SOLOHS is scheduled to continue the Public Hearing process at the Saugerties Planning Board meeting on Tuesday September 15th 2026. Ahead of this meeting the applicant has submitted revised draft site plan drawings and, perhaps more importantly, the draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
There are several problems with the Draft SWPPP, problems which should be examined by the Planning Board, its Consulting Engineers, and other agencies.
Problem Number 1
The Draft SWPPP requests that an existing stormwater pond be permitted to satisfy the project’s water-quality requirements without providing the required runoff-reduction volume (RRv), apparently because the pond predates the current RRv requirements. But the drawings (and anecdotal experience of the site itself) do not show an existing stormwater pond
The SWPPP narrative leans heavily on an “existing wet pond SMP…previously designed and constructed“. Indeed, it’s the basis for the WQv calculation (Section 6), the post-development hydrology mitigation claim (Table 3/4), and is used as justification in Section 13 for asking the Town to waive the Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) requirement. But if we look at the current draft drawings:
Sheet 1 (Existing Site) This sheet shows the property as surveyed from the 2021/2025 KOA boundary survey. Its legend has no pond symbol at all (wetlands, stone walls, sewer/water/storm/gas lines, tree line, contours, utility poles — no pond). No pond is drawn or labeled on-site or in the surrounding parcels.
Sheet 3 (Proposed Grading Plan) The only stormwater management facilities shown anywhere in the set are three new SMPs: Bio-Retention 1, Bio-Retention 2, and Dry-Retention 1, clustered near the road roundabout/entrance. These clearly correspond to the SWPPP’s “Pond 1/2/3” WQv table — but those are the new facilities being proposed for this subdivision, not the pre-existing pond the SWPPP text separately relies on.
No other sheet (4–8, including the wetland mitigation and detail sheets) shows any additional pond, existing or otherwise. Sheet 7 shows an existing wetland area, not an existing stormwater wet pond.
So there appears to be a problem here: The SWPPP’s compliance argument depends on an “existing wet pond” that isn’t captured on this drawing set. Could it be a leftover reference from an earlier phase of the KOA property that never got carried onto these plans? If that pond genuinely exists and pre-dates this subdivision, it should be shown on the Existing Site map with its drainage area, outlet, and as-built storage volume. The Planning Board, their Consulting Engineers, and the NYS DEC should require clarification of this issue
Problem Number 2
The SWPPP contains an apparent inconsistency in the calculation of Water Quality Volume (WQv)
The report states that the new impervious area is approximately 2.9 acres and that the drainage area is 61.4 acres, resulting in an impervious cover of approximately 4.3%. BUT it then calculates WQv using 9.8 acres as the area term in the equation.
The NYS 2024 Design Manual (the most recent version) defines the area used in the WQv calculation as the applicable contributing area.
The SWPPP therefore needs to clearly reconcile the following three areas:
• approximately 61.4 acres of drainage area;
• approximately 9.8 acres of proposed disturbance; and
• approximately 2.9–2.95 acres of new impervious surface.
So, why is 9.8 acres used as the WQv area term for the calculation, rather than the stated 61.4-acre drainage area?
Again: The impervious ratio (I = 4.3%) is derived using a 61.4-acre total drainage area, but the final WQv equation then plugs in A = 9.8 acres (the on-site disturbance area) instead of 61.4 acres. If 61.4 acres is actually the correct contributing area, the required WQv would be about 6 times larger than the 0.118 ac-ft calculated. This would mean that the three ponds (totaling 0.158 ac-ft) are undersized rather than comfortably oversized as the report concludes. The Planning Board, its Consulting Engineers, and the NYSDEC should examine this before relying on the SOLOHS’s “storage exceeds requirement” conclusion.
Problem Number 3
Soil & Infiltration Testing.
The SWPPP identifies several soil limitations, including shallow bedrock and hydrologic soil groups B/D, C/D and D. But then it says:
“Actual deep soil tests and infiltration tests were not necessary, given our past experience working on the project site for the previous site construction.”
Sorry, that is simply not specific enough to establish the site limitations relied upon for the proposed RRv approach. This is particularly important because SOLOHS is relying upon current site conditions as a basis for not providing full runoff reduction. Seasonal high groundwater, shallow bedrock, and low infiltration rates are examples of site limitations that may prevent full RRv. But “we’ve been here before” doesn’t strike us as a reason to forgo this requirement.
Problem Number 4
No individualized calculations for each of the three proposed new stormwater ponds. The calculations provided appear to be for the total volume of the ponds rather than for each one.
Some other bits and pieces
- The SWPPP reiterates owner responsibility for post-construction maintenance and anticipates Town/MS4 involvement. So, the owners of the 9 lots will be paying for maintenance. OK, But the actual legalities are still to be revealed?
- Various typographical and grammar errors
- An apparent over-reliance on the template and few localized details
- RRv calculatioon appears to be mis-identified as WQv
- More particularized details of phases of work and staging of equipment, etc.
Here is a version of the Draft SWPPP stored on our site:
And here is a version of the Draft SWPPP stored on our public Google Drive:
Link: 2026-09-01 Draft SWPPP SOLOHS https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gHnreSAQWDwXzoFBwgb0A3G_8ujEb7_1/view?usp=drive_link
The Draft Site Plan drawings have a few changes from the May draft to the September draft
The 9-lot layout is the same basic concept, but the lot geometry has been revised and areas refined:
| Lot | May 2026 | Sept 2026 |
| 1 | 7.60± | 7.775± |
| 2 | 3.69± | 3.833± |
| 3 | 10.14± | 10.239± |
| 4 | 7.79± | 7.953± |
| 5 | 6.81± | 7.140± |
| 6 | 7.02± | 7.055± |
| 7 | 26.80± | 26.834± |
| 8 | 3.34± | 3.400± |
| 9 | 4.32± | 5.281± |
- It appears that there may be different names for different parts of the roadway: “Whitetail Way” and “Mossy Trail Terrace“
- Their alignment appear different (different bearings, distances, and curve radii, e.g., R=110.00/114.00/295.00/35.00)
- There is a detail drawing showing road tee turn-around detail and separate typical road cross-section details for each named road.
- “Proposed Green Built” area (May) appears relabeled “Proposed Greenbelt” (Sept).
Here is a version of the updated draft site drawing stored on our site:
And here is a version of the Updated Draft Site drawings stored on our public Google Drive
Link: 2026-09-01 Draft Site Plan Drawing 2026-09-01 Updated Draft Site Plan Drawing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kwThqki9vHn3vqiuDEc4WH1U_dg93tHl/view?usp=drive_link
Finally, please note that many (if not all) items from the Public File are available in a shared folder at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1W41ykw_tlGHlCXSpNOwzdlS6h27dfnPO?usp=drive_link
They are named sequentially with the date of the document at the start of the name. This allows you to view them in the order in which they arrived in the Public File.