The planning agency recommended that Karolys consider the alternative of “clustered” housing, with the development concentrated in one section of the parcel, away from the wetland. The current proposal follows that recommendation. In the recent interview Karolys elaborated on his plan for the clustered senior housing complex. The construction, he said, would employ energy-efficient materials and systems and seek to minimize the project’s impact on the surrounding neighborhood and natural environment.
Two contiguous neighbors praised the plan at the public hearing. “This project is a great opportunity for Zena and for Woodstock in general,” said Stephanie Paton, a registered nurse and John Joy Road resident, who cited an unmet local need for senior housing and expressed doubt that the project would dramatically increase traffic in the neighborhood. “I would hate to see someone with a great idea nickel-and-dimed to death.”
Al Arioli described Karolys as both a friend and the contractor who built his house, which had turned out satisfactorily. Predicting that the design for clustered housing would cause neither a traffic problem nor damage to the wetland, he said of Karolys, “I have confidence in him as a person and as a builder.
Karolys said that he had not consulted marketing studies on senior housing but believed that New York State had directed or encouraged municipalities to address a shortage. “Baby boomers are reaching a vast number. I don’t foresee a shortage of age-qualified people,” said the developer. Paul Shultis Jr., a member of the Planning Board, reported that Ulster County had conducted an analysis that demonstrated an unmet need in Woodstock. According to resident Iris York, the county study concluded that four neighboring towns, including but not limited to Woodstock, had a shortage of 700 units.
Opponents’ concerns
Other Zena residents, including nearby and contiguous neighbors, voiced opposition to the project, occasionally eliciting applause from likeminded members of the audience. Shane Klementis, who resides and operates an excavation and firewood business at 119 John Joy Road, across the street from the proposed site, expressed concern about traffic hazards, drainage problems, disruptive lighting, and wetland damage.
The stretch of John Joy Road between his house and the project site, said Klementis, includes a “bad turn” that has been the scene of multiple car accidents in recent years, during which time the road has also been closed frequently on account of flooding. Construction in the vicinity of a wetland raised questions, he said: Would the work disturb the natural drainage pattern, causing water to overflow and collect on neighboring properties? If a septic system failure occurred years after the construction was completed, would local taxpayers be responsible for remediating the problem?
Said Dean Seabrook, a resident of nearby Meher Circle, “My initial reaction is that this project is completely out of character for the neighborhood, which is very rural. I am very concerned about traffic patterns (associated) with 18 units. It’s a terrible area for traffic, with a tricky corner. ”
After other opponents repeated concerns that had been stated previously (see Woodstock Times, March 7, 2013), an apparently exasperated Karolys asked the board whether his project required the approval of the entire local population or simply that of the planning agency. Shultis Jr. replied that the Planning Board would ultimately decide if the project complied with the zoning law, but a public hearing was a required part of the legal process followed in the review of such proposals.
Jim Hanson, representing the Woodstock Environmental Commission (WEC), of which he is a member, said that the presence of a wetland on the site raised some concerns. Hanson requested that the WEC accompany town planners on a visit to the site. He also urged the Planning Board to make use of updated technology for mapping wetlands and watercourses in its assessment of the project.
Don Gregorius, who represents Woodstock in the county legislature, asked Karolys if he planned to apply for participation in the state’s PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) program, in which local taxpayers may, in effect, subsidize a development that benefits their area, lest it move elsewhere. The Zena developer responded that he had not investigated the program but would consider all available options.
“I’m not going to lay down and roll over,” said Karolys. “Either one thing or the other is going to happen: cluster housing, or I’m going to subdivide the parcel into as many lots as possible.”
