Loading...
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