About 100 community members from the towns of Otsego and Springfield and surrounding neighborhoods assembled in the Pierstown Grange in Cooperstown Sunday, Sept. 7 to discuss a proposed major subdivision.
Leaders from the Otsego County Conservation Association, the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station and Otsego 2000 spearheaded a conversation regarding the proposal, dubbed the Manocherian Subdivision Proposal. It would affect more than 1,525 acres of farmland, slopes and wetlands west of Otsego Lake in Otsego and Springfield.
The proposal involves 111 buildable lots of 4.5 to 60 acres to be established through the major subdivision. In Otsego, 765 acres would be subdivided into 59 lots, with nearly two miles miles of new road, and in Springfield, 760 acres would be subdivided into 52 lots, with slightly more than one mile of new road, according to the Otsego 2000 website.
The website stated that the project could have impacts on the water quality of Otsego Lake, state Route 80, the Glimmerglass Historic District, the SUNY field station’s Thayer Farm campus and Vibbard, Wedderspoon Hollow, McCrorie, Red House Hill and Thurston Hill Roads.
The project developer and property owner is Fraydun Manocherian, who hired JMV Site Development Consultants as the engineer.
At the start of the meeting, Ellen Pope, the executive director of Otsego 2,000, said it was founded to “protect and preserve the singular cultural, historic and environmental resources of the Otsego Lake region.” Shelby MacLeish, the assistant director of the OCCA, introduced herself and said the organization started with a group of “concerned citizens” worried about overlogging in the area.
She said the OCCA would approach concerns about the major subdivision from a science-based lens and advocate for “not just our natural resources but the humans that are here in this area.”
Greg Farmer, the executive director of the Otsego Land Trust, said its mission was to “protect land in perpetuity.” Zoning is a blueprint for what a municipality wants to developers to do with the space, he said, and the major subdivision proposal complies with the regulatory zoning in place.
“So the current zoning in both towns says this is what we want you to do,” Farmer said. “Obviously there is room for that to change, but in order for that to change at the town level, it needs input from each of you as community members.”
Florian Reyda, the director of the SUNY field station, said that at the station, data is collected that can fuel decision making in the area. He said this is the perspective he approaches discussions surrounding the subdivision proposal with.
Farmer moderated the rest of the conversation, during which people expressed a wide range of concerns about the project, many calling for a mortarium on the development.
Garet Livermore, from Coopertown, said he had two levels of concern, including the infrastructure changes as a result of the developments, like road improvements, that could end up impacting the tax base. He added that the homes that are likely going to be built on the subdivided land are luxury second homes.
“We see throughout this region, our community is being hallowed out by second home owners and Airbnbs, and this is going to be a big tax impact for people who don’t live here,” Livermore said.
Farmer said these sites carry large expenses for development, which leads people to believe the homes will be high-end, many of which second homes.
Lizzie Cooper, from Cooperstown, said there should be a way to crunch the numbers and determine what the affiliated costs related to the subdivision and new homes would be, including for public safety, road infrastructure and long term plowing, among others.
Reggie O’Neill, from Springfield, added that because many of the homes would likely be luxury properties, they would potentially have different amenities like hot tubs, and could undo a lot of the work the community has done and money it has spent with master plans for the area.
“I think that there is a direct cost to the town, the community, as far as all of the work we’ve been putting out for the past several years, that gets washed away,” O’Neill said. “That is our money thrown away. That should be very upsetting to a lot of people.”
Additionally, O’Neill asked whether or not the project was moving too quickly, calling it “real estate on the biggest accelerant.”
The developer has not put forth a formal application to either town yet, Farmer said, but has conducted a sketch plan discussion with the town. He said the towns have the ability to put a moratoriums on larger developments.
“The moratorium would provide an opportunity for the towns to update their comprehensive plan, to update their zoning, to really have a more in depth discussion about how do we want these communities to grow and how do we ensure the quality of life,” Farmer said. “How do we ensure the environmental quality and the day-to-day quality of life in this area?”
Debra Creedon, from the Otsego Lake Association, said she agrees with a moratorium, proposing a three-year moratorium. She said this would provide more time to complete Otsego’s comprehensive plan and to finish the 9E plan, which would address the changing water quality in the Otsego Lake, according to Daily Star archives.
She added that she is concerned for those who live near the property that would be subdivided, specifically regarding their wells. She asked if they would have water for their homes, with 111 new wells coming in.
Toward the end of the meeting, Alex Elkan, a third generation owner in Fly Creek Valley adjacent to one of the properties proposed to be developed, said he would push back “on this notion that the plan that’s been presented, although preliminary, is in accord with the town of Otsego and the town of Springfield requirements.”
He said he does not feel the plan meets guidelines regarding protection of slopes and protection of water quality and quantity, in addition to other factors.
Town boards have large amounts of “power and discretion,” Elkan added, so even when a plan complies with town code, it does not remove the town’s ability to ensure a development is “in keeping with the neighborhood.”
“There certainly are lots of opportunities to look at the details of these plans by attending meetings and by sending in comments to encourage the respective town boards to ask these very questions,” Farmer said.