Hearing Opens on Philipstown Comp Plan

Discussion focuses on accessory housing, transit, clean energy

The three residents who commented last week on Philipstown’s latest revised comprehensive plan draft urged more focus on clean energy and public transportation and less attention to housing, lest it invite developers.

They spoke on Aug. 5 at a public hearing at Town Hall before the Town Board, which kept the hearing open until September.

In May, a committee of volunteers completed the draft, intended to replace the current comprehensive plan adopted in 2006.

The proposed plan’s goals include preserving Philipstown’s rural and historic character, open space and natural features; providing a wide range of housing; and implementing Complete Streets policies designed to serve pedestrians, mass-transit users and bicyclists.

Betsy Calhoun of Garrison, who served on the committee. said more discussion of solar panels and similar forms of energy “would be a welcome addition” to the draft, which proposes that the town require building construction or renovations to use renewable energy for heating; electric car charging stations in new developments and around town; a town-wide solar energy policy; and regulations to reduce reliance on fuels linked to climate change and pollution.

Joyce Blum, another member of the committee, recommended more emphasis on public transportation. Blum lives on High Ridge Road, a rustic mountain lane in Garrison. She does not drive but has been able to get by without a car “for many, many years,” although “it hasn’t been easy.” As the population ages, mass transit options will be increasingly crucial, she said.

At present, the draft proposes bicycling and walking paths or sidewalks throughout town to link schools, libraries, the Recreation Center, the villages, Garrison’s Landing, parking lots and other public sites and facilities.

It also advocates projects with other municipalities to expand public transit on land and water, ferrying passengers between Cold Spring, Garrison and West Point.

A third speaker, who did not give her name, expressed fears of suburban sprawl because the plan refers to promoting a wider range of housing, which, she said, could invite developers. “That’s not the goal of Philipstown,” she said. “I don’t think we should be encouraging development, because it’s going to find us,” even without encouragement.

After Town Board Member Jason Angell described affordable housing as “an important goal,” the woman pointed out that it’s a concern nationwide. “Is our little town supposed to solve that problem?”

Board Member John Van Tassel, who is a builder, presided over the hearing in the absence of Supervisor Richard Shea. “I don’t think you’re going to see any large-scale development,” he said. “A developer would have a hard time in Philipstown” because of its zoning.

One thought on “Hearing Opens on Philipstown Comp Plan

  1. As I started reading the proposed Philipstown Comprehensive Plan, I thought, “What a great plan this is.” However, as I read on, I wasn’t so sure.

    It is filled with proposals for new housing, including two- and three-family homes; subdivisions; commercial and industrial development; and changing building codes. Developing open space is also a consideration, along with giving incentives to developers.

    On the one hand, it looks to preserve Philipstown; on the other, it wants to change it to suburbia. It is a perfect plan for a state, not so perfect for a small town.

    Don’t get me wrong. Parts of the plan are exciting and I appreciate all the effort that the volunteers put into it. However, I don’t think Philipstown can solve the housing problems. Along with more housing comes higher taxes (schools, police, teachers, paid firefighters, etc.). Bringing in commercial and industrial businesses to help with taxes could create more environmental problems. Who would ever have thought that technology chips or a battery plant would cause environmental issues?

Leave a Reply

The Current welcomes comments on its coverage and local issues. Submissions are selected by the editor to provide a variety of opinions and voices, and all are subject to editing for accuracy, clarity and length. We ask that writers remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Submissions must include your first and last name (no pseudonyms), as well as a valid email address (which will not be published). Please allow up to 24 hours for an approved submission to be posted. All online comments may also appear in print.