Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Good evening. This is the planning board meeting of Tuesday, April 7. Uh we have a short agenda. Our first item uh tonight is to open the meeting. Is uh we have a quorum. So is there a motion to open the meeting? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor?

I. Our first item tonight is an amendment to uh a resolution of approval. We heard this last time around and basically the applicant has requested segmentation of basically their their application. They want to do the field work first and then put the pool in later on for financial reasons. So it's less of a cash flow burden on them. And also I guess the building permit was about to expire in July. So they were a little bit leerary about that and didn't want that to expire without a change in the resolution. So, um, Bob, um, are there is there a better description of what's going on? You were outside a lot today. You are tan. He was he was on his deck in the sun when I talked to him today. No,

I think you did a good job. Basically, they just wanted to break it up on the top. It's the clearing grade line for basically the retaining wall, which is going to be for the pool. And then they come on down with the path to maintain the septic down below because that is fairly steep down there. And they're going to do all the invasive plantings that was planned to do up front uh at Sabrina's and Dennis's request. So they agreed to do all that. Um and that will all be stabilized as we invasive. Dennis can speak on that board. Uh and then once that's all stabilized for the filling and grading permit, they will come in uh when they get contractors to do the pool and all of the storm water improvements up adjacent to the house that's being circled right now. And where you see the cursor is where Jerry's being so nice to go around the area. That's where the storm water is going to be for that. They had to amend the clearing and grading somewhat. Uh so when that's done they'll come in with the final clear theory grading map and they want them to break it up in twofold. So they come with fill in the grading for everything in the back and they'll come in for a BP for the pool and storm water on the front and uh that will be it. Thank you.

Okay Jerry, did you have some questions on um the proposed uh resolution that we have before us? No, we reviewed everything. We had multiple discussions with Bob and and we're all good. I talked to Alan about I think Alan's on with us, but we're all good. So, we we intend to get everything put together and get it back to you guys as soon as we can so they can proceed and get a building permit and and get going. We thank you very much for your help. Okay. Any questions from board members? No. No. No. Okay. You're all set on it. Um is there a motion then to adopt the resolution that's before us? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Great. You're all set. Okay. Thank you very much.

Very good. Thanks. Thank you. Good night. Good night. Our next item is an informal appearance before us. Uh this is Tucci uh 11 Hammond Ridge application for a site development plan approval for legalization of a patio and driveway extension. Um I think it's an amendment perhaps in the clearing grading limit lines. Um etc. So, um um who's representing the applic

um we can we had a site visit um and we discussed the different indication from Last time we were in front of front of your board. Uh one of the items we were talking about um is the existing null. We were ex So we have about 2700 square ft of area that we need to mitigate. So we're mitigating it by adding 3,000 square ft to the limit of this original one. Um that's how we were proposing to do it. We saw the comments from the consultants. Um and we I mean the only thing that I would say that um for Dennis Corell's comment he talking about extending it to compensate the whole null this whole area that will be about approximately 5,000 square ft area that we micated versus the 2700 that um we um upsetting. So um I will present that to our client but in the process I will say that uh if we can if we do that much area indicating that much area u we still need to do the clearing that he's talking about the work or we can leave the area as it stands right now so we won't be taking on half of the null we'll be incorporating the whole n Okay. Um, Sabrina, would you uh give us your comments?

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Of course. Um the you know just to kind of frame the issues for the town board uh the two sides are um are are trying to correct um errors from the previous owner um and reviewing their site plan application. There's really um two issues that that are in existence. The first is the development coverage is over by about I want to say 1500 square ft um when it comes to development coverage. And then the question remains, how is that going to be mitigated? Um I believe, and Dennis can speak more to this, the applicants are proposing 3,000 square ft of mitigation um in an area um that is uh that may or may not be prime for that. So I think the planning board needs to decide two things. One is mitigation um you know improving the clearing gra the areas within the clearing grading landline is that something that you want to accept as the development coverage exceeds um that's kind of the first threshold and then the second threshold is the quality of that restoration and I want Dennis to speak to the quality of that restoration um but I think that right now um the applicant is not in uh exceedence of the zoning codes of option of development coverage. It's really the planning board approval for this subdivision, the thresholds that you had previously set or that the planning board had previously set when the subdivision was created. It is a conservation subdivision. And that those are really my my only two comments is one the planning board you need to decide whether or not uh planting is the form of mitigation that you'd like to see and two where that mitigation will

occur. Right. Right. And thank you for reminding us that it's a conservation development. That's that's why we're looking at I guess so closely and again why it's before us not the ZBA. Okay. Dennis, you had comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so yeah. So I I guess I try to like approach this sequentially because obviously when when you first get this to review, it's a desktop review and obviously looking at the contours of the area, it felt odd to parse this out in some way whereby you're you're you're going to extend the line and agree not to disturb some of it, but but there's others that would fall outside of that line. So theoretically, moving forward, it it could be disturbed. So I just had to see what what what this was about. So just in in visiting um and I should say that uh a lot of what I did was prior to um the event to share with me what to do in um aspect I kind of went through the field exercise but you know in going out there um there may have been a feature naturally that existed in this location which maybe stimulated or promot promoted storing spent rock and other types of material there. It may not have been a flat plane. I I I have no idea. But when I viewed it, when I got out there, it was obvious that, you know, just based on the species of tree and their size and their ages, I'm like, "Okay, this was disturbed and this is all regrowth." Um, and then, you know, you could tell from some of the photos I took, uh, I definitely did a little surfing down one of the sides on one of the flat stones, so it's not all entirely stable. So there's definitely a disturbed element. So my first concern was that that you know square footage aside, uh you know, offsets aside, if if this was an area that you were looking to approach to to be as part of your mitigation, you got to take the whole thing. It's it's like drawing a line through the middle of a body of water. You can't say, "Well, we'll just not disturb some of the water, but the rest we can." It's it's a

unit just just based on its land form. and and then as you know um which I didn't put in my memo but you know Jeff reminded me it is regulated as a steep slope at this point because of its features. So it already has protection under a under a town uh ordinance. Um so so ultimately I felt that if the approach was going to be to consider this area, it had to be considered in its entirety and you know there there may be some approach to improving this you know from a stability perspective and maybe you know there might be areas where you could find uh ability to spot plant. Um but you know the point is is that if this is the area that's going to be viewed, it really is all ornone and there is u some improvement that uh is possible beyond just drawing a line to sort of you know protect it in place. Um and that's obviously up to the applicant if they want to continue to pursue this particular area of the property. you know, there may be other candidate areas that would obviously lend itself to maybe more equal uh with respect to having the math work out um andor uh you know another type of uh mitigation approach as Sabrina mentioned with planting or something to that effect. So that that's basically what you know the purpose of the model was just to sort of characterize this area and why in my opinion it's you can't just draw a line through the middle of it or through a piece of it. It it really needs to be the whole thing and of course this feature car continues on to the next property. So if you're going to impact this at all and then you know it ends up impacting you know some integrity on the next property in terms of how this thing is sort of stabilized. I I lose that I use that term as best you can. Then then that becomes an issue

also. So it's it's it's it's it's either leave it alone or or or take the whole thing and leave it alone in perpetuity. It's kind of the way to look at it. Yeah. This um the history on this development is that um this was known as the old Dellwood uh property. And before this uh subdivision was uh applied for and um approved, um a prior owner uh who eventually went belly up uh started doing work there before any permits were granted. And um uh obviously when they were stopped um this this this whole area was full of these hills left over with this you know the rock spoils from blasting and chipping etc. And it Bob Sely suspects he recalls that there were quite a few of these sites here and this is probably what we have here in part on this one mound. So I just want to give that perspective uh on it and I think Dennis has brought us up to speed in terms of what's currently there. That's probably the history behind at least part of this mound. The other issue is it seems to me we've had a couple of these uh at Hammond Ridge and our resolution of those areas where there's been some some kind of spillage over the development coverage has been a more naturalistic um give back in terms of um areas along the side areas on the lawn uh something that would uh survive and and sort of blend in with the environment. That was kind of the purpose. And um Jeff, did you want to speak to uh there were two things I I know you raised the issue in terms of uh first of all what the applicant where they spilled over was in lawn area and it would be appropriate you thought to give back lawn area but the other issue is the the col that is uh proposed infiltration is proposed at the base and how that might be used as uh for helping us in terms of the

partial um uh mitigation here. Um well, you know, to to me the there's no change the the cults really don't don't change the any coverages or clearing limit line as they propose to temporarily allow for uh allow for obviously you know some excavation work to happen for the for those infiltrators. Um but you know as far as the agendas part of before that you know they're proposing to you know mitigate and or you know uh add to the you know protect this area that's really already protected by um by uh a seful you know conservation if you call it. So, you know, to me it seemed more appropriate to, you know, this development coverage is to, you know, pull back, you know, some some currently developed area, not a currently undeveloped area, if that makes sense.

Okay. Um, at least part of the exposure from the applicant was some expansion of the driveway. Does the the storm water um system that they're proposing, does that help us with that uh that spillage up there at the top of the driveway? Definitely the the the proposed storm water um facilities cover all the new development coverage with respect to storm water. Um, you know, really I was speaking more about uh, you know, coverage per se. They're kind of over the

that they're not over the development coverage and you know, by,200, 1300 ft. So, um, you know, that at that point that's, you know, we're talking about mitigation on on that the coverages, not so much the uh, not so much storm water portion. Can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. Absolutely. when you were somebody mentioned about giving back a different thing. So the applicant is talking about fixing up over here. Yep. Yep. And when we talk about other areas like giving back development, are we talking like like here? Sure. Is that like an example? We've done that in the past. You sideyards.

So where this might be lawn and stuff, we would move the clearing gradient lines there and this goes back to a natural condition of trees and shrubs or whatever. Yep. Okay. And that's consistent with what we've done before. And I think that's Jeff's point. In other words, they've uh taken lawn area, the de developed area, and Dennis is pointing out why the suggested area, even though it's larger than the amount that's impacted, uh is probably inappropriate. And and I think Jeff is echoing that and Jeff is suggesting that we perhaps look at some lawn area. And to be clear, this is Dennis's middle of the lake line. Yes. Right, Dennis? Is that your middle of the lake line? So I understand your analogy. Yeah. You're cutting into this slope.

Okay. And then over here is our neighbor where we'd also have a middle of the lake line so to speak. No, your neighbor would it would be it that continues. Right. But this but we'd be stopping at the property line with the mitigation. Exactly. Like the middle of the lake. Okay. Pardon for my simplicity if anything's explained. Okay. Any thoughts, questions? I

also would like to point out just you know as an aside this is this was not a situation created by them uh by the by the colonel or this was something that was um you know this is a situation that was created by the by the previous owners I believe right and so this consideration right and they did this uh without a building permit so it was really the current owner is doing the right thing as of now, right? Yes. Okay.

Can I ask a question? Um, sorry, current owner here. Um, again, the ways and I'm in no way an expert in any of this. uh just for listening in. But the way it was describing me with this mitigation as it was proposed uh in the current plan, we meaning the builder whoever it was that developed the property had approval for clearing and grading in that area and we were essentially giving it back because there's no clearing or grading there. Why would that not be why would we give up I guess you know usable yard for my daughter and our dog? Um, if you already have other areas of property that have been approved to be graded and cleared but aren't, it seems like that would be the easy way to kind of give back. I think that's a you rais a very good question. It's a good one. Uh, I guess one of the answers though is that even though it's clearing uh eligible for clearing and grading, it's still regulated as a steep slope. So, it would have to go through a steep slope permit process. And from what we're hearing, I'm sensing what we're hearing from staff is um that might be kind of a hard hard uh lift in in this case as mitigation. But you you raised a good issue. I mean that's where the clearing grading limit line is. Um and u I I don't know recall what the factors were. Whoops, everyone went away. I think you know that clear and grading limit line the fact that it's outside the boundaries of the finger limit line very well could be because it had already been cleared and graded by this you know this rock stock you know generally clear limit line is to prevent it's to prevent uh you know touching of untouched you know untouched uh vegetation untouched areas and it's key to preserve you know this area that that

you know this the steam slope, whatever you want to call it. That's, you know, that had been disturbed. The reason it's steep slope is likely because it was disturbed. And so we can just give that back now. Well, I mean that's a question for the the planning board whether they'll accept that and or maybe an amended one where you know you you include the entire entire like suggested rather than just that you know just that.

Yeah. something like or even extending I might I might continue that line out towards the driveway rather than turn it rather than turn down something like that. Again, that's up to the planning board to consider something like that and you know whatever

and I will say that I know we have to talk to Ryan and Kevin about it but this is about approximately over 6,000 square ft. So when we're million in,500 or any you know the 2700 I mean this is a potential area and I think the um well the type of mitigation is up to is up to you know that's up to the plan how much mitigation is needed and you know obviously I think it would take Dennis's consultation with respect to you know what might need to be done but I I get what you're saying you're talking about 120 ft of of of uh of filament coverage and is you know nearly five times that in uh in you know giving back you know clearing rate and that being said it doesn't need to be doesn't need to be a dense uh dense you know redevelopment or or you know replantings um so

right I mean my point is that you picked an area where the math doesn't translate well into the environment like I don't know how else to say it because then in theory you could start chopping up and away at the other side of that hill if you got a steep slopes from it and then how does that not compromise the integrity of the continuity of the entire oval which happens to also extend onto the other property. So for me that's why I use the lake analogy the only responsible approach is because of that homogeneity that continuity whatever words you want to use it it's all or none if if again if that's the area that you want to you want to consider what we offer and I think

I'd be willing I think you know can speak my way but I mean I think be willing to take the whole portion of it um but I if we're doing that and giving back so much square footage you know our thought would be if we could I don't know land bank or something like that like kind of bank it if we were ever wanted to develop uh put in a pool or or or something like that in the future which we have no plans anytime soon But just, you know, so we're sort of we bank that additional land that we bring back uh for any potential future developments, right? That would be between the board that that's already

Yeah. I mean, I don't know if you guys have a mitigation banking program. I know Jersey did for wetlands. I think New York started getting involved with that, but I don't know. This is a a local thing. I'm not I'm not familiar. It's up to you guys. Well, what is our normal mitigation on this? Is 2:1 that we normally look at? Normal mitigation is 2 to1. So, we're at 2700 ft. Is that the the number that Yeah. What they're offering is is is the amount is correct based on the 2 to1. Correct.

Yep. Well, the reason I was I explained to Jeff quietly here on the side, the reason I was talking about the col in the beginning was uh seeking a way to try to give the applicant some additional credit and reduce the amount that would be needed uh because I think that's a good thing that they're doing. I'm not quite sure I understand all the colors along the driveway. I didn't see a key for that, but I assume that those are various steep slopes. Um, nonetheless, you know, they've done some work up there in the driveway. there's a little bit more uh coverage up there and uh you know I think everyone would agree it's perfectly fine what's up there but to the extent that they are going to invest in in in putting in some storm water protection to offset that and help the entire site I'd be willing to uh give some credit toward the um toward the applicant for the the space. By the same token, um you know, um uh we've done this before and this would be inconsistent with uh the Hammond Ridge development in terms of what we've done for uh offsetting these kinds of violations. So, um, well, I'd be willing to to listen to something that would reduce the amount that we're looking for, um, and in terms of lawn area plus this, uh, this this area out here, this outcrop area.

So, we do maybe a one one instead of two to one. So, be g350 square feet roughly. Yeah. Or maybe a thousand square feet per thousand. And then that would maybe be an easier piece of land to give back y than the 6,000 which is a big piece of land. Y and then that eliminates any kind of thoughts of land banking in the future. Yep. Which opens up a whole another issue. Oh yeah. um that but I think uh and again what we've done in the past is we've done some strips along uh borders property lines um which have not been I don't think overly burdensome would

but have actually protected the environment protected the neighborhood given a little bit more um um you know vegetative buffering between lots and between the the open space etc. But again not to be punitive to to the applicant again they walked into this although I think going should have known about this frankly. I think going from 2 to one down to one one helps. Yes. Right.

So I would I would propose something along those lines if the applicant can redraw something along either the um the southern line or the northern line or western line or eastern line. Um but are we kind of looking more for lawn to be given back instead of west? I don't know what's there. I think I think it is lawn in in in those areas but to the extent whatever it is um you know maybe some sort of strip there and then that then the the mound the the what do you want to call it Dennis the mound what's the technical term you're going to assign to this null yeah it was the land of Newcastle so you know you guys tend to have you know we don't you don't call it a street you call it a road you know I didn't want to call it a hill make it like a null call it a rocky null

trying to stay in the character of the exit okay Well, whatever to give back that area and and and perhaps uh some sort of uh uh additional area that we could have some plantings in and that's, you know, uh in that area and that to me seems to be a fair resolution without being overly burdensome or costly to the applicant either and costly in terms of uh use of the space and future plans. Have you been following what we're talking about, Mr. Hernandez?

Uh yes. establish the average they look. So you talking about giving you know uh giving partial credit for towards the uh mitigation for the storm water being down at the bottom and then find somewhere around the back and area. Uh, I guess we can work out um the exact square footage to give out uh some uh loan area instead of giving out the 6,000 square feet.

Who owns this triangular piece here? I don't know if I my finger is working here. It's not. Um this one's talking. Okay. Well, who owns this piece here that's up against the town easement for trail? Is that part of the applicant's property? No, it's kind of floating out there. I'm happy to give that back.

Um, the area in here. What's in here? Is that lawn on that side? It's hard to see where you're pointing here. Um, just describe it in directions. It's northwest corner. Just northwest to the left of the driveway as you're first coming in. Yep. Before that triangular piece where there's three text notes stacked just above where the proposed col is going in. This is over. Yeah. Is that just lawn? There's some vegetation as well. Okay.

Okay. But we can take a look. Can I make a suggestion that that Dennis kind of meet on site with the applicant and the applicant consultant and they identify an area that would be appropriate for the mitigation? Sure. That's sounds good to us. I mean, sorry for Roman numeral too, but yes. I need to do so. And I guess you know you've heard what we're looking for Dennis. So that you know somehow someway uh you know reach that conclusion and I think we'll we would be good. But I think there's a willingness from the board to do a one one. Yeah. Um versus the required 2:1 and return for this.

And one one is a nice clean number. There's no one to one with with the mount quality. Yeah. And there's no ambiguity of us saying, "Well, a thousand or 900," right? It's just a one to one. Yeah. So, sorry to clarify for myself. So, so, so that that I'm clear. So, a resubmission would just ignore this null area all together, right? Yeah. Good. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So, it'll just be regulated as a steep slope. Yep. Yeah. Perfect. Yep. Does that make sense?

Yeah. And I I wholeheartly agree with what Sabrina suggested, right? These plans are almost two years. It's been two years here. So, I suggest that the applicant, their consultant, Dennis, meet out there, come back to us with something that everyone in support of. Yep. And I And I think if they come up with an area that Dennis approves, we can possibly schedule a public hearing too for the first. Yes. Yes, we agree. Good idea. Resolution also while we're at Yeah. You want to drag resolution, too? Joking. Uh, probably not, but be careful. Dennis does such a great job on the site visit. Who knows?

We've had a lot of strange offers tonight. We've been offered property no one owns and resolution no one's written. Sounds great. Good. Okay. Let us know when you're set. Yeah, we'll schedule a public. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good night.

Okay. Our next item are the minutes of our meeting of uh March 17. I had no comments. I didn't neither. Likewise. Okay. Is there a motion to adopt the minutes as uh presented? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I I um motion. Motion to close the meeting. Motion. All in favor. Oh, wait. Second. Second. All in favor? I I Okay, we're done. Good night, everyone. Good night.