Amenia board advances trails, septic and subdivision plans

AMENIA —Two public hearings drew little comment at the Planning Board’s regular meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 12, but a packed agenda still brought residents out to hear updates on several major proposals, including Wassaic’s Northern Red Oak Trails project, septic upgrades at Cumberland Farms, and the proposed Cascade Creek and Keane Stud subdivisions.

Northern Red Oak Trails

By a unanimous vote, the Planning Board accepted an application for the Northern Red Oak Trails Project, which proposes 10–12 miles of mountain-biking and hiking trails on a 450-acre Wassaic parcel first outlined to the board on June 11. The project was presented by Lauren Zane.

Planning Board engineer John Andrews reported that the Town Board reviewed the plan and adopted a resolution moving the matter to county officials for review, although aspects of the application remain to be completed. An environmental impact on endangered species needs to be determined, particularly any impact on bog turtles, and the fire department needs to be satisfied with the plans.

Andrews said the remaining items were not significant and that circulating the application would allow input from county officials and the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Cumberland Farms

Representing Cumberland Farms was Caryn Mlodzianowski, a project engineer with Bohler Engineering in Albany, who noted that she last appeared before the board in February 2025 to discuss the proposal. She explained that the site’s undersized septic system would be replaced with a higher-capacity system featuring new tanks and a pump chamber.

As the improvements would stand within a flood plain, a wetlands permit is required, Planning Board Engineer John Andrews said.

“The site is subject to flooding and located in a floodway,” Andrews noted. “When you seek to fill in a floodway, the site needs to be examined by county officials.”

Planning Board member Nina Peek added her recollection of earlier discussion about water run-off along the western side of the property that can transport trash deposits along with it.

Following discussion, the planning board agreed to the drafting of a resolution to approve the application, provided the applicant received a wetlands permit from the county and satisfied the fire department. The drafted resolution is likely to be discussed at the planning board’s December meeting.

Cascade Creek

After a year of reviewing the conservation analysis for Hudson River Housing’s proposed Cascade Creek subdivision, the applicants returned with additional details on how they plan to address and reduce stormwater runoff from the site.

Project engineer Peter Sander of Rennia Engineering and Mary Linge, Hudson River Housing’s vice president for Real Estate Development, responded to planning board questions, expressing eagerness to move on to the next phase when site plans would be considered by the board and the public.

Sander reported that the 24-acre site, zoned suburban rural, would hold 28 residential lots plus two controlled by the homeowners’ association for community utilities. A community garden would be open for town and development residents.

“We want to provide affordable workforce housing,” said Linge, as defined by town code. “No federal funds are involved in the development,” she added, indicating that her organization builds the homes; the homeowners buy the homes.

A professional biologist has studied the site and determined that bog turtles are unable to get to the site and therefore, there is no habitat possible, Sander said.

Planning board member Ken Topolsky expressed concern about occasional rainwater flooding on neighboring properties.

“There will be no increase in water runoff,” Sander reported, describing drainage swales that will channel the runoff. The flow will be directed to the lower end of the site where it will be infiltrated into the ground.

“There is no more information we can provide at this point in the project,” Linge said.

Considering the number of planned homes, planning board member Nina Peek asked whether the number could be reduced without affecting viability of the project.

“The tipping point number is the 28,” Linge replied.

Pedestrian safety concerned planning board member Walter Dietrich, noting that plans do not include sidewalks and streetlights, and the development is close to Freshtown Plaza, saying that residents would likely walk to the plaza.

Andrews noted that the board was getting sidetracked into design issues that will be discussed in future site plan discussions.

Planning board attorney Paul Van Cott reminded the board that it must agree by resolution to be the agent for a required environmental impact analysis.

Andrews noted that his review did not identify any negative environmental impacts.

“It’s going to be a phased multi-year project,” Andrews said.

Silo Ridge

Following a request from the Silo Ridge development to alter condominium sizes, the planning board agreed to schedule a public hearing for its December meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 10.

“We’re just making the affected condominium units smaller,” said Silo Ridge consultant Patrick O’Leary, describing a request to change the condominium buildings from six condos to eight within the previously approved buildings. The building footprint would remain the same, O’Leary explained, terming it a “minor modification.”

Keane Stud

Discussion continued on the final scope analysis in connection with the Keane Stud subdivision. The scope analysis presents the visual impact of the developers’ plans.

Representing the Keane Stud developers was attorney Diana Kolev, Partner of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise Wiederkehr, LLP, of White Plains.

“The board has what it needs to adopt the final scope analysis,” Kolev said.

Because the planning board received several comments about the drafted final scope analysis, the board agreed to direct Van Cott and Andrews to meet with the developers to “iron out residents’ concerns.”

The resulting draft will be discussed at the Wednesday, Dec. 10 meeting.

Board member Nina Peek reminded the audience that the public hearing processwill follow once the scope analysis drafting is completed.