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
OSI – Open Space Institute
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