January 12, 2010

Mr. George Lewandowki and Members of the Village of Saugerties Planning Board
Village Planning Board
43 Partition Street
Saugerties, NY 12477

Dear Mr. Lewandowki and Member of the Village of Saugerties Planning Board:

First, I want to thank you for reading and considering my remarks.

Second, I want to add specific observations you may not have given sufficient consideration to:
• Parking
o There are two demands: 1) normal daily requirements which can be met with
around 110 spaces on an impermeable paved surface and 2) overflow parking
for banquets which require an additional 110 for occasional use. These could be
on a permeable stabilized grass or pea stone surface.
o All parking could be placed in what is known as a “parking garden” where all the
storm water will be retained on site. (More information can be obtained from the
Queens Botanical Garden website: queensbotanicalgarden.org).
o I urge the applicants to explore additional parking in the three lots to the south
belonging to John Mullen, Mr. Hagopian, and the Village of Saugerties.
o If parking at the base of Nanny Goat Hill is unavoidable, one level off Dock Street
will do the least damage to this unique Ice Age geological feature (see
description by Robert Titus, geologist).
• Traffic
o The Village Planning Board must evaluate the combined impacts of peak traffic
demand at key intersections, such as Main and Partition Streets, from the
Partition Street Project, the Winston Farm Development, the King’s Highway
Development, and lands subject to future development in both the Town and
Village. Projections from the Partition Street Project alone forecast a service
level F, the worst possible, causing three minute delays (twice what there is now
or what is caused at a railroad crossing). Under such conditions traffic would
require two to three signal changes to pass through the intersection, a condition
that will be harmful to Village businesses.
o The tax map indicates a mapped street extension of Ripley Street passing
through the site connecting to Dock Street at the north. This should be relocated
to the east edge of the site along the top of the bluff for pedestrian traffic only.
• Water and Sewer Impacts
o The same issues of cumulative impacts must be considered as in the discussion
of traffic above.
• Cumulative Impacts and Comprehensive Planning
o While statements were made at the November meeting of the Village Planning
Board to the effect that plans for the Partition Street Project and Hydro Electric
Plant were distinct, separate, and not related in any way, this is obviously not the
case. The hotel developers have stated that they will draw power from the plant
and the construction and the physical appearance of the plant and its traffic
patterns will definitely impact the hotel site. The plant will also impact the
adjacent Hagopian and Village properties as well as residents of Ripley Street,
Partition Street, and Krause’s Chocolates. Have property owners on the west
side of Partition Street received legal notices of this proposal?
• Site Design and Building Placement
o There was a major change from the 2007 Restore New York grant application
which showed buildings parallel to the Esopus Creek and Partition Street with
parking concealed between the buildings to the current plan which turns the
buildings at 45 degrees. The current plan occupies the site less efficiently and
exposes the unattractive parking along the north and west sides along the
Partition Street entrance to the Village. The current site plan fails to fold
structures and parking into the slope of the land.
• Visuals
o Before approving this initial diagrammatic layout, the Village Planning Board
needs before and after sections through Nanny Goat Hill and across the main
site. The two renderings (referred to as “animations” in the board minutes of
November 9, 2009) do not represent what is on the plans. The views are
deceptive especially the “Photo Shop” depiction of the buildings to the east that
show a single facade for each building when in actuality the view should have
two facades per building. What you see is not what you will get.
• Public Access
o The viewing platform is both inadequate in size and in placement. What is
needed is a walkway along the bluff. What has been added to the plan is a small
postage stamp platform overlooking the hydro-electric plant with virtually no view
of the waterfall. The other platform to the north (the “snow dump”) is also
inadequate in that it is too far for a good view of the waterfall and blocked by
numerous trees. FYI, the snow dump is not actually shown on the applicant’s
plans. We do not believe that they own it and assume the Village does.
o The concept of a walkway is a public private partnership. The land can remain in
the ownership of the applicant to be controlled by the owner and closed when
necessary for special events. Or the walkway can be deeded to a land
conservancy or to the Village of Saugerties in which case liability issues can be
taken care of through inclusion in the Village’s umbrella policy. There are a
number of management and landscape tools that can be used to make the public
and private work together successfully. The private space can be separated by
shrubbery or other landscape materials and/or by a change in level.
o The advantages of a public path include that it is an attraction to visitors to
Saugerties who will patronize the restaurant and on occasion the hotel and
banquet hall. These visitors will also have a spin-off effect on other Saugerties
businesses. A further attraction is the people watching enjoyment that a pathway
provides to the restaurant or patio patron. The walkway will be a regional draw
and serve to attract visitors to the Partition Street Project and to Saugerties, thus
having a positive economic impact.
• Cantine Paper Mill Park Plan of 2000
o It is important to clarify that the Cantine Paper Mill Park Steering Committee
made up of appointees of Mayor Bob Yerick made a report in 2000 that was
supported by both the Mayor and Congressman Maurice Hinchey that proposed
a park and public access along the bluff. Recently Mayor Yerick was quoted in
the “Saugerties Times” as saying that "I have a document in my office with the
committee's recommendations for developing this property," said Yerick. "That
 plan is almost identical to what is being done now." The two plans are more
truthfully like “night and day,” in no way similar and certainly not identical.

oThe 2000 Cantine Paper Mill Park Plan more accurately reflects the plans
envisioned by the Town and Village of Saugerties Comprehensive Plan, the
Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, the Greenway, the NYS Open Space
Planning Guide, and all other planning recommendations for our area.
• Structural and Safety Considerations
o Who will review the complex structural plans of these buildings resting diagonally
across 19th century foundation walls and rubble?
o Will piles and grade beams support the buildings?
o How will fire equipment reach the shore side of the buildings?
o Is the Village Planning Board exercising oversight in the proper handling of
contaminated soils on this site?
• Technical Assistance
o It has become apparent that the Village Planning Board needs expert assistance
in order to adequately review the Partition Street Project. What you need is
professional planning, architectural, and landscape architectural advice. This
expertise needs to report to you and serve the public interest. Engineering and
law should not control the process.

All of these questions need to be answered before you vote on these plans.

Third, I am attaching my statement of November 30, 2009 as amended to make sure you have
the information in front of you which speaks to the Zoning Law, the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program, and the NYS DEC Local Open Space Planning Guide.

Sincerely,

Barry Benepe
Saugerties Citizens for Smart Development