Amenia Planning Board calls for more detail in Keane Stud subdivision covenant study

AMENIA — A report from the town’s visual impact consultant in connection with the application submitted by developers of the proposed Keane Stud subdivision led to discussion of the type of detailed information needed to satisfy local requirements at the regular meeting of the Planning Board on Wednesday, April 23.

At the April 9 meeting of the Planning Board, Keane Stud subdivision’s Senior Planner Peter Sander of Rennia Engineering had reviewed plan changes that had reduced the number of lots planned from 27 to 23 with a corresponding reduction in total acreage from 704 to 605. Changes had been made to protect the viewshed from DeLaVergne Hill, Sander said.

Deed restrictions would limit the scale and visibility of development on any lot as each lot is acquired by a buyer, Sander had indicated.

Board input was key to the next steps, leading Sander to ask for such comments as well as comments from George Janes, the town’s visual resources consultant. Planning board member James Vitiello commented that he would want to see scope of vegetative screening around each future home as part of the current planning.

Covenant requirements are important in each instance, Planning Board Engineer John Andrews said, citing lighting, building materials and plantings that can be specified in envisioning visual effects of future development.

In advance of the April 23 meeting, the developers had provided a Declaration of Covenant document for review by the town’s visual consultant George Janes, who reported his findings to the Planning Board. He described the Covenant Report as incomplete and inadequate in identifying likely changes to the viewshed visible from DeLaVergne Hill.

Because of the topography of the land, for example, Janes said the developers failed to indicate any grading challenges that might require retaining walls were a home to be built on the site. The photos also failed to show recreational additions such as swimming pools, tennis courts and outbuildings. No access roads were shown in the photo views, all of which would impact the viewshed.
The developers had also failed to address whether the proposed lots might be expected to add perimeter walls or fencing on the properties, or solar panels.

“We want to know as a town what the viewshed would look like,” planning board member Ken Topolsky said. As an example, he said that if a property that might be allowed to support seven horses would need a barn and perhaps an additional ring that would likely be visible.

Although not scheduled to appear, attorneys for the Keane Stud subdivision asked to be heard and agreed that more conversation between the developers and the town is needed.

The Keane Stud attorney reminded the board that the current drawings represent only a subdivision application, too early to expect to see engineering studies and site plans. The town would be a party to any deed restrictions devised for each lot’s design.
Planning board engineer Andrews noted that Janes’ language used in requesting the Covenant Report had asked for a “reasonable worst case development” on a few key lots, to assist the board in visualizing possible viewshed impact.

Seeking clarification on the meaning of “worst case,” board member John Stefanopoulos asked as an example whether the developers would need to imagine 20 swimming pools on 20 lots.

Ready to re-review plans presented at the April 9 meeting, Senior Planner Peter Sander of Rennia Engineering was present, indicating that no changes had been made to the drawings since the previous meeting.

“Things that are in a viewshed are not necessarily unsightly, such as trees and fences,” said planning board member Nina Peek, although she would want to see examples of “reasonable worst-case scenarios.”

“We need to see it,” Peek said, indicating that the planners and board officials will work together to gather necessary details in the coming weeks, preparing for the next report to the public.