Posted by: Dawn Powell | March 17, 2009

Planning Board

Putnam Valley Planning Board 3/9/09

 

There was no quorum for an illegal backroom meeting until 5:44.  The PB Attorney was not present in the backroom.   It was announced back there that “Adorno” would be off the agenda.  They discussed the Gair application and the apartment above the garage.

 

There were three public hearings.  No one from the public spoke at any of them. 

 

Masotti on Shopis Drive is building a 2 story addition, with an accessory apartment, on a 1.09 acre lot in an R1 lot.  This is a zone that should no longer exist in the zoning code.  This would properly have been a non-conforming lot if the code conformed to the Comprehensive Plan.

 

I would like to see the size of the existing structure on the agenda description.  These descriptions  have improved tremendously.  I would also like to see a full presentation at the public hearing instead of the consultants just saying that their comments have been addressed.   It is also my belief that SEQRA requires a real presentation of the consideration of the environmental concerns that are addressed before there is a negative declaration of environmental significance.  And if we could just get those signs, marking parcels with planning or zoning considerations.

 

The engineer for the second application on the agenda (O’Leary – Sunset Hill Rd.) did a much more thorough job of presenting the plan.  I had some questions, but he gave a good overview of what is there, what is planned, and what has occurred in the process.  This is a one story addition on 2.17 acres.  Elevations were presented, and they were beautiful.  I believe that this was the two parcels that are not merged.  I did not ask.

 

Raimondo was on for public hearing for work related to mitigation of violations.  There were still outstanding comments to be addressed from the town consultants, so it was adjourned to the March 23 meeting.

 

Mr. Gair, on Peekskill Hollow Road, wants to divide his property with two houses into 2 lots.  There is a garage apartment that has been present for quite awhile.  Mr. Gair says it was there in 1939.  The code was written in 1938, so the apartment may not be pre-existing non-conforming, it may be only non-conforming.  Mr. Gair gave a speech about how long his family has been here, but he needs to provide proof about when the apartment was added.  Actually I don’t know why he wouldn’t have to conform in order to move forward with a PB change.

 

The Velez application is on Tanglewylde Road.  The house was destroyed in a fire.  Even though it is a .37 acre lot on a steep slope, the code allows rebuilding.  They have requested a higher  basement and another floor.  The zoning board of appeals has already granted an area variance.  There is no room on the parcel for a septic expansion field, not a particular area of concern for me.  I understand allowing a rebuild after a fire, although if insurance would pay for another house, that would be preferable.  And I can understand the basement.  But I fail to see that rebuilding the house as it was is a hardship that warrants a variance.  This parcel is too small  for well and septic.  It is an unbuildable lot that is buildable only because it was built on when the code was not as careful.  The size of the house that burned down was what they bought.  If it no longer meets their needs, they can sell it, and purchase another home.  They cannot meet all the requirements of the ground and surface water protection law.  They were given exemption from the tree law.  I was wondering what the difference was between their tree plan argument, and Mr. Kisslinger’s.  It seems as though some people are treated as if they will be building their house, while they are going through the planning process, and others are treated as if it is questionable.  Is Mr. Kisslinger’s lot more questionable than this one, or say the Gunther lot?  When discussing the tree plan waiver, they discussed Rose Hills as if they had been given a waiver from the tree plan.  I remember the discussion, but I don’t remember any formal decision regarding that parcel.  They also waived the topography map of the undisturbed area, and granted sketch approval.

 

There was a Peekskill Hollow Road parcel on the agenda, listed as Rodrigues.  This is the Rippolon parcel that has DEC and town wetlands, and required a lot line change.  The parcel has a covenant on it for land trusting.  The proposed house that backs up against the wetlands has five bedrooms, and a five car garage. 

 

Lastly they discussed the Anakin subdivision, and granting a building permit for the last house without completion of the road.  The road gets torn up in the construction process.  They discussed Timberline Court, and some of the issues that the highway superintendent has with their drainage system.  The residents want the town to take over maintenance of their road.

 

The next planning board meeting is March 23 at 6PM.  Illegal meeting in the backroom sometime between 5:30 and 6.  The agenda is on the town website, and PVRC sends it out as a courtesy to its members.  There are three public hearings, Michener, MacDonald – PHR and Raimondo.  Sketch plan approval for David and Adorno.  Review of  Feldman – Lee Avenue and Camp Combe.  A decision on Anakin, and an informal discussion of Higgins on Lake Shore Rd.

 

Town Board meeting this Wed. at 7PM.  We’ll see if there are any more fireworks.

 

Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

 

DP

 

 


Categories

%d bloggers like this: