Land-use experts at a prominent Hudson Valley environmental law firm and a New York engineering firm have offered a blistering critique of plans for the development of Winston Farm, identifying 72 areas of deficiency in the developers' draft generic environmental impact statement (DGEIS).

The DGEIS, while significant, is just one hurdle in the official approval process. Once ruled complete, the statement is subject to further review and a public hearing, after which the Town of Saugerties can certify that state environmental guidelines have been satisfied.

Supporters of the current Winston Farm proposal see it as a source of jobs, housing and economic prosperity. Critics question, among other things, whether it will accord with the open space goals of Saugerties's 2009 Vision Plan, the affordability of the project's proposed housing, the impact on local aquifers and the diversion of farmland in a time of widespread food insecurity.

The new report — coming on the heels of Town of Saugerties planners' Sept. 24 memo, which also found the DGEIS incomplete — was prepared by Poughkeepsie law firm Gordon & Svenson in partnership with New York City-based environmental engineers eDesign Dynamics, who specialize in water resources, on behalf of non-profit Catskill Mountainkeeper, an officially “recognized party” in Winston Farm's state environmental review.

In an introductory overview of the new report, Catskill Mountainkeeper thanks the town for its “effort to develop a robust Final Scope and its attention to ensuring the DGEIS fulfills that scope.” However, it notes, “Among the deficiencies identified were substantial gaps in the assessment of existing natural resources and infrastructure needed to analyze the impacts of development, as well as incomplete presentation of mitigation measures and alternatives that could potentially reduce impact.”

On the matter of drinking water, the report notes the developers claim that their testing shows the local aquifer can meet the development's needs. “But what happened to providing water for the community?” the report asks, since the developers' website previously promised to “provide a much-needed secondary source for the village.”

“Now Winston Farm is only stating that it can meet its own needs,” according to the report. “The promise of a second water supply for the community has been conveniently shelved to the detriment of Saugerties residents and businesses. In fact, the DGEIS suggests using the village system as a backup for Winston Farm’s needs.”

“Even the assurance of providing enough water for the proposed development needs verification,” the report asserts. “Before testing, the applicant predicted water consumption of 347 gallons per minute. Now its demand number is conveniently lower.”

Mountainkeeper's concerns include Winston Farm's many small wetlands, the mapping of which, the non-profit says, “is especially important because the wooded area of the site dotted with small, isolated wetlands is directly in the path of development under the ‘preferred’ plan, which appears to show

development over and around those wetlands.”

The DGEIS also fails, Mountainkeeper claims, to analyze alternative development plans for the property, 10 of which the Town of Saugerties had identified — including Mountainkeeper's own “Balanced Open Space” alternative. As they wrote:

“The alternatives section in the draft DGEIS is woefully incomplete. Most of the alternatives are presented with a brief narrative and the conclusion that they have been dismissed because they "do not meet the objective of the project sponsor.”

Developers rejected the Balanced Open Space alternative, stating: “If only 27 percent of the land is to be developed, then the cost of installing the infrastructure required for development would be

unfeasible.” But that assertion is contradicted by the fact that the DGEIS' “preferred plan” calls for 227 acres of disturbance out of 842.7 total acres, which represents, a bit of quick math reveals, development of 26.9 percent of the land.

“Clearly it is feasible to maintain 73 percent of the land undeveloped,” the report stated. “The developer is already proposing to develop on 27 percent of the land; let’s make it the correct 27 percent.”

The report includes a parting shot regarding zoning. “Throughout the DGEIS, the Applicant focuses on a 'preferred' plan, but the Town must be wary of a bait-and-switch ... Once the rezoning is complete, the Applicant can sell the land, or portions of the land, for development by others who will be bound only by the zoning, not the preferred plan.

“It is incumbent upon the [town board] to keep its focus on the zoning it is being asked to adopt, not an idealized version of what might be built under such zoning. All necessary measures to contain and mitigate impacts to land, water, traffic and other resources must be clearly reflected in any zoning that is ultimately adopted.”

Winston Farm's developers' representatives have asked for time to review Mountainkeeper's report and then comment. Kingston Wire looks forward to hearing from them.