Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Steep Slope topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Steep‑slope plan at 0 Old Army Road would remove ~87 trees and excavate ~3,000 cu yd; board asks for blasting, cemetery buffer and DOT access details
Summary
An applicant seeking a steep‑slope permit for 0 Old Army Road proposed a single‑family build that would disturb steep and very steep slopes, remove roughly 87 trees and export ~3,000 cubic yards of material; the board requested additional detail on possible rock blasting, measures to protect a nearby cemetery, a DOT right‑of‑way permit for access and tree‑protection fencing ahead of an August 5 public hearing.
At the July 1 Planning Board work session the board reviewed a steep‑slope permit and tree removal application for 0 Old Army Road (case PB2317). The engineer for the project, Greg Catcipoli, described a single‑family plan on a 1.1‑acre lot that would disturb about 7,342 sq ft of 15–25% slopes, roughly 183 sq ft of 25–35% slopes and 1,381 sq ft of >35% slopes; the application anticipates removal of about 87 trees and exporting about 3,000 cubic yards of excavated material.
Catcipoli said the drainage and stormwater management are sized to a 25‑year storm; board members requested additional detail about overflow mitigation, level spreaders and the possibility of vegetated buffer treatment at discharge points. Several members raised concerns about encountering rock during excavation; Catcipoli acknowledged rock is likely and said blasting could be considered, which would trigger additional blasting protocols, seismic/refraction surveys and off‑site structure protections.
Board discussion also noted a locally important structure and a former cemetery on the adjacent property; members asked the applicant to preserve a wooded buffer (roughly 45 feet shown on plans), consider a conservation easement for long‑term protection and include deed‑based maintenance obligations if shared access strips will be created. The applicant reported outreach to NYSDOT and said a DOT right‑of‑way permit will be sought; staff said a DOT permit can be required as a condition of approval if necessary.
The board asked for clearer silt‑fence and wire‑backed construction fence details, tree‑protection measures (chain‑link tree fencing where warranted), and asked for geotechnical borings and a blasting protocol if rock removal is needed. The applicant expects to submit revisions and the board set a target public hearing date for August 5, contingent on submission of updated engineering materials.
