Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks to restore wetland‑adjacent lot; neighbors and board press for DEC letter
Summary
An Orangetown subdivision applicant asked the planning board to restore a previously removed lot, returning the plan to 13 homes; residents and several board members said they would not grant preliminary approval without a written DEC determination and asked the developer to revise buffers, landscaping and screening.
Mr. Brener, representing the subdivision applicant, opened the hearing by saying the project "has been before you over a year" and that the team wanted preliminary approval to restore a lot removed under earlier DEC wetland rules.
The project engineer, Stuart Stro, said the plan before the board (last revised May 8, 2026) restores the previously deleted lot as Lot 2, yields 13 homes and dedicates a 14th lot to the town as conservation area. He told the board that New York State DEC had confirmed the wetland delineation when the agency visited the site, but that a court decision later nullified the state regulations and the applicant therefore restored the deleted lot.
Why it matters: neighbors and planning staff flagged environmental, drainage and safety risks tied to Lot 2’s proximity to mapped freshwater forested/shrub wetlands. Public commenters said the Rockland County Planning Department review recommended reducing the subdivision’s scale and objected to filling wetland area to build additional structures.
Residents who spoke at the public portion urged the board to preserve Lot 2 as open space. Don Gable said DEC staff told him they "are going to continue to pursue the jurisdiction" and warned against hasty action without a written determination. Vanessa Lapens told the board Lot 2 is "situated right on top of a wetland" and argued there is no imperative to add the house. Joy Macy and other neighbors cited repeated flooding and recommended retaining the lot to mitigate runoff.
Board members pressed the applicant for documentation and design changes. Several members said they would not be comfortable granting preliminary approval without a DEC letter stating whether the agency still asserts jurisdiction over the wetland. Lisa asked explicitly for an official letter from the DEC showing they "no longer have jurisdiction" before the board could consider the application further.
The applicant offered compromise options to address that concern: proceed with a 12‑lot configuration now (making one adjacent lot oversized or combining lots) and return to the board for a 13th lot if DEC provides written clearance; or submit revised plans that extend the conservation easement and add screening and landscaping along the lots that abut existing homes. The board requested clearer mapping of buffers, the conservation easement plantings, tree removals and site grading, and asked the applicant to confirm whether the Army Corps of Engineers would need to sign off on any fill within the federal buffer.
What’s next: the board asked the applicant to provide the DEC jurisdiction letter, show detailed landscaping and buffer plans on the revised drawings, and respond in writing to agency comments. Several board members stated they could not support preliminary approval until the DEC position was documented in writing. The matter will return after the applicant submits the requested documentation.
Ending: The hearing moved on after the public portion; no final or preliminary approval for the restored Lot 2 was granted at this meeting.
