November 10, 2014
Attending: John Kincart, John Savoca, Rich Fon, Ann Kutter, Darlene Rivera, John Flynn (work session only)
1. RCB Development
Ralph Mastromonaco, the project engineer, explained that work had started on the two lot subdivision but could not be completed by the time the approval ran out. The board approved a re-approval.
Citing this application, and the board’s experience with the Arrowhead subdivision, Mr. Tegeder suggested to the board have a discussion in the future discussion about allowing an applicant to proceed with infrastructure improvements before subdivision plats are filed.
2. Fieldstone Manor
The board approved a second 90 day extension. The applicant explained that the delay was due to problems with the surveyor. Mr. Kincart abstained on the vote.
3. Kiederer subdivision
Although the two lot subdivision was approved in 2005, it must meet the newer stormwater requirements and the requirements of the Tree Ordinance passed after 2005.
Although there was nothing in writing, it was stated that the town engineer has no issue with the project’s stormwater plans. Complying with the requirements of the Tree Ordinance, however, presented a problem, because all the trees on the site will have to be cut down in order to accommodate the septic fields, triggering the law’s requirement that there be mitigation, something the applicant’s engineer, Dan Ciarcia, had not considered. Mr. Fon suggested that Mr. Ciarcia meet with staff to identify possible off site mitigation plans as planting new trees on the site was not a viable option. Also, the applicant needs to do an inventory and identify how many trees will need to be cut down.
4. Lake Osceola Square
The board opened the public hearing. The applicant’s development team described the project, including some plan changes that had been made in response to the board’s earlier concerns.
Wood Street intersection. In order to improve sight distance, the highway department has agreed to replace the existing vegetation with some ground cover and also to remove two sumac trees.
Traffic: The applicant’s traffic consultant has recommended some additional stripping on Hill Boulevard at intersection with East Main Street and has suggested a list of possible traffic calming devices to slow speeds along East Main Street.
Sewers: the exact location of the line remains to be worked out, but the most likely route appears to be under the existing sidewalk. (If the line went through the street, it would cause traffic disruptions.) While this option would enable the neighboring homeowners to connect to the sewer line, the owner is still exploring the possibility of running the line behind the homes which would be better for the homeowners and avoid the need to dig up and replace the sidewalk. The stumbling block is two town owned parcels along the possible route that may or may not be parkland.
Building height: As requested by the board, the architect has lowered the pitch of the roofs in order to minimize the bulk look of the building.
Landscape plan: details remain to be worked out.
Ownership of the beach: there has been no indication from the town whether it wants to keep the beach.
5. Ryder subdivision
(See Planning Board, 10/6/2014.) The board reviewed a revised site plan but was still not satisfied with the proposed layout. Mr. Barber noted that according to the town’s wetlands law, a septic field, which would discharge pollutants into a wetland, is prohibited. A septic system can, however, be located in a wetland buffer. Mr. Barber will work with Dan Ciarcia, the applicant’s engineer, to explore an alternate plan, possibly one that shrinks the size of the second home.
6. Yorktown Green Shopping Center
Responding to a board request to take corrective action to replace dead trees along the center’s sidewalk, a representative of Oster Realty proposed using planters instead of planting new trees.
(The board’s authority was based on the approved site plan that required the trees to be planted.) She explained that the plowing and salt would damage new trees and that new trees would disturb the sidewalk. The board was in agreement that it wanted trees, and not planters, in order to provide shade and soften the mass of the
building. The board advised the person to identify trees that were salt resistant and explore ways the trees could be planted that would protect them from future damage. The person will return to the board.
7. Grandma’s (3525 Crompond Road)
On a referral from the Zoning Board for an application for outdoor storage, the board considered the owner ‘s plan to rent out the grass area at the rear of the parcel (the parcel’s septic fields before the site was sewered) to the adjoining Nissan car dealership for storing cars. The area would be gravel and a fence would separate the restaurant parking lot from the leased space. The board’s only concern was that the appearance of the rear of the parcel along Old Crompond Road be improved
by replacing the existing fence with a better looking one and that some landscaping be added.
The owner indicated that the name of the restaurant and its menu will be changing after January but that it would still be selling pies.
8. 3415 Mohegan Avenue land donation
On a referral from the Town Board, the board had no issue supporting the town’s accepting a donation of what was described as a “sliver of land” abutting Lake Mohegan. Conservation Board member J. Patrick Francois advised the board that his group saw no reason why the town should not take the parcel, noting that it was adjacent to other town owned land.
The board began , but did not finish, its review of a draft Findings Statement that has been prepared by staff and which reflects the board’s comments during the FEIS review process.
Attorney Lisa Hochman explained that the town is still waiting for comments from outside agencies, including the DEP regarding stormwater, and that based on the comments, the applicant may be asked to provide more information. She also explained that some of the issues the board raised during the FEIS review, as well as comments on the FEIS from other parties , will be the basis for future site plan review discussions.
Most of the discussion on the draft Findings Statement focused on words, sentences, and issues that were raised by Mr. Flynn as other board members appeared not to have completed their review of the entire document.
Because the 30 day time limit set by law for adopting the Findings Statement will run out before the board’s next meeting, set for November 24, there was a mutual agreement to extend the time limit to the 24th. When the possibility that a further extension might be needed, the applicant indicated that he did not want an open ended extension. The board indicated that it wanted to do a thorough review and did not want to act in haste.