Updates

The planning board chairman, Joseph Hasenkopf, said: “As I stated last month, the public hearing will not close tonight, and will stay open until the project is sufficiently reviewed.” Mr. Hasenkopf did NOT state this at the February planning board meeting. He said he would not approve the plan in March. Those are very different things!

Further, “sufficiently reviewed” is deliberately vague. Mr. Hasenkopf did NOT confirm that he would leave open the public hearing until the application was completed, including permit applications, independent review and public review. He did NOT clarify outstanding questions about the application status and SEQRA status after ignoring multiple emails over two months.

In response to one speaker, Mr. Hasenkopf said (1:06:00 in video): “The town of Cairo has a practice of opening the public hearings early in the process, because we like to get the public involved in the process so we can know what your concerns are and properly review them.”

That is false. The Town of Cairo has its very own Site Plan Review Law, which explicitly states that a “public hearing shall be held within 62 days of the planning board’s acceptance of the preliminary site plan application as complete.” The law lists dozens of requirements for an application to be considered complete, including a SEQRA declaration. The planning board scheduled a public hearing when about half of those requirements were missing, inadequate, or inaccurate. In fact, they scheduled the public hearing on the very same day they first received the application!

Why is this important? Because once the Planning Board closes the public hearing, they have only 62 days to approve or reject the application. Without all the required documents, plans, permits, and reviews, the board simply cannot make an informed decision. If the planning board sincerely wanted to get the public involved early in the process, there are legitimate ways of doing so, including what’s called a “pre-submission conference.” They chose not to have one.

Planning board members did not answer questions at the hearing. They appeared to take few notes. In the video, Hasenkopf can be seen on his phone as members of the public are speaking. Mr. Hasenkopf said the consultants would address our concerns, and that he would post their responses to the Cairo town website. He did not say when this would happen. A week later, he has not responded to emails asking for a timeline.

Two KARC consultants representing the developers were present: Kelly Libolt and Natalie Quinn. The landowners/developers were not present. The consultants took a video recording of the hearing and appeared to take consistent notes as people spoke. They did not answer any questions.

Ms. Quinn gave a slideshow presentation about the proposed project. The projection screen was small, the text blurry and the information indiscernible. The public was not allowed to ask questions during the presentation.

The KARC presentation did not appear to involve new information since KARC’s document submission on 2/16. We gleaned only three new pieces of information from Ms. Quinn’s presentation: 1) the full-time staff on site at any one time would be 200-300 people, 2) about one-third of the resort units would be independently owned in fee simple, 3) the developers plan to "re-wild" the golf greens.

The presentation focused heavily on landscaping and architectural concepts. It was disappointing that KARC did not provide any information about stormwater pollution prevention plans, aquifer maps, construction timelines, building uses, permitting requirements, and so on.

Some aspects of the presentation were misleading because the estimates reflected outdated and incomplete data. For instance: the water demand number still reflected 212 bedrooms rather than 264 bedrooms and had not yet added staff use (up to 300 people). Similarly, the 25% guest increase and staff use was not reflected in traffic impacts, wastewater and other categories. 

A few dozen members of the public spoke. Some of the dominant concerns involved the scale of the development, water demand, water pollution, an inaccurate traffic analysis, noise, security and policing, the helipad, and threats to the character of the town. Some of the dominate support involved a desire for increased tourism and tax revenue.

Many—if not most—of the people who raised concerns about the proposed project were Cairo and Round Top long-timers, not just newcomers or “city people.”

One interesting point of debate was whether guests at this resort will support local businesses. Some people said no—an ultra-wealthy, international clientele arriving via helicopter won’t be touring around Cairo. Peter Maassmann, one of the former Blackhead Mountain Lodge owners, said he’d “like to dispute that.” He said that guests will google local restaurants, bars and breweries. “They are going to explore, and they are going to support our community,” he said. “I am sure there is going to be an excursion desk.”

That’s very possible! Curated excursions for guests might include antique shopping at Pidgin in Oak Hill or reservations at James Beard Award-winning restaurants or apple picking at a private orchard. Does anyone really think guests who are spending thousands of dollars a night will be encouraged to visit the Bailiwick Animal Farm, the Zoom Flume, or the annual WWII reenactment at Crystal Brook? Ultra-wealthy guests dropping in from Singapore or Dubai will be chauffeured to Warren Street, Hudson, not Main Street, Cairo. Let’s be real: None of these guests are choosing Cairo for their vacation. They are choosing the Hudson Valley for their vacation.

Mr. Hasenkopf understands this. At the February 1st planning board meeting, he said: “If [this resort] were to be approved and it were to be successful, I don’t see the clientele leaving the property very often. I don’t foresee them going to Main Street to get coffee. They aren’t going to come to my family’s restaurant. The value of something of this scale is creating tax revenue for the town of Cairo.” 

So let’s ask the town for an estimated tax assessment. Let’s ask for a timeline for when we might see those funds, and how the town plans to use them. Even if the current investors say they won’t apply for tax deferments, what happens when they partner or sell to a hotel operations company?

Finally: an Albany Times Union reporter was present at the public hearing and published a story.

What were your top takeaways? Tell us at friendsofroundtop@gmail.com. Thanks for reading!