News That Matters » Planning Board

SE Planning Board Recap 3/22/10

Jeff Green — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:47:11 +0000

SE Planning Board Recap 3/22/10

Posted by: “Lynne Eckardt” lynne.eckardt@gmail.com

Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:31 am ((PDT))

Hi All,

Even though I still attend almost every Planning Board meeting I haven’t

tackled a recap for quite a while but this one is really too good or bad

(depending on your bent) to pass up.

Chairman LaPerch was in fine form having the patience of a toddler at

a Toys-R-Us clearance. And long time Planning Board member, Dan

Armstrong, had the unmitigated gall to claim he had no idea what the term

‘spot zoning’ means. Really, Dan? Really?

Of course while much has changed since the days of Chairman George Rohrman

much has remained the same. In general the Board has still never met a new

warehouse or old auto/tractor dealer/service center- (oops, make that

‘General Business’) it didn’t like. In fact the complex contortions made to

accommodate Brewster Honda make Houdini look like a piker. More on that

later.

On item 1 (‘Palumbo Sand and Gravel’) Peder Scott appeared to have won his

engineering degree in a raffle and Chairman LaPerch gave him an appropriate

and much needed dressing down. Baroody (scaled back to one lot) is finally

nearing the finish line and an old Allview development (Mazzotta- also Peder

Scott but this time all ducks seemed to be in a row) needs only a driveway

permit to break ground.

I think my favorite part of the meeting was at the end when LaPerch decided

to announce an all new ‘Hall of Shame’ segment. While it did seem a little

desperate I loved this. Anyhow, those applicants who owe fees to the town

were named. Drum roll please: Brewster Honda, Stateline, Southeast Memorial

Park and the Vallejo Kennel applications were among the many told to pay up.

As always the drivel I send electronically is only my tiresome and jaded

take on the planning process in Southeast. Any opinions expressed are mine

alone and reflect no organization to which I belong.

*1) PALUMBO SAND AND GRAVEL, Fields Lane:*

Just when you thought it might be safe to drive down Fields Lane…

Seriously, I would go into my now hackneyed warehouse rant but we all know

how much good *that* does so I’ll save the ink.

What’s most interesting here is the fact that both the Town Engineer and the

DEP had 19 comments *each *regarding this project. Chairman LaPerch was not

amused and, because Peder Scott had the audacity to appear before the PB,

seemed on the verge of a minor stroke. LaPerch told Scott that he was tired

of others doing Scott’s work for him and that all these comments needed to

be addressed before Scott came back to the Board. Scott mumbled something

about an old sheet 6A or B actually getting reviewed but this lamo excuse

fell on deaf ears. Mr. LaPerch then polled the board and all agreed that the

project should not be in front of them now.

The chair then explained to the applicant (Palumbo) that while the town

welcomed his business, the application needed a lot of work. Mr. Palumbo was

very gracious and said that he ‘understood’.

*2) MAZZOTA SUBDIVISION:* *Allview Avenue

*You could almost hear the gigantic sigh of relief for Peder Scott as little

seemed wrong with this subdivision. Of course it’s so old even I don’t

remember it. Apparently the Mazzota’s have kept their permits up to date so

all they need now is a permit from the SE Highway Department for a driveway.

*3) BAROODY WETLANDS PERMIT, Farm To Market Road*

Our long national nightmare is almost over… Seriously, Harry Nichols

represents the Baroody’s and I must say the plat (or whatever it was)

displayed looked like one of those notorious football time fillers: game

play drawings. Ugh. The Board mentioned that the map was confusing as did

wetlands’ inspector Stephen Coleman. Still, this is now down to one lot but

has much in the way of mitigation vis-a-vis rain gardens and native wetlands

plantings so* finally* this project is ready for approval.

*4) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE:*

Wow. How do some of these these guys do sit there with a straight face?

Several Oscars here would be well deserved.

Basically, this was almost all log rolling to ensure that Brewster Honda

gets what they want. Gosh, that was harsh- maybe too harsh. Perhaps it’s

genuinely what most Planning Board members feel is right. And it’s fine to

agree with Brewster Honda’s proposal. However, what isn’t fine is creating

new zoning to accommodate their plans. Because that, my dear Mr. Armstrong,

is what ‘spot zoning’ is all about.

For example, it’s been pointed out (more than a few times) that in our

general code no new auto servicing centers can be within 1000 feet of any

other auto servicing center. Ironically Dan Armstrong made a point of

mentioning that this was the perfect spot for Brewster Honda because

(attention all you logic fans out there) they’re only 700 feet from the

nearest servicing center!

Now, you might ask why then our general town code will be ignored. Silly

question… because now Brewster Honda will now fall under the definition of

‘General Business’! Get it? Once you define what is clearly going to be an

automotive service center as a ‘General Business’ then it gets to go

anywhere there’s an NB zone. So what isn’t defined as ‘General Business’?

Well my best guess would be anything that isn’t proposed for a Planning

Board or Town Board member’s backyard.

By the way, if this seems reminiscent of Westchester Tractor you’d be

correct. Although at least Westchester Tractor had the brass b*lls to swear

up and down that they (wink, wink) would be doing absolutely no servicing on

site. Of course all these years later Westchester Tractor is back with

outside storage violations that they also swore would never, ever, ever

happen.

Ah, but I digress. Suffice it to say that not all members of the Planning

Board are okay with Brewster Honda. There were some questions asked and

there hasn’t been a vote… yet.

There will also be another Public Hearing (at the Town Board level) and I

would strongly urge everyone to speak up on this proposed Comprehensive Plan

change. Because, after all, if you’re anywhere near a commercial area and

there’s a big enough business that wants to expand nearby… well, this

could happen to you.

Whew. That’s it from my desk. As always please feel free to e-mail me with

any questions or comments that you might have.

With Best Regards,

Lynne Eckardt

Putnam Valley Planning Board

dawnpowell — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:58:16 +0000

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.

Board’s Denial of Access Road Needed for Senior Housing Development on Abutting Parcel Upheld

Jeff Green — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:01:37 +0000

Board’s Denial of Access Road Needed for Senior Housing Development on Abutting Parcel Upheld

Petitioner, BBJ Associates, LLC, owns land that straddles the municipal border between the Towns of Kent and Carmel. It plans to build a multi-family senior citizens’ development on a portion of its land located in the Town of Carmel. To that end, it sought to build an access road running through both towns which would connect the development to State Route 52. This road would run through property located Kent which is zoned for commercial and single-family residential use. In October 2006, the Town of Kent Building Inspector issued a letter to the Town of Kent Planning Board noting that “the entranceway is an accessory use to a principal use and we do not have a principal use.” The Planning Board would not continue site plan review until the issue was resolved. In November 2006, petitioner applied to the Zoning Board for an interpretation of the October letter. Petitioner argued that the access road was not an “accessory use” but rather an “infrastructure improvement” pursuant to Town of Kent Zoning Code former §77-6(F). While the Zoning Board agreed with petitioner that the proposed road was an infrastructure improvement, it ultimately concluded that since the Town road would be constructed in the Town of Kent zoned for commercial use and for single-family residential use, it was not a permitted use.

Petitioners challenged the Board’s decision that the access road was not a permitted use and the trial court determined that the Board acted in bad faith by raising objections after years of its environmental review of the project without objection. The Appellate Court, however, agreed with the Zoning Board’s conclusion that the Town could prohibit the proposed road over the property that was zoned for commercial and single family use when the road was intended to serve a multi-family use on an abutting parcel. Further, the Court noted that public ways include mapped streets which have not been improved, however, since the proposed road is not a mapped street, the court concluded that it is not a public way and the Board therefore had the right to regulate the use of the land pursuant to its zoning regulations.

BBJ Assocs., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 2009 WL 1796547 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 6/23/2009).

The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_05332.htm

Putnam Valley Planning Board – April 20

dawnpowell — Sat, 09 May 2009 20:37:09 +0000

Planning Board
Putnam Valley, April 20, 2009

I am one Planning Board meeting behind, but the April 20 meeting was noteworthy enough to go back to it.

There is a lot of noise on the tape, and in the meeting room. Would the Town Board please resolve this problem?

For me, there were three major issues at this meeting – 1) the interaction of this board with the public, 2) making decisions without having all the documentation in hand, and 3) the ever popular White Rock Road.

1)There were a couple of public hearings, and some members of the public trying to understand the projects. On most projects, the interested parties are not notified, and the public hearings
are not held until after the board has gone through its full process, and has already made its determination, even though they have not made their formal decisions. The consultants say that their comments have been addressed, but do not specify what their concerns were. I would like to see earlier notification to neighbors. I also think there should be a format for presenting projects to the public that really informs them. Chairman Maskiell of the Zoning Board of Appeals goes through introductions and instructions at every public hearing. It is tedious to those of us who regularly follow the meetings, but most people do not, and so everyone should be informed every time.
2)Then, there was the application for a major grading permit on the very wet lot on West Shore Drive. The Planning Board approved the resolution before having the plan. I’ve also seen the Town Board approve things before they have all the information. I’m not a fan of that method. I think they should have the necessary paperwork in place before approval.
3)And White Rock Road, a favorite. This was on the next PB agenda too. This discussion is worth viewing. The PB is looking to exert some needed control on this project, but the legal miasma probably precludes that.
This project has been going on for what seems like forever. Imagine what it is like for those living there. The current contractor (there have been a few) was unable to meet the agreed upon schedule, and the requirements of the controlling resolution. The project was declared in default, and the bond was taken by the Town Board. At that point it was the Town Board’s responsibility to finish the road, and restore the wetlands. (It would be editorializing for me to express my fear of the Town Board in the contractor role.)
It was stated that the Town Board authorized the contractor to continue the work, but I don’t recall a vote to that effect. I do remember the Town Board releasing part of that bond, even though there is no wetlands mitigation plan in place.
The deadline for that plan is May 15, and the Planning Board wanted it to be met. The Chair of the PB was expressing dismay that the governing resolution was voided with the default, and the project was left wide open with no oversight. His concerns seem right to me.
“We’re making this up as we go along.” – Yeah, we can tell.
The applicant wants Certificates of Occupancy for two houses, but doesn’t seem to understand that he has defaulted, and has no right at all to continue.
This project was on the May 4 agenda for an extension, but if the wetlands mitigation is not done in time, the appropriate planting cannot be done this spring.
This is a mess.
The wetlands inspector for the contractor is Steve Coleman. The attorney for the applicant is Zarin and Steinmetz.
Stay tuned…..

Putnam Valley Planning Board – 3/23/09

dawnpowell — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:33:24 +0000

Planning Board
March 23, 2009
I got to the backroom at 5:40. The illegal meeting was already in progress, with planner, attorney, clerk, and a little later, the wetlands inspector. They were talking about a neg dec when I went in. Mr. Mike Raimondi announced in the backroom, that Adorno would be off the agenda and that their escrow balance was negative. They briefly discussed the “judgment” against Kaspar. It is my understanding that it was a consent order (agreed to by both sides). They discussed their ability to make reasonable requirements for farm applications – Adorno and Kaspar have been dealt with as farm operations.
Mr. Raimondi also moved #7 to #3 on the agenda. Mr. Staudohar, engineer for #1, #2, and #7 requested it in the backroom. Can you move a review into the midst of public hearings?
And they added a minor revision for Gunther at the end of the agenda.
Still in the backroom, they discussed a memo that Councilwoman Whetsel had circulated requesting their attendance at next Wednesday’s meeting (April 1) about the Oregon Corners plan. They discussed the Padavano house built on the steam, and the applicant’s request for a CO before planting in the buffer is done. The bond is to ensure the survival of the plants. There was a request for release of the bond. This was not on the agenda.
At 6:12, Mr. Raimondi announced that he was opening the meeting. He announced the agenda changes. No vote.
First up was a public hearing on the Woods End Road subdivision. It was a seemingly routine change in the resolution to correct the bond amount. However, there was an attorney present from one of the abutting property owners who has not been notified of any of the other proceedings on this application. He just found out with this notice that he is being asked to accept a 25 foot easement on his property for the road. While there is no plan to widen the road at this juncture, the easement clearly allows widening at a future date. Ask the residents on Peekskill Hollow Road what they are facing. Woods End Road is an overly long dead end road (for a subdivision), and leads to very environmentally sensitive land. We have been told it is a highway of use, even though it is clearly owned by the homeowners, and we have been told that the town should accept it for dedication. Then they are supposed to accept the new extension for the subdivision. The neighbor’s objection to an easement was an interesting development.
The board took their expected executive session for personnel matters and pending litigation. Specifics of both should be announced in public. Despite that lapse, I would guess that Raimondo was the litigation discussed, and the ad hoc position was the personnel matter discussed. It will be April momentarily, and the board is still without an ad hoc. I volunteered back in January. It is the Town Board which chooses the member. Pick me, pick me! Also, the clerk was in the private session. Doesn’t that mean that minutes are required? It does with the Town Board.
The YMCA was on the agenda. They were also on the Zoning Board agenda for no less than 14 variances, and this is just the first stage. They are pushing this through because they want to do construction in May. They are expecting a neg dec on April 6, and would like a quick ZBA decision. This is not a bad application. It is updating of a facility that is an asset to the town. However, it is a bad process, and it should have been done right. The camp is on the Peekskill Hollow Creek. Phase 1 of the project was segmented from the environmental review so that this part of the project could be pushed through quickly. So instead of considering all phases of the project, and handling the environmental review properly, we are supposed to pretend that the other phases might not happen. However, at the ZBA meeting, the camp’s owner said under oath, that they are absolutely doing Phases II, III, and IV. This means that the project should be considered as a whole, and the impacts should be dealt with in totality. Abandoned buildings should not be retained for impervious surface trade-offs. That would not happen if the review was proceeding properly. That said, is there any way to use a permeable surface for the parking lot?
I am wondering about the lack of environmental review from the ZBA. They are supposed to do their own SEQRA analysis or else a coordinated review with the PB. That has meant no review, or acquiescence to the PB review. It doesn’t seem like the way to proceed.
At the end of the meeting, there was a discussion about a minor revision request for the Gunther property of artesian well note. They were excavating, and hit an artesian well, and ended up with sediment flowing freely into Lake Oscawana. Some have commented that this should not have been a surprise. There was been a couple of attempts to clear away the environmental mishap with a minor field revision. This revision is to raise the house by 1 foot so that all the water in the basement does not go into the house. The Planning Board will make a threshold determination as to whether or not this is a minor change, but the law does not require that part of the process. This applicant has been through a lot, and I sympathize, but it doesn’t really seem like the place to build a house.
Those were the major topics, and they will do this again on Monday night April 6, 2009. Come early for the illegal meeting. Just proceed to the back room on the right.
HYH, up on Pudding Street, is on the agenda. That ought to get your attention. They need to move forward now, while we still don’t have a Comprehensive Plan conformed zoning code.
DP