Applicant asks Planning Board to delay final vote on Elmwood Preserve subdivision after late receipt of draft resolution

David Steinmetz, attorney for the applicant, told the Planning Board that the Elmwood Preserve proposal seeks final subdivision approval for a 113‑lot conservation subdivision that would dedicate about 14.2 acres of parkland to the town and realign the Springbrook Parkway southbound exit ramp. Steinmetz said the project has been before the town for roughly seven years and that the major outstanding issue has been satisfying New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) requirements under the brownfield cleanup program.

Steinmetz and the project team said the DEC‑driven cleanup requires removal of contaminated topsoil in many portions of the site — predominantly arsenic in the upper 6–12 inches — and that remediating to a residential standard led to additional disturbance and increased tree removals. The applicant said all contaminated material will be removed from the property and hauled off‑site under DEC protocols, not reused on the site.

Diego Villareal, the project engineer, explained that the amendments are technical and do not change the lot count, roadway network, overall acreage of open space (28 acres remain as open space in addition to the 14.2‑acre dedication) or the general layout approved previously. He described a four‑phase construction and remediation sequencing plan, detailed sediment and erosion control measures for each phase, and layered stormwater management (individual lot practices plus larger detention/infiltration features). Villareal said the overall runoff rates at several design points are reduced under the current design, though one upstream design point will see an increase in volume but a lower peak rate and that the overall effect at the downstream design points is a net reduction.

Terry Tory, chair of the Conservation Advisory Council, told the board the council remains supportive of the project’s conservation layout but emphasized two recurring concerns: aggressive removal of invasive species to prevent re‑propagation following disturbance, and strict monitoring and controls during earth movement to avoid runoff and dust. Tory said the CAC believes the final plan provides substantial open space and tree planting and that the council’s role has been to ensure environmental sensitivity rather than to oppose development outright.

Board members pressed the applicant on several fronts: coordination with nearby schools and day camps for truck routing and timing during remediation; whether air and dust monitoring would be deployed and under what triggers; bonding and performance guarantees to ensure public subdivision infrastructure is completed or secured; and whether homeowners would be living on portions of the site while remediation continues. In response, the applicant and their counsel noted multiple bonding and security conditions are included in the draft resolution (including bonds for steep slope work, DOT right‑of‑way work, maintenance bonds for roads, landscaping bonds, irrevocable letters of credit for stormwater facilities, HOA maintenance funding, and a general performance bond), and they described DEC‑required air monitoring and dust control measures and the use of phased quadrants for remediation so work proceeds section by section.

After the technical presentation and extended Q&A, the applicant asked the Planning Board not to vote on the draft resolution that evening, saying the team had received a 43‑page draft resolution only about an hour and a half before the meeting and needed time to confer with staff and review its contents. The chair agreed and announced the board would not take final votes that night on Elmwood Preserve and would revisit the matter at the Feb. 4 meeting; staff and the applicant will exchange written comments in the interim.

The board also asked the applicant to provide the detailed phasing, stormwater and truck‑routing plans, updated bonding figures, and any further clarifications requested by individual board members before the next meeting.

Next steps: the Planning Board will continue the Elmwood Preserve work session on Feb. 4, when members expect to receive the applicant’s written responses and any revised draft resolution for further consideration.