Meeting date ·
Planning Board reviews condominium proposal and discusses cell-tower code
Published
According to a village-published certified written transcript, Buchanan’s Planning Board began reviewing a proposed 11-unit condominium development at 3222 Albany Post Road on June 25, as members raised questions about pedestrian access, visitor parking, steep slopes and the appearance of the project. The applicant’s attorney described the proposal as requiring a special permit; the meeting was a preliminary review, not a final approval.
The board voted to declare itself lead agency for the project’s environmental review and to circulate notice and documentation to other involved agencies. The transcript records a motion, a second and multiple members saying “aye”; it does not name each person voting in that exchange. This step begins coordination of the review and is not a determination that the project is approved.
The applicant’s attorney said the proposal required four variances: two front-yard setbacks, permission for the board to consider four rather than two three-bedroom units, and a retaining-wall and fence height variance. A Zoning Board hearing was scheduled for July 8 at the time of the meeting; this transcript does not establish the outcome of that hearing.
The applicant’s team said the project would include a retaining wall at the front of the site and that a wall behind the buildings could change after further steep-slope analysis. Village Engineer George Pommer said the slope review still had open items and anticipated soil investigations to determine how much soil and rock were present.
The developer told the board the team intended to avoid blasting and use machinery to remove rock, estimating the work might take a couple of months. He also described possible reuse of some stone on the site. The estimate was preliminary and did not establish a construction schedule.
Chairman Nicolas Zachary asked how residents would walk between the development and the existing sidewalk. Architect Joseph Thompson said the team would consider a route alongside the driveway in a later submission. Board member Eileen Absenger also raised concerns about places for visitors to park; the applicant’s engineer said the team could look at parallel spaces along the curb.
The board’s discussion also touched on traffic circulation, utility-pole renderings and fire-hydrant placement. Village Planner David Smith said a traffic review memo had been prepared and that the applicant would respond to its comments. The project team discussed adding utility poles to a rendering and reviewing hydrant placement after fire-department input.
Separately, Village Administrator Marcus Serrano told the board that an application for a proposed cell tower behind the public works garage had not yet been submitted. The board discussed reviewing proposed zoning amendments ahead of a July 7 Village Board hearing; Zachary asked members to send him comments by July 1. Those dates describe what was anticipated at the June meeting and do not establish later outcomes.
The board also approved the April 21 meeting minutes and adjourned after the tower discussion. The village-published document is a certified written transcript, not a recording; its cover says the meeting ran from 7 to 8:39 p.m.