Woodbury zoning story was ‘one-sided'

To the editor: RE: Feb. 17 story in The Photo News, “Residents Challenge Woodbury Rezoning:” How objective can this article be when the newspaper spoke to only well-known opponents of the local laws 4 through 8 when collecting information for the article? The story states that these local laws “would have the effect of an immediate pursuit of the 20,000 (population) mark.” When? In the year 2055? The story refers to the master plan but didn’t mention that the plan anticipated future growth at the suburban level of density (one unit/acre) if water and sewer were made available. Number of houses? 451, 460 or 652? The information is easily accessible (451). The story refers to the O.C. Traffic and Land Use Study but what isn’t mentioned is that the study refers to limiting development on Ninninger and Dunderberg roads in order to preserve Ninninger as a service road for Kiryas Joel and it recommends that the town should make up for reduced zoning in this area by rezoning busy Route 32 to eight units per acre. Should the town board have followed these recommendations? NO. The story quotes Donald Siebold, a strong opponent of the Senior Citizen Housing Law and Conservation Cluster Overlay District law (that will preserve open space). Donald is a current member of the Woodbury ZBA and one of the litigants in a lawsuit against Woodbury. This one-sided article and the inaccurate information obtained from Donald Siebold doesn’t represent anything near the truth. Perhaps the press in this case is being manipulated or misled. Thank you. Geraldine Gianzero, Council Member Lorraine McNeill, Council Member Town of Woodbury