• What's at Risk?

    The Partition Street Project is being built on the former Cantine Mill property [aka Barclays Dam]. Back in 1985 Saugerties Village government recognized the potential of the 7 acres that borders the lower Esopus Creek and at its center the magnificent dam which was constructed to help fuel the industrial revolution. -- More

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
December 22, 2009
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Dear Editor:
I am trying to understand the role of the public in the development process, as I have been following the Partition Street Project.  Everyone says don’t worry everything will be fine and we should rely on the reputation of the developers.  I am diligently positive about the project, as I think it will be good for Saugerties, but I do want the applicants to follow the law.
The New York State law requires a review and in the case of a project of this size and complexity, it requires a full review of all environmental impacts.  I know that the developers have hired professional consultants to help them in the review process, but they are trying to avoid the full review which would allow the public to participate in the consideration of alternatives.  Now what we are told is that this sketch plan is the only plan and there can be no changes.
We have tried to meet with the developer.  We have tried to meet with our Congressman who in this case is also an investor in the project.  We have tried to get on the agenda of the Village Planning Board, but have been told we cannot be on their agenda unless we have an application for a project.  It appears to me that this is a shut out.  We can attend Village Planning Board meetings, but we cannot speak.  We can attend, but we cannot get on the agenda.  Yes, they held one Public Hearing, but that is inadequate for what we want to accomplish.  We want to sit with the applicants to share our ideas that we believe will make a better project.
This process of public participation has worked in many other towns and villages in our area.  We call on the Village Planning Board to not be intimidated or to buy into the ruse that the developer will walk away if they require him to follow the law and go through a full environmental review.  He will not walk away and we will all benefit from a better project.
What it takes is for the Village Planning Board to recognize their role which is not to immediately acquiesce to the developer’s wishes, but to work to shape the future of the Village in the public interest.
Yours truly,

Saugerties Citizens for Smart Development
Judith Spektor
311 Van Vlierden Road, Saugerties
judithspektor@aol.com

Posted in Letters to the Editor | Leave a comment

Dear Congressman Maurice Hinchey

Dear Congressman Maurice Hinchey,

The Partition Street Project will have a significant impact on the long-term economic future of Saugerties. The importance and magnitude of the project underscores the need to pursue a planning process that is thorough and conscientious. At the very least, the development plans should comply with the Saugerties Comprehensive Plan and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP).

The Saugerties Comprehensive Plans calls for “the development of businesses appropriate in size and scale in the lower Partition Street area of the Village.” The plan to dynamite part of Nanny Goat Hill is an indication that the current version of the Partition Street Project is NOT the appropriate size and scale for that area. Obviously, this plan requires some modifications.

The Cantine Mill property falls within the Esopus Creek Subunit of the Ulster North SASS (Scenic Area of Statewide Significance). According to the SASS, the project must be assessed to determine whether it is likely to “impair the scenic beauty of the scenic resource.” Impairment includes “the irreversible modification of geologic forms” which are “significant to the scenic quality of an identified resource.” Nanny Goat Hill is a geological form significant to the scenic quality of Saugerties. Blasting away portions of Nanny Goat Hill would be a blatant impairment of the scenic beauty of the area.

Furthermore, impairment includes “the addition of structures which because of siting or scale will reduce identified views.” The architectural and landscaping plans for the Partition Street Project should include public access to mitigate impairment of the view. The original project design from Ashokan Architects of Kingston, which were used to garner $780,000 in EDC grants, included public access along the bluffls. However, the original design was scrapped for the latest plans which restricts public access, obscures view, and includes sprawling parking lots threatening Nanny Goat Hill.

Albeit a private development on private property, public money was involved in the inception of this project. The public is a stakeholder in this project. The public will, as defined by the Saugerties Comprehesive Plan and LWRP, deserves full consideration, and the project should be modified to comply.

Signed,

Patrick Landewe Saugerties, NY

Posted in Letters to the Editor | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What you can do to Help Improve the Partition Street Project

  • A petition is online on our website: www.PartitionStreetProject.com.  Please sign and forward it online from our website.
  • Write a letter to Congressman Hinchey.  He was quoted in the “Daily Freeman” as saying only a few people are concerned about this project.  (Email your letter to his staff: Dan.Ahouse@mail.house.gov, jeff.lieberson@mail.house.gov, lori.dubord@mail.house.gov)
  • Reach out to anyone you know who knows Congressman Hinchey to ask them to call and write him.
  • Write a letter to the editor (saugertiestimes@ulsterpublishing.com, poststar@hvc.rr.com, letters@freemanonline.com)
  • Donate money to help pay for Saugerties Citizens for Smart Development’s legal bills.  Ask your friends to donate too.  (Donate at our website or send a check made out to the Open Space Institute with a note on the memo line: Saugerties Citizens for Smart Development.  Send the check to P O Box 816, Saugerties, NY 12477)
  • Talk to people.  Ask their opinions, listen, and advocate for our mission (public access walkway, protect Nanny Goat Hill, attractive landscaped entrance that fits into the historic context of the Village)
  • Visit our website frequently to keep up to date (www.PartitionStreetProject.com).
  • Give us email addresses of people who would like to join us
  • Volunteer your skills (graphic design, fundraising, planning, organizing, events planning)
  • Follow the press and make comments online.  See recent Daily Freeman article, “Saugerties Residents Want Views of Dam Protected” and comments, January 14, 2010 on their website, DailyFreeman.com

The next public meeting is the Village Planning Board meeting on Wednesday, February 10 at  7 pm at the Firehouse next door to Village Hall.  Please put it in your calendar & plan to attend.

Send us bcc’s and keep the feedback coming.  Thank you for all your help.

Saugerties Citizens for Smart Development, www.PartitionStreetProject.com

Posted in Ways To Help | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Esopus Creek Conservancy Calls for a Positive Declaration of Partiton Street Project

spider Esopus Creek Conservancy Calls for a Positive Declaration of Partiton Street Project

spider barbour

Spider Barbour and Susan Bolitzer of the Esopus creek Conservancy calls for Saugerties Village Planning board to call call for a Positive Declaration of teh Partition Street Project.

Spider Barbour Comments on Partition Street Project pgs. 1

Spider Barbour Comments on Partition Street Project pgs. 2,3

Posted in Latest News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Partition Street Project: Two Alternate Site Plans

Pursuit of smart growth approaches to community development offer the opportunity to make use of existing water and sewer infrastructure, prevent urban sprawl, and promote targeted investment that can strengthen our “Main Street” businesses and the community as a whole.

With that said, a number of us have developed options in sketch plan form that could strengthen the attractiveness and viability of the project while potentially reducing the estimated construction costs.

Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 substitute a single-tier parking area along Dock Street for the proposed two-tier design.  This would require substantially less rock excavation and allow for street tree planting, access to the hilltop, much reduced stormwater run-off, and reduced valet staff and trips. ( See the enclosed sketch comparing the proposed cuts and the alternative cuts through rock)

Second, the alignment of the principle buildings with the creek and Partition Street both work with the existing topography and underground foundations instead of straddling them at an awkward 45 degrees.  This change should produce significant cost savings.  Removal of the cantilever on the banquet hall alone is a cost saver.

It is important to note that this site is unique in being totally disturbed by previous construction, This is not a normal “natural” site amenable to conventional cutting and filling techniques. The natural grade is below the historic foundations and consists of bedrock. The earlier topography consisted of a more gentle grade to the wetland below, requiring fill along the top edge behind the front wall the Cantine Mill. At least this is the opinion of Alex Wade. It is assumed that all new construction will require excavation to original grade and new compacted fill, even for the roads and parking areas.

Both designs use the same square footage that is shown on the plan currently under review.  Our goal is to make the alterations attractive financially and functionally while incorporating three aspects that improve the project from the community’s perspective.  These are: 1) Open access to a walk along the bluff which will be a pedestrian link between the Village and restaurant.  2) Mitigate the costly and unattractive excavations of “Nanny Goat Hill”  3) Aesthetically and architecturally connect the project to the existing character of the Village.  These changes create a win-win.

Alternate 1: Notes on proposed changes:

*Optimize the View

Move the buildings up to the edge as close as practical.  As proposed, the 45 degree orientation of  the buildings moves them quite far back from the edge  which considerably reduces the visibility and drama of the falls. In this alternate plan both the catering hall/ballroom and the restaurant would have a corner window pointing to the falls.

alternate plan david 400x258 Partition Street Project: Two Alternate Site Plans

Alternate plan prosed by David Minch for the Partition Street Project

The hotel is moved closer to the views and is not blocked by the catering hall.  The offices are moved to the bluff and now have a view of the falls.  Looking at sections “A” “B” and “C” you will see the improved downward sight-lines of all the functions.

*One Tier of Parking at “Nanny Goat Hill”

There is approximately 1/3 the material to be removed in the single tiered scheme and by slightly raising the single tier it becomes possible to fill at the street for plantings as required by the planning board. (This is difficult in the proposed plan because of the solid rock shelf.)  It is not difficult to picture the aesthetic improvement of the view from the 9W bridge as one enters the Village.  The reduced run-off will facilitate the discharge elimination system.

*Economize  Building Costs

Alternate 1 suggests grouping all the functions into one building.  This reduces construction costs in several ways:  One elevator can accommodate all the vertical circulation;  One control area or check-in point can service the entire complex reducing other circulation area and staff;  reduced exterior surface area and foundation costs. Use more economical and simpler shapes and one consistent style of architecture which would be more reminiscent of the original Cantine Mill. (When you look at the tall narrow section of the plan which has the three clerestory roofs, picture the renovated Mill Building on lower East Bridge Street.) The choice of a consistent architectural style brings not only cohesion to the plan, but also is more economical to build.

*Site Improvements

Primary goals of the scheme are: use existing plan as much as possible;  allow views through the site by pulling the building together;  make views more accessible to guests; provide access along the bluff that in no way disturbs the privacy of guests (again note the sections “A”, “B” and “C”); provide exterior access to the restaurant with control gates (note the terrace – this could attract pedestrians who are walking the bluff to use the restaurant and restaurant patrons to use the bluff walk.  This is a definite win-win in that it brings people into the facility and enhances the experience of walking the bluff); and provide additional parking on the main site. Other benefits of these suggested changes include easy fire-truck access to the back of the buildings, and what I would consider a better orientation to the street instead of the staggered corner-like facade.

Alternate 2: Notes on proposed changes:

* Place buildings back from bluff edge to provide:

1. Improved views

2. Improved safety and fire access

3. An additional walkway to allow guests to promenade along the creek and enjoy landscaped surroundings and invite strolls either further along the shore or up into the village.

alternate plan benepe 400x300 Partition Street Project: Two Alternate Site Plans

Alternative Plan for Partition Street Project presented by Barry Benepe

* Relate buildings to the 28 foot grade change in an open park-like setting with the following results:

1. Parking is tucked into two levels entered from the north and south at grade with separate pedestrian entrances at the center.  Entry and exit from the upper level would be from the north at grade.  Entry and exit from the lower level would also be at grade from the south. No rock excavation should be required. The modest additional cost of construction of the upper level would be offset by reduced run-off, easier pedestrian flow from parking to facility, adequate parking and a more attractive, inviting landscaped setting for the entire complex.  The project would be entered and exited from Partition Street in a one way traffic pattern.  Fitting additional parking on the main site in an attractive manner is not only more convenient for users, but also saves money by reducing blasting expenses.

2. Inn at the top of the hill overlooking the restaurant and banquet hall and the Esopus Creek Valley beyond. A clock tower forms a focal point at the foot of Partition Street.

3. A viewing meadow alongside the inn looking down toward the waterfall and a small sculpture garden where the paths converge.

4. Restaurant and Banquet Hall flanking the bluff path with casual refreshments at the ground level and more exclusive dining on the terraces overlooking the creek below, the two buildings linked by a more formal canopied event court faced by a descending water retention garden, the entire complex centered on the landscaped brick-faced arch-windowed parking garage, which itself will have dramatic views towards the waterfall, an inviting entrance to your guests as they leave their cars.

5. Paths connecting to Ripley Street, Krause’s, Partition Street and Dock Street as well as the waterfront. A path will also connect to those parking in a landscaped single tier parking area with a permeable surface for overflow event parking stretching down Dock Street. Another path will lead to the top of Nanny Goat Hill where a small park will provide glorious views. Both this path, the “High Road”, and Dock Street, the “Low Road”, will provide walking access to the lighthouse, the latter by a trail constructed by the Village (using grant funds) around the north of the Treatment Plant terminating in another dramatic outlook along Lighthouse Drive. Where roads cross paths, the latter will remain level for safety while autos mount carefully over them.

Saugerties Citizens for Smart Development

Dave Minch  246 2711

Posted in Latest News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Alternative Plans will be presented at tonight’s Public Hearing for Saugerties’ Partition Street Project

greco senior center Alternative Plans will be presented at tonights Public Hearing for Saugerties Partition Street Project

Frank Greco Senior Center

March 18:  Help Support the Alternate Site Plans for the Partition Street Project
Please join us at the Public Hearing on Thursday, March 18, as we advocate for improvement of the Partition Street Project. The Village Planning Board will be reviewing the site plan, special use permit, and lot line change submitted by the applicant as required under the Zoning Law. This will be your only opportunity to make your views known.

We strongly support site plan improvements to the project that will provide a walkway along the bluff, protect Nanny Goat Hill, reduce the paved parking areas, and fit the buildings into the historic context of the Village of Saugerties. We encourage supporters to attend the March 18 meeting. Read more about the Partition Street Project http://www.partitionstreetproject.com

The public hearing is scheduled for:
Thursday, March 18
7pm
Senior Center, 207 Market Street

We see this hearing as a critical opportunity to demonstrate support for positive economic development at the site and improvements to meet public concerns. It is important to show all the stakeholders how both can be accomplished in a reasonable way that will not only not cost the applicant, but will actually save money and get a better result.

We have a list of issues that need to be addressed. It is essential to show that we have reasonable ideas that should be implemented, and that we support theVillage Planning Board in its authority to impose conditions to their approval of the site plan and special use permit. It is the responsibility of the Planning Board to protect the public interest of the community, not just to protect the owner’s investment.
At the same time we are reaching out to Mr. Struzzieri directly to show him the two alternate site plans that Dave Minch and Barry Benepe have developed that use the same square footage and parking requirements that the applicant proposes AND provide a walkway along the bluff, protect Nanny Goat Hill, reduce the impact of parking, and fit the buildings into the historic context of the Village of Saugerties.

alternate plan benepe 400x300 Alternative Plans will be presented at tonights Public Hearing for Saugerties Partition Street Project

Alternative Plan for Partition Street Project presented by Barry Benepe

alternate plan david 400x258 Alternative Plans will be presented at tonights Public Hearing for Saugerties Partition Street Project

Alternate plan prosed by David Minch for the Partition Street Project

Please join us in continuing to press for improvements to the Partition Street Project. We are happy to provide more detailed information at your request on any aspect of the project.

If you are interested in participating, please let us know.

Posted in Important Meetings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Village resident Virginia Luppino questions “Special Use” application review

I’m sure I’m not alone in finding it difficult to visually understand the look of this project.  Why wasn’t the Developer required to make more accurate and comprehensive simulations that would be helpful for the community to actually see what this is going to look like?

We especially have not seen the treatment of Nanny Goat Hill.  How can we comment on something that has not been presented? We have not seen visuals from the bridge of the proposed two-tier parking and the suggestion to plant trees for screening is unrealistic.  You can’t plant trees in rock and expect them to thrive.

We have no clear definition of ‘special event’.  In the NEG DEC a wedding is referred to as a ‘special event’.  I find this misleading.  How can something that might happen twice a week be referred to as a ‘special event’?

The building has been referred to as a conference center, a banquet hall, a ballroom, a catering hall…which is it?  Once the space is defined, it is important to look at the NYS Building Code, which calculates Assembly Space at 5 square feet per person for a Ballroom, as opposed to 15 sq’ for a Banquet Hall.  Taking a very conservative estimate of this project’s public assembly space, the code allows for more than 700 people to attend an event in a space of this size. The Village has the authority to set the legal occupancy. Before issuing a special use permit, I suggest the occupancy for the assembly space be set at approximately 325 persons.

Another concern is traffic.   Has consideration been given to the traffic impact of future projects in conjunction with the impact of the Partition St Project?  With future development at Winston Farm and Kings Highway we can expect a tremendous increase in traffic through the village.

What impact will this have on the Village Business District?  Will people begin to avoid Saugerties because of the traffic?  This is a very realistic concern to a district that is struggling to be successful.

The traffic report in the NEG DEC refers to special events being held on the weekends/off peak. Will events happen simultaneously indoors and at the outdoor catering tent? As a requirement of the Special Use Permit I suggest you restrict the timing of events to non-peak traffic hours, as all the references in the traffic report of the NEG DEC.

Another disturbing fact is that Mr. Struzzieri has purchased many properties at the bottom of Partition Street, which implies future development as part of a larger plan. This segmentation of the plan to avoid State Environmental Quality Review (SEQRA) is very troubling. Might Mr. Struzzieri decide in the future to tear down historic buildings, changing the look of the entrance to our historic district to create more parking for his projects?  Will the entrance to our historic village be likened to a strip mall parking lot?

The other issue that concerns me is noise from the outdoor catering tent. The NEG DEC refers to ‘Noise emanating from the catering tent associated with gatherings, [bands, disc jockeys and localized public address systems.]  and goes on to say that the Village of Saugerties and its agencies possess the authority to respond to potential noise complaints, if necessary.  This will be especially problematic for the residential neighborhood across the creek.

Neighbors will have to rely on the police to enforce noise complaints.  Will villagers have to endure the noise of weekly, undefined ‘special events’ held at the outdoor catering tent? I suggest that the Planning Board require the applicant to limit the hours of use of an outdoor public address system, as the project is located in a residential/mixed district.

Before issuing a Special Use Permit, I urge you to require the developer to hone in on his definition of ‘special event,’ be clear as to the actual nature of the events to be held at this site, and require time and noise limits.

Thank you,

Virginia Luppino

Saugerties Village resident

Posted in Public Comments | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The criteria for review in the [Saugerties Village] zoning law includes: “The design, location and function of easements or other access providing public access to the water’s edge.

Thank you for holding a public hearing and listening to public input. Thank you also to members of the public who’ve taken an interest in the advocating for the best possible site plan for the Partition Street Project. I want to use this opportunity to remind members of the Planning Board that public access along the waterfront is not merely a request of local residents. It satisfies a provision of the zoning law for the Planned Waterfront district. The Cantine Mill property is within the Planned Waterfront district and any development on the property should meet the requirements of the zoning law pertaining the Planned Waterfront. The criteria for review in the zoning law includes: “The design, location and function of easements or other access providing public access to the water’s edge” (Village Zoning Law 210-21).

The duty of the Planning Board is make sure that development plans conform with the zoning law in its entirety, not to ignore parts of the law you think inconvenient or narrowly interpret criteria to favor the applicant. If the site plan does not fully meet the criteria set forth in the law, the Planning Board has the legal authority and public obligation to insist on changes to the plan. Such a request should come as no surprise to the applicant since the public access criteria is clearly part of the zoning law.

A scenic waterfront walkway at this site has been part of public discussion for years and was included in previous proposals for the site, which created public expectation for a scenic walkway in the first place. However, the current site plan made a departure from prior visions for the site. I’d like to see the scenic walkway put back on the table for consideration, especially since the applicant was awarded $780,000 in public funds based upon a site plan which included access along the bluffs.

In conclusion, I suggest you use your authority under the zoning law to insist that the applicant revise their planned walkways to include a scenic walkway overlooking the water in order to satisfy the legal criteria for public access to the waterfront. I also encourage you to consider alternative plans for parking so as to eliminate the second tier of parking to prevent blasting of Nanny Goat Hill. The proposed blasting is unpredictable in its potential impacts on neighboring residences and controversial in terms of its alteration to the landscape. Any alternative to blasting would be welcome. Thank you for your serious consideration of the details of the site plan and your hard work towards making sure this is a worthwhile project for Saugerties.

Patrick Landewe

Resident of the Village of Saugerties

Posted in Public Comments | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Partition Street Project, Village Politics, and Mother Theresa

“The Partition Street Project” has inspired me to consider Mother Theresa and the words that she lived her life by … “We can do no great things; we can only do small things with great love.”
The owners of this project are land developers, savvy business men, and a United States Congressman who have garnered the support of our Mayor, our Economic Development Team, as well as our Business community (business owners have been “highly encouraged” by the Chamber of Commerce to support this development).  (This “local support” does not take into account the project’s lawyers, tax consultants, and investors, who no doubt have their affiliations as well).  With the “support” this project has gathered, rest assured, the investors will be able to create what they consider “a great thing”.
A group of concerned citizens have come up against the development plans, as well as the influence of our elected officials, in the attempts of “doing small things with great love.”  I only wish that I still believed in this Village, and its leaders, to believe that they will enforce the law to get the best results for the Village.  Unfortunately I don’t.  I hope that I am proven wrong.
From what I have read, observed, and listened to, I don’t believe “The Partition Street Project” has the ability, nor the concern, to “do small things with great love.”  Small things with great love ensure that our neighbor’s house won’t be rocked off its foundation from blasting; their view of a pristine environment won’t be blocked by a parking lot or brick wall; that a community which is identified by its landscape won’t be alienated from its source; that the “bottom line” is not what we have gained, but what we have given.
The catch phrase that I hear most often regarding this development is “economic development” and how “this project is good for business.”  This publicity, generated by the developers and their support team, is backed by its previous development, HITS.  (I’m still unclear on what HITS has actually done for our community, and whose economic development was ensured)?  Perhaps I’m the only one who observes how many stores and business in Saugerties have failed and closed?  How many properties remain vacant?  How many people can’t pay their taxes?   Remind me again of “the economic development” and how much these developments have helped our community?
I have personally come to know that our richness here in Saugerties is in our natural resources.  It is not the Town or Village or our development projects that makes us great, it is the abundance of the natural world, that we have been blessed to live within, that make us rich.  Without question, these lands and our resources are rapidly diminishing as “development projects” take over.  And so I ask, “Do you honestly believe that someone from New York City, or a tourist from afar, is actually going to come to Saugerties to view a parking lot”?  No, they will come because of our waterfalls, our creeks and river, birds migrating, our bike paths and walking paths, our accessibility to the natural world.  They will come because our Village and Town wrap itself around our natural resources, resources that no people, no town, and no development can own.  We can only be the stewards of our natural resources; how we steward a land will become our legacy.  Long after we have passed, our “developments” will remain.  Will your children and grandchildren be proud of what you have developed, what you have valued, how you have treated your neighbors, and what you have left behind?  This remains to be seen.
I have witnessed that most people in our community do not care about their neighbors, or our shared natural resources; they choose not to be involved when our resources are violated, and behave as though “it’s not their problem”.  Their choice is to be complacent, and become involved in what personally benefits them.  I can assure those people, by the time you have moved from your complacency, it will be too late.
With all due respect, most citizens of Saugerties have become “the cow following the cow who wears the bell.”  As we are a rural farming community, or once were, our “developers” and “Town officials” now have the privilege, and the power, of being “the cow who wears the bell.”  Where will you lead your people and how will you protect our shared resources?  Will it be to your perception of “great things” or will it be to “small things done with great love”?
Your legacy, and ours, remains to be seen; it will be the ultimate mark of what we stood for, the values we admire and represent, and the values we teach our children.
I believe Daphne Rose Kingman states this perspective best: “In the end, nothing we do or say in this life time will matter as much as the way we have loved one another.”
Elise Muller / Saugerties
www.mountain-spirit-botanicals.com

Posted in Public Comments | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Let’s talk the walk: Village Planning Board Chairman, George Lewandowski and members

To Village Planning Board Chairman, George Lewandowski, and members:

Let’s talk the walk.
At last night’s planning board hearing on the Partition Street project I heard a lot about how the developers could do what they wanted with their property and about how the village could compel the developers to do what we want.
The advantages of a promenade seem pretty clear: a postprandial stroll enhances any dining experience, hotel guests can take a morning walk to watch the sun creep up the river, and townsfolk and other visitors can gain new perspectives on our common wealth and maybe be enticed into the restaurant.
So why don’t they want it? The answer, I was told, is Privacy and Security. The security problem seems silly: anyone who would pose a security risk can be supposed to have the temerity to walk on the grass, and I fail to see how someone walking along a promenade by the river is more dangerous than someone walking along the sidewalk by the street. The privacy concern is likewise specious: you have no more privacy if there is one hotel worker or guest outside your window or looking in at your party than you do if that person is merely a Saugerties resident.
What I think is really at work here is far more troubling: the wealthy who the developers hope to attract are assumed to want to live in a bubble where they never have to deal with any of the hoi polloi (except the servants). They’d drive from HITS to the hotel, eat in the restaurant, and never have to be troubled with even seeing the “riff-raff” that comprises the Saugerties populace.
But is this true? Do we need to continue to promote the isolation and polarization that has contributed so much to the breakdown of a civil society?
I think the developers’ fears are groundless and counter-productive. Think of all the wonderful resort cities built around boardwalks and promenades. A thriving common space nourishes community and its attendant safety and commerce. And with good planning, this public space need not impinge on any of the guests’ private activities. Do you think that guests of the project’s proposed gated-community-like confines will venture out into the wilds of downtown Saugerties?
Let’s be clear about what our choice is. We can acquiesce to greed and fear and allow the developers to build a private club with public assistance, or we can insist that they become part of our community.
What kind of world do you want to live in?

Peter Solow
459 Stoll Road
Saugerties, NY 12477
845-246-5783
psolow@aol.com

Posted in Public Comments | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

A Challenge for Smart Growth on Esopus Creek 12 April 2010

When the Village of Saugerties Planning Board meets in April and May to review, amend and approve (or disapprove) a plan for the proposed 500 seat restaurant (including the 400 seat banquet hall) and hotel proposed for the former historic Cantine Mill Site overlooking Esopus Creek, it will embrace an opportunity to leave a lasting contribution to the exceptional beauty and history of this community. The Planning Board has the unique responsibility, not only to enforce the provisions of the zoning law, but to carry out the visions contained in the Comprehensive Plan, the Lower Waterfront Revitalization Plan and the New York State Open Space Plan. Only the Planning Board has this special legal power under Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit with conditions to move the village forward, utilizing its own experience and vision to carry out its objectives to secure the best possible project.
The Planning Board should adopt the previously presented alternative plans which limit the parking on Nanny Goat Hill to a single lower level which will significantly reduce the cost of the project and the environmental damage to this exceptional geologic landmark. These alternative plans also provide a cliff top walkway and set the buildings back higher on the land to make a far more attractive and less costly development overlooking the valley with its scenic views. It would be a win-win solution for both the developers and the community. I hope the Planning Board will seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leave a lasting imprint on our beloved village.
Barry Benepe 311 Clark Van Vlierden Road Saugerties, NY 845-246-6491
Posted in Letters to the Editor | Tagged , , | Leave a comment