Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision And Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board advances Scuttlebridge pre‑application amid wetlands, salamander and trail questions
Summary
Staff presented a pre‑application for a reduced‑density cluster subdivision at 216 Scuttlehole Road. The report identifies freshwater wetlands, a likely DEC coordination, a tiger‑salamander 535‑ft perimeter concern, and a park fee estimate of roughly $100,000; the board adopted the pre‑application report with revisions.
The Planning Board on June 11 advanced a pre‑application report for a proposed cluster subdivision at 216 Scuttlehole Road (Scuttlebridge), with staff and referral agencies identifying wetlands, archaeological sensitivity and endangered‑species considerations that will shape the environmental review.
Planner Linda summarized the applicants' proposal to reduce the development yield from a seven‑lot yield map to a planned cluster of four lots and about 8.3 acres of dedicated open space. Linda told the board that town GIS shows the property within a New York State archaeological‑sensitivity area and that DEC (the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) review and a long environmental assessment form will be required during formal application. She also reported that town referrals verified freshwater wetlands on site.
Staff and advisory boards recommended clustering to preserve open space and suggested a trail connection — the Trails Advisory recommended a 70‑ft strip to link the property to adjacent town‑owned open space. The conservation board asked for attention to salamander protection and suggested installing salamander barriers where appropriate. Staff told the board the DEC has previously imposed a 535‑ft peripheral area around flagged wetlands on a nearby application and that DEC will want to re‑evaluate the new proposal during permit review.
The staff report estimated that the park requirement for a four‑lot subdivision would translate to a fee or dedication. "The park fee for that area is based on four lots ... so the park fee would be $100,000 plus," the planner noted while outlining options to dedicate open space with a trail easement to satisfy park requirements.
An applicant representative told the board the DEC had earlier provided a letter on a two‑house proposal indicating no takings permit was required, and that the team would resubmit the new map to DEC for updated review. Staff warned the board that the application will also need to address an earlier DEC order (described in referrals) and that an archaeological Phase 1A/1B assessment would likely be required.
After discussion of wetland buffers, required engineering details for the common driveway and fire‑protection suggestions (Bridgehampton Fire District recommended up to two hydrants), the board voted to adopt the draft pre‑application report with the revisions discussed, leaving clearing/buffering language open for final environmental review. The motion passed six in favor, one absent.
The pre‑application adoption identifies the principal issues that applicants must resolve in their formal filing: DEC coordination, wetlands and salamander protections, potential archaeological assessment, engineering specifications for the shared driveway, and whether the park requirement will be satisfied by a fee or by dedicated open space and a trail easement.
