MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP, MAY 1, 2006
PRESENT: Shirley
J. Thormann, Chairwoman; Rudolph J. Yacyshyn,
Vice-Chairman;
Gilbert J. Heim; Marvin S. Baum;
George A Hoehmann; Richard C.
Shoberg;
Robert D. Jackson (Absent)
CONSULTANTS: Town Planner Jose Simoes; Deputy Town Attorney Daniel Kraushaar
7:00 P.M.
CORRESPONDENCE:
a)
Request for Model Home on Lot #1,
Dustman Lane Subdivision
Correspondence received from Paul
Baum, attorney, dated April 10, 2006 (see file) requesting permission for one
model home on proposed Lot 1.
After a
brief discussion, on a Motion of Hoehmann, Seconded of Shoberg, and carried
4:0: with Ayes of Thormann, Yacyshyn, Hoehmann and Shoberg, the Planning Board
approved the request for one model home on Lot #1 of the Dustman Lane
Subdivision, Bardonia, 33B31.1.
ORANGETOWN
REFERRALS:
a)
Colantuoni
Minor Subdivision
After a
brief discussion, on a Motion of Hoehmann, Seconded by Yacyshyn, and carried
4:0, with Ayes of Thormann, Yacyshyn, Hoehmann and Shoberg, the Planning Board
found no planning issues for the Town of Clarkstown
and deems the matter for local determination.
b)
Wyeth Site Plans
After a brief discussion, on a
Motion of Hoehmann, Seconded by Yacyshyn, and carried 4:0, with Ayes of Thormann,
Yacyshyn, Hoehmann and Shoberg, the Planning Board found no outward planning
issues as related to the Town of Clarkstown. However, the Planning Board is concerned that
any hazardous materials be stored with all of the appropriate security and
safety measures at the facility.
VILLAGE OF SPRING VALLEY REFERRAL:
Jasmine Hills Condominium
After discussing
the referral, on a Motion by Hoehmann, Seconded by Yacyshyn, carried 4:0, with
Ayes of Hoehmann, Yacyshyn, Thormann & Shoberg, the following recommendation
was passed:
The Planning Board finds that the
proposed application will result in an over-utilization of the site. The Planning Board is concerned with the
proximity of the proposed structure to the residences to the south. Traffic circulation on the site on the site
will be problematic, as there is no area for the vehicles of residents,
visitors and emergency services to turn around.
There is no access for emergency vehicles to reach the back of the structure
and there is also no parking available for visitors to the site. These are issues that not only impact the
health, safety and welfare of the residents that may live in this development,
but the residents of the surrounding neighborhood, as well. As such, the Planning Board recommends that
this application not be approved.
VILLAGE OF CHESTNUT RIDGE REFERRAL:
Rolling Acres (Hopf)
Subdivision
The Town of Clarkstown Planning Board
discussed the above referral at their workshop meeting of May 1, 2006. On April 26, 2006, the Clarkstown Planning
Department received a legal notice regarding the above referenced subdivision.
A portion of the subject property is located in Clarkstown. Subdivision applications on this property
have been referred to and reviewed by the Clarkstown Planning Board various
times since 1996. The most recent subdivision was reviewed by the Clarkstown
Planning Board in 2003, at which time the Planning Board had concerns over
potential drainage to Clarkstown. Our
files have a draft drainage report by Paul Petritti dated June 28, 2000, which
may or may not relate to the current subdivision application. The Clarkstown Planning Department has not
received a final subdivision plat directly from the Village nor a final
drainage report.
On a Motion by
Hoehmann, Seconded by Yacyshyn, carried 5:0, with Ayes of Hoehmann, Yacyshyn,
Baum, Thormann & Shoberg, the following recommendation was passed:
As an involved agency, the
Clarkstown Planning Board respectfully requests a submission from the Village
of Chestnut Ridge of the Hopf Final Subdivision plat and related drainage
reports, in order to make an informed decision on this matter.
(continued)
CONTINUATION OF WORKSHOP MINUTES OF
PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 1, 2006
PROPOSED
MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT ALONG NORTH & SOUTH MAIN STREET, REQUESTED BY
MEMBER HEIM
The Planning Board discussed imposing a moratorium
on building in the New City
Hamlet Center,
in light of the New City Visioning Process, at their workshop meeting of May 2,
2006. On a Motion from Heim, Seconded by
Yacyshyn, and carried 5:0:1, with Ayes of Heim, Yacyshyn, Baum, Shoberg &
Hoehmann, and Nay of Thormann, the following was passed:
Whereas, the Town
of Clarkstown, in conjunction with the County of Rockland, has hired a planning
consultant firm, Behan Planning Associates, to develop a Vision Plan for New
City, and
Whereas, in
addition to recommending property acquisition and physical construction that
involves changes to Town and County facilities and roads, the New City Vision
Plan will recommend zoning amendments or other legislative measures to develop
and redevelop the New City Hamlet Center, and
Whereas,
developers and property owners may rush to develop their land under current
land use regulations that the Town may change in the future and, thereby,
construct development that may be inconsistent with new land use regulations
and the Vision for New City.
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Planning Board hereby recommends to the Town Board
that a moratorium be imposed on demolition permits and site plan approval for
properties in New City fronting North Main Street and South Main Street from
the intersection of South Main Street with Route 304 to the intersection of
North Main Street with Calvary Drive, until after the completion of the Vision
Plan, December 1, 2006.
Now Therefore Be It
Further Resolved, that the Planning Board recommends
that such moratorium not apply to building renovation or minor reconstruction
that would only require a Building Permit but not require Planning Board site
plan approval or a demolition permit.
Now Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that the Planning Board recommends that such
moratorium provide an exception for property owners that demonstrate hardship.
Chairwoman Thormann will follow with a minority opinion to
the Town Board.
The following minority report was sent to the Town Board on
May 2, 2006.
I write this minority report in explanation as to why I
voted against the moratorium for Main
Street, New City,
as proposed by Member Heim and seconded by Vice-Chairman Yacyshyn.
The Town, in conjunction with the County, hired Behan
Planning Associates to develop a vision.
This being the case, I contacted John Behan and Michael Buser, the
Project Manager, on their views on the moratorium, since a moratorium is “one
of the most extreme land use actions a municipality can take because it
suspends completely the rights of owners to use their property.” (Pace Land Use Law Center) They suggest that the municipality should
establish “findings” as to the necessity of the action and to explore
alternatives to such action. In the case
of alternatives, one might have set up a committee to establish architectural
standards rather than affecting property rights “so severely”.
Have we established that our existing ordinances are
inadequate? I do not think so for we
were able to set a standard for future development with the new CVS site, as
well as the site plans submitted for the new Bradlees Center.
What information has been gathered to justify the
establishment of the moratorium? Have we
gathered hard evidence that would suggest a moratorium is necessary and
reasonable? I do not believe that the
statement “developers and property owners may rush to develop their land under
current land use regulations that may change in the future” is a cogent and
reasonable enough rationale for implementing the moratorium.
As Michael Buser states in his E-Mail to Joe Simoes – “all
of the land owners we’ve spoken with so far seem pretty committed to
cooperating with us in the visioning project.
I wonder if it sends the wrong message to impose this type of
restriction at this time.”
Mr. Buser further says – “obviously a moratorium is a very
political/sensitive type of planning tool.
While it can insure that no change occurs during the planning process,
it can also polarize interest groups and add tensions”.
(continued)
CONTINUATION OF WORKSHOP MINUTES OF
PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 1, 2006
Mr. Simoes shared Behan Associates concerns with the Board
but it seemed to have fallen on deaf ears.
My concern is that the public may perceive that there is an
unarticulated agenda when there has been no solid evidence on the part of local
land owners that they would be potential obstructionists or would rush to seek
an approval.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: TOWN BOARD REFERRAL: DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING LOCAL LAW OF
THE TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN
WITH RESPECT TO CREATING AN ACTIVE ADULT RESIDENCE ZONE.
The Planning Board discussed the proposed Active Adult Residential (AAR)
zoning district that was reviewed on April 5, 2006 and April 26, 2006. The
following is a summary of what Town Planner Simoes believes are to be the
recommendations of the Planning Board:
Section 1 Definitions
- Clarkstown
Resident – The Planning Board recommended changing “fixed and permanent”
to “fixed, sole, and permanent residence” and “90 day” residency
requirement to “3 year” residency.
- Income
Eligible – The Planning Board was concerned whether the Rockland County
Median Income is the proper standard or whether Clarkstown figures may be
more appropriate. The Planning
Board recommended that the Town Board require that total assets be taken
into account to determine income eligibility, in compliance with the
various guidelines of HUD and NYS Housing funds that may be utilized by a
developer to build these facilities. For example, eligible seniors could
not have assets that exceed 25 percent of the cost of an affordable
housing unit or 2 percent of their assets would be counted towards their
income.
- Maximum
Residential Density – The Planning Board recommended that the maximum
number of residential units be based on doubling the number of residences
that could be generated from a standard subdivision map, similar to what
is done for average density development.
Section 4 Active Adult Residence Zone
- General
Provisions, b. – The Planning Board recommended that parcels must be
“within walking distance of” instead of “proximate to” public
transportation, shopping, community and commercial services.
- General
Provisions, d. – The Planning Board recommended that R-40 districts not be
eligible for the floating zone, as the densities of these properties
should not be increased to accommodate such developments.
- General
Provisions, e. – The Planning Board recommended that the total number of
allowable units in AAR zones shall be no more than 800 units instead of
500 and that once 800 units are developed, a one year moratorium be
instituted to study the need for additional units.
- Criteria
for rezoning Active Adult Residence Zone
a) The
Planning Board recommended the following to safeguard existing neighborhoods:
Assembly of small residential lots
could change the character of established neighborhoods and it would be
virtually impossible to analyze where this assembly could occur. To limit
overdevelopment and protect established residential neighborhoods, the Planning
Board recommended properties that be in single and separate ownership totaling
the minimum required acreage at the time of the adoption of the amendment. In other words, assemblage of properties or
parcels not in the same ownership so as to meet minimum acreage requirements
would be prohibited. In addition, the Planning Board recommended disqualifying
properties that receive a zone change increasing residential density or apply
for a zone change contemporaneously with the petition for the AAR
district.
f.
The
Planning Board recommended the following environmental review:
(continued)
CONTINUATION OF WORKSHOP MINUTES OF
PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 1, 2006
To minimize potential environmental
impact, the Planning Board recommended that that developers be required to show
that the environmental impact of the proposed senior development will not be
any greater than that of the as-of-right development of the property under the
existing zoning or, in the alternative, that mitigation must be provided. For
example:
·
Water
supply – require on-site ground water recharge
·
Stormwater
– require greater on-site retention
·
Traffic
– require provision of busses
·
Energy
– require Energy Star appliances and even building to comply
- Density
Bonus and Optional Monetary Contribution
f.
The
Planning Board recommended the following method of calculating the density
bonus for non-residential districts:
The proposed amendment allows the
Density Bonus for non-residential districts to be “established on a case by
case basis by the Town Board using comparisons of traffic, impervious surfaces,
proposed numbers of affordable units, variety of housing types and any other
development related factors the Town Board deems relevant, including, but not
limited to, the surrounding residential zones.” According to the proposed
definitions, the “Maximum Residential Density” for non-residential zones are to
be calculated “by reference to the surrounding residential zoning zones, if
any.”
The Planning Board recommends
establishing a set formula for calculating the maximum number of units in a
non-residential district. The maximum number of units should be based on
applying an abutting residential district across a non-residentially zoned
property and determining a theoretical unit count based on a standard
subdivision map. This underlying count
is doubled to obtain the maximum “Density Bonus” For example, if one acre of
non-residentially zoned property is adjacent to an R-22 district, a standard
subdivision of the property could theoretically yield two residences, which is
doubled to four units to obtain the “Maximum Residential Density.”
If more than one residential
district abuts a non-residential parcel, the zoning of the parcel with the
greatest percentage of property abutting the subject property would be used to
determine a theoretical unit count. This would also apply to property split by
a residential and non-residential zoning district. Non-residential properties
that do not abut residential districts would not qualify for the AAR zone.
b) The Planning Board
recommended the following section on Sustainable Development and Energy
Efficiency be added, as developed by Member Hoehmann:
f. An additional density bonus of 5%
may be granted to applicants seeking approval of the Active Adult Residence
Zone for proposals that adhere to the following energy and water conservation
efforts:
i.
Project
is built to Energy Star Standards.
ii.
Where
deemed appropriate incorporates on site wastewater treatment storage and water
reuse systems to offset the utilization of water. Such treated wastewater commonly referred to
as “grey water” is to be utilized for landscape irrigation, toilets, ground
water recharge (where deemed appropriate) and other uses to reduce the amount
of water required to operate the facility.
iii.
Where
deemed appropriate provides efficient groundwater recharge via the installation
of green roofs, rain gardens and water conservation areas to promote
responsible development and protect the local environment.
iv.
Where
deemed appropriate utilizes photovoltaic systems (PV) to produce electricity to
offset the overall electrical operating needs of the project.
v.
Where
deemed appropriate incorporates geothermal heating and cooling systems.
(continued)
CONTINUATION OF WORKSHOP MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING
OF MAY 1, 2006
vi.
Incorporating
other energy and water conservation measures that upon evaluation will assist
in limiting the amount of water and energy to be utilized in these facilities.
After evaluation by the Town
Department of Environmental Conservation, the Planning Board may recommend a 5
percent density bonus based upon the total number of units for project. The bonus is awarded to projects that comply
with the above standards and others as may be deemed appropriate by the Town
DEC and Planning Board. This density
bonus is offered to promote energy and water conservation measures and thereby
reduces the impact that the AAR zone may have on the natural resources of Rockland County.
The density bonus is available to all projects within the AAR zone, however it is exhausted once the total number
of units is attained and is not meant to allow units above the 800 total to be
added. The density bonus serves as an
incentive for applicants to build units within the AAR
zone to a higher standard and thus reduce the impact this number of units will
have on the local water and energy resources.
c) The Planning Board
recommended the following method of calculating the Optional Monetary
Contribution:
The Planning Board considered that
one of the primary goals of this proposed legislation is to provide affordable
housing for seniors.
Under the current New Jersey
Inclusionary Housing Law, a Regional Contribution Agreement allows $35,000 per
unit to be collected from the developer and transferred to another municipality
where the affordable housing obligation would be met. In New
Jersey, however, developers are required to set aside
a percentage of all developments for affordable housing and are only allowed to
meet up to half of their obligation with fees.
In order to be eligible for
affordable housing under the proposed AAR
zoning district, an individual or household income cannot exceed 80 percent of
the Rockland County Median Income.
According to the U.S. Census, 80 percent of the Median Rockland
Household Income is approximately $54,000.
About one third of Rockland
households make less than this figure.
Incidentally, about one third of Rockland
households spend more than 50 percent of their household income on
housing. Based on this, the Town could
require that any additional non-affordable development over what is allowed by
right should bear the cost of constructing an affordable unit at a rate of
three to one. According to Gerri Levy of the Rockland Housing Action Coalition,
the minimum cost to build an affordable unit would be $203,000 ($145 per square
foot to construct a 1,400 square foot affordable housing unit). Requiring an affordable unit per every three
non-affordable units equates to $67,666 per unit.
Another method of calculating the
optional monetary contribution was previously suggested by Mr. Geneslaw. A percentage of the sale price of the
non-affordable bonus units would be collected.
For example, the Town could collect 50 percent of a 20 percent profit
margin, which equates to 10 percent of the purchase price.
The Planning Board was looking for a
method whereby the expense of developing affordable housing would be evenly
borne by both moderate and luxury units.
It an attempt to meet this goal, the Planning Board recommended that a 3
percent assessment be levied on the bonus non-affordable units. This recommendation passed by the Planning
Board 5:0:1, on a Motion by Baum, Seconded by Thormann, with Ayes of Baum,
Thormann, Shoberg, Yacyshyn and Hoehmann and Nay of Heim, who opined that 3
percent would be unduly passed onto the buyer of these units and that 2.5
percent would be more equitable.
5. Additional
Requirements – The Planning Board recommended that rather than a minimum square
footage, a maximum square footage of 2,500 square feet be provided for single
family detached units, excluding garages and limited to no more than 3
bedrooms.
Section 5 Bulk Regulations
- The
Planning Board recommended that parking be required at a rate of 1.5
parking spaces per unit and that no stacking of cars be allowed, except
for one car parked in a driveway in front of an enclosed one-car garage.
Other Minor Typographical Errors
1.
Additional
Regulations in AAR Districts (1) – Minimum overall lot area of 3 acres is equal
to 130,680 square feet not 130,000. (continued)
CONTINUATION OF WORKSHOP MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING
OF MAY 1, 2006
2.
Additional
Regulations in AAR Districts (6) – A Maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.00 (not 1.00
percent) is 100 %.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT APPROXIMATELY
MIDNIGHT.
