The Base Site area is 5.85 acres.
The EPOD Protection Land is 4.40 acres.
That leaves Newport with a net buildable site area of 1.45 acres. IF they had to follow the Site Capacity Worksheet that other subdivision parcels do.
Newport gets out of the Site Capacity Worksheet because it isn't a "subdivision". (For example; A housing tract is considered a "subdivision" - separate parcels of land sold to individuals. Apartments, Town Homes, and Condominiums are not considered "subdivisions" even though there are 13 buildings on the site, plus a gas building, and the nautica which is attached to Bldg. 104.-they (RSM) consider the Nautica "accessory use". )
When Newport first came forward with plans, they had used an extra parcel of town owned land (about an acre that is contiguous to the current site area) - then realized that it would be considered a subdivision if they did that - so they canned the extra parcel to get out of doing the Site Capacity Worksheet, which would have ended their high density development.
According to the DEIS - Volume 1 - Report:
2.5.2.5 Site Capacity
An applicant needs to complete a Site Capacity Worksheet for any application of
land subdivision to the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board. The Newport Marine Club does not involve a subdivision application, but as part of the environmental review of the project, the Planning Board requested that RSM
complete sections A-E of the Site Capacity Worksheet. The worksheet is attached
as Exhibit 2H, which was based on the EPOD Overlay Exhibit 2G (7). Based on the boundaries of the various EPODs, including wetlands, steep slopes, woodlots and floodplains,a calculation was completed, which arrives at a net buildable site area of 1.45 acres. The existing developed Newport House and marina encompasses an area of 3.35 acres.
Newport is saying that they have a buildable site area of 5.9 acres (254,680 sq. ft.).
Site Plan Link.
They didn't take out the EPOD acreage, they didn't take out the impervious surfaces like the parking lot or the road, they didn't take out the gas shack (they did take out the parking spaces for the docks, not the whole lot though).....usually any kind of driveway-parking-EPOD etc is deducted out of how much land you can use.....but not for this developer.
IF this project had to follow the Site Capacity Worksheet - their project wouldn't be a 1/4 of what it is now. That "extra parcel" they had in the original plan would have made it a 'subdivision', and they would have had to use the worksheet. Their lawyers recommended that they don't use that extra parcel - now they get to build however dense they want to.
Put it this way - if it were separate lots (houses) - they wouldn't be able to build as dense as they are proposing. They are building condos and town houses - which don't fall under "subdivision" classifications - so they are allowed to build as dense as they are proposing.
Does that make any sense whatsoever? Houses - project is not allowed due to density issues. Condos and town houses - project is allowed WITH the density issues.
The Planning Board has never even done a site walk! There has been NO detailed discussions about concerns over "density and intensity", or even the LWRP or IBHMP or IHML!
I sure hope they answer some of these questions (about density and intensity) at the Monday, March 22nd 2010 PB meeting. That is the day they could have Final Site Plan approval - and I still don't know the height of the condos.
I sure hope the Chairperson of the Irondequoit Land Use Coalition gets the answers to her questions as well at this meeting.
11 comments:
Well since I'm at it I figured I'd pop in over here too.
Great blog!
What is upsetting is knowing that the planning board nit picks some trivial applications to death. So many HUGE issues in Newport are overlooked.
WHY?!
I'd love to know how this application didn't warrant a site walk? A site walk that was promised more than once at meetings.
I'd also like to know why there are different rules for different developers?
The Birch Hills application was reduced over the matter of transition zone (area at top of a slope) which went to Supreme Court and the town won.
The RSM developer doesn't even have to answer questions as simple as the height of condos. Why aren't they held accountable to subtract out all of the encumbrances that every other developer has to subtract out?
This whole development from the very beginning has smelled bad and I'm sure it will STINK to high heaven for final site plan approval too.
Site Capacity Worksheet is a non-issue. It is not a part of the Town of Irondequoit Code! Why not ask RSM to provide impact analysis for an interstate highway IF it were on the property. Just as relevant. It is not relevant. Bush-huggers have yet to cite one Code section or paragraph or number that the project violates. Density---this project is significantly less dense than the other two Town Code regulations for waterfront projects on I Bay. Yet old planners want to use R1 codes as a comparison---totally irrelevant. Height---the project complies with Town Code---P Board decides. The heights are on the plan and all Board Members saw them. The Plans were available to the public. They were not hidden nor was it difficult to see the plans. The height was shown as were the elevations--on scaled drawings. Not difficult. There is more green space with this than before. More room to hug-a-bush. The town parcel would not have been a subdivision. In fact combining parcels is merely an administrative act within town hall. The town parcel was not included because the town had no support to sell the land and it became controversial. There could have been an exceptional partnership opportunity available utilizing NYS SCORPS programs. Town could have received a park for free===one with waterfront access--heretofore not available to residents. Not one person--even a bush hugger--has indicated RSM's work is anything but first class. The quality of his projects is exceptional! Hug a bush on your own property.
"Hug a bush on your own property."
I do. Every chance I get.
If the Site Capacity worksheet is not part of town code, then why do "subdivisions" have to use it?
It's a necessary tool to use in my opinion.
"Why not ask RSM to provide impact analysis for an interstate highway IF it were on the property."
I would, but...they probably wouldn't deduct that out of their site area either.
"Height---the project complies with Town Code---P Board decides."
The PB Attorney cited the Town Code 235-33(C)(4)in his proposed resolution - which the PB Attorney said was 49.5 ft, and the actual code site says 45 ft. The PB can determine that the height should be LOWER than 45 ft. (according to that code) if they feel there are visual impacts etc.
RSM is saying on their site plan - 53 ft.
All I want to know is what the height is.
I'm not against condos and townhouses there. I think it's appropriate to build condos there.
I am against the road being rebuilt, and I do want the residents to get the answers to their questions from the people at the meeting.
I think the density issues are a concern as well, but - that's just me.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and thanks for sharing yours.
Well the LWRP and Bay Harbor Management Plans are NOT NON ISSUES even though they have been treated like they are.
No discussion about either EVER by the developer or the board. Both of these plans are relevant and the LWRP is referenced in the
Waterfront Development District Code Section 235.31 -
#1 To ensure that development and land-use activity along the shorelines of Lake Ontario and Irondequoit Bay is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Town of Irondequoit's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP).
So per our WD Town Code the LWRP is relevant. Now I'll reference a few items in the LWRP regarding the Newport Parcel.
Section IV-11
Site 5: Newport Road (public land/open space; LOW DENSITY RES.)
This site, which occupies an extensive section of the bayshore, contains three major parcels including: the Town's 27 acre municipal landfill, the site of the Newport House partyhouse facility on the Bay, and a large vacant parcel (known as the Cassara property) which includes both bayfrontage and steep wooded slopes. As previously noted in the inventory and Analysis section of the LWRP, the development of this site will be SEVERELY LIMITED due to both the continuation of existing uses and the constraints imposed by the site's sensitive natural features including steep slopes and wood lots.
Portions of the site, however, possess limited development potential, but will require the Town's special attention to insure the protection and enhancement of important natural resources. The development criteria, standards, and regulations to be adopted by the Town as part of its LWRP (for the protection and enhancement of the Bay area's natural features) are described at length in the next section of the LWRP. The review procedures and development standards, when adopted by the Town, will govern development in areas such as the Newport Road Site and will insure, among other things, the protection of adjacent areas and the maintenance of views of the Bay.
Further, the Master Plan proposes that the Newport Road Site be zoned as LOW DENSITY and land use characteristic. Low Density residential development is appropriate for the relatively flat northern portion of the Cassara parcel, assuming that such development is designed in a way which will not disrupt adjacent natural areas and views of the Bay. Development of the remainder of this parcel, including the foreshore of the Bay and the wooded, steep slopes, should be prohibited and left in its natural state.
Sorry there is so much to read but it's relevant to this application.
continue-
In the LWRP - Newport Road is classified as Low Density Res.
IV-1 - Land Use Categories:
c) Low Density Res: This residential classification, which applies to the majority of Irondequoit's existing residential neighborhoods, allows residential development up to an average maximum density of four (4) units per acre.
RSM did give up pursuing that additional town owned land that was on their first sketch plan conference because it would have triggered a "subdivision" and forced them to use the site capacity worksheet. I was on the planning board at the time and I remember this specifically.
The building height of the condos is more than town code allows and was never discussed among the board or developer. Keep in mind that almost every public input speaker against the project brought up height and height is at the full discretion of the board.
How's that for open government? Oh, I forgot that doesn't matter in this application. Oops!
Then anonymous you say that nobody has said that RSM's work is anything but first class. Well let me be the first. The town house units are very attractive and in my opinion if the whole project was made up of them would have made a beautiful development.
On the other hand the condo buildings are 53 feet of UGLY! They look like prison compounds by the water. All we need is the barbed wire. ;)
Maybe that's yet to come.
ps- I didn't even bring up the Bay Harbor Management plan I think I wrote enough for now.
Still no citing of Section and specific paragraph. Just references to vague code like "use activities". Comparing R1 to WD is meaningless. In fact there are two other town codes for waterfront condos on the Bay. The Newport WD is far less dense than the others. Certainly respected and intelligent past Town Board members knew what they were doing when they used density numbers in the waterfront codes.
Planning Board set the height.
More green space than the oil riddled parking lot there now.
The new environmental drainage systems are expensive and will result is enormous reductions in the filth that used to wash into the water from the high traffic volumes of party house and bar patrons.
The project is certainly much better than the new Pharmacy Chain planned for the vacant Densmore property across from the Middle School. Now that one will be controversial. Height will not likely be the main issue.
Anonymous, there isn't anything vague about what I've written. I took those paragraphs right from the LWRP. I cited the section from the LWRP-
Section IV-11
Site 5: Newport Road (public land/open space; LOW DENSITY RES.)
I also referenced the WD section that states that the LWRP is relevant.
Waterfront Development District Code Section 235.31 -
#1 To ensure that development and land-use activity along the shorelines of Lake Ontario and Irondequoit Bay is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Town of Irondequoit's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP).
The LWRP is part of the WD code and never once was there a conversation about it. Shameful!
Anonymous said - "planning board set the height."
Really? They never had one conversation about height. Board members joked at the January meeting that they didn't even know the height yet.
Citizens at the January meeting that did public input asked how tall are the condos? That question was never answered by the developer or board. The public was told those questions would be answered at the Feb. meeting. NOPE they weren't again!
The developer -RSM set the height and the planning board said - "Yes Sir!"
Which in my opinion is pathetic because every single letter-input etc. against the project begged to have the height reduced. The residents never even heard a debate/conversation about height.
The code in WD is 45 feet and the planning board is allowing at least 8 feet over that, maybe more. Who even knows how the buildings are being measured? Is it from the front facing the water because that is code? Who knows?
The residents/community could have saved their breath on this development (public input) because the planning board isn't listening-debating-deliberating etc.
They only have ears for the RSM representatives. ;)
The term "Low Density" is vague. The town codes cite densities for other waterfront districts as:
Newport---4000sf condos 6000sf townhomes
Lasalle Landing for Condos 235.35-3A as 3000sf for condos and 4000sf for townhouses.
Harbor District is 2500sf condos 4000sf for townhouses.
The Newport code numbers are significantly less dense that other comparable/like districts and must be considered low to moderate as they relate to the other Town Laws.
Two administrations of different political parties both supported the outcome.
Not saying the system is perfect as that may entail another 3 years of bickering. The public input session was set and few spoke.
As a comparison--recall the public input for the walgreens at empire/culver where it was evident the community was against the project. Or recall the Rock Beach Subdivision proposal for 5 acres into 5 lots that drew enormous public resistance. Unfortunately only a few voiced against the newport project.
The process for the height may be objected to but it was the process and Town Counsel seemed to indicate very clearly the law was fully adhered to.
It is difficult to understand the complaints against steep slope encroachments by those whose homes are in a steep slope ( not in a zone but actually in the side of a very steep hill), in dense wood lots, and required massive removal of trees for construction. (not referring to Mooring Line).
Even the Planner conceded after being corrected that the 150 ln ft of shore per dock does not apply.
Two Town attorneys felt the process was legal and followed all the laws. Knauf's letters seemed to me to answer every issue.
If the project moves forward and is constructed it will be time that determines if the Bay is destroyed and the Town is irreparably harmed by these condos.
Peekaboo---your threatening letters are silly and quite inaccurate. Step up with a detailed citing of specific code violations and you will win. To date that has not been done. Only vague statements that it doesn't comply. Maybe it doesn't, but until an objective case is presented it will remain nothing but subjective and vague.
Tim Golan
PB Lawyer cites code 235-33(C)(4) - that code states 45 ft.
There's your code.
RSM is in violation of Town Code.
Anonymous Tim,
The reason the room wasn't packed in January was because this application has been ongoing for 3 years.
I can remember HUGE meetings regarding Newport in the beginning as big as the Walgreen's/Rock Beach! There wasn't a seat to be had, standing room only!
Walgreen's and Rock Beach either withdrew their application or didn't pursue their application and only had around a month of controversy. In the Newport case residents got tired of going to meetings for 3 years.
In my opinion, there is NO comparison between these 3 applications.
If you go back to look at old meetings you will see hours of public input, I remember it. If you go online you can also see many, many emails against the project.
Not only a "few" voiced their concerns. You have to look back 2 to 3 years to see ALL of the public input.
The residents have spoken through the years but the planning board wasn't listening.
At past meetings the public was also told repeatedly by the chair to not get up and repeat concerns already brought out.
LWRP is SPECIFIC and I have stated word for word right from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program these points never being discussed by the planning board. I don't know how you can justify not one conversation about the LWRP even though it is specified in the WD zoning.
"Low Density" NO way can be defined as going 8 feet higher (condo height) than the code allows. :) Low means lower, not higher.
You and I can go round and round all day, bottom line we disagree.
Not sure what Peekaboo threatening letters you are talking about.
ps-I could care less what political party or administration supports what! This application shouldn't be about parties or politics!
The planning board has let RSM lead them on the whole application. That is totally evident. They didn't listen to the public at all and they have never even done a site walk, discussed LWRP or how the Bay Harbor Management Plan plays into this.
Shame on Them! :(
"Knauf's letters seemed to me to answer every issue."
Can he tell us how high the condos are?
The PB Chair couldn't at the Public Hearing in January - he said "We'll answer that in a while" when directly asked by a resident how high the condos are.
The PB Attorney cites code 235-33(C)(4) - which states 45 ft. height.
Have they cited any code that allows them to build as dense as they are proposing, and that they can disregard EPODS, and roadways, and parking lots in their site build area?
I'm just asking what the height of the condos are - and I can't even get a straight answer for that.
How am I supposed to believe that "the law was fully adhered to", when I'm getting 4 different answers from 4 different sources?
How can I take the board seriously, when a very intelligent, knowledgeable member of the PB raised questions and was told BY THE CHAIR to address those concerns at the site plan approval - then when he does address his concerns at the site plan approval meeting - he is told BY THE CHAIR that he is "finding darts"?
RSM is obviously in control here.
As far as the threatening letter you received - I find it hard to believe that someone would take the time to send you a hate letter over your opinion on the matter.
That's pretty silly.
Post a Comment