AMENIA — At its Sept. 3 meeting, the Planning Board listened to several requests and a presentation before deciding it needed to see more significant site plan redesigns for the proposed development on Depot Hill Road.
Co-owner Jeffrey Stark and Project Engineer Brandee Nelson represented Keane Stud, LLC, which has proposed renovating its horse-stud farm through a resident cluster development on approximately 481 acres. The proposal consists of 137 single-family dwellings, a community garden, equestrian facilities (including indoor and outdoor riding areas, associated barns and stables, a cross-country course, riding/hiking trails and tack shop), a refreshment cafe, a thoroughbred stud farm and hay fields.
The Planning Board held three public hearings for the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) earlier this summer, and the board, community members and outside agencies raised a number of concerns.
The Sept. 3 meeting marks the first time any alternative options have been presented to the board, although Stark stressed they were not official alternative plans or revisions but were simply meant to get a sense of the direction the board would like the project to go.
The three alternatives, which were supplemented and presented through visual simulations by the board’s visual consultant, George Janes, involved changes only to Neighborhoods 1 and 2. In alternative one all garages were removed. In alternative two, 14 units were removed and roads were shortened; alternative three is a more drastic version of alternative two, eliminating a total of 26 units and further shortening roads.
Neighborhoods 1 and 2 have received a lot of attention as their respective units are proposed moving up the hill on the project’s property, and have a significant impact on the viewshed from different points on DeLavergne Hill and Depot Hill Road. As Janes pointed out, eliminating the garages makes little difference visually, but alternatives two and three, which eliminate some of the units moving up the hill, are increasingly effective in mitigating visual impacts coming down DeLavergne Hill. However, Janes concluded that he still felt there were several viewpoints, from the top of DeLavergne and from Depot Hill Road, with significant visual impact.
Following the presentation, board members brought up two concerns: that there were no revisions to Neighborhood 4 and that the alternatives, while a good start, were still not enough.
Stark responded by explaining that only Neighborhoods 1 and 2 are in the Scenic Protection Overlay (SPO) zoning district. Before any more work was done on the project, he wanted to determine whether a solution could be reached with the board on the layout of those neighborhoods.
Stark has also requested that in the immediate future, only consultants Janes and Mary Anne Johnson, from Greenplan Inc. Environmental Planners out of Rhinebeck, would work on the project.
“Substantial interest has been raised about whether the layout of the project itself is satisfactory,� Stark said. “Once we have a working understanding, then let’s complete the other environmental analysis if it’s required.�
Since the project has begun, the board’s consultants have tallied up approximately $285,000 in fees, which the applicant is required to cover. Stark argued that if the basic layout of the project were to change, some of the consultants’ work, particularly that of Environmental Consultant Michael Klemens, would need to be redone.
“I think it’s wasteful of Dr. Klemens’ time as well as of our resources,� Stark said.
The board and consultants had mixed opinions about the request, feeling that Janes and Johnson might need to call on the other consultants for council and that stopping a consultant and then asking them to jump back in would require much more than the two-week period between meetings for the consultant to adequately prepare for productive involvement.
As for the alternative options presented, the board was unanimous in agreeing that the third alternative was the best step in the right direction, but it still requested that the applicant offer a redesign for comparison. The new plan doesn’t need to be radically different, board Chairman Bill Flood and Attorney to the Town Michael Hayes explained, but enough to provide the board with a visual comparison to the third alternative.
Stark reported that a meeting has been scheduled with the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development. After that meeting, the applicant will consider their options before reporting back to Hayes or Flood about the direction the project will head in. Flood said the board would meanwhile consider Stark’s request to separate the consultants.
The next Planning Board meeting will be held on Sept. 24 at 7 p.m.
