Documents

site plan 33 pages

Also attached to this agenda item: woodland enhancement plan

Weehouse on Mount Airy Road West Village of Croton On Hudson Planning Board Meeting Status Update – March 5th, 0224 Tom Hannigan Jr. Key Topics • Project Re-cap • Old Business • Current status • Upcoming milestones • Holistic Forestry Approach • Detailed plan Project Re-cap • Summarized for broader distribution Property Location 7 acre vacant lot (67.8-2-1) ½ acre w/easement (67.8-1-26) Village of Croton On Hudson Weehouse on Mount Airy Road West - Snapshot S 50° 11' 25" W 50.00' S 51° 40' 25" W 123.28' S 46° 55' 05" W 100.35' 30' 6.5' PT#6 DT#6 PT#4 DT#4 PT#5 DT#5 TP-3 IT-3 TP-4 IT-4 VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON HUDSON VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON HUDSON TOWN OF CORTLANDT TOWN OF CORTLANDT 30' T.O.C. FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' T.O.C. FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' V.C.O.H. SIDE YARD SETBACK 45' V.C.O.H. REAR YARD SETBACK PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROPOSED 3-BEDROOM RESIDENCE 101.0' R30' W FFE: 586.25 GFE: 583.35 12' PROPOSED WELL 356.4' 676.5' 84.6' 12' PROPOSED RETAINING WALL MAX HEIGHT: 2 FEET. PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM LOCATION PROPOSED GRADING RD RD RD RD ROOF DRAIN FOOTING DRAIN D D C 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 12+35.28 PROPOSED 3 BEDROOM RESIDENCE GARDEN WITH PATIO BLEND LANDSCAPING INTO EXISTING FORESTED GROUND PROPOSED GARDEN N/A SIDE YARD SETBACK: NONE DATE: SCALE: Sheet of No. Date Comments: ZONING SCHEDULE OF TOWN OF CORTLANDT: 10,000 SF 35 FEET 20 FT. - (1) 30 FT. BUILDING COVERAGE: FRONT YARD SETBACK: REAR YARD SETBACK: MAXIMUM HEIGHT: MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING: 0.8 % OF LOT AREA 35 FT MAX 306,442 S.F. PROVIDED LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 www.sitedesignconsultants.com Fax: (914) 962-7386 Land Planners Engineer: NYS Lic. No. 64431 Joseph C. Riina, P.E. 251-F Underhill Avenue, Civil Engineers (914) 962-4488 - MINIMUM SIZE OF LOT: MINIMUM YARD DIMENSIONS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING: NONE NONE VARIANCE REQUIRED NONE R-10, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT: DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS: MAXIMUM LOT AREA TO BE OCCUPIED: PRINCIPAL BUILDING - FEET: NONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING - STORIES: NONE 2 1/2 2 STORIES NOTE: 1. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. ALL SURVEY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM SURVEY MAP PREPARED BY WALTER K GOODTIVE, DATED 3/16/1977. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ACCURACY. SITE DATA: OWNER: THOMAS HANNIGAN JR 52 UPLAND ROAD CORTLANDT, NY 10520 PROJECT LOCATION: 52 UPLAND ROAD CORTLANDT, NY, 10520 EXISTING TOWN ZONING: CORTLANDT: R-10. CROTON-ON-HUDSON: R-60 PROPOSED USE: CORTLANDT: R-10. CROTON-ON-HUDSON: R-60 TOWN TAX MAP DATA: SECTION 68.08, BLOCK 2, LOT 67.08 & 26 SITE AREA : 7.06 ACRES (307641 SF) SEWAGE FACILITIES: SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FACILITIES: DRILLED WELL WATERSHED: - COPYRIGHT © 2022 BY SITE DESIGN CONSULTANTS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOTE: UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THIS DRAWING IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 (2) OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. SAFE DIG Before You Dig, Drill or Blast! CALL US TOLL FREE 811 or 1-800-962-7962 NY Industrial Code Rule 753 requires no less than two working days notice, but not more than ten days notice. www.digsafelynewyork.com ( ) ( ) 21-22 PROJECT # 1" = 30' SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN PREPARED FOR SITE PLAN Westchester County, NY CS 6-28-2021 75 FT. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 375 FT. NONE 50% MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 387 FT. NONE Town of Cortlandt 52 UPLAND LANE PROJECT LOCATION -- LOT COVERAGE: N/A NONE -- BUILDING SIZE: 2,885 SF NONE N/A FLOOR AREA RATIO: 0.01 NONE THOMAS HANNIGAN JR NONE PROPERTY LINE / RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING STONE WALL PROPOSED GRADING EXISTING GRADING EXISTING SPOT GRADE PROPOSED RIP RAP AT PIPE END EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE LEGEND PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS PROPOSED STABILIZED PROPOSED LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE FD RD PROPOSED FOOTING DRAIN PROPOSED ROOF DRAIN EXISTING STONE WALLS TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED HOUSE AND DRIVE PROPOSED SOIL STOCKPILES PROPOSED SILT FENCE SS SS PROPOSED PERMANENT SWALE 30/80 FT. ONE SIDE SETBACK/BOTH YARDS: 84.6/676.5 FT. NONE ZONING SCHEDULE OF VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON: 60,000 SF 35 FEET 45 FT. 15% OF LOT AREA 50 FT. BUILDING COVERAGE: FRONT YARD SETBACK: REAR YARD SETBACK: MAXIMUM HEIGHT: MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING: 0.8 % OF LOT AREA 35 FT MAX 306,442 S.F. PROVIDED 356.4 FT. 101 FT. MINIMUM SIZE OF LOT: MINIMUM YARD DIMENSIONS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING: NONE NONE VARIANCE REQUIRED NONE R-60, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT: DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS: MAXIMUM LOT AREA TO BE OCCUPIED: PRINCIPAL BUILDING - FEET: NONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING - STORIES: NONE 2 1/2 2 STORIES 175 FT. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 597 FT. NONE 225 FT. 387 FT. NONE NONE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH: 35 FEET MINIMUM DWELLING REGULATIONS: 35 FT MAX HABITABLE AREA: NONE FLOOR AREA RATIO (1): NONE 2 1/2 2 1/2 MAX REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING: NONE 2 PER D.U. SCALE: 1"=50'-0" UPLAND ROAD HOLLIS LANE MT. AIRY RD W 8/30/2022 Eng. comments 84.6/676.5 FT. 356.4 FT. 101 FT. House Design Permit ID: A-23-51 Tax parcel: 67.8-2-1 7.02 acres Driveway length: 1,050 linear feet LOD Area: 2.01 acres Septic: WCDH File #C-2023-07 Single family residence 3 bedrooms 2,225 Sq ft. Passive house design Weehouse on Mount Airy Road West - Snapshot Site design • Sustainable approach to land use/forestry • Follows natural contours of land • Meets code for steep slopes • Land clearing/grading only where required to meet local codes Joe Riina - Site Design Consultants Licensed Professional Engineer New York State License # 06877 Connecticut License # 15954 Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control CPESC # 2670 Certified Professional in Storm Water Quality CPSWQ # 0073 S 50° 11' 25" W 50.00' S 51° 40' 25" W 123.28' S 46° 55' 05" W 100.35' 30' 6.5' PT#6 DT#6 PT#4 DT#4 PT#5 DT#5 TP-3 IT-3 TP-4 IT-4 ON HUDSON VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON HUDSON TOWN OF CORTLANDT ORTLANDT 30' T.O.C. FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' T.O.C. FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' V.C.O.H. SIDE YARD SETBACK R YARD SETBACK PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROPOSED 3-BEDROOM RESIDENCE 101.0' R30' W FFE: 586.25 GFE: 583.35 12' PROPOSED WELL 356.4' 676.5' 84.6' 12' PROPOSED RETAINING WALL MAX HEIGHT: 2 FEET. PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT D CURB PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM LOCATION PROPOSED GRADING RD RD RD RD ROOF DRAIN FOOTING DRAIN D D C 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 12+35.28 PROPOSED 3 BEDROOM RESIDENCE GARDEN WITH PATIO BLEND LANDSCAPING INTO EXISTING FORESTED GROUND PROPOSED GARDEN Weehouse on Mount Airy Road West - Snapshot Alchemy Architects: • Weehouse creators • Passive house experts • ~20 projects NY/NE Design Points • Passive house principles • Siting sympathetic to the property • Locally sourced Geoffrey Warner, FAIA Architect Marcy Conrad Nutt, AIA, CPHD, LEED AP Architect www.alchemyarch.com Project Re-cap • Current Status • Upcoming milestones Current Status Date Activity Status Next Actions 1/25/23 Permit application submitted to TOC Complete 3/29/23 DOTS Engineering review On hold – refer to opengov portal messages Prepare septic, stormwater & tree plan 6/7/23 Septic, storm water, steep slopes, initial tree plan update submitted to TOC Submitted - pending clarifications from TOC TBD 1/9/24 Village Planning Board – steep slope plan review Complete Schedule site visit 1/27/24 Planning Board Site Visit Complete Steep slope application letter 2/6/24 Village Planning Board – steep slope plan revision Complete Initial tree re-planting plan 2/20/24 Village Planning Board – initial tree plan review Complete Detailed re-planting plan, connect with TOC for guidance 3/5/24 Village Planning Board – re-planting plan review In process, connect w/TOC declined 4/1/24 Commitments to contractors for ‘24 build season Holistic Forestry Approach • Updated re-planting plan • Tree count/replacement count Holistic Forestry Management Plan Steven Marino, PWS Principal, Sr. Environmental Planner, Wetland Ecologist, Professional Wetland Scientist 1926 Aerial View • Large sections of the property were clear land • Evidence of development on the site in the past Upland Lane New house site Hollis Lane • Most of the proposed disturbance will occur in areas that were historically cleared 1926 Aerial View • Heavily wooded second growth forest with poor understory • ~800 trees – dense canopy • “Atypical” composition – predominantly fast growth/non-native species (86% are “fair” condition) • Limited number of larger trees (1% are 24+”, 36% are <8”) • Actively maintained – majority of invasive growth and deadfall has been removed Sav A Tree Impact Report – “Atypical species composition” • “Atypical” species composition, 37% black birch (not “long lived” trees) • No protected species • Indicative of second growth, fast growing forest • Large number of non-native species • Few large trees, only 15 trees are 24” or larger • 269 trees in standard line of disturbance, recommending 312 trees for removal • Of the 312, 251 are “healthy,” 61 dead or poor condition 37% 14% 9% 8% 7% 1% 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Black Birch Red Oak Sugar Maple Red Maple Norway Maple Ailanthus Sweet Cherry Preponderance of Fast Growth/Non-native Trees Sav A Tree Impact Report – Majority of trees “Fair” “The large number of Fair condition trees is mainly due to the fact that there are all forested trees that have never been managed. Most of them could be improved to good condition is (sic) they were pruned, fertilized, and/or treated for insect/disease issues, etc. Obviously, without management, the condition of all trees declines over time until they die.” Matt Weibel ISA Certified Arborist #NJ-1065A Registered Consulting Arborist #534 SavATree Consulting Group 86% 6% 6% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fair Dead Poor Good Tree Count by Grade Sav A Tree Impact Report – Tree Grading Criteria • Good - tree shows good symmetry, no/very little dieback and/or deadwood, and its structure is free from obvious defect (single lead trunk, no lean, etc) • Fair- tree may have canopy symmetry issues, be overgrown, have up to 25% dieback and/or deadwood. May have minor decay in trunk/large limb, but these issues are not great enough that removal is warranted. • Poor - tree health is noticeably deficient and/or structural issues in need of action. Some poor trees may not be salvageable • Dead - tree has no live foliage/canopy. Sav A Tree Impact Report – Majority of trees “understory 2nd growth” • 87% of trees are less than 18” in diameter • 36% are less than 8” 48% 36% 8% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 9-18 8 or less 18-24 24+ Tree Count by Size Range Sav A Tree Impact Report – Conclusions 1. No protected trees, only ten 24+” large trees impacted. 2. The ”atypical” species composition is an understory of mostly weak forest trees (black birch) or non-native invasive trees (Norway maple, Ailanthus). 3. Majority (86%) are <18” trees in fair condition. 4. Left unmanaged health of the majority of “fair” trees in the LOD will continue to decline, negatively impacting the sustainability of the forest. Note: No significant differences observed in split between Croton/Cortlandt Holistic Approach to Forestry Management Best Practices: 1. Thinning of dead or poor condition and non-native trees. 2. Increased light penetration with creation of gaps in forest. 3. Planting with understory trees and shrubs along site perimeter to enhance habitat. 4. Removal of trees too close to grading, septic, stormwater and new structures. Proximity to these areas reduces root health so forest-grown trees are likely to fail in the near future. 5. Protection of tree roots and trunks during site activities. 6. Erosion control measures to protect roots from siltation and/or excessive water. Best Practices Applied to our Project 1. Thinning of non-native second growth trees - improves the health and welfare and rural character of the property. 2. Avoid re-planting in heavily wooded sections • Dense canopy in existing locations outside of the LOD makes re-planting in these most of these areas non-viable. • Limited available viable re-planting locations. 3. Recommend re-planting trees along the property borders where the canopy will support new tree growth. 4. Include vulnerable species in re-planting plan where applicable (Cornus Florida, Flowering Dogwood). Recommended Sustainable Re-planting Locations 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommended Re-planting Inventory Location Re-planting type Count Recommended Species Type 1. NE Property line Evergreens White Spruce 2. Middle of driveway Native plants & mixed grasses N/A 3. Western prop. line Understory trees & shrubs Arrowwood, Shadblow, Hornbeam, Flowering Dogwood, Witch Hazel, Blackhaw Vibumum 4. SW corner house site Landscape trees Red Maple, White Oak, Sweetgum Total Best Practices - Clearing 1. The limits of tree cutting will be identified in the field prior to cutting, and orange snow fence or equivalent will be used to demarcate such areas. 2. Tree cutting will begin at the intersection with the existing driveway, first clearing the septic area then moving up the driveway to the house location. 3. A twelve-inch capacity chipper will be used and any trees or limbs that will fit in the chipper will be chipped and chips used on site. Logs that will not fit in the chipper will be hauled away from the site to be processed for firewood or other uses depending on type of tree. All stumps will be removed and legally disposed of by the site contractor as they are removed from work areas. 4. After tree cutting is completed, disturbed ground from removed trees will be rough graded to restore any ground disturbance caused by tree felling in preparation for driveway construction. Stumps will remain to support the existing slopes until they are removed for the necessary construction activities to take place allowing the disturbed areas to be put to final grades and permanent erosion controls are able to be installed. Hierarchy of Trees for Removal (N=312) 0%, 0 1%, 6 5%, 15 38% 118 30%, 95 11%, 34 Protected Big (24+), Fair & Good Not So Big (18-24) Fair & Good Other Dead, Poor, & Invasive (Outside LOD) Dead & Poor in LOD Other understory Fair & Good(1) (9-18”) Understory 2nd Growth (Fair & Good(2) <=8”) 14%, 43 Do not replant - 172 Re-plant - 21 Partial re-plant - 46 Target replacement count = 67 Other Understory Fair & Good(1) (9-18”) • 46 Total trees to be re-planted • Of that, 16 trees to be re-planted - native & slow growth • Bitternut hickory • Red oak • Mockernut hickory • White oak • Remainder are fast growth weak forest or invasive species will not be replanted 60% 7% 7% 7% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Black birch Bitternut hickory Sugar maple Norway maple Red maple Red oak Black cherry Ailanthus Japanese falsecypress Mockernut hickory White oak Understory Species Breakdown TOC Definition of Protected Trees PROTECTED TREE — Trees as set forth in Appendix A.3 Tree Code Section 283-3 In determining the number of replacement trees to be planted, the Planning Board and Town Arborist shall consider the size, genus and cultivar of the trees which are proposed to be removed. Each protected tree that is to be removed shall be replaced by at least 1 1/2 times the number (rounded up) of the same trees as removed. On slopes of 25% or greater, two trees shall be planted for each tree which is to be removed. TREES 283 Attachment 1 Town of Cortlandt Appendix A List of Protected Trees All of the following are deemed to be protected trees under Chapter 283, Trees, of the Town of Cortlandt. Endangered: Botanical Name Common Name Betula glandulosa Tundra dwarf birch Betula minor Dwarf white birch Cornus drummondii Rough-leaf dogwood Crataegus berberifolia Hawthorn Crataegus compacta Compact hawthorn Crataegus mollis Downy hawthorn Crataegus uniflora Dwarf hawthorn Gymnocladus dioica Kentucky coffee tree Malus glaucescens American crab Prunus pumila var. pumila Low sand-cherry Salix cordata Sand dune willow Salix herbacea Dwarf willow Threatened: Botanical Name Common Name Betula pumila Swamp birch Carya laciniosa Big shellbark hickory Populus heterophylla Swamp cottonwood Rare: Botanical Name Common Name Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white-cedar Pinus banksiana Jack pine Exploitably vulnerable: Botanical Name Common Name Corpus florida Flowering dogwood Juglans cinerea Butternut Summary of Proposal • Approximately 800 trees exist on the parcel. • No protected trees impacted. • A maximum of 312 trees will be unavoidably removed to allow for the construction of a new driveway, residence, septic system and stormwater management area. • 121 trees to be cut are in Croton. • 191 trees are in Cortlandt. • Approximately 500 trees will remain on the 7+ acre site after construction. • 67 native trees will be re-planted in sustainable locations: • New landscaping trees will be planted at north end of site as screening and around new residence. • New small trees and woodland shrubs will be planted along southern property line to enhance habitat value. Alignment to Village Tree Code Intent & Requirements Code Section 208-14 Tree preservation “The Board of Trustees finds that it has been established that trees stabilize the soil and control water pollution by preventing soil erosion and flooding, reduce air pollution, provide oxygen, yield advantageous microclimatic effects, temper noise and, further, that unusual, large and old trees have unique aesthetic and historic values. Indiscriminate removal of trees causes deprivation of these benefits and disrupts the Village's ecological systems. It is, therefore, the purpose of this article to prevent the indiscriminate or unnecessary destruction of trees within the Village of Croton-on- Hudson.” “It is the intent of the Village to recognize these responsibilities in part by providing these procedures as well as to preserve the health and welfare and rural character of the community which is reflected in the woodlands of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson.” 208-16 Standards for granting permits “The removal of the tree is not inconsistent with good silvicultural, horticultural or vegetation management and will not have an adverse visual or ecological impact.” The only changes to the topography in the site plan are those required to permit the proper and appropriate use of land for a single family residence. The site plan preserves and improves the health, welfare, and rural character of the property by addressing the current unsustainable understory growth according to recognized industry best practices. Re-planting has been recommended to in select sustainable open canopy locations offsetting the negative effects of tree removal while improving the sustainability of the natural forest. Alignment to Cortlandt Tree Code Intent & Requirements Code Section 283 Trees “The Town Board further finds that the natural topography of the Town of Cortlandt is a public asset which should be preserved and safeguarded... Therefore, no changes should be permitted in such topography except those which are absolutely necessary in order to permit the proper and appropriate use of the land.” “It is the intent of the Town to recognize these responsibilities in part by providing these procedures, as well as to preserve the health and welfare and rural character of the community which is reflected in the trees and woodlands of the Town of Cortlandt.” Standards for Approval 283-7 “If the property owner will replant replacement trees of a similar species or add other vegetation to offset the negative effects of the tree removal to the satisfaction of the approving authority.” The only changes to the topography in the site plan are those required to permit the proper and appropriate use of land for a single family residence. The site plan preserves and improves the health, welfare, and rural character of the property by addressing the current unsustainable understory growth according to recognized industry best practices. Pruning of non-native trees and re-planting have been recommended to in select sustainable open canopy locations offsetting the negative effects of tree removal while improving the sustainability of the natural forest. Benefits of a Holistic Forestry Approach • Addresses the current “atypical” composition of the forest – thinning out unhealthy understory. • Pruning fast growing weak second growth trees and non-native trees. • Opening the dense tree canopy to allow for sustainable understory growth. • Selective replacement with appropriate native species ensures the long-term viability of replanted trees - improving the heath and welfare of the forest. • Selection of appropriate locations for re-planting to ensure the long-term viability of replanted trees. • Aligned to the code intent & requirements for both the Town of Cortlandt and the Village of Croton on Hudson. Backup • Cortlandt only tree count/replacement coverage Hierarchy of Trees for Removal - Cortlandt (N=191) 0%, 0 1%, 2 6%, 12 40% 76 29%, 55 11%, 20 Protected Big (24+), Fair & Good Not So Big (18-24) Fair & Good Other Dead, Poor, & Invasive (Outside LOD) Dead & Poor in LOD Other understory Fair & Good(1) (9-18”) Understory 2nd Growth (Fair & Good(1) <=8”) 14%, 26 Do not replant - 75 Re-plant - 14 Partial re-plant - 53 Target replacement count = 67