Washingtonville holds public hearing on draft comprehensive plan and zoning changes; hearing continued to June 2

The Village of Washingtonville opened a public hearing on the draft comprehensive plan and related amendments to chapter 315 of the village zoning code, and agreed to keep the hearing open through a June 2 continuation after taking public comment.

Planning consultant Bonnie Fransen, who presented the draft, told the board the plan is “a public hearing on both the draft comprehensive plan and proposed zoning amendments” and described the document as “a long-range… visioning document” that translates community goals into recommendations and zoning changes. She said the draft and the full zoning local law have been posted on the village website and that the village must complete an environmental review before final adoption.

The hearing drew multiple residents who raised procedural and substantive concerns. Attorney John Contello said he had filed written comments and complained that the draft lacks “an objective in there that talks about the provision of housing in the area,” and criticized the timing and content of the public notice and the availability of environmental materials. Property owner James Casazza said his family’s roughly 150-acre parcel is the village’s largest undeveloped property and described zoning changes that, he said, designate about 60% of the parcel’s buildable area as a scenic-gateway overlay with a 500-foot setback from Route 208 and a 250-foot setback from the road at the parcel’s other frontage, making much of the land “not buildable.” Casazza said the remaining permitted uses—open space, golf course, passive recreation, hotel, sewer pump station, village government building and similar uses—offer “not a lot of market banking” and characterized the proposal as effectively taking the property without compensation.

Other commenters raised questions about whether short-term rentals would be grandfathered, rules for storing recreational vehicles, and how the plan addresses neighborhoods that suffered flooding. Several residents asked for clearer public notices and for the village to post environmental-review documents online rather than requiring FOIL/FOIA requests.

The board acknowledged a dispute over the public notice’s publication date (the transcript includes conflicting statements that it appeared May 5 and that staff would need to “look it up”) and that at least one FOIL request for environmental documents had been filed. A village official read a letter from the Orange County Department of Planning stating it “found no evidence that [approval] would result in significant intermunicipal or countywide impacts” and praising the plan’s balance and support for environmental protections, downtown revitalization and diverse housing options.

Action taken: the board opened the public hearing (recorded as “Motion. Second. Approved.”) and agreed to hold the hearing open to receive written comments and additional testimony; the board indicated the hearing will be continued at a May 19 workshop and the public hearing continued and likely closed on June 2, “barring any unforeseen issues.” The board directed staff to complete the required environmental review and incorporate public comments before the board considers final adoption and any zoning local law.

Why it matters: the comprehensive plan will guide zoning, land-use decisions and grant applications and—if adopted—will be the reference for future local laws. Residents and property owners at the hearing pressed the village on whether the draft gives sufficient credit to providing a range of housing types and how overlay districts and setbacks will affect property rights and development potential.

Next steps: the hearing record will remain open; the board said it will consider changes raised at a May 19 workshop and, after completing environmental review, will reconvene the public hearing on June 2 for possible further public comment and final action.