Letter from Chip Northrup

Moratorium for Manocherian?

I live in the Town of Otsego and am on an advisory panel to the town’s comprehensive land-use plan revision. Michael Stuart’s letter to the editor regarding the proposed Manocherian subdivision [“On Subdivision,” issue of Thursday, October 2, 2025] expresses some misapprehensions about the proposal and does not address the impact it would have on the towns and the environment.

1. Environmental impacts. The plan encompasses over 40 wetlands and almost 40 streams. We now know whadrives harmful algae blooms (HABs): runoff from roads and building sites, and septic tank discharge of nutrients. New York State standards do not address the discharge of nutrients from septic systems. The proposed development could turn the wetlands into toxic pea soup bogs.
2. Scale. The proposal is 10 times larger than any subdivision in the towns. Since it consists of several disjointed tracts in both towns, the town boards must address each one separately.
3. Land use plan out of date. The Town of Otsego had already embarked on a revision to its comprehensive land-use plan before the subdivision plans were submitted. Both towns are participating in a revision to the watershed plan in conjunction with a Nine Element Watershed Plan to address the mitigation of HABs in area ponds and Lake Otsego.
4. Moratorium. Under these circumstances, it would be irresponsible for the towns not to impose a moratorium on development plans within the watershed. When a town is undergoing an update to its comprehensive plan, it is standard operating procedure to have a limited moratorium on new permits, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas.
5. No rush. The Manocherians have owned the land for decades. It will take over three miles of public road paving and ROW clear-cutting to access the property and more miles of interior roads. The absorption rate for wooded lots without views or lake access is likely to be very slow.
6. Residential development. Both town plans emphasize the need to encourage residential development where public utilities—water and sewer—are available. The proposed development is entirely rural. It does not address the regional need for affordable housing.
7. Entitlements and the environment. The number of lots that may be allowed is subject to an environmental SEQR review that must take the combined impact of the 1,500 acres on the watershed and the wetlands.

Given the risks, both towns should proceed with caution. The far better option is for the owner to negotiate the sale or donation of a conservation easement on the environmentally sensitive areas. The Manocherian State Natural Area has a nice ring to it.

Chip Northrup
Cooperstown