Water, noise, traffic and preservation were the words on everyone’s lips this week as a proposed arts venue in the Town of Saratoga had a hearing before the Town of Saratoga Town Board on Sept. 8.
Over 40 people spoke at nearly three hour long public hearing regarding the proposed studio and performance space. While a couple of people affiliated with the performing arts spoke in favor of the project, the vast majority of those who spoke said they didn’t want the project to move forward.
The hearing started with a presentation by property owners Victoria and Robert Paterson and representatives from Finey construction. In her remarks, Victoria Paterson talked about her and her husband’s background in the music industry and why they chose the Town of Saratoga. She also tried to assuage some of the fears residents had about the proposed facility.
“The scope and the scale of this recording studio is small,” Paterson said. “It is meant to be low impact on the natural beauty that we all love here. We estimate one to two events per month. For the majority of the year, the number one use of this space is a recording studio that is 100% soundproof.”
Paterson also pushed back against the use of the term “amphitheater” to describe the outdoor music space — despite documents and past meeting notes showing use of the term by other members of the project.
“There is no Amphitheater in the Greek sense,” Paterson said. “I think many use that word amphitheater, but that really implies hundreds or 1000s of people. It really is a simple grassy area where about 40 to 80 people at the most, can sit.”
During their presentation, members of the Phinney Group showed the project, talked about the design changes and the project to this point and highlighted a sound study conducted by audio engineers and town officials. According to the presentation, with a speaker playing at 92 decibels at the point of the outdoor music space, the decibel level at the property line would be around 62 decibels — around the range of normal conversation or office building, according to a chart published by Yale University.
Despite these assurances, residents were strongly opposed to the plan. Many called into question the noise study, spoke about traffic concerns and said the plan was inconsistent with zoning laws and the character of the area.
Such concerns were expressed by Susan Rivers, a resident of Burke Road who’s property borders the site of the proposed venue. She said she had welcomed the Pattersons to the neighborhood when they first moved in and supported the Mostly Modern charity. Rivers said she hadn’t heard about the project until Aug. 13 a neighbor called about the project — something she described as a “gut punch.”
“Had the Pattersons approached us with the details of this project in the developmental stage, I would have told them it’s a great idea, which it is, but not appropriate for our property,” Rivers said. “It would adversely affect the neighborhood in a myriad of ways. A projected three to five years’ worth of construction, culminating in a year-round performance venue, could have devastating effects on nearby property values.”
Another neighbor, Christian Denison expressed similar concerns. While, Denison said he initially supported the project when first proposed, he opposed the current plans’ size and scale for safety reasons. Denison said he bought his home to raise a family and spoke about the impact it would have on his five-year-old child.
“This was never to be a rental or an investment, this was to be my forever home,” Denison said, speaking of his home. “If this project goes forward, I will never allow my child to play in his own yard alone, ever. This robs my child of the rural environment I intended.”
A common theme of those who spoke was support for the arts but a desire to see the project moved to a designated commercial area like Schuylerville or Victory Mills. There was also concern that first responders wouldn’t be able to reach the site, traffic would make the road impassable and cause crashes and environmental impacts given the project’s location atop a hill.
Despite the impassioned discussion, no action was taken that night — something made very clear by Supervisor Ian Murray from the beginning.
“There will be no board action taken tonight, and we’re a long way from a vote on this,” Murray said. “We’re going to take our time and we’re not going to rush this application.”
An open house on the property itself was scheduled for Sept. 17 from 5-7 to allow residents to view the project and get a sense of the noise conditions on the property.
