Is it open space or a loophole?

To the editor: We as a community voted to protect open space and have advanced cluster subdivision as a preferable strategy over conventional development to maintain the rural feel and peaceful aspects of our community. It turns out there are some critical ambiguities in the fine print on cluster developments that, in my view, are likely to back fire on the nature of our town in a significant way. Before clustering can occur, plans must first be rendered for a conventional development on that same parcel. You cannot just place one home on every three acres, get that number and place them in such a way as to preserve the open space. You must follow the U.S.D.A. soils maps and place those homes on appropriate soils to handle a well and septic. To me, it appears that opportunistic developers have identified some vagaries in these laws and are maxing-out these initial conventional yield plans and then flipping that high number into one corner of the parcel all under the guise of open space. This was not the intent of our cluster zoning laws. We are still relatively new to clustering and even in adjoining towns, such as Chester, the laws have been modified to remove any ambiguities. We need to advance an agenda to mandate that greater yield cannot be realized by clustering than with conventional and that all conventional plans must follow the soils class currently in the Town Code. Maps of the actual soils produced by U.S.D.A. and Cornell Cooperative Extension are available to all of us from Orange County Soil Conservation and they will mail us free copies. Their number is 343-1873. If we do not make our town administrators aware that these fundamental technical matters are being abused, then every last remaining tract of previously undevelopable land, will get built out - ironically, all under the name of open space. Elizabeth Fisher Warwick