Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airmont staff raise stormwater and snow-storage issues before endorsing 39 Besson Parkway place-of-worship plan
Summary
At the Jan. 14 Community Design Review Committee meeting, staff said final chairman's endorsement for 39 Besson Parkway LLC’s proposed freestanding place of worship will be held pending resolution of stormwater, catch-basin placement and snow‑storage concerns and an address correction on the plans.
The Village of Airmont Community Design Review Committee on Jan. 14 considered final chairman’s endorsement for 39 Besson Parkway LLC, a proposed freestanding place of worship at 39 Besson Parkway. Committee staff said the planning board already granted site approval and the item is before the committee for remaining technical sign-offs, including stormwater matters and plan labeling.
Committee engineering reviewers said the north‑side catch basin as shown may not intercept sheet flow across the parking lot and suggested the basin might need to be relocated or supplemented on the south side. The reviewer also flagged snow‑storage placement that appears to overlap an outfall structure, warning that accumulated snow could block the outfall during spring melt and heavy rain.
Rabbi Kleinman, the applicant, acknowledged receipt of a memo sent to consultants and said he would work with staff. John Nozak, retired from Fusco Engineering, and an engineer identified as Todd were noted as involved in earlier reviews; staff said not all prior review memos had been circulated to the current reviewer. Committee staff said they would resend the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWIP) and any prior review letters to the consultant so outstanding comments can be addressed.
Staff also asked that the plan set reflect the merged lot correctly: earlier submissions show 72 Muncie Heights Road together with 39 Besson; the record should instead read 39 Besson for endorsement sets. A fire‑lane agreement had been submitted and was noted in the file. No formal vote or endorsement occurred at the CDRC meeting; staff said they will work with the applicant to clear outstanding technical items and proceed to endorsement once satisfied.
The outstanding items identified by staff included: a response to the committee’s Nov. 18 memo on stormwater, confirmation of the SWIP details in the file, catch‑basin relocation or redesign, resolution of snow‑storage interfering with the storm outfall, and a corrected address and plan set for the merged lot. Committee staff indicated they would handle the follow‑up with the applicant and engineering consultants outside a future public meeting.
No formal action was taken during the CDRC discussion; the applicant was instructed to provide the requested materials and corrections for final endorsement.
