Development challenges oncology camp

Homes may share lake with cancer camp; development delayed after voting mix up

By LISA CUTRONI

GLEN SPEY, NY — A troubling issue from the start, an eight-lot, single-family home development proposed for the shore of Lake Diana may pass its first round of approvals. It could be a tough blow for Camp Simcha, an oncology camp for children located across lake from the proposed development.

“It’s a disappointment,” Ben Zion Brown, camp director of operations said. “Our main concern has been and will remain the well-being of our kids.” Still, Brown said that the development proposed by Warwick, NY resident, Joseph Mackey, would greatly affect the camp children’s quality of life.

For those children with catastrophic illnesses, Brown said, attending Camp Simcha may be the only time they are away from the every day painful reminders of being sick.

“It’s a chance to be a kid again and to give them the strength to fight [their illness]. They don’t have to worry about what they look like. It gives them a [sense] they are someone,” Brown said. “No one walks through the doors of Camp Simcha and leaves the same person.”

With over 80 acres of land across Lake Diana, Mackey plans to build 18 two-acre-lot, upscale single-family homes; he has broken the construction into two phases.

Phase one is the initial eight lots currently before the Lumberland Planning Board; phase two consists of 10 lots and a road to be approved at a later time.

“A number of residents have raised concerns [regarding this development]; ranging from increased traffic to contamination of ground water to depletion of well water and how the view appears from across the pond,” planning board member Van Krzywicki said.

According to Krzywicki, each two-acre lot can clear 75 percent of the property. drastically altering the landscape. But for Krzywicki, concerns don’t stop there.

“I think most of my concerns center around sweeping statements like “there will be no adverse change to water quality,” as was stated in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review.

“The development of the area on the other side of our lake and the use of the lake by individuals not under the direct supervision of the infirmary would pose a danger to the children,” Peter G. Steinherz, MD, of Sloan Kettering wrote to the planning board.

Steinherz said that increased bacteria in the water could pose a health threat to the children and that the development would pose an invasion of privacy that could have a lasting traumatic effect.

The camp, Brown said, owns more than 90 percent of the lake. “The perimeter of the water is on our property,” Brown said.

But Mackey said his development will be half a mile away—out of viewing sight. He is attempting to come to an agreement with the camp.

“We have rights to the water. What we are trying to do is come to some kind of agreement between our rights and theirs,” Mackey said. “From the beginning, I have been in touch with the camp. I admire and respect what they do. There’s nothing we are doing that will contaminate the water in any way,” Mackey said.

Nor, Mackey said, will his development affect the wetlands adjacent to his property; another concern.

“We are not disturbing the wetlands in any way. [In phase 2] the one road considered would go into the 100 foot buffer but wouldn’t touch the wetlands,” Mackey said.

Had the camp known the parcel of land was for sale, they might have purchased it, said Brown.

But with so many contentious layers, board members were reluctant to pass a motion. At the December 6 meeting, the planning board passed both the negative declaration and the preliminary approval before realizing they were one vote short.

“To be honest, it was an oversight by council. We have rarely had any split votes like that,” Charles Burnett, planning board chairman, said. “It has to be re-voted on.”

Under Town Law 271, a majority of a planning board must vote in order for there to an action. A re-vote is scheduled for early January.

“There are serious oversights. The bottom line: this whole project has not been properly reviewed,” Krzywicki said.

Martin Miller, the planning board attorney, advised the board to file the motion. If no one objects, he said, the motion will be fine.

Burnett, who had abstained from voting because of a conflict of interest created when the camp applied for a loan at the First National Bank of Jeffersonville where Burnett is employed, agreed with Miller and intends to vote during the re-vote.

“There probably really isn’t [a conflict of interest],” Burnett said, “It isn’t a big issue.” When Burnett offered to retract his abstention and vote so the numbers would add up, it lit a fuse in Krzywicki.

“[So I said to Charlie], consider the vote challenged. You can’t resend an abstention,” Krzywicki said. “Why didn’t they know, I don’t know.”

“I will rigorously oppose the re-vote,” Krzywicki said, “It’s clear the first vote for the negative declaration was cleared and it was defeated.”

In other business, a three-lot sub-division was approved for Van Tuyl Road in Lumberland. John Wortmann, associate engineer for Leo J. Carroll, P.C. L.S. in Middletown representing the applicant, told board members that there was one pre-existing home on the 9.4 acre lot and two more, approximately 2,000 square feet each, would be built.

Sandra Doe, neighbor to the proposed division, opposed the plan citing well drainage and loss of quaint atmosphere prime reasons.

“I don’t blame you for not liking this,” Glucker told Doe. He suggested that those residing on Van Tuyl road purchase any land available as a means to keep their quiet community.