Solo HS / Monthy Woodstock Nine is scheduled first on the agenda of the Tuesday May 19th meeting of the Saugerties Planning Board. This is a continuation of their Public Hearing. The Meeting will take place at the Saugerties Frank D. Greco Senior Center, 207 Market St. (next to Cantine field), at 7:30pm.
Members of the public will be able to state positions, ask questions and otherwise participate in the hearing. We remind the public that these meetings work best when comments and questions are carefully tailored, precise, factual, and delivered in as civil a manor as possible in the circumstances. The members of the Planning Board are volunteers with difficult duties, duties which they try to pursue with care and grace.
There are four new documents presented since our last post. We assume that these will be the subject of discussion at the Public Hearing. We should note that the Board has *not* discussed the water quality report submitted in person at the last meeting. This water quality report is based on sampling from only one well. There should be further discussion about this issue.
Here are the four new documents in the Public File since last we reported on it:
- The Full EAF (Environmental Assessment Form). This appears mostly to be pro forma. There are, however, a few interesting points:
- The Full EAF says that a wetland mitigation plan was submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers in April 2026. That plan does not appear to have been submitted to the Planning Board in time for this Public Hearing.
- It is not proposed that the construction take place in phases (unlike earlier proposals for this site). The time proposed for full construction is 24 months, with the road construction to take 6 months
- The EAF does not propose to create any ponds
- There is no answer to the question of maximum pumping capacity of private wells
- Under the Storm water Runoff section, they say that runoff will be directed “…to retention/bio retention basins, and rain gardens”. We do not have expertise to know how these structures are different from “ponds”, which the form expressly states will not be used.
- No answer is given to the question of current air quality on the site. We assume it is within acceptable norms
- No answer to the question as to whether or not the new electrical demand will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing substation
- No answer to questions about availability of public transport nearby
- Answered in the negative as to presence of endangered/special concern species. From earlier discussions, this may be a contested point
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.