Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Sale Casa 50 Acre topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IDA considers counteroffer for 50-acre Casa parcel; counsel to review proposed subdivision language
Summary
The Herkimer County Industrial Development Agency discussed a counteroffer for roughly 50 acres to be sold at $25,000 per acre with a proposed clause allowing subdivision for related projects. Board members asked counsel to add language limiting subdivisions to entities wholly owned or controlled by the buyer and debated development triggers and a
The Herkimer County Industrial Development Agency discussed a counteroffer to Casa for about 50 acres at $25,000 per acre and considered language that would permit the buyer to subdivide the parcel for related projects, subject to counsel review.
The board reviewed a proposed purchase and sale agreement (PSA) that would allow the buyer to subdivide the 50-acre parcel into multiple parcels to be held by project-specific entities. Tony Hallock, identified in the meeting as counsel, moved the resolution: “I would move to adapt the, counter offer subject to approval by counsel, including language to the extent that the subdivision properties are either wholly owned or controlled by the applicant.”
Members described the proposed subdivision language as intended to let the principal investor set up separate holding companies or LLCs for individual projects while keeping the overall development tied to the principal. Board members asked counsel to clarify whether subsidiary entities must be wholly owned or could be “controlled” by the buyer; Hallock said the language could be drafted to require control rather than full ownership.
The board also discussed performance and development triggers. Several members raised concern about how to define “development” for the two‑year performance window in the PSA. One member asked whether securing approvals and commencing construction should be the trigger for the IDA’s development clawback; counsel said the agency’s practice has been to require approvals and commencement of construction rather than, for example, a certificate of occupancy. The board debated whether requiring a certificate of occupancy within two years would be overly strict.
Environmental review and wetlands were discussed as a schedule factor: members said DEC’s wetlands verification can add time and that the state’s review timeline (60 days was cited) was a reason the PSA was revised to give 120 days of due diligence. The PSA includes a 100-foot easement to preserve utility routing and an option for an additional entrance on Route 42; Town and county highway officials were reported to be agreeable in principle but final plan approvals remain pending.
Next steps: the motion to accept the counteroffer was framed as contingent on counsel’s approval of the subdivision language; board members said the agreement should be signed after counsel confirms the redline with agreed blue-line changes and the applicant executes the PSA. The transcript does not record a final vote count on the contingent resolution.
Ending: Counsel will finalize subdivision and development language and the item will return to the board for final execution once counsel and the applicant sign off.
