November 15, 2010 Planning Board Meeting
It was Keith Staudohar’s show – of Cronin Engineering. He is the engineer for all the applicants. The meeting had a false start. Even with legal backroom meetings, I guess the applicant wasn’t ready.
At 63 Lakefront Road, on .32 acres, in an R3 zone, they want to tear down the existing structure and rebuild. They are going to the ZBA. A recent court decision frowned upon multiple variances for one property.
Then, up came Marsh Hill Road/Emerald Ridge/Meadow Ridge/VS Construction. This is the development on an overly long, overly steep dead end road. Sadly, it is almost done, one lot left. It stands as a testament to Bob, Gene, WW, and Priscilla’s poor sense of planning, and WW’s backroom dealing. But it does prove that incentive zoning isn’t necessary. Keith was back to get out of the obligation to improve drainage on Peekskill Hollow Road. From the county, Mark Rosa says there is no need. Funny thing is residents say there is. They say water pours off the road onto Peekskill Hollow Road, and ices, and floods. That is where the county plow got stuck in the snow.
There is nothing the PB can do.
Interestingly, Keith says he was told that the PHR project is not happening due to lack of funds. So why is the county buying two parcels from Reitz and Zarcone? Of course, the county has also said that they have modified the plan, and they have not. Is there one honest politician out there?
Warex – the gas station that is no longer allowed in the code, got an extension for putting in more tanks, something that is illegal in the Town of Putnam Valley.
FC Putnam Sports got an extension for expanding a business in a residential area, and culverting the stream.
So, something must have happened at the legal backroom meetings because the one December meeting has lots of applicants wanting to build new houses. Go figure.
Still, no Tom Patterson. Why would BB keep someone on the board who is never there?
Maple Leaf satisfied condition #3 on their approval. I don’t know if that means final approval.
Adopt cats. Buy bagels. Save sea turtles.
November 1, 2010
Maple Leaf Associates public hearing
Watch this meeting. Theater of the Absurd. Supposedly there was a public hearing on this application, but everything had already been decided, and the point of this meeting was not to listen to the public, but to rebut any objections, so that the application could move forward. The resolution was already prepared, and the Board had already decided. Ironically, the only other public comment was also written, submitted by Bob Tendy. This public hearing is worth listening to.
My comment –
1. The subject parcel is assessed and taxed as a residential parcel. Mr. Perosky’s other parcel is zoned LP. While the new zoning map indicates this as
CC2, the code does not clearly identify it that way. The long term use of this parcel as residential, and the assessment would seem to indicate that LP is a more historically accurate zone.
2. CC-2 states that uses must be ”compatible with the residential character and environment of the adjacent neighborhood.” Adjoining properties are houses, offices, and a church. The Planning Board does not determine uses.
3. Mr. Tumolo, the principle for Maple Leaf Associates, indicated that this use would be truck dispatch, that trucks would be parked on the 100’ X 100’ gravel parking lot, dispatched early in the morning, and returning in the evening. He said that they would be storing materials not used at the sites.
He described this use as very much like McKinney’s, which is not a use that has site plan approval.
4. Landscape contracting is not a listed use in the town Code. As such, it is not defined, and its parameters are not delineated.
5. The assumption has been put forth that this use is permitted under the Tompkins Decision and Order dated December 12, 2005.
This decision does not state that landscape contracting is added to the code, nor does it define landscape contracting, or delineate its
parameters. It does indicate that the Tompkins use is much like construction material sales.
6. Mr. Tumolo’s stated use is nothing like construction material sales. The Tompkins use isn’t like construction
material sales either. The Maple Leaf proposal is also unlike the current Tompkins’ use.
7. The Tompkins’ D&O states that “there is nothing inherently objectionable about the use so as to infer that its exclusion from the Ordinance was
deliberate.” There is also nothing to infer that its exclusion was not deliberate. What is quite clear, and acknowledged in the D&O is that the use was
8. The Zoning Board included the Tompkins use as a special permit use under Section 165-10D, which is now repealed. An
interpretation of this use would be needed from the ZBA, which does not have the right to consider uses other than those in the code. The Planning Board has no basis for continuing this review.
9. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan envisioned a third commercial zoning district in Lake Peekskill, more restrictive than theCC2 zone, more in keeping with residential use, and not industrial in use. The Maple Leaf proposal is industrial use, not community commercial. The Tompkins decision predates the Comprehensive Plan, and is not in keeping with that plan.
10. It has been brought to my attention that there is a stream that ran at the back of the Hilyer property, and through the Perosky property.
It would be useful at this juncture to know where that stream is.
And the meeting:
1. Mr. Raimondi looked at the zoning map, and said it’s CC2. Well, I guess that explains it.
2.Mr. Raimondi says that there is a landscaper adjoining, and ignored the houses, offices, and church. The reason that I did not mention McKinneys’s landscaping, aside from the overwhelming length of other abutters, is that McKinney’s does not have a site plan or a special use permit. His use predates the approval of Tompkins and the reason for his existence is frequently said to be that it is “grandfathered.” The problem with that is that it was not a landscaping dispatch operation or landscaping storage before it was McKinney’s….. This controversy has been raised lots of times and there is never any explanation. There have also been building built since the use started, none of them provoking a site plan. Regardless of the application, and McKinney’s, neither is compatible with the residential character and environment of the adjacent neighborhood.
3. The use has not been clarified. The Planning Board changed attorneys in the middle of this process. I hope that Mr. Lusardi is well. When he was the attorney for the project, he said that Mr. Tumolo would have to show how this use was like the Tompkins use, which is the use that has a special permit, not like McKinney’s, which does not. Everything that Mr. Tumolo has said has illustrated that this use will be like McKinney’s, not Tompkins.
4. Now, we are being told that landscape contracting is a common sense term, and does not need to be defined or delineated. Apparently it doesn’t even have to be mentioned.
5. Now there is some lawsuit that is defining the use, not the D&O. Not the 3 Hilyer lawsuits. Did Maple Leaf Associates sue the town? Hard to know when everything goes on in the backroom.
6.The Maple Leaf use is not like construction material sales. It seems only to be like the controversial, supposedly “grandfathered” McKinney’s use. Do you get the impression that they are all on the same side?????
7. This use was excluded from the code, but they don’t care. It doesn’t exactly matter what the code says.
8. The Planning Board is allowed to determine special use permits, as defined in the code. This is what it actually says in the code about special use permits,
Article 10, Section 165-33
A. The special permit uses as set forth in this article shall be deemed to be permitted uses in their respective base zoning districts. However,
as special permit uses possess certain characteristics which make them incompatible with existing uses, contiguous zoning, permitted uses or future
uses, each application for a special use permit shall be considered on its individual merits.
B. The special permit uses as set forth in this section shall be subject to compliance with the requirements and standards set forth herein in
addition to all other applicable codes and requirements. Any law, ordinance or code which is more restrictive than the provisions of this article shall be
deemed controlling, unless otherwise specified.
I don’t know if any of them have read this. Now you have.
9. The Comprehensive Plan is very clear. It wants to move away from pre-existing industrial uses to community commercial that is compatible with the residences, and serves the local community. It wants to do that so much that it created a new CC3 zone for the area. Mr. Raimondi wants to exclude this parcel from that designation, and he wants more industrial uses in CC1 (the zone for Oregon Corners). he wants to do that so much that he will start approving industrial uses now. CC1 isn’t even industrial. But at least he acknowledged that this use is. It does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan at all, and there has been no updated zoning code.
10. That stream that I was told about. I was told that it had fish in it. Where did it go?
Mr. Tendy’s comments raised the issues of salt storage, wood storage, petroleum storage and pumping, trucks going onto Canopus Hollow Road – Maple Leaf’s attorney said that the roads are open and free, so they will do what they want, noise and hours of operation. They will start at 7AM, neighbors be damned. Size and type of trucks. They will wash vehicles on weekends…. They didn’t mcuh care what he had to say either, but they did read his letter straight through before rebutting.
You know, when the defunct bank application was before the board, they made them do a traffic study. Their traffic was considered, but these trucks leaving at 7AM at a very bad intersection are not an issue. You’d think different people are treated differently, wouldn’t you?
Putnam Valley Planning Board, April 19, 2010, maybe 5:30, maybe 6
Planning Board opening
There is an opening on the Planning Board. If you are interested, send your letters of intent to the Town Board members email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com.
The Planning Board announcement says 5:30. The Chair pointedly said on the meeting tape that he was opening the 6PM meeting. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say if they held an illegal backroom meeting.
Santucci et al.
There have been a lot of searches on my site for Val Santucci, so I’ll start there, even though that wasn’t where the meeting started. This is the Emerald Ridge, Marsh Hill Road, Meadow Ridge, VS Construction project of note. 4 houses have been built; I think 1 has been sold. An extension was given for 3 of the sites, now that funding has been obtained for the letters of credit. 4 proposed sites need new site plan approval and a public hearing will be held on May 3. Will they consider the overly long, overly steep road, the economic impact on a community that cannot afford more impact, or the drainage problem at the bottom of the hill that garnered so much public attention? Probably not.
Don’t you need a new wetlands screening if the process has dragged on long enough?
Mr. Steinmetz was not there. I have come to count on certain things in my life.
Soccer, Bryant Pond Road
The meeting started with a public hearing on the proposal at the soccer camp. They intend to pipe and divert the stream, construct another soccer field, add parking, and light one of the fields. This plan has improved a lot, but it is in a residential zone. This business exists under a special use permit. One has to wonder why a board in 1998 decided to put a business in a residential zone, and why two years later, they decided to allow expansion to seven days a week and longer hours, all against neighbors’ objections. Why don’t the private property owners have any rights?
As I go by, and see the kids kicking soccer balls, next to the now condemned stream, it seems pleasant and country to me. For the neighbors, crowd cheers have long ago destroyed their peaceful enjoyment of their property. Now the business wants to expand, and the Town did not protect the residents with this application. A special use permit for a business should set limits, and those limits should be enforced. If the limits are not adhered to, the special use permit should be pulled. Whether or not a special use permit for a business in a residential zone should be issued at all is a moot point this time.
7 days a week until 8 or 9PM doesn’t sound limited. And the mitigation of the damage to the wetlands should have been corrected before.
The resolution for approval for this project had already been prepared, and the board was poised to approve. They delayed their approval, but this is once again an illustration of why this process should not go on without public input. The objections of the residents should have been considered before pushing the project along. Noise had never been considered during the planning process, and the public ends up pitted against the business owner, and no matter what happens, someone loses and everyone is irate.
There is a proposal for a house, with lots of issues still needing work, wetlands, 14.5% grade. One neighbor wanted to express some of his concerns, but instead of considering them early on in the planning, they will wait, as always, until they have finished the plan. I’m not sure why.
Maple Leaf Associates
A proposal for a truck storage building for landscaping on CC2? The house would be converted to an office. No new bathroom is proposed. The Chair suggested a port-a-potty at the last meeting (Is that appropriate?)
They would need a special use permit. There may be some hydric soils – wetlands. Who knew?
The Town Board has proposed a law that takes landscaping out of “approved” uses. When there were complaints about the landscaper trucks stored there, a certain civic association was informed that the property was residential…..
Cold Spring Road
There is a plan for an expansion on Lake Oscawana, no change in the footprint, and peat filtration units for the septic. If the construction disturbance is controlled, the proposal will be an improvement.
And there is a wireless tower proposed on Williams Drive. A balloon test is set for May.
Putnam Valley Planning Board – public hearing on tomorrow night’s agenda (April 19, 5:30PM)
Re: F.C. Putnam Sports
7 Bryant Pond Road
Section 63 Block 3 Lot 2
This parcel is encumbered with wetlands, wetland buffer, and a tributary of the Peekskill Hollow Creek, a DEC regulated trout stream and source of drinking water. This proposal would “pipe” and divert the water course.
As of the March 19, 2010 report from the wetlands inspector:
Item #3, “Provide site specific soils profile information on the area of the proposed biofilter.”
Item #4, “The revised functional analysis has not been submitted….Additionally, the applicant has not provided an analysis of post construction pollutant loading (including thermal) to Peekskill Hollow Brook, a regulated trout stream. It is strongly recommended that the Planning Board require the applicant to submit this information prior to conducting a public hearing.”
Item #5, “Please provide management and maintenance plan for the created wetlands areas including invasive species removal. Will there be a need for energy dissipation at the end of the proposed pipe connection to the stream? Indicate how stream water will be diverted around the created wetland during construction and stabilization.”
It is disturbing that these issues were not resolved prior to the scheduling of a public hearing.
It is disturbing that avoidance of significant environmental damage, and mitigations have not yet been addressed for this proposed project.
Planning Board, Monday, March 22, 2010
This “regular” meeting was shorter than the usual backroom meetings. Next Monday’s will be even shorter.
The post office – red and yellow vinyl it will be. Part black roof, part brown and black, 2 dummy dormers, a cupola, and a wrap around porch (described as an awning at the last meeting).
I wonder if ABACA* (architectural review board) would consider posting their comments on the internet.
I would have thought that wood and Mr. van de Veerdonck’s green hued color scheme would set the bar, but I guess not.
They said this was the same as what was submitted 2 years ago?
And what about that CO for the second floor?
Putnam Sports – increase in the number of permitted events, lights, and another field. Maybe I will FOIL the wetlands comments. Parking has occurred where it should not. The stream will be rerouted and “piped”, not mentioned at this meeting. What mitigation was proposed? There will be a public hearing on April 19. The planning board approved sketch.
Gizzi – 3 bedroom house on 2 acres in 3 acre zoning on Oscawana Lake Road, next to Timberline. A wetlands traverses the site. The house is sited within the buffer. There is an asphalt driveway. It is within the Oscawana watershed, with an intermittent watercourse. They need a wetlands delineation “so that we can see how this is going to take place.” It is a pre-existing non-conforming lot, the kind that would no longer exist if there had been political will.
Emerald Ridge… Marsh Hill Road…Meadow Ridge…VS Construction…Val Santucci…..times 2 times 7. Two items on the agenda, seven lots in all. I don’t know why it was on the agenda at all, but it was a revealing encounter. Mr. Santucci thought it was all “arranged.” The bank will not renew his letters of credit. The project is in default. The new bank has not issued the new letters yet. When they do, the Town Board has to accept them before the Planning Board can grant an extension. Mr. Santucci wanted the extension at this meeting. Mr. Raimondi wanted to give it to him. Mr. Zutt and the rest of the Board wanted to wait, and the Chair acquiesced.
So now that Maria’s is out of Mr. Santucci’s Oregon Corners building, can we revisit that “site plan,” and the changes that were made to the porch, the parking on the public street, etc?
The engineer for Putnam Sports, Gizzi and Emerald Ridge is Keith Staudohar of Cronin Engineering.
Lead agents for the firehouse – the Planning Board declared themselves lead agency for the environmental review.
The engineer for this project is Bill Bricklemaier of Insite Engineering, former Town Engineer.
At the next Planning Board meeting, April 5, there are only two applications, one a house on .55 acres on Pudding Street.