TOWN OF BALLSTON PLANNING BOARD
Monthly Meeting: June 24, 2019
Present:
|
John VanVorst, Chairman
James DiPasquale Patrick Maher
Audeliz Matias, Vice-Chair Laura Muschott
Dan Shorey
Dave Blair, 1st Alternate
Dalia Garcia, Senior Planner/Storm Water Management
Officer Matt Chauvin, Esq.
Kathryn Serra, PE
Members of the General Public
ABSENT: Nicole Rodgers
|
MOTION: Ms. Mr. Maher made a motion to approve the May 29,
2019 minutes as submitted. Mr. Blair seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
CARRIED.
OLD BUSINESS:
Thomas Benuscak
Goode Street; 238.-1-39.12
Major subdivision proposed 12-lot subdivision.
Renew
preliminary approval approved 5/30/2018
Paul Olund with Environmental Design Partnership, LLP
presented on behalf of the applicant, Thomas Benuscak for the renewal of the
approved 12-lot subdivision on Goode Street.
Chairman VanVorst stated is the applicants position on the
court’s decision on the waterlines.
Mr. Olund stated there was a recent decision, but Mr.
Benuscak would still like to pursue this subdivision, as approved; this
subdivision will work with either municipal water or private wells and at this
time, is considering their options – still wish to keep the approved
subdivision valid.
Chairman VanVorst stated there is no public hearing for this
project because it is previously approved.
Chairman VanVorst stated the next approval is 90-days and
because this Planning Board meeting is earlier than normal, and might have to
come back at the end of August instead of September.
Mr. Olund stated the applicant wants to keep things within
that 90-day window and not have to worry about a possible expiration.
MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion that the Planning Board
extend the approval of the Benuscak Subdivision on Goode Street for a 90-day
period. Ms. Muschott seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.
257 Round Lake Road.
Subdivision 257 Round Lake Road;
249.-3-46 Cluster Subdivision proposed 25-lots
John Lapper, Esq., Marcus Magee, Applicant, Tom Suozzo,
Project Engineer with Cedarwood Engineering and Jeffrey Anthony, RLA with
Studio A presented.
Mr. Lapper stated the applicant was before the Board in
March and since then, have submitted their preliminary application, received
comments last week from CT Male; more soil tests will need to be performed. Mr.
Anthony, RLA distributed a written response to CT Male’s comment letter.
The prior comment letters by C.T. Male included comments
that some of the lots may not be considered buildable given the presence of
wetlands on the property. Some attempts have been made to revise the lot
layout, however, Lots 2 and 3 still contain a significant amount of wetlands.
The applicant shall provide the area of the lot that is considered buildable
for consideration by the Board. There is also no proposed grading on the lots,
which could further limit the buildable area of these lots.
Mr. Lapper feels this is sufficient and will provide
grading’s for the Board and CT Male to review for next time.
The applicant shall provide information on who will own Lot 26
and the lot along Round Lake Road that contains a proposed stormwater
management area.
Mr. Lapper stated this will have a HOA for just those
purposes; common areas will have trails and will be maintained by the HOA.
The
applicant should be aware that the Town requires test pits every 500 feet along
the proposed road alignment as part of the roadway design.
Mr. Lapper stated test pits to be shown every 500’ along the
road and will be get the test pits scheduled and provide the data to the Board.
Sheet P-1: The lot size/statistics table shall indicate the
proposed setback dimensions.
Mr. Lapper stated that will be put on sheet P-1.
The location of the proposed stormwater management
facilities at the SW and SE corners of the project site are not favorable. The
Town does not desire to take over stormwater management areas that are in the
rear of homes due to issues with long term maintenance. In addition, the plan
does not show any way for the SW stormwater management area to be accessed off
the end of the cul-de-sac, without impacts to the NYSDEC wetland buffer.
Mr. Lapper stated the applicant did provide a 20’ access for
one of the stormwater management areas on the east side; should be sufficient
as an easement and maintained by the HOA to get to the stormwater management
area on the south west corner. Mr. Lapper stated Ms. Serra stated access was
not shown and it turns out, that it is not needed; will eliminate that
stormwater management area (to be shown on the next set of plans).
On the subdivision plans, for the names of the property
owners, it is suggested that “formally” be replaced with “formerly.”
Mr. Lapper stated there was a typo, which will be fixed.
The two lots off MacKenna Court that are immediately
adjacent to this project have the owners listed as “Lands now or Formally of
John Paul Builders.” The ownership should be
revised to include the current property owners. The plans
should show the location of the homes on these lots.
Mr. Lapper stated when this was done, the tax maps show the
developer rather than the property owners on Mackenna Court and will be updated
to show house locations and identify the adjacent property owners now.
At the March 27, 2019 Planning Board meeting, the Planning
Board Chairman asked the applicant to come up with a method of discouraging
traffic from going through Mackenna Court. The plans provided for this submission contain no
information on how Mackenna Court will be modified when this project connects
to that roadway.
Mr. Lapper stated the Mackenna Court residents were
concerned about traffic and in general thinks that most of the lots will be
easier going right up through the subdivision rather than going through theirs
to get to Round Lake Road. Mr. Lapper stated the applicant would propose to put
a street sign – “Slow Children at Play.” Mr. Lapper stated that neighborhood is
not any different than the one being proposed – signs showing an area with
families and the cul-de-sac will help because it’s not a straightaway.
The
Conceptual Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Analysis Report does not contain
information on the sizing of the stormwater management areas to provide for
peak runoff (10 and 100-year storm) attenuation. As presented, it is not
possible to determine if enough space has been allocated for the stormwater
management areas.
Mr. Anthony stated those calculations will be put in the
next submission and feel they will be sized properly.
In
Sections 2.1 and 4.0, it is mentioned that the WQv and CPv are calculated based
upon enhanced phosphorous removal requirements for the site. The engineer
should be aware that Chapter 10 of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual
“Enhanced Phosphorous Removal Standards” does not apply to this project since
the property is not located within a phosphorous limited watershed. Even so,
the Town does not object to the applicant designing their project around these
more stringent standards if the applicant desires.
Mr. Anthony stated if it’s not necessary, the applicant will
not do the Enhanced Phosphorous Removal.
The Green Infrastructure Plan indicates that 21.15 acres of “conservation
of natural areas” are proposed. It is not clear where these areas are located
and those areas shall be noted on the plan. As the project progresses, any area
designed as a “conservation area” shall be deed restricted.
Mr. Anthony stated that “conservation of natural areas” will
be clearly indicated on the plans as the project progresses. Any area a
“conservation of natural areas” will be restricted.
Section 2.2.2 of the report mentions that “A number of lots
naturally drain towards the back of the property, away from the proposed
stormwater collection system and towards the project boundaries. These are lots
20 through 25.” Rain gardens are being proposed at the back of these
properties. Rain gardens provide runoff treatment, not detention, so it is not clear how the project will attenuate peak runoff
rates from these lots if the lots drain away from the stormwater collection
system.
Mr. Anthony stated that rain guards will be replaced with
bio retention areas for the storm water systems.
Appendix B- it is not clear if the depth to water table in
the test pit profiles is the water level observed at the time of the test pits,
or if it is indicative of mottling, i.e. the seasonally high groundwater table.
The date of the test pit and infiltration tests shall also be noted in Appendix
B.
Mr. Anthony stated those were observed water levels and will
make clear in their next submission because it was not just looking at
modeling.
Appendix B- For the southeast basin, the test pit log
indicates the depth to the water table at 48 inches, but for the infiltration
tests, “water in the hole at 24” is noted.
Mr. Anthony stated they did notice that discrepancy and
thinks it might have been a semi confining layer; water was purged and does not
think it was true ground water table and will go out and re-do those areas. If
we find the same things there, will shift that basin to the west to get into an
area of 48 inches of depth, if possible.
Sanitary Sewer Report: It is suggested that this report be
provided to Saratoga County Sewer District #1 for their concurrence.
Mr. Anthony stated it will be provided SCSD#1. Mr. Anthony
stated he called SCSD#1 on a few items.
15a. Appendix A of this report shall include the location of
the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure, as it is hard to follow in the text
of the report.
Mr. Anthony stated an 8.5” x 11” site plan will be clearly
shown.
In the sewer sizing calculations, the “Benedict Road
Subdivision” is referenced, however, it is not clear if the flows being used
for the 2” LPSS on MacKenna Court are for the homes on MacKenna Court or for
the whole subdivision, some of which does not flow to the 2” LPSS on MacKenna Court.
Mr. Anthony stated it’s for the entire subdivision.
The project is proposing low pressure sanitary sewer, so why
are so many manholes shown proposed utility plans?
Mr. Anthony stated a lot of clean outs were put in because
if there is a problem, want it to be easy for the Town personnel to maintain
the system.
Water Supply Report: This report shall be updated when the
hydrant flow test and modeling is completed. The applicant should be aware that
the Town may require the subdivision to be fed from MacKenna Court and Round
Lake Road for looping and fire flow purposes.
Mr. Anthony stated flow tests and modeling will be provided
with the next submittal and look at all the different options for alignment
that the distribution system can run.
Chairman VanVorst stated he did not emphasize how important
it is that the Board feel there needs to be some sort of traffic discouragement
calming procedure to prevent people from going into MacKenna Court.
Chairman VanVorst was very disappointed that there wasn’t
any significant effort put into presenting the Board with some options of what
you could do to prevent that flow of traffic.
Mr. Lapper asked if there was something specific the Board
had in mind.
Chairman VanVorst stated it’s not the Boards job to engineer
your project, but it is your job to meet our satisfaction; the Board is not
satisfied.
Mr. Lapper stated we will focus on that and the Board
addressed the neighbors on about how the Town likes to have subdivisions
interconnected, but typical traffic calming methods would be speed bumps, which
sometimes the plows don’t like them, but does not mean you cannot do that.
Chairman VanVorst stated that probably would not be
acceptable, but there are many other options.
Mr. Maher stated there was an extensive discussion about
lots 2 and 3 at the agenda meeting and Ms. Serra has expressed her concerns on
a couple of occasions if they were buildable; it’s going to be a high hurdle
for the Board and really need to demonstrate those two lots are buildable with
the level of wetlands in that area.
Mr. DiPasquale stated could demonstrate to the Board what
you anticipate on building on lots 2 and 3 could anticipate on a larger scale.
Mr. Lapper stated that is a great idea and will do that.
Ms. Serra stated the Town does not want the storm water
management basin behind homes and yes there is a proposed 20’ easement, but
have issues with long term maintenance. Ms. Serra stated the Town is very vocal
for the Town Engineer to say no.
Mr. Lapper asked if it impacts a decision, because there is
a HOA proposed and charged with maintaining that.
Ms. Serra stated no, it’s a Town road, the Town maintains;
you will physically own a property that the storm water management practices
are on an easement, but the Town feels that if the road is turned over to the
Town, they will maintain infrastructures associated with the Town.
Mr. Lapper stated what he meant was, we can maintain the 20’
access area.
Ms. Serra stated if the Town has to clean that basin in 20
years, the owner of lot 19 might not be the same owner; have had a lot of
issues with this and are trying to learn from prior design decisions that were
made 15 to 20 years ago that are now becoming an issue for the Town.
Ms. Serra said, “We did make an applicant that was on the
agenda tonight, lose a lot to move a basin.
Ms. Serra stated its consistent with other projects with
putting the basin by the road where so it can be accessed.
Mr. Lapper stated we have the ability to lose that that if
we had to obviously, it was located there because its next to the wetlands and
at the low point where everything is naturally draining towards, but will look
at that carefully and understand there is a possibility of losing that.
Ms. Matias asked who owns lot 26?
Mr. Lapper stated the HOA; all property owners will be
members of. Ms. Matias asked if that trail only for residents.
Mr. Lapper stated not necessarily and have done other HOA’s
where it is open to the public, if that is something important to the Planning
Board.
Ms. Matias asked about liability.
Mr. Lapper stated its part of the insurance; the homeowners
pay insurance and factored into what they pay for insurance.
Ms. Matias said, “If the neighbors from the other
development want to walk over to the here, are they allowed to.”
Mr. Lapper stated if the Board tells the applicant what they
would like to see, then we can do it that way.
Ms. Matias asked about parking.
Mr. Lapper stated parking is not something the applicant
would propose.
Ms. Serra stated No Parking on Town roads between November 1st
and April 1st.
Mr. DiPasquale stated for the next submittal, get a letter
of approval or concurrence from SCSD#1 as it relates to the sewer flows
especially with phase 1 of Timbercreek.
Mr. Lapper stated the applicant does have a letter as to
capacity from the SCSD#1 Mr. DiPasquale asked that grants you capacity.
Mr. Lapper stated yes.
Mr. DiPasquale asked to include that letter in their next
submittal to the Board.
Chairman VanVorst stated last month had pointed out errors
on the EAF and have not seen a revised EAF.
Mr. Lapper stated that will be resolved.
Chairman VanVorst asked for location of wells and septic systems
on neighboring properties for “Davies, Huebner and Meager” property. Chairman
VanVorst stated he appreciates the fact that a paper street to the remaining
Meager property and is there a possibility of connectivity to the “Huebner” property.
Mr. Lapper stated he thinks it is constrained by the
wetlands.
Chairman VanVorst asked the applicant to demonstrate that it
cannot be done.
Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m.
Five-minute limit. Warning at four-minute mark. If you have
more to say, submit in
writing. All submissions will be read.
No foul language, swearing, cursing.
No insulting offensive remarks.
Don’t repeat already expressed comments.
Don’t expect a response to remarks tonight. No back and
forth between public and applicant or Planning Board. All questions will be
answered in time.
Dr. Pierce, 110 Lake Road asked if this whole project is
located in the Watershed Overlay Protection District (WPOD).
Ms. Serra stated the front half of it is and back half if
out, but thinks technically the way that zoning is broken up for the entire
parcel - yes, as the project advances, would include that in the review.
Steve Wik, 11 Mackenna Court stated he wants to reiterated
what was discussed at the last meeting and wanted to thank the developer for
addressing the traffic reduction; personally to hear them say the cul-de-sac
will slow them down, as a father of a three-year-old and a five month old, was
very concerning. Mr. Wik stated not a single resident on Mackenna Court is in
favor of a through road, this is incontrovertible and can verify that every
resident signed a community offered petition, stating their opposition along
with a laundry list of reasons. Mr. Wik stated not a single resident of
Mackenna Court sees any net positive to the addition of a through road to the proposed development, in fact most residents
have trouble seeing any scenario where a through road is beneficial in the long
run. Mr. Wik stated the Town Planning Board members offer up poor and/or vague
reasons in favor of the through road, such as connectivity. Mr Wik stated at
the previous meeting, a Planning Board member presented a hypothetical
situation, in favor of the through road falls apart on further inspection. The
idea is that it would be beneficial to have two ports of entry for emergency
vehicles in the event that one entrance is inexplicably blocked off or
inaccessible, this is true and would be beneficial in the extremely rare event
that an emergency in the development happens to coincide with an inexplicably
blocked entrance. On the other hand, when you take no account of the increased
risk by a child getting hit by a car, when there are 100 or more opportunities
a day for it to happen due to the increase through traffic, most if not all
parents, will gamble with an inexplicably blocked part of port of entry,
combined with the rare emergency over their children lives; there are pros and
cons with the through road and that the directly impacted residents of Mackenna
Court believe that the cons outweigh the pros – does our voice not matter. Mr.
Wik stated none of the Mackenna Court residents are opposed to the development,
they are mainly opposed to a through road connecting to the development, it is
likely that all residents would be satiated if the through road was simply
eliminated from the plan. Mr. Wik stated the development plans could easily be
modified with a low financial impact to the developer to eliminate the through
road however, have not seen a Board member present this idea or even consider
it and gets the impression that a through road is a forgone conclusion regardless
of what the impact and residents think. Mr. Wik stated finally this situation
is extremely disappointing to us all and has caused many of us to question our
decisions to move and invest in our lives here and has led many of us to
believe, that we were intentionally mislead by our builder (Hodorowski), into
believing, we were paying more to live in a private cul-de-sac. We can only
hope going forward that the Planning Board has a change of heart and realizes
that there is a scenario where everyone wins, and that losing connectivity,
that was never there in the first place, is not the end of the world.
Chairman VanVorst stated he does not normally respond, but
has to say for the members of Mackenna Court, that the Planning Board very
diligently planned not only Mackenna Court development, but the potential for
any development in neighboring properties. Chairman VanVorst stated long before
you were residents of the Town, these decisions were made and the project of
Mackenna Court was designed purposely so there could be connectivity – it’s a
purpose and a policy of the Town for decades.
Michele Stamas, 8 Mackenna Court stated she found another
location in the Town that has a gate with a cul-de-sac similar to Mackenna
Court that connects to an apartment complex located on RollingBrook Drive; is
that something that could be looked at for a resolution.
Ms. Serra that particular project is a fire access road not
a through road, which is why its gated off. Ms. Serra stated one is a NYS Fire
Code Regulation and this is Town Code requiring connectivity between
neighboring lots.
Ms. Stamas stated from what she understands it’s not a law
or a requirement and something the Planning Board and Town Board can overlook.
Ms. Serra stated she cannot speak to that.
Ms. Stamas stated she is pretty confident and has spoken to
an attorney and looked at some of the documentation and is not something that
is set in stone and absolutely something the PB can overturn and the Town
Board. Ms. Stamas stated she has spoken to two of the Town Board members and
they agree, with the concerns the residents have and were sympathetic to.
Ms. Stamas stated the statement made that the residents will
use the Round Lake Road entrance more. Ms. Stamas does not necessarily agree
with that; as a current resident most residents take Benedict Road to get to
Clifton Park and wishes there some type of study that could be done by the
Builder or the Town to show how much traffic is going to run through their
neighborhood – the children and safety is devastating to the community.
Lee Bennett, 5 Mackenna Court asked if there are plot plans
and topographic map available to the public/residents to see exactly what the
applicants are going to do, so we (the residents) have an idea of how that
could impact us.
Mr. Chauvin stated the plans are accessible to you, if you
submit a FOIL request, the Town Clerk will process that and provide you with
the requested material; the map submitted will be available to you.
Mr. Bennett stated is there any potential for storm water to
run down that road into our development particularly in the winter when the
storm drains are covered with snow and ice. Mr. Bennett asked if the applicant
is going to tap into sewer line that runs through Mackenna Court. Ms. Serra
stated yes. Mr. Bennett asked if there any potential for their line being over
pressurized because of the additional houses. Mr. Bennet said, “If I myself
want to find a short cut to go somewhere, will take it and people who live in
Timbercreek and work for GE are likely to cut-through.” Mr. Bennett stated
planning ahead is a good thing, but if there are only 19 homes, do you really
need it and should the Board reconsider it.
Melissa Russell, 9 Mackenna Court stated she is one of the
three homes that don’t have children. Ms. Russell (the following information
came from a Google search), which stated that cut-through traffic tends to
operate at a higher speed and increases the likelihood of accidents and severity
of injury. A pedestrian is going to twice as likely to die and be struck by a
car following that 30mph, compared to 20mph; as speed increases, the drivers
field of vision narrows, which makes it more likely that pedestrians will not
be seen until it’s too late. A car traveling 30mph requires twice the distance
to fully stop compared to 20mph. Ms. Russell stated when she puts this information up against the
responses from Mr. Magee which states, we do not believe our design will
diminish the safety of our area, which was after the last meeting when the
residents expressed their concerns for safety. Ms. Russell stated “We cannot
predict the next potential driving patterns of future inhabitance the future
residents of 257 Round Lake Road will have direct access to Round Lake Road,
which is the primary conduit for traffic that leads to I-87. Ms. Russell states if parsed out, can predict
future driving patterns and a Traffic Study would definitely help. Ms. Russell
stated we have to consider the traffic on Benedict Road as Timbercreek phase 3
will be going in, and will have a lot of houses, and is already a busy
intersection at Benedict/Round Lake Road; it’s banked so the line of sight is
compromised as well and with that, the choice is our neighborhood. It depends
on where you are going and which road you will take. Ms. Russell stated the
Chairman said that a lot of the planning was done before we were residents and
then said, “It’s already done.” Ms. Russell asked the Chairman to clarify, what
is already done – “Is the through-street already done – has that decision been
made.
Chairman VanVorst stated he cannot speak for the whole
Board, but it certainly is the intention of the Board that that connectivity
take place because, that has been the traditional policy of the Town of
Ballston for decades and from your perspective, you don’t see the value in
that, but from the Board’s perspective, we do.
Chairman VanVorst stated because we have made provisions for
that and the applicant was aware of that when they decided to take the risk of
buying the property and the neighboring property and to proceed with this
development. Chairman VanVorst stated it adds to the value of their property
having the connectivity and for the Board to now take that away, would be
detrimental for them as well, and there are multiple reasons why the Board is
pursuing that avenue.
The Board agrees.
Ms. Matias stated that connection was approved when your
development was approved. Ms. Russell stated the question is to whether we use
it or not.
Mr. DiPasquale stated maybe there are simple things to be
done to mitigate the traffic speeds from 30mph to 20mph.
Ms. Serra stated there are many engineering ways to calm
traffic; a sign” children present”, from her engineering experience, is not
helpful at all; how many signs do you see as
you are driving down the road. There are many different
engineering ways to have connectivity and also make deter residents (Abele Wood
Timbercreek phase 1) who do not live in the neighborhood from cutting through.
Ms. Serra stated its not her job as the Town Engineer to
design that, it’s the applicants engineer, but can tell you, and did ask in the
CT Male comment letter, to provide some engineering alternatives for the
Board’s consideration.
Ms. Serra stated we need to strike a balance between the
street connecting through and making sure that it is not a cut-through for
everyone that lives in this part of the Town.
Mr. Maher stated we are fairly early in this process and as
we (the Board) work through this, will strike a balance that addresses your
concerns and the developers.
Chairman VanVorst stated the Board is not unsympathetic to
your position, but on the other hand, when Mackenna Court was designed and
approved, the cul-de-sac purposely terminates at the property line for this
very purpose.
Chairman VanVorst stated he is sorry that somehow you were
uniformed or misinformed, but all along it has been the objective of this
Board, and the policy of the Town, to facilitate connectivity between projects;
it’s done all over the Town – this is not the only place in that Town that its
done.
Chairman VanVorst stated the Board is going to do everything
we can to strategize to discourage traffic from going through Mackenna Court.
Chairman VanVorst stated this public hearing will remain
open and there will be further opportunity to respond and email.
Chairman VanVorst stated he apologizes that he has not
responded to emails and has been overwhelmed with work, but will respond.
Chairman VanVorst stated to forward information to the
builder and perhaps, they will respond.
Chairman VanVorst adjourned the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Application tabled.
Mark Katz (PUDD)
NYS Route 50; 239.-1-1
Revised CONCEPT plan
Jason Dell, PE with Lansing Engineering, PC presented on
behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Dell stated this project has been ongoing for about five
or six years and have been delayed for various items; the most recent, is the
ongoing litigation with Ag & Market and the Town with respect to the water.
The applicant is back before the Board with the revised plan that was approved
by the Town Board and would like to move forward with site plan approval for
the project.
Mr. Dell stated the project is very similar to what was in
front of the Board for multiple years and up until December, made minor
revisions to the site plan with respect to moving a couple of the buildings
from the western side of the property, in the contested water area, to the eastern
side of the property, which is currently within the bounds of the existing
water district.
Mr. Dell stated the project consist of a 2-story L-shaped
building that can have 37 apartment buildings and/or a mixture of commercial
and retail. Proposed are four 11-unit apartment buildings and one 14-unit
apartment building as well as a small maintenance garage area and several
garage areas that are positioned throughout the facility.
Mr. Dell stated to discuss tonight is phase 1 of the
project; the remainder of the project – apartment buildings as well as the 57
single-family residents, which are all still part of the project plans however,
they cannot be developed at this time, due to the ability to extend water into
that portion of the property.
Mr. Dell stated for this project, will connect to the water
main, located a long NYS Route 50 and will be extending a 3” low pressure force
main sewer that will go up NYS Route 50 and connect into McCrea Hill Road.
Mr. Dell stated he spoke to William Bills with Saratoga Count
Sewer District #1 and will need to meet with them (SCSD#1) in the coming weeks
to discuss any potential improvements that are needed at this time for the pump
station at SSP.
Mr. Dell stated for the overall project, there is a requirement
to upgrade the pump station, which Mr. Katz has agreed to with the SCSD#1
however, will have to work out with the SCSD#1; the details of what’s needed at
this time, these 95 units and whatever potential commercial is needed for sewer
capacity.
Mr. Dell stated storm water will all be managed on site in
accordance as show previously in the project plans. Mr. Dell submitted to Ms.
Serra and Ms. Szarowicz, so they can start the technical review.
Ms. Serra stated there are some buildings shown outside of
the permissible water service area; can you explain what is going to be done
outside of that area.
Mr. Dell stated a garage and maintenance building where Mr.
Katz is looking to store some equipment; mower and plow truck for the facility.
Ms. Serra stated no water will be extended.
Mr. Katz stated he can always put those buildings on a well.
Mr. Chauvin stated if this project were to be advanced from
a concept perspective to articulate on the record as part of a motion, that
none of these structures outside the approvable area, for purposes of extension
of the water shall be serviced by municipal water and any service is to be
provided at this point, must be well only.
Mr. Dell stated we could certainly put that on the plans and
on the LMG sheets; we do spell out exactly what is included with the approval
for phase 1 and building numbers.
Ms. Matias asked if trees shown on plans are there or will
is the applicant proposing to plant trees for screening.
Mr. Dell stated it is an artistic rendering however, we will
keep as many trees as possible and as the project progress the plans will show
trees.
Mr. DiPasquale asked if any of the public benefits changed.
Mr. Dell stated the public benefit did not change as part of
the PUDD however, it is not needed until we do the remainder of the project.
Mr. Dell stated the SCSD#1 was reluctant at first to take
the dry 6” force main; had a meeting with the sewer district and they did agree
to that however, now based upon the flows, we don’t even need a 4” line or a 6”
line. Mr. Dell stated after speak with Mr. Bill (SCSD#1), stated the sewer
district does not want to arbitrarily put in a 4” line right now with the
potential to connect into the new force main in the future; a 3” is needed for
the low pressure force main – is all the SCSD#1 will accept at this time.
Mr. Chauvin stated the public benefit requirement did not
change, but there is a triggering point at which it becomes necessary and we
are not reaching that point based on the portion of the project that it is
proposed in this iteration.
Ms. Serra asked if the roads will be Town or private.
Mr. Dell stated eventually is the goal to have this the
single-family entrance road as well as the main road that comes around
dedicated to the Town; there are several paper streets to the north and south coming off of the Towns’ ROW. The internal
road will be a privately maintained road.
Ms. Serra stated obviously phase 1 road’s will need to be
built to Town specifications; is the plan not to dedicate the roads until the
single-family homes are built; the Town does not want to own a stub road to
nowhere.
Mr. Dell agrees that it’s up-to the Town.
Ms. Serra stated it does not make sense in Phase 1 for the
roads to be turned over to the Town.
Mr. Dell stated the typical town road cross section is shown
on there, but thinks you are right; a note can be put on the plans to state
that it needs to be inspected.
Ms. Serra stated it would be inspected if you had letters to
CT Male, that it was good to go; you would not formally dedicate the road
because it does not make sense for the Town to own the stub road as its
annoying for maintenance.
Ms. Matias asked if the applicant is planning on building
everything simultaneously or focus on the commercial.
Mr. Katz said, “The plan is to start the 2 11-unit buildings
first and once 2022 comes, is going to pull this property out of the Ag
District and work on the other portion of the project.”
Mr. Maher stated hopefully.
Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
Eric Connolly, 84 Lancaster Court stated this PUDD was
approved a while back and looked at as one project – correct. Mr. VanVorst
stated yes. Mr. Connolly stated now it’s being broken up into two different
projects; is there anything that requires the applicant to go back to the
drawing board as far as applying for the PUDD, as Mr. DiPasquale said, coming
up with the public benefit because he knows that Mr. Katz would like to see the
rest of that development done, but that is in question. Mr. Connolly stated in
2022, he can apply to have it taken out of the Ag District, but that is up-to
the Town, Supervisors of the County and is not necessarily a forgone
conclusion, so what you are looking at right there might be the only thing that
gets done, given that the PUDD is distinctly different then what was originally
proposed - is it not proper to start over? Thank you.
Chairman VanVorst adjourned the public hearing at 8:31 p.m.
MOTION: Mr. Maher a motion that the Planning Board provide
conceptual approval for this phase of the Katz PUDD contingent upon
clarification that none of the structures that are outside the water district
may be serviced by municipal water and if they are to have water for any of
those structures that are shown on the concept plan outside of the water
district, but as a part of this application, those structures must only be
serviced by well to the extent that it is available. Mr. DiPasquale stated no
municipal water beyond the district boundaries. Mr.
DiPasquale seconded the motion and all present voted in
favor. CARRIED.
MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr.
Blair seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michelle L Dingman
Planning Board Secretary
No comments:
Post a Comment