Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscape And Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant revises 877 Port plans after board flags tree-plan inconsistencies and engineering notes
Summary
At a Jan. 22 Planning Board meeting, the applicant for 877 Port walked the board through revised civil plans removing several front dry wells and reconfiguring a garage; consultants and the board then spent extensive time resolving inconsistent tree-removal markings across civil, tree-preservation, and landscape plans and identifying remaining stormwater engineering items to be corrected before return.
The Village of Mamerick Planning Board questioned discrepancies across drawings for the 877 Port project and asked the applicant to submit coordinated engineering and landscape revisions before the board’s next meeting.
Gregory Lewis, architect for the applicant, told the board the revised civil drawings reduced impervious area, removed four front cultex (dry-well) features and moved the garage forward. “We reduced the amount of impervious with our new design by bringing the garage forward,” Lewis said, noting the project is not within the flood plain and that a flood-plain development permit would be submitted with the building permit.
Board consultant Susan Oakley flagged mismatches between the Hudson engineering plan, the Yost Designs tree-preservation plan and the landscaping sheet, saying existing trees were marked inconsistently as both preserved and removed. Oakley said her December 12 memo called attention to these inconsistencies and that the plans had to clearly show which existing trees would be taken down and which replacements were proposed. “On this landscape plan, those two trees on the Hudson plan are both being proposed for removal,” Oakley said. The group confirmed that two existing trees would be removed along the left side and one near the front, and that three new trees were proposed.
John Keller, reviewing civil engineering items, advised the applicant to remove legacy sheets in the SWIP (storm-water) package that reflected earlier designs and to supply final calculations and details for curb cuts and sewer connection. Keller noted potential differences in how the sewer lateral ties in to the municipal system and recommended coordination with the Department of Public Works. “They may not want it into the manhole, but it’s something you should just work out with DPW,” he said.
The board asked applicants to submit a short cover letter identifying which pages were changed, and to have engineer-to-engineer communications to address Keller’s list (including water-quality calculations and any omitted infiltration testing). The applicant said they would have the revised material ready by Jan. 29 for the Feb. 12 meeting and that the civil engineer would reach out directly to Keller to resolve technical items.
Next steps: applicant to submit corrected civil and landscape drawings, remove erroneously retained SWIP sheets, coordinate sewer connection with DPW, and provide a cover letter summarizing the edits for efficient review at the Feb. 12 meeting.
The board did not take a final vote on plan approval at the Jan. 22 meeting; it instead set clear technical and documentation items the applicant must address before return.
