Jan 26, 2005 – A message from the developers


In response to the messages listed on your website, we would like to
make some clarifications.

1. Although we would like to respond to the references to the
newspaper articles from the Saugerties Times, it is impossible to do
so as there are no quotes referencing the incorrect information
stated and the content of the corrections.

2. Message 7: This message states that “the only thing that
was agreed was that Cotton Tail Lane will be an emergency access
road only, and that Mr. Rothe is supposed to work with the town
engineer about addressing the drainage problem of the neighborhood
before he can do anything else.”

As we understood the statement of the board, they agreed to consider
the option of making Cotton Tail Lane an emergency access only
road. They did not state that it was a done deal. The statement
was also made by the board that the stormwater control plan would
address the question of site runoff and its’ effect on the
surrounding properties. As I recall, no statement was made that
Rothe Engineering and Construction would in any way be responsible
to address the neighborhood drainage problem. Mr. Rothe did say
that he would be willing to discuss the problem with the group. In
addition, a representative of Rothe Engineering and Construction did
meet with the South Peak Neighbors as a group, and made a number of
recommendations as to different avenues to improve the drainage
problem in the neighborhood, as well as meeting with Diane and Debra
Pineiro-Zucker and Marc Pisani (at no cost) and making specific
recommendations regarding their lots and the ponding and drainage

3. Message 8: Regarding the statement that “the wetlands area
leading in to Cottontail Lane is way closer to the end of Cottontail
Lane than one might think from the mapping. This means that the
proposed road and drainage system in that area is going to be very
tight. So tight that it is difficult to imagine a town spec road
(50 feet including ditches) fitting in the space between the end of
the designated wetland and the edge of the property.”

Town spec roadways are required to be 26 feet wide

Statement 2- “Given the current plans for the overall drainage
system, which involve a complicated and counter-intuitive route
flowing from one catchment pond to another and finally down the
hill, it seems that this is where we must demand better answers.”
As representatives from Rothe Engineering and Construction have
stated numerous times, a complete stormwater drainage system has not
yet been designed or reviewed and approved by either this office or
by the Town Engineer. In order to submit a general plan, simple
assumptions are made given the site hydrology, soils information,
topography, and a number of other items. The current plan shows
only road side drainage ditches, and general catchment areas based
on site watershed areas defined by topography and current drainage.
Although it may appear to be “counter-intuitive” to some,
without the proper understanding of topography, some understanding
of soils, and some knowledge of the regulations of pre-treatment of
runoff, it is difficult to intuit how the overall system is supposed
to work.
Upon completion of flow calculations based on rainfall information
provided by the DEC and hydrologic design for volume and velocity,
channels will be designed in specific areas for the specific values
in those areas, catchment areas, drop structures, and all pre-
treatment structures will be designed and presented to the DEC and
to the Town Engineer for review. At that point of their analysis,
the plan will either be approved, or rejected with suggestions of
changes. If rejected, revisions to the plans will be made and it
will be re-submitted. Based on this information, having an engineer
review the maps as currently rendered would be a waste of
resources. In addition, as with any private property, accessing it
without owner approval is problematic.

4. Message 10: According to the DEC, any project with an area
of disturbance greater than 1 acre requires an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan. If there is no requirement for a SPEDES permit, then
a full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is not necessary unless
it is located in a TMDL watershed or discharging to an impaired 303
(d) listed waters. If the area of disturbance is 5 acres or more,
then a full SWPPP is required. In message 10 there are a number of
references to hydrology. For those of you who attended the meeting,
please recall that there was a discussion of well draw down testing
required at the site and that it will be done as part of the
process, as well as deep and perc testing at the site to determine
specific soil make up and drainage ability of the specific soils.

5. Message 10 (con’t): The statement “The number of trees
which will come down, the number of rocks which will be blasted is
really amazing. Walking aound with map in hand is even more
convincing: the project is too ambitions and needs to be scaled
back” is really misleading. Since the lots have not yet been
staked out, and house site locations and driveways have not been
staked out, it is impossible for anyone to walk around the site and
make that determination. Yes, trees will be cut and rock will be
removed, but without the site stake out, it is impossible for anyone
to tell whatwill be removed and what will remain. In addition, it is
the desire of Rothe Engineering and Construction to leave the site
as much in its natural setting as possible.

6. Still message 10: the statement that “there are at least 2
and probably 4 places where the road crosses a federal wetland and
they will have to construct bridges to get over it (culverts are not
allowed).” This is not a true representation of the regulations.

One tenth to one quarter acre of wetland can be disturbed in a
development project. If under one tenth of an acre is disturbed,
the builder is required to do nothing other than the stormwater and
erosion control plan, and the SWPPP if the total development
disturbance meets the criteria for it. If there is more wetland
disturbance than one tenth of an acre, mitigation plans must be
submitted. The requirements for mitigation plans vary based on the
amount of disturbance proposed.

7. Regarding the identification of lots where building is
unsuitableā€¦ Rothe Engineering and Construction representatives
have made it clear in many statements that some of the lots
identified on the existing plan will probably not be built on, and
that some lot configuration changes will be made based on topography
and on drainage issues. How many lots will be removed is not clear
at this time.

8. Messages 11 and 12: Although I understand your displeasure
at the clear cutting at the site for the proposed Jewish
Congregation, your statement that “if this is any indication of
what we can expect of South peak Developers, wildlife and residents
will be fleeing in droves” is completely misleading in addition
being (in my opinion) libelous. South Peak Developers and Rothe
Engineering and Construction had nothing to do with that project,
and the implication that it did is unacceptable. As with any
project, if the contractor or the owner has exceeded the plan and
the agreed upon extents of construction approved by the town, then
they should be required to remedy that. Your inference that the work
planned by Rothe Engineering and Construction will be comparable to
the work done by whomever was responsible for the clearing of the
Jewish Congregation lot is unsupported by any facts.

a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of
written or printed words; specifically : a false published statement
that injures an individual’s reputation (as in business) or
otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt b : the publication
of such a libel c : the crime or tort of publishing a libel

Pronunciation: di-‘fa-m&-“tOr-E
Function: adjective
: tending to disgrace or lower public opinion of a person or to harm
a person’s reputation
adj : (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to
discredit or malign

Thank you,

Kimberly Snyder
Rothe Engineering and Construction
Design and Construction Project Manager

(originally published on the Yahoo Groups site )

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Tumblr
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.