HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_SD-20-33_Scollins Pub Comment1
Marla Keene
To:Paul Conner
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Fwd: Spear Meadows DRB meeting October 6, 2020
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michael Scollins <michaeljscollins@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM
Subject: Spear Meadows DRB meeting October 6, 2020
To: Michael Scollins <michaeljscollins@gmail.com>
Paul Conner
Matt Cota, Chair, and fellow DRB Members
My name is Michael Scollins. I reside at 214 Meadowood Drive, and have abutted Gary Farrell’s Spear
Meadows property for 44 years. I have been closely involved in the various deliberations in the development of
the property since they began about 15 years ago. I very much appreciate your willingness to consider the
changes that the abutters and developer jointly propose.
The recreation path was planned for the eastern border of the property from the initial proposal. I was probably
the strongest supporter, as I anticipated that the path would subsequently connect to the south with similar
free-standing rec paths. As Vale, Pinnacle and Four Sisters developments have evolved, they have all settled
on wide sidewalks, allowing paths to traverse driveways, and avoid the additional and unnecessary cost of
free-standing rec paths. This approach has proven to be safe and popular, allowing interactions with
neighbors, and posing none of the safety issues that traversing driveways was feared to pose.
The rec path along the easterly border was initially expected to afford westerly views of the Adirondacks, but
the tight alignment of the row of houses immediately to the west of the path, typically just 25 feet away, would
block the views, as well as compromise the privacy of both home occupants and rec path users. We had
hoped to see a small park or at least a sitting area, in the southeast corner of the property, from which the
Adirondack views, including Whiteface and Giant Mountains, were optimal, but when the three triplexes were
added to the plans for that corner, the sitting area—indeed the whole rec path no longer made sense.
The final factor in our suggestion to abandon the free-standing rec path, was our realization, since the most
recent plan was finalized, that construction of a paved rec path close to the many large hardwood trees, and
well within the drip line, would injure many of these trees and seriously jeopardize their long-term survival.
The second major issue we would implore you to reconsider is the decision to make a regular vehicle
connection between Vale Drive and Spear Meadows. Most of the homeowners in the Vale neighborhood
thought the cul-de-sac at the end of their street was permanent. Indeed, a local realtor attempted to sell the
most northerly lot around 2003, only to learn that the land was a right-of-way! At that time I wrote to City
Manager Chuck Hafter and argued that such streets should be clearly marked with signs indicating future
rights-of-way. He agreed, but explained that many interim steps would be required, and it never happened.
While the police and fire departments typically insist on such connections, most residents disagree, and are not
persuaded of their benefit or necessity. I live at the far end of my 0.4 mile street, on a cul-de-sac, and regard it
as precious—quiet, with no traffic. It is one of the most popular streets in the City, for that reason.
Over the years several DRB members have argued that joined streets achieve “connectivity”. I would
respectfully argue that encouraging walking and biking through neighborhoods, far better accomplishes
“connectivity”.
2
Why not a narrower paved connecting road, wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles, but blocked
by a post or chain accessible only to such vehicles?
This approach seems to have worked extremely well between the Cider Mill development and Dorset Heights,
now in place for more than ten years.
Some DRB members have argued that the City’s Master Plan anticipates the northerly extension of Vale Drive
connecting eventually with Swift Street. That would create an intersection on Swift about 150 yards from the
Spear-Swift intersection—unnecessary, and hazardous, in my opinion. If in fact such a connection is realized in
the future, the connection at the south end of Spear Meadows could then be made permanent. The funds for
that could be charged now and held in escrow.
I sincerely believe that both of these accommodations would enhance the quality and value of both the Vale
and Spear Meadows neighborhoods, and many of the Vale residents have testified to that effect over the past
15 years. Thanks very much for your time and consideration.
Michael J. Scollins