G. Barone: You’re making the comments part
of the record.
G.
Monaco: I don’t see a problem with that.
G.
Lake: I will call the vote to make them come back.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Nay
G.
Monaco: Nay
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 4 AYES, 2 NAYS
MOTION
to reschedule the PUBLIC HEARING for February 4, 2004 made by
A. Dulgarian and seconded by G. Monaco.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
1. ASHLEY ESTATES II - 28 LOT SUBDIVISION - Howells Turnpike (6-1-13.21)
#040-002
G.
Lake: Why don’t you bring us up to date. You were here about
a month or so ago.
C.
Foti: We were here, I’m going to say about four months ago
and at that time basically the process was sort of delayed because
we found out that the wetlands on to the east side of the project
were Department of Environmental Conservation.
G.
Lake: Do you want to point that out to us? This is new now, right?
C.
Foti: Right. This is the Department of Environmental Conservation
wetlands back in here and because it was Department of Environmental
Conservation wetlands we have to create a one hundred foot buffer.
Basically we have mapped it and sent it in to them. I believe
we sent Mr. McGoey a copy of the Department of Environmental Conservation
approval of our plan. Because of the one hundred foot buffer we
were forced to reconfigure the road and the walks. We had shifted
everything to the west in order to get buildable areas on the
lots against the Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands
and reconfigure the cul-de-sac because of the wetlands. In the
process we lost one lot. It is now twenty seven lots.
G.
Lake: Dick, have you seen this at a work session?
D.
McGoey: Yes.
G.
Lake: With the cul-de-sac reconfiguring are there any major impacts
compared to what we were talking about already?
D.
McGoey: No, there weren’t significant changes in the subdivision.
I still have some concerns about the buildable area, the soils.
Some of the soils are unacceptable for septic systems.
G.
Lake: The soils are not . . .
D.
McGoey: The soils in some areas are not acceptable for on lot
septic systems. Those lots will have to be excluded from the subdivision.
The Engineer is going to have to go back and re-evaluate the soils
because we can even accept the sketch plan so that we know the
number of lots.
G.
Lake: Do you know how many that is?
D. McGoey: About three lots. Lot #1, lot #2, and lot #18.
C.
Foti: Dick, if I could say so, on lot #1 that 77B soils as far
as the lot size of 1.75. I’m using the environmental factor
under the zoning at which this was prepared at .67 which would
require 1.5 acres.
D.
McGoey: Yes but the minimum lot sizes hinder in the soils formula.
It tells you what the lot size has to be. You don’t use
the multiplier. The multiplier is only used in determining the
number of lots allowed.
C.
Foti: I thought under the old zoning it was one and a half acres.
D.
McGoey: I will check it.
C.
Foti: That lot line can be easily moved. There is no problem with
three hundredth’s of an acre.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board unless you have anything else.
D.
McGoey: He has my comments.
G.
Lake: I see there are quite a few. Let me go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: I just have a question about the septics. How come
the septics are way down on the lawn in the buffer? Is that okay?
Are they going to percolate right or is it too close to the wetlands?
D.
McGoey: They will have to prove that.
1.
Dulgarian: That whole row along the top.
D.
McGoey: They will need Health Department approval.
C.
Foti: The buffer itself can be on good soil. With the wetlands
maybe there is an area with bad soils but the Department of Environmental
Conservation, of course, stands behind one hundred feet. Of course,
we have to prove all the sanitary. These were just placed to show
a plan style.
2. Dulgarian: This is what you would like to have.
C.
Foti: That is correct. At one time we had started doing percolations
on the old plans. Of course, when we were forced to re-design,
some of those percolations are not where we want them now.
A.
Dulgarian: Dick, how do you tell what type of impact twenty seven
wells will have there and who is that up do?
D.
McGoey: The soils have been analyzed by the Soils Conservation
Service. They’ve identified the soil types.
A. Dulgarian: For wells?
D.
McGoey: They look at the soils for acceptability.
G.
Lake: The Health Department would also have to drill and test
the wells, also?
D.
McGoey: Right. That is one of their procedures.
A.
Dulgarian: And, the topography out here that goes down to the
wetlands is there any sort of protection needed for those wetlands?
D.
McGoey: That will be under consideration such as erosion control.
C.
Foti: That type of thing will be going into the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
1.
Dulgarian: It’s not the worst plan I’ve seen as ambition.
P.
Owen: How many ponds are there?
C.
Foti: There will be four. Two are going to be directly on the
property and there will be two others across the road on the other
side.
P.
Owen: Are they existing?
C. Foti: No. They will be for sedimentation and retention. Water
quality will be fine.
P.
Owen: Where are the ones that are on the property?
1.
Dulgarian: That is your property over there?
2.
Foti: That is the other property, yes.
2.
Dulgarian: Is there going to be an easement for that?
3.
Foti: We will have to create a drainage easement.
R.
Carr: I believe it is a lot of lots given the soils and until
we get it clarified I have a problem.
C.
Foti: Most of the lots at the setback line are supposed to be
in the neighborhood of two hundred feet,
R.
Carr: I’m looking at the lots that go along on Anthony Drive.
The other thing, Dick’s comment #8, I think we should try
to preserve as much as possible the trees on the property.
C.
Foti: The only think I would question is the caliper.
D.
McGoey: I think it is a requirement in the subdivision regulations.
I will have to look at it.
C.
Foti: We can look at it. There are a lot of six inch trees out
there.
R.
Carr: It is either six or eight.
D.
McGoey: It is specified in the subdivision regulations.
C.
Foti: We will adhere to it. We have no problem.
G. Luenzmann: I think we’ve looked at this once before and
it is very hilly out there and I have a feeling that we’re
just going to have a lot of water rushing all over the place.
Did you have any feelings like that?
D.
McGoey: Yes. There is a note in here with regard to buildability.
G.
Luenzmann: The ones in the back, lot #19, #18. That would be my
concern is building on something that is so hilly that you’re
not going to be able to retain water and have a lot of washout.
The lots are pretty small for that.
G.
Monaco: I’m sure Dick can get the answers for us. We’re
seeing more and more of these types of developments. Is there
a formula if say they are putting thirty houses in? How many wells
do they have to dig and then pump dry to find out whether they
will sustain that number of people?
D.
McGoey: The Health Department has total control and I can’t
tell you exactly what the rule is. They will have to search a
number of wells that they want drilled and pump test before they’ll
grant them approval.
C.
Foti: I talked to Mr. Moore and it’s not a hard rule and
they go through each subdivision individually. I would probably
estimate on a piece of property this size it would probably be
three or four. You make a presentation to the Health Department
and they tell you specifically where they want each well to be
drilled.
G.
Lake: Have you done anything out there since we talked?
C.
Foti: No, the only thing . . .
G.
Lake: Did you receive anything from the Army Corps?
C.
Foti: Basically what, I’ve given Dick a letter that has
actually come out of the Army Corps Enforcement and has gone back
to mapping. I talked to Mr. Thorgenson and hopefully that will
be done this week where the Army Corps will sign off.
G.
Lake: As of right now you do not have an understanding from Army
Corps to tell you what mitigation you’re going to need.
I think the day we went out there they wanted a certain mitigation
process.
C. Foti: Right. I got a letter from the Army Corps which I believe
I sent to Dick saying that the mitigation of Mr. Thorgenson and
basically the other thing I’ve done is an as-built which
is why the sheets are mis-numbered of the disturbed areas over
the wetlands. It shows the difference between the proposed and
the actual disturbed. We went out there and did an as-built of
the disturbed wetlands.
G.
Lake: When you redo it, who supervises that?
D
McGoey: I don’t know whether, first of all the Army Corps
has not approved their mitigation plan. Army Corps will come back
and have special conditions attached to that approval.
G.
Lake: The drainage district across the road that he wants to build,
that looks pretty wet over there. Is that where you’re putting
this in the swamp area?
C.
Foti: Actually it’s high where the stream comes in here.
You can see this is fairly high right in there and what we would
do is take an area in here and then drain it into the natural
drainage. From our inverts we can’t get our drainage down
into here. We have to run across so we can gain some elevation.
Does he have to submit something to you for downstream?
D.
McGoey: Yes. It’s part of the drainage study.
G.
Lake: Has that been done yet?
4.
McGoey: No. That will be part of the Environmental Assessment.
G.
Lake: Dick’s comments. Do you have a copy of them? Dick,
does he need to go over these?
D.
McGoey: Most of it is engineering. We have to establish the number
of buildable lots.
G.
Lake: Which hasn’t been done yet.
D.
McGoey: The other question the Board should discuss is whether
you want Public Scoping before you adopt the scooping document
that they’ve presented.
G. Lake: We have to do the lots first, yes or no?
D.
McGoey: You can set the Public Scoping because he’s not
going to get more than twenty eight lots.
G.
Lake: By Public Scoping should we have the number of lots?
D.
McGoey: You may but even if he doesn’t, twenty eight would
be the maximum and if it went to twenty to twenty five it shouldn’t
impact much scooping.
G.
Lake: Do you have anything else you want to go over?
A.
Dulgarian: Does this touch actually lying in there?
C.
Foti: Yes.
A.Dulgarian:
Weren’t you originally going to tie those in or something?
I thought there was going to be a connection between Howells Turnpike
and Prosperous Valley Road at one time.
C.
Foti: I’m not sure.
Unidentified
Person: The only thing I would like to discuss if I may is #10,
does the Board require a thirty foot pavement width?
G.
Lake: We have been doing that now for probably the last year and
a half or two years. That has been something that has come along
in multiple projects because of emergency services having more
and more trouble getting through. It has been a big concern on
their part. We have stuck to that very faithfully.
MOTION
to schedule a PUBLIC SCOPING for January 21, 2004 made by A.
Dulgarian and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
7.
Monaco: Aye
8.
Luenzmann: Aye
3.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
4. PRASSOS – 4 LOT SUBDIVISION – Pine Grove Road (6-1-53)
#094-002
C.
Foti: We are proposing a four lot subdivision on Howells Turnpike.
It’s west of .
G.
Lake: Is it Pine Grove Road?
3.
Foti: Pine Grove is the same as Howells Turnpike. It actually
is the same road. In fact, on some maps it’s called Pine
Grove and some in this area it’s called Howells Turnpike.
5.
Lake: That’s all wetland in there?
4.
Foti: That’s correct. That was delineated by Mr. Thorgenson.
5.
McGoey: That’s pretty low. It goes down and then comes back.
G.
Lake: He is going to have any disturbance?
D.
McGoey: I don’t know.
C.
Foti: We’re over a tenth of an acre.
G.
Lake: So, you will have to go to the Department of Environmental
Conservation.
C.
Foti: No, this is Army Corps wetlands. Bascially, what we’re
disturbing .158.
