Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening. This is the planning board meeting of April 21 agenda here under we have a couple of agenda changes. Uh first um the first item which is was the uh proposed amendment to the resolution of approval for Chapel Park Crossing the Toll Brothers East Village. Uh that's been withdrawn. Uh they're just going to work with staff and uh they've withdrawn their application to amend the resolution. We also had an informal appearance scheduled for tonight for for

Okay. at 121 Pines Bridge, but they've pulled the application. Not quite ready yet, I guess, and uh it'll be resubmitting. In any event, that leaves uh our first and only item for this evening. That's the Casola 14 Hollow Ridge Road. Uh this is an application for a site development plan. Um um steep slopes permit tree removal permit application for storm water and erosion and sedimentation control for construction of new residence at 14 Hollywood road I guess formerly known as lot 8A hill if you want to just open the meeting. Oh motion to open the meeting second.

All in favor I thank you.

Now we can start. Good evening. Uh Jerry Tortoella of Hawkerman Tortoella and Wexeen of White Plains and we're council for the applicant. With me this evening in the room is Joe Treli from KSCJ Consulting is our civil engineering firm. Uh and with us uh by Zoom are Alicia Cuchia who's a project manager with Jgroup Design that the architects who've worked on the project and you've seen their floor plans and elevations and Richard Laughafler III registered landscape architect. He's up there in the upper leftand corner. Um who's here to answer any questions that you might have about that. Uh this is lot 8A. There was a slight modification from lot 8 when it was originally approved. Um of the of the hollowidge subdivision a fairveo subdivision. Um and not surprisingly because I've handled some of these applications before this board. We're here this evening for site plan approval because it's required as part of the approval resolution for fairio. Uh but we also are exceeding slightly the building coverage and um more extensively but we think not too extensively the development coverage on the site. We also need storm water permit approval, a steep slope permit for a minor amount of steep slopes disturbance, an amended tree removal permit and a wetlands permit. and the amended tree removal permit and the um steep slopes permit are related to areas in which we go beyond the originally approved clearing and grading limit lines for reasons that Joe will explain to you shortly. Uh so we need to get those approvals because there's some disturbance in those areas that obviously because they're outside of the original clearing and grading limit lines was not contemplated when Farravecio subdivision was approved. And the wetlands permit is because subsequent to the approval of Farravecio subdivision the environmental protection overlay district regulations were

enacted creating the 150 foot setback from wetlands uh that are offsite of the property. So um we are in a situation now where we have some disturbance for our access point and one of our storm water management devices that's in the regulated wetland buffer and some some grading that goes along with that and retaining walls. So with that I'd like to turn the floor over to Joe and let him describe to you what our proposal is and then we can talk about any of the specifics and some of the comments that were uh raised in the various memos that we have received. Good evening everybody. Joe tali. Uh let me share my screen here.

Sure. And you can take that off. You can hold this. Okay. all that down there. Sorry. Good evening. Do this again. Jolly. All right. Um, so as Jerry mentioned, this is this on? It's on.

Okay. Uh, lot 8A of the Saveio subdivision, which is this lot here on the municipal boundary with common with North Castle to the south. The this is a section of the subdivision IP at the time. You go. I'm sorry. Having one of those days impressing anybody yet with my technical uh savvy here?

You're better than me. All right, I'm going to stop sharing for a second and reshare. Apologies everybody. I can tell you on this U subdivision and just about I think where this lot is and the two roads we're going to meet for the two towns the original drawings that were done we were sitting here a gasast when the drawings came to us the roads didn't match they didn't meet the miscalculations okay so you're not really having a bad eye compared to that engineer's bad eye

okay we'll try again here so that that is the uh lot as was approved as part of the subdivision. Uh and you'll see in a minute that the the house location is generally consistent with the subdivision. Uh we did rotate it uh to more line with uh be parallel to Hollow Ridge Road. The driveway length uh our proposed plan is about 30 ft longer than what's was approved with the subdivision. Uh this configuration had a garage under at the time. Uh just based on the the grading and the floor elevations noted, it appears that it was a garage under for that home. Uh certainly not common to this neighborhood. Septic system shown there. We've we've uh designed a system in that same general location. What this plan does not show or include are any amenities typical to these homes, pools, patios, and the like. Uh there there's really limited access for any vehicles at the at the house when you you know as you approach the house site. Um and there's no provisions shown here for for stormwater mitigation. U so have to stop sharing and jump on the other screen for a second. Okay. Okay, there you go. Here we are. So, our site u about 2.2 acres in size. It topography generally slopes from south to north u draining towards the northern properties. There is a ridge that runs generally down the center of the site with u the western or eastern portion of the site rather draining towards the Croin

reservoir basin New York City DEC wershed. The western portion of the site drains to the Bayern River not in the wershed. You'll see at the rear there is an access drive that serves 16 Hollow Ridge Road. It's about 616 square ft in coverage on the property. In along the frontage, there is a water main easement as well as a sighteline easement as part of the subdivision. Um there was a what looks to have been a designated area for a curb cut that aligns with that sighteline easement. We've maintained that position u almost exactly as what was shown in the IP. There is on the southern along the southern boundary there's a 20 foot f 25 foot wide conservation and access easement currently undeveloped and um you'll see in magenta is the clearing and grading limit line that was approved as part of the subdivision. You'll see it later uh in a little bit. We've expanded it in some areas, but we've also minimized or reduced disturbance in others with a net increase of only 900 or so square feet. So, we tried to respect that as best we could given the the added improvements that are required. Uh the the wetland that is the uh reason for our permit is on the east side of Hollow Ridge Road on the neighboring property. That buffer does extend onto our site. the the plan that you the buffer shown on this does illustrate the 150 foot expanded buffer because of the uh overlay protection area. Um within that I'll get to in a minute there's minimal um coverage relating to the paved apron of the driveway uh and retaining walls are necessary. Obviously

the the bulk of the temper's coverage is the road itself. What's that? Jennifer, please mute yourself. Oh, is it Jennifer? Yeah. Doing dishes earlier. Okay. Sorry.

No problem. So, we had submitted a plan um very different from what you have before you tonight. And if need be, I can walk you through that. uh building coverage was a lot larger than what you see. Lot development coverage was greater than what you see before you tonight. We had submitted it. Um we did meet with staff after that submission. Had a very productive conversation and you know understood the the mission at hand was to you know reduce things get closer to compliance with the the subdivision. Uh the house footprint that you see is approximately 34 let's see it is 3480 square ft where 3415 is was uh permitted by the resolution and we as I'll show you some alternatives we went through it and that that overage is directly related to the breezeway connection between the garage in the house. Uh the lot coverage, the resolution permitted 7647 square ft. This plan before you is just over 11,000. And with all the iterations that we've gone through, the the one prevailing reasoning for the overage has always been the driveway. Um if you're familiar with the site, I'm sure you'll do a sitewalk at some point soon. The property drops from the road as you enter the site and then climbs fairly um significantly to the the central portion of the site where the house sits. The um we needed that length of drive simply to get a a driveway that complied with the ordinance. Frankly, uh that was one and the second was in order to make the septic system work by gravity, we needed to elevate that house to a certain elevation. So that that somewhat fixed the elevation and location of the house. getting to it and providing the the access and maneuverability for vehicles

is what led to the the longer uh driveway. Uh there is a patio and pool with the house proposed with the house. Obviously that contributes to it as well. Uh but the the overarching increase is directly related to the driveway for the most part. And this driveway that we're proposing is a stone chip driveway, so not an asphalt uh surface. We're trying to respect as best we can the the various environmental constraints and and regulations. Um when you look at this in plan view, you could see that it um largely um respects the clearing and grading limit line. When we get into some of the grading required to make this work, we do go beyond it in certain areas. Um and we do go beyond it to get this second storm water system uh on the site as required by not only your code but the state stormwater design magnet. So the site itself um we've got a series of tiered retaining walls along the driveway to get up to the the courtyard area. Those are no higher than 4 foot. Uh there's two tiers on the north side of the drive. There's one retaining wall for the most part on the south side. We do have a tiered system in front of the courtyard. The um as I said, the the house is situated so that we can get a gravity system for the septic. We did do um testing with the health department. We actually had an approval on the septic system on the fire house design. We last month we resubmitted this plan with and revised floor plans to the health department for reapproval. There's been no change to the bedroom count. The septic system hasn't changed. One did. It's just a matter of a new house and and floor plan. So, we expect that approval rather shortly. There are two storm water systems, one at the rear, one in the front of the property. The system in the

front yard collects all the runoff from the driveway and the walk to the front of the house. the entirety of the building, the house, the patio, all that runoff is collected and conveyed to the system in the rear. Both of those systems are designed as infiltration systems. Both systems, or neither system, I should say, have discharge through the 100-year storm event. So, anything that gets collected from the impervious services is diverted to these systems and infiltrated into the ground. There is, as was noted in in Jeff's memo, a very slight increase to the system in the rear for the one-year storm. It's one 100th of a CFS, so almost a roundoff error, if you will. Uh, and there was a slight increase in the volume of runoff to the rear, but that's directly related to the fact that the grading required to make the house work, some of what was draining to the front yard and the street is now draining towards the rear of the property. But anything from an impervious surface is being collected and infiltrated into the ground. Um, neglected to mention in reviewing the existing condition plan, there are regulated steep slopes on the property and the the only slopes are the shaded areas in the in the rear. Those are 15 to 25% grade. Uh overall, let's see, we have 675 square ft of disturbance in that area. There is approximately I believe it's it's 14,000 square ft in total of regulated slopes. So disturbing a very small portion of regulated slopes and that's only to be able to make the connection the storm connection from the house and patio to the infiltration system.

Will the septic system be basically in that area that you have um currently some sort of you know vegetative debris that's going to be cleared and that's where the Okay. Right. What's the elevation of that area? I'm intrigued this this issue that you've mentioned that the house has to be at a certain level uh to make the septic work. Obviously, you can pump it, but it's always preferred to have a gravity system if you can. So, what what's the difference? It looks like the house is going to be around 650 or so,

right? The first floor is approximately 663. The lower level would be 652 plus or minus. And the um the finish grade at the septic system area is 6 uh 650 about 650. So 650 to 652. So very uh actually that 650 contour you can see goes right through the center of the septic field. So very I just ask a clarifying question. Sure. Um you said this is the gravity fee of the house. Is that the gravity feed of the first floor or is that the gravity feed something for the basement? For the basement.

Okay. So, I just want to point that out. You know, many people pump up in their basement to, you know, to to a, you know, to a you'll have some kind of an up flush. You have an pump for the for the basement elevation just to the lower loads down there. Um, you could theoretically lower the home and gravity feed the entire first and second floor of the house and you have to have a massing pump for the basement. We could do that. We didn't look at that. But if you I just want to make sure I'm understanding, you know, the gravity isn't the gravity is for the basement. Exactly. Okay.

It is a finished basement that is included in the lot the building coverage calculations. Uh but if we were to lower, we certainly could lower the house if we needed to. Um but in doing so, if you look on the south side of the house, the the property continues to climb south.

So you end up with a condition where that side of the house would be lower, then you need more retaining walls, grading expands, footprints expand. Uh so it it was we're trying to we were trying to do a balancing act in every every direction we pushed. As you said, we went through a number of iterations. We had a garage under situation uh which wasn't desirable, but we looked at it anyway. Um we we spent a lot of time and effort trying to find the kind of the sweet spot for this. I think we've landed on it. I'm sure there'll be some some comment and question, but u you know, every time we try and push and pull in one direction, something else kind of went arise. So, uh but yes, absolutely correct. If if need be, we could pump the basement. Uh the the expansion area should we ever need it is in the southeast corner of the property. So if if that time ever did come, it would have to be upon the system

for the entire house. Yeah. One of one of the things I I looked at cons wanted to ask about was uh we understand I mean a lot as you've mentioned um this coverage issue and it's really being driven by the driveway and um you you got grade issues you know I guess you're just about at 14 or 16 in some places right the driveway we're at 13% is 13 so it's so everything is close just exactly

but I'm wondering is Um, is there any way that you can come in here and then, you know, come in with the grade, um, and basically use the same location of the house, etc., and avoid that longer drive because there's a lot of cut and fill of the drive. You got these retaining walls on both sides of the driveway. Um, and could the house still function just as as as as well as uh the applicant would like, but coming in with a grade as opposed to working against a grade coming up from albeit where it was originally proposed. Um, and you know, that might help us that or andor coupled with perhaps uh lowering the house maybe 5T or so. And that would help again with the elevation, how far you have to come up and maybe some of the cut and fill on the sides and the walls, you know, that it's and maybe even the storm water issue as well help you on that. Um, I'm not saying this this plan is, you know, you got obviously constraints and uh it's it's a nice neighborhood and you guys want to do a great job for your your applicant uh your your client, but I'm just wondering if there are some alternatives that would help us in coming in with the grade as opposed to fighting the grade. I understand that there's still a slope when you have to level the driveway etc. But I think the that works, but I think the um cut and fill and the disturbance um in some of the constraints that you have with your driveway, you might be able to avoid and still have, you know, the same parking area up there, etc. Uh and perhaps, you know, you mentioned that you're going to use the stone gravel. you know, those steep slopes, that's stone and gravel becomes a real maintenance problem because that stuff is going to constantly get washed down as opposed to perhaps working with the grade and using the same sort of finish. Um, it might might be less of a maintenance burden to the applicant.

Are you thinking coming up the southern property line? Generally, well, uh, coming in straight in through here. So you're you're these grades all go up the hill, but if you work here with the grade just coming straight off of Again, that's a neighboring residential property to the south where where? No, no. Before this uh this area here is is I may not be hitting the right corner. This is your property line here. That's the rear property line. Yeah. Uh coming in off of um so sorry, Hollowidge Road is to the right is page right. Oh, up here. Yes. Okay. So, there's a neighboring property. That's a neighboring property. Okay. So, the road goes up like like this.

Correct. Okay. Sorry. And then we have that 25 foot easement along that property line. I saw that. Yeah. Yeah. Never mind. No, you can't come across.

We're good. We're not that good. But to your point, we did we did look at we may have uh we didn't we we initially I don't have it on the plan but we did look at trying to view that and because the high point of that property of this property is at these well here excuse me just go back you know there's that transformer etc you know where the floor of your property you you hollowidge there um and again it's the same sort of situation I'm not quite sure the cut might be and again you have to work around that transformer and the boxes etc. um and water hydro is the best of things there utilities. So it maybe doesn't work at all. But um in terms of mitigating or avoiding some of those difficulties that we have on the other side of the slope, it might very well be that what you've got is the absolute best way. But I'm just wondering if you've looked at that. Um, and and I'm not suggesting that you have to look at that in a big deep study, but I just wonder is a at a 40,000 ft level if that something that might work and could it help us in terms of u what we're seeing on the other side through the driveway. What what we did we did look at it u as I said I don't have it in plan but coming in and coming up that left side or south side of the house uh but you could see there's a relatively tight band of of topography in here uh that rising up to a high the high point of the property is right about here

right

right so um using the drive on the the right side of the house approaching the house works in our favor because the you're not cutting into this this hillside side. Um, and as I said earlier, it does allow us to sit the house in a such a way that we don't the south side of the house is not sitting at a such a low elevation that the that this slope here needs to start getting uh cut adjusted. We would need retaining wall so that we wouldn't be grading into the 25 ft easement. I do have let's see could show you some of the alternates just to give you a sense of this is what was initially submitted u obviously much larger footprint much more expansive driveway uh there was a courtyard in front of the house it circulated around the the uh this is the this was the proposed drive so the the access continued around the back to access the garage from the southside courtyard in the front um lot of coverage issues here. We were well beyond the disturbance limits uh and storm systems you could see were maybe three times if not four times larger than what we have now. So the plan we have we were able to to tighten all that up, consolidate all that. Some of the other options we looked at um was something similar to what you were just describing, but having the sweep go to the north as opposed to the south. We just it just gets to be too short of a run for us to make that grade work and the the driveway gets too steep. Um this had a this is similar to the layout the footprint of the house that we have now. The difference obviously is the driveway configuration,

right? So looking at this, I guess the the question I had is whether or not the drive could go in this direction. It would be much much shorter obviously and um and everything else the same. Um you might have to spin the drive the the garage around a little bit or something, but my thinking is it's much shorter there and that yes, you're going to have some cut there. going to have to cut into that that sidehill grade. But I I was just wondering on balance if that would still be um a lot less intrusive.

Pull the um site plan back up. Our current plan. I just want to go get everybody oriented here. There is a residence in that in that area. Um sorry, just one second. Come on. Okay. So, as you can see, Hollow Ridge as it gets into North Castle takes a pretty severe turn to the south and and west. And the area that you were describing it coming in, our house is situated here. Right now, our driveway is proposed to come in

this area here up to the house site. You know, exiting this way, we don't have any frontage here. This this residential lot extends to this corner and up along Hollow Ridge and, you know, back this way.

Yeah, I guess my point would be right in this area here where you're still on Hollow Ridge and you're not in the other neighbor's place. But, I mean, you know, to this point, you know, your driveway's down here. It's right next to this residence. So again, it's a residential development, so you have driveway cuts and you know, it's going to be close to some house or not so close to another. Uh I I just think the if you could look at and see what the difference might be and cut and fill trees and slopes, it might be a better solution for us. And obviously, it'll take care of your coverage, you know, the coverage concern. And and again, I don't think the coverage concern is necessarily fatal. Um you know, um the reason the reason we did this with applicants and on these IPs was we and we beg them to really give us realistic views of what the homes and the improvements might look like because we were looking at this as a complete site. And our our position was we we can't come in with these little 1100 foot homes, little you know, you can make believe it's a ranch that you're going to put in there in this day and age and it's not going to work. And then uh as far as we're concerned, our our study of the cumulative impacts of this of the development is skewed. So that's why we always looked at it that way. So when we start seeing these wide variances, it starts to have an impact on the entire uh area. And I'm not saying that in your case. I I mean again Jerry's put together a very very very good uh letter just short of compelling um that is really you know very helpful explaining some of the problems and issues that you guys have and uh I get it and uh and can't disagree with a lot of what's in the letter but again working with that uh that's that's at least my concern uh because I was around still doing the ferveio uh subdivision that that's what

we were thinking back then So when we get something that goes, you say, "Well, I'm only 50% over." Yeah. Well, if everyone's 50% over, we have an entirely different subdivision with entirely different impacts. So, um, and I know you're last in or one of the last. Are you last one? Is this the last line? I think it is, right? I It's the last one I know of, although I never handled the sub or all the others. I just I know. I looked it up. Yeah. Um, so just just to um just as a thought I mean again you you may have engineering reasons where it's just like that's just nuts. I understand but

my my initial um I guess hesitation is as you said that there's a a lot of electrical equipment right here. There's a hydrant here. We have a um obviously very tight window here to kind of thread the needle with the driveway and that threading of the driveway would be over the 25 ft conservation easement. That's this represented by this. It comes in at an angle I guess. Yeah. So, so we would have to you cut a driveway through that to get up to the site. And as I said, it's I think it's going to be such a short run that we would have to lower the house significantly. Okay.

To uh to make that work. Um, okay. Can you look at um one of the issues I think we discussed earlier today was whether or not um the house itself could be lowered if the basement could be lowered 5T or so that would help on the elevation on the approach and driveways maybe help your your storm water uh solutions as well. And um I've been it's one thing with the coverage, but you know um when you you start seeing so many retaining walls, you really start to wonder whether or not it it's really working with the site. And obviously it can be worked, right? It can be done. Um the DOT has proven that many times. So um that's fine, but uh if we can lessen that it would be really I think we take a look at that.

No problem. Uh so this plan what we what we tried to illustrate with this plan primarily was the differences in the disturbance envelopes. So again the magenta line the amoeba running throughout the site is what was approved as part of the subdivision. The blue line um that you know obviously encompasses the proposed construction is what what we would need to build this as as shown. The areas that are shaded in red um to the rear here uh to the north and in the the front yard of the courtyard are necessary to one to build the septic system to build the infiltration system in the rear to mitigate the storm water and then to provide access and the ability to create that courtyard in the front of the house. The areas in uh shaded in in the light green uh to the rear and in the front are areas that were approved for uh to be within the they were part of the approved clearing grading limit line. We have avoided those areas with this plan. So uh net net we ended up um the approved was let's see 41653. This plan is at 43198. Uh it's about it's just under 1,000 square feet. It's about 900 and I think 97 square feet or so u in excess compared to the original approval, but for reasons stated uh and also at the same time reducing what could have been areas that we would have disturbed otherwise. Um see what else I have here. So, we went through a couple of alternatives um various plans. These are

a few of them just to show you what uh we were thinking as far as necessary access. This was a uh and they all have the same proposed house footprint uh just different driveway configurations. So, this was trying to shorten the drive by coming straight up and not have that that big sweep to the north. uh to shorten the drive, reduce the coverages, and we eliminated the additional parking courtyard area. And you can see this this just represents a single passenger simple passenger vehicle and all the movements it would take to get in or out so that you wouldn't have to back down the driveway and back out onto Holiday Bridge Road. Um, so you know, a number of the blue is the the vehicle backing out of the driveway. And there are come on quite a few movements to do that. If I could show it to you. There you go. So you can see, you know, this this vehicle would would back up, pull up, back up again, and then finally exit. Uh and similarly I say a delivery vehicle or somebody visiting would would have to come up to here back up pull up you know a lot of back and forth uh just to exit the site. U we took that same idea and extended this one rotates the garage uh eliminates the breezeway connection. So this would be a garage facing hollow ridge. Um this works a little bit better but it requires a lot more added coverage. Um, this is still a lot of movements for a visitor if they were only to use this area of the courtyard, gain a little bit better access coming into the the rear portion, but coverage uh is significantly higher. And then the plan that we have before you tonight, um, again, the blue is a vehicle backing out, has the ability to use this courtyard area and in one movement can exit the property. Similarly, a vehicle

entering, a visitor, what have you would would enter the house site and then back up and be able to exit. So, it's a relatively minor addition that uh that would fit four vehicles facing the street in that courtyard area, but it provides a a benefit, I think, a large benefit from an access standpoint for the property with a a nominal intrusion into the setback. uh the the clearing limit. You could just see it's it's this little corner here. This was just a comparative summary of all the various coverages. Uh and and as I said, the the house, the pool, the patio, all the same. The one changing factor has been and and probably always will be the driveway. just how do we get how do we get to the site the best most efficient manner and provide something that's usable and and without without being uh too greedy about it right so just trying to provide that reasonable access um and that was a driveway profile and as we said it was we're right there we do we did get Jeff's comments we do have some minor tweaks to make to it but uh any of his comments I don't see us having an issue resolving we did get comment from Sabrina and from Dennis uh same thing you relatively minor I think um certainly addressable uh but um I don't know if you want to go through the landscape plan or the architecturals if you have any questions on this

may I make a suggestion um so if you could go back to your site plan that shows the wetland buffer because that's that's one great thing that that does it there and just let's speak a little bit about the relationship of the site to the wetland of oh yes thank you whatever and drainage

so little bit unique here the the wetland that uh we are subject to is across the street on the neighboring property. It is hydraulically and topographically upgradient from us. So anything that runs off of our property will never reach that wetland or wetland system. There are two catch basins in Hollow Ridge Road located right at our property line here. So anything on Hollow Ridge Road that comes down the street is collected conveyed into that system. Anything on our property sheds either to the northeast or northwest with that ridge line running through the central portion of the property. U as I mentioned we're collecting everything from the impervious surfaces infiltrating it. The soils we did tests throughout the site. They're all conducive to infiltration. There's certainly nothing here that's hydric or would be suitable for wetland or wetland buffer mitigation. um you know if we were required to mitigate on site frankly I don't know the soils aren't conducive to it and there's there's no connection from a wetland functional standpoint u I'm sure Dennis has opinions and we'll share but you know I don't think anything we do on our property will benefit that wetland or wetland buffer and that system uh maybe there's a means for some off-site mitigation or some other avenue realizing we need the permit we're not disputing that we are disturbing within it. It's um a nominal disturbance. It's about 675 square ft of impervious surface within the buffer. Uh we have a total disturbance of let's see there's about 1,400 square ft total. That's with the plantings and you know landscape and whatnot. Um but of that it's 600 300 I'm sorry 375 square f feet

of imperous surface. So relatively minor for a disturbance in a buffer that is not connected to the wetland itself. I guess we'll have to decide or discuss how to how to best deal with that. Right. So just to clarify hydraologically connected you're saying you're just speaking hydra hydraologically this point like in other words land form as the crow flies like like it's still proximal to the site from it's it's it's within it from a a plan view but any drop of water that lands anywhere on our property will not make its way to that well

I agree uh I'm not going to dispute that assessment but like from a wetland's perspective and then you know what the intention of like the buffer regs are it looks at more than just that but that that that is a fact that I think you know could be utilized uh I was almost saying this morning like during our call these could all be factors that play into uh a a type of mitigation versus just totally disregarding it like like like you know I I agree you know there's a roadway way I I you know there's a wetland across the street certainly wouldn't look to you know I think the joke I used this morning we're not looking for mangro swamps or rainforest you know what I mean but it's still to to to respect the fact that it's there and you know in compliance with the code it you know it could be uh just a different approach to landscaping for a piece of the property that's I don't know 400 square ft in size 500 ft in size instead of mowing everything you know like so it's it's not necessarily looking to to to replicate something or provide something that I agree is not necessarily going to be a benefit at like a certain resource category level. So I'm I'm not disputing that.

So we would all agree that the the function of of this wetland as respects this property is there's there's really not much connection or any connection functional connection

from from from a hydraologic perspective. Yes. Yes. But, you know, obviously, you know, if you if you view like all of Newcastle and and the purpose of these regs as a habitat, for lack of a better word, you know, you just want to caution yourself that you don't want to use like hard stops to all of a sudden disregard, you know, cuz then, you know, you don't want to head down the road of money earned in Mount Vernon or something like that. So, I mean, that's an extreme example, but that's kind of why you have these like safeguards in place. Yep.

And and I agree with which I advocated for. It's on another property. You can't do a delineation. Let's use the map resource. I would think a functional analysis would require a boots on the ground, you know, to actually make it. But I I I wouldn't require that either. This is a system that, you know, honestly, it has a hydraologic connection to a water course. That's why I had to take it in accordance with the way the code is written. Um, but certainly this is like an origin point at least in this part of Hollow Ridge is where it daylights, you know. I'm not I'm not regulating into the pipe, so to speak, you know, but in in looking at it, it's it's kind of I almost call it like a wet swale. I wouldn't call it like a true water course, but the vegetation that I saw was all was all hydrophic. And I'm like, well, this is functioning as a wetland and it happens to be hydraologically connected to a water course that's certainly mapped and be able to see in the distance on the other property. So I'm like, where's this where's a suitable cut off for this? Well, it's where it's dark, it's a no, but where the light hits it, that that's kind of the yes. So, so if you have um some some suggestions for us too. That's one of the things we wanted to talk to you about tonight because you know we could brainstorm but we'd like to hit a target that we

always willing to meet applicants on site that's not not an issue and discuss whatever you want. All good. Great. Absolutely. Good. Good. We'll look to you for some of those suggestions because we'd rather make constructive ones that are consistent with what you're thinking. Okay. Great. I think that's all I have for my plans. Unless you have any questions, I could turn it over to either the landscape architect or architect if you wish to hear from either of them. Uh I we will, but uh why don't we take the comments from staff and comments and questions from board members as well and then we can look at the landscape and architectural uh renderings as as we as we have time. So Dennis, you want to continue with since you're on roll.

All right. Thank um so uh try to keep it in bulleted form. Uh I didn't see the 150 foot buffer on the landscape plan. I think that should be added. uh we just went over um you know what I would consider with respect to what would need mitigation the fact in the environmental protection normally district and since we're speaking about buffer the improving authority has the ability to um modify the 2:1 ratio and again in other projects in Newcastle I've seen that reduced to to one and a half to one for buffer buffer disturbance. Um I I did visit the site a couple times uh most recently last week. So I I I I need the trees in the field to be marked so that they correspond to the plan you know just from that perspective of uh there's no ability to have a discussion about you know uh which trees what they represent what's their condition you know relative to to the proposal. So in order to get to that point, the trees, you know, need to be marked in the field, measured, species conditions, and and and a table obviously in included. So we could see specifically what's what's proposed for removal and what's going to require.

We do have a uh on the landscape plan there is a tree table. And I apologize. I know when we met here in town hall, yes, I believe I told you that they were marked. I believe at the time they were. It turns out I guess they're not. So, we will have the surveyor do that for you. But the the tree table on the landscape plan identifies the size and species. I don't know that it had the excuse me, the health of the tree. Rich could speak to that in a minute in a minute if you like. Okay. Certainly. Can we tag just the ones within the limited disturbance? Do we need to do the entire site?

I'm not I'm not looking for the entire the entire site. Right. as long as I'm able to correlate cuz you know hypothetically somebody might ask well where is that 35 in DBH specimen I see it on the table where is it correlate on on the plan or in the field so as long as there's a way to correlate those two and then I'm able to find that in the field that's that's kind of what I'm looking for so we all could have that discussion um on the tree replacement plan I just couldn't uh I saw that you had listed um I I think this is English oak, circus robber, and I I just couldn't find that symbol for those 12 uh replaced trees. Um there appears to be trees shown in the subject commissioning area. Um not many, but I I don't that's not a sustainable uh approach or concept. Um and if there's anything that's within 10 ft of the primary owls, that also uh should be should be relocated or reconsidered. Um, we apologize that I keep trying to get the code amended to basically just include the language of the most recent adopted town board fee schedule. Uh, so that we don't have to go through this every time they they do that. So u that was just a comment with respect to what's placed training at contingency accept full flocking for that. Um and the uh plant list what you had uh proposed for replacement in terms of you know all all the numeric metrics with respect to the percentages that you can't have species beyond a certain percentage and those relative percentages between canopy and understory trees that was all uh consistent um with with with meeting the code in terms of the math and I just included which um I I think you guys

probably are aware, but I just put that last part of the planning board resolution about um the fee that was required payment for the uh I guess extension of the water main um for all the the applicants from the original subdivision approval. And that summarizes my comments. Thanks. And the uh just quickly the in response to that, the the trees that were identified as the QRF, that was from a prior plan. It was just an oversight. We just didn't remove them from the table. We had originally had some trees planted along the the frontage. Okay. The road frontage, but with the water main easement there and and the sight lines, we decided to remove them. We just forgot to take off the table.

Um I believe the trees are set back 10 ft from the primary septic area, but if not, we do have room to adjust that. We'll show a 10-ft envelope around there for that. We do have uh four trees in the expansion area. We'll we'll also adjust that to make sure that we're not within that. Uh and then as you said, we we'll uh correct the calculations on the tree fund. Has the has the do indicated whether or not you'll have to clear and prepare the expansion area at this time? We requested and and obtained a tree waiver with the original approval and we'll do the same with this. Yeah. Okay. They're in favor of that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Sabrina, do you have comments?

Yes. Um I actually have comments. A lot was already talked about, but um the board's information is a type two action in accordance with SPRA. Um we already know that the development coverage is um pretty uh excessive over what was allowed by the planning board, although it does not exceed what is allowed through the zoning code. Um and then my other comments were really things that you've already talked about the um encroachments into the clearing grading limit line and the wetland buffer. So um that's really you know the the rest of the plan meets with all zoning setbacks. Um it's really the coverage issues that um you're discussing that really are what I would talk about.

Okay. Thank you Jeff. Jeeoff, you had some comments.

I was looking I'm sorry. Um, so yeah, nothing um nothing major. There was they mentioned the uh the um the runoff rates and volumes at certain intervals were a little bit high. not uh not excessively high, but um everything's really got to show just everything's got to show at least the same or less than um you know between pre-construction and post construction. Um drug profiles, there was some some um some of the change in grades were slightly out of uh code allowance. So easy easy to fix that. Um ask for a little bit more information as far as how much police can get brought onto the site. Um and then uh minor minor u sort of u plans plan changes after that but nothing uh nothing we haven't discussed before.

Jeeoff, what are your thoughts? What are your thoughts about uh perhaps lowering the the house level, the basement level and the impacts that might have on the grading and u you know the driveway problems that they have? Yeah, I mean the the the you know around the center the center of the house is at around elevation um I think it's 660 or 560 um and I'll pull it up.

Yeah, elevation around elevation 660 and it grades from if you're looking at the front of the house it grades from uh grades down from left to right. So the bottom of the page a little bit higher than than the top of the page. Um and the finished floor is actually almost 664. So, the house is actually going to be sitting above the current grade elevation. Um, you know, so they're obviously going to have some excavation for the basement. Um, but they're going to be doing a lot of a lot of filling around the entire top portion of the site, plus bring in a lot of soil um uh for the driveway. I mean, they've got they've got 10 foot they've got 10 foot fills in some locations and they range between three and you know, around 10 ft. 10 10's the highest, but you know, average is probably about 6 ft for the driveway. Um, so I I do think, you know, lowering the driveway, they'd have to bring in a significantly a significant amount less fill. Um, they may actually, you know, be able to bring the driveway straight into the front of the house and then they can have some, you know, they have some turn around, you know, kick out kick out turnounds um for people to uh to turn to get back down the driveway. I do think lowering the house, you know, 5t, 8 ft, you know, obviously we can only do so much because typically when you're on a hill like this, um, that rock is generally closer to the surface. So, you know, I don't want to necessarily want to force them to be breaking out rock that's very expensive. Um but you know theoretically do think lowering the house you know several feet would would solve a lot of problems with the amount of fil brought in the amount of retaining walls they would need um and uh you know they need several hundred feet just for the driveway itself. It's a two-tier retaining wall. Um they've got a couple retaining walls on the the right side of the house closer to the septic system. they they may trade that for one, you know, smaller retaining wall on the on the opposite side of the house, on the south

side of the house, but I do think it's worth looking at. I mean, just from a even from a cost perspective, I feel that has to get brought in is significant. Um, you know, when you're filling when you're filling, you know, 8 or 10 ft on a on a on a 200t driveway, it's a lot of lot of dirt being brought in. So that was one of the things I one of the the items I brought up is to give us some fill fill quantities, right? And of course if you if you have a deeper basement, you're you're going to be closer to your balance of cut and fill on site,

you know, and and perhaps that even impacts what you do with a pool and makes that somewhat different and maybe again helps again with the cut and fill even on site. So less bill brought in and um and I think it might have some benefit also the storm water when you're down a little bit lower and and and some of the slopes are different. Yeah. Um yeah, we can certainly look at that. U I think that would be better time spent looking at than access to the south like we were discussing earlier just because of all the other constraints. Also,

uh, we did, you know, the homeowner was his primary reasoning behind this. He's got access to stone, so the walls didn't necessarily necessarily concern him. He was more concerned with the ability to have septic fully gravity for the house. I know we could do a pump system. We do them all the time. Um, but we could certainly look at lowering the house and see what that does. Yeah. Okay. I think that would be,

you know, lowering the house would, it wouldn't force the entire house to be to be a pump system. It would really just be the the, you know, if there's a finished basement, if you know, people tend to have a bathroom down there. It would be, you know, we're not talking about show, you know, everybody showering and, you know, bathrooms and kitchen. It's really would really just be what's limited in to the basement basement, finished basement. I disagree. My 10-year-old and his friends use the basement and are definitely using it more than any of us. Good. Good. All righty. Anything else, Jeff?

No, that was all I said. Nothing. Nothing that's difficult to overcome. Just a little bit of a little bit of number crunching. Good. Okay. Questions, comments from board members? No. Anything? Jeff? Anything? Jennifer? Jennifer's online. We don't see her because you've covered her up. I'll stop sharing for you. No, no, no. It's okay. It's all right. Is I'm trying to figure out is there walk out to the pool where there I look like from one of the elevation there's like one door, but yeah. So, the the first floor you would access uh from the courtyard uh and the patio. It's one step from the first floor to the pool patio.

Okay. There is no access to the basement level from the pool area. Okay. Other than you got to walk to like over here on the north side of the house, right? Yeah. From the first level of the house. From the lower level. Lower level. This the the north side of the house. Not the basement though, but the the the basement level has access. There's a walk out the side. Okay. That's where it drops off, right? Going down to toward the center. Okay. Got it. That's at 652 versus the pool. It's like 660, right? Something like that.

Okay. 660. Let's see. Yeah. So, the f the first floor is 66375. The pool um about it's probably about 663. I think the spot grade got shadowed by the uh by the hatching there, but you can see the 662 just beyond the pool. uh patio was about 663. I mean I think you your letter was compelling first off.

You know I think you did an excellent job of alternatives analysis with the cars with you know I think there's definitely a lot of thought that went into this um into your plan. So I I appreciate that given sometimes what what's brought presented to the board. Yeah. Thank you. Absolutely. Miss Sabrina, we're okay. I know that Jerry raised the issue of that uh improvement on the what is it the south corner or western corner or where that road goes across and it's not going to be counted to as an improvement on your property because it's not helping you. It's not servicing your property.

Correct. Correct. The code the code is pretty clear that if it benefits somebody else's property and there's no benefit to the property it crosses, they don't need to count it towards their coverage. Right. Good. Okay. What's the pile of organic matter that you're removing? It's just debris that I suspect the neighbors over the years. This has been vacant for quite some time. It's it's brush. It's branches. You know, landscaper type, you know, it's the leaf blowing destination. Yes. Exactly. I don't want to put it in my truck, so I'll just put it over here. Nobody will see it. Jeeoff, I had a question about the chip stone. Do you consider the that treatment to be uh impervious or pvious?

Uh the state considers that impervious. The state considers that impertuse. So that's be accounted for impervious coverage. Okay. And we did that from both a lot coverage and storm water mitigation standpoint. Right. Considered it impervious, right? And we already did, right? It's it's it's accounted for as impervious, right? We just did. We figured that would have a nicer aesthetic than asphalt. That's what the owner the the design of the house, I think, is more of a contemporary farmhouse style home. So the the stone chip driveway seem to fit better than asphalt. Okay, great. Okay. Do we want to see the landscape plan?

Rich, you still with us?

I'm here. So the the landscape plan has been formulated in a manner whereby u a lot of existing trees were required to be removed because of the the drive the uh position of the house the uh septic field and such. And uh what we've done here is we've formulated a plan that's a light touch uh without attempting to replace a one for one for the many many many trees that have to be removed. It wouldn't really be possible to do it a one for one because it just be so such a high density of planting that it wouldn't make sense. And so what we've done is we've supplemented the fringe of the disturbance with the deciduous and flowering trees around the edges of the the disturbance. I know that we need to uh realign a few of the tree positions based on the uh the sweep of the one that I created across the potential future septic field, but that's easily handled. Um, we have modestly scaled trees along the entry driveway so that there's not too much of an overhang and uh an obstruction created. And what we're trying to create here is sort of a blend of a natural environment that will blend with the existing trees that remain and to have a presence as the driveway uh as someone approaches the house on the driveway that's not overly formal but tidy, clean, and handsome. And it also has been formulated so that the frontage along the street is somewhat consistent with the neighboring properties in having a handsome bit of

lawn that uh creates a finish along those areas that have an easement uh along parallel to the back of the uh the curve of Hollow Ridge Road. The owner did say to me that the degree of planting that is being proposed should be carefully considered in terms of the volume and the density of the planting to be put in because the character of the site is going to be drastically different than it is now. And he's right because when I walked I walked the site some months back it's heavily wooded. There's going to be a fairly large open area in the center and we're hoping to be able to have the opportunity to assess that once it's opened and take a decision about whether more planting or supplemental planting would be appropriate to make sure that we blend the landscape to the surrounding areas that remain undisturbed and also create the proper and appropriate amount of buffering and screening so that the interior of the site can be private and enjoyable. And so we've tried to create a proper balance here using native plants and using varieties that have the right kind of a scale that will work within the fringe of the disturbance that will happen along the edge of the area that I've rendered as lawn. And so that's the objective with the project. Uh I think it makes sense. I think it's it can be quite handsome. And I'm sure that this owner, who I know quite well, I've done work for them in the past, is likely to decide that

there's going to be some more additional elements built into this plan. But it's his sense, and I agree with him, he's a smart man, uh that it's hard to make that judgment entirely. And certainly now until you see it as you stand there and feel the presence of the house in the property. So Dennis, does this mean this is a little bit of a moving target for you or kind of makes it a little bit more difficult for you to assess the uh tree permit and the replacement plan?

Not really. I mean to to to his point I I I think everything is is based on field conditions. There's field changes. there's things that don't come back to you that we have to sort of negotiate. So, at the end of the day, um if you want to put in more trees, okay, as long as it's consistent with 1216, then I guess less would go into the tree bank fund. And if they make sense, uh that's fine. Um, the only thing I'll say, and I think we can avoid this even though we haven't discussed it yet, is that I just usually put a hard line in the sand when it comes to plantings that need to satisfy tree replacement and then plantings that would be credited towards wetland mitigation. So, we just so that we could avoid double double credit there. So, that's something that I think we would obviously discuss and would be incorporated into this at another date. So, that's the only thing that I just make mention of now. understand.

Okay, good. Okay, thank you. Can we uh look at some of the architectural or maybe just uh ask the question that lowering the house will not make any um cause any material problems for the design as as currently portrayed.

Um I think we can certainly take a look at that and see what our options are there. Right now, we don't have a layout for the basement, per se. So, there is an opportunity to potentially lower the house. Um, right now, we have a twotory house with five beds, uh, five bath, and a threecar garage. So, um, is there anything in particular you want to know? I don't think so. to explain. Do you?

No, that was just my only fundamental question was whether or not that was going to pose some sort of um challenge that you could not um uh satisfy. But if it's something that you can work with and and and not have to materially change the overall design, again, we'd be interested in taking a look at what what might happen to the site if the uh house is lowered by 5t, 8 feet, whatever it might be. Again, understanding as as Jeff uh stated, we don't want to trigger more costs, unnecessary costs for the applicant and start blasting into rock and chipping away, which you probably have to do anyway based on the configuration of of the property.

Sure. I think in conjunction with working with Joe, we can find a way to attempt to lower the house a bit and work in tandem there and see what we can achieve, right? Okay, Jennifer, any questions? Again, we we don't see you. So, I just want to make sure if your hands raised or we have your questions, I guess none. Okay. Any questions, comments? Do you want to stop sharing? Uh, you can stop sharing, I guess. Yeah. Thank you. Oh no, she's there.

Yeah, she's there. Okay. Um, does anyone have any particular problems or issues regarding the changes in the clearing grading limit lines from the IP to this?

I don't I don't I think what you've done is is very intelligent and makes good sense for the site and for the project. So, I don't think that's a stumbling block at all. And I think we've we've talked about the wetland issue. So, Dennis has worked on that. You look on your mitigation situation. I would s I mean I given the the the this this very low impact to this wetland or no impact you know we we could certainly reduce our our mitigation from the standard 2 to one to one one and a half to one whatever in this case I I would be very comfortable with that no problems are there any other questions that you need from us uh again thank you for the presentation and the the correspondence is terrific

um no just just in terms of process I know that this does has to be referred to the ERB um because of a wetlands permit. Well, it doesn't have to be. Okay. All right. All right. Good. Because I didn't know if there was anything else. So, we'll work. I mean, I don't think it's that significance of it. It's, you know, to be referred to the EU. I don't think it's really necessary.

Great. I had read the code that way. So, I must have misread it. So, we will work on looking at that change to the to the placement of the house and and the elevation of the house. We'll work on hopefully meet you in the field or my colleagues will and we'll work on a mitigation plan and then resubmit to the board and then my reading of the code is also that there's a public hearing required. So hopefully the next submission will be sufficient for you to be able to schedule that public hearing. Good. Good. Look forward to it. Great. Anything else? Jeff Sabrina, everything said Jennifer. Okay, I'm good. Great. Okay, we'll see you then. Thanks very much. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, our next and last item is uh the minutes from April 7. Any changes? Anyone? No. No. If not, I just one little minor thing I think I'll just slip over to just words. Um is there a motion to adopt the minutes? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I I. And is there a motion to close the meeting? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Okay, we're all set.