Latest News
The proposed site of Hudson River Housing’s Cascade Creek workforce housing subdivision on Route 44.
Photo by Nathan Miller
Correction: A previous version of this article mistakenly reported the Planning Board voted to require a full environmental impact analysis of the proposed 28-unit workforce housing subdivision in Amenia. In fact, the board will further discuss the issue at its March meeting. On Wednesday, Feb. 11, board members voted 4-2 to prepare a draft positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which could delay the subdivision six to twelve months if board members adopt it.
AMENIA — The Planning Board signaled support on Wednesday, Feb. 11, for a full environmental impact review of the proposed 28-unit Cascade Creek workforce housing subdivision.
Board members voted 4-2 to prepare a draft statement to be discussed further in March, identifying concerns over impacts to local schools, water supply and visual impacts.
Under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, the statement — known as a positive declaration — means the board determined the project may have significant environmental impacts that require further study before it can proceed.
Developer Hudson River Housing, a Poughkeepsie-based nonprofit, would be required to prepare a full environmental impact statement for the subdivision planned on 24.13 acres across Route 44/Route 22 from Freshtown Plaza if board members vote to adopt the draft.
“The positive declaration is a procedural vote to set the board on a path to create a full impact analysis, including completing a scoping process,” Planning Board attorney Victoria Polidoro said.
Board members identified four areas of potential impact, reflecting concerns raised by residents: a possible rise in local school enrollment, adequacy of water supply for firefighting, increased traffic, and visual impacts that may be inconsistent with community character.
The developers of the Cascade Creek subdivision have appeared before the Planning Board for more than a year, drawing a mixed reception from board members and the public.
Detailed site plans cannot be prepared until the environmental review process is completed.
Residents provided input most recently during an informal public comment session at a Planning Board meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 14, expressing concerns over impacts on groundwater supply and other issues. George Bistransin presented a petition opposing the development with 204 signatures.
Project Engineer Peter Sander of Rennia Engineering reported that all concerns from the January meeting had been considered and responded to in reports to the planning board. Changes had been incorporated into the plans based on comments voiced, he said.
Cascade Creek is classified as a conservation subdivision. Sander said 59% of the acreage would be set aside for open space.
Sander said that since November, he has submitted additional data on construction phasing and timelines, completed a second traffic study in addition to one conducted in September 2025, and met with fire officials to incorporate their suggestions, including increased spacing between homes and the use of fire-retardant materials.
“We feel we have provided sufficient information,” Sander said, asking that steps be taken to complete requirements for the conservation analysis phase, allowing the project to reach the design process when actual plans can be presented.
Sander projected that an estimated seven to 15 students might be added to the Webutuck School District as a result of the development, noting that he had difficulty in receiving a response to questions about Webutuck School District’s capacity for students.
Board members discussed how best to estimate potential enrollment increases and the difficulty of predicting how many school-age children might live in the homes.
“We are not school district predictors,” said Mary Linge, HRH vice-president for Real Estate Development, reasoning that other sources should be able to provide reliable data.
Adequacy of water supply to combat a home fire was a focus of board discussion, particularly a suggestion from local fire officials that a 180,000-gallon water tank would be needed for the purpose. Planning Board members debated how the matter could be resolved through compromise and the difficulty of reaching a decision without expertise in water supply standards.
“We’re just here for SEQRA impact now,” Sander said. “We’ve responded to fire department and citizen input. We’re going to work with you. We need your guidance.”
Planning Board member Nina Peek said the board should continue the process and move toward a public hearing once the impact statement is prepared.
Keep ReadingShow less
The Town of North East’s Boulevard District — a stretch of Route 44 between Millerton and the New York State border — is the town’s largest commercial zone. The proposed zoning rewrite would allow mixed-use buildings with residential apartments above ground-floor retail.
Photo by Aly Morrisey
MILLERTON — Town Board members voted last week to continue the public hearing on the town’s proposed zoning overhaul, setting a new date of Friday, March 20, at 7 p.m.
The North East Town Board also scheduled a special workshop for Tuesday, March 3, at 5 p.m. to review public comments and concerns raised during February hearings, including calls for clearer explanations of the new code’s intent and requests to expand permitted uses in commercial districts. Board members set those dates at their regular meeting Thursday, Feb. 12, which included a public hearing on the zoning rewrite along with routine department reports.
North East’s 181-page draft zoning code would update much of the town’s existing regulations, with a particular focus on revising standards and approval processes in commercial districts to encourage development and expand housing opportunities. Public comment on the new zoning code during the hearing was brief. Just two people — North East residents Rob Cooper and Kathy Chow — offered comments at the third public hearing on the zoning overhaul since the Town Board opened debate on the draft on Jan. 8.
Cooper requested more permitted uses in the west Boulevard District, but he didn’t specify what additional uses should be included. The Boulevard Districts comprise parcels along Route 44 between the eastern border of the Village of Millerton and the Connecticut state line, and was a central focus of the current re-zoning effort.
Cooper said his property — the historic Mobil gas station on Route 44 across from CVS — is divided by the village border. “It divides the building in half,” Cooper said, explaining that Millerton land use regulations are more permissive than the Town of North East.
“Part of the property is in the village, and I’m allowed to do a tremendous amount of things over there,” Cooper said. “It wouldn’t look too uniform if I did everything on the left side of the property and we couldn’t do anything on the right side.”
Chow suggested the Town Board include purpose statements for each of the altered sections of the code. “Especially the Irondale district,” Chow said. “It’s a very different character than the boulevard and I’d like to see that explained.” She said some narratives explaining the changes and the purpose of the new code would be helpful for residents and developers seeking a deeper understanding of the process and how it benefits the community, echoing North East resident Ed Downey’s comments at a prior hearing.
In other business, Town Clerk Tilly Strauss read a complaint about gunfire noise at the Millerton Gun Club. Millerton resident David Decker submitted the complaint and asked to have it read into the public record, Strauss said.
The newly-formed Communications Committee provided an update following its first-ever meeting.
Councilwomen Rachele Grieco-Cole and Meg Winkler said the committee has set its sights on improving the town’s website, laying out short- and longer-term goals including basic readability and organization on the site’s homepage, revitalizing the town’s FaceBook page, and starting a regular digital newsletter to aid in proactive communication efforts.
Keep ReadingShow less
loading
Supervisor Walsh defends role in Flock surveillance contract
A standing-room-only crowd listens as Supervisor Brian Walsh reads a statement addressing controversy over an unauthorized contract with Atlanta-based Flock Safety at the Feb. 19 Pine Plains Town Board meeting. Walsh said he did not sign the contract and believed Flock was providing a demonstration of camera hardware at no cost to the town.
PINE PLAINS — More than 50 residents packed Town Hall on Thursday, Feb. 19, as Town Supervisor Brian Walsh sought to address continuing controversy over a proposed license plate reader surveillance system.
At issue is a February 2025 contract with Atlanta-based surveillance company Flock Safety. Residents questioned when the agreement was signed, who authorized it, and whether it was reviewed by the Town Board or Town Attorney Warren Replansky, as required under town procurement procedures.
Walsh addressed the matter about 15 minutes into the meeting, following a hearing on an unrelated local law. Before opening public comment, he read a prepared statement, asserting once again that he had no knowledge of a contract with Flock Safety and addressed specific comments from a phone call he held with company officials that were recently revealed in a report by The New Pine Plains Herald.
The contract in question came to light two weeks ago on Feb. 9 during an emergency meeting of the Pine Plains Town Board following the discovery of markers for surveillance cameras across town. The New Pine Plains Herald reported Sgt. Michael Belliveau, who resigned from the town's police force last year, signed the $80,000 contract with Flock on Feb. 25, 2025.
Under New York State Law, town funds can only be spent with Town Board approval. In Pine Plains, police department equipment is jointly owned with the town government.
"At no time was it ever stated to me that a contract had been executed," Walsh said. "I contacted Flock, instructed them to halt all activities, and stated I had no idea that mark-outs were being performed."
Walsh said Flock Safety representatives had approached him and the town's police department about a nine camera system in February 2025, but Walsh told the company at that time the town could not afford such a system and declined the cameras. Walsh said company officials then offered a limited trial including four cameras at no cost to the town, at which point Walsh agreed. He said he had no contact with the company between July 2025 and February 2026 when markings appeared across Pine Plains for what appeared to be permanent camera installations.
Reports in the New Pine Plains Herald revealed Walsh told Flock Safety officials during a phone call on Feb. 5 that camera installations were "going to get done." At Thursday’s meeting, he addressed the remark in his prepared statement, saying he was referring to the county.
"If the county wanted to place cameras in the Town of Pine Plains it would be done, but the town is not."
Walsh and Town Board members declined to answer questions regarding Flock Safety at the board meeting.
The statement did not immediately put residents' minds at ease. Matthew Lebaron, of Pine Plains, voiced concern over procedure, asking questions about town and police department officials' capacity to pursue demonstrations–or enter into contracts–without first consulting the town board.
"If equipment was installed, marked, tested or contracted without a formal public vote or proper procurement process, that raises serious questions about compliance with town law and fiduciary responsibilities," Lebaron said. "My request is simple — any agreements, any communications made to the public about these agreements, all be given to us with good warning over multiple communication streams."
Keary Hanan voiced further concerns about procedures, asking during public comment whether the town's counsel, Warren Replansky, had read or provided advice on the contract. Hanan expressed broken trust with the town's officials, asking "how does this town board plan on restoring the trust of this community after this egregious breach of honesty and trust with its constituents?"
Michael Cooper, who serves with the Pine Plains Volunteer Fire Department alongside Walsh, offered a defense of the town's supervisor, saying he believed Walsh's comments were being misunderstood.
"I have personally known Brian for 10 years since joining the fire company," Cooper said. "Knowing Brian and how he communicates, I believe his words are being misrepresented, and I would encourage anyone who has problems with what he has to say to examine what he has in fact done."
Cooper said he does not support surveillance systems in Pine Plains, citing abuses of surveillance technology by bad actors, but praised the Town Board and Supervisor Walsh for swift action regarding the controversy.
"I hope the Town Board and community can move past this and continue to maintain Pine Plains as a wonderful place to live," Cooper said.
Pine Plains resident Alice Nuccio objected to what she described as the politicization of the issue, referencing a comment Walsh made to Flock Safety officials in which he said, “I think we’re a decent blue area right now, unfortunately.”
"This is not a red or a blue issue," Nuccio said. "This is a humanitarian issue. We need to stop dividing everyone between this and that and really try to do the best for the town."