These meetings are very hard to hear above the background noise. Hope springing eternal, I request that the new Town Board do something about it.
The Cemetery
This was very interesting. The cemetery on Mill St. went before the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, and the Planning Board again. The plan was to build a large office building on the Rose Hills side of Mill St., to put a scattering garden in the wetlands, and to add 1500 gravesites. There was a mausoleum in the plan initially, but that was dropped early on.
Mr. Zutt recused himself from this application because they were clients, but he sat in on all discussions. Bob Lusardi represented the Town, but was not present for this meeting.
The applicants went before the ZBA for variances. The size of the building is 50 X 68. The code allows 50 feet. The distance between buildings is supposed to be 100 feet. This is 7. The open space is already below what the code allows and it is being reduced further. And the cemetery is a non-conforming use (not permitted in our code), and it is being expanded.
When Mr. Lusardi was talking to the ZBA, it seemed that the case law was clear. If there have been variances and lawsuits, and expansion of the non-conforming use has not been broached, then the expansion is prohibited. Expansion had not been raised in other applications.
I have not seen the ZBA decision. I have only heard it reported. The variance for the size of the building was granted. As I recall, the new site has already been disturbed and the buildings on the King David side will be removed, and that site mitigated. What the scattering garden looks like and how it impacts the environment will depend on how it is done. Aside from ash volume, we already know that the ash is environmentally inert.
The major issues with the current project are the drawing of 900 gallons per day from the stream and the segmentation of the environmentalreview. Before allowing a new structure, wouldn’t the Planning Board require a well? Maybe they will with the segmented future project, Phases II, III, and IV. This is the new way of avoiding a full environmental review, just like the camp did. And how is the cemetery expansion functionally unrelated to the updating and expansion of the office building. I believe that this method of review will catch up with them, and will not be allowed at some point.
The other change that has occurred is that, now, expansion has been discussed.
“For us not to expect that a cemetery wouldn’t be expanded is not realistic.” – Chair.
Is that the legal threshold?
Cemeteries release toxicity into our groundwater, while contributing nothing to our tax base.
There are green alternatives, but no one has discussed them. Perhaps if the cemetery became an eco-cemetery now, and restored all the lawned area to natural beauty, we could tolerate their lack of contribution to our town taxes, while their business is thriving.
Two house on Birch Hill Road – there were members of the public present for the public hearing. The EAF is two years old. Shouldn’t that have been updated before the neg dec was passed?
Lee Ave. – an accessory structure on a separate parcel. The lakes associations and the neighbors have come out to express their objections. I can see allowing a walkway for access, but one of the neighbors talked about erosion caused by raised walkways. One neighbor said she had never received notification. As always, I believe that the neighbors need to be brought into the process sooner. The severe pruning and the removal of 7 trees from the parcel prior to this application are a major source of controversy. There was speechifying about taking photos and calling the Code Enforcement Officer.
….but I remember this call coming into Town Hall when I was working there. The neighbors did call when he was cutting the trees on the lot. I gave the information to Irv (Sevelowitz), and either he or JohnAllen went out. It should be in the building department record.
And the repeated remarks about strict laws on the assemblywoman’s lake, please ask for her assistance with stricter state laws.
A response to another speechifying remark that new homes are not polluting the lake, and that old septics are the problem. New homes create more impermeable surface (as does the deck, shed and walkway, so they do damage the lake, especially in the buffer. The science indicates that buffers need to be increased. And Lake Oscawana’s associations (and Lake Peekskill’s Civic Association for their lake) are trying to do something about older septics. New construction and old septics are not mutually exclusive concerns, and both issues have been raised repeatedly in lake quality reports.
Putnam Café – Wasn’t Sisyphus the blog comment? Mostly old remarks – the telephone pole, the internal grease trap.
But, there is severe erosion around the pipe, and I am wondering why the only moment to address that is a review of the application. Then, there is the conversation area. You would think that is important, since they are next to a stream. No one knows what it means, what the plan is. And the landscape buffer – what? Where?
There is no security bond for the sewer connection. Gutter changes haven’t been cleared with Putnam County.
You have to admire persistence.
Then, there was open development on Kramer’s Pond Road. They cannot combine the driveway and they need a variance.
The minor revision explanation is worth seeing. Read the statute. This whole discussion doesn’t jive with the law. One James Drive, after the applicant cleared the lot, the elevation of the house was higher than he thought. Huh? They all agreed. Watch it. The applicant is lowering the elevation, and moving the driveway. The elevation change is an improvement, but it is not minor.
Putnam Valley Planning Board
Back to the Future
July 25, 2009 Planning Board Meeting
These meetings are very hard to hear above the background noise. Hope springing eternal, I request that the new Town Board do something about it.
The Cemetery
This was very interesting. The cemetery on Mill St. went before the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, and the Planning Board again. The plan was to build a large office building on the Rose Hills side of Mill St., to put a scattering garden in the wetlands, and to add 1500 gravesites. There was a mausoleum in the plan initially, but that was dropped early on.
Mr. Zutt recused himself from this application because they were clients, but he sat in on all discussions. Bob Lusardi represented the Town, but was not present for this meeting.
The applicants went before the ZBA for variances. The size of the building is 50 X 68. The code allows 50 feet. The distance between buildings is supposed to be 100 feet. This is 7. The open space is already below what the code allows and it is being reduced further. And the cemetery is a non-conforming use (not permitted in our code), and it is being expanded.
When Mr. Lusardi was talking to the ZBA, it seemed that the case law was clear. If there have been variances and lawsuits, and expansion of the non-conforming use has not been broached, then the expansion is prohibited. Expansion had not been raised in other applications.
I have not seen the ZBA decision. I have only heard it reported. The variance for the size of the building was granted. As I recall, the new site has already been disturbed and the buildings on the King David side will be removed, and that site mitigated. What the scattering garden looks like and how it impacts the environment will depend on how it is done. Aside from ash volume, we already know that the ash is environmentally inert.
The major issues with the current project are the drawing of 900 gallons per day from the stream and the segmentation of the environmental review. Before allowing a new structure, wouldn’t the Planning Board require a well? Maybe they will with the segmented future project, Phases II, III, and IV. This is the new way of avoiding a full environmental review, just like the camp did. And how is the cemetery expansion functionally unrelated to the updating and expansion of the office building. I believe that this method of review will catch up with them, and will not be allowed at some point.
The other change that has occurred is that, now, expansion has been discussed.
“For us not to expect that a cemetery wouldn’t be expanded is not realistic.” – Chair.
Is that the legal threshold?
Cemeteries release toxicity into our groundwater, while contributing nothing to our tax base.
There are green alternatives, but no one has discussed them. Perhaps if the cemetery became an eco-cemetery now, and restored all the lawned area to natural beauty, we could tolerate their lack of contribution to our town taxes, while their business is thriving.
Two house on Birch Hill Road – there were members of the public present for the public hearing. The EAF is two years old. Shouldn’t that have been updated before the neg dec was passed?
Lee Ave. – an accessory structure on a separate parcel. The lakes associations and the neighbors have come out to express their objections. I can see allowing a walkway for access, but one of the neighbors talked about erosion caused by raised walkways. One neighbor said she had never received notification. As always, I believe that the neighbors need to be brought into the process sooner. The severe pruning and the removal of 7 trees from the parcel prior to this application are a major source of controversy. There was speechifying about taking photos and calling the Code Enforcement Officer.
….but I remember this call coming into Town Hall when I was working there. The neighbors did call when he was cutting the trees on the lot. I gave the information to Irv (Sevelowitz), and either he or JohnAllen went out. It should be in the building department record.
And the repeated remarks about strict laws on the assemblywoman’s lake, please ask for her assistance with stricter state laws.
A response to another speechifying remark that new homes are not polluting the lake, and that old septics are the problem. New homes create more impermeable surface (as does the deck, shed and walkway, so they do damage the lake, especially in the buffer. The science indicates that buffers need to be increased. And Lake Oscawana’s associations (and Lake Peekskill’s Civic Association for their lake) are trying to do something about older septics. New construction and old septics are not mutually exclusive concerns, and both issues have been raised repeatedly in lake quality reports.
Putnam Café – Wasn’t Sisyphus the blog comment? Mostly old remarks – the telephone pole, the internal grease trap.
But, there is severe erosion around the pipe, and I am wondering why the only moment to address that is a review of the application. Then, there is the conversation area. You would think that is important, since they are next to a stream. No one knows what it means, what the plan is. And the landscape buffer – what? Where?
There is no security bond for the sewer connection. Gutter changes haven’t been cleared with Putnam County.
You have to admire persistence.
Then, there was open development on Kramer’s Pond Road. They cannot combine the driveway and they need a variance.
The minor revision explanation is worth seeing. Read the statute. This whole discussion doesn’t jive with the law. One James Drive, after the applicant cleared the lot, the elevation of the house was higher than he thought. Huh? They all agreed. Watch it. The applicant is lowering the elevation, and moving the driveway. The elevation change is an improvement, but it is not minor.
It was good to see public participation.
DP
Popularity: 1% [?]