The Planning Board meeting was held on
Chairman Sheers asked for corrections/additions to
the minutes of the
ITEM NO. 1 CONTINUE REVIEW OF
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 2
LOTS, SUBMITTED BY DAVID DELEO (PROPERTY OWNED BY ARTHUR &
MARYLOU VOLBERT),
Engineer Bill Povall reported stormwater drainage remained the primary outstanding issue with this two lot subdivision. Calculations were completed and a dry well will be installed to address those concerns. Mr. Stolman advised that the back up area shown in front of the house should be paved rather than leaving it to the property owner’s discretion. Mr. Russo reported the remaining engineering comments are not of serious nature and can be readily addressed.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to issue a negative declaration for the two lot subdivision; grant preliminary subdivision plat approval subject to Mr. Stolman’s comment regarding the driveway and fulfilling items listed in Lanc & Tully’s letter dated April 6, 2005; waive the public hearing for the final subdivision plat based upon the fact that the preliminary plat and final plat are substantially the same; and grant final subdivision plat approval subject to the same items listed in the preliminary approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sablinski. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 2
CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE
PERMIT, DAY CARE FACILITY, SUBMITTED BY
PROPERTY OWNER MARK
DEFABIO,
Jonathan Chella of Taconic Design explained his
client is proposing an additional building on the existing Rose Hill Day Care property. It will be a two story building designed to
meet both
Mr. Stolman explained floor plans submitted show six classrooms, however, notes on the plan indicate only five classrooms. The number of parking spaces must be based on both the number of classrooms and number of employees, therefore an accurate number of classrooms and employees must be determined. Mr. DeFabio reported the number of teachers will depend on enrollment and age. Mr. Stolman advised the applicant that the number of parking spaces must be resolved before further review can take place. Elevation colors must be labeled on the drawings and details on proposed signs must be submitted. A photometric contour plan for the outdoor lighting must be provided and a back up area is needed at the end of the southeast end of the proposed parking area.
Mr. Russo noted a number of items from their comment letter dated March 10th have not been addressed to date. He requested written correspondence referencing changes made to the plan be provided with new submissions in the future. Different line types should be used in order to distinguish the silt fencing and contours, and post grading around the proposed building should be provided. The infiltration system for storm water control located directly along the top slope of a bank raises concern that the bank may fail when it fills with water, therefore it should be relocated. A report on soil types and percolation test results for the proposed system should be provided. Note 2 on the Site Plan should be removed and the proposed easement located on the plan. The first floor and lowest sewerable elevation for the proposed building is also required.
CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL,
PARKING LOT, SUBMITTED BY
Scott Furey of Mark Day Engineering, PC, explained
they were before the Planning Board approximately 1.5 years ago and the project
was tabled due to ongoing road improvements on
Mr.
Stolman reported this project was last on the agenda in September of 2003 and
at that time there was discussion about changing the flow of traffic through
the parking lot. This item was referred
to the Traffic Safety Committee and a copy of their comments will be provided
for review. Mr. Stolman advised comments
made in 2003 remain current to date. The
trees and shrubs shown on the plan must be accurately labeled on the plan. There is also a concern that two existing
Maple trees to the south of the parking area (14- and 12-inches in diameter)
will need to be removed. Mr. Stolman
suggested they make every effort to save those, and other significant trees on
site as previously discussed. Additional
landscaping on
Mr. Russo reported the stairs should be pushed further back into the bank to provide for a landing at the bottom and to avoid the railings from protruding into the sidewalk. Details on erosion control must be provided and storm water runoff controls must be put into place.
Mr. Sheers emphasized the importance of saving mature trees on site and noted that trees typically die when situated near new pavement. Mr. Stolman advised that some spaces in the lot may need to be removed in order to save the trees.
ITEM NO. 4 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF
PROPOSAL FOR SUBDIVISION,
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY PRESHROCK CORPORATION,
HIDDENBROOKE PROPERTY
The applicant’s engineer was not yet present at the meeting so the next item was heard.
ITEM NO. 5 CONTINUE REVIEW OF
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 2
LOTS, SUBMITTED BY FERDINAND & SUSANNE
Mr. Metz explained they were before the Board with this two lot subdivision a number of times in the past. An examination into the cost of tying into the City’s water and sewer lines revealed it to be approximately $76,000. Therefore due to the extraordinary high cost for one lot, they located a site for a well and tested for the installation of a septic system which passed required standards. Mr. Russo agreed that it would be impractical for them to tie into the City’s system due to the cost and difficulty obtaining necessary easements. These plans will be reviewed by the Health Department. Mr. Russo reported the two plans, done by surveyor Dennis Walden and engineer Zen Design, are not coordinated. The Zen plan shows the septic but does not show the subdivision; and the Walden plan shows the subdivision but not engineering. Also, the binder provided with water and sewer information must be updated, i.e. some information still refers to a City water main extension.
Mr. Stolman explained the access easement shown on Sheet 2 of 3 needs to be made clearer in terms of the extent of the area, its purpose and who it favors. A note on Sheet 1 of 3 should indicate that the 8-inch caliper tree-line will be preserved, and the trees be labeled.
ITEM NO. 4 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF
PROPOSAL FOR SUBDIVISION,
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY PRESHROCK CORPORATION,
HIDDENBROOKE PROPERTY
Robert Kalkstein explained three drawings were
submitted to the Board, one a general layout with 76 lots and two providing alternate
cluster or conservation subdivision layouts.
One plan clustered an attached housing development solely in the R1-10
zoning district near
Mr. Stolman explained this is a pre-preliminary
discussion and initial review before making a formal application as provided
for in the City’s subdivision regulations.
He reported the City Council has been looking at the zoning of the
property for a number of years and as a result there are three local laws for
rezoning currently pending. The area
near DePuyster Avenue would change from an R1-10 zone to an R1-40 zone (1/4
acre to 1 acre); the central portion of property would change from an R1-40 zone
to an R1-80 zone (1 acre to 2 acre); and the easternmost part of the property,
located near the Town of Fishkill which has four-acre zoning, would change from
an R1-40 zone to an R1-120 zone (1 acre to 3 acre). Mr. Stolman explained the applicant is
seeking to subdivide the property according to existing zoning. Mr. Kalkstein explained they prefer the attached
housing or townhouse plan, with the intention of constructing an upscale
community with tennis courts and pool facilities. He said these are preliminary ideas and a zoning
change will affect the return they seek to get from the property. Ultimately they want to achieve a return
without taking construction into the mountainous area. Mr. Kalkstein reiterated their goal to donate
or gift the remainder of property to a trust for conservation. They would like to develop 80 acres out of
the approximately total of 123 acres. Mr.
Williams joined the meeting at
After some discussion, all agreed that a great deal of work remains. Mr. Gunn emphasized the general sensitivity people have to this development and stressed the importance of preserving the natural character of the land. Mr. Kalkstein understood the project’s significance and agreed consideration must be given to the aesthetics of any development.
ITEM NO. 6 CONTINUE REVIEW OF
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 2
LOTS, SUBMITTED BY THOMAS NINNIE,
Dennis Walden explained this proposal for a two lot
subdivision was last before the Board in July of 2002. The property, located on
Mr. Stolman said the subdivision is very much about topography, excavation and grading, therefore a more accurate topographic map is needed to review. Mr. Walden explained a topographic map has not been completed yet because grading and rock removal is ongoing. Mr. Stolman advised that grading needs to be done at some point so a complete review can begin. Mr. Walden hoped to have the topography done in time for the next submission date. Mr. Walden reviewed the engineering comments and noted the water and sewer utilities were stubbed in ten years ago. Mr. Russo explained that connection to the homes must be shown, as well as retaining wall heights, driveways and turnarounds, etc.
ITEM NO. 7 REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, PARKING
LOT, SUBMITTED BY
SQUARE
Mr. Walden introduced Ralph Middleton, Deacon of the
Overall, members had no objection to the parking lot and agreed it would provide parishioners with a better place to park than on the street. Mr. Middleton explained the church meets on Wednesdays and Sundays. Mr. Williams asked if the neighbors had any concerns. Mr. Middleton explained they talked to the neighbors and proposed a 4 ft. high fence to address their concerns. Mr. Stolman asked that fencing details and a photometric contour plan for exterior lighting be added to the plan. Additional items include the following: parking spaces should be numbered, the site plans need to be better dimensioned, one of the three wheel stop details provided must be chosen, landscaping added, the terms “TBR” and “OX” clarified, sight distances provided and the refuse container be located on the plan.
There were no further comments and Mr. Gunn made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of May, seconded by Mr. Sablinski. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Miscellaneous
Business
Discussion of
changes to “The Haven” Special Use Permit,
Principal owner Peter Groendahl introduced partner Noel Hayes and provided a brief background of the project. When the proposal was first brought before the Board in 1999, it was for a 180 unit Senior Housing Assisted Living facility. In 2003, the project scope was changed to senior housing, the unit count was reduced to 126 apartments and the City Council issued a Special Use Permit based on that plan. Inadvertently a new or revised Environmental Assessment Form reflecting the change to multi-family housing was not submitted. Mr. Groendahl explained it was overlooked while trying to get past access issues with the MTA. An engineering firm has been contracted to prepare a new updated Environmental Assessment Form based on the change from exclusively senior apartments to a conventional upscale, high-end apartments. Mr. Hayes explained the Special Use Permit approval was specifically issued for senior housing and they are seeking a change to remove the senior designation. The new EAF will address traffic, school and recreational impact. The actual bedroom count is not changing and the units are being marketed for high-end, empty-nester professionals. The apartments are not suited or appropriately geared for larger families or children. The units are primarily one bedroom/one bedroom with den and will be marketed in the range of $800 to $3,000 monthly rents. Mr. Hayes explained the market for assisted living died out a number of years ago and that type of development would not be successful. He said the apartments will be marketed to empty nesters, people over fifty and professionals who commute into the City. Traffic counts were originally based on a three-to-one ratio staff to residents therefore they feel estimates will be reduced by one-third.
Mr. Stolman explained new paperwork reflecting changes must be submitted for review. Mr. Hayes explained the actual Site Plan has not changed; the building layout and footprint remains the same as two years ago. The Special Use Permit issued by the City Council was for “senior housing apartments” and they now want the senior designation removed. Mr. Hayes reported the floor plan changed marginally – the bedroom count did not increase although the square footage of each unit increased. Mr. Stolman asked that new floor plans, a new traffic analysis and a new Environmental Assessment form reflecting all changes be submitted for review. Mr. Russo advised the applicant to review the impacts on water and sewer.
After some discussion, Ms. Attaway made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of May, seconded by Mr. Williams. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
There was
no further business and Ms. Attaway made a motion to adjourn the meeting,
seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in
favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at