Suit aims to stop developer

Suit aims to stop developer Woodbury board jumped gun on 451-home OK, opponents say By Chris McKennaTimes Herald-Recordcmckenna@th-record.com
Woodbury - Opponents have sued to stop Bill Brodsky's proposed 451-home development, using as ammunition a dispute between the Town Board and Orange County planners over the project's merits.
The lawsuit seeks to overturn five laws the board adopted giving the Rockland County developer the zoning accommodations he needed to move forward with his development, which is now being reviewed by the town Planning Board.
The litigation rekindles a bitter fight that dominated town politics for a year and culminated with the Nov. 3 Town Board decision and the election - five days later - of John Burke, a leading critic of the housing proposal.
Burke unseated Supervisor Sheila Conroy, a supporter who argued the proposal offered the town abundant benefits.
A subplot within the saga is a clash between the Town Board and the Orange County Planning Department over whether those benefits justified zoning changes that tripled the number of homes Brodsky could otherwise build at the 400-acre site.
County planners raised sharp doubts while reviewing the project this year and finally disapproved it on Nov. 17 - after the Woodbury board had already made its decision.
In his letter to town officials, Planning Commissioner David Church said they'd voted prematurely because they didn't give his office the 30 days required by state law to review all project documents, including ones submitted to the county after Oct. 21.
Opponents have made that a main argument for overturning the Nov. 3 votes. They also claim the proposal had a flawed environmental review and would violate the town master plan.
Woodbury officials dispute Church's interpretation of the law. In a nine-page reply, Conroy argues the 30-day clock started not on Oct. 21 but on June 28, when Woodbury sent copies of the proposed zoning laws to the county Planning Department for review.
Conroy's letter goes on to describe how the town complied with some of the county's recommendations and explains why it rejected others. Two concessions were requiring Brodsky to plan a second entrance to the development and build a gravel parking lot for a park at the site.
"We were disappointed that the county did not see the benefits to the community," Conroy said in an interview. "Obviously, somebody did not read this document."
Church replied yesterday that two planners worked on the review, including a senior staff member who spent 20 to 30 hours looking at Woodbury's materials.
"We did not lightweight this," he said. "In fact, I had the opposite conclusion - I thought we were spending too much time."