March 11, 2013
Planning Director Tegeder having no issues with the application, the Board approved the first 90-day extension while the applicant does more testing for a septic system.
2. Sierra Bella
While the applicant awaits DEP approval, the Board approved the first 90-day extension.
3. Hilltop Associates (Hilltop Road)
Location: Hilltop Road
Description: A 3 lot subdivision approved by Planning Board Res #08-02 on January 14, 2008.
Originally approved as a 3-lot subdivision, the applicant is now proposing a two lot subdivision on a cul d’sac at the end of Hilltop Rd. Because of the cul d’sac, the application now becomes a major subdivison. Because the applicant’s engineer is recuperating from back surgery, there has been a delay in submitting a final plat with the changes. When the plan is ready, it will be reviewed at a work session, possibly in April.
4. Gione subdivision
The applicant has received Department of Health approval and is awaiting the town attorney’s review of the easement and right of way acceptance. The Board approved a 90 day extension.
5. Yorktown Realty Association (Trump Park)
The Board went into closed session for a discussion with its attorney. Once back in open session, Chairman Fon said that the development was not in compliance with its original site plan and that because this was an “enforcement issue” over which the Board had no authority, the Board was referring the issue to the town engineer and the building inspector for their review. As there was no plan and no application before the Planning Board, there was no action for the Board to take at this time. The Board did not entertain comments from the public.
(See January 28, 2013)The applicant submitted a reviewed plan showing a modified easement and new survey. The plan was referred to the Conservation Board.
7. Dubovsky (Saw Mill River Road)
The Board reviewed a pre-preliminary application to construct a building with two commercial spaces with two residential units on the upper floor and a two story accessory building in the rear of the property for a garage with an office above on a site zoned county commercial. The applicant plans to relocate his electrical contracting business to the site.
The main issue before the Board was whether the property is/had been a wetland before fill was deposited on it several years ago when the adjoining property was developed. At that time, a stop work order had been issued and there was considerable history about what was being done on the subject site. At the Board’s request, the applicant’s environmental consultant will be asked to review the site for wetlands and the applicant will submit a formal application so that the review process can begin.
8. Fieldhome expansion
The applicant was back before the Board because the DEP did not agree with the original stormwater plan approved by the Board (which had the support of the DEC ) and the applicant has had to redesign the system to satisfy DEP concerns. The main change is the creation of a new infiltration basin in lieu of the earlier plan to enhance an existing detention pond. The new plan will result in slightly less overall land disturbance, the removal of 117 more trees and cost the applicant about the same amount of money. The major concern to the applicant was the delay in the approval as Fieldhome is about to open its sales office. Members of the Board, which support the development, expressed frustration but there was little they could do as DEP would not begin its review until after the Town approved the project, which it did last April, and the applicant submitted its plans to DEP in July, 2012.
One issue that remains to be resolved is the SEQRA process and whether DEP, when it does its own SEQRA review, will consider the town an involved agency or whether the Town will have to do a separate SEQRA review. It was the opinion of Planning Director Tegeder that DEP was not following the law by not involving the Town in its review.
9. Proposed “fowl” legislation
The Board reviewed a draft memo to the Town Board with its comments on the proposed legislation, but did not read out the comments. It appeared, however, that the comments followed the Board’s previous discussion. The memo will also note that the Board has not gotten any response from Hilltop Hanover to its request for information regarding the keeping of fowl so that it would “know what we’re dealing with.” The possibility of a joint Planning/Town Board meeting to review the issue was suggested.
10. Boniello subdivision
On behalf of the applicant, Al Capellini explained the history of the site. The Board appeared to have no problem with keeping the R-2 zoning as long as the applicant developed the three lots for 2 additional 2-family homes, one of which would be on septic. When Mr. Capellini said that the applicant might want to combine the three separate lots and submit an application for more than 6 units on the site, “possibly 7 or so,” Mr. Tegeder said that that would be a very different situation and would require a new submission.
11. Holland Sporting Club
Phyllis Bock, co-chairman of the Conservation Board, advised the Planning Board that her group was concerned about the environmental impact of the proposed ballfields close to the lake shore and that without a plan, it was difficult to give a more detailed review. She added that the Town should follow the same review process that other applicants would be required to go through. J. Patrick Francois, another member of the Conservation Board expressed concern that the Town was being pressured to make a decision by April.
Planning Director Tegeder noted that the proposed 86,000 cubic yards of fill was a “stupendous” amount and the equivalent of 6,000 dump trucks. He questioned whether the site had the capacity to accept that amount of fill. Ms. Kutter and Mr. Francois both raised concerns about the quality of the fill and Mr. Flynn said he was not ready to sign on to the idea that more ballfields were needed. Mr. Kincart saw the need for more fields. Mr. Fon said that the Board couldn’t make any judgments without a plan and that there was also concerns about SEQRA compliance and a possible segmentation issue if the fill issue was considered separate and apart from a plan for the site that would be a later submission.