Amenia Planning Board approves Cascade Creek conservation analysis

AMENIA — Following months of meetings and significant discussion at the regular meeting of the Planning Board on Wednesday, June 25, the board voted 5-1 to approve Hudson River Housing’s conservation analysis document in connection with the Cascade Creek affordable housing project.

Planning Board chairman Robert Boyles cast the negative vote.

Senior Planner Peter Sander of Rennia Engineering asked the planning board to approve the conservation analysis that he indicated had been revised to accommodate conservation concerns.

“We feel that our plans provide benefit to all involved,” Sander said of the conservation analysis. Board member Ken Topolsky questioned the definition of “benefit,” leading Sander to reply that “benefit” indicated “no impact.”

Planning board member Foz Bullock asked how utilities can co-exist with conservation interests.

“Because the utilities are sub-surface, there is no visual impact, no impact to wildlife, and no soil removal. The bottom line is that what they are proposing agrees with code,” planning board engineer John Andrews said.

Topolsky asked about grading and erosion control at the Cascade Creek site. Sander explained that those elements are to be detailed within the preliminary subdivision mapping phase of the application process, the next step coming up.

“This is preliminary,” planning board attorney Paul Van Cott explained. “Beyond the non-binding conservation findings will be the subdivision planning phases.

Explaining the order of the process, Atty. Van Cott said that preliminary mapping will provide project layout that will address such issues as drainage, stormwater runoff, and State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requirements.

“All of that comes before a public hearing,” Van Cott said.

“We’re here to listen,” Sander said. “We will address your concerns within the next set of plans,” Sander said.

In a process that began in January with preliminary plans described by Sander of Rennia Engineering, and a determination from planning board engineer John Andrews that a conservation analysis was needed, several meetings ensued. One of the meetings was a listening session in which HRH met with neighboring property owners and residents to hear their concerns. Those concerns led to revised conservation planning, presented to the Planning Board in March.

In May, a public hearing about the revised conservation planning was held with many residents’ comments focusing on site development rather than conservation planning.

Silo Ridge

In other action on Wednesday, June 25, a public hearing invited comment on Silo Ridge plans to revise its official plans to eliminate 13 townhouses and substitute ten condominiums in the same space on a single lot.

Of concern to planning board members was the likely tax receipt impact where the town would lose $48,000 in tax revenue based on the change to the site plan.

Silo Ridge consultant Patrick O’Leary agreed to provide more information explaining that the tax impact would be offset by new homes being planned for future construction.

The public hearing was held open until the next planning board meeting on Wednesday, July 9, awaiting O’Leary’s information.