Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Environmental board urges close review of Big Sky Farm plans for water, fire protection and 'what if' scenarios
Summary
Board members said plans for Big Sky Farm — a proposed development with roughly 98 adult units and a 200-room boutique hotel — contain inconsistencies and raise questions about water sourcing, septic versus municipal hookups, fire-protection requirements, traffic sight lines on state Route 17M and the project's market resilience if the developer pivots from 55+ to higher-density housing.
The Environmental Review Board and planning staff pressed developers and planning on Monday for clearer plans and contingency analysis for the Big Sky Farm project, a concept that participants described as combining an adult-oriented residential neighborhood with a boutique hotel and additional residential units.
Board members said the plans posted on the town website did not match renderings shown at a recent town-board presentation and asked planning to obtain the latest formal submission. The chair summarized the project as including roughly 98 adult-oriented residential units in the rear parcels and a proposed 200-room boutique hotel in the front, and urged staff to examine both the applicant’s 55-plus traffic assumptions and alternative scenarios in which the market would require conversion to standard high-density housing.
Key technical questions the board identified included water supply and wastewater options — the applicant had proposed three on-site wells and a package-treatment option or alternatively tying into municipal water — and whether local fire protection and sprinklering requirements would force a municipal hookup or large on-site storage tanks. Members asked planning to study both on-site septic/well systems and the costs and environmental impacts of connecting to existing municipal infrastructure.
Traffic and sight-line concerns on state Route 17M also drew repeated attention. The board noted the road is a state facility and that any turning-lane improvements would require state approval; planning’s traffic consultant suggested a dedicated left-turn lane, but board members questioned whether the state would fund or approve such a change and urged a thorough traffic study that considers seasonal peaks and queuing.
The board requested clearer, consistent plan sets, an analysis of a market "what if" (conversion from 55+ to higher-density units), a traffic study, and fire-protection documentation before advancing the review.
