Planning Board

November 9, 2020


Attending: John Kincart, William LaScala, Rich Fon, Aaron Bock, Robert Garrigan


1. Correspondence.

Nestle Water. Two issues were brought up that the board said needed following up: The positioning of the lighting and also whether, contrary to the conditions of the approval, there was activity  during certain hours.


2. Fusco minor subdivision/Stony Street

The board voted for the 1st 90 day extenion on a subdivision originally approved in 2019.


3. 1538 Jacob Road/William Contracting

(See Planning Board 10-26-2020.) Mr. Kincart recused himself.   Mr. Riina advised the board that his client would pay $7,200 into the Tree Fund as mitigation for the removed trees.  In response to his questions about the fund, he was advised that 1) a fund had been set up; 2) the money could only be used on town owned property; and 3) the money could not be returned to the property owner if it wasn’t spent within a specified time period.  Mr. Bock suggested that the approving resolution note that the payment into the fund was adequate mitigation.


Most of the discussion focused on drainage, how the provisions in the stormwater maintenance agreement could or would be enforced, whether there should be a note on the map and/or in the deed indicating that any future changes to the proposed drainage system needed to come back to the board, or whether the proposed sheet flow into a rear yard rain garden should be piped underground. One of the board’s concerns was whether future property owners would be aware of restrictions in the deed or on the approved map.


The board approved the plan but it was not clear to the observer if the drainage statement would just be on the map r also in the deed.




4. Broccoli subdivision, Crow Hill Road

The owner is proposing to subdivide an existing lot but not for the purpose of creating a building lot. His intension is to use the new lot for horses and trails. The Planning Department will review the paperwork.


5. 3D Development/Lexington Avenue

(See Planning Board 6/22/2020.) The applicant’s attorney reiterated that this would be a low impact use and that the traffic impact would be limited to a once a week car carrier and then the individual cars would leave the site one at a time.  The board’s concern was that it appeared that the principal use of the site was for vehicle storage with the office as an accessory use and not, as was being presented,  office use with vehicle storage as an accessory use. The board asked that either the building inspector or Zoning Board provide something in writing as to the allowed legal use of the site.


In response to concerns about the visual impact on the abutting park, the attorney said he would explore screening with his client. He said that his client did not contemplate any new fencing.


Mr. Tegeder asked the attorney to provide a better description of the car movements and the Conservation Board expressed concern about the compacting of the astroturf.


The applicant will review the plan and return to the board.


6. Lowe’s/Pad A

The applicant’s landscape architect advised the board that the landscape plan reviewed at the prior meeting had to be scaled back because the client determined that it was too expensive. She walked the board through the changes that included a reduction in the number of trees and shrubs and also using smaller plants.


There was also a discussion, but no decision, on whether or a section of the guardrail should be timber or metal. The former, more attractive material, is being used in other parts of the site, but there was some concern that a stronger material may be needed, at least in some sections.


The board was okay with the landscape changes and the Planning Department needs to review all the documents before the board votes on an approving resolution.


7.  Self Storage/Bank Road

The applicant reviewed some changes to the plan, including a reduction in the number of parking spaces and adding more screening. One remaining issue is whether there should be more landscaping that would double as conservation parking spaces on the east side of the property abutting Club Fit.


A public informational hearing will be held on December 7 with a possible public hearing either at the second December meeting or in January.


8. IBM Solar Carport

(See Town Board 3-10-2020.) The applicant reviewed the plan. The board was very pleased with the plan. A public information hearing will be scheduled.


9. Solar Farm/Foothill Street

The new applicant is Con Ed Clean Energy Business, replacing the former applicant Clean Energy Collective. A plan for 11 acres of panels on the 15 acre site was presented with access from Foothill St. The project is being proposed as a community solar project. The applicant said that the company would pay into the tree fund as mitigation for tree removal on 15 acres. (Note: the number of trees to be removed was not discussed.)  There would be a treed buffer on the south side of the site abutting Lockwood Road.  The panels would be about 10’ high and the site would be surrounded by a fence. Given the topography, the board wasn’t sure that the fence would provid3e adequate screening.


Noting that the site was “sensitive,” the board asked the applicant to provide more information about screening and also whether the project would be economically feasible if the number of panels was reduced and more buffering required. In response to Mr. Bock’s question about SEQRA, the board’s attorney explained that this was a Type 1 action that would require a more rigorous review. He added that the SEQRA law allowed the board to go beyond the provisions in the Tree law.


Mr. Kincart noted security concerns involving the abutting Putnam Valley schools.


The applicant will review its plans in light of th board’s concerns.


10. Sarlo/ Saw Mill River Road/ ZBA referral

(See Town Board 10/27/2020 and Planning Board 9/9/2019.) The applicant was not present.  Mr. Tegeder advised the board that the use was not permitted in the zone which prompted Mr. Kincart to ask how a special permit could be issued if the use was not allowed.  In response to a question about whether the property owner had been cited with a violation notice, the board’s attorney explained that once the property owner filed for a special permit, the violation  notice was stayed, in effect, buying the owner an additional year to continue the violation.


The board was against the use and advised the Planning Department to send a memo to that effect along with the 2019 memo that opposed the use.