Planning Board - 2006-02-14
A special meeting of the Town of LaGrange Planning Board was held at the LaGrange Town Hall, 120 Stringham Road on Tuesday, February 14, 2006. Chairman John Brewster called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Board members Robert Straub, Dennis Rosenfeld, Jay Cantor and Stacy Olyha were present. John Gunn and Alan Bell were absent. Also present was Joachim G. Ansorge, Director of Planning and Zoning and Walter Artus of the Town Engineering firm, the Chazen Companies.
Mr. Straub made a motion to approve the minutes of January 17, 2006, seconded by Mr. Cantor and the motion carried unanimously.
ROBIBERO SITE PLAN – Proposed site plan located on Industry Street containing 1.976 acres (Grid No. 6361-03-112342)
Mr. Ernst Martin appeared before the board regarding this application.
Mr. Martin said he did not have the affidavit from the newspaper for the public hearing. Ms. Mang had a copy of the notice from the newspaper and read it into the record. Mr. Brewster advised Martin that the public hearing could not be closed and would have to be adjourned until the following month.
Mr. Martin described the project to the board. He said the applicant is looking to take the buildings on the property and further partition them for retail, wholesale and warehouse usage. Mr. Martin said the project is located in an industrial zone requiring a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Brewster declared the public hearing for Robibero Site plan open for public comment and asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the application. There was no response.
Mr. Rosenfeld made a motion to adjourn the public hearing to the March meeting, seconded by Mr. Straub and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED.
HARVEST RIDGE SUBDIVISION – Proposed 52-lot subdivision located on Noxon Road containing 110.9 acres (Grid No. 6460-04-803005; 740133)
Mr. Brewster said the town attorney has prepared a resolution for the board allowing Harvest Ridge until July 21 to have applied and received final approval of the subdivision. He said if they do not receive it by then, that on that night the board will hold a public hearing to consider the revocation of the preliminary approval.
Mr. Blass spoke. He said the resolution states that preliminary approval was obtained on April 21, 2004. He said he believed that was accurate. Mr. Blass said the applicant failed to file an application for final subdivision approval and the town has granted the applicant the maximum number of three six-month extensions of preliminary approval allowed under the town law. Mr. Blass also said that the town law provides that a Planning Board may institute proceedings to revoke a preliminary approval for failure to file a final plat within six months of preliminary approval.
Mr. Blass said at the February 7, 2006 workshop meeting of the Planning Board, representatives of the applicant for Harvest Ridge Subdivision indicated that they believed that outstanding approvals constituting conditions precedent to the filing of the final plat could be obtained from the Dutchess County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, the Dutchess County Department of Public Works, and/or other agencies within a two-month time frame, and that necessary submissions could be made to the Planning Board Engineer for this project within a two-month time frame.
Mr. Blass continued to read that the Planning Board will forebear until July 21, 2006 from instituting proceedings to revoke the applicant’s preliminary plat approval pursuant to New York town Law and that if the applicant fails to file an application for final approval complying with all final subdivision plat requirements on or before June 9, 2006, the Planning Board will revisit the issue of whether to institute proceedings to revoke the applicant’s preliminary plat approval pursuant to state or local law.
Mr. Brewster said the applicant would need to actually file the application for final by June 9, 2006, which would be the deadline for submissions to be on the agenda for the Planning Board meeting held on July 18, 2006.
Mr. Brewster said the applicant expects to have approval for the subdivision, stormwater, sewer district, wetland conservation and roadside improvements by June 1, 2006. Mr. Brewster said the only thing that wouldn’t be done would be the formation of the stormwater/drainage district which can be a condition of final.
Mr. Blass said the board should have a date by which the applicant should have their complete final plat application in, and to get on the July 11, 2006 workshop, the applicant would need to have everything in by June 9, 2006.
Mr. Brewster told Mr. Martin if he did not file the application with the town by June 9, 2006, the Planning Board would notify him that the board intends to hold a public hearing in July to rescind the preliminary approval.
Mr. Rosenfeld made a motion to that affect, seconded by Mr. Straub and the motion carried unanimously.
GASLAND AT LAGRANGE SITE PLAN – Proposed site plan located on Rte. 55
(Grid N.6360-03-259493); consideration of re-approval of amended site plan.
Mr. Brewster said the board gave this project a 30-day conditional approval to last July. Mr.
Brewster said they never produced the map or completed the work so the approval lapsed. Mr.
Brewster asked the applicant if there were any changes from what was originally approved. Mr.
Nesheiwat said there was an issue with the signs and he said they took care of it. Mr. Brewster
said he noticed they had been down for about a week. Mr. Nesheiwat told the board they would
never see them again.
Mr. Rosenfeld made a motion to grant amended site plan approval for Gasland, seconded by Mr.
Straub and the motion carried unanimously. AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL
GRANTED. Mr. Brewster told Mr. Nesheiwat that he needed to get the maps in so they could
CRAMER ROAD ASSOCIATES SUBDIVISION – Proposed 4-lot subdivision located on
Cramer Road containing 10.98 acres (Grid No. 6361-04-948408/975396)
Mr. Dan Koehler appeared before the board regarding this application. Mr. Artus said they had
Board of Health approval and the drainage was all taken care of as well as the common driveway
maintenance agreement. He said there was no other outstanding issues. Mr. Ansorge asked if
there were any changes to the one lot. Mr. Koehler said it was the grading on the driveway.
Mr. Brewster asked if this was in the drainage district and Mr. Koehler said no.
Mr. Straub made a motion to grant final subdivision approval subject to the payment of all outstanding fees, seconded by Mr. Cantor and the motion carried unanimously. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
DUBOIS SUBDIVISION – Proposed 2-lot subdivision located on Traver Road containing 8.642 acres (Grid No. 6462-01-446700); consideration of final approval.
Mr. Robert Hare appeared before the board regarding this application. Mr. Hare said the last time he was before the board he was given 40 days to satisfy the outstanding issues. He said it expired because it turned out there was a double mortgage on the property and he ran into problems. Mr. Hare said everything is done now.
Mr. Artus said the outstanding items concerned the Town Attorney’s office. Mr. Rosenfeld made a motion to grant final subdivision approval subject to the payment of all outstanding fees, seconded by Mr. Cantor and the motion carried unanimously. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
PROVIDENCE ESTATES SUBDIVISION- Proposed 8-lot subdivision located on Red Oaks Mill Road containing 11.37 acres (Grid No. 6260-02-725556); consideration of preliminary approval.
Mr. Larry Paggi appeared before the board regarding the application. Mr. Brewster said the board granted a SEQR determination 2 months ago and asked Mr. Paggi if there were any changes. Mr. Paggi said they looked at the shoulder pass at the last workshop and said they also talked about possibly considering eliminating a left turn in and left turn out. He said they could do that between now and final approval.
Mr. Straub made a motion to grant preliminary subdivision approval, seconded by Ms. Olyha and the motion carried 4-1. Mr. Cantor abstained. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
DALEY FARM PDD – Proposed Planned Development District located on Titusville Rd./Noxon Rd. (Grid No. 6360-03-081270/229310)
Mr. Pete Setaro of Morris Associates appeared before the board regarding this application.
Mr. Setaro said he received an e-mail from the DEC giving them the approval for the wetland permits.
Mr. Brewster said this application is to determine the as-of-right count for the potential future cluster. He said there were two other as-of-right counts that would come before the board at another point in time, but this was regarding the PDD for a single family and a potential planned district for a portion of the property used for multi-family. Mr. Brewster said the board is now considering what the standard lot count is for potential cluster if they decide not to go with the PDD.
Mr. Straub made a motion to grant the as-of-right count to be 91 lots, seconded by Mr. Cantor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Brewster advised Mr. Setaro that he was not using the proper size signature block and asked him to please take care of it. Mr. Setaro agreed.
GABIO SUBDIVISION – Proposed 3-lot subdivision located on N. Cross Road containing
19.04 acres (Grid No. 6561-04-953171); circulate for lead agency.
Mr. Rosenfeld made a motion to circulate for Lead Agency, seconded by Mr. Cantor and the motion carried unanimously. CIRCULATE FOR LEAD AGENCY.
SORA ENTERPRISES AMENDED SITE PLAN – Proposed site plan located on Noxon Road (Grid No. 6360-01-053893); set a public hearing
Mr. Dan Koehler appeared before the board regarding this application.
Mr. Cantor made a motion to set a public hearing for March 21, 2006, seconded by Mr.. Straub and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING SET.
LINCOLN RIDGE LIGHTING DISTRICT SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Proposed special use permit located on Freedom Road/Cramer Road – circulate for lead agency.
Mr. Larry Paggi appeared before the board regarding this application.
Mr. Cantor made a motion to circulate for Lead Agency, seconded by Mr. Straub and the motion carried unanimously. CIRCULATE FOR LEAD AGENCY.
MCBRIDE SITE PLAN – Proposed site plan located on Freedom Plains Road containing 0.60 acres (Grid No. 6360-02-661883); lead agency determination.
Mr. Dan Koehler appeared before the board regarding this application.
Mr. Brewster said the board circulated for Lead Agency status. Mr. Brewster asked the applicant if he was presently renting out spaces. He replied yes. Mr. Brewster told him he did not have permission from the board or site plan approval and asked him why. Mr. McBride said it was necessary to carry the expenses.
Mr. Rosenfeld made a motion to declare the Planning Board as Lead Agency for McBride site plan. Mr. Straub seconded it and the motion carried unanimously. LEAD AGENCY STATUS
Mr. Koehler asked the board to set a public hearing. Mr. Brewster said they needed to do something about the landscaping. He said there was absolutely nothing in the front of the site. Mr. McBride said they held off on the landscaping until they knew what the requirements from the board would be. Mr. Brewster asked if they would be blacktopping and Mr. Koehler said yes, they planned on blacktopping. Mr. Cantor made a motion to set a public hearing for March 21, 2006, seconded by Mr. Rosenfeld and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING SET.
Mr. Brewster asked if they were making any changes to the front of the building. Mr. McBride said they needed to make changes to follow the code for handicap accessibility.
REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSIONS –
FRANK FARM SUBDIVISION – extension of contingent final approval.
Mr. Brewster said the board received a letter requesting their final 90 day extension.
Mr. Straub made a motion to grant Frank Farm a 90-day extension of final approval due to expire on June 21, 2006.
SLEIGHT FARM SUBDIVISION – extension of contingent final approval
Mr. Straub made a motion to grant Sleight Farm Subdivision a 90-day extension of final approval due to expire on June 21, 2006.
Mr. Kenneth Maynard and Ms. Tasha Maynard requested to speak to the board regarding Country Commons. He said he lived on Rte. 82, across from the proposed development of Country Commons. Mr. Maynard said the job was shut down due to violations, which he said was none of his business. He said when they shut down the two illegal ditches were dumping water into a culvert and the water was running into his backyard and flooding his property.
Mr. Brewster asked Mr. Artus if he looked at the property in question. Mr. Ansorge said they visited the site one morning for over an hour with Mr. Maynard and said he thought they resolved the issue. Mr. Ansorge said he also thought it was proven to Mr. Maynard that these were not illegal ditches. Mr. Maynard said it got to the point where he realized it was a lost cause talking to the engineer. Mr. Maynard said the engineer told him he could own his property if he wanted to dump the water on it and make a detention pond out of it.
Mr. Maynard said the engineer said that any rate of water he dumped into his property was legal. Mr. Koehler spoke. He said he told Mr. Maynard that he needed to meet with Phase II Stormwater Regulation requirements and that was what they were doing. Mr. Brewster asked Mr. Koehler if he was making a pond on Mr. Maynard’s property. Mr. Koehler replied no. Mr. Maynard disagreed and said he would be glad to show it to the board. Mr. Maynard said he had a huge pond now and it was going to get a lot bigger when the construction started.
Mr. Ansorge said what Mr. Maynard was describing was the head wall of the culvert going underneath Rte. 82 that picks up the drainage from Mr. Popoli’s property, which always has had drainage headed toward Mr. Maynard’s property. Mr. Ansorge said Mr. Maynard does not have an outlet because of the railroad that runs through and traps the water. Mr. Maynard said the water never reached his property. Mr. Ansorge said the culvert has always been there. Mr. Maynard said it’s been there, but in a bowl of rock. He said the only way he could get the water to go there was to dig two ditches through it.
Mr. Maynard said you can see where he dug the two ditches through the rock to get the water to him. Mr. Maynard said he was shown a map that showed the drainage on that site. He said 70-80% of the drainage never went to that culvert. Mr. Koehler said his map did show it.
Mr. Ansorge said when Rte. 82 was constructed, the engineers who designed that at that time saw to it that there was a culvert put underneath Rte. 82 to pick up the water coming from Mr. Popoli’s property. Mr. Maynard disagreed. He said he was not an engineer but he knew that water doesn’t run uphill.
Mr. Brewster asked if there was more water on his property now than before. Mr. Maynard replied 100 times more. Mr. Artus said there was a large depression on Mr. Maynard’s side of the property that probably has been there forever. Mr. Ansorge said Mr. Maynard’s house is located on a portion of his property that was elevated quite a few feet above the depression area and wasn’t impacting the house.
Mr. Brewster asked Mr. Maynard how the water was impacting him. Mr. Maynard said it was taking up his property. Mr. Brewster asked him what he would do with the property if there wasn’t water there. Mr. Maynard said it doesn’t matter, he paid for the property, it was his and he didn’t have to give it to Mr. Popoli as a lake.
Ms. Tasha Maynard said there was no water coming from that one drainage pipe underneath because it was clogged. Ms. Maynard said when they started clearing the property they illegally dug a ditch for the water to drain. Ms. Maynard said the piping was now coming directly across and the water was being piped to them which was illegal.
Mr. Maynard said there are ditches that were dug on Mr. Popoli’s property and the water runs to the culvert now and it never did before. He said you can see where they dug through the rock to get the water to run through the culvert.
Mr. Artus said Mr. Maynard is referring to temporary diversion swales that were put in there at the direction of his office to alleviate runoff. Mr. Brewster asked if anything could be done to alleviate Mr. Maynard’s problem.
Mr. Artus said he hasn’t been out to the site every day and added that every time he as been there, he has not seen any water going through there. Mr. Ansorge said the purpose of having the engineer at the meeting on site was to demonstrate that the actual peak flow from Popoli’s property to the Maynard property never increased because of the retention/detention ponds. Mr. Maynard said peak flow was not his problem. He said his problem was quantity. He said there is more water on that property than ever before. He said he shouldn’t have to donate his property to Mr. Popoli to improve his.
Mr. Ansorge said he reported back to the Supervisor that he felt they had reached a resolution to Mr. Maynard’s concerns.
Mr. Ansorge asked Mr. Koehler if he could put something in writing addressing Mr. Maynard’s concerns. Mr. Koehler said he could show what the peak rates of runoff from that culvert were before and after.
Mr. Maynard asked Mr. Brewster to give Mr. Blass a copy of the two outlined paragraphs in the document he gave him.
Mr. Maynard said he has had water in his backyard since July. Mr. Koehler said the aerial showed that there was water already there. Mr. Maynard said it was not to that quantity.
Mr. Brewster asked if there was anything they could do with the temporary ditches to divert the water someplace else. Mr. Artus said that would cause erosion if they were blocked off. Mr. Maynard suggesting dumping them in the filtration pond. Mr. Artus said it was not filled yet because they were in a state of limbo.
Mr. Koehler said the reason they have the Phase II Stormwater Regulations is for this exact reason. He said there was no way to decrease volume when you develop a site. He said anytime you take down a tree you are going to increase the volume.
Mr. Brewster said they could put up less building and less parking. Mr. Koehler said they were infiltrating on their site a good proportion of it. Mr. Brewster asked why there was so much water there now. Mr. Koehler said there wasn’t any water there now. Ms. Maynard said she had pictures that she didn’t bring to show where they illegally dug the ditch and opened up the culvert. He said the whole culvert was filled with water which directly drained on to her property. Mr. Brewster said at one time that drain did work.
Mr. Maynard said the basin was completely surrounded with rock from the south to the east to the north. Mr. Maynard said this was the third time he had to defend his property. He said about 8 years ago, they tried to develop a project at that site. He said he told the board that they couldn’t use artificial means to deliver water to his property. Mr. Maynard said that job was shut down. Mr. Brewster said the job was not shut down. Mr. Maynard said they couldn’t find a way to get rid of the water.
Mr. Maynard said when the state improved the roads 3 years ago, they were going to run the drainage from the intersection of Rte. 55 to that culvert. He said he notified them that they were violating their own state law and it was shut down. He said they changed the water to go north all the way to the brook, ˝ mile from his site. Mr. Maynard said you can’t dump water on somebody else’s property by artificial means. He said there were 30 case laws stating that. Mr. Maynard said the infiltration system was a joke.
Mr. Brewster told Mr. Koehler that he was not entitled to put more water on Mr. Maynard’s property than there originally was. Mr. Koehler replied diametrically, yes. Mr. Brewster said that didn’t mean the board had to approve it.
Mr. Rosenfeld asked Mr. Koehler if there was any possibility that this property could tie into the system that the DOT did to direct the water in the same direction as they did. Mr. Koehler said he would have to take a look at it. He said it had a certain capacity and didn’t know if they were already at capacity. He said if they were at capacity then they couldn’t do that.
Mr. Brewster said it sounds like there is too much parking lot and too much building. Mr. Ansorge said everyone was aware that you can’t artificially bring in additional water.
Mr. Brewster told Mr. Koehler that he can’t impact Mr. Maynard’s property. Mr. Koehler said he agreed if there legitimately was a problem. Mr. Brewster said it sounded like there was a problem.
Mr. Ansorge told Mr. Maynard that he couldn’t gage everything based upon what we experienced this past October. Mr. Brewster told Mr. Maynard the board would be out for a site visit on April 27. He said there was not much the board could do before then.
Eileen Mang, Secretary