Dear Philipstown Planning Board, 

The Open Space Development code that was adopted by the Town Board in 2011 is an important planning document for protecting the natural beauty, natural resources and wildlife of our region. The first applicant under this code is the Hudson Highlands Reserve applying for permission to develop 25 new homes. We urge the Planning Board to reject the HHR application for the following reasons:

-The findings of the EIS make it clear the current proposal will disrupt wildlife to such an extent the aims of the conservation easement cannot be met, especially with respect to the proposed fragmentation of the conserved areas.

-The measure of current wildlife populations have not yet been sufficiently established to create a baseline.

-The measure of the negative effects of the development and its maintenance with respect to wildlife, waterways, traffic, noise have not been sufficiently established.

-The protection of views of nature from Breakneck Ridge, New York State's most popular hiking trail have not been established.

-DOT-approved access into the development has not been established and local citizens have not been given a public hearing opportunity to voice their concerns of the proposed alternate access on East Mountain Road.

-The full extent of disturbed land and vulnerability of storm water and sewage management systems is underrepresented in the application.

-HHR management (HOA) rules and accountability for items such as pollutants on site, governance, etc,.. have not been sufficiently established. 

-Accountability, measuring standards, monitoring terms and frequency have not been sufficiently established for the conservation easement or the housing development.

In addition, we especially support the detailed concerns of the easement itself, listed in the September 15 2021 letter from the HHLT to the Philipstown Planning Board.  See https://philipstown.com/pb/2021-09-15-HHR-HHLT-Letter-To-PB.pdf

To adequately review these concerns, we request a new public hearing for the new HHR.

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizens for Philipstown, NY

 

 

Detailed observations:

The Open Space Development code that was adopted by the Town Board in 2011 is an important guidance document for protecting the natural beauty, natural resources, and wildlife of our region. The stated goals of the code with respect to the Hudson Highlands Reserve (HHR) subdivision are:

A-Protection of steep slopes.

B-Protection of wetlands, water bodies, water courses.

C-Provide public access to enjoy Ulmar Pond

D-Protect Open Space

E-Protect flora and fauna

F-Protect the historic nature of the Town

 

As the first applicant to propose development under this code the Hudson Highlands Reserve 25-lot subdivision application is precedent-setting. Unfortunately, the applicant’s plan strongly resembles a traditional subdivision that does not prioritize the protection of open space, natural resources, or wildlife habitat. While the updated FEIS plans removed the equestrian facility, the revisions pose many of the same (along with some potentially new) environmental risks. The revised plans seem to differ significantly from the original, enough to warrant enhanced review by the Conservation Board and public comment to ensure there are no new significant adverse impacts. Moreover, the extent of virgin land and habitats that will be disturbed by this project is vastly under-represented in the drawings, making it difficult for the public to understand the true scope of this project. Therefore, we request a new public hearing for the new HHR.

 

We also support the observations and requests in the 9/15/2021 letter of the HHLT which details 8 recommended actions. In the spirit of the Open Space Development Code we recommend the Planning Board reject the subdivision proposal as complete and request the following:

 

1.     Updated evaluation of conservable areas, wildlife populations and other existing conditions.

2.     Viewshed preservation: Addition information, including renderings illustrating the view of the proposed developed property from multiple scenic viewpoints. 

3.     Independent verification of habitat types and preservation. 

4.     Independent review of earth moving and stabilization, SWPP, sewage, utilities.

5.     Approved access by NYDOT for all access AND additional community input. 

6.     Change to site plan to remove the gated access to/from Horton Road

7.     Revised Subdivision notes to reflect the actual number of homes on submitted plans.

8.     Sufficient future independent monitoring and accountability.

 

We list below multiple concerns with the Hudson Highlands Reserve application and FEIS. These concerns are intimately tied to the code’s goals:

 

A.             STEEP SLOPES

B.             WETLANDS, WATERBODIES, WATER COURSES, STORM WATER AND SEWAGE PLANS

C.             PUBLIC ACCESS

D.             PROTECT OPEN SPACE and NATURAL RESOURCES

E.             HISTORIC NATURE OF THE TOWN

F.              ADDITIONAL RELATED CONCERNS

 

A.             STEEP SLOPES CONCERNS are not adequately addressed

 

1.     The proposed entrance off of Route 9 has construction on land exceeding 35% slopes which far exceeds what is permitted by code unless “clearly needed.” A similar concern is found at the “alternate access” at East Mountain Road where there are also steep slopes. 

2.     Significant earth stabilization (geotextiles) of steep slopes will be required within areas of Medium Conservation Value.  Significant earth stabilization (geotextiles) of steep slopes will be required along the border of steep slopes of High Conservation Value, see Fig 2.

3.     Site disturbance during construction often equals 2x the footprint of the home. Placing building footprints and house lots up to the toe of steep slopes may require unforeseen additional steep slopes removals and earth stabilization methods. Has the proposal adequately addressed step slopes concerns associated with construction footprints?

·       We request a revised subdivision plan that addresses the steep site access issue, reflects actual disturbed land areas, and significantly reduces the amount of steep slopes encroachment and required earth stabilization.

 

B.             WETLANDS, WATERBODIES, WATERCOURSES, STORM WATER AND SEWAGE are not adequately protected

1.     The reconfiguration of the house lots suggests new concerns for water on the site, as some houses are now placed close to natural seeps and other water features. 

2.     The development’s effects on aquifers and waterways have still not been sufficiently established. An up-to-date assessment of existing water conditions of this site is requested. A management plan for protecting the water features during and after construction is requested. 

3.     In addition to the 9/15/2021 HHLT letter recommendation 1, the vernal ponds are especially vulnerable to dogs off-leash. Protection of vernal ponds from the negative effects of public access/resident access is not sufficiently provided.

4.     As noted in 9/15/2021 HHLT letter recommendation 3, the area with homes around Ulmar Pond cuts off a portion of the natural waterbody – negatively impacting the biotic corridor. Further, while buffer less than 330’ provide flood prevention, erosion and sedimentation control, amphibians and other species often require a larger riparian buffer (330+’). 

5.     Stormwater and Sewage:
The two vast Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems proposed (SSTS) seem to make the site’s water vulnerable from any future SSTS failures. An SSTS is a fully cleared area, with no trees. One of the proposed SSTS has a perimeter that exceeds the natural boundaries and is located outside the recommended developable land. What kind of uses will be permitted on the vast SSTS areas?  Will these areas be mowed grass or left natural? All SSTS areas should be placed within the “developable land area”

6.     We suggest that the design, size and placement of the SSTS systems be presented to and approved by the Conservation Board. We suggest that the Town Wetland Inspector be asked to opine on the system as well.

7.     Item 13 of the Realty Subdivision Notes on Sheet 2 suggests there may be some mechanically pumped non-gravity fed septic systems of home. These will be vulnerable during our area’s many power outages. We suggest that no wastewater pump systems be permitted for this project. See Fig 4

8.     Item 14 of the Realty Subdivision Notes on Sheet 2 states, “The SSTS designs do not provide for the installation of garbage grinders. Such installations require additional designs and the approval of the Putnam County Health Department.” Oversight to prevent owners from installing incinerators in their kitchen sinks may be too difficult to realistically maintain for this development. We request that the SSTS be designed to accommodate a realistic wastewater load. See Fig 4.

9.     Future vulnerability to our area’s frequent and increasing storms and flooding issues has not sufficiently considered or planned for.

10.  The use of catch basins to resolve excess storm water could be problematic. Unless they are maintained and frequently pumped out, catch basins can be subject to discharging debris during heavy rainstorms; they can attract unwanted pests; they can cause sink holes and are expensive to maintain.

11.  The severity of new storm water issues incurred by this size of a development is made clear in the numerous new bioretention areas and rain gardens that will be required. These will involve tremendous earth moving, new pipes and drainage beds. Make no mistake: almost all the virgin land within the “developable” area will be disturbed. In addition, large areas that lie outside the recommended developable area will also be disturbed in order to manage new storm water and sewage caused by the size of the development.

·       We request an independent review on the proposed Storm Water Protection Plan, sewage treatment plans, utilities and other civil engineering be conducted as a prerequisite to evaluating the proposed submission, particularly in view of the changing climate and increasing storm severity. 

·       We request all water and sewage management be contained within the recommended developable land and not within any of the land of medium conservation value.

C.             PUBLIC ACCESS is not sufficiently defined/restricted
Providing public access to the Ulmar Pond is a stated goal. Public access in the former quarry site at Glasbury Commons made use of a contaminated/brownfield site, but what about the currently natural site of Ulmar pond? Have the effects of an increased public walking around the pond and vernal pools been studied? Given the fragile nature of this small pond and the many adjacent waterways, what exactly is proposed? The 2020 end-of-season study by the New York New Jersey Trail Conference found that unleashed dogs along trails were damaging wildlife in vernal pools. They subsequently have stationed guards at those pool sites during the heavily trafficked hiking times. 

1.     Public access been not sufficiently defined either by the Town or in the proposal. What areas will be/should be open to the public for passive recreation? If so, how and what impact would these have on the traffic, noise, wildlife habitat? 

2.     How will public access be monitored? 

3.     Are new public walking trails planned? The proposal should clearly delineate these.  Currently there is information on the site plans.  We are concerned about increased public access to the pond, even as the Town wishes to promote this.

4.     The plans show a public parking area next to the preserved barn, directly adjacent to a large asphalt cul-de-sac. If public parking is part of this development we recommend is become integrated into the site with pervious pavers or gravel and reduce the amount of paving added for public access.

5.     What will the existing Barn be used for, how will it be restored, who will maintain it? Details about the use of this structure are requested. Fig 3.

6.     Who could prevent owners from creating their own walking paths into the protected areas and causing irreparable disturbances?

·       We request the Town provide the Applicant with more detailed guidelines of allowable public uses and that these guidelines be developed with an independent authority, such as the NYNJTC or the New York State Office of Parks.

D.             PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE & NATURAL RESOURCES is not met.

 

The findings of the draft FEIS make it clear the current proposal will still fragment and perforate wildlife habitat and perforate biotic corridors to such an extent the aims of the conservation subdivision and requisite conservation easement cannot be met:

 

1.     Per the 9/15/2021 HHLT letter recommendation 2. The proposed footprint of the site and especially the access road from Route 9 exceeds the totality of “potentially developable land” and encroaches into many acres of land that has been identified as significant to habitat. This is a serious concern. See Fig 2. Why does the Applicant need to develop every acre of “potentially developable land” ? Why can’t the Town mandate that none of the land of Medium Conservation Value be disturbed?

2.     The extent of cutting and filling particularly on land around the outer perimeter of the developable land has not been adequately assessed. Fig 2

3.  Maintenance of sufficient wildlife corridors is not assured due to fragmentation.

4.  The assurance that wildlife disturbance to the overall site during construction will not permanently damage populations within the protected parts of the property and beyond to the neighboring areas has not been provided.

5.  Overall, the measure of current wildlife populations and boundaries of areas of high and medium conservation value are not current enough to create a baseline. The Conservation Impact Map is from 2015, which is almost 7 years old. A new study should be conducted; as the boundaries of what is deemed land of high conservation value may have shifted.

7.   The extent of impervious paving is a concern. Removing turn-arounds where emergency access for fire trucks is already provided would reduce impervious paving. All home driveways are shown as paved, some seem to be 100 feet long. Pervious driveway materials are suggested for homes, per the historic character for many homes along Horton and East Mountain Road.

8.   There is a proposed Haul Road for construction materials storage outside the subdivision perimeter that will end up causing a large area of the area of Medium Conservation value to be cleared and permanently destroyed. The Haul Road area should be located within the boundary of the development/disturbed land.

9.   Protection of View Corridors The submitted viewshed analysis is completely insufficient; it cannot confirm this development will not significantly adversely affect viewsheds. The protection of views of nature from Breakneck Ridge, New York State's most popular hiking trail have not been established, and should be established through a more diligent analysis and presented showing the impact (both leaf on and leaf off) from multiple public scenic viewpoints. We refer to the 2018 NYNJTC article on the value of preserving the views from this trail: https://www.nynjtc.org/news/protecting-north-americas-most-popular-hiking-destination

10. Conflict of interest for the EIS The fact that the applicant paid for environmental impact reports signals a lack of independent review. This may be standard operating procedure to relieve the Town of the cost of paying for their own independent EIS, but in this case, given the sheer number and size of the concerns the Planning Board should explain their reasoning in accepting applicant’s conclusions when those conclusions just so happen to coincide with the applicant’s interests.

 

·       We request the Applicant submit a new subdivision plan that provides substantial evidence the goals of protecting open space and natural resources are being met, with complete verification of these assertions by independent authorities.

·       We request updated independent assessments for the existing site, the 2015 assessment is now over 6 years old. 

 

E.    HISTORIC NATURE OF THE TOWN
1.  As proposed, the project strongly resembles a classic subdivision with tax parcels sprawled across the full extent of the developable portion of a property. Insufficient information is given as to the style, materials, colors of the new homes. To meet the town’s goals of preserving the historic nature of the town, we request that the proposal consolidate the homes and define their aesthetic look as part of the approval process.

2. Noise and Light Pollution vs low density residential development: The impact of noise to neighbors and wildlife habitat of a spread-out subdivision plan has not been fully evaluated. Further, the impact associated light pollution resulting from the spread of the 25 homes has not been evaluated. What is to prevent this development from installing streetlights with glare issues, or owners from installing floodlights on their properties?

3. Historic nature of East Mountain Road: Has evidence been provided that the NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) will indeed approve the proposed access/egress from Route 9 and/or the proposed alternate access, East Mountain Road?  Where does Horton Road fit in with these approvals? The impacts on this local historic road and its residents should be studied and thoroughly reviewed before any alternate access is suggested or considered. Multiple cars and support vehicles coming in and out of a single point on East Mountain Road is unprecedented. How will this affect the character of the road, which has a robust local neighbors association? If an access/egress point along East Mountain Road is not viable, then the proposal should remove the language that suggests this.

·       We request all site access/egress resolution as a prerequisite for Planning Board consideration of the application.

·       We request a light pollution study be provided and commitment that “dark sky” guidelines will be adopted.

F.             ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

Sitework concerns not covered above

1.     The amount of cutting and filling that will permanently change or damage the site and require extensive erosion control is a concern. Especially, the proposed site work directly adjacent to and within the protected perimeter. We are concerned they will irrevocably change the natural landscape and habitats, see Fig 2. 

·       A comparison of the extent/amount of cutting and filling of a similar development of similar size is requested.

Treatment of Hazardous Materials

2.     Removal of structures may entail special treatment for hazardous materials. Hazmat plan is not provided. 

Use of Horton Road

3.     The plans show an uninterrupted connection between the existing dirt driveway from Horton Road to the existing barn and house on lot 20 and the new paved road of the planned development, separated from Horton Road by a “gate”. Not knowing how or if the gate will be operated, we could presume any resident of the HHR may enter or exit via Horton Road. Horton Road has a blind hairpin turn on a hill where there was an accident involving 3 cars in 2017 because one car was speeding up the hill. For safety reasons and to keep in character with the quiet dead-end road, this is not a viable “back door” for the development. We recommend that second means of entry from Horton Road be removed/eliminated. If that is the sole access to the existing house on lot 20, then connecting that house with the rest of the development is clearly problematic to us. We strongly oppose connecting to Horton Road for anything outside official emergency access.

 

4.     Speaking of which, the plans refer to an “existing road to be used for emergency access connection” at the end of Horton Road. This road is overgrown and no longer passable even on foot. To make it accessible for emergencies, substantial road work would be involved in this area with conservation value. We are opposed to adding more land disturbance outside the developable land boundary and ask for more details as to the appearance and materiality of this road and gate.

Vulnerability Of Covenants

5.     There is a lack of transparency in the HOA review process. Is there a draft of the current proposed HOA restrictions? How can we be assured of tree clearing restrictions? We request confidence that sufficient protections, if drafted and submitted today, remain into the future to ensure homeowner actions negatively affect the environment and surroundings. 

6.     The conservation easement for a conservation subdivision must be held by a qualified conservation organization, committed to the long-term stewardship and defense of the restrictions and protection of the encumbered lands conservation values. That said, the 25 tax lots will be controlled by restrictive covenants determined by a homeowner’s association. These rules may be updated and changed based on the current board. Further, there is no guarantee that adherence to the existing rules would be monitored or defended by the HOA. We are concerned the Town may not monitor the potentially changing HOA covenants.

7.     If the HOA restrictions are going to limit the amount of lawn/landscaped area around each residence, with the remaining land being wooded, why is each parcel so large? A conservation subdivision that further consolidates development would ensure limited site disturbance, adequate open, natural space and restrictions on accessory structures, playground equipment, small hidden backyards.  

8.     Applicant claims the development will be guided by sustainable principles, but specific sustainability measures, energy consumption, homeowner site management, and restrictions on use of pollutants in the new homes is not detailed enough to verify. 

·       We request increased transparency on the HOA review process especially for land use, what restrictions/guidelines are proposed, and how they will be enforced. 

Value Of Independent Reviews & A Qualified, Accredited Organization

9.     We note that many studies and assessments completed have been completed by the applicant without independent review. We urge the Town to enlist an independent ecological consultant to confirm the information presented.

10.  In addition, we especially support the detailed concerns of the easement itself, listed in the September 15, 2021 letter from the HHLT recommendation 7, ensuring that the holder of the conservation easement has the resources and determination to stewards/defend the conservation easement now and well in to the future. This is of paramount concern. 

Inconsistency in Maximum Number of Units / Lot size/ Lot use

11.  The plans show 25 homes, one existing and 24 new, plus an existing barn to remain. Item 15. of the Realty Subdivision Notes on sheet 2 states “Approval is herewith granted for a total of 28 lots only.” Correction on Sheet 2 is requested. See Fig 4

 

·       We request a correction in the Realty Subdivision Notes to reflect the actual final number of approved parcels.