During a meeting last week fraught with confusion over paperwork and videoconferencing issues, Woodstock’s planning board decided the state DEC commissioner should assign lead-agency status for environmental review of the proposed new 12,000-square-foot library building. The library trustees had declared the library as lead agency on the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) required as part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) after it was led to believe neither the town board nor planning board was interested.
After receiving notice from the state, the planning board decided it should be lead agency.
Library trustees have argued their board should have lead-agency status because of their deep involvement in and intricate knowledge of the project. The library has already spent a significant amount of money on traffic, historical and archeological studies required for the environmental review.
Noting neither party can agree and noting the contentious and emotional issue the building project has become, the planning board punted to the Department of Environmental Commission to decide. Its commissioner, Basil Seggos, will decide who gets lead-agency status.
“I think the board would be wise at throwing it to the DEC commissioner,” planning board member John LaValle said during last week’s meeting. The library board “is not experienced in this area. I think we would be remiss if we did not request to be lead agency.”
Planning board member Judith Kerman spoke of her concern about the library taking the lead role given the controversy. “If the library does this on their own, they will be attacked from every corner,” she said. “I don’t know if I want the grief, either. Throwing it to the DEC would take the politics out of the situation.”
LaValle agreed. “I think Judith’s point is on the money,” he said. “The library is in a difficult position. They will be attacked if they do this on their own. We should immediately go to the DEC commissioner and request they decide who lead agency should be.”
During the discussion, planning board chairman Peter Cross expressed concern about the proposed construction of a library book-sales building on the former Library Laundromat parcel across the street from the library within a required buffer around Tannery Brook.
Library trustees were clamoring to speak, saying in the chat function of the meeting’s videoconference that they could clear up the matter quickly. Kerman and planning-board member Conor Wenk alerted the rest of the board the library trustees were trying to speak. Anyone not on the planning board had been muted.
It was discovered that former planning-board member John Ludwig, a vocal opponent of the project, had sent the planning board an earlier copy of the EAF with the book-sales building that had since been removed. That version, still on the library website, was posted as supporting material for the library board’s May meeting. The more correct EAF has since been submitted to the state and forwarded to the planning board.
“You guys have been discussing something that is not correct,” library board president Dorothea Marcus said. “People were questioning our competence in saying we sent out the wrong documents.”
During the discussion, even some planning board members were unable to speak and could not get un-muted. “That was insane. I think we can all regulate ourselves,” said Wenk, who had been trying to speak for 15 minutes.
“I am seeing chats of people who would like to add clarity to this,” Wenk added. “If they want to express their intent and not make it a referendum on our decision, I don’t see why we don’t let them speak for a couple of minutes.”
Cross, who initially ruled that only planning-board members should speak, relented.
Library trustee Jeff Collins repeated that the book barn was no longer in the plan. The discussion should be about who be lead agency. “The library has the right to be lead agency, as does the planning board,” said Collins. “We started the processes. We intend to proceed with the process completely.”
Collins told the planning board the library intended to go through the normal site-plan review process as does any other applicant. While the library, as a separate taxing entity, is not subject to planning-board review, the trustees believe it is the right thing to do. He expressed concern the DEC process could take months and eliminate the ability to place the building-bond issue on the November ballot.
Planning board vice-chair Stuart Lipkind wasn’t sure about the relevance of a bond vote to the planning-board decision.
According to regulations governing the SEQRA process, the DEC commissioner has 20 days to designate a lead agency after he is informed that the parties are unable to agree.
Join the family! 
