Plannng Board, 6-11-2018
Before the board can vote for preliminary approval, the applicant must submit a formal plat. The applicant said he would have this ready for a future meeting. The draft approval resolution is ready and the board’s attorney said that the easement agreement is satisfactory.
Planning Board, 5-21-2018
The applicant has included all the board’s previous concerns into a revised subdivision plan: the house has been rotated and boulders will be placed, every 6’ on center, at the boundary with the cow path to prevent any vehicle access. There will be a maintenance agreement requiring the two new houses to maintain the improved road (the agreement is still being worked out). There was some confusion as to who would be responsible for the new sewer line that will serve the two new houses; the applicant advised the board that the two existing houses on the road were not interested in hooking up to the sewer line although he will provide stubs to the houses. After a brief discussion about whether construction equipment would be allowed on Saturday or Sunday, and if so, during what hours, it was decided that the use of the equipment would be governed by the town’s Noise Ordinance. The board anticipates voting on an approval resolution at its next meeting.
Planning Board, 4-23-2018
Out of concern for homeowners on the “cow path,” the orientation of one house will be rotated to face the right of way so as to eliminate any perception that the cow path could be used. This will site the house as it was originally proposed. The board will also require some form of screening, either vegetation or possibly a stone wall in the “side” yard as another barrier to the cow path. The owner of the last house on the cow path was at meeting and indicated that he was satisfied with the change. A public hearing will be held in May or June.
Planning Board, 4-9-2018
Planning Board, 4-9-2018
The board opened and closed the hearing that had to be adjourned due to a legal issue involving the notice reqirement. There was no discussion about the proposal. A 10 day written comment period was left open.
Planning Board, 3-12-2018
The board rejected the suggestion from Grace Siciliano that an alternate access to the site should be from converting Hearthstone Road from a paper road to an actual road instead of extending the private Hearthstone Street. Mr. Fon explained that the alternate access was more intrusive and would require removing a wooded area. The board also dismissed the concerns of residents from Hearthstone Court, aka the “cow path,” explaining that there was no connection between the proposed site and their street so there was no way they would be impacted by the two new houses. The board did advise the applicant that he would have to develop a construction plan so that construction vehicles working on Hearthstone Street would not block access to the road for the existing houses.
The applicant will develop a maintenance plan for the private road; if the existing homeowners do not participate, then maintaining the road will become the responsibility of the two new developed parcels.
The new 8” sewer line will include stubs for the two existing houses to hook up to the sewer system if and when they wish.
The hearing was closed and a 10 day written comment period left open.
Planning Board, 10-16-2017
Withdrawn from agenda at applicant’s request.
Planning Board, 9-11-2017
The applicant said he had resolved issues with the water and fire departments. (A driveway has been “opened up” to provide a turnaround for the fire trucks.) The county DOH was okay with the planned private 8” sewer line.
The applicant has also completed a tree survey.
The board briefly touched on an access issue that was raised in an email and a Gomer Street resident’s phone call to Mr. Tegeder. The board dismissed the residents’ concern noting that the issue had already been vetted and that the board did not see any merit in the residents’ concerns. The board did, however, advise the applicant to address the access issue at the October public hearing and explain why the residents’ suggestion was not an acceptable.
Planning Board, 6-12-2017
The applicant provided a summary of the proposed project and in response to comments from Mr. Tegeder, it was clarified that, to date, the applicant has not received any comments from the county. Three neighbors spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision with one person questioning the need for the applicant to provide an accurate survey. In response, Mr. Fon advised the neighbors that more detailed information would be available at the formal public hearing later in the approval process. Mr. Tegeder explained that the maintenance agreement for the private road would be part of the deeds for the two houses and would not involve the town. The hearing was closed.
For the proposed 2 lots, the applicant is proposing two separate water lines along the road (what he said the Water Department wanted), plus a private sewer line. The sewer line would pass by two existing houses on septic and would be a private line; the property is in the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District. The applicant explained that one of the two existing houses did not want to hook up to the sewers even though he was paying a sewer tax. Mr. Fon explained that while more than 2 connections would require a public sewer, he advised the applicant to speak to the county as he did not think the county would be supportive of the “private” line. He said that in the event the homeowner’s septic system failed he would be required to hook up. Mr. Tegeder suggested that the town make a formal referral to the county regarding the proposed private sewer line. In the meantime, it was suggested that the applicant speak to the town engineer who used to work in the county’s Environmental Facilities department. The applicant also stated that as the existing property owners on the street weren’t interested in signing a maintenance agreement but that by deed they would require the two new houses to maintain the entire length of the road.
There was also some concern that that the proposed 12’ private road was not consistent with what the board had requested on another minor subdivision on a private road, although it was said that the circumstances of the two road was different.
The applicant indicated that he had a 20’ easement, although it wasn’t clear if the easement was just for utilities or also included ingress and egress; this needs to be clarified. The easement is not shown on the plat but the applicant said it was in the deed. The board appeared willing to consider the subdivision plan as long as the easement issue is clarified but indicated that it would also require a maintenance agreement if the road remained private. If the road is built, it will also open up the possibility of two additional houses along the road. The board also wants input from the fire commissioners. The applicant indicated that if the widening of Heathstone didn’t work out, he could provide access for one house to Gomer and the rear lot to Hearthstone St.
The overriding issue appears to be whether the board will consider approving two new lots on a substandard road on which some houses already exist. The applicant explained that the existing right of way easement (or deed language) was for 16’ which the board indicated would not be adequate to safely accommodate two new houses. At the board’s suggestion, and to avoid the applicant “spinning his wheels,” the applicant will contact the existing homeowners on the road and gauge their interest in 1) making more land available for a wider road, and 2) their interest in paying to upgrade the “new’ road. The applicant was also advised to check with the Fire Inspector regarding its access requirements and what would be the minimum necessary road upgrade, and its cost.