CATCHING UP PLANNING BOARD – 2011
PUTNAM VALLEY PLANNING BOARD JANUARY & FEBRARY 2011
There will be a second PB meeting in February, so if you’ve been getting used to the one
meeting per month format, take note.
I didn’t see the December meeting, so I don’t know what the site plan amendments were to the
Putnam Café, affectionately dubbed the Sisyphus Café on the lohud blog. There was a public hearing, but none of the
changes were discussed at the public meeting, and there was no one there to comment. Most of the work is done in the
backroom, we hope without benefit of a quorum of PB members, and the board itself seems an antiquated formality.
The public seems to have picked up on that, and no one showed up for the public hearings. Well, one person did, a
long term resident, who seems annoyed by the whole planning process, even though he was himself, once a ZBA member…
The PB holds the public hearings after they have made all their decisions —- all of them. They come into the public hearing,
with the approval resolution in hand, ready to approve the applications, and pass the negative declaration of environmental significance as part of the resolution, no matter what the public says.
For those who have been told that there will be ample opportunity for public input on the
firehouse, keep this process in mind. The consultants will work out their issues, and then the Planning Board
will approve the plan. That is how it is done in Putnam Valley.
So, Putnam Café is that building on the Oscawana Brook that used to be blue, and was an
eyesore for years. It is on the stream buffer, making people wonder how this new application was ever approved. It was approved back when Big Blue was approved. Now that there have beenamendments, no prior board can be blamed.
Parking on the steam, blacktopping on the stream, a long term erosion violation,
a sidewalk that has been down and out and down and ….. I can’t tell you what they are doing
There were conditions to the approval that have to be satisfied before the site plan is
signed. I have to wonder about conditional approvals. What is the legal date of the
approval? Why not wait for the conditions to be satisfied before the approval?
The Town Board does this too. Why the need for haste, instead of waiting until the situation is completely
understood? Isn’t it possible that some condition, or some discovery might change your bent toward approval.
26 Cimarron was on for wetland mitigation, an addition, a patio, stone wall removal, and other
minor details. There was a public hearing for which his neighbor showed up to express his approval.
63 Lake Front Road, on .32 acres in an R3 zone, on for a public hearing on Feb. 28,
demolish and reconstruct.
An addition at 31 Irma Drive, larger than 20%. A 3 car garage, plus a story. The PB granted sketch, and will hold a public hearing
on the 28th, but the applicant is going to submit changes.
Dominguez –Butterfly Lane, an old application. The conditions were not met after a 2009 approval.
It’s for one house on 26 acres. By the time some approvals were granted, others expired. It encroaches on DEC and Town wetlands, and a mitigation plan is needed. The PB granted sketch approval.
107 So. Highland Road – damaged by fire. They will demolish and reconstruct a single family on 12.21 acres. Part of the roof structure will be a green roof. There was some conversation about whether or not that is pervious surface.
Huh? It changes the stormwater calculation, and it is a positive change, but pervious? A pervious surface is
permeable, that is, water filters down through the soil. This application was approved at Feb. 7
40 Clubhouse Road – .52 acres adjacent to Lake Oscawana in an R3 zone. They want to demolish and reconstruct. January meeting granted sketch, public hearing was Feb. 7. Wetland mitigation, stormwater remediation.
West Shore Drive on 1.5 acres, in R3. Public hearing. No one was there. This application had a large public
opposition from Lake Oscawana residents, and they were permitted to voice their objections early. This was referred to
as the last lot on the improved road, but, as I understand, it is not on the approved road. What is most interesting
about this approval is that it does not yet have DOH approval. The DOH is requiring that the applicant
install a curtain drain before they will approve, and that requires a major grading permit. The Town of Putnam
Valley does not grant major grading permits without a site plan approval. A Catch 22.
So the PB has granted the approval without the DOH approval. That’s quite a condition. We’ll see what happens with this one.
Mr. Zutt said that, unlike this application, 2 years is longer than the usual length of time
for approvals. Quick approvals seem to be the goal, although there are a lot of long term projects now.
DeRiggi on PHR – a 5 bedroom house and detached garage on 26.8 acres in an R3. Some site restoration is need, and there are
some stormwater considerations.
There was an extension for Goncalves on OLR, for the Ice Cream Café on PHR, another Sisyphusian
And an extension for Paonessa on OLR.
On Hudsonview, a 2nd floor and detached garage on .97 acres in an R3 zone (3 acre residential). They approved
sketch. The public hearing is on the 28th.
Gersen – Caruso are reapplying for a single family house on Chapman Road on 11.2 acres
in a CD zone. The pond is already constructed, not necessarily the way it is on the plan. The house is in the wetland buffer and an
update to the wetlands delineation is needed.
At 36 Brookside, 1.3acres in a 3 acre residential zone. They talked about a previous driveway,
possibly gravel. When they were talking about the cemetery, gravel was impervious….
For Michener, on Woods End Road, a 4th 90 day extension.
For Felderbaum on 26 Cimarron Road, an amended resolution regarding the wetlands