Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Application topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant says 1047 Oak Lane deck replacement will not increase impervious area; board requests clarifications
Summary
At the April 23 meeting the applicant for 1047 Oak Lane presented a deck replacement (~280 sq ft) and a 111-sq-ft addition, saying work removes a concrete base and increases permeability; the planning board asked for disturbance-area calculations, sediment controls on plans, and to confirm whether a stormwater plan (SWIP) is required.
At the Village of Mecerne Planning Board meeting on April 23, the applicant for 1047 Oak Lane presented a relatively straightforward site-plan application for a deck replacement (the applicant gave the deck replacement area as about 280 square feet) and a small addition (about 111 square feet). The applicant said the proposal reduces the area of disturbance because the existing deck sits atop a concrete platform that will be removed, resulting in more permeable ground beneath the new deck.
"We remove that concrete platform ... it's going to be more permeable than before," owner Martin Montani said when describing the planned work and asking the board to consider that change in permeability as part of its review.
Board members and staff focused on whether the project triggers the village’s stormwater plan requirement (referred to in the record as a SWIP). The building department determination initially indicated a SWIP was required, while plan reviewers and the village engineer observed the drawings appeared to show a disturbance area under the 1,000-square-foot threshold that triggers a SWIP. Engineer John Kellard and staff asked the applicant to clearly show the calculated area of disturbance (including pier and footing footprints) on the plan so the board and the building department can confirm whether a SWIP is required.
The board also asked the applicant to add sediment controls to the plan in response to review comments and to provide clearer plan sheet delineation showing drip lines and disturbed-area numbers. Staff (Britney) agreed to follow up with the building department the next day to confirm whether the SWIP requirement was applied in error and to help the applicant resolve that determination if needed.
The board asked attorney Mary Desmond to draft a resolution for the applicant’s next appearance and classified the application as a Type 2 action under the village’s SEQR-like procedure. The applicant was told to return after resubmitting plans with the clarified disturbance calculation and required sediment-control and tree-preservation details.
No formal vote or final approval was given for the project at the April 23 meeting; the board indicated it expected a follow-up visit and documentation before final action.
