(1) Town Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the Red Hook Town Board meeting of Tuesday, December 9th, 2025. Would you be kind enough to join me in the pledge of allegiance, please? I pledge allegiance 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 all very much. Folks at home, if you'd be kind enough to pan to the screen. Good idea. So that folks can see uh what we'll be discussing tonight. Santa. Apologize. I'm going to adjust this just a little bit so the people in the audience can see

I think the sign was better the way it was. Yeah.

So, uh tonight we are uh it's the first meeting of the month. We'll be doing the supervisor's report, clerk's report, a couple of announcements, some public comments. Uh we have a continued public hearing on local law BNC. And as a reminder for the folks at home, this is a resubmission of local law 1 of 2025 based upon a court decision. Um we told the public we might uh though we have voted to appeal the decision um we might uh just as well resubmit. It might be easier to do so and cheaper to do so and then uh comply with uh the direction of the court uh as it relates to uh the seeker review. Uh we have on the agenda some resolutions to approve the 2026 police services agreement. Uh resolution to set the public hearing amended 2026 TI fire contract. Uh we'll be increasing the capital amount to help uh pay for the debt that they will incur uh for their expansion project. um a resolution to set public hearing on water tank rehabilitation. If you are a customer in the water district, um the water board has determined that it's time to repaint the tank and so uh we are um going to set up a public hearing as it relates to that. We will be discussing with our highway superintendent uh projected uh uh paving and capital projects for 2026. Uh looking at approving a contract for communication equipment as it relates to the water tank. Um we'll just introduce the employee benefit package healthc

care plan options for 2026. We'll be taking action uh sometime in January on that. uh review local laws B and C and um we uh will have a home rule request to our uh state senator and assemblyman uh person to uh extend the CPF for another uh 25 years and then uh any other business um at the end of that. Uh with that being said, let's jump right in uh to the supervisor's report. Again, this is a snapshot of the financial condition of your municipality in any given moment. This is for uh the period ending November 30th. We started with an opening balance of 9.5 million roughly. We had receipts of 987,000, dispersements of 1 177,000 with an ending balance of $9,32,000. We have your variance report. Uh council members, if you have any questions on that, the uh proposed budget adjustments by our bookkeeper and Conway. You want to take a few moments if there's any questions you have?

Anything? If not, uh would somebody like to make a motion to approve the supervisor's report? Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. We also have uh the clerk's report. Kind enough.

Town clerk's report for November 2025. We served 127 people at the window. We um took in 151 phone calls and we did 78 notaries. Um the report for the period of November 1st through ne November 30th 25 total local shares remitted to the town $6,684.25 amount paid to New York State Agriculture and Markets for spay and neuter program 15 amount paid to New York State Department of Health for marriage licenses $67.50 amount paid to New York State Environmental Conservation for Hunting and Fishing License $475. Total state, county, and local revenues $7,242. And then there are um um abstract um

vouchers. Yeah. Vouchers. I hereby certify that vouchers numbered 34131 to 34235 totaling $551,849.85 processed in the month of November 2025 are an accurate reporting of the abstracts approved for payment by the town board. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, is there a motion to accept the uh clerk's report? Sec. Thank you, Jacob. All in favor?

I thank you. Um, a couple of quick announcements. I think when I first started as supervisor, I would list um some of our members in the community that we lost. Um I think we did it for a couple of years and then it became somewhat problematic because it was hard to uh make sure that we covered everyone. Um but I did want to take a moment to uh just let you know if you don't already know that um uh Dr. George Verill did pass uh a few days ago. George was instrumental, determined, um and generous enough to provide uh us with the community center. Um something we did not have uh previously until we had the vision for it. And um it's been a really great example of one of the many we keep talking about public private partnerships. Um folks may not realize that the town provides funding for a lot of those programs and those programs uh range uh the people who participate in those programs uh range um many age groups. Um and so it's a a true loss. Um Dr. really if you knew him well, you know, he had two passions, his community um assisting with births as he like to refer to it and cars and his passion for cars allowed him to collect and to uh have the resources to donate the community center um to us. So, a big loss there, but such a legacy that he left. The uh other announcement uh we have is we want to let you know we're just a couple of days away now from folks uh

enrolling in the Cookingham community solar project. Um you will be receiving a letter. Um it will have the town seal on it. It will have uh my name and signature on it so there won't be any confusion to you whether or not it's a solicitation. Um, I know that we often get junk mail on this. Um, if you've been following along for the last couple of years, we've been talking about this aspect of the Cookingham uh farm uh on a few acres that were formerly mined nearly a century ago. We have our second community solar project. Um, there's information that will be sent to you, some frequently asked questions, and the way for you to enroll. We do want to let you know that there's only capacity for about 80 or 90 households. So, it is on a first come, first serve basis. um you are uh guaranteed to have uh 10% savings um off of what you would uh otherwise uh pay uh for your central Hudson. It's kilowatt to kowatt credit and we get 10% uh savings on that. This is not going to provide the kind of savings that uh currently exist with the first project because that pricing was done before energy prices escalated dramatically. So, if you're wondering if you should switch from that to this, um, while you need to do you, I would caution you, uh, to to not switch over, um, until you do that. Okay. Um, those are the only two announcements I have. I want to thank everybody who participated and helped a lot of the winter fest festivities uh, both in Red Hook Village and, uh,

Tivoli. And this is your public service reminder to please during this time when you're going out and buying gifts, support their local businesses so that we see them again in the new year. Any other announcements? No. Okay. Very good. Uh with that being said, and apologies for running a little bit late uh tonight. Um we have a continuation of the public hearing. It's related to uh local law B proposed and local law C proposed of 2025. We want you to uh express everything you'd like to express with a reminder. However, for the public at home, we are resubmitting because a court told us though we are uh not in agreement that we should do the review again and incorporate something that was contemplated afterwards but recently after the passage of it. And so we're doing that in compliance uh with the request. This will have no bearing on the action that was taken in July. That was a separate environmental review that's concluded. The decision related to that has concluded. This has bearing on whether or not we pass uh we pass a resubmission of essentially what was local law one. And there are two changes. One is a small change in definition and one is environmental review incorporating what later happened which is the acquisition action. Okay. With that being said, could you read the public hearing notice, Dana, please?

Notice of public hearing. Town of Red Hook. Please take notice that ex that extended and concurrent public hearings will be held by the town board of the town of Red Hook on December 9th, 2025 at 7:35 p.m. local time at the town hall 7340 South Broadway, Red Hook, New York. To hear all interested persons on the following proposed local laws 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 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 actions as type one action and declared its intent to serve as lead agency for the matters. All interested persons will be given an opportunity be to be heard at said hearing. All reasonable accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities. In such a case, please notify the town clerk. Please take further notice that copies of said proposed local laws are available for review at the town hall, 7340 South Broadway, Red Hook, New York, or online at the link provided by order of the town board of the town of Red Hook, dated November 19th, 2025, Deanna Cochran, Town Clerk, Town of Red Hook.

Very good. At this time, I would like to make a motion to open the continued public hearing. Is there a second? Second.

All in favor? by I and just a reminder folks um set many years before our time there is a 3minut uh limit. It's not designed to keep your comments brief. It's designed to ensure that we can both hear from people and conduct our business. As you saw at the last meeting, we were here till midnight. So, uh that is the reason for a time limit. We continue to encourage you to put everything in writing because obviously that can exceed 3 minutes. Okay. With that being said, uh, who would like to speak at the continued public hearing? Don't be shy. Okay. Linda,

Linda, I think you you have your hand up. Sure. Okay. I'll go first. If you'd be kind enough to say your name. Thank you. Does anyone else want to go before me? No. Take the stage.

Um, Linda Cassidy, 211 Barry Town Road. I'm not really quite sure where to start tonight. So, I've been doing some research on local law. A a little bit of research, I must add. It's I mean, local law C rather. It's um, you know, it's a ploy. You make it sound sort of reasonable in your description of it, but it's a ploy designed to sidestep judge Ros's ruling nullification of local law one. That strikes me as being or I think is going to strike the judge as being unethical and illegal and will probably be thrown out and we'll probably end up in court again over it. So my question to you is very much the same as what I asked the board members last time. Why are you continuing to go along with this? Everything that we've been seeing in this process ever since last February is riddled with underhanded political maneuvering that maybe is illegal, maybe it's not. It's always shading right on the very edge of the law. But you, all four of you have it in your power to stop this. You are enabling this behavior. It's not ethical. It's not being received by the community as being ethical. And by the way, these people who sit in front of you now, who we keep saying night after night, week after week, these people are your constituents. As much as any of those invisible people that you keep saying are in support of eminent domain, but why don't we count as much as the invisible ones count?

I want to say to you, Mr. Hamilton, I respected what you said during the summer in your comments about James Madison when you were talking about imminent domain, but I would like to quote to you Thomas Jefferson who said, "The entire art of government consists in the art of being honest. None of this is honest. These laws are not honest. The process has not been honest. The way in which you interface with the community is not honest." Miss Solomon, I feel that your heart is in the right place. However, I feel that your continued cooperation here undermines the other good efforts that you're making. Mrs. Kaine, I feel that you have done so much for the community over the years. Why go out on this note? This is a tainted project. No one wants it. No one except maybe some associates of the people sitting behind that desk. Why continue to add the fuel to this fire? Mr. Ta, when you were kind enough to speak to me over the summer, I truly believed that your heart is in the right place as well and you told me about how you enjoy going to meetings um to talk about with your colleagues to talk about good government practice. How would you be able to explain these maneuverings and justify these practices, justify the way in which these constituents are being treated, the Barrytown community is being treated? How do you justify it to yourselves? None of it is right. We, the people of Barittown, the people of Red Hook, the people of Tibi, the people who are your true constituents, feel disrespected, disregarded, and you continue to trample over us in pursuit of some quicksotic gain of your own. So, I'm appealing to you four board members. Please put an end to this. Please vote no on these proposals. Please rescend your votes, your positive vote on eminent domain and

please let's begin a true conversation, a true dialogue with the community that may lead then to positive outcomes for all. Thank you. Thank you.

Nancy Nancy Rogers 7659 North Broadway. I just want a short comment before I I comment on the proposed laws. My home's backyard is literally Cookingham Farm West is where I can view the unattractive construction of the solar panels that I was told I would probably not see from my house. So, I took a picture. I will give it to you after I finish reading. Since the true intent of these proposed laws is obvious to everyone here and most of the public, let's talk about money. On November 19th, John Douglas shared that Robert was very clear at the April meeting at Bard that he has $3 million available for purchase of the boat club. Where is the three million coming from? An unappropriated fund balance of that amount against a budget of about 6 million or maybe it's 9 million now certainly raise red flags. We know there is approximately 3.5 million in the community preservation fund, but that cannot be used for a purchase. So, were you being truthful in April or just boastful? Jacob, Bill, do you know where the 3 million is? You both voted to go ahead with eminent domain. So, I hope you know how it will be paid for. You also continue to claim that no work will be done on the property. On November 19th, Robert recommended that everyone go visit the public boat launches in the area. And you can see that they are nowhere near as ready for a public park as the boat club property. But those sites are launches meant only to provide access to the water for boating and apples to oranges comparison. But you know that again, lip service versus reality. Parks have broader regulations, recreational uses. At minimum, you need a plan to identify barriers to and schedule structural changes for ADA compliance, not to mention other safety measures that have been stated to the board many times. It is unlikely that the town's

insurance carrier would agree that no work is needed as the liability issues are magnified in a riverfront setting. The truth is there are costs beyond the acquisition being withheld from the public. Add these to the taking the property off the tax roles and the planned staffing. Factchecking everything we are told and keeping up with your changing stories is exhausting. Even you can't keep your stories straight anymore. Thank you.

Anyone else? Yes. Roland, if you'd be kind enough just to say your name and the microphone, please.

Roland Page, 56 year resident. Mr. Supervisor, I want to start with quoting you from the daily catch. I am determined to do the very best for this community. I feel like my role is to help assist in bringing consensus. You come you come up with something that is a compromise that works for the community. That's directly from you, Mr. Supervisor. You have previously represented yourself as a facilitator on a daily catch interview. I paraphrase the facts of your claiming appear to be artificial artificial facilitator appear to be untrue. It is also appears that your actions there here are what taken in deceitful manner of favoring the town's yet undisclosed plan. as you intentionally enacted this law knowing that you were going to take the red boat club by imminent domain without discussing that with with a boat club or the general public. It would appear that this is a malicious act to deprive the red boat club of what is rightfully theirs. These acts are not those of a facilitator but a dictator.

Look at me when I tell you that. Thank you. I'm thinking that if you were honestly trying to arrive at a compromise for the for a public private public agreement with the Reddit book club recast yourself as a facilitator that you alleged to be. Remember the whole town and local area is watching.

THANK YOU MR. Ronald Reinders, Norton Road. The November 19th public hearing, I asked that the board had brought the CSX deed restrictions on Doc Road to the attention of any of the attorneys being paid for by the town. Certainly wasn't brought up at any public meeting. So, the community would be aware of significant barrier to creating a Riverside Park. Pretty sure this has not been addressed and I wonder why. One theory is you have no intention of creating a public park by the river. You aren't concerned about deed restrictions. Have you reached out to let's say Miss Harper Properties and Boundaries of CSX? I know you haven't. You aren't concerned about deed restrictions. You are concerned about traffic issues. you are concerned about the safety and accessibility issues. You you have said many times that no changes are planned for the property. Let's not forget if the town acquires the property, you could sell it later with the approval of the New York State Legislature. As a matter of fact, possibility of selling the property down the road was the only comment that got a reaction from Robert at the May 16th public hearing. You know,

it wouldn't be as hard as you want people to believe because we all know Robert has been smoozing folks in Albany for years. No, it wouldn't be hard at all. Maybe another 8:30 morning meeting before the town hall opens at 9:00 for a closing on another property. I can foresee that. The deed states the premises may be used for parking only by the trust or a similar not for-profit organization. Well, the town is not a not for-profit. Nearby Bar College is 501c3 organization. Is that your plan? Take the property and later say it's too expensive to improve staff, etc.

And make that the basis for a sale with a ready and willing buyer.

Just throwing that out there for the public to chew on. It certainly would explain Jacob's support, Bart, as his employer. It would also explain Robert's determination to grab this property. He may already have a deal in place for when his term ends. He knows he'll never be elected again. And if not barred, maybe it's someone else waiting in the wings. If something doesn't feel right, it probably isn't. This eminent domain push never felt right. You're fighting too hard to make this happen despite all the opposition. And that tells us somebody wants that property much more than a resident right 61 Jefferson Road Hook. At the last meeting, I said this crusade defies logic and it seems there's no one professionally, personally, family or friends from whom you take advice. That's actually pretty sad because I'm sure some of them have tried. So clearly there is something else at play here, something calculated. The public hearing is still open yet strategically placed near the end of the agenda and listed as a discussion are the resolutions to adopt local laws BNC. That tells us that the hearings are a charade. You have no intention of considering comments and you already have your votes. No doubt Bill and Jacob will join Robert in voting I. You don't even pretend anymore to care what the public thinks and there simply is no shame. Maybe some of you don't intend to be here long to stick around to see if the damage you do can be repaired. And this is just a stop on the way to the next town or the next job or getting back to your home state. One of you drives a car without a state plate. So maybe I'm not

far off. We've heard the lies, listened to the self- congratulatory speeches, and seen the stone cold stairs when we ask critical questions. Robert only responds after public comments, so he can't be challenged or corrected, and the rest of you simply defer. Confident leaders surround themselves with those that disagree in debate, while insecure and narcissistic leaders seek acquiescence. None of you are handpicked to disagree. Group think results group think results in poor decisions. And here we are staring directly into what is arguably the poorest decision ever proposed, let alone supported by any Red Hooktown board. So, Robert, look into that camera and tell the one person who may still believe you how it is you've spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars at St. Margaret's located next to an ice cream shop, but you don't intend to do any safety, sanitary, or ADA compliance upgrades along the river.

It just doesn't add up. A quick Google search that took less time than Robert needed last at the meeting to bring up the local laws on the town website shows that the US District Court has scheduled a conference call between all parties for December 18th. Yet, in a stunning lack of moral conviction, none of you had the courage to say maybe we should take a beat, slow this down, and not embroil the town further litigation and get through the next step. None of you. The attorneys must have their heads in their hands wondering how much deeper you're going to dig this hole. Or they have a calculator out figuring out their next invoice. After all, this farce has been a cash cow for them.

This house of cards will fall and you will all forever be linked to the most unpopular action ever taken. Great work. Thank you,

Linda. kind enough to state your name for the record, please.

Linda Stoddard. Robert, at the November 19th meeting, you said that public hearings are for soliciting input. Please be honest and admit you are only holding them because you have to. This board has long ignored community input before, during, and after public hearings. In 2021, there was overwhelming opposition to proposed law local law G regarding short-term rentals. The public hearing on local law G continued over three meetings at a time when the town hall was still closed to the public due to COVID. And many who hosted short-term rentals relied heavily on the extra income. Despite what you heard from the community members, Robert, Bill, Jacob, and Christine all voted to adop to adopt local law G, which became local law 6 of 2021. Julia was not on the board at that time. The message then, as it still is now, is that you are rushing the process and the time was not right. But nothing then or now seems to resonate with any of you. 76 people spoke at the May 16th public hearing regarding eminent domain, all in opposition. Hundreds also sent letters and statements or signed petitions in opposition. Only eight people expressed support in written statements. This board ignored that input. You all came with prepared statements to the July 15 vote on eminent domain, further indicating you had no intention of considering public comments or input. Your minds were already made up or possibly you had been directed on how to vote, likely well in advance of the May public hearing. And now again, you have members of the public telling you the

process is rushed since a new LWRP has yet to be approved or receive feedback from the Department of State and a new comprehensive plan is in the works. As in your pattern, that input is ignored. Two things are exceedingly clear here. There is no independent thought among board members and you have contempt for your constituents. Robert has an excuse for everything and the rest of you rarely say a word. When you view your constituents as a bother and the public hearings as something to be endured, it's time to step aside and allow people who are truly interested in public service and listening to serve this community. Thank you.

You'd be kind enough to All right. You want to let Rosang go first?

Susan, 124 Station Hill Road, Berry Town, New York. At the last minute, we presented a thermometer poster showing the known legal and planning costs tied to this eminent domain action. It is now updated with the most recent foil documents, which still do not include November or December invoices. The earlier estimate was unfortunately accurate. The town has already spent approximately 225,000 with more invoices still outstanding. The new estimate is 275,000. On November 19th, Supervisor McKeon stated repeatedly that the board is working to reduce legal fees while simultaneously making clear that an appeal of Judge Ros's decision remains on the table if the proposed local laws are not adopted. This public hearing feels like an exercise in futility. The community has been consistent and overwhelming in its opposition, yet the outcome appears predetermined. Should you pass local laws B and C this evening, it will simply be one more instance in which the expressed will of the people you were elected to serve has been overridden. The five of you bear direct responsibility for every dollar already spent, plus ongoing in expenses. money that could have supported our police and fire departments and real needs that exist in our community, not for a quote park the majority of the community has repeatedly said it neither needs nor wants. On top of that, you have not provided the crucial financial information required for any potential purchase of property, source of funds, cost of acquisition, renovation cost to bring a New York State park in full ADA

compliance, and ongoing maintenance costs. As citizens of Red Hook, we deserve to know the full taxpayer burden. Many see this as corrupt, disreputable politics at its worst. raw power used to force an outcome the public has already rejected. When land that has served veterans and working families for generations can be taken without a real itemized plan, without honest justification, and without public support. Every homeowner in Red Hook should feel a chill. If this can happen to the boat club at the bottom of the hill, it can happen to any one of us anywhere in this town. I urge you, even at this late hour, to reconsider this course, resend your votes, drop the appeal, and redirect your energy toward the priorities of the community. Thank you. Yeah. Hi again, Jeff Carter, right, New York in the United States of America. Um, I just want to look at your faces for a second. Okay? I want you to understand that we understand the principles that the nation was founded on. Okay? We all know the history of America. A question I would have, why not take this land and give it to the indigenous people that used to live here instead of the town? Okay, have you thought about that? I also want to approach these things from a totally different angle that other people might not think about. I grew up in a family that had a Quaker background and what they did was they congregated in a room and there was no

leader. Everybody sat and when they were spoken to they felt whatever energy was channeled into their bodies about what they felt. Now I want you to think about this for a minute. What if you reverse time? What if you weren't the captain of the starship Enterprise and there's an attack and you're going into defense mode? What if you went back two years in time and you knew what was going to happen and you weren't postured to just deflect all this stuff? Okay, think about it. So, I'm going to leave the remainder of the minute and a half time I have for silence for everybody in this room that can appreciate the American thought of property rights being stolen by you name it, whatever you're going through here. Next minute, I want to call for silence. I'll stand here and leave in 58 seconds. Thank you.

Thank you, JEFF.

Any anyone else? I better go before I add to my list of things to say before the speech again. The shy one. Bonnie Day. Um, you said you were doing it. Al, can you hear me? Can you hear? Yeah, Bonnie, I can. Thank God. I haven't been able to hear the rest of them.

I know. That's why I'm checking. You said you're doing it to be compliant. Just stop it instead of making changes. Um, you said many minutes before our time, it reminded me of my time I played ball where this building stands. My great-grandfather was once president of the village of Red Hook before it was changed to mayor. My great uncle Sunny Day is on the marble stone out front and my great uncle was an original trustee of the Red Hook Boat Club. I've been around. This is very personal. You need a deep breath because I get nervous. Again, I am asking nicely. Please stop this. The distrust in my own town board is beyond sad. It's been happening for a long time, but I wasn't paying attention until it happened to me. There was a Daily Catch ethics article. We were not given the courtesy for open communication, so I must comment now on the last time we were all here until midnight. Sorry, Bill. You said at the November 19th meeting that you were bewildered as to why the public would think the board is setting the stage to use the community preservation fund to later pay down in debtness or make improvements on the book club property. If the town acquires slashtakes the parcels, you might want to join us here in the cheap seats and listen to what can only be described as double talk from this board. We've been lied to, repeatedly dismissed, and regarded as lesser than annoyance annoyances. It's hard to believe anything we're told when multiple speakers expressed concerns about the board that the board was proposing and subsequently passing local law 8 to set a precedent for later using the fund to pay debt on the book property. Robert said, "We cannot because those projects weren't with willing sellers. The funds need to be used for projects

that are with willing sellers." Exactly 22 minutes later, he said, "We do not believe it is legal to do so. So, you cannot or you do not believe you can." And you're the one who's bewildered. One speaker even asked that one of you three law firms put in writing that the community preservation funds cannot be used later for the boat club. We'd like to see a legal opinion rather than Robert's interpretation, but I doubt we ever will see that because the question or request requiring a definite answer is ignored. When the whole disaster started with the zoning changes that became the now invalid local law one, the boat club members were told that they would be grandfathered. There's an article in the Daily Catch about that and not impacted. That was the first lie of many.

No need to bewildered. Just start listening to the lines that are being fed to the public and it should be clear to you why we question every action put forth, including the proposed local laws B and C. Put these on hold until the new board members are seated so we can hear real questions and actual debate. Thank you. Roxan,

thank you. Roxan Fisher, Barry Town, New York. I am deeply disappointed and strongly object to the town board's continued rush to adopt a negative declaration under seeker for the proposed local law B and C. The sweeping zoning amendments now before you. Most troubling is the document included in tonight's agenda packet titled full EAF part two and part three continuation sheet. This continuation sheet attempts to dismiss or downplay the Red Hook Planning Board's clear written findings that numerous provisions of these very same zoning amendments are inconsistent with the local waterfront revitalization plan. Those inconsistencies are not minor technicalities. They go to the heart of question 12 in EAF part two which is will the proposed action be consistent with adopted land use plans. The only intellectually honest answer based on your own planning board's analysis is yes that is moderate to large impact may occur. Yet the continuation sheet provided tonight asserts that there will be quote no or small impact and offers no substantial explanation for overriding the planning board's expert findings. Seeker demands that the lead agency take a hard look at all relevant areas of environmental concern and provide a reasoned elaboration for its determination. Simply contradicting the planning board without evidence or analysis is the opposite of a hard look.

It is a deliberate blind eye.

The town board cannot lawfully adopt zoning that it has been expressly advised is inconsistent with the LWRP without at minimum acknowledging the inconsistency and justifying the departure. Doing so in the context of a negative declaration compounds the error and virtually guarantees successful legal challenge. I am disappointed that the board is instead attempting to push through a flawed secret determination tonight. I urge you in the strongest possible terms reject the proposed negative declaration and withdraw the zoning amendments. Anything less violates both seeker and New York town law, disrespects the planning board's work, and undermines public trust. Uh Richie Ross, Scrotic Boat Club. U remind you again, 752 days. That's what you got left. William Jacob, man of the ship, the snake oil salesman is going to bite you. If you think that when this settles in months, years, whenever it may be, if one of you does not step up as a leader out from the shadows of the supervisor, if you think that we're going to settle down and not have as much enthusiasm and fight in us to make sure that you do not get reelected, you're sadly mistaken. It's going to we're going to bring the same environment, the same the the same drawing out for for that type of election. I can assure you that on November 19th during the discussion of local laws B and C, Robert stated that these laws have nothing to do with the acquisition of the boat club. I'm not not sure how you can say that when these laws would not have even been proposed if Judge Rosa hadn't anold local law one. This board failed to

consider the eminent domain action when passing it. In fact, these new local laws have everything to do with the acquisition of the boat club. It's statements like that clearly meant to misrepresent your true intent and that's putting it nicely which make everything we are told or read suspect. Stop the misleading deceptive statements and tell the truth. In fact, right after you said the laws are not related to the boat club acquisition, you said you strongly disagree with Judge Rose's decision and you thought it would be easier to refile and review the local law. To be clear, Judge Rose's decision was in response to the boat club's article 78 lawsuit. So you you are refiling because of the decision, but expect people to believe that these proposed local laws have nothing to do with the acquisition of the boat club. Any reasonable person knows they're completely connected. One other clarification following your discussion on local laws B and C. Since this is our only opportunity to refute your comments, Robert stated that the boat club filed a challenge of the eminent domain action, but it was dismissed because the Supreme Court was not the appropriate venue. You failed to add that the case is very much active and ongoing in the second appellet division and in the federal courts. The public deserves to know the truth, the entire truth, and not rely on statements meant to mislead. Proposed local laws B and C are designed to further your ill-advised use of eminent domain and jam through their adoption before the new board members are sworn in. Keep these public hearings open through January when the new town board members have an opportunity to ask questions and express their thoughts. That would be a welcome display of transparency.

Hi, my name is Shelley Bay. I would like to read my statement into the record for the public hearing on proposed local law D and local law C. It is well known that this town board has approved expenditures close to a quarter of a million dollars with nothing to show for it. The information comes from foiled responses since the board intentionally withholds this information from the public. There are still invoices outstanding and a two-month gap in villain from one of the law firms. So, the total is even greater. One or more residents escalated financial concerns with supporting documents to the New York State Controllers's Office. The town of Red Hook is on the radar of the New York State Controllers's Office. Not an enviable place to be. The invoices and payments revealed yet another interesting budget. In fact, two of the largest funds are a general townwide for which taxes are levied on all properties in the town and the two villages and b general outside town for which taxes are levied on properties in the town, not the two villages. All the legal fees tagged as boat club acquisition have been paid from the B fund, meaning none of those expenditures have come from taxes on properties in the villages of Red Hook and Tivoli. That is interesting because recreation, which would include a public park, falls under the A fund since all residents have the use of it. Planning and zoning fall under the B fund since both villages have their own planning and zoning departments. All boat club acquisition fees have been paid out of the planning and zoning departments in the B fund. Now, some of those costs are in fact related to the article 78 challenge in the zoning. So, those are appropriate for the B fund, but we call into question the legal fees which are substantial specific to the

eminent domain action and acquisition for the purposes of a park. Those should be paid appropriately from the general fund. A why is a supervisor who also functions as the town's budget officer directing all payments out of the B fund and using taxes only from the properties in the town not the villages? I don't know, but my guess would be it's being hidden because there's not enough money in the general fund. This question along with invoices received to date from the municipal law firms will be forwarded to the New York State controller to consider with information previously provided. THANK YOU

MARSHALL.

Marshall Croell, town of Stanford where the politicians answer my mail. Just because you weasled your way in and convinced the people of Red Hook that you are decent individuals should not give you the license to steal from the Red Hook Boat Club members, no matter what their reason. Here's an expert excerpt from Bob Dylan song from the Slow Train Coming album. It couldn't be more fitting for you, the morally disabled. You may be a preacher preaching spiritual pride. You may be a councilman taking bribes on the side. You may be working in a barber shop. You may even know how to cut hair. You may be somebody's mistress. Maybe somebody's heir. But you're going to have to serve somebody. Yes, you're going to have to serve somebody. It may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but you're going to have to serve somebody. You're still going to have to serve somebody. Yes, you're going to have to serve somebody. Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but you're going to have to serve somebody. Pay attention and go examine your conscience and keep your dishonest hands off the Red Hook Bow Club.

There's another letter here. Anyone else want to read what's just Okay. Um I want to thank you all My name is Joanna Fel. I no longer live in the area. I used to live on Crestwood Road. I was your neighbor and your friend.

I come back here today and I hear about this. And my question is why? Why would you want to elicit the eye and the anger of all these good people who have been living here and the boat club that's been here for so many decades? I can't understand what the motivation is

that would bring you into a place where you are adversaries with the people of Red Hook. when I used to live here. I mean, it was just such I mean, I there are so many stories. We go back when Freley died and what happened to our road then and we used to talk about it like why why would that happen? So, I just had to stand up, Robert, because I just don't understand why you're taking this position. I don't know any of you, but I thought I knew you and I'm just a little takenback that this is even occurring. Thank you.

Curtis Stoultz, 154 Chelsea Road, Winger Falls. Um, I've listened to several of these, you know, comments. I've listened to everyone who's here, watched everyone. You know, I'm, you know, I'm really not a neighbor here. But everywhere I've gone over 3 million miles of preventable accident, you know, not, you know, I, you know, I've always found a friend and I've always found good people. And when I see good people is like at odds with each other, I think back to uh that's 250 years ago and George Washington, they all signed that, you know, proclamation. We're not going to take the take it anymore for the king. And then uh just recently December 7th, my mother made a comment while she was alive about December 7th said, "Everybody spent all Sunday outside talking at each other, you know, looking at each other, talking to each other." And uh and then come 9/11 and she said, "Curs, what was really sad about 9/11 that nobody was talking to each other. Nobody was out in the street. It was all you consumed with something else. maybe in your neighborhood, but most, you know, to hear from someone who'd be a 100 years old on the 12th of this month, you know, I she had she come from a very long history of uh left Scotland and come here, her ancestors. Uh they were part of the Hatfield McCoys. Uh that's I mean, I've always enjoyed a feud. I mean, I I see a really good feud here, but I think there's something that we're missing here that we're all in this together. So, uh I'd like to I got this

little tidbit of information. Okay. Last month at uh a Austinine Yach Boat and Yach Club, I'm the uh executive board director of the Hudson River Boat and Yach Club Association. And we're also uh supporting uh Red Hook Boat Club and Mohawk uh Hudson Council. But Liz Feldman, she's now the town board supervisor now. She got on the town board and she just relinquished her commodor position of last year and now she's in the I mean the way I was explaining to it they are actually reversing this uh in domain or the taking back of the of the the boat club that was taken from them from the town of Austinine some time ago. So I just had you know uh if I taught anything to my children negotiate you got to negotiate you know uh no matter where you go you got to negotiate you might here you got got your neighbors but you got to negotiate with each other you know white house you know Albany you know I I see a you know a parallel that's you know history is repeating itself so and the finest words you ever see when you walk into any kind of installation, military or place of honor, less we forget. Thank you.

Thank you,

Mr. Rich Ryan. Red Hook. Over the last few months, Robert has started responding to public comments after the public comment period closes. He did the same on November 19th after everyone spoke at the public hearings. This gives him an opportunity to look into the camera and put his spin on things, make sure the public doesn't have an opportunity to refute his version of the truth.

You can expect him to do the same tonight. There were a lot of comments on November 19th about lack of communication and documentation of public when he said more than once that if you are signed up for the notifications you will get all the documents including the proposed laws that was false. He even struggled to locate them on the town website and when he did they were part of the board packet posted the day before the meeting. How accommodating for the public. Robert,

bravo. Sarah and Bowden spoke very eloquently about the frustrations among other boards and committees resulting in fewer people volunteering. This speaks volumes about the lack of internal communication and respect. For example, we learned on November 19th that the community preservation fund advisory board was not asked to review the changes proposed in local a local law a. The last meeting minutes posted for this committee are from April 2019. Of course, local A was unanimously adopted despite this breach of protocol. We also learned that the zoning changes proposed in locals in local law B and C could not be reviewed by the zoning review committee because that committee is inactive

and their last minutes are from 2017. That's approximately nine years ago if you can do math. As a matter of fact, there are 27 boards or committees listed on the town website. Only eight have any minutes from meetings in 2025. Another eight are inactive and or have no minutes posted. And for yet another eight, the last meetings, the last meeting minutes available are from three to seven and a half years ago. Wow.

Transparency. Transparenc. So much for transparency. And you know something, ladies and gentlemen, or whatever you identify as, Robert Beckon, Bill Hamill, Jake Tessa are corrupt. Now, when things are supposed to be spoken about and when Mr. McKeen talks about any discussion, I never hear Julia or Christina hype up about anything. Now at one point you became opposed to this whole eminent domain but you never speak up about anything on this. Why is that? Can you answer that now or can you not?

Is that a yes or no? Can you say yes or no? Are the people included? I am asking a question. Not to you. I'm asking the ladies. Can you back up? I am asking a question. Yes or no? Diana's personal space. Diana, I apologize for being in your personal space and I'm sorry for whatever you're Mhm. I hope you feel well. So, can you answer me yes or no? Christina or Julia? Can you answer me yes or no? Bobblehead. I'm not speaking to you, Robert. I'm speaking to Christine and Julia. Okay. I'm not speaking to you. Can you answer me yes or no? This is a public hearing. So, yes, I understand what it is.

So, we're getting input from you. We're not here to talk back. Robert Singleton, town of Red, New York. I'd like to take a few minutes to discuss some procedural items that I believe should have been filed in the process of reviewing proposed local laws B and C, but perhaps we're not. First, the resolutions setting the public hearings for local laws at B and C state that the town clerk is hereby authorized and directed to refer a copy of said proposed local laws to the Duchess County Department of Planning and Development for a report and recommendation. I know the clerk sent the laws for comment and I know that the board received comments back. I'm going to read some of the response from Duchess County. The board is proposing to no longer allow marinas as a permitted use within the town. However, the town of Red Hook's LWRP includes policy statements outlining a town goal of facilitating the sighting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. Marinas are one of such water dependent uses identified in the same plan. It is unclear why the board has decided to remove marinas as a permitted use within the town as it appears to contradict stated policy goals provided in the LWRP. The county further states, "We question

the justification provided by the town board that finds the proposed removal of marinas as a permitted use within a town to be consistent with the policy goals provided in the LWRP and other local planning objectives. Where are the town board's written responses to the county? Have they been made? and are they available for public to see? For the people of the town of Red Hook, I'm requesting that the town board provide a written response to the comments provided by Duchess County and that these comments be posted for public review. Mhm.

Second, the town of Red Hook planning board found eight inconsistencies with the LWRP and as just stated, the county pointed out contradictions between the proposed actions and existing LWRP policies. When LWRP inconsistencies are found, section 68-1211 of the town's code requires that such action shall not be taken undertaken unless the agency makes a written finding addressing the inconsistencies. Further, the written findings to the inconstencies must be maintained along with recommendations of the planning board in a file available for public inspection. For the benefit of the people of the town of Red Hook, I'm requesting that the town board provide access to the town board's written findings addressing the inconsistencies cited by the planning board and Duchess County. Finally, the town code and LWRP are clear that the written findings to the inconsistencies must be completed and available to the public prior to approving funding or undertaking an action. If the written findings were not completed or publicly available, then these public hearings and discussions are premature are are in violation of the town code and the LWRP.

That's interesting. We are waiting to see the town board's response to the Duchess County Department planning and development's comments as well as the town board's written response to the findings of the planning board that in essence override again the findings by the planning board. This board has a legal and moral duty to share all information publicly and to sequence its actions properly without having provided the writing the written findings and without having made them publicly available. Any actions tonight on the proposed local laws are out of order. Thank you. I greet you this time. Hi, Cara Kitner, Barry Town, New York, uh, United States of America. Um, I wasn't planning on speaking. Ah, but you know me. I couldn't shut up. Um, there keeps being questions and I have been I have been one of the lucky ones who've gotten an answer every once in a while, but no one gets an answer to questions here ever. And um, that last statement, I feel um, Robert, I you and I had a conversation months and months ago which I memorialized in a letter to the whole town board. um and asking you what the process was. And as it turned out, the way you described the process was um completely inaccurate. So it was really hard to follow what was happening. And I do feel like that you keep complicating things with, you know, trying to pass laws, having laws rejected by the court, and then trying

to pass them. And um with and I said this the last time and I just want to say it again. We want a forum. People are was it Dave who said can you answer questions and is and the answer is no. This is a public comment time. Where is the dialogue? Where is the forum? How can we interact with you as human beings? I don't feel like we're being treated as human beings,

intelligent human beings who have different opinion. Can we, and let's bring up Sarah and Bowden again. Can we move at the pace of trust? I think is how she put it.

We are not moving at the pace of trust. You passed local law A when everyone left the meeting last time. We're pretty sure you're going to vote for local law C BNC tonight. Um I don't think you can. There was that meeting where there were pages missing and the and the agenda was posted, you know, a day ahead. Not enough time for working people like myself to read through the whole thing and understand what's happening there, especially with six pages missing or four pages. Um, and so everything is rolling along so fast. We all have lives. You guys are elected to make our life better.

You are making our life worse.

You're you're making a lot of work for us. I don't want any more work. Okay. You're making this hard. So, can we trust you to set this aside and not vote on anything right now? There. What is the rush? We don't need to rush any of these laws. There's no deadline. I don't know what the rush is. So, I'm saying since I don't feel like the process is fair or or maybe even legal, can you please pause and and have a community? I know in Tivoli they have forums, they invite the public to speak with the board. We we don't get that.

So, I'm asking and I don't get an answer. Thank you.

Al Tresa 77 West Curley Corners Road Tivly New York 12583. Um I'm objecting to the passages of the passage tonight of B and C for the following reasons. First, the board either through ignorance, poor legal advice, or a willful disregard is has failed to follow your own town laws. And you're not following it still. The board through its advisory agency, the planning board, asked them to review and report back regarding inconsistencies. They found eight inconsistencies. Both the LWRP and the town code under section 6812H specifically states that you are not to go any further. It mandates that you are to resolve those eight inconsistencies.

What has the board done? It totally ignored that. I asked the five of you last meeting if you had bothered to read the damn law and you still have it and you still haven't are violating it. You are need to address those eight inconsistencies. They have to be put in writing and they have to be open to the general public and your constituents for review for a reasonable period of time so they can digest them. You have not done it and you have not done it tonight until tonight. You still haven't done it and you're going to go right ahead. I read your package to some degree. You dumped, Robert, 200 pages on us 24 hours in advance.

How the hell can anybody reasonably read through this and understand what you're saying? And but you still haven't done it. you still haven't answered in writing those eight inconsistencies and given us an opportunity to be heard. And if you and now that you haven't done it, quite frankly, I think it's going to be the legal death of this action if you pass it tonight. Except the board has really not done a proper secret. You didn't do anything. Okay. Until it was brought to your attention at the last public hearing. All of a sudden, Ted Frink comes up with uhoh a full E AF. But it's a joke. It's full of platitudes. It sluffs off all of the environmental concerns which have been raised to the five of you for the last 6 months and says there's no there's no problem. We're going to declare a negative declaration. Well, it's a joke. Third, the board and I guess it's B local B has changed the uses has proposed two changes to the uses permitted under our zoning law. The first one is to establish parks in every district with outside plan approval. Now very frankly that flies in the face of both zoning and planning. Every proposed deep reasonable or more important use requires site plan approval.

Yes.

And the reason that you don't want to do it cuz you know very well that if you take this property and Robert has said it, we're not going to change anything. We don't need to do a site plan. We don't need to do an environmental study. Your first law, you just said you didn't even bother to do a fully af. You just said that it's a negative declaration and the court struck it down. And I'm telling you right now, the environmental review that you have presently in front of you, I think is defective and it's not going to fight satisfy Judge Rosa because obviously if you pass this, you're buying a lawsuit more legal fees

and this is going to go again in front of Judge Rosa. Thank you. Because she has it now and the court will assign it to her. Thank Thank you. No yield my time. I'm not finishing. No yielding time, folks. I don't care about time. This is a public hearing. We have a right. Everyone has a right. If everybody in this room would stand up now and address, so here's the story. The other thing is you've eliminated marinas. That's the other changed. It does not make any sense to eliminate marinas in a waterfront district.

Where are you going with this? Your own EAF that you provided tonight or yesterday at the last minute states that water usage is very important. Boating and fishing are very important. What a better access to the public to water usage, fishing, and every other water sport is a marina. What you're doing here doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Unless Unless

Unless you start looking at whether or not the fact that a marina might be put on the water the red boat property might increase its value and cost you more money. Thank you. Okay. Stop. Should the board persist. Now look, I'm asking you to stop this proceeding now. Follow your town laws. do the proper study on the inconsistencies and then hold your public hearings. Right now, if you persist, you're buying a lawsuit. Thank you. Okay. There's no question about that. And more legal fees.

And more important, I'd like to point out to each of you individually that you were presently being sued in federal court for punitive damages. Will and punitive damages are based upon willful and malicious acts. Okay? and their willful disregard of the town law is only going to further benefit the boat club's case. So maybe ought to pass it and help us along.

Thank you all very much. At this time, I'd like to uh make a motion to close the public hearing. Keep going. Keep going. Keep it open. Why are you closing? Is there a second to uh close the public hearing and we can get on with the discussion of the environmental worldviews and address uh many of the issues? I would encourage you, please don't interrupt. Please don't interrupt. I would encourage you to either watch the meeting or to stay till the end because many of the questions you raised were answered at the last meeting. You said they weren't going to be talked about

closing the theater. That's why I went home. You said you weren't going to talk about it. You said you weren't going to talk about it and then you did. You discussed without you waited for people to leave and then you did it. Folks, we need to get on with our agenda. Is there a second to close the public hearing? I'll make the motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second to close the public?

Okay. Well, we'll go through we'll go through the agenda and then we'll

we'll see on the environmental review. see how we through. Let's jump to uh first item on the agenda is the laws police services agreement for 2026. What's the next resolution?

93 police services agreement. Um, what's different about this agreement is a significant bump up. We've talked about um increased uh funding for the police in order to maintain uh the staffing levels. Is that for a park? This is sorry 963

one yearly wages the uh for overtime for port services. Any questions, town board members? Resolution number 93.

Who would like to move it? Thank you, Bill. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Jacob. Any questions? If not further discussion all in favor I thank you very much. Uh Tivoli fire contract. So if you recall we uh we were asked to help contribute since the public comment period isn't over yet. Can you please interrupt? Well the public comment period isn't over yet. We are we have not closed the public hearings,

right? And so we're moving on to the agenda items. No, we can't move on to the agenda items unless you close the public comment period. And since we haven't closed the public comment period, moving on with the agenda is rude to the public. Okay? And so if there is just as there was last time late in the game after you bored everyone to death with things that they're not here and worried about. We can move it. We can move it up. We can move. If you can just move that up. We need to get these contracts signed. We can move it up. But can you put the contracts at the end after everyone else? Because because we have other jobs. This is your job. Be very quick.

Full time. First time ever. Thank you. You're going to be quick with this with this. We'll be quick with this. Okay. How quick is Robert? Seriously, we need 2 minutes to do this. This is important to fire company that we use. Okay. We are just calling for Excuse me. Please don't interrupt. We are calling for a public hearing

to amend the Tivoli fire contract. If you recall, uh, the Tivoli Fire Company has asked for additional funding. They need to do an expansion or they are hoping to do an expansion of the firehouse. Um, we have uh discussed and agreed to double our contribution and do it in the form of increasing the capital line so we can pay down the debt service associated with borrowing. And so we need to amend our contract. It's a two-year contract. This is to amend the 2026 uh portion of it to allow for that increased uh capital funding. This is uh so the capital line will go from $16,000 up to $60,000 uh in 2026. And so we are calling for a public hearing as required by law. The next opportunity,

sorry, the next opportunity. Sorry, Marshall. The next opportunity will be January 13th. It'll be the first meeting in January. So, I'd like to make a motion uh that we go ahead and set the public hearing for January 13th at 7:40. That's in the draft notice.

Okay. Are we good with that that time? Okay. Uh this is resolution number 94 establishing a date for a public hearing regarding the approval by the town board of the town of Red Hook of an amendment to the fire protection district fire service agreement. And just for the folks at home, we have already passed the budget which reflects this increased support to the Tibel art company, but this cottifies it. So it helps them uh obtain the additional uh funding from USDA that they need. Hopefully it helps out revenue.

I'd like to uh move resolution 94. And as a reminder, the town board uh took over all of the LOAP expenses associated with the fire companies in 2025. Second. Bill second. Is there further discussion? If not, all in favor? I I

Okay, we can get to the other things. Agenda item three, four, five. Uh number six is really for you to review the town board members. As I mentioned, we won't be taking that up until uh January. So, let's jump in the environmental review related to local laws and C. Ted, I'm going to move you to uh closer to the microphone.

Can we hear you? Okay, I'm here. All right, I'm trying to be as loud as possible. Can you state your name so we know who it is? This is Ted Frink from Green Plan, our planner. Thank you.

Ted, we uh last we left, we were reviewing uh the comments from the planning board. Again, this is a resubmission of a law that was passed in 2024 with only two uh only one minor change to the text. We're doing so at the uh direction of the court. And so, uh let's go to that page, shall we? The planning board's comments. We're almost finished with that.

Jacob, you're good at finding the pages

further down. Right before that. 170.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Okay. Um we were we were at the point Ted where we were discussing some of the recommendations from the planning board. There were a couple of recommendations as it relates to uh docks and boat ramps to allow them in other districts. Um I think when we left it um we were discussing whether or not to entertain something like that. And again, you know, to to remind the folks at home, this is a resubmission of a law that was presented in 2024. We are trying to comply with a court uh decision and so to make changes or make addition additional uh changes uh to this law would further complicate matters. There are a couple of uh recommendations by the way that I think are are certainly worthy of exploration um recommendations from the planning board as to do. Um, obviously there would need to be um some uh language that would distinguish between a large boat dock, for example, and a small dock that one would want to have on a pond. Um, again, I I don't think that we want to make any changes to the law because the court said review it again

and review it like

review it again and do so and incorporate a subsequent action that you took. So if we were to review something that is modified beyond the one recommendation which was to change that definition um then I think that we would uh make things more problematic for ourselves. So um I do think that this recommendation however should be further explored. I think Julia uh spoke about how even though we are undergoing an update to the comprehensive plan that will take uh some time and then we'll be ensuing uh most likely uh significant zoning changes after that is adopted. Um it doesn't mean that we can't um in the meantime make some uh some zoning changes of this nature.

All right. Um The last part of the recommendation on this page uh deals again with the elimination of site plan review for the establishment of new parks. Um we addressed that at the last meeting and I want to repeat it because it's an important issue. Public parks have always been allowed in all districts. The reason we are removing the site plan review, the explanation, which was rather lengthy last time, is because only the town board negotiates um with land owners. So whether it's Recre Park West or Cookingham Farm, these projects that we did um we would not be able to acquire these properties and protect these properties if we had to go through a lengthy site plan uh process with uh the planning board. Remember, zoning is designed um for applicants other than the town government. And so um we we are not in a position to go through that lengthy process and to secure on your behalf um public spaces or protection of farmland.

Please folks, folks, you've asked us to go through this. Please, you've asked us to No, but we want answers to We are going to We are going to go through Can you answer the question as they come up because it's too confusing to wait until the very end when you've thrown so much stuff at us? Can't you answer the question while when it comes up? That's a conversation. Harry, I'm sorry, but we are going to go through the review. We will try to address our documents address the questions that have been raised. So let's get through those documents. Hopefully they uh they will answer all the questions that you've raised.

Okay. Ted, can we jump to part two on the EAF? Yes. Part two. We only to three. He went to three. Just discarded. Tony discarded two. Please, I'm going to ask you not to interrupt so we can conduct our I'm not interrupting. I'm clarifying for you. Okay. You don't know what you're talking about. He doesn't follow a Tad. Can you start the review of part two, please? Yes. All right.

And Ted, if you could speak as loud as possible, please. I'll try to get the mic as

Okay. Um the part two EAF is an identification of the potential impacts of the which is the adoption of local laws B and C of 2025. And there are um a number of questions that are asked in a variety of different topical areas. It's a total of 18 different uh um top level questions that are asked such as impact on land, impact on geology, impact on surface water, groundwater, flooding, air, plants and animals, agricultural resources, aesthetic resources, historic and archaeological resources, open space and recreation, impact on critical areas. is um impact on transportation, energy, noise, odor and light, human health, consistency with community plans and consistency with community character. And the question uh form begins with a highle question. Will the proposed action for example have an impact on land? And that's a yes or no answer. And it can be determined whether or not it will through selection of a variety of different threshold statements that would result in either a assessment that the proposed action which is of a local law will either have a no or small impact or a moderate to large impact may occur. And so on the basis of a draft environmental assessment form uh that was prepared for local laws BC. Of all of the 18 questions, there was only one question. Um of the 18 that was

answered, yes, there is the potential for an impact. In all the other cases, none of the threshold statements or threshold questions that are asked rose to the level of creating either a no or small impact or a moderate to large impact except for the potential for an impact on historic and archaeological resources. And the reason for that here is because of the way that this particular question is worded and that is the proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. Red Hook is uh is the home of many historic sites, historic districts, and that includes the Hudson River National Historic Landmark District. Um, and so the answer to that question on almost any townwide um um action that's that's being considered is almost always going to be answered yes. But then the question goes down to a much more detailed examination of what this potential for an impact is. And the first question is 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 Register uh or state register of historical 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. The answer to that question is no or small impact

may occur. And that is because the um townwide um any changes that are made to the zoning law would apply townwide uh for the most part. Um and so that is going to be a a positive answer that it will have either a no or a small impact may occur. A moderate to large impact may occur. Um would be um would be a different matter. Um, but this is a legislative action that will change the text within the town zoning law and that action does take place within an area where there are historic sites and historic districts. There are two other questions that are also uh or statements um that also apply in this case. The second one is that the proposed action may occur wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the New York State Historic Preservation Office archaeological site inventory. And in this case um because the town has a very large uh historic landmark district that the action will occur wholly or partially within a uh an area that has been designated for archaeological sites. Uh the cultural resource information system that the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, Historic Preservation operates uh is available for viewing and there are online maps that show uh the areas where all of the historic districts are. They show where the archaeological studies

have been carried out in New York State. uh and so that action uh the action also results in a no or small impact may occur. The third question uh is whether the proposed action may occur wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to an archaeological site not included on the New York State Shipo inventory. In this case, uh it's unknown whether or not there are archeological sites throughout the town. Um there is the suspicion that there are probably many archaeological sites that exist in Red Hook. So in this case, that would be a no or small impact may occur because the zoning action is not specific to any one particular property, but to all properties in general in the town of Red Hook. So from the standpoint of the part two environmental assessment form that was the only um environmental topic that did have a answer of yes that the proposed action may occur in our case into historic or archaeological resource. In all of the other cases, uh none of the other thresholds have been reached on the form and there are over 100 questions that pertain to these different 18 topical uh environmental impact uh areas.

Okay. Are there any questions board members on the part two? Okay. Uh Ted, let's uh dive into uh what what do you want to tackle next? The LWRP stuff. Well, um as we're on speaker already, we've gone through the part 2 EF and the part 3 AF specifically uh is focused on the uh the answers that are provided in the part 2 EAF. Okay. Well, let's dive in there. Yeah. Okay.

Um, where would you like me to begin? Well, wherever you'd like to because we need to get through it all.

Okay. So, um, the part three EAF, uh, it's a narrative discussion that, um, works off of the part two EAF. And in this case, it begins in general with providing a uh a fairly detailed uh description of the proposed action. In this case, um there are three proposed actions that are uh considered within the environmental assessment form and they're all related. Um there is a uh they're separate actions uh but they are related and so they are in fact being conducted simultaneously. The first one is the adoption of local law B. Uh this amends the zoning law to regulate the time, place and manner of adult use retail cannabis dispensaries. It provides amendments for accessory short-term rental uses. changes the use requirements for public parks and trail systems which would become a permitted use in all zoning districts rather than subject to site plan approval and in the case of such uses in the waterfront conservation district. Additionally, a special use permit. It changes the definition of wetlands based on New York State's updated freshwater wetlands program which began on January 1st of this year. modifies the provisions governing residential development in the agricultural business zoning district, eliminates the potential for a non-conforming use to be changed to another non-conforming use, and clarifies the design standards for the TNDCC zoning district to encourage new retail uses in the town. So, that's a a description of local law

number B, right? And there are no there are no differences between what is in date that was in local law one which was passed um after many months of uh public input and public hearings um and adopted in February. Yes, that's correct. Yeah.

Okay. Local law number C of 2025. Uh there are changes in this as a result of the court's decision uh this past August and adoption of local law number C amends the zoning law to remove marinas as a special permit use in the town in accordance with a comprehensive planning policy to limit new commercial uses to the two villages and the hamlet of Upper Red Hook and to limit waterfront uses on the Hudson River to those that are quote restricted to passive and water dependent recreation to land extensive open space which provide little disturbance to the natural environment. End quote. And that's taken directly from the comprehensive plan on page 17. So local law number C also amends the definition of a club. So it eliminates a phrase that the court uh found to be problematic. And the phrase the court uh wanted stricken from the definition of a boat club, which was the original um definition that was in local law number one of 2025. Um was um quote with bonafide dues paying members. That was a specific phrase that the court said uh uh was impermissible. Uh but the problem was Red Hook zoning law also has a definition for club not club but simply club which also had the same phrase in it. So what local law number C of 2025

does is to um redefine club. so that it eliminated the existing phrase with bonafide newspaying members. And then to introduce a new definition for club uh for boat club, pardon me, uh that simply refers to club. And this is consistent with the um uh uh the membership club definition that's found within the town zoning law currently, which also refers to the definition of club. And there are two other clubs that are permitted within the town, hunting clubs and fishing clubs. Uh and neither of those are currently defined in the zoning law. So, um the next one has to do with um uh boat ramp, dock, and marina definitions, uh along with special permit conditions for new boat clubs, docks, and boat ramps. So, they're consistent with state-of-the-art storm water management and related water quality improvement standards in use by New York State and the federal government. So that is the um uh summary of the adoption of local law 20 uh local law C of 2025. Okay. So there there in lies that one change which is the definition language which the court had problem with and and it seems rightly so. Um and so we're uh trying to comply with the direction of the court by eliminating that language. um we talk about marina. We've added definitions, you know, in our efforts to try to um make uh that property uh

legally conforming as opposed to a grandfather status. We added uh definitions and then that unfortunately uh ended up being part of the problem. Um, but we did add definitions for marina. And I think importantly, uh, for the public to understand why we're eliminating marinas is because of the environmental risk of what we call definitionally a marina, which is that which has things like fuel pumping stations um, associated with it. the activities of uh recreational use of boats along the Hudson River um is and should be encouraged as many people have stated and which uh is included in our review here. But when uh you heard us discuss in 2024 about the risks associated with um uh some of the uh oil um uh tankers that were anchoring along the Hudson River that we um wanted to take steps to try to be more protective of the Hudson. And so um hence we have the definition of marina and I would like to add you're going to get to the uh decision in number three so I'll let you start with that but we can cover some more details there. Okay. So the third part of the uh full EAF part three narrative relates to the specific decision of the court uh from back in August. Uh and this was the Red Hook Club, Inc. versus the town board of the town of Red Hook. Um so the seeker

um at the time that it was completed for the eminent domain proceeding um the court found that separating or segmenting that seeker review process from the adoption of local law number one 2025 constituted impermissible segmentation under the secret regulations. And so what this EAF does um the part 3 AF in particular because it explains the rationale for including this uh means that the prior seeker review process of the acquisition of the boat club site becomes fully incorporated within the seeker review process for the reconstituted local law number one of 2025. 5 which is now local law B and local law C of 2025. So this seeker document includes not just an assessment of the legislative um decision as to whether or not to adopt local law B and local law C, but also includes all of the seeker analysis that was done for the acquisition of the vote club site. Uh, and so that's that's where we're at now with a seeker document that is um um addressing three separate actions, local lobby, local lawy, and the acquisition of the boat club site.

And we have also uh included some changes that have occurred since then. um the occupancy uh of the early college at you know to uh take a look at the uh traffic impact associated with the early college now that it's in residence yes

and so we have some information related to that um I I I do want to say cuz you do reference um in the draft there uh the decision uh by Judge Rosa and I will just you know for the public's benefit benefit. Judge Rosa did in fact uh rule on the removal of marinas. You're going to hear uh more about the comments from uh county planning, but the judge has already ruled that the removal of marinas as an allowable use is consistent with the town's adopted LWRP.

Okay. Um let's uh continue uh with the narrative uh Ted um and maybe just highlight I know you can't read it word for word but let's highlight um some of the important issues and try to answer the questions that have been posed to us over the last couple of meetings.

Yes. Well, I think the um probably the most important part of this entire seeker environmental assessment form is that it now addresses all of the potential environmental impacts of the acquisition action together with the um with the zoning law changes. Um and so it becomes a a much longer document um because the um the seeker that was originally done for um for the uh acquisition action relied upon not only the analysis that was in the part three enormal assessment form but also the analysis that was carried on for the town's responsibility to undertake the consistency assessment. uh based upon the local waterfront revitalization program document. And so the um the record of what has been assessed has been growing as um as the project has has been proceeding. Uh and so the EAF um as you as you mentioned earlier includes all of the documentation that was adopted by the town board on July 15th of this year. Um and the primary change um um has to do with the traffic impacts. One of the areas that um uh that was addressed was the potential impacts on traffic as a result of the acquisition of the boat club property. Uh and there was an analysis that was carried out. Um, but there was one area that was identified in those earlier seeker documents uh that we did not have information on. Uh we only knew at that time that Bard

College was going to move Simons's Rock uh campus from Massachusetts to the Msina campus which is the old unification theological seminary which Bard purchased uh for the purpose of relocating uh Simon's Rock College. And so what we uh were able to do is we were able to do additional traffic uh analysis by uh uh through the town's engineer uh Dian Bond. Uh they um contracted with a um a national uh uh traffic agency that was able to get county department of public works approval to put traffic counters on Berry Town Road so that we could actually get a good uh handle on the amount of traffic that was currently um traveling on Berrytown Road. The old analysis, the original analysis, I should say, relied upon um the New York State um uh traffic data viewer, which is an online platform that DOT operates where they post all of the um uh the traffic counts for highways throughout New York State. And it's possible to go there and to be able to identify an individual road like Berrytown Road or River Road or or any other road in in Red Hook that has been studied in the past. And they actually post what's called the average annual daily traffic levels on each of those roads. And in the case of Brytown Roads, the most recent data that we had was from 2021, 2022, and 2023. And so Berry Town Road west of River

Road um in 2023 there was an average annual daily traffic of 347 trips. Uh in 2022 it was slightly more at 442 trips and it was coincidentally the same number in 2021. Berry Town Road east of River Road. That's that short segment between uh River Road and Route 9G. Uh the traffic counts were considerably higher. Uh in 2023, there were 791 on Berry Town Road east of River Road. Um 503 in 2022 and 559 in 2021. Um, River Road carries considerably more traffic and that was also included in the environmental assessment. So what we were able to do um is uh there were traffic counts counters that were placed on Berry Town Road west of Bell Road. Uh and there was an average um uh vehicles per day. Uh it was over a 3-day period uh early December. There were 666 vehicles counted on Berry Town Road west of River Road. And uh that is most likely from the increase in activity uh now that Simons Rock College uh is occupying the Mina campus. Uh they opened for operations in September of this year. Uh and so that likely explains an almost doubling of traffic on Berry Town Road. So that's the uh existing situation on Berrytown Road based upon 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025 traffic counts. These are actual counts of the number of vehicles that went by

at counter uh placed on Berrytown Road west of River Road. So, um, the original, uh, EAF that was adopted in July 15, uh, took a look at, um, uh, two different ways to try and identify what would be the traffic that could potentially be generated by, uh, the boat club site if it were operated as a town park and dock. And so the first place to look for this uh which is the source that uh virtually all transportation engineers uh across the country use is uh it's known as the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual. And so there is there's um a variety of hundreds actually of different land uses uh for which the um Institute of Transportation engineers have been able to survey around the nation and they've come up with these trip generation factors. And so you can look at a single family house and you can expect that anywhere a single family house uh exists, you can expect somewhere in the vicinity of 10 trips per day. Um it also includes um trip factors for A.M. peak hour, PM peak hours, Saturday peak hours, Sunday peak hours, and so forth. So, it's a quite exhaustive manual that inventories um a variety of different land uses around the nation. So, the closest um uh sort of land use that uh the trip generation manual has for a park is uh what they call a beach park. And this is land use 415. uh and there is a um PM peak hour trip

that's based upon the size of the park in acres as the unit of measurement and the uh trip generation is 1.3 trips per hour per acre of parkland. So this equates to a potential 3.081 new trips per PM peak hour. Uh and and so in looking at that um that's not exactly a significant amount of traffic. And so um and that's probably because most of the beach parks that have been surveyed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers are probably much bigger uh than this and they use that acreage as um as their measurement. So um what we did was we took a further look at this um and tried to identify what would be the maximum capacity of visitors to a future town park and dock. And so, um, essentially the, um, the number of people that would be visiting the park other than people that would be able to, um, to walk there because they live close to the park in Berry Town, um, would be people that would be driving to the site and that's the way most of the boat club members access the site today. And so we looked at the um uh the testimony that was offered uh by both club members as to the number of vehicles that could park uh with trailers. And the testimony that was that was made on May 16th um um stated that there was sufficient parking for six to eight vehicles with trailers. So what we did was we looked at aerial

photography of the site. um uh available through the Duchess County parcel access uh uh mapping and identified uh areas on the site that cars actually park. Um and so this avoided the areas um of the park without encroaching on any of the um the on-site buildings or or parking in areas where there are picnic areas and so forth. Uh and so we used a factor of 400 square f feet per parking space. We did measurements from the parcel access mapping and were able to calculate that approximately 12 to 14 additional cars may be able to park on the site uh without encroaching on um any areas that uh that would not be suitable for parking such as the the drives uh the uh the area that leads down to the boat ramp uh that needs to be left open for vehicles with trailers to be able to come and So, and so we estimated uh somewhere around 20 vehicles being the maximum uh number of vehicles that could actually um um arrive and use the site at any one time. And we can talk about uh parking and how the town would would manage parking and so forth. Uh, and that's all in the normal assessment form, but for purposes of trying to figure out how many additional vehicles are going to be traveling on Eurtown Road uh so that we could um uh include a um a factor that um uh added to the existing traffic that we know um now exists on Bey Town Road. um we made some

assumptions about the number of users that would come to use the park. And so one assumption is that um if someone is arriving with a a vehicle with a trailer and boat uh that they're probably going to be coming in to the park and parking for the day. Um so they'd stay at uh they would arrive and then stay at the park for the day. For other users, we made a reasonable assumption that there would be a turnover um every 3 hours. Um we knew that the town board had already made um uh an assessment about uh what would be the hours of operation for the future park which was open from 7:00 a.m. until closing at 7:00 p.m. So that's 12-hour day. So the estimate was that uh the number of vehicle trips that could reasonably be expected uh to use Berrytown Road to access the future park would involve approximately 80 new trips. Now, that doesn't include uh the number of trips that are currently um attributed to the boat club because no actual um uh sort of of counting was done that would distinguish boat club traffic from the residential uh traffic on Barry Town and Station Hill Road and and all of the other roads that um uh that are accessed from Berry Town Road. And so, um, we looked at that and identified, um, the future estimated number of vehicles per day with the park would be along the order of 746 vehicle trips on Berrytown Road west of River Road. Uh, and that includes the

local traffic. Um, there's 30ome residences. There's the um uh Edgewater estate. So, there's traffic from that. Um and um and of course the uh the boat club. So, um that actually um we're looking at somewhere in the vicinity of of that 746 um vehicle trips per day. And over a uh 12-hour period, that amounts to somewhere on the line of about seven additional vehicle trips per hour as a result in December. In December, not June or July,

excuse me, folks, please please our planner can be heard. You sure in June and July December? All right. So, not too much voting goes on December. Ted, can we can you talk about what the road is rated for? Brilliant.

Sorry. Go ahead.

Yeah. Uh, a two-lane road uh such as this uh generally can accommodate uh somewhere in the vicinity of of 2700 vehicles per hour. SP can we look at some of the historical data to to see how that the A

what about when the church had 4,000 residents there did Ted do you do a study then in December 4,000 residents how much did you see him tell me this I'm going to ask you to look back historically and see how many daily uh trips car trips there were on the road. Can we go back to those previous years? Yeah, you got you've got car trips about 700. This is without unification being active and without the college being active. 21 22 and 23. These are great numbers. Yeah, obsolete.

Can you pull up some of those numbers? I just Yes, there are additional um traffic counties that are available from Duchess County. Um uh they have also have a traffic data viewer very similar to the uh DOS, but it's specific to Duchess County roadways only. And I believe that's part of the um town board's packet. Is that what you're referring to? Yeah, she

just to review just to review the historic Yeah. data from both the county and the state. See how it compares uh that you know the question has been raised that the uh study was conducted recently uh to reflect uh the additional or what may have been additional uh traffic at Msina. Um but it is December and so the boat club traffic obviously is going to be at a very low level. Um you have made assumptions however um of max capacity uh for uh the property if it's a public park which would generate an additional 80 car trips. Um so we want to understand this in context. Um can you give us um any um car trip levels from the past that are um

illustrative of what what type of activity has been in the past. These what needs to be understood about all of this is that these are averages. Uh number one the um the numbers that are provided um it's average annual daily traffic. So these are averages that are derived from uh counts that are done um uh throughout the year and so they will not necessarily give you a specific snapshot of any one day uh whether it's a July day or a December day. Okay.

Yeah. Weekend no one's using it. Please don't interrupt. Okay. cracker and the the higher levels that we saw in the DOT. Can you just give us some of those stats, please? Yes. D um those numbers were um second and third. Well, let's see.

Well, those were the ones that I had stated as 21, 22, and 23. um those were in the range of 347, 442 and 442 for those 3 years. Um that was not when either UTS was fully operational and it was also um prior to bar taking over the Messina campus. So without that sort of a um a generator um operating at full capacity um UTS at full capacity had 300 students um we don't necessarily um know exactly what counts were um at the time when they were uh um you know at at that capacity. It's been quite a number of years uh since the uh form of seminary uh was in use like that. And we do have uh counts and I um I'll have to go and open those up. I believe they're in the package.

We do. Yeah, we have uh counts from uh the shuttles. Um we uh have numbers from the college that there are 70 students thereabouts um in residents and another 30 that are art studio students who um come over to the property as well. There's approximately 40 employees. All of uh the traffic associated with that is now um they are in operation. So we are at least capturing all of that. um if if we're not capturing uh a busier time um during uh when when the boat club is more active. But I guess you know one could make perhaps the assumption that during that summer time then then the school property may be less active. Right.

Um correct to acknowledge that. Okay. Yeah. We don't do those. Okay. All right. Um, I think that sort of covers uh we've got a lot of traffic data from way back in 1999. I think it goes all the way back on the county website. It's available for everybody to see. Um, what are the changes each road not average peak usage? What's the change in peak usage? We don't have that. Just an assumption. Okay. Um Ted, where where do we go next?

Well, that's um other than the traffic analysis, um the EAF has been incorporated now um from the um acquisition action into the um proposed zoning action. And so that now um forms one seeker review process for three separate actions. Um and so um there really has been um no other significant change to the documents that were adopted on July 15th of this year.

And Ted, can I ask a question? This is Julia. I I understand because of the ruling why we need to address all three actions in the same seeker, but local laws B and C, we spent a lot of time talking about traffic impacts just now, but there is no immediate traffic impact expected from local law B or local law C, right? That's just included as a response to the court. That's correct.

Yeah. Okay. Um, somebody had mentioned about peak usage. These charts show the hourly uh times where uh the traffic counts are, what they are throughout the day. Um that's for uh anyone's review on the county's website. Um all right. Uh can we uh Ted, can we look at those LWRP uh responses from the planning board, please? Yes. Okay.

Okay. And I will try to get there. Is it is it easier that we uh talk about our LWRP findings because they incorporate them or do we do we have both documents side by side? What's what's easiest for you? Well, I think it would be helpful to have the planning board's uh comments, water advisory committees comments uh and have two sets of comments. They have those that they made originally um is 25 and then uh those that they have um that they made just last month.

Okay, we'll try to get that on the screen. Do you want to get started with uh The first the set.

Yes. The first set has to do with um policy 1A and the latest comments of the planning board. Uh for the town continues to provide no plan for enhancing facilities access or public education related to waterfront resources. merely transferring ownership from a functioning private boat club to town management of a public park without any demonstrated preservation for enhancement measures fails to meet the intent of this policy. Uh and the policy is to encourage growth of tourism through preservation enhancement and or appropriate reuse of waterfront areas and structures plus public education about historic scenic and recreational resources.

Okay. in our response and that's yeah um and that actually um that is um let's see it's a um it is a local waterfront policy that's unique to Red Hook um it's policy 1A

and actually states encourage growth of the tourism sector of the town economy through one preservation, enhancement, and/or reuse appropriate areas and structures within the LWRP area, historic shoreline scenic district, and two, taking steps to inform the public of existing areas of historic, scenic, and recreational interest. Okay. and opening up to the public will um increase the exposure to the river. Yeah. Correct.

Okay. Um the next one is policy five. Policy five um to the policy. Policy five states, encourage the location of development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate except when such development has special functional requirements or other characteristics which necessitate its locations location in other coastal areas. planning board's comment on this. Um, just scrolling to it. Policy five, their comment is the town has no plans to encourage development in the area. Also, the town has not demonstrated that infrastructure is adequate to support increased public access. No new documentation was submitted to address prior concerns about road safety, bridge capacity, or utility infrastructure. Okay. And our written findings, our response to that is

well there's there's a number of them. Um first it's um the site of the book club is already developed. Um the the position as I understand it of the town board is that um the town board has no plans to make changes to accommodate public use other than routinely.

Yeah, no plans in a wheelchair. I guess that are deemed to be not up to code upon inspection by the town's engineering professionals or are required to protect the public health and safety of visitors and staff at the site. I don't get it. No big cliff down there. That's not

in terms of roadway safety and bridge capacity changes have to be made. the EAF and the coastal assessment form um both examined um the New York State Department of Transportation's um uh reports on the capacity of bridge and it has been deemed to be um uh free of any issues uh with capacity. they have um made a um a determination and if you like me I can get to that exact point um but I'm operating quite a number of different documents here and I have to get right spot in you know a couple hundred pages but

imagine where we are we did look specifically at the DOT and their reports um and they do regular inspections of the Berrytown Bridge um and they deemed it to be um functioning properly. They don't own it and that's a public document that's available online website. Okay. CSX. Um let's uh go to the next item.

Okay. And that's policy 9. And policy nine states, "Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing existing stocks, and developing new resources. Such efforts shall be made in a manner which ensures the protection of renewable fish and wildlife resources and considers other activities dependent upon them." So that's the policy. Okay. The planning board um in regard to this states that the town has not conducted the fish and wildlife conseration or habitat analysis required under this policy. The potential change in intensity of use for private to public access remains unevaluated and could result in overuse or other resource impacts.

Okay. And our response is essentially that we are not going to expand the facility. We're going to use the facility as is. We're not going to with the existing parking capabilities, the intensity of the property could be the same, less or more. Um, if we restrict the use to what the site can accommodate, that will be consistent to what the site can currently accommodate. Yeah. How's that encouraging tourism in how do you control what other people are doing? Uh, Ted, you want to add to that in our response?

Yes. Um the EAF and the coastal assessment forum both um recognize that there are significant fish and wildlife habitats that are found in the area of the boat club site. Um there was uh mapping that was included within the environmental assessment form and coastal assessment form uh that showed exactly where those significant habitats are located. uh none of which are adjoining the boat club site. Uh the nearest significant fish habitats are in the Tindley bays which is nearby. Um but the boat club site does not enjoy um any significant fish habitat.

Okay. Next uh pay to is uh policy 19. Yeah.

Policy 19 states, protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to public water related recreation resources and facilities so that these resources and facilities may be fully utilized in accordance with reasonably anticipated public recreation needs and the protection of historic and natural resources. In providing such access, priority shall be given to public beaches, boating facilities, fishing areas, and waterfront parks.

Okay. And then the planning board's comments on policy 19. Uh these are the new comments. The town has provided no analysis of anticipated use, ADA accessibility, or public safety considerations, leaving unresolved same concerns identified in June 2025. The town's assertion that no work is necessary remains unsupported by engineering or safety data. Let's hear this. Okay. Um, did the pl did the planning board provide any engineering or safety data in their in their response.

That's all that was provided that one one statement. Okay. So, they didn't they didn't provide any. Okay. Um,

well, I think the response is similar in terms of ADA accessibility um that the town board has already um indicated that um it would address code compliance um and would undertake any changes that were necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare of visitors or staff at the site. Now change now. You got to change it. Now you got to change your secret. You're talking out of both sides of your face. You said no changes. Um tongue like a snake.

So we are going to exercise those controls as indicated in the LWRP documents.

Thank you. And the analysis to anticipated use um was found within the traffic assessment which um uh included some reasonable assumptions about overall use of the site. Uh restrictions on use of the site. That would include limiting the number of vehicles that could park. Um you know closing the parking lot when um when the capacity had been reached. Um new webcams. and to use parking apps for people's phones that helps the poor people has space available that they could use if they come down to go down that they enter the site we can sell it

and you know in viewing the other boat launch sites there was some uh testimony um that the other boat launch sites don't possess the same types of amenities i.e. picnic tables. Um but they do um you know cliff um Chevat Ernest Lasher um all of these boat launch faces not parks

broken down they are uh open to the public and none of them seem to demonstrate um uh excess uh usage. They seem anecdotally just visiting them. And from what I uh hear from folks who live in the communities that have these boat launches, they are rarely uh crowded to the point where so that you don't need our Why do you need ours? Have you ever tried to put in WHY DO YOU NEED OURS? May we may we get to the

for your developer friends? for your developer friends. We know

policy 21. Yes. Um policy 21 states um water dependent water enhanced recreation will be encouraged and facilitated and will be given priority over nonwater related uses along the coast provided is it is consistent with the preservation and enhancement of other coastal resources and takes into account for such facilities. In facilitating such activities, priorities shall be given where access to the recreation opportunities of the coast can be provided by new or existing public transportation services and to those areas where the use of the shore is severely restricted by existing development. And there are comments associated with that. comment is um let's see the public acquisition implicates the existing private recreational voting functions rather than expanding or diversifying access contrary to the policy's directive to avoid competition with existing facilities.

Whoa. What was that? And our response, right? Um it provides a public recreational voting facility um as a replacement for a private recreational uh voting facility uh that would be publicly operated uh not privately operated. Where does it state? And then it would expand access. What's the cost operating to the public? It doesn't state whether it's pro public or private private in the LWRP. It says competition 21K. Ted,

you still got a CSX problem. It just wasn't um the planning board. Um let's see. They did not comment about 21 23. Uh they skipped from 21 to 23.

Okay. And the um the policy statement for policy 23 uh states protect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance to the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the state, its communities or the nation. And the planning board's comment on that one. Uh is that the town has not evaluated or proposed any plan to protect the Red Hook Boat Club's historical or cultural significance as a long-standing community institution?

There's a good point for Okay. and the response the findings.

The um this was one addition to the environmental assessment form uh which is how do you go about assessing uh the cultural significance or historic significance of a particular resource in the coastal zone. And the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has a seeker workbook uh that has a recommended analysis that New York State um has posted for um anyone that's filling out a environmental assessment form, whether it's a full form, full EAF or a short EAF. Um and so the um the discussion is now been incorporated into the um revised environmental assessment form. uh and it goes through how you go about providing this sort of analysis and um is the and one of the first questions to ask is uh what is the reason why something has been determined to be eligible uh for listing on the national register? Is it history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or some other cultural uh aspect? Um, and so will there be an uh an impact if there are no buildings, archae archaeological sites or historic districts listed on the state or national register of historic places or on or contiguous to the proposed project site or that have been determined eligible for listing on the state register, then there will be no related impacts. check no or small impact may occur. That's the advice from the state. So, it's it's pegged directly at a resource

that has been identified as being um associated with a historic district either listed on the national or state register of historic places. uh it's a archeological site or district that's been determined to be eligible for listing uh in the register or it's located in a historic district without a um a local resource um uh with a long-standing community institution only been actually designated on the national or state register. Okay. Uh, next up is 25 AMB I believe.

Yes. So, um, 25A states prevent an impairment of scenic resources incorporated within the Mid Hudson Historic Shorelines Scenic District. 25B is protect and enhance the scenic qualities of roads in the town designated as scenic roads. And then the planning board's uh, comment on that. is the 100 ft of dilapitated buildings that back up to the roadway and extensive use of chain link fencing around the property seriously impairs the scenic views from the property and roadway. The town board stated intention to make no changes to the property fails to protect, enhance or improve the scenic resources out. Um so that's uh the planning board has commented that um you know there are dilapitated buildings on the site. What's the town board's intent here? Um and so they've uh land board has associated with uh the protection enhancement of improvement of scenic resources as being uh the objective here. um uh both with the uh safe resources in the Midhun historic scenic district and with uh designated scenic roads

and then uh the protection of of the property once it's designated as public parklands then it's a protected resource. Um, as as has been mentioned, it could be reversed by an act of the state legislature. That is there. We can't hear your eyes. It becomes a public park. There was no intention to ask the legend. It would make no sense. Who's on the table? Um, this is a public park

uh proposal. And again, I want to go back to 2018 that there is a specific policy to undertake efforts to establish a town dock and park area or areas in Barrytown to provide public access for water related recreation activities including fishing and boating. This policy was developed before many of us were uh involved in local government and for many of us not even living here. This was an adopted policy to create a public park in Barry Town for these purposes and that is what we are endeavoring to try to do.

Um next up,

well you didn't answer what the plan is. the policy 32. And on this one, the planning board did not make a determination uh but they did uh present comments to this policy. And the policy states, "Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste systems in small communities where the costs of conventional facilities are unreasonably high given the size of the existing tax base of these communities. So that's the policy. Uh the planning board uh had their comments uh but but again not a determination uh that says sanitary waste facilities currently at the boat cup will require alternative facilities but the town has given no indication what changes will be made. The waterfront advisory committee has determined the town's indication of not applicable is therefore inaccurate. However, the committee has insufficient information to render a decision on consistency.

And our response as it relates to sanitary systems, we've already covered, but if you will repeat that, please. Uh, yes. And that is that um the town will uh will make changes to change. Oh my god. Changes. We're making changes. Please don't interrupt interrupt again to ensure that they are working in accordance with standards. We have no information um independent information as it relates to the sanitary system.

You can't see ADA compliance. You can't see they're not ADA compliant. of the town board is upon inspection by the town's engineering professionals. Uh that anything that's not within compliance with codes and that would include the sanitary code. Um that it would be brought up to code to protect public health safety and welfare. What about the Americans with Disabilities Act? Um then we go on to the next item t

and that would be um policy 34. Policy 34 states discharge of waste materials into coastal waters from vessels will be limited so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water supply areas. And uh the planning board uh did determine that that was consistent. Their comment was um as follows. The waterfront advisory committee has determined the town's indication of not applicable is accurate as the proposed local law sufficiently addresses discharge of waste materials from vessels. the uh the rating not applicable should be changed to yes

uh let's see and last one let's see is it the last one yeah I think it's 41 maybe uh 34 41 no I believe 30 uh 34 before was the last one and then they had everything on it in Okay. Okay. Yep. So that's that um is the um is what the planning board had um provided in its opinions uh and recommendations.

Okay. Can we uh look at our LWRP consistency determination draft please? report draft. Ted, can you start uh start us into that? I'm going to step away for a minute. You're presenting a draft though, right? This is a draft that you're talking about. Just give me a moment.

It's not even accepted. Thank you. 23 minutes. Okay. This is Mhm.

I think it's before I think it starts at 154 thereabouts on the PDF. Okay. Yes. step away.

Okay. So, um we have 40ome policies to go through here. Um many of which are not applicable. Um in the case of the town boards um consistency determination for local laws B and C of 2025 um and the proposed acquisition of the 2.37 acre property for dedication as parkland as a town dock and park area. So policy 1A um states encourage growth of the tourism sector of the town economy through one preservation enhancement and reuse appropriated areas and structures within the LWPD area historic shoreline scenic district and two taking steps to inform the public of existing areas and historic scenic and recreational interest. And based upon the uh continuation sheet that was prepared for the coastal assessment form, uh this form indicates the actions are consistent with that policy. Policy two, facilitate the sighting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. Uh this policy uh has been indicated as consistent uh and is explained further in attachment A which is the continuation sheet requirements. Five encourage the location of development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate except when such development is special functional requirements or other characteristics which necessitate its location in other coastal areas.

That is checked as yes consistent fish wildlife policies. Number seven, significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats as identified in the coastal area map shall be protected, preserved or practical, restored so as to maintain reliability of habitats as also indicated as consistent. Policy 7A is a local redwood policy protecting areas identified as significant habitat areas by the department of state as well as creeks killed wetland and coal areas drained into and adjacent to the Hudson River from alteration and/or pollutant discharge by residential, commercial, agricultural or industrial uses in order to maintain their viability as habitat areas. that's indicated is consistent. Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous waste and other pollutants which bioaccumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on those resources as policy 8 indicated as consistent. Policy nine, expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing existing stocks in developing new resources. Such efforts shall be made in a manner which ensures the protection of renewable fish and wildlife resources and considers other activities dependent upon them. Policy 11, buildings and structures will be cited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. That's indicated as consistent policy 16. Public funds shall only be used for erosion protective structures

where necessary to protect human life and new development which requires a location within or adjacent to an erosion hazard area to be able to function or existing development. And only where the public benefits outweigh the long-term monetary and other costs, including the potential for increasing erosion and adverse effects on natural protective features as indicated as consistent. Policy 17, use non wherever possible, use nonstructural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion. Such measures shall include one, the setback of buildings and structures. Two, the planting of vegetation and the installation of sand fencing and draining. Three, the reshaping of bluffs. And four, the floodp proofing of buildings or their elevation above the base flood level. And that's indicated as consistent policy 19. Protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to public water related recreation resources and facilities so that these resources and facilities may be fully utilized in accordance with reasonably anticipated public recreation needs and the protection of historic and natural resources. In providing such access, priority shall be given to public beaches, boating facilities, fishing areas, and waterfront parks. That's indicated as consistent. Policy 20. Access to the publicly owned foreshore and the lands immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the water's edge that are publicly owned shall be provided and it should be provided in a manner compatible with joining us. Such land shall be retained in public ownership. That's indicated as consistent. Policy 20A, reasonable vehicular access

and pedestrian access shall be provided whenever feasible to the publicly owned foreshore. Public ownership or easement over adjoining land will be pursued where appropriate. That's indicated as consistent. Policy 21. Water dependent and water enhanced recreation will be encouraged and facilitated and will be given priority over nonwater related uses along the coast provided it is consistent with the preservation and enhancement of other coastal resources and takes into account demand for such facilities. to facilitating such activities. Priority shall be given to areas where access to the recreation opportunities of the coast can be provided by new or existing public transportation services and to those areas where the use of the shore is severely restricted by existing development as indicated as consistent policy 21A. This is a town of Red Hook local policy. undertake efforts to establish a town dock and park area or areas in Berry Town to provide public access for water related recreation activities including fishing and boating as indicated as consistent. Policy 22, development when located adjacent to the shore will provide it for water related recreation as a multiple use whenever such recreational use is appropriate in light of reasonably anticipated demand for such activities and the primary purpose of the development as indicated as consistent. protect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology, or culture of the states of the state, its communities, or the nation. That's indicated this consistent. Local policy 23A. conserve, protect, preserve, and if

appropriate, promote the adaptive reuse of places, sites, structures, views, and features in the coastal area of the town of Red Hook of special historic, cultural, or archaeological significance, or which by reason of association with notable people or events, or of the antiquity or uniqueness of architectural and landscape design, in particular, significance to the heritage of the town, as indicated as consistent. Policy 24 ask you not to block the go public hearing. Yes.

Okay. Policy 24 prevent impairment of scenic resources of statewide significance as identified on the coastal area map. Impairment shall include one the irreversible modification of geologic forms, the destruction and removal of education. the destruction or removal of structures wherever the geologic forms. There we go.

Vegetation or structures are significant to the scenic quality of an identified resource. And two, the addition of structures which because of sighting or scale will reduce identified use or which because of scale form of materials will diminish the scenic quality of an identified resource. That's indicated as consistent. Local policy 24A, prevent impairment of the estates district scenic area of statewide significance, indicated as consistent. Policy 24B, prevent impairment of the Austin North scenic area of statewide significance, indicated as consistent. Policy 25, protect, restore, or enhance natural and man-made resources which are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area as indicated as consistent. Local policy 25A prevention impairment of scenic resources incorporated within the mid Hudson historic Shorland scenic district indicated as consistent policy 20 local policy 25D protect and enhance the scenic qualities of roads in the town designated as scenic roads as indicated as consistent policy 26A to conserve to protect agricultural lands in the coastal area of the town of Red Hook. An action shall not result in a loss or impair the productivity of important agricultural lands if that loss or impairment would adversely affect the viability of agriculture in an agricultural district or if there is no agricultural district in the area surrounding such lands that's indicated as consistent with that local policy piss out of

policy 30. Municipal, industrial, and commercial discharge of pollutants, including but not limited to toxic and hazardous substances into coastal waters will conform to state and national water quality standards indicated as consistent. Uh, and that is it. All on the other ones that I did not mention by number. Um and the remaining coastal policies 31 through 44 are all considered uh not applicable to the proposed uh actions. Who says that?

And that takes care of it. Robert, are you there? Yeah, I'm here. Okay. So, that takes care of the LWRP. That's the other.

What's next? Um, we do need to we did get um although I think they were late but regardless we need to address there were some in the referral um to the county. We got um some comments related to Marinas. They were earlier referenced. Ted, do do you want to um address that please? you you were very involved with the up update the draft update of the LWRP that's in front of the US. Show us the responses in writing.

Yes. Um so the um um the county department of planning and development um provided uh uh comments on proposed uh local laws B and C um as an only amendments. Um and they came back with a comment that it was a local concern but with comments and in a case like this um this does not constitute what they consider to be a denial in their review responsibility. Uh, a denial would require the town board if it was to consider um a vote on um adoption of local laws B and C. Uh it would have to be by supermajority to overwrite the county comments. Um and the town board would have to provide comments to the county about that. But that is not the situation here because it is a local concern with comments only and these are simply recommendations. Uh and the county recommends that the board rely upon its own study of the facts in the case with due consideration of the uh above comments. Uh and the comments is that um I can read them. The board is proposing to no longer allow marinas as a permitted use within the town. However, the Tower of Red Hooks local waterfront revitalization plan includes policy statements outlining a town goal of facilitating the sighting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. Marinas are one of uh such water dependent uses identified in the same plan. It is unclear why the board has decided to remove marinas as a permitted use within the town as it appears to contradict stated policy goals provided in the LWRP. We note that the town has recently

updated their LWRP and the town comprehensive plan um adopted in 1993 um is currently in the process of being updated and is projected to be considered for adoption in 2026. While the current comprehensive plan does not specifically speak to the use of marinas, it does state that preferred use within the waterfront conservation area is restricted to passive and water dependent recreation and refinement of the town zoning code to integrate uh recommended measures to carry out the town's local waterfront revitalization program as a general recommendation. The following quotes are included in the town's 2021 LWRP. quote, "Commercial uses within the waterfront revitalization area are generally prohibited except for marinas, conference centers, nursery schools, kells and farm related uses as described above." That's a true statement. Uh the second is quote clearly a marina, fishing pier or swimming area would enhance and in turn be enhanced by nearby restaurants, motel and other nonwater oriented tourist activities. Uh and again um we question the justification provided by the town board that finds the proposed removal of arenas as a permitted use within the town to be consistent with the policy goals provided in the LWRP and other local planning objectives given the specific references to the use provided above. Um and so first um the town's comprehensive plan does address commercial uses. Um and the comprehensive plan is clear that uh new commercial uses within the town of Red Hook should be directed to the villages of Red Hook and Tivoli and the areas um adjoining the villages as well as to Upper Red Hook. And those are the only

areas that are noted in the town c 1993 town comprehensive plan uh as being the appropriate places to allow for commercial uses such as a marina.

And that's um one of the primary um reasons why um uh the marinas were considered by the um waterfront revitalization working group. um and to eliminate that because of um the commercial aspects that are associated with marinas. Uh the second is because there is within the um LWRP uh recommendations uh that pertain specifically to fish and wildlife resources uh and to habitats and the state policy documents uh and um environmental documents that have been produced by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation um highlight the fact that marine is uh can be disruptive and disturbing of habitat areas. Um and um the LWRP coastal assessment form that was prepared um also discusses the um uh the uses that Robert had mentioned earlier that are associated with the marina such as uh oil, gasoline um and repairs and um other commercial um aspects that are associated with a with a marina.

All right. And the recommendation came out of the LWRP update uh committee. I think Christine, you you were um the liaison to that. Um and Ted, you worked alongside that task force and that recommendation was four years ago, 5 years ago, this draft. The county is referring to a draft, right? And we can't we can't we have to use our our adopted LWRP. We can't reference um nonadopted LWRP plans, right? But for some reason they have referenced it, right? That language that you read comes out of that.

That is correct. Yes. And that the town's still working with the Department of State to um to get the document um in a form where the state is ready to approve it and send it on to the federal government for their concurrence. Okay. So, it's clear the document recommends the removal of Marinas, but there may be some legacy language that's been identified in that draft that should be addressed. Is that what we're saying?

Yes. And I think at this point because um um we do have a new set of comments from the state um we're going to have to look at those and uh determine, you know, what additional changes are made to that draft. And this is the third or fourth time now um since I spent it back with the state. Yeah. Yeah. I I realized more mapping stuff uh changes that they're requesting. Well, they the state has made changes in the program and the way that they um approving LWRPs now that were not in place when this was originally submitted to the state.

Okay. and they've had a fair amount of turnover and we're on our what our third person. Yes. All right. So, that addresses the marinas. I know that that was something that's been brought up. Uh and again, once again, the the court has ruled on uh the removal of marinas as being consistent um with the LWRP. Okay. What's next in our review? Ted, she's 10:40.

Well, we've gone through the EAF. We've gone through the coastal assessment form. Um, these are now consolidated documents that wrap um all three actions into um into um uh one one document. And I think um you know at this point uh you know if any of the town board members have any questions or anything further they'd like to discuss about those two documents um we can certainly go over that. Otherwise um I think we pretty pretty well covered um what needs to be done here

and we've incorporated the the uh environmental review associated with the acquisition action as well. um including uh the alternatives analysis which um goes to uh the LWRP, right, which says that even if we were to find and we have not found, but even if we were to find that there are inconsistencies um with uh any one of the 44 policies that if there is no other better alternative or no other alternative frankly um that it is a um uh that is it appropriate to still move forward.

Yes. With with one caveat though, which is that if the town board were to ident inconsistency with the policy uh that you would have to come up with a finding finding statement. Yeah. Why you were acting contrary with a LRP policy, right? And we've heard that suggested in some of the written comments that we have received that we need to provide findings um if we were to uh determine that um any one of these policies are violated by the action.

Okay. Um, I just want to make sure we mute everything here copies. I'm not seeing anything. Uh, board members, any questions on the environmental review chat, BAS, LWRP for TED? Okay. Are we prepared to entertain a resolution as it relates to secret? If so, I think at that point it would be appropriate. Sorry.

Right. That's what I was saying. So, um, if we are ready to do that, then we should consider closing the public hearing. We don't have to do this tonight. Are we ready to take action on the determination of non-significance? Notice, can you speak up, please? I'm sorry. Are we ready to take action on the determination of nonsignificance? We have a draft in front of us. Yes. My question is, are you ready to entertain that because we need to close the public hearing, Jacob? I don't have any other concerns to address.

No. Okay. At this time, I'd like to make a resolution. I'd like to Isotion, please let me. Is the public hearing open or closed? I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Thank you. Uh any further discussion? If not, all in favor? Jacob, I'll second it. Robert Christine must pulled up. Thank you very much. We have a resolution. What are we on? 95 95. You're at a fork in the road, guys.

Do the right thing. It's a resolution to listen to your people. Do the right thing. You're at a fork in the road. Now's your time to do the right thing. Amen. You're at the fork. It's a resolution.

Sorry, one second. 95 adopting a determination of non-significance for local zoning amendments where that has been presented to the town board of the town of Red Hook a proposed local law BNC proposed of 2025 updating and amending the town zoning law in the town of Red Hook and whereas the town board classified the action as type one under SER and declared its intent to serve as lead agency in a review of the project as it is the only involved agency. And whereas the proposed zoning amendments will be applicable in the town outside of the villages. And whereas the town board has reviewed a full environmental assessment form and coastal assessment form for the proposed action and has reviewed a draft at the AF part two and three all in the forms on file with the town clerk. The town board has considered the criteria and thoroughly analyzed all identified relevant areas of environmental concern, including any disclosed in the FBA and CAF. The town board referred the proposed zoning law amendments and the town board has reviewed the proposed zoning law amendments and their consistency with the town's adopted local waterfront revitalization program. Whereas the town board has reviewed a draft notice of determination of non-significance, negative declaration in the form on file with the town clerk setting forth reason supporting a determination that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Now therefore, be it resolved that the town board of the town of Red Hook by a favorable vote of not less than a majority of all the members hereby adopts a negative declaration and determines that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse

environmental impacts and that a draft environmental impact statement will not be prepared. and authorizes and directs the town clerk to distribute a copy of this resolution to all involved and interested agency, the town supervisor, and any person that has requested a copy and to make all other filings required by law. And that is resolution number 95. And who moved that? Okay. Who would like to move 95? Almost 95. So, anybody like to second 95?

Second. Okay. Thank you, Jacob. Is there further discussion on the determination? Okay. I would just like to add that this action is protective of the environment and um having that property permanently uh protected and available um will hopefully be an asset for all members of the community and including both club membersh. Okay. Uh further discussion. If not, all in favor? Bill? Hi, Julia. Hi, Christine. I Jacob and myself.

Um, we have resolution number 96. You're local business. Remember that. approving the adoption of a local law B of 2025, the local law updating and amending the town zoning law. Whereas a proposed form of local law entitled local law D of 2025, updating and amending the town zoning law was submitted to the town board of the town of Red Hook.

Whereas the planning board reviews reviewed the proposed local law on November 10th. That's a typo, isn't it? Yeah. Robert, did you take a formal action for LWRP or did you just go through it? There's the attorney on the LWRP. We took a formal action on the Oh, to adopt. Yeah. Thank you. Um, we did the nag there, but yes, we should accept the LWP vote. Get it on film. $4,000.

Probably no doubt. Probably all shop outside. Okay. Uh this time I'd like to make a motion to adopt the L LWRP findings. Folks, please don't interrupt. I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the LWRP findings as drafted as discussed tonight. Is there a second? Thank you, J. Further discussion. All in favor?

Well, hold on. I'll just add that as I said back in July, my objection to moving forward with them in a domain is not based on the environmental impact, nor is it based on the consistency with the LWRP. My position has not changed. The change in the marina status is damage. At this time for a vote on the motion to accept the LW to adopt the LWP. All in favor? Jacob, Christina, myself, Phil. Hi, Julia. Hi. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, resolution 96. Yes. dated uh December 9th, 2025 and local law B proposed form of the local law updating and amending was submitted to the town board. The planning board reviewed the proposed local law on November 10th and serving as the waterfront advisory committee provided its recommendation regarding LWRP consistency dated November 12th, 2025, stating that the proposal was inconsistent with the policies of the LWRP and further provided its report and recommendation dated November 12, 2025 pursuant to section 239M of the general municipal law. A notice of public hearing regarding adoption of set proposed local law was duly advertised in the journal

which is not less on October 19th

pursuant to a resolution of the town board adopted on October 14th. A public hearing was held on November 19th at 7:55 and was continued until this evening at 7:35. and all parties in attendance were prevented an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to set proposed law or any part thereof. And whereas pursuant to 239M of GML, the proposed amendments were referred to Department of Planning and Development which reported in a communication dated November 25th that it was a matter of local concern with comments. And whereas based upon the information presented to the board, including comments of the public, comments, and recommendations of the planning board, the communication of the department of planning and development, and the town's own study of the matter, the town board has determined that the adoption of the proposed zoning amendments are necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of town residents and to bring the town zoning law into conformance with Greenway Connections. pursuant to chapter 17 of the town code and with applicable state and federal law and are consistent with the town comprehensive plan. Um whereas the town board has adopted a consistency determination finding that the proposed action is consistent with the town's local waterfront revitalization program.

I can see that face. You can see it with a straight face. Yeah. and has adopted a negative declaration determining that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.

Now therefore be resolved and I just want to make uh one uh change to the draft. um a second. Whereas um the plan board reviewed um the referral is um according to uh town law and town code and not GML. That's our local law. So with that edit um 96 Now therefore uh be it resolved by the town board of the town of Ric as follow. Town board hereby adopts a local law B of 2025 now to be referred to as local law 3 of 2025 entitled local law 3 of 2025. A local law updating and amending the town zoning law in the form on file with the town clerk and made a part of this resolution. The town hereby is directed to enter said local law in the minutes of the meeting and the town called the town of Redo to give due notice of the adoption of said local law to the secretary of state and to take all other actions as may be required by law and I so move resolution number 96. Is there a second?

Will second. Thank you Julia. Um further discussion, I would like to just once again reiterate for the public that we are resubmitting um the uh elements of local law one as directed of 2025 as directed by the court and reviewing it in concert with the acquisition of the waterfront parcel. We are taking the direction of the court. We are doing so in such a way that we hope minimizes the legal expenses of the community. That may or may not be the case. Um but we are taking the direction of the court.

They going up. Okay. Um with that being said, more discussion in the other comments. Well, I would just like to add that, you know, in my position as chair of the comprehensive planning steering committee, local lobby addresses a number of important zoning related updates that are unrelated to the waterfront. And it is true that the comprehensive plan update process is underway. That process will take some time. It's not expected to be completed until the end of 26. And that is only the plan itself. The any updates to the zoning code would be subsequent to that. And so local lobby is necessary in the interim. Zoning is iterative and can certainly be adjusted in the future if that is appropriate. So I'm happy.

Why didn't you carve out the vote closets? You might have addressed the other things. Please folks, please don't interrupt. Thank you Julia. Any any other discussion?

Local law B uh encompasses all of the nonwaterfront uh related uh areas of the zoning that were suggested for change. And I I want to reiterate um that all of these changes that are proposed in local law one and in local law B came from public input. All of them were related to please don't interrupt all of this in the dark of night. When local law one was proposed, there were no no substantive objections. In fact, support from the planning board on many of these matters. Um, and the only question uh was related to Marina. So,

any other discussion on 96? Uh, sorry. Yeah. 96. 96. No, I just I was going to say basically the same thing that Julia brought up and that this um the work that was done on many of the issues and items that are included in local lobby were done over a long period of time with committee input um and lots of public hearings and public comments. So to um so it it just makes sense to put it back. I mean, we have to do it this way because of the judge's decision. So, that's why we're doing it this way. You can do it again.

All right, folks. Um, you didn't have to. At this time, let's uh do a vote once again. Jacob, hi. Christine, I myself I Bill. Julia. Thank you.

Okay. Uh resolution resolution number 97 approving the adoption of local law C of 2025. The local law updating and amending the town zoning law. Whereas a proposed form of the local law entitled local law C, updating and amending the town zoning law was submitted to the town board. Whereas the planning board reviewed the proposal of the law November 10th, 2025 and serving as waterfront advisory committee provided its recommendation regarding LWRP consistency on the 12th stating that the proposal was inconsistent with some of the policies of the LWRP and further provided its report and recommendations dated November 12th, 2025 pursuant to section 239. 9 M. Let's make that change again. Town code, town law and town code. Where has a notice of the public hearing regarding adoption of the local law was duly advertised in the journal the official newspaper of the town on October 19th which is not less than 10 days prior to the date of public hearing. And whereas pursuant to a resolution the town board adopted October 14th, 2025, a public hearing was duly held on November 19th at 8:15 and the public hearing was continued to this evening at 7:35. All parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf or in opposition to said proposed local law. Whereas pursuant to 239 of the GML, the proposed amendments of the zoning law were referred to the department of planning and development which reported in a communication dated

November 2025 that it was a matter of local concern with comments. Whereas based on the information presented to the board, including comments of the public, comments and recommendations of the planning board, the communication of the department of planning and development, and the town's own study of the matter, the town board has determined that the adoption of the proposed zoning amendments are necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of town residents and to bring the town's zoning law into conformance with Greenway Connections. pursuant to chapter 17 of the town code and with applicable state and federal law and are consistent with the town comprehensive plan. And whereas the town board has adopted a consistency determination finding that the proposed action is consistent with the town's LWRP and has adopted a negative declaration determining that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Now therefore, be it resolved by the town board of the town of Red Hook as follows. The town board hereby adopts said local law C of 2025 now to be referred to and this would be local law 4. Make sure that typo is corrected. entitled local law number four of 2025, a local law updating and amending the town zoning law in the form on file with the town clerk and made a part of this resolution. And the town clerk hereby is directed to enter said local law in the minutes of the meeting and the town code of the town to give due notice of the adoption of said local law to the secretary of state and to take all other actions as may be required by law. And this is resolution number 97 and I so move. Is there a second?

Second. Thank you, Jacob. Is there further discussion? If not, I would like to uh make a roll. So, I am not prepared to support this resolution today. Uh I only got the comments from the county planning board today. Okay. Uh I feel there's quite a lot of flux about the status of the WRP draft. I am supportive of the goal of not commercializing the waterfront, but I do not feel prepared to vote on this resolution today. Okay. All right. Um, done. Yeah, I would just like to say that uh, you know, again, got the two.

I sort of feel like no matter what we say, you don't want to hear it anyway. But we thinking about us.

We spent a lot of time at the uh, with the steering committee for the local the LWRP update. We talked a lot about different types of uses, changes in the community. At the time the um issue of of uh parking the tankers in the middle of the river was very high and well just like you could say this has nothing to do with that. I could say this has nothing to do so there was a lot of different thoughts and reasonings behind this. Uh again, it was done and put into the law at a time before we got to the vote club stuff, which does not make me happy. But this does not

um this was not done or the recommendations from the LWRP committee had nothing to do, we were not foreseeing anything to do with the boat club. We did not bring that up at all. As I have said, I'm not in support of the eminent domain of the boat club. And um but this does not uh this was not done or developed in any way tied to an em proposed eminent domain of the book.

Thank you Christine. I do want I do want to add that when that draft that recommended the removals of of marinas before it was developed that all the property owners along the waterfront were contacted for their input. And so there was that opportunity to review um that recommendation and to have input and we did not from my understanding we did not uh according to Paula we did not get any response from the B club to the draft and this was many years ago you would listen to okay at this time uh I'd like to entertain a vote on resolution number 97. I moved it. Jacob seconded.

Okay. Christine, I know you will. I Okay. Uh, the resolution passes. Um, the record, let the record show. 41. Um, at this time, uh, we're going to move on to going to quickly move on to the other items on the agenda. 15 January 1st. The other ones at 7:52. Remember 752? Please, we're moving on. January 1. Okay, thank God.

We have to tackle awarding the uh communication equipment. Uh we have a recommendation from our engineer. This would be resolution number 98. The bid recommended that We haven't done this one. I'm jumping ahead a little bit.

Uh approving the contract for water district water tank communications equipment. Um do you have the communication from the engineers? Yes.

This a recommendation to award this go All right. Can't wait to hear Bill. Do you want to speak to this for a second? Not for very long. It's just a replacement and upgrade of the ability of work. Um the old system was a two-way radio which is obsolete and not always working. And the new technology is cellular. So it's on 24/7 and it's been soaking as the industry standard um for water districts and the tanks. And so um that's why the water department has asked to uh upgrade.

Okay. And we have a uh recommendation to Yeah. Smith control system and the amount was $20,000 and that's resolution number 98. You'll move that back into the um is there a second on that motion to approve the the resolution? Second. Thank you Christine. Bill moved and Christine second. Uh any further discussion? If not, all in favor?

I I Okay. Uh we have resolution number 99. Um so this is related to the uh water tank rehab bill. Do you want to do just a couple of minutes of recap in case someone's watching tonight and hasn't been watching for many meetings where we've been discussing this? Well, the tank is old. Um was put in I think in 19 80 something 89. Okay.

Um and the water department was faced with decision of whether to replace the tank or rehab the tank. Replacing the tank was probably at that time that they were getting estimates was about 4.6 million is now considerably higher than that. The rehab is really about draining the tank and then both on the inside and outside making necessary repairs and repainting it with a much higher quality, longerlasting and durable paint uh to extend the life of the existing tank hopefully 15 to 20 more years. That is estimated about 1.7 million. the water board um they decided they voted that they would rather go with a rehab than a replacement. Um and in the intervening time because they as Hank said at one of the prior meetings that they had kept our rates so much lower than everybody else that we weren't putting enough money in our fund for emergencies that during the course of that period of time that the rehab will keep the tank alive that they'll be able to have the reserves go up to deal with some of the major things that are going to happen uh for the you know water man have to be replaced. So, uh, that's that's the reason uh for the water tank rehab decision and it made sense to me and we just so be clear, our water board has people who run water departments in other communities as well as work with the county uh, wastewater and water committee. Uh and so they there's a lot of expertise there and um they did a number of financial models and looked at other things cost out over time and cost of money and those things and they believe that the tank rehab is is the better option.

Right. And so we have um a memo from our engineers um Dan Valentine opinion of probable construction cost update um who provided us with that. Um we have from the water board an explanation of how they would seek to fund it. Um we have to call a public hearing. It's a resolution and an order calling the public hearing regarding the increase and improvement of water district facilities for water district number one in the town of Reap. And again, as a reminder to folks, it's only the uh users of the water system who uh pay for the costs. Um, and uh, so this is a resolution that calls that public hearing to uh, get the input of the community. And I'll read it to you. Um, the engineer has prepared an engineering report dated August 24th of 2022. That's how long it's been discussed whether or not to rehab or to replace. And they've made a final determination. Um the engineer updated that report in 2023. Um there was a tank inspection in 2024 and sediment removal project in 2024 at the request of the water board. The engineer has prepared a further report updated March 10th of this year describing the rehab project and providing an opinion of probable cost for the rehabilitation option and tank replacement option. So looking at both things updating the cost as Bill commen mentioned such report update together with the engineering report the preliminary report a copy of which is on file with town clerk the cost of rehab of the tank is estimated not to exceed $1,672,600.

A portion of such cost is estimated in the amount of $400,000 is proposed to be paid from the water district's existing SW reserve fund and the remaining project costes to be proposed uh to be financed pursuant to the local finance law. Whereas the foret purpose constitutes repair or replacement in kind. It's a type two action as defined under seeker a public hearing. Um, looks like we have in draft form here January 13th at 7:35, just a few minutes before that other public hearing. Uh, pursuant to section 202B of the town law, to consider said proposed improvement and modification of facilities of the district, and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same, and for such other action on the part of the town board with relation there to as may be required by law, the town clerk shall publish at least once in the journal, a newspaper having a general circulation in town. Um,

it must be on the sign board. Yeah. Pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 30 of town law. And it must be substantially in the form attached the first publication thereof posting to be not less than 10 days. Okay. Or more than 20 days before the date of such a public hearing. So Diana, you'll have to count backwards there and make sure that we all

Thank you. Um the notice it's hereby given that the town board of the town of Redhawk will meet and I don't know why it says via Zoom. We will meet on the 13th. Let's make that added to the notice, please. That must have been a legacy template um at 7:35 prevailing time for the purpose of conducting a public hearing upon a proposal by said town board to undertake proposed improvements. Pursuant to section 202B, the town board is considering a recommended work plan for improvements to the water district as described in the preliminary engineering report dated August 2022 as amended June 17, 2023 as further supplemented March 10th, 2025 prepared by TNB Engineering and Landscape, including the rehabilitation of the existing stamp pipe at Kelly Roadwater Storage Site and including original furnishing machines, equipment, machinery, and apparatus required. Therefore, at an estimated maximum cost of 1,672,000, a portion of such costs in the estimated amount of 400,000 is proposed to be paid from the water district's existing SW reserve fund and the remaining project cost is proposed to be financed pursuant to the local finance law. Such engineers preliminary report is on file with John. We've determined according to our engineers report that this constitutes a type two action under seeker. All interested part persons, excuse me, will be given an opportunity to be heard by order of the town board of the town of dated December 9, 2025. Resolution number 99. Yes.

Yes. Okay. I'm going to move that one too. Bill, you want to move it as water related? Okay. Um, is there a second? Second. Thank you, Christine. Any further discussion? As a reminder, January 13th, folks at home, two public hearings. Okay. All in favor? I.

Motion carries 5. Okay. um we don't need to take action on the uh 284 agreement. For the folks at home, just so you know, the highway superintendent each year prepares what we would call a work plan, if you will, an agreement, um which needs to be approved by the local municipal body, in this case, the town board. Um and that is a schedule of which roads and how far and what type of uh improvement to the roadways are being proposed. And well, I struggled to find the PDF page. I will just read you so you know what's proposed for next year is Starbark Road from Old Post to Williams. Um and that is a repaving um asphalt 20 ft approximately 2 in uh 20 ft wide 2 in deep. Um middle road starting in Rybeck Town line and ending at Roabby Road a distance of 085 miles. Stony Brook Road starting at the Tivoli Village line and ending at State Route 9G a distance of89 mi. Sang sack starting at Woods Road and ending at Stonyberg Road a distance of6 miles. Kid Lane from 9G to the Tivoli Village line a distance of 1.1 miles. That is for chip seal on oil and stone chip seal. um approximate width of 22 ft, thickness of just a quarter, that is an overllayment seal, subbases asphalt. Um for uh the major improvements there shall not be uh the

repairs of 62,000 um road uh not expended above 323 and then on the chip seal $90,000. So, uh, the superintendent is not asking for us to take action tonight, but just know, uh, for the public and for the board members, uh, who will be here in January, um, that, uh, she'll be looking for, uh, our approval or our comments or our questions, uh, in advance of uh, that January meeting.

I just had one comment maybe to relate to Jacob since I won't be here at the January meeting. Um, I know that we are very much in favor of green procurement and electrification of the fleet. I just want to make sure that, you know, there was some back and forth about which ban to be procured and just that I want to make sure that whatever obviously electric is great, but just that it actually meets the needs of the group. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. That was that's going to discuss that, but since you raised it. Yeah. I mean there are the only confusion I see is that there wasn't a focus on what's available because there's lots of new and used that are hightop. I mean that's the most important thing is the cargo that they they are interested in having it's not called high top but you know what I mean they right extra height the extra height tall van

the 12 van um and Ford which I think I sent the link I think she came back with the Dodge so she did find some so uh and you can get you know gently used for 2023 she did explain you can't use chips for used. Um but there is quite a bit of price difference there. So you know that's something to consider is you know do we want to buy new? Do we not want to buy used? Um we have the infrastructure here to charge. They have excess electricity which we pass on to other accounts. So we can just use it um you know uh to help reduce the cost of operating that. So um there are plenty of options uh as it relates to electric and there is the ZEV infrastructure so we can get some grant money um if we apply the approval. Okay. Anything else more about van since we brought that up. Thank you for mentioning that. Okay. Um what's left? We've got um

benefits.

Oh benefits. I think I mentioned that early earlier. One thing I would bring to your attention um is that there are other options uh for local municipalities who uh currently are with uh MVP. It looks like our brokers are adding in some United Healthcare plans that may be comparable, something to look at um perhaps um that may produce savings while providing the same level of coverage for the employees. So if you would take a look at that menu plate carefully. Um I will have uh our brokers um help differentiate um between some of those uh similar plans so that we can understand um you know what what if any implications there are besides monetary.

Also for the benefit of the two new board members coming in who've never done this. We do it every year. There are a number of plans that are listed. Yeah. And various costs and structures. And so it's important um that we have somebody who can explain those and they get the input from our employees and and the union. Um, I'm only smiling because if somebody thinks they can understand healthc care coverage in a meeting, I mean, I'm I'm finishing up my 10th year and I still don't understand all of the aspects of these these plans and they they're constantly changing.

They're difficult, but there are some bottom lines and issues of deductibles and how much is going to come out of an employes's pocket versus the other. And I think we need to get the input from our employees. Um, and we need to have somebody come and explain it, especially since we have two new people that have never been through this. Well, we don't know. I mean, they may have been through it in in another This will be my this will be my seventh time and it's hard.

Yeah. Okay. So, that's all we have is uh to please uh for those of you in January, please look at that. Um, okay. The la uh last item that we have before we entertain going into executive uh session and attorney client is home rule request. Um the community preservation fund. you've heard me talk about this um and I was around at the beginning of it um in uh 2005 when we started uh advocating for the two the Hudson Valley Community Preservation Fund Act. So we have had this real estate transfer fee in place for 19 years now. It was um voted in by the public. Um I will take every opportunity to remind folks because we have an issue that uh the community is um divided about. Um that uh even when the community itself gets to decide by referendum that does not mean that the community would not be divided. um the timing of which and it's sort of comparable to right now the timing back then when the community preservation fund was brought forth to the voters in 2007 was at the beginning of a major real estate downfall. Um, we also had I think Roland Page was here uh tonight. His wife Linda uh became the president of the New York Board of Realtors and they used some of their mobilization fund to fight it at the time. Many realtors were against it. um many of them turned around to become supporters of it

because they realized that even those warnings that oh with this real estate transfer fee nobody's going to want to buy into the community blah blah blah blah blah and it's been quite the opposite um because we've been able to protect what's so important uh to many in the community uh those working landscapes the open spaces that it has um uh supported the valuations you could say increased the valuations. Um so many of them turned around and have a very different positive view of it. That said um uh the uh state enabling legislation uh as it did with um the towns in Long Island and Warwick who preceded us allows for 20 years. Um, and then it needs to be reviewed. And so we need to make that request of our state reps um to uh carry a home rule authorization bill um essentially just to extend it. So um what you have in front of you is a resolution to make that request and a draft um that asks for it to be like with War to be extended to 2050. Um I can uh prepare stats for uh next year so people understand but essentially um that real estate transfer fee has uh totaled nearly $8 million of which we've leveraged with all the land trusts, the county, the state, the federal government. We're one of the rare communities that have partnered with the uh farm and ranch program. Um and so if you drive down West Curly Corners and you see most of those protected properties, we had many of those property owners were here this evening as a matter of fact. We've partnered with them um and protected

um those uh working landscapes with uh CPF funds. Cookingham Farm uh we had the funds to uh to work on that UTS project which has not come to fruition. We've done the close farm. We've done so many other farms, the open properties. We've been able to expand our recreational uh parks as well with CPF. All of that to say that it's been a transformative tool for our community. I think uh we would uh all agree. And so the extension of that would be helpful when it comes time for the next amazing property uh owner to want to work with us. um you know to to protect

a question. Sure.

When it was initially adopted, it was for 20 years pursuant to state law. Did the state law change to allow it to go to 25? Uh I don't know what the shade enabling legis that is discretionary and you know my my uh the council that I got on that was if they've already done that why you know unless you have a reason to have a different uh time period that the legislature is used to and this is a I think it's a perive almost copy of the extension uh Warwood and that that was passed in the legislature. So, uh we have this resolution. This would be program 100. Yes,

I think that's pretty amazing to have this one be 100. I'd like to make a motion for that resolution. You would like to make the motion that one. Resolution.

Okay, here it is. Resolution 100 put forth by council person Christine King requesting adoption of an amendment to chapter 443 of the laws of 2006 regarding the community preservation fund. Whereas in accordance with chapter 443 of the laws of 2006 codified as section 64H of the town law and article 31A1A of the tax law and pursuant to chapter 57 of the record town code, the town has previously established the town of Red Hook Community Preservation Fund funded by a 2% real estate transfer tax to implement a plan for the preservation of community character to acquire interest or rights in real property. 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 has established an advisory board, and the town has adopted a community preservation plan as amended from time to time. And whereas the town of Rick wishes to continue the authority to collect a real estate transfer tax for the Reic community preservation fund. And whereas the town board wishes to request official action of the state legislature through section 40 of the municipal home room law. Now therefore be resolved that the town board of the town of Red Hook as follows. hereby respectfully request the assistance of our state senator and assembly member with the presentation of a home rule request for adoption of legislation to amend chapter 443 of the laws of 2006 amending the tax law relating authorizing the town of Red Hook to impose a real estate transfer tax with revenues there from to be deposited in said community preservation

fund in relation to the effective date thereof. And I would just add to that that it's the right now it's effective all the way through 2026, but because the session starts now and we can't pass the law till the first date of the session, but you need to get it in this year's session. It's a spring session that generally ends first week of of June. We'll probably take this up around February or so ago. Um, the town clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution, a copy of draft legislation in the form on file with the town clerk with the appropriate transmitt letter to the senator and assembly members offices uh of the New York State Legislature. The officers of the town are hereby authorized to take all other actions as may be required by law. regular meeting was held. Then the following resolution was offered by council member Christine Kaine, seconded by

me, William Hamill. Resolution number 100. Any further discussion? If not, we are always used as an example for this school. There are many more communities. New Paul's uh Gardner um many that I've been to Kingston uh go up and down. There's some that haven't started using it. Yeah, but Chadam um that are looking at this. I think Ryback was was discussing it a couple years ago. They haven't they think they've been moved forward. Okay.

So, um it's been extraordinarily effective. All right. Uh, all in favor? I I You're waiting for the vote. Five eyes. Okay, that concludes um everything on the agenda. Um, we have to move or cancel. We will. So, what I'd like to do, I'd like to suggest um that we reschedu so that we have, excuse me, a date available and the public will be aware that we have an alternate date available for a meeting. That would be December 30th

with the idea that we could cancel that if we don't have if we don't have a year in business that we need to conduct. Um, we are normally scheduled, uh, for the folks at home, we do the second Tuesday and fourth Wednesday. The fourth Wednesday happens to be Christmas Eve. We're assuming you wouldn't want to be with us Christmas Eve here at town hall. So, we're going to go ahead and entertain a resolution to uh, a motion to reschedule the meeting December 30th, 7:30. Okay. All right. I I move. Is there a second? Second. Second, Julia. I Nobody's happy about the 30th, but better than 24. I

I Five eyes. Okay. Uh, folks, I want to thank you. Uh, I want to thank you for coming tonight. that I don't want to see again, but I hope

I think lost in tonight's discussion, though I did bring up uh that this these local laws were resubmissions and would not have an attack on the acquisition action that was previously taken. It was mentioned and I think it's important to uh acknowledge that there are uh court uh mediation negotiations going on. Um we've heard conversations about can we have info session can we have discussions um we have made it clear that when uh there are matters under litigation and there are matters under negotiation that that is uh not acceptable and not appropriate for us to have those conversations. In fact the court would not look excuse me upon us favorably. Um but you have heard me say that is our hope and our intent um that we can um negotiate something that works for everyone in the community uh including the the boat club and um the public at large. And so, uh, with that, um, hope that we continue to maintain in all our endeavors as public, um, representatives, I want to thank you for attending tonight. And I want to wish you a very happy holiday, whatever it is, the holiday that you celebrate, and stay healthy. Um, at this time, I'd like to make a motion that we go into attorney client session. Is there a second?

Second. All in favor? I Good night everyone. Thank you very much for coming.