July 14, 2014
Attending: Ann Kutter, John Savoca, John Flynn, Rich Fon
The board officially received the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement). With appendices, the document consists of 6 separate volumes. The first document is 2˝” thick. According to Mr. Fon, after reviewing the document, the board will decide whether to accept it, and after that, it will set out the next steps in the review process. Copies of the FEIS are available on CD from the Planning Department.
2. Yorktown Farms
The board approved the siting for two additional lots.
3. Gione subdivision
The board granted a six month reapproval.
Citing delays completing the survey, the applicant requested, and the board granted, a 90 day extension of the preliminary subdivision approval.
5. Fieldhome (Soccer field)
Board action on approving the licensing agreement had to be postponed because Jeannette Koster, the town attorney, had not completed her review of the document. According to Mr. Capellini, Diana Quast, the chairman of the Recreation Commission had expressed concerns to Ms. Koster about the time frame of the license and exactly what children would be using the field. There was also an issue of the terms under which the agreement could be revoked. The board’s attorney also had some issues with the draft agreement.
The board will revisit the issue at its August meeting.
6. Grotto Holding (Route 202)
The board opened a Public Informational Hearing on the application. In his presentation, architect David Barbuti indicated that no leases have been signed yet for the retail space and that the dog day care did not appear to be a possibility. With the exception of a modification in an existing stairway, the plan was the same as previously presented. The building will hook up to the sewer system. As the number of required parking spaces is dictated by the nature of the retail use, Mr. Barbuti was confident that he could make modifications to the site plan if additional parking were needed. At the request of the board, the architect will attempt to locate photometric information about the existing outdoor lighting fixtures.
As there were no public comments, the informational hearing was closed. A public hearing will be held in August.
7. Teatown Auxiliary Parking lot
(See Planning Board, June 9, 2014.) The board opened a Public Information Hearing on the proposed 46 space seasonal overflow parking lot. The Conservation Board has no problems with the plan. The plan calls for the removal of five trees and new landscaping, including evergreens to screen the lot from an abutting property owner. There were no public comments. The informational hearing was closed and a public hearing on the site plan will be advertised for August 14.
A public hearing was opened and closed on the proposed site plan changes, leaving open a 10 day written comment period. Mr. Fon complimented the applicant on the improvements that had already been made to the site and the applicant’s responsiveness to the concerns of the abutting property owners. There were no indications from the applicant that the retail spaces had been leased.
9. Lake Osceola Square
Traffic: Highlights of the applicant’s traffic study prepared by traffic consultant Phil Grealy were presented. According to Mr. Grealy, the problem along East Main Street is speed not volume; although the street is marked for 30mph, his analysis showed that the speed was at least 40mph for the 85th percentile. Most of the volume, he said, was from commuters. While he suggested some stripping and signage improvements for the street, he said that enforcement was the major solution to the speeding problem. Although he did not anticipate any major increase in the volume of traffic as a result of the new development, he said that the stripping and signage improvements should be done regardless of whether or not the new d3evelopment went in. He suggested the town use a longer lasting and more visible type of paint for the stripping. He said the traffic volume did not reach the threshold where a traffic signal was warranted.
The traffic study analyzed traffic accidents through 2010 and Mr. Grealy said he is waiting for more recent accident data. Regarding the Wood Street intersection, it was noted that while the situation is not perfect, it is better than it was, but that physical constraints limited any additional improvements to the intersection.
Stormwater: Mr. Tegeder questioned the design for what the applicant called a “pocket wetland” between the building and the sand beach. The area is part of the project’s stormwater plan. His concern was that the area physically and visually created a separation between the building and the beach. In response, Mr. Riina explained that because of the site’s groundwater conditions, the stormwater options were limited. He said that at the board’s next meeting, he would provide a landscape plan for the pocket wetland which he explained was more of a site “feature” than a typical detention pond. He will also consider some modifications to the path around the “pond’ to provide better access to the beach. In a related issue, there was a discussion about whether a “wetland’ that has developed on top of earlier asphalt paving should be considered a wetland. The wetland delineation has not been completed.
Architecture: Michael Piccirillo, the project architect, advised the board that he will be presenting the latest plans the ABACA and that they will not necessarily be the same as the original concept plan. In response to a question from the board, he said the building’s mechanicals would be located inside the building. (This became a concern after the board realized that it had not considered the location of the mechanicals for the Mt. Kisco Medical Building on Hill Blvd.)
Signage: The board asked for more details about the location of the signage along East Main Street as well as the site’s landscape plan along the property line with the street.
Beach: The Rec Commission has not yet commented on the ownership/operation of the beach and it was noted that the Commission will not be meeting until September 4.
The board will do a site visit on September 6 and possibly schedule a public hearing for September 8.
10. Hudson Valley Islamic Center
Both Mr. Tegeder and Mr. Fon indicated that they had visited the site and found no “spill over” problems with the existing lighting that consists of seven fixtures on two existing poles. When it was suggested that the applicant might need a variance because of the height of the poles, the Mr. Tegeder offer an alternative suggestion: because the existing lighting ordinance that regulates the height of the poles does not include an appeal process, he suggested that the ordinance be amended.
Mr. Fon asked for additional plantings along the front of the site and that the existing stone wall be fixed. In response, the applicant said that both issues would be attended to.
11. Empire Hunan
(See Planning Board, 5-19-2014.) In response to the board’s comments at a previous meeting, the architect explained minor changes to the plan, including the dumpster area in the rear and plantings in the front. He said he hoped to receive ZBA approval for the parking variance later this month and that he would be presenting the plan to ABACA in August. Mr. Fon asked to see a more detailed landscaping plan before the application could be scheduled for a public hearing.
12. Yorktown Farms wetlands permit.
(See Planning Board, June 23, 2014). Although the applicant was not present, the board had a brief discussion about the application. Commenting on a memo from Karen Wagner, the board’s attorney, Mr. Savoca indicated he did not want to “open the flood gates” for changes to wetlands permits in order to accommodate the wishes of homeowners. He added that the current request differed from an earlier application where the board agreed to the realignment of an existing conservation easement based on site conditions. The board appeared to agree with Mr. Savoca’s concerns.
13. Arrowhead subdivision
The strained relationship between the board and Mr. O’Keefe, the applicant, continued after Mr. Fon read a memo from the town’s environmental code inspector who had issued a stop work order because the applicant wasn’t complying with the conditions of prior approvals. In response, Mr. O’Keefe disputed what had happened and why the stop work order had been issued. Additionally, Mr. Tegeder informed the board that based on a site visit it appeared that the actual alignment of a road was different from what had been approved and that the as built drainage scheme also differed from the approved plan. In response, Mr. O’Keefe appeared surprised at the changes and said he thought everything was “okay.” Mr. Tegeder said that the applicant’s engineer needed to certify exactly what had been constructed. Mr. Tegeder also questioned the location of a planned drainage swale on one lot that he said was likely to be objectionable to the future property owner and would likely be filled in over time.
Mr. Fon said that after he had urged the applicant to meet with town staff to work out remaining site issues, it appeared that despite the meeting having taken place, the situation had gotten worse, not better, He advised Mr. O’Keefe to set up another meeting to work out the issues. The board also wanted to see a copy of the stop work order that had been issued.