AMENIA — Having received an updated conservation analysis and map describing the Hudson River Housing (HRH) subdivision acreage bordering Cascade Creek, the Planning Board held a public hearing on that portion of the planning process at its regular meeting on Wednesday, May 14.
Plans for the 24.13 acres of land show that 50% of the land is marked for conservation, one of the requirements for a conservation subdivision that would allow smaller building lots. Under the current concept, 28 lots are planned to be developed to create an affordable housing project.
Discussion centered on concerns voiced by residents and details of the next steps in the long process of consideration of actual subdivision plans. Project planner Rennia Engineering was represented at the meeting by Engineer Richard Rennia and Senior Planner Peter Sander.
Sander noted that the conservation analysis included changes to the conceptual planning to accommodate residents’ concerns heard at past meetings.
One neighboring resident who spoke at this week’s public hearing was opposed to the idea of converting open farmland acreage into a 28-lot subdivision, expressing concern about plans to install the subdivision’s septic system within the area designated for conservation. Another resident asked that attention be paid to identifying and conserving soil quality.
Planning board members focused discussion on regulation requirements concerning location of utilities in conservation areas.
Board member Jamie Vitiello shared his impression that utilities should not be incorporated into conserved land, reasoning that original intent of code would have been to keep housing density low by disallowing disturbance of conserved areas.
Feeling that the code does allow utilities to be buried on conserved land was board attorney Paul Van Cott, who read the pertinent portion of the code aloud.
Vitiello asked that HRH detail infrastructure plans in the next application steps, once the conservation analysis step is concluded.
Once the conservation analysis is accepted by the planning board, Van Cott said, the next step in the process will be for the engineers to provide preliminary site details, adding that it is then that the State Environmental Quality Review Act process begins.
Reports including utilities and traffic impact will follow as part of the review process that includes numerous studies and approvals, Van Cott said.
“So, it would be unusual to disapprove this initial document,” Vitiello said, referring to the conservation analysis.
“When the site details are fleshed out, then the public hearings can proceed,” Van Cott said.
“The conservation analysis is not a binding document,” planning board engineer John Andrews said. “As the SEQRA process proceeds, the board can make changes,” he explained.
