Planning Board

September 25, 2017


Attending: John Kincart, John Savoca, William LaScala, Richard Fon, Robert Garrigan




1. Orchard Views subdivision, Sherry Drive/Public hearing

The applicant explained that there were no changes from the previous plan. He is still waiting for DEP approval and comments from the town engineer. Several residents from Pine Grove Court expressed concern about run off from the site. In response, the applicant explained a three prong approach to addressing runoff: 1) a swale behind 5 houses on the west side on the property that will empty into an underground storage container and released slowly to a storm drain on Pine Grove Court; 2) dry wells  for the houses on the west side of the parcel that will capture roof runoff and be released into the ground and; 3) an underground container on the east side of the  parcel that will capture runoff from the driveways and slowly release the water. There will also be two rain gardens elsewhere on the site. The homeowners association will be responsible for maintaining these facilities, e.g., seeing that the swales are not filled in; in the event that they don’t, the town would be able to use a $5,000 bond that the developer will put in escrow to do any work on the facilities.


The board closed the hearing and after some discussion decided to postpone voting on an approval resolution until after the DEP reviews the final stormwater plans and gives its consent. The board noted that in the past, after the board has approved a subdivision or site plan, the DEP required changes in the stormwater plan that necessitated changes in the subdivision/site plan.


2. Dubovsky site plan/Route 129

The board okayed an amended site plan that addresses the concerns of DOH and DEP. The resolution retains the building’s original footprint, although ultimately DOH and DEP may require a smaller footprint. The approving resolution includes a tree permit that will require five trees in the front the property to be removed. The removal is necessary because of the revised site plan. There will be no tree removal in the rear of the parcel.





3. Lowe’s

The applicant’s engineer gave the following updates.

Stormwater: The DEP wants a few “tweaks” made to the plan. The engineer doesn’t anticipate this to be a major issue.  The Watershed Inspector General’s office, which is advisory only, has recomen4ed two additional changes, one of which appears to differ with the DEP’s approach; this will have to be worked out with the DEP that has the ultimate approval authority.


Demolition: This should be started this week and will last about 4 weeks.


Sidewalks at Strang Blvd: the DOT person in charge of making the decision will be out until the end of the month but the engineer doesn’t anticipate any problem with the revised plan; he is preparing the engineering details in anticipation of getting DOT approval.


Water lines:  See 8/14/2017 summary below. Supervisor Grace has suggested that the best way to resolve the issue is for the town to take over the lines but form a water district that will consist of the four parcels making up the entire Lowe’s site. Ongoing maintenance of the water lines will then become part of the Common Area Maintenance Agreement that will share expenses for the maintenance of other common areas throughout the site. The water district would be taxed to generate the revenue needed to cover maintenance costs.


4. Unicorn Contracting, Kear Street

Phil Grealy, the applicant’s traffic engineer, went over a series of “first flush” conceptual recommendations for handling traffic, including signal adjustments, clearing some vegetation along Kear Street, and some realignment of Kear Street.  The traffic study includes potential traffic from developing the small parcel at the corner of Kear and Route 118 although the original plan to build a bank building on the site has been dropp3ed from the plan.


Dan Ciarcia has adjusted some lot lines to avoid creating a hardship and the need for variances; the only possible variance needed may be for the Markatos Building, but that may be covered by the building’s non conforming use. The footprint of the building has been changed slightly to meet requirements of the Fire Bureau.  Mr. Ciarcia showed a simple drawing of how parapets along the roof line would hide the roof mechanicals but Mr. Tegeder asked for more formal drawing.


In anticipation that the applicant will have some preliminary stormwater plans available after a meeting next week with the DEP, a public hearing was scheduled for October 16.


5. Colangelo subdivision, Jacob Road

The board set an October 16 public hearing on the project.  No changes to the plan have been made since the last meeting.  Because some abutting residents in Cortlandt complained that they never received the notice about the first hearing, on the suggestion of assistant planner Robyn Steinberg, the board agreed to have the applicant send notices by first class mail (the new requirement) and also certified mail, although without the requirement for a return receipt.


6. Gallinelli Subdivision, 2777 Quinlan Street

The applicant wants to subdivide a 1.47 acre lot, zoned for half acre development, into two lots so that a second house can be built. The lot backs up to town owned parkland on Ogden Road. The applicant plans to hook up the lots to the existing sewer connection, roughly 150 feet away, that serves the Ogden houses. The board raised the issue of whether the line could also serve existing houses of Quinlan in a public/private partnership; a memo may be sent to the Town Board and the engineer to explore the issue. Mr. Tegeder asked the applicant to consider either a shared driveway between the two lots or relocating the existing driveway to line up with the driveway across the street.


7. Celestial Associates, 3571 Mohegan Ave/Rezoning referral

In support of the request to rezone the property from office to commercial use, Mr. Capellini explained to the board that the property owner hasn’t been able to attract an office use for 10 years and that it made sense to revert back to the site’s original zoning. While he wanted both the vacant parcel and the day care site rezoned to C-3, the board had no problem with recommending the rezoning of the front vacant parcel for commercial use but preferred to keep the day care site zoned for office zone which had less of an impact than potential C-3 uses.


Note: The Planning Board will have only one meeting in October, on the 16th.