Public hearing on proposed PRD zoning changes draws residents' concerns about traffic, wells and habitat

The Orangetown Plan & Zoning Commission on March 17 continued a public hearing on a petition by Strawberry Hill Realty to amend Article 12 of the town's zoning regulations for Planned Residential Developments (PRD). The applicant's attorney, Sarah Sharp, described two minor red-line changes to the draft ordinance and said the revisions do not increase permitted height beyond existing limits.

Sharp told the commission the first edit removes the phrase "nonresidential parking lot" from a 100-foot buffer requirement to avoid ambiguous interpretations; the second updates cross-references and statutory citations to align with the town's obligations under the 2025 housing legislation and the 8-30g framework. "We're maintaining the 40-foot height limitation that's in the existing reg. We're not asking for additional height beyond what is already allowed," Sharp said.

The applicant's architect, Paul Santos of Newman Architects, showed revised exhibits intended to increase the buffer between the parking area and neighboring homes: approximately 72 feet from the building face and about 45 feet between the property line and the parking edge, plus a mix of retained deciduous trees and fast‑growing arborvitae to provide screening over time. Santos said the design maintains driveway offsets and facade articulation to reduce the visual impact on adjacent residences.

Town Attorney Owen Weaver and commissioners discussed how the state's housing legislation affects local regulation. Weaver said the 10% threshold for the 8-30g exemption remains in place but warned the town must prepare an affordable housing growth plan by June 1, 2029, under new state guidance. He recommended the commission add a required parking needs assessment and adopt separate parking rules for developments above and below the state's 16-unit threshold, noting the new law limits local ability to deny projects based solely on parking counts.

More than a dozen neighbors spoke during the public-comment period, focusing on traffic, stormwater, blasting, wells, wildlife and the loss of mature trees. Lance Guatney, who lives at 269 Peck Lane, said the parcel currently reads as a "park-like setting" that would be dramatically altered by the proposed development: "It's nothing personal to him or his group. It's just not what we bought the property for," he said. Several neighbors asked whether pre-blast surveys, vibration monitoring or contractor insurance would be required if rock removal becomes necessary; Sharp said the design intends to use topography to avoid blasting and that, if blasting were required, standard permitting would include pre-blast surveys and monitoring.

Residents also asked about traffic on Peck Lane (which feeds a busy commercial area and a Trader Joe's entrance), the potential for additional students in town schools, and stormwater impacts on nearby wells and an Indian Lake dam. Ed Lisi, president of the Indian Lake Association, urged the commission to require appropriate retention and drainage measures.

Sharp reiterated that many of the commenters' technical concerns (traffic studies, stormwater plans, lighting designs and wetlands review) are resolved during the special permit and site-plan stages and are not decided by a text amendment alone. "These questions are not regulation questions; they're really questions for a special permit and site-plan review," she told the commission, adding she would provide a collated revision that incorporates the town attorney's parking language.

After discussion the commission agreed to leave the public hearing open, request the applicant submit a revised draft that includes the town attorney's suggested parking changes and the applicant's minor edits, and grant an extension (up to 60 days) so the item can return to an April meeting. Sharp agreed to provide the revised text before the next meeting.

What happens next: If the commission ultimately approves the text amendment, Strawberry Hill Realty would still need to file a separate special permit and site-plan application; those future reviews would require traffic studies, stormwater and wetlands permits (as applicable), detailed lighting and landscape plans, and any pre-blast precautions required by the demolition or construction permit. The commission left the hearing open for further public comment and additional legal and technical revisions.