At the Tuesday October 21st Planning Board meeting, SOLO LLC presented their new plan for 9 houses and the newly profiled road. (See the details here)
The engineer presented the new plans, and answered a few questions from the Board. Mention was made that the developers are considering keeping the road as a private road, rather than turning it over to the Town. Should this be the case, the road will have to be bonded.
Also present was the gentleman from SOLO responsible for overseeing the building of houses.
At the end of the presentation, SOLO asked to move to a Public Hearing. The main reasoning was that this property was well-known to the Board, having been before them as part of two other projects over two decades. This request was granted and so the Public Hearing will open at the Planning Board meeting on Tuesday November 18th. This is the start of the Public Hearing portion of the process and the Board may continue it past that meeting or elect to close the Public Hearing once that meeting is over.
It is important that members of the public who have opinions about the planed 9 house subdivision make their opinions known to the Planning Board. Writing a letter or email is a good first step. You can also ask to speak at the Planning Board meeting.
Neighbors contiguous with the property should get formal notice through the mail. This is usually a letter with a return receipt card attached. However, despite the fact that only contiguous neighbors get a formal notice, anyone can submit comments either via mail, email, or in person at the Public Hearing. And, of course, anyone can also do all three.
Some points to think about:
- Wetlands: While the State DEC has issued a Negative Declaration in regards their jurisdiction of wetlands on the site, the ACOE should be informed and will likely have to make a ruling. The Planning Board should be pressed to follow up with this. With the current proposal, developers will already have to mitigate at least on wetland crossing
- Wells: The ways in which drilling 9 new wells may affect surrounding (and not just contiguous) properties should be considered. Aquifers and water flows may be mysterious, but the Board should be pressed to do as much due diligence as it can on this subject. The Board should consider making a well bond/escrow part of a Conditional Final approval. Thus, if there are negative effects on neighboring wells, a sum of money is available for rectifying the issue.
- Private Road: Make sure the required bond for the private road is adequate to cover future issues.
- Future Subdivisions: Some of the proposed parcels are very large. The Planning Board should make a restrictive covenant a part of the Deeds of these new properties such that they may not ever be subdivided in the future. 9 properties and no more
- ADU: If Accessory Dwelling units are permitted in this Zone, the Planning Board should consider making a restrictive covenant a part of the Deeds such that ADU’s will not be permitted for these 9 plots, no matter the size of the house, nor the size of the land
- Drainage: The Board should consider, as a part of a conditional final approval, requiring the new developers to resuscitate the plans (already approved years ago by the Town engineers) for improvements to the drainage of Cottontail Lane. These plans were submitted as part of the conditional final approval for the never completed South Peak project.
- Care of the natural landscape: The Board should consider making it part of the Deeds to the houses that owners may not clear cut the forest on their property. Sensitive management may be allowed, of course, but provision must be made for the majority of the landscape, flora and fauna to be conserved.
- Traffic: The proposed curb cut at Rt. 212 should be examined closely. The sight distance to the West (to the right as traffic leaves the property) is minimal. While the curb cut may have been part of a conditional approval decades ago, it should be re-examined by the State DOT in light of current best practices for a state road having a 55 mph speed limit. The Board should insist that the DOT is on of the outside agencies consulted and that developers get new approval for their proposed curb cut.
- Lighting: Given the nature of the land at present, and wanting to preserve the environment as much as possible, the Board should insist on the minimum amount possible of downward-pointing light on the road and on the 9 properties
Here is a comma separated list of email addresses for the Planning Board. You can use this in the address, CC, or BCC field of an email client like Gmail
chowardpost@saugertiesny.gov, octagon@hvc.rr.com, kbrady@cerestechnologies.com, mmt92080@hotmail.com, robertahlavaty@gmail.com, ajrmasonry@gmail.com, kiniryinc@yahoo.com, brandonschiller@live.com
Here is a semi colon separated list of email addresses for the Planning Board. You can use this in the address, CC, or BCC field of an email client like Outlook:
chowardpost@saugertiesny.gov; octagon@hvc.rr.com; kbrady@cerestechnologies.com; mmt92080@hotmail.com; obertahlavaty@gmail.com; ajrmasonry@gmail.com; kiniryinc@yahoo.com; brandonschiller@live.com
Correspondence intended for the Board should also be addressed to Becky Bertorelli (BBertorelli@saugertiesny.gov), Planning Board Secretary, so that it is included in the Public File.
Physical letters should be sent to:
Saugerties Planning Board
4 High Street
Saugerties, NY 12477
