|
Lockwood Estates, request for cluster authorization Background Section 15.07 Block 1 Lot 5 Location: Foothill Street & Lockwood Road, Mohegan Lake Contact: Ralph Mastromonaco, PE, PC: Al Capellini, attorney Description: Proposed 20-Lot subdivision on 33.6 acres in the R1-40 zone. The parcel is in northwest corner of Yorktown abutting Cortlandt and Putnam Valley. Property is currently zoned ½ acre but will be rezoned to one acre when new zoning goes into effect. Planning Board has jurisdiction over the approval of the subdivision but only the town board can authorize use of clustering. The basic purpose of the cluster law is to preserve open space. Cluster has been permitted ini Yorktown for about 30 years. (Walden Woods off Curry St. is an example of an early cluster development.) Assuming a one acre zone with 20 buildable lots, the 20 homes could be built on ½ acre lots which would utilize only 10 acres (instead of 20) and the remaining 10 acres could be preserved as open space. The open space could be owned by the homeowners association or it could be decided to the town for either passive or active reaction. Key to understanding cluster is that it does not permit the developer to build any more lots than would be permitted under a traditional (aka conventional) subdivision. While the parcel's zoning remains unchanged, the houses can be built on smaller lots than required under the zoning and the area left Planning board has already concluded that there 20 buildable lots on the site. Some of lots will have a portion in the rear that is in a wetlands buffer but this is acceptable to the planning board as the entire lot, especially when its one acre, does not have to be all useable. Bianco objected strongly, thinking that possibly 11 lots with some wetland buffer and should not be counted. Although he wanted to preserve open space and agreed with the general cluster idea, he was disturbed by lot count. Tegeder and applicant explained, more than once that the only determination for the town board was to authorize cluster; town board had no say in the lot count, although it could pass along its concerns to the planning board. Bianco also thought applicant should do a DEIS (draft environmental impact study)on the conventional before cluster was authorized; JT explained it doesn't work that way. Barber supported use of cluster. Metz wanted to know if there would be houses in buffer. Bianco read letter from town of Cortlandt asking for reduction in number of lots. He didn't want to accept the fact that the lot count was not an issue for the town board or when a DEIS would be done, despite repeated comments from JT and others. I hearing was adjourned without any action taken. Applicant's attorney said this was first time in 15 years that cluster had been used and that the cluster formula is actually harder for developers and can end up subtracting more land from lot count than if they went for a conventional subdivision. 11/27/07 (work session) Board resumed discussion about cluster authorization. Bianco again questioned 20 lots; he wants applicant to do DEIS on conventional plan, then fix lot count and then come to town board for cluster authorization. Applicant explained how count was determined by subtracting out unusable land. Developer has been before planning board for 1.5 years already. Sweeney read town cluster law but NB continued to make same points. The discussion was basically a repeat of all that had been said at the previous public hearing. Nothing new was added to the discussion. A possible resolution of the issue could be that the town board will include some non binding recommendations if and when it authorized cluster. 12/18/07 The discussion was a rehashing of points made at earlier meetings. Bianco had a new letter from Cortlandt and stated again that before the town board authorizes cluster he wants more information about future development plans for the adjacent land in Cortlandt owned by the developer, including road connections. He also wants a DEIS done before board authorizes cluster. He thought that there was a potential for 15 lots in Cortlandt. Developer's attorney (Al Capellini) continued to insist that applicant couldn't study cluster as an alternative in a DEIS without authorization from the board. He said it didn't make sense for the developer to do this without the authorization. Tegeder agreed with him. Sweeney said planning board can request applicant to study cluster if it requests that in a DEIS. Board remained concerned about the density, wanting the least possibly density (lowest possible lot count), and also future road connection into Cortlandt. Barber spoke of merits of cluster for this site, irrespective of lot count issue. Walt Daniels of Conservation Board and Open Space Committee said the site had high priority for preservation. Cluster is a way to preserve open space. He was concerned that a sewer line would cross the stream. (Town engineer Sharon Robinson indicated that this has been done before and there have been no problems. Applicant's engineer explained that stream would have to be crossed even under a conventional plan. Geri Schwab, Jerimiah Dineen (former planning board member) and Susan Siegel spoke up in favor of cluster for the site. Dineen said that under town's cluster law, town board could authorize use of cluster with conditions (including a lot count). Siegel expressed concern that if developer continued to have difficulties with cluster authorization, he might just go with conventional plan and the town would lose the open space. The Board will discuss the matter at a future work session. January 22, 2008 (work session) At Bianco's invitation a deputy planner from Cortlandt attended the meeting. Continuation of discussion regarding authorization to study cluster. Campisi and Bianco continued to express concern, particularly over two issues while Metz and Martorano attempted to fashion a workable compromise. Peters did not participate in discussion. Campisi wants a stipulation in any town board authorization that would prohibit any future extension of a proposed cul d'sac to a future development in Cortlandt which could create more traffic into Yorktown. Applicant's engineer, Dan Ciarcia (former Yorktown town engineer) indicated that town policy has always been to design multiple egress from a site, but Campisi stated that he could cite many cul d'sacs with one egress. Ciarcia suggested that a future potential "right of way" could be worked out to address this concern. Bianco continues to want a DEIS to study cluster as an alternative BEFORE the board authorizes cluster, believing that the DEIS might show that fewer than 20 lots are feasible. He says that cluster is a good idea if it's studied. Developer's attorney, Al Capellini, continues to insist that the Planning Board can't request applicant to study cluster without authorization of the town board. He doesn't want applicant to go through process of studying cluster only to have the Town Board later say "no." Ciarcia said that as the Town Board upzoned the parcel in the recent master plan, it should already be familiar with the environmental impacts on the potential development of the parcel. Sweeny advised board that Planning Board can study cluster if it requires a DEIS. There was some discussion as to how Cortldant handles cluster requests and whether it has developer study cluster before or after its Town Board gives cluster authorization. Underlying some of the discussion, but not said explicitly, is the question of whether the Planning Board should or will require a DEIS. Bianco feels that a 20 lot subdivision should require one but Capellini stated that not all impacts typically addressed in a full blown DEIS need to be reviewed, e.g., air quality and biodiverisity. He sort of implied that the Town Board identify its areas of concern, e.g., traffic, school impact, and that developer could address these. Applicant also wants to know what type of stipulations the Town Board might put on a cluster authorization . Discussion ended with directive to Sweeny to put together a resolution with stipulations that will be voted on at the next regular meeting. February 19, 2008, Continuation of public hearing Al Capellini, the developer's attorney said that he had reviewed the five conditions in the draft resolution and that the applicant had no problem with them. It appeared that the board would vote on the resolution but Ken Belfer, chairman of the town's Affordable Housing Committee, spoke and said that while he favored the use of cluster for the site, he also wanted the board to require, as a condition of its cluster approval, that the developer set aside up to 10% of the units for affordable housing. This created a problem, however, as the town law requiring developers to set aside up to 10% of the units in a subdivision for affordable housing had been thrown out by the courts, possibly in 2005, and the town has not as yet adopted a new law to replace it. Capellini said that the developer would have no problem complying with a new law requiring a set aside if the law was in place when the planning board approved the project. However, he was concerned that any set aside requirements be applied to all subdivisions, not just Lockwood Estates. He expressed concern that this possible new condition could be the “straw that breaks the back” and that the town board, by taking away discretion from the planning board, was doing a disservice to the town. The board adjourned the public hearing without taking any action. Susan Siegel asked the board to summarize the five conditions that Capellini had earlier said were acceptable to the developer but the board declined to make them public on that grounds that the conditions would have to be revised based on the affordable housing discussion. Councilman Bianco repeated his position that before the board authorizes the use of cluster, the applicant should do a full DEIS that included his adjoining property in Cortlandt. Planning Board work session, February 25, 2008 This project is before the Planning Board work session as a follow up to a recent Town Board action in which the Town Board placed an additional condition on its clustering authorization, i.e. that the developer comply with affordable housing requirements that are not actually in the Town code at this time. See report of February 19, 2008 Town Board meeting. Also Environmental Code Enforcement Officer, Bruce Barber, has recommended the wetland buffer zone be enlarged in the areas of steep slopes on this site. Mr. Tegeder explained that water moved faster along steep slopes so steep buffer areas are less effective at detaining and filtering run off, and a wider buffer might be desirable. However, the Town code does not actually allow for buffer expansion. Mr. Capellini said that the applicant was agreeable to these additional conditions as long as he wasn't being singled out as the only developer required to meet them. He said the applicant had to consider whether or not to go ahead with clustering, given these two additional conditions. He pointed out that the alternative is a conventional plan in which many lots will contain wetland or wetland buffer so that well into the future, the Town will have to deal with homeowners seeking to make property improvements. Mr. Klaus said that the Planning Board definitely favored clustering, with a lot count not to exceed 20 lots. He emphasized that 20 lots are not guaranteed. He agreed with the desirability of locating all the lots outside of controlled areas. Mr. Klaus also said that originally he firmly thought that the project should have a complete EIS (=environmental impact statement) and wondered how big a project needed to be before an EIS was triggered. Mr. Capellini reiterated that he thought an EIS was a waste of money and that the Planning Board could get the information it needed and take the “hard look” required by SEQRA in a series of supplements to the EAF (=environmental assessment form). In the end, Mr. Klaus said he would contact Town Board members to ask specifically what they had in mind when attaching these two additional conditions to the clustering authorization, and would have this information by the next Planning Board meeting. May 27, 2008, work session Mr. Capellini advised the board that the applicant had met with the town's Housing Board and had agreed to set aside 10% of the planned units for affordable housing, which works out to 2 units if 20 units are eventually approved. The board had a copy of a draft decision statement but other than the housing issue, the only other item discussed, albeit briefly, was that a proposed road in the subdivision would not be a thru street to Cortlandt. Councilman Martorano noted that the applicant appeared to have solved every problem that the board had raised. The decision statement on the requested cluster authorization will be voted on at the next board meeting. June 3, 2008 After a lengthy discussion, the board closed the hearing and voted 3-1 to grant cluster authorization, with Councilman Bianco voting against the motion and Coucilman Lou Campisi not present. Comments from the public repeated most of the issues discussed at earlier meetings, including placing a sewer pipe across the stream, the number of building lots and whether or not a DEIS should be done before cluster authorization was voted on. Paul Moskowitz and Sam Davis, former Putnam Valley supervisor spoke against the authorization. Jerry Dineen, former Planning Board chairman and Ray Arnold, former Planning Director spoke in favor of cluster. Town attorney John Buckley explained to the board that it could not include a requirement that a DEIS be done as a condition of granting the authorization as only the planning board had the authority to require a DEIS. He suggested instead wording that the town board “recommends” that the planning board require a complete environmental analysis. In voting for the resolution, Councilman Metz explained that cluster was a tool that would permit an environmentally sensitive review of the parcel. He also indicated that he had faith in the planning board and that the town board had been able to extract several conditions from the applicant, including an expanded environmental analysis and an affordable housing donation.(No details were provided on what the environmental analysis would include.) Councilman Martorano explained that the issue wasn't cluster or nothing as the town board did not have the right to stop the project entirely. He also noted that even if the site was developed with a conventional plan, there might be a sewer pipe across the stream. Supervisor Peters noted that cluster was better for the environment and he also trusted the planning board to do what was best for the town. Councilman Bianco called the resolution “an outrage of all outrages.” He also noted that he had tried to get some legal advice on the issue from the town's outside law firm but the firm could not comment on the issue because it represented the applicant in a land use issue in Cortlandt.
August 18, 2008, Planning Board work session Discussion Major Subdivision Location: Foothill Street & Lockwood Road, Mohegan Lake Contact: Ralph Mastromonaco, PE, PC, George Cronke, engineer, Al Capellini, attorney, Bill Lockwood, owner/developer Description: Proposed 20-Lot subdivision on 33.6 acres in the R1-40 zone. Planning Board attorney, Karen Wagner, recused herself from this discussion. This project has received approval for clustering from the Town Board, with a maximum of 20 lots and the requirement for a cul-de-sac allowing for no thru traffic from the Cortlandt side of the subdivision. The applicant asked the Planning Board for a sense of whether it was going to require clustering or a conventional subdivision plan. The Planning Board compared the layouts of the two alternatives, noting the preservation of the stream corridor made possible by clustering. Also, clustering would move the houses closer to the road and eliminate the need for future zoning variances. Mr. Capellini pointed out that under clustering the lots would still be bigger than the average conventional lot under the same zoning. The Planning Board favors clustering, although it did not make an explicit statement to that effect. For the next work session, Mr. Tegeder told the applicant to assume clustering and to start “refining” the plans by considering issues such as moving the garages to the back or sides of the dwellings, moving the sewer line out of the wetland buffer, finding the best configuration of each lot, insuring protection of the stream corridor. The question of when to do SEQR and in what form was raised. Mr. Capellini lobbied for a long form EAF (environment assessment form) with supplements, rather than a DEIS (draft environmental impact statement), maintaining that a DEIS has a lot of requirements irrelevant to this project. The Planning Board discussed what sort of environmental review had been required for various other subdivisions and compared those situations to this project. It was decided that the discussion and decision about SEQR needed to be made at an open public meeting with Mr. Klaus, the chairman who was absent, in attendance.
September 22, 2008, work session The board reviewed the latest plan presented by the project's engineer Dan Ciarcia and attorney Albert Capellini. Regarding the Conservation Board's concern over the possible stream crossing for the subdivision's sewer line, Mr. Ciarcia said he had explored the option of citing the line above ground. The pipe would be encased in a larger pipe and affixed to the underside of a pedestrian bridge that would cross the stream. This idea will be explored in greater detail. Regarding traffic, Mr. Capellini said that the applicant would do a study which would be reviewed by the town's traffic consultant. Additional studies will also be done on the site's hydrology and storm water requirements. Biodiversity and archeological studies have already been done. The site contains two wetland areas, one, close to Lockwood Rd, that is man made and a second, larger and more pristine wetland area that was of more concern to the board. Planning Director John Tegeder raised several additional areas that needed more study, including 1) the need for a wetlands study, including water quality 2) what could be done to protect the wetlands and stream corridor from runoff from lawns containing pesticides and whether some type of biofilter could be incorporated into the drainage system planned for the site. 3) flow volumes coming into the pipe that crosses Lockwood and an analysis of how the water dissipates on the site. Mr. Klaus said that it would be best to deal with backyards that were in the wetland buffer issues up front rather than wait for the homes to be built and then have the owners request permission to undertake activities in the buffer. As for the stream itself, Mr. Ciarcia said that he thought that the stream banks were stable but that the Conservation Board may have some recommendations regarding the stream. Mr. Tegeder advised the applicant that all the studies be put together in one package, like a long form EAF (Environmental Assessment Form). The applicant will return to the Planning Board once more information above the above issues is available. |