Three housing developments move forward in Chester

Latest Ashford Estates plan may resurrect Chester-to-Goshen shortcut Chester — They've all got some distance to go before the planning board gives them the go-ahead. But the developers of two housing subdivisions proposed for the Town of Chester have come up with revised plans that they hope will get them there faster. A third project got its final review — but with a tricky condition. Baroda design encroaches on wetlands and slopes Planning board chair Don Serotta sharply criticized the open area design Baroda Realty proposes for a subdivision near Baird's Crossing on Blackmeadow Road. The project engineer for the developer, John Loch, showed maps comparing the open area design to a standard subdivision with three-acre lots (please see "Types of development"). The map puts one house on a 30-degree slope. Another's road frontage is cut off by a neighbor. Still others have no backyard because of extensive wetlands, or drop steeply to a septic area beneath a proposed well. "You can't just go in and slice out a hill on a 30 percent slope," Serotta said. "They can't be ridiculous, non-functional homes. You couldn't even have a pool or a shed." Town Engineer Pat Hines warned that, with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) coming out with new wetland delineations this coming February, the developer should not be surprised if even more of the property is deemed unsuitable for building — especially with a new requirement of a 100-foot buffer. "You would need a DEC permit to put a doghouse on that lot," Hines said, looking at one of the problem areas. "And even getting a well-drilling rig in there would be a problem." Hines said the plan also did not show any stormwater management plan. While the property is not currently in the DEC's wetlands inventory, Hines warned the state will likely claim it under its jurisdiction. Loch countered that "not everyone wants a backyard. It's part of the free market to sell lots that are different." About the excessively steep driveways, he said, "We wouldn't mind having a longer driveway that follows one of the higher contours." A third alternative would be a cluster design with smaller homes on smaller lots in the upland portion. While a cluster would avoid many of the wetland conflicts, it would not fit with the other large estate homes in the neighborhood, or the ideal of small estate homes that the builder envisioned. The town board will have to approve the open area design, which includes 24 homes. If it were to be a standard subdivision, the developer would have sought approval for 31 lots. Ashford Estates reverts to simpler plan John Sorrentino's plan to build 31 homes at Ashford Estates and to donate parkland, trails, wells, emergency access for a local school, 100 acres for a football field, and parking for the Heritage Trail has crumbled in the face of vehement opposition against adding the property to the town's sewer district. Critics said it would set a precedent, with other developers claiming the same right. They also have doubts about water quality and houses visible in ridge-protected areas. These obstacles were just too much for the developer to overcome. Sorrentino said he feels he's hit a wall in his negotiations with the town. Serotta lamented all the benefits the town will lose to the new design. The new plan proposes 10 lots in the Chester portion of the property, even though the current layout allows up to 17 lots. A major change in the latest design is the extension of the road to the Goshen-Chester border, which will enable Sorrentino to build even more lots later on the Goshen side. Earlier iterations had left either an empty lot or parcel dedicated to the Town of Chester at that border to prevent its becoming a shortcut between Surrey Meadows and Goshen. The developer's engineer for the project, Mark Siemers, said he disagreed with some of the new goals listed by town planner Ted Fink. Fink recommended moving some of the houses toward the woods. Siemers said this caused confusion because one of their goals was to preserve trees. As a result, many of the houses were placed in open areas, which also shields them from view from the highway. Serotta asked for a visual simulation to give a better idea of how the houses will be placed in relation to the trees. Fink also recommended providing access to the Heritage Trail, considering the trail's proximity to all the lots. If easements are not provided, he warned, people may take shortcuts through one others' property. A timber rattlesnake habitat study will be required because of the property's proximity to the LaRoe Road site where a timber rattlesnake was documented. Ridgeview Estates gets final review Ridgeview Estates, a 16-house development on LaRoe Road, behind the town park, received its last review. But final approval depends on the town agreeing to maintain the project's stormwater drainage area. Planners hope developing the entrances to this project will improve a dangerous intersection at the town park entrance. The development, which is adjacent to KB Laroe and Laroe Estates, will progress in two phases of eight lots each, all with individual wells and septic systems. The project received preliminary approval in July 2005 but has been delayed because sodium chloride was discovered in the well sites. A system of reverse osmosis and filters must be included in the plan. With wetlands along the perimeter, bog turtle and timber rattlesnake permits are required, especially after a timber rattlesnake was documented on a nearby lot. Strict guidelines will be enforced to protect the snakes and turtles. The project is still in its early sketch stage. Public hearings will be held before it enters the preliminary approval stage. Types of development Standard subdivision Houses are spread across the site Cluster development Houses are clustered together to preserve large tracts of uninterrupted open space. Open area development Similar to a cluster in that it does not spread houses across a site. Permitted only in agricultural-residential zones. Must make better use of the land than either a cluster or standard development. Must be at least 50 acres, with each lot at least five acres. Residences must be single-family and at least 1,500 square feet. Lot widths must be at least 300 feet with at least 200 feet of road frontage. May include an accessory use, such as a recreational club. Interior roads must be private. Roads and driveways must not exceed grades of 15 percent, with no cutting into steep slopes allowed. Requires approval by the town board.