Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board closes Rocket Subdivision hearing, asks for resubmission on tree and storm‑water items
Summary
The Town of Newburgh Planning Board closed the public hearing on the Rocket Subdivision (25‑08) March 19, 2026, and voted to delay any SEQRA determination until applicant revises plans to document tree‑preservation compliance and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan covering 0.998 acres of disturbance.
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Town of Newburgh Planning Board closed the public hearing on the Rocket Subdivision (project 25‑08) after the applicant agreed to revise plans to address outstanding consultant comments.
Jonathan N. Millen, the applicant’s representative, summarized the proposal: a four‑lot subdivision on Candlestick Road of roughly 27 acres with lot sizes he described as about 14 acres (Lot 1), 4.5 acres (Lot 2), 5 acres (Lot 3) and about 3.99 acres (Lot 4). All lots will be served by on‑site subsurface sanitary systems and wells. "He pretty much said everything that needed to be said," Millen told the Board when asked to summarize public information about the project.
Pat Hines of MHE told the Board that prior consultant comments remain outstanding and that the project disturbs 0.998 acres. "The project disturbs 0.998 acres, so we are going to have to do a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the residential subdivision less than five acres," Hines said, noting the requirement for DEC permit coverage and the need to document compliance with the Town’s tree‑preservation ordinance on the plans.
Planning Board attorney Dominic Cordisco recommended closing the public hearing while withholding a SEQRA determination until the applicant submits revised plans addressing the outstanding storm‑water and tree‑preservation items. The Board voted unanimously to close the hearing and require the resubmission before making any environmental findings.
The Board did not take final land‑use or SEQRA action at the meeting; members said they expect the applicant to return with a revised plan and the requested documentation before the Board proceeds.
