December 3, 20918
Attending: John Kincart, John Savoca, William LaScala, Richard Fon
NOTE: Beginning in January, the board’s “regular” session will be moved to the fourth Monday of the month and the “work” session moved to the second Monday.
1. Jefferson Valley Mall
Removed from agenda at applicant’s request
2. Breslin Realty subdivison (Lowe’s)/public hearing
The board closed the public hearing but reserved voting for the subdivision approval resolution. The maintenance agreement for the water line has been signed but Mr. Grace again stated that the agreement wasn’t necessary and that the town should pay all costs associated with maintaining the line.
Mr. Grace said that the agreement with the homeowners has still not been signed, but Mr. Fon stated that the board has separated out that issue from the subdivision approval. He said that the issue was part of the record but that if homeowners continue to have an issue they need to deal with the building inspector and making the agreement a condition of the department granting a CO for Lowe’s.
3. Fusco subdivision, Stony Street
A 2-lot subdivision on 2.72 acres in an R1-20 zone. A public hearing was held, and closed, on the subdivision in 2011 but no decision rendered. The applicant is now back with a revised plan. Mr. Tegeder said that the new application should “pick up” where the old one left off. The stormwater plan and tree removal need to be updated.
4. Colangelo subdivision, Jacob Road
The applicant advised the board that for tax and donation purposes, the Westchester Land Trust cannot accept the 5 acre donation as long as the approving resolution states that it is part of the plan’s recreational fee requirement. The “donation” aspect of the plan is important to the applicant’s overall financial plan.
As a compromise, the board agreed that all references to the recreational fee (the 5 acre donation, the trail, and the parking spaces) would be omitted from the preliminary plant approval so that the applicant can complete the donation to the Westchester Land Trust. Once that is done and the applicant returns to the board for final plat approval, the approving resolution can include the recreation fee requirement.
5. Spinelli subdivision, Buckhorn Street
(See Planning Board 11-19-2018). The applicant does not want to reduce the number of units and asked the board for a letter to the ZBA asking that the ZBA revise its earlier decision limiting the number of units. While Mr. Fon had no issue with the proposed increased density and saw the applicant’s plan as a way to improve the neighborhood. Mr. Kincart, however, expressed some reservations about increasing a non conforming use. It was noted that when the ZBA approved the 3 unit house in the 1980s, it was because the new owner did not know that what she was buying was illegal. In contrast, the new owner was aware of the ZBA decision.
After discussing its options, including no letter and leaving it up to the applicant to make the request to the ZBA, a neutral letter or a letter of support, the board asked Mr. Tegeder to draw up a draft letter noting compelling reasons why the ZBA should revisit its earlier ruling.
6. 2040 Greenwood Street (Envirogreen Associates)
The applicant reviewed the plan with a focus on how it would impact the wetland and wetland buffer. There will be a limited incursion into the wetland to provide access to the site. The applicant advised the board that the plan includes cleaning up an already disturbed wetland. Mr. Tegeder noted that the site housed a lime facility during World War II. The board had some concerns with what it considered the “negative tone” of the engineer’s memo and advised the applicant to address each point in the memo prior to a January 28 public hearing.
7. Envirogreen Associates, East Main Street, Mohegan Lake
In an item not on the agenda, the applicant asked the board about the status of the application. Mr. Tegeder explained that the Planning Department was working on a letter to the DEC.
8. Bonsignore subdivision, Hunterbrook Road
(See Planning Board, 3-14-2016.) A new owner plans to change the elevations of the house. Mr. Tegeder had no issue with the proposed change but the town engineer did. At issue was the change in grading and the possible impact on the site’s wetland. The applicant was asked to address the engineer’s concerns and return to the board. The applicant advised the board that the foundation and framing for the house has already been completed but that the building department won’t proceed with the required inspections until this issue is resolved.
9. 332 Homestead (Sarubbi subdivision)
The applicant explained what while there was a 2011 Planning Board approval for the 2-lot subdivision, the approval apparently did not include the required erosion and sediment control permit,. The house is now complete, but its orientation, which is code compliant, was changed from what was originally approved. The town engineer also has some issues. The board approved the amended plan and the application will apply for the requried permit.