The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on


Download 56.55 Kb.
NameThe regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on
A typeDocumentation
manual-guide.com > manual > Documentation


Meeting Minutes
THE REGULAR MEETING of the PLANNING BOARD of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, NY on Tuesday, April 4th, 2017. The meeting was called to order, and began with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Thomas A. Bianchi, Vice Chairman presided and other members of the Board were in attendance as follows:
Loretta Taylor, Chairperson (absent)

Steven Kessler, Board Member

Robert Foley, Board Member (absent)

Jeff Rothfeder, Board Member (absent)

Peter Daly, Board Member

Jim Creighton, Board Member
ALSO PRESENT:

John J. Klarl, Esq., Deputy Town Attorney

Michael Preziosi, Deputy Director, DOTS

Chris Kehoe, Deputy Director for Planning

* * *
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated there are no changes to the agenda.

* * *
ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF MARCH 7, 2017
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated I’ll entertain adoption – I’ll move to adopt the minutes of the meeting for March 7th.
So moved, seconded with all in favor saying "aye."

* * *
PUBLIC HEARING (NEW):
PB 12-16 a. Public Hearing - Application of Tomas Tinoco for Site Development Plan approval and a Special Permit for a Specialty Trade Contractor for the parking of trucks and for the storage of other utility materials (i.e. utility pole hardware, transformers, etc.) for Northline Utilities on an approximately 2 acre parcel of property located at 439 Yorktown Road (Rt. 129) as shown on a drawing entitled “Site Development Plan for Tomas Tinoco” prepared by Cronin Engineering, P.E., P.C. latest revision dated February 22, 2017.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated good evening.
Mr. John Sarcone asked how are you Mr. Bianchi?
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked would you like to say what it is?
Mr. John Sarcone responded I just want – do I wait for a motion to open the public hearing or is it opened?
Board members stated it’s open.
Mr. John Sarcone introduced himself and stated I’m the attorney for the applicant and I want to say thanks to the consultants and everyone on board to help get us here today. I think we’ve come to a good medium here with respect to concerns that were raised by the Town’s consultants with the DEC, and our New York City DEP. Jim from Cronin Engineering is here. He’s going to address some of those questions that came up earlier so we can flush that out. At this point, I would respectfully ask that if there’s no open questions that have to be addressed that after the public hearing it be closed tonight and would like to respectfully ask the board to vote on a resolution to adopt the plan subject to some work that has to be done with respect to the consultants and the DEC.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated thank you. I’d like to open it up. This is a public hearing and if there any people in the audience that would like to speak on this application, please step forward and state your name. There is no one. Board members: any comments that you’d like to offer?
Mr. Steven Kessler stated well I think we just put into the record the letter that we received from the New City Environmental Protection, the Department of Environmental Protection dated March 29th as well as the email from the DEP dated March 28th.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated thank you. There are some conclusions reached in the New York City Environmental Protection memo regarding the definition of a solid waste management facility. I’m sure you’re aware of that.
Mr. Jim Annicchiarico stated yes.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi continued and I believe you’ll be working with our staff to work out some of those issues regarding specifically the issue of transformers.
Mr. Jim Annicchiarico responded yes.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi storage on the site.
Mr. Jim Annicchiarico stated yes, Jim Annicchiarico with Cronin Engineering. I had a conversation, phone conversation with the DEP today and they would like, even though we had at the previous meeting, we showed you that all the transformers that come off the grid, the Con Edison grid and are sometimes stored at the site; they’re not stored there all the time. They’re just stored there when they can’t be deposited at a Con Edison site during the day. Even though we provided the information that shows that they’re contained, in fact double contained, they would be placed in a 55 gallon drum, the DEP still requested that we not store them there at all. I spoke to Northline Utilities and they’re okay with that. They will figure out how to get them to ConEd in another way and they won’t be stored there.
Mr. Steven Kessler stated just to be clear, all transformers will not be stored there and new ones will?
Mr. Jim Annicchiarico responded new transformers were okay. All the other materials that are stored on the site, the DEP looked at and they’re okay with those. The only issue was the old transformers that would possibly have PCBs in them, so those are the only items.
Mr. Chris Kehoe stated so we may want – one of the conditions may be some sort of confirmation from DEP that they’re okay with the new transformers being stored there. She verbally told you that on the phone today so we might work that into the resolution to get some confirmation of that.
Mr. Jim Annicchiarico responded sure. As far as the storm water issues, the project doesn’t fall under the required of the DEC to provide a SWPPP or anything like that. Mr. Preziosi had asked us to, at least provide some sort of water treatment process which we did with the infiltration trench. There’s not too much more we can do but the DEP asked us to have a three-way conversation with the Town which we agreed to and we’ll have that. It may or may not provide some additional measures that we could implement but we’re willing to do that at their request.
Mr. Mike Preziosi stated just to address Jim’s comment, it’s just a minor modification to the site plan, nothing of the significant substance so minor modifications can be added to the approving resolution in regards to storm water control as a condition, correct.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated okay, very good. Any other comments from the board members?
Mr. Steven Kessler stated Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing and staff prepare a Resolution for the next meeting.
Seconded with all in favor saying "aye."
Mr. Jim Annicchiarico stated thank you very much.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated have a good evening.


* * *
OLD BUSINESS:
PB 1-15 a. Application of Montauk Student Transport, LLC, for the property of Worth Properties, LLC for Site Development Plan approval and for Wetland and Tree Removal Permits for a school bus depot with total of 187 parking spaces, a maximum of 92 parking spaces for full and van size buses and 95 parking spaces for passenger vehicles, a fuel storage and dispensing facility and the use of the existing 4,200 sq. ft. garage/office facility and storage barn building for a business office, employee lounge and garage for light service and maintenance located on a 4.98 acre parcel of property at 301 6th Street as shown on a 9 page set of drawings entitled “Site Development Plan for Montauk Student Transport, LLC” prepared by Timothy L. Cronin, III, P.E. latest revision dated May 15, 2015.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated before we begin, a couple of comments: this is a matter of old business tonight. Just for the benefit of the audience that are here for this case, we will be scheduling a public hearing on this next month. The two items for discussion tonight that will be presented to us in the findings are for the noise study and the traffic impact study. We will hear from Anthony Russo regarding those reports. There will be no comment tonight from the public and we urge the public – these reports will be put on our website so you can access them before the next meeting. You are certainly welcome to provide comments on them before the next meeting and then to speak at the next meeting regarding this application. Having said that, I’ll turn it over to you.
Mr. Michael Cunningham stated good evening. Michael Cunningham from the law firm of Zarin & Steinmetz here on behalf of the applicant. As Mr. Bianchi just said, Anthony Russo from AKRF is here tonight to talk about the noise and traffic studies so at this point, I’d like to turn it over to him.
Mr. Anthony Russo stated thank you. Anthony Russo from the firm AKRF. We prepare the traffic study and noise study for the Montauk project. I’m first going to go over…
Mr. Chris Kehoe stated just to be clear, for the record, you are working for the Town.
Mr. Anthony Russo stated Town consultant, yes. Thank you Chris. I’m going first go over the highlights of the traffic impact study. We did an extensive data collection program for this project. We conducted turning movement counts at the intersections of Highland and 6th Street, Broadway and 6th, Broadway and 8th, and Broadway and 11th. We also conducted the equal classification counts so we could determine the number of busses and trucks that travel through the study area. We also followed the busses to see what routes they take through the study area. We conducted speed observations. We also, with the ATR machines, we had them out for over a week. They collected volumes for 24 hours a day for 7 days. They collected classification information and they also collected speed observations. We also closely looked at the site, the way its configured today. Are they able to park all the employees on site? Are they able to park all the buses on site? Are they able to maintain their operations efficiently on site the way it exists today? We were out there from 6:00 in the morning to 9:30 in the morning and again about 1:00 to 6:00 in the afternoon into the evening. We were there for the peak hours that you see for school-related traffic as well as you would see for commuter traffic. As you know, traffic studies, when they look at intersections and they examine them, they’re graded in the level of service: A being the best and F being the worse, just like in school. We ran the capacity analysis for the intersections I mentioned using the latest software. We looked at existing conditions. We looked at no-build which was a year out into the future with a growth factor and then we added the build traffic which was the increment – the increase that’s being proposed by the applicant in both number of buses and the number of autos. Currently, based on our counts – so there were 55 buses, approximately associated with the Montauk facility and about 50 cars. From my understanding they’re proposing to increase the buses from 55 to 92 and the number of autos from 50 to 94 so that increment, that increase we accounted for that in our build analysis. What we found is that the level of service at these intersections is acceptable under all conditions: it’s A to B. Under any traffic engineering in the area A to B is considered to be good operating conditions. What you typically see in traffic studies issues with degradation level of service, increases in delay, increases in queue. That is not the problem with the study area. That is not the focus of the study. Those conditions seem to be acceptable but it doesn’t mean there’s not issues in the area because our study also examined speeds. What we found is there is speeding on the study area roadways that we examined. This is particularly true on Broadway where speeds could exceed 5 or 20 miles per hour over the posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Again, the speeds were captured using the ATR machines. We also did stationary observations along Broadway where we watched cars come on a certain segment of the road and we timed them in both directions, how long it would take them to go from point A to point B. We did a manual observations and we also did it with machines. And we noticed that buses were speeding and autos were speeding. We found speeding during school operations. We found speeding outside of school operations. It is apparent to us that the speeding problem needs to be addressed, particularly on Broadway, and we recommend working with Town staff to come up with some measures that would be acceptable, traffic counting measures.
Mr. Steven Kessler asked just to be clear, that includes both generated from Montauk as well as from residents?
Mr. Anthony Russo responded correct. We can work with the Town’s staff to identify what traffic calming measures will be appropriate to help reduce the speed along Broadway. The other thing that we examined, I mentioned earlier when I first started to speak is looking at the site the way it is today with its approximate 55 buses and 50 autos. What we noticed is, it does not appear that the site plan – the site the way it exists today is efficiently operated. It appears that they need to move buses out. They need to queue on the street so other buses can get out and go on their route. We noticed that buses were parking, queuing up on 6th Street and also on Broadway. They were parked there for a while or the buses would come and go. It also appears that there’s not enough parking in the lot for the employees. We think we noticed workers from Montauk parking on Highland and walking down to the bus depot. Their operation does spill out into the neighborhood. Between the speeding issue and the fact that you have this other issue with buses queuing on roadways and people parking off-site, that is something that needs to be addressed when they come as part of the new site plan. We also looked at their new site plan. We gave some comments on it. It does not appear, the way it’s proposed now that this would address the issue. It seemed like there’s too much proposed for the site and everything would have to work perfect in order for it to work and that’s not going to be the case. We strongly recommend that the site plan is revisited and that it’s tweaked accordingly based on other things like landscape buffers, but also in terms of circulation. That they can demonstrate, that they can accommodate their operations on site. So those are the highlights from the traffic study. The noise study…
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated before you leave that, just as a conclusion to that, the build and the no-build situation: build being the current – I’m sorry, no build being a current traffic consideration or traffic volume and the build being the post-volume, after, if and when buses are allowed to use the roads and the parking lot. There is a conclusion that I see here is that there is very little difference in the before and after scenarios [inaudible 16:42] for level of services. Is that correct?
Mr. Anthony Russo responded yes, the base traffic conditions from a capacity analysis standpoint, they’re low. You put this increment on top of it, it doesn’t change that picture much at all. So you’re correct in what you said.
Mr. Steven Kessler asked can you also just touch in your study the accident history?
Mr. Anthony Russo responded yes. We examined, we received accident data for the study area at most recent three years. I believe, just let me look at that, I don’t think we found any high accident locations in the area. That was part of our analysis as well.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked I guess what I question is the – you mentioned that the parking along the road causes queuing, because it results in queuing and that doesn’t affect level of service in any way? I mean, to me it would do this, logically.
Mr. Anthony Russo stated no because what they would do is they’re pulling off the travel lane in most cases. They’re going on a – like on Broadway, we noticed them in the parking lane so that doesn’t have a real impact on capacity and on 6th Street we noticed them on – it’s a wide area. We noticed them more partly on the road, partly on a dirt or gravel area. So it’s not like they were queuing up on the travel lane but they were queuing up on the shoulder areas and parking areas in the neighborhood.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked are these areas where – I guess it’s bus drivers are parking? Is that primarily what it is or is it just generally everybody?
Mr. Anthony Russo responded it appears to be that. Well, we noticed that people were parking on Highland and walking down to the site. So the assumption that we had they either worked in the depot or they may have been drivers but we thought to be employees of Montauk.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked is that parking in that area legal?
Mr. Anthony Russo responded I don’t remember the parking restriction on Highland? Do you, Michael…
Mr. Michael Preziosi responded I don’t think it – I don’t believe there’s too much postings, postage signage. There is no parking posted on 6th Street heading down towards the depot but nothing specific on Highland in my recollection.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated so that could be something that would possibly be considered later on to minimize this long issue regarding parking.
Mr. Anthony Russo stated along with looking at the site plan to make sure that works, that’s another option, sure.
Mr. Chris Kehoe stated but one of the issues with that is no parking on Highland, are you saying only no parking for employees of the bus depot because the residents may want to park on Highland so that gets a little tricky of having to enforce that.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated who’s who, right.
Mr. Mike Preziosi stated I also just want to say that any recommendation for a posting of signage or changes to the sign code or [inaudible 19:10] has to be approved by the Town Board and our Director of Environmental Services Jeff Coleman. So the report’s going to be forwarded to Mr. Coleman as well for review and any recommendation.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked traffic-calming options to control the speed, what would they be, typically what would you characterize in this?
Mr. Anthony Russo responded there’s a couple of things and they can be done solely or they can be done in concert with each other. There’s enforcement, there’s signage, there’s smart trailers where a post as you drive by it gives you your flashing speed so you know if you’re above the speed limit. There’s also physical things that you can do. There are some wide roads there. You can put in small, mini roundabouts. Roundabouts are a calming measures because as cars come into the roundabout, they have to slow down for the deflection angle to yield, go into the roundabout. There is ways to calm it with all different measures. There’s speed humps. You could put raised pedestrian crossings where you have both sidewalks, yield to pedestrians, that would slow down traffic. There’s a bunch of different measures. They need to be looked at with Town staff and we also would need Jeff Coleman’s input in terms of anything put on the road if that’s going to present an issue for him when it comes to storm clean up or storm management.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated you mentioned that, my last question – you mentioned that the site can, or does not appear to be able to accommodate the proposed number. I think you said it was 94 buses…
Mr. Anthony Russo stated it was 92 buses proposed, 55 now, 94 autos, 50 now.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated that’s another, just again, just for the people that are here for this application; there are a number of items that are being looked at here to possibly eliminate or minimize some of the impacts that this project may have and those are being developed as we speak in concert with the Town staff and the applicant, especially regarding the numbers of buses or vehicles that are going to be allowed here.
Mr. Mike Preziosi stated so future items for discussion that we’re going to be having is separation distances of the buses from one to the next, proper layout, making sure that each of the stall spaces for the parking are properly designed for width and depth. We’re going to try and minimize the need to move buses in order to get other buses to leave this site, as Anthony had alluded to earlier in his conversation and we’re going to look to re-evaluate the connection of the ramp road, the connection road from the upper parking to the lower parking lot. When you factor all of that in, it will lead to potential reduction in the number of buses stored on site to a more manageable number and also for better circulation for emergency access and this general site access for both employees and buses leaving the site.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated thank you. Any other questions on the traffic study? We’ll move to the noise study.
Mr. Anthony Russo stated okay, for the noise study, we conducted noise monitoring at two locations: 6th Street and Highland. So it was 6th just west of Highland and just east of the project site and at the intersection of 11th Street and Broadway. On page 7 of the noise study, table 4; it presents the existing noise levels. The Town of Cortlandt, they have a noise code and for a residential district, the noise limits from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM are 65 and from 6:00 PM to 8:00 AM are 55 dba. Anything above that will be considered to be too high for a residential area. If you take a look at the readings for site 2 you’ll see that just about the entire day, the noise levels are above what the noise limits are in the Town Code, except for one hour of the day at 4:00 AM it was below. And if you look at site 1 for two hours of the day, in the morning it was also above the Town Code for residential area. At least in existing conditions it does appear that this area for a residential area has noise that exceed what is considered acceptable in a residential area. But under SEQRA, the charges to take a look at the delta, the increment from the project and we did that for the noise and again, that takes a look at the increase in the number of buses from 55 to 92 and the number of autos from 50 to 94 and see if that delta based on your state DEC standards, if that triggers an impact. You would have to have a 60 dba increase in order to have an impact. Based on the increases in buses and autos, it would not trigger an impact under New York State DEC standards. There would not be an increase exceeding 60 dba. It doesn’t mean there’s not noise in the community but based on the strict standards under SEQRA, what we looked at, it’s not an impact what’s proposed as part of the project from a noise perspective. But again, it’s important to reinforce that in the neighborhood now, there are noise levels that are exceeded and, like I said, for site number 2 for the entire day.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked when you say now, is that the current traffic?


Mr. Anthony Russo responded that’s with the current traffic…
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated the current bus traffic…
Mr. Anthony Russo stated the current traffic is just an input of which Montauk is part of that.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated yes.
Mr. Anthony Russo responded yes.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked and you built into this study as I believe you have into the traffic study, the proposed increase in volumes?
Mr. Anthony Russo responded correct, that’s the delta, that’s the increase.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated that’s the delta.
Mr. Anthony Russo responded yes. The delta in both the traffic and the noise study.
Mr. Mike Preziosi stated I think it’s important to note that the traffic, not the traffic but the noise study was delayed on multiple occasions to make sure that the SPECTRA, Algonquin pipeline operations had ceased as to not skew the results of the noise analysis as well.
Mr. Anthony Russo stated we waited for about two months to get the noise study going. We thought we were ready to go and then I spoke to Mike and he said “no we need to hold off until that construction was over” and then when we went out that construction was completed.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked do you have any feeling about why the current noise level is as high as it is?
Mr. Anthony Russo responded based on where our monitors next to these – the sensitive use which are the residents in this area, they’re close to the road and although we’re not getting a traffic impact based on the volume, when you have a house that close to a road, traffic is noisy and that’s what we think is contributing to these levels which exceed the noise limits in a residential area based on your code. And there’s always instantaneous noises, either by the river there’s other businesses in the area. They may generate some noise that’s picked up by our monitors. So it’s primarily traffic and there is other business activity in the area that contributes to it but I think mainly traffic.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated okay. Board members, any other comments or questions on the noise study?
Mr. Anthony Russo stated I thank you very much.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated thank you Mr. Russo.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked excuse me?
Two speakers [Inaudible 26:51]
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated well I think that would be difficult to establish at this point. We’re not going to get into a discussion now. We’ll do this at the public hearing but I understand your question and it’s a valid one.
Unidentified Speaker: stated it’s very valid.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated we maybe can bring that up and we can discuss that at the meeting.
Unidentified speaker: stated [inaudible 27:31]
Mr. Anthony Russo stated we’d be happy to take a look at anything the board provides us. The 24 hour distribution in that table I referred to earlier for both site 1 and site 2; site 2 on 11th and Broadway, the noise was exceeded for the entire day. When the bus depot was in operation, the noise level is exceeded. When the bus depot was not in operation, there was still exceedance in the noise level.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated okay, thank you. Again, I remind those of you here, are here for this application to access the documents on line…
Mr. Chris Kehoe stated I’ll be glad to make copies if anyone wants a hard copy but you can also – I’ll have them up on the Town’s website tomorrow so you can just look at them on the website. They’ll be under the latest news on the front page, both the noise study and the traffic study. Just give me an hour or so in the morning to get them up.
Unidentified Speaker: asked [inaudible 28:30].
Mr. Chris Kehoe responded yes, a pdf.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated and you may submit comments – is there a deadline for submitting comments before next meeting?
Mr. Chris Kehoe responded if you want the Planning Board to have an ability to read your comments and be ready for them at the hearing, I need them by about April 22nd or 23rd to get them ready for the May 2nd meeting, but obviously the public hearing is May 2nd so you’re going to read comments into the record at that hearing. Most likely, the public hearing probably won’t be closed but if you want something for the Planning Board members to respond to, I need it about 10 days before the meeting.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated of course, as I mentioned, you’re welcome to state your comments at the next public hearing. With that I’ll turn it over to Peter.


Mr. Peter Daly stated Mr. Vice Chairman I move that we schedule the public hearing for May 2nd.
Seconded with all in favor saying "aye."
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated thank you.

PB 4-14 b. Application of Mongoose Inc. for the property of Mongoose Inc., Commercial Real Estate Asset Management Inc., and JPG Cortlandt Inc., for Preliminary Plat approval and Steep Slope, Wetland and Tree Removal permits for a 6 lot subdivision (5 building lots and 1 open space parcel) of a 128.8 acre parcel of property located on the south side of Maple Avenue and on the east side of Dickerson Road and Hilltop Drive as shown on a 6 page set of drawings entitled “Subdivision of Abee Rose Situate in the Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County, NY” prepared by Badey & Watson Surveying and Engineering PC, latest revision dated March 22, 2017.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated good evening.
Ms. Margaret McManus stated good evening.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked and you are?
Ms. Margaret McManus introduced herself and stated with Badey & Watson. We’ve submitted an updated site plan and a preliminary SWPPP for review and if you have any questions…
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated and I believe those are in…
Mr. Steven Kessler asked can you just tell us briefly what the changes were to the site plan?
Ms. Margaret McManus responded we revisited the driveway’s locations so that they were fully graded out so that we proved that we can access the lots and all of the septics had been fully developed, and then a storm water analysis was conducted for water quality volume and pre and post storm water attenuation.
Mr. Mike Preziosi stated our staff did receive the information. I have not had a chance to fully review or vet the preliminary SWPPP and the submitted construction improvement drawings. I did notice, as Ms. McManus has just stated that there was a fully developed driveway profiles for each of the lots so we can check that against our local code to make sure the lots are accessible. There’s also a full driveway profile and, I believe, a full developed cul-de-sac for town road standards. It has to be looked at and reviewed. As I stated, I haven’t had not a chance to really delve into the storm water pollution prevention plan at the moment but a preliminary SWPPP has finally been submitted for review.
Mr. Chris Kehoe stated you didn’t get the SWPPP correct? It’s a real technical document, really just for the engineers but two copies were submitted to staff.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked so there’s no basic change in the layout of the six lots? Is that…
Ms. Margaret McManus responded I believe that there’s still the one lot at the lower end and there’s five lots up at the top end. There’s slight configuration changes but I think the road changed slightly but there’s not any major change.
Mr. Steven Kessler asked I thought it was four at the top?
Mr. Chris Kehoe responded the fifth one is the open space.
Ms. Margaret McManus stated I’m sorry, yes.
Mr. Steven Kessler stated but in terms of building lots there are five total building lots.
Ms. Margaret McManus stated I’m sorry, yes.
Mr. Mike Preziosi stated the plans are fairly consistent to what was looked at prior to the board’s site visit last or two summers ago.
Mr. Steven Kessler stated [inaudible 32:46].
Mr. Chris Kehoe stated but if you recall, and this has never been to public hearing if I recall.
Ms. Margaret McManus stated no.
Mr. Chris Kehoe stated but there was a lot of discussion about that four lots up top might be too many, issues like that, but we never got that far. It was left where it needed to be where it is now for Michael to begin the more detailed review.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated there’s a little bit more work to be done with staff and the applicant on this so…
Mr. Chris Kehoe stated just for the record, one of the adjacent neighbors is represented by an attorney Mr. Bacon. He called me, said he was planning on being here. He didn’t think he could get here until 8:00. I warned him we might not be here at 8:00. I’m just saying for the record that there is an adjacent property owner with an attorney who’s interested in this and I talk with him regularly.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi stated I don’t think we’re going to be able to wait around until 8:00 but he’s welcome if this is – will this be brought up at the next agenda as well or is it going to be another month after that?
Mr. Mike Preziosi responded I can’t make any promises that it’s going to be reviewed in an efficient manner enough to get on the next agenda. I’m going to try. We’re going to first, I’m going to vet to make sure that all the preliminary items required to move through preliminary design have been met and satisfactorily submitted and if so, then we’ll make a recommendation to schedule a public hearing, most likely at the May for the June agenda.
Mr. Steven Kessler asked will there be another review memorandum?
Mr. Mike Preziosi responded yes, there will be.
Mr. Steven Kessler stated we should wait for that to be issued.
Mr. Mike Preziosi stated I’m going to try to get that before the next Planning Board meeting. It’s my goal.
Mr. Steven Kessler stated okay.
Mr. Mike Preziosi stated I can’t make a promise though but that’s my goal.
Mr. Thomas A. Bianchi asked any other comments, questions from the board members?
Mr. Jim Creighton stated I move that we refer this back to staff for those other items and bring it back after our preliminary memorandum – our review memorandum is received.
Seconded with all in favor saying "aye."

* * *

ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Jim Creighton stated it being 7:37 PM, I move that we adjourn.

* * *
Next Meeting: TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017

I, SYLVIE MADDALENA, a Transcriptionist for the Town of Cortlandt as a subcontractor, do hereby certify that the information provided in this document is an accurate representation of the Planning Board meeting minutes to the best of my ability.


X

SYLVIE MADDALENA


Dated: November 19, 2017



Share in:

Related:

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconPb 32-94 a. Letter dated November 17, 2016 from Keith Staudohar requesting...

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconHeld on 27th April 2016 in the Town Hall

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconTown of Crikvenica Senator Casino Crikvenica Tourist board

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconOf the regular meeting of the board of city commissioners held

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconOf the regular meeting of the board of city commissioners held

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconOf the regular meeting of the board of city commissioners held

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconOf the regular meeting of the board of city commissioners held

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconA regular Common Council meeting was held at 7: 30 p m. on Tuesday,...

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconA regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Ballinger Independent...

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconTown of Topsail Beach

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconWhat can you say about a friend who leaves town without telling

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconSandy Creek Town and Village Historian

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconChrysler town and country head gasket problems

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconReports of the elected and appointed boards of the town of paxton

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconSchedule: Cocktails – 6pm dinner – 7pm meeting – 8pm minutes of the...

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconA motion was made by Trustee Dunham and seconded by Trustee Kozak...

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconI found him in Ponta Pora, a pleasant little town in Brazil, on the...

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconCharles Brewitt Taylor, a distantish ancestor of mine, worked for...

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconImagine a morning in late November. A coming of winter morning more...

The regular meeting of the planning board of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt Manor, ny on iconMinutes of Regular Meeting




manual


When copying material provide a link © 2017
contacts
manual-guide.com
search