Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lawrence Park Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawrence Park referral draws deep review on stormwater, floodplain and brownfield cap; SWIP not yet filed
Summary
The Town Board referral for the Lawrence Park site plan prompted extensive technical questioning by the Planning Board on March 30: the applicant has not yet filed a SWIP; the team presented porous pavement details, sight‑distance measures and revised grading; board members sought brownfield cap details and monitoring if the cap must be penetrated. The applicant declined to request another 30‑day extension.
Representatives for the Lawrence Park project—Jacob Amir of Zarin & Steinmetz and project engineers from JMC—asked the Planning Board to prepare a report and recommendation on a referral from the Town Board. The application package remains incomplete in staff's view: the applicant is still preparing the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWIP) and has not submitted it for town or state review.
"At this point, it's being worked on and progressed, but it hasn't been submitted yet," said the project engineer, who asked the board to proceed with the referral process while the team continues internal submittals.
Why it matters: the proposal includes work in areas mapped to the 100‑year flood plain and builds on a site that underwent brownfield remediation with a capped surface. Board members stressed the need to see the SWIP and a survey that shows existing utilities and accurate topography before the board issues a formal recommendation to the Town Board.
Technical topics discussed: the project team presented porous asphalt pavement details and a maintenance checklist (monthly/quarterly/annual inspection and vacuuming). The engineers said they measured roughly 400 feet of sight distance on Route 9A at the driveway location and compared that to codified stopping‑sight requirements; a reviewer from John Canning's group urged the applicant to demonstrate that sight distance remains in the summer with foliage. Truck‑turn templates prompted questions about whether tractor‑trailers need to encroach into opposing lanes to make some maneuvers; the applicant said some sweeps are shown and that additional review is ongoing.
Brownfield cap and fill: board members asked whether past remediation work changed site topography and whether proposed excavations would penetrate the existing cap. The applicant said excavation into the cap could occur as part of construction but would follow state brownfield procedures and consultant oversight; the board requested the brownfield cleanup report and cap specifications to understand monitoring needs and potential contaminant pathways.
Board action and next steps: the applicant declined to request another 30‑day extension for the board to receive the SWIP; staff will draft a report and recommendation for the board's next meeting (April 15). The board moved into executive session for legal advice; no votes were taken in executive session.
Ending: the board directed staff to prepare a recommendation based on the materials on file and to identify outstanding items (SWIP, updated survey, cut/fill analysis) for the record.
