Section 59.07 Block 1 Lots 7, 8
Note: For background, see the 2008-2009 Planning Board discussions below. The meeting summaries are shown from the earliest to the latest.
Planning Board, 1-8-2018 After the applicant’s team made a presentation, a series of residents, mostly from the immediate area, raised a series of concerns about the application, including but not limited to: missing documents (a SWPPP), inconsistent information in the habitat study and EAF, dubious claims about the likely minimal environmental impacts, especially to the stream corridor that traverses the site, and other deficiencies and discrepancies in the application and supporting documents. They asked the board not to take any action on the application until these issues were addressed. In his memo to the board that had only been received that afternoon, the town engineer asked for an additional 30 days to review the application. Rather than ask the applicant’s representatives to respond to the public comments during the hearing, the board voted to adjourn the hearing and give the applicant time to review written copies of the various public comments. No date was set for the hearing to resume. The CIY observer was not at the meeting. For a summary, see the offical Planning Board minutes.
Planning Board, 1-8-2018
After the applicant’s team made a presentation, a series of residents, mostly from the immediate area, raised a series of concerns about the application, including but not limited to: missing documents (a SWPPP), inconsistent information in the habitat study and EAF, dubious claims about the likely minimal environmental impacts, especially to the stream corridor that traverses the site, and other deficiencies and discrepancies in the application and supporting documents. They asked the board not to take any action on the application until these issues were addressed. In his memo to the board that had only been received that afternoon, the town engineer asked for an additional 30 days to review the application.
Rather than ask the applicant’s representatives to respond to the public comments during the hearing, the board voted to adjourn the hearing and give the applicant time to review written copies of the various public comments. No date was set for the hearing to resume.
The CIY observer was not at the meeting. For a summary, see the offical Planning Board minutes.
Mr. Fon acknowledged correspondence relating to the subdivision and Mr. Tegeder stated that the board would take a “hard look” at the environmental issues raised in the recent submission.
Planning Board, 10-16-2017
Joe Riina of Site Design Consultants has replaced Dan Ciarcia as the project engineer, although Mr. Ciarcia participated in the discussion. Mr. Riina said that the plan was essentially the same as the one before the board in 2015. The plan is still being reviewed by the DEP. Steve Marino went over the highlights of a report he submitted to the board addressing a variety of environmental issues including the impact of the development on habitat.
Mr. Tegeder said that the next step was for the board to review the Marino report and after that it could issue a negative declaration and an approval. It was noted that the public hearing on the application was closed several years ago.
several years ago.
Planning Board, 7-13-2015
Several residents continued to raise issues about the proposed subdivision, primarily about stormwater runoff. Although the public hearing on the application was closed several years ago, the board’s attorney said it was okay for the Planning Department to accept a report from the residents that corrected and updated an earlier wildlife report. It was also their contention that since the wetlands permit was issued in 2009, and the EAF submitted in 2006, there have been significant changes to the site that should be taken into account. Mr. Savoca noted that the board should be concerned about what existed now as opposed to what was approved years ago and Mr. Fon noted that half of the current board members were not on the board when the application was first reviewed. The board advised the applicant to consult with town staff and said that wetlands boundaries may need to be re-verified and possibly re-delineated.
Planning Board, 10-20-2014
Dan Ciarcia, the applicant’s engineer, explained that he has been working with the DEP on stormwater issues and that while there have been only slight changes from an earlier plan reviewed by the board, he will have to submit a revised plan to the DEP. Mr. Tegeder suggested that the current plan be recirculated to the town’s advisory groups and that Mr. Ciarcia should keep the board informed on the changes the DEP is requesting.
Several area residents asked about the next steps in the approval process and were advised to keep in touch with the Planning Department regarding DEP updates.
Planning Board, 11-18-2013
According to Al Capellini, the applicant’s attorney, the property owner wants to resume the approval process after a five year hiatus due to personal reasons. Despite the time lapse, Mr. Tegeder explained that the application is not time barred and there was no need to submit a new application. During the intervening years, Mr. Capellini said the applicant has had contact with DEP and DEC.
Consulting engineer Dan Ciarcia showed the Board alternate plans showing access from a public road and also a shared driveway off a private road.
Because the public hearing on the application was closed in 2009, several area residents wanted to know when and how they could comment on any revised plan. Chairman Fon assured them that they would be able to address the Board during its informal work sessions and advised them to monitor the Board’s agendas so they knew when the application would be discussed again. (Only public hearings have to be legally noticed to abutting property owners.)
2008-2009 Planning Board Review
November 10, 2008, work session
November 24, 2008, work session
January 12, 2009
February 9, 2009
Public Informational Hearing
This was a continuation of the hearing that was opened last month. As only one person in the audience was interested in the application and he had been at the previous meeting, the applicant's engineer, Dan Ciarcia gave only a brief overview of the plan.
The homeowner, Tim Glass, who lives in the area, had no objections to or concerns with the subdivision plan but expressed his concern that the beauty of the area not be compromised by the construction of “garish mansions in the middle of the woods.” Empathizing with him about the beauty of the area, Mr. Klaus explained that if and when the property owner came in with development plans, the board would carefully delineate the “limit of disturbance” area. He added that in addition to clearing land for the septic fields, the health department required that any plan show the area that could accommodate a 100% expansion of the fields if that became necessary in the future. He wasn't sure if that area just had to be noted on the map but didn't have to be cleared in advance.
Mr. Klaus also explained that if and when a subdivision plan was submitted, there would be several additional reviews and discussions and he encouraged Mr. Glass to stay informed on the progress of the application.
The applicant's attorney, Al Capellini indicated that given the board's anticipated support for the subdivision, he would proceed with plans to file a request for a variance from the zoning board for the site's private road.
March 23, 2009, work session
At Mr. Capellini's request, the Planning Board will recommend to the ZBA that it grant the variance necessary for a common driveway on this site. The Board again expressed its concern that, although the lots are of adequate legal size, their usable space is heavily constrained by wetlands. Mr. Flynn pointed out Lot #4 especially in this regard. There is little useful space on this lot without wetland encroachment. Mr. Tegeder suggested rotating the house 90o , but Mr. Cicarcia said this would interfere with the septic system. Mr. Klaus observed that the entire lay out of lot #4 is “very tight”—the house, septic fields, well and wetlands buffer.
July 13, 2009, work session
Mr. Capellini advised the board that the zoning board had granted the variance for the common driveway and asked the board to set the application up for a public hearing in August - which the planning department will do if everything is in order.
August 10, 2009
Mr. Cicaria and Mr. Capellini summarized the project. The ZBA granted a variance for three lots with no frontage on a town road. The three lots will be accessed by a private road. According to Mr. Cicarcia, this access option will have the least impact on the neighborhood because it is in keeping with the rural nature of the area and requires fewer wetland crossings. Mr. Cicarcia described the storm water management system, which still needs review by the Town Engineer and DEP. The access road will be lined with permeable pavers. The Fire Marshall has okayed this, even though generally preferring paved access roads for emergency vehicles. The site will have a conservation easement, protected in perpetuity.
Neighbors from Colonel Greene Rd spoke at the public hearing:
Peter and Christina Fairweather pointed out the large wetland just adjacent to the Sandvoss site and expressed concern that this development will cause more flooding from this wetland. They said they already experience a lot of flooding, and it has gotten worse after development on Croton Ave.
Sheila Schrayer also cited flooding on her property and septic system.
Diane Glass was concerned about the frequency at which the bridge on Colonel Greene Rd. washes out, leaving the neighborhood stranded and the likelihood this will increase after the Sandvoss site is built. She was also concerned that the houses proposed for the subdivision be in keeping with the others in the neighborhood, not overly large houses that would make existing houses look like tear downs. She was also concerned that there be an adequate marketing plan in place so the new houses are actually finished and sold, referring to houses on Hanover Rd. that remain unfinished and their lots still disturbed. Mr. Klaus referred Ms. Glass to ABACA for information about the house designs.
Mr. Cicarcia said it was unlikely that the Sandvoss development would add to the flooding problems on Colonel Greene Rd because the property is in its own little basin, separated from the adjacent wetlands and Colonel Greene Rd by a ridge. The Planning Board directed the applicant to get comments from the Town Engineer about the flooding issues raised by the neighbors. The public hearing was adjourned.