, 2025 planning board recommendations pursuant to 143 141 of the zoning law. The planning board has reviewed proposed local laws AB and C. Um I I did read this. Yeah, cuz I read the local law a part of it. Um the local law BNC, which is what we're discussing now, uh proposed revisions to zoning provisions uh related to public parks, cannabis, short-term rentals, AB district housing, TND office usage, wetlands, non-conforming uses and definitions of marinas, docks, and boat clubs. Uh planning board feels that several of the proposed changes are premature since the town board is currently developing a new comprehensive plan. However, other changes are pertinent to current developments in the town. Um, again, this is a resubmission of a law that was submitted well over a year and a half ago. Um, we are just once again taking advice of the court to uh resubmit and review with the acquisition of the boat club in our review. Um otherwise it will have been for not that we went through a multi-month process to refer and get input from the community on this local law.

Well, can I speak to the point about the comprehensive plan for a minute? Because I've heard comments like that, not necessarily related to a specific law, but like, oh, we're in the middle of a comprehensive plan process, so we should sort of stall everything that's happening in town. And um it's a process, right? We won't be done with the comprehensive plan until at least the end of 2026. And the plan is at this level. It does not um create itself specific zoning changes. That's a whole secondary process that we'll apply for funding for and do secondarily. So um zoning is iterative. I think that these are changes that we decided a year ago or more we thought were a good idea and we can certainly reopen some of these questions as the plan takes shape and we think about changes to zoning after the plan. But I don't think that it should push pause on any regulation in town from any time.

Thank you. And as it relates to we've talked a lot about LWRP, that committee that um has worked so diligently. I think it's year seven or something since we got that grant up the LWRP. So yes, sometimes you start off thinking you're going to update the comprehensive plan and the zoning that goes along with it and you hope that it's done in a year or two. uh but it could take multi multi-year. Um and a lot of these changes were in fact um feedback that we got from the community. Some folks uh as it relates to agricultural business district complained that we purchased a farm because we needed to in order to protect it. And you know we took a look at the protective measures um in our code and realized it really wasn't very protective of our our farmlands. And while we've protected a lot, you'll hear from some people, haven't we protected enough? The truth is we still have some real gems in our community, whether it's Craig Farm or the primary parcel of Northwind Farm or some wonderful farms on on Hman Hill Road, um that are are completely unprotected. And so, you know, if you have a density of one per 10 acres, Greg Farm is 40 houses. I don't I don't know that people want to see 40 houses on Greg Farm. At least that's not my experience with uh being out in the community, but you know that that could change in the future. Um we did say when we put this in the code that we we felt that um it was really it was really kind of challenging 2023 to protect um after all the work that we did these important parcels UTS um uh Cookingham Farm um uh recently the Hudson Valley uh Wool Company farm was put up for sale and so you know we we we can't just play waca-ole and and buy all

these parcels and then figure out um how to protect them. So uh and and we do have to act quickly. So we wanted more protective uh measures as it relates to preserving the farm and at the same time be responsive to the farmers who were saying, "Hey, my my farmland complex that I'm limited to where I can put my house, I can't even put a house for a family member. I can't even um you know accommodate future generations. And so we were trying to be responsive. Um we got positive feedback um on on uh that aspect of of the law as well.

And I just want to point out that part of my support for that was that we're doing a comprehensive plan. And this is to me was a um a short-term protective measure until that's completed. I viewed like the farm density, you know, we have a number of unprotected farms. Um, and the comp plan process is about deciding for the future how the town should look. And so in the short term, this is a way to help protect some of those gems of farms that we have um until that gets sorted out. And it may very well be that the town ultimately will decide that it should have, you know, less dense. I don't I don't know. But I think that for now, while this process plays out, some of these measures are really um protective short-term protective measures until that's concluded. So, you know, that was part of the reason I was supportive of some of those measures.

Okay. Uh let's get to the recommendations which were local law B. The planning board has the following questions and or recommends the following changes. um section 5C of subsection offices including business professional medical located only on upper floors and mixeduse buildings or main commercial streets on side streets or in back buildings or the rear of a building. This requirement is overly restrictive and could create economic hardships for building owners and inconsistencies with the TND's intent to promote commercial establishments at street level. The planning board recommends this requirement be uh removed entirely. This was not feedback that was part of the original law submission. Um I think it's worthy of uh much more extensive conversation. Um I will just quickly uh tell you that of the recommendations I I am supportive of some of the recommendations. This one, however, I'm not at all supportive of um for the traditional neighborhood district was uh designed and a lot of work uh that went into it um was to create a retail experience um in this traditional neighborhood. There's a commercial corridor and then there's the housing to support those businesses. We've gone a long way towards creating the housing. In fact, that project is is uh uh wrapping up uh likely in the summer to support the businesses. We don't have a lot of retail along the corridor right now. Um I think the American Planning Association and other organizations would agree that it's all sort of sight specific in context. If you have a lot of class, if you will, in a community where you have a lot of retail, it probably doesn't injure the experience. if you have, you know, uh, an accountant, uh, you know, once once in a block or an attorney, uh, in a in an ensuing block or

whatever, but we don't have that retail experience yet. And so that's what we're we're going to a lot of trouble, expense, and effort to provide infrastructure. And so it's all designed on foot traffic. and foot traffic as I'm sure I don't need to tell you the foot traffic the difference between uh holy cow um that's located in the TND and let me choose a a village uh professional Delaware engineering uh occupies glass in the village and we know and and like the folks uh that work at Del Delaware engineering but I think you'll all agree that the foot traffic between the two institutions are very different so when we can create the experience and fulfill the vision that was created over a decade ago within the TND, then I think we can start to look and maybe loosen up um perhaps uh on those uh uh this recommendation. But until such time as we upgrade that experience, I I don't think it's appropriate to entertain um this proposed change. Okay. Um, the next change uh that is recommended is the proposed change to the district schedule of use regulations limit on the screen.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Uh um the proposed change to the district schedule of use regulation limits docks and boat ramps to WC LDH and I zones. Ted, are you with us though?

Yes, I am. Is this intended to also eliminate docks and boat ramps from all ponds, lakes, and streams outside those districts? Eg the Sock Hill, Cookingham Pond, uh LLB, Luc. Oh, sorry. Um, okay. And now the WC, the WC is not just the waterfront, the the riverfront, right? I think there's confusion there cuz the WC as described in our zoning district also talks about 100 ft within the banks of uh the SEL and its tributaries. Is that correct? Sorry to put you on the spot there.

Uh yes, I believe that's that's correct.

Okay. So as far as the regulations as it uh pertains to the sawill um then it would it would allow for docks and programs and I you know this is why all these definitions are kind of important um and I think that you know as we do uh update our zoning we should take a look at the difference what's the difference between for example a dock and a boat dock or a boat ram and maybe very well appropriate to have a boat uh dock, let's say, on Spring Lake, although I'm not sure that uh you know, some of the folks on Spring Lake who own properties want to hear motorboats there. Um I think that would be something we would really want to study. Um I think we'd want to get input from uh folks in that area um to see whether or not they would do that. But a small little uh dock for a kayak or something in a pond certainly seems reasonable. Um Ted, is that prohibited uh now uh as this law that was proposed some time ago?

Yeah, let me get to the um definition. We'll get back to you on that. I got to scroll through here.

Okay. All right, we'll skip we'll skip over that and we'll get to the next recommendation from the planning board if you will. LLB loosens the requirements for creating public parks and trail systems. I think we explained the rationale for that is because the town board is the only one that can negotiate. Um, specifically like I think I quoted the Cookingham uh we discussed with uh both sides of the Cookingham family what they wanted for their property. We were in contest with others who desired that property. Uh for your benefit, we thought it would be helpful if we acquired and protected those farmlands. Um we inquired whether or not trails would be appropriate. We uh proposed that the trails go where existing farm lanes were um and negotiated that um with the sellers of uh of that property. When it came time for uh designating 12 acres of the east side of uh the property with the Cookingham family, we discussed with them before they agreed to sell to the town and we gave them a rough outline of the plan um and uh of the parcel uh before they agreed to sell the land to the town so that we could effectuate all of these public purposes. to protect the Red Hook Gateway and as Julia has referenced, it's become a project. Um, again, had we needed to go back and forth to uh the planning board, um, the engineering, the environmental review, and and all of the above, we never would have. We had very limited time to we had a matter of weeks with the UTS property. We had a matter of maybe two months with the Cookingham Farm. Otherwise, uh those those community assets were going to be

sold to the highest bidder. Um 143-107, how does one determine adequate water supply and restroom facilities? The board recommends just saying that water supply and restroom facilities complies with DO standards. Ted, do you have some thought on that? I'm sorry. I was just You were looking over the stuff. All right. Well, I'm I'm reading the doc definition right now.

Okay. Why don't you go ahead and do that? I'll come we'll come back to this issue. Um, I do want to say there was a lot of conversation uh tonight about well clearly you're going to make changes to the property and clearly um you know you you you must make changes to the property and you intend to make uh changes to the property. Folks, I would recommend all of you go visit the area boat launches. These boat launches that are all public, some are owned by the municipality, some are owned by uh the DEC operated, they are nowhere near ready for public park as this property is. Okay. So when you suggest that we are going to uh take action or not, I would just suggest you go visit to compare. Go to Slitsburg. Slitsburg over on the other side of river scenic Hudson. um I think helped uh get that. That's a narrow little road, dirt roadway that goes through a hamlet that arrives uh on the Is it the stair where you look from the restaurants and and Kingston?

The round out. That's what I meant. Thank you. The round out and you look diagonally at the restaurants over there. Um, you know, again to go back to it, we purchased and negotiated the acquisition from the Murelli uh Leone uh owners uh Recre Park West. Years later, years later, a plan was uh developed. So, the environmental review was for the acquisition. And I would like to add that the planning board doesn't review acquisition projects. And so it is unusual to refer to uh the planning board the action that is an acquisition of something. We have stated I don't know how many times that we have no plans um to uh make changes uh to the property. We have told you that we think we are going to have it staffed. We have told you that we think that we are going to have it be sunrise to sun down. We have told you that we are not going to expand the property that our environmental review um is uh confined to the capacity of the park and Ted has done some work to analyze what the implications of uh full utilization of that park would be so that we could in our environmental review uh take a look at that. I would like to also say you have been here at many meetings where uh book club members have stood up and said you need to come here. You need to see this property. We want to show you why it's unsafe. I I want to tell you that I have requested a visit to hear what those concerns are and we have been denied the

town board to go to the property to review that and to uh uh see how um you know uh the the concerns or or or to take a look at specific uh things with the property. So when folks say to you um you know you haven't done a complete analysis, we've done as best as we can given that many of us uh have been to the property at least a couple of times. Um we do have visual aids. Um we we have inquired with uh uh boat uh club members. Um here we go. And uh also with with others associated with the facility. So, um, just wanted to get get that out of the way as well. Um, 143, uh,-107D, the proposed ordinance does not define a pier, but it sets standards for them in this section. So, Ted, there again, we have another term without a definition. And I I would say for the public, you know, uh one of the things that we need to do and maybe technology can help us is uh speaking of searchable, I think Christine mentioned uh uh searchable. Christina, thank you. Uh that's very important as I think we need to do like a full scrub if you will of the zoning code um to make sure that we at least um when we feel we need to have definitions for all of these terms um and and we are are trying to uh endeavor to do so.

Ted, did you want to come back to us with anything with Doc?

Uh sure. And and to that I can al to what you just said I can also add that generally and and more the case with uh red zoning definitions when a term that's used in the zoning is not specifically defined in the zoning the um the rule of thumb is to rely on a standard uh dictionary definition for instance web service uh uh and you know some of the other uh dictionaries that are out there and in uh land use. And so um to the extent though that a zoning regulation um wants to nuance a particular definition that may make a particular term unique to bad zoning law, that's when um the definitions come into play. and and I do have the doc definition now and it's pretty it's pretty inclusive. It means a floating or fixed structure that extends horizontally parentheses parallel with a water surface and print into or over a lake, pond, or navigable river or stream from only that portion of the immediate shoreline or boat house necessary to attach the floating or fixed structure to the shoreline or boat house. and is built or used for the purposes of securing and or loading or unloading watercraft andor for swimming or water recreations.

Okay. I think their recommendation is that uh their uh input is that it's now only allowed in certain districts. Um I think now that we've clarified at least for them that the WC includes the softell that maybe addresses that one part of it but um what what say you as it relates to the other zoning districts and whether docks um are allowed in those districts currently?

Well, I think it the term was initially um uh intended for uh the Hudson. Um, Red Hook doesn't have I I don't believe has any other streams that would um would lend itself necessarily to a dock. There may be some parts of the sawill uh that could, but um that would probably be things um uh you know if if there were any uh ponds or lakes that uh existed in other districts, right? Yeah. Um, like Silver Lake. Silver Lake or Spring Lake, you mean?

I'm sorry. Uh, Spring Lake. Spring Lake. Yeah. Um, there are docks on Spring Lake, right? Um, well, of course, anything that's in existence would be would be pre-existing, right? I mean, it seems like a reasonable recommendation to me uh that they be included in in those types of situations. I guess, you know, absent that, um,

if it's if it's 10 by 10 or less, uh, Ted, I know we don't need a permit for it. Does that also mean it's permissible? Um there's there's no specifications for size within the definition and unless there's something else in the zoning and I off the top of my head I can't think of anything else that's in there that uh would specify a um you know a minimum or a maximum size of that.

Right. But my question is um you know folks don't need to come in if you're not familiar with it. Um there is a size requirement to a structure where you need a building permit um at least in our code which is a 10 by 10 by 10. That makes sense. Yeah. So the question would be would a 9x9 dock for example be permissible at spring electric as an example? I think we'd have to go and and do further analysis on that. All right. Um, sorry Roxan as they put

what what if a person wants to put a big pond on his property, you know, dig it out and have a pond. Okay. It's not rel this is not related to excavation or ponds or anything like we're just simply talking about the dock. I know, but the dock into a pond that you

the pond that you you you have built. Yeah. I mean, I I think the question is whether or not uh this recommendation is something we should take up. I'm not necessarily advocating we take up now, but I do think that this is a good recommendation to look at ponds to make sure that um on on the other hand, we do have to be careful because, you know, the folks at in the Spring Lake area, you know, we we might want to look at um some thresholds. So, so given the hour, I know it's getting late. Other items we still have to get to, right? So,

okay, we'll we'll we'll come back to this. We'll come back to this and I think it's going to have to be a subject of a future zoning, but I do think it is a good recommendation from the planning board. That's just my local law C. The legislative intent is inadequate and clear. Can we come back to all of this? Oh, all of this. I'd like to get through just the planning board input if we could for tonight and then we can uh reorg the reorg after that and we'll be done before 12. Can we do that? I know you're tired. We do. Are you want to table the rest? Okay. I want to table this and the rest.

The rest. Okay. So, that's fine. But if we what if we want changes to the law, you know, then we won't be able to No, I think we'll have to uh No, if we want changes to the law, then, you know, unfortunately, we're we're going to have to uh republish the law. Um I again, this is a resubmission of the law. I just feel like if we if we go ahead and we make changes to it, you know, we have a court ordered. Um I know I I do, believe me, I appreciate the planning board's comments. They spent a lot of time on on the comments. Um you know, but

we don't have the time right now to dig into them and as we have done a couple and we've said she's going to take a lot more research and take more time. So I just don't think we can give them substantive attention and as you're pointing out perhaps this is not the right time to be addressing some making the change. Yeah. Okay. Fine. But I do want to incorporate them you know make sure that we take into account before we go ahead and take any action on a future date. um because it's important that um even though it's the same law with minor change minor change in the definition and it includes the acquisition um I think it's important that we take into account all right um we will table the rest of the comments and the rest of the referral from the planning board and water advisory committee as suggested by council person Kaine. Um let's just jump to uh reorb shall we? Um and that is to populate climate smart committee. Who wants to read it? Who's got it in front of them?

I do. Okay. So for 1119 2025, the climate smart committee members Lori Houston, Dennis Colette, Jim Bradle, Jen Kavanagh, and Jonathan Brady who's the CSC coordinator. Okay. So um who would like to make that motion? Who would like to make that motion to appoint named individuals to the client communities? Okay. with uh Jonathan with Jonathan as the coordinator of the as the CSC coordinator. That's the terminology we need to use. Yes. Um okay. There's a motion by council member Tesa. Is there a second?

I'll second. Thank you, Council Member Solomon. Any further discussion? Um, and this is a basically a one-year term. It's a task force and we'll just free up if they need more than a year. Okay. I'll just add that I think that they are in coordination with both the CSC effort at the village and the natural resources. Yeah. But there's a lot of energy towards this this project, right? Okay. Very good. Um, all in favor? I. Okay. We're going to dispense with reading of the department board.

Uh I thought we had I just knew there was the discussion. I just want to make sure that we Yeah.

Um we're going to dispense with the reading of the reports. They are available on the town website. The agenda the whole packet is there available for review. Um and uh again want to encourage everybody. We heard a lot of discussion about oh you can't find the law or you can't find this. Want to encourage people please please sign up for notifications. It's very easy to ignore an email and we it's devised so that it can be brought to you. Your government can be brought to you. Um so please sign up for notifications. You can just look at the very first sheet which is the agenda and then decide whether or not you want to do a deep dive into that. That's that's one of the best ways that we can uh provide you with the information. You know, sometimes you know that you're interested in something and you want to inquire uh with the town clerk's office or go to the website and uh you know, I thank you for the recommendations on how to make the website um more user friendly and and we will we've already discussed the recommendation we heard tonight previous to tonight's meeting. Um, but it's just a lot easier for us to send it to you and then you decide um at that time what you're interested in getting more information. Okay, with that being said, thank you very much for uh coming this evening. I want to thank you all for your input. I know this is a very uh difficult time in a difficult situation. Um you've heard me say and you've heard the board say that we hope that there can be um a solution to um a waterfront access. Um we requested meetings uh of the vote club who

approached us ironically enough and um we uh continue to um negotiate and hopefully we can come up with a plan that works for everyone. Uh with that being said um I'd like to uh entertain a motion to go into attorney client. Is there a second? Thank you Christine. All in favor, Jacob. I good night everyone. Thank you for coming. Um, have a happy holiday and a safe holiday. And a safe holiday.