Village of Tannersville Mountaintop Better Site Design Roundtable

Transcription

Village of Tannersville
Recommended Model Development Principles
for Conservation of Natural Resources
Results from the Local Site Planning Roundtable
Mountaintop Better Site Design
Roundtable
Town of Ashland
Town of Jewett
Town of Lexington
Town of Windham
Village of Hunter
Prepared by:
Better Site Design Roundtable Participants
Barbara Kendall, Kendall Stormwater Services
Liz Axelson, Morris Associates
Michelle Yost, Greene County Soil & Water Conservation District
Watershed Assistance Program (GCWAP)
August 19, 2012
Table of Contents
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary and Highlights ................................................................................... 4
Introduction. .................................................................................................................... 6
Roundtable Membership ................................................................................................ 10
Recommended Model Development Principles ............................................................... 11
Source Control for Stormwater Management ......................................................... 11
Preservation of Natural Features and Conservation Design ..................................... 15
Reduction of Impervious Cover .............................................................................. 26
Appendix 1 - DEC/DEP Stormwater Regulations Graphics (from LID Guide) ..................... 33
Appendix 2 - Proposed Green Infrastructure Amendments and Maintenance
Agreement ..................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix 3 - Model Shared Driveway Agreement ........................................................... 42
Appendix 4 - Model Shared Parking Agreements............................................................. 43
References and Websites .............................................................................................. 47
Figures and Tables
Cover photo: Mikana Maeda
Figure 1. Bioretention Area............................................................................................. 14
Figure 2. Minimum width of traveled way (feet) for specified design volume .................. 27
Figure 3. Types of Cul-de-sacs and Dead-End Streets ....................................................... 30
Village of Tannersville Recommended Model Development Principles
1
Acronyms
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
ASCE - American Society of Civil Engineers
BSD - better site design
DEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
DEP - New York City Department of Environmental Protection
EAF - Environmental Assessment Form
GCSWCD - Greene County Soil & Water Conservation District
GIS - Geographic Information System
LID - low impact development
NAHB - National Association of Home Builders
NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service
DOT - New York State Department of Transportation
SEQRA - New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
SWPPP - stormwater pollution prevention plan
TR- Technical Release
USGS - United States Geological Survey
WAP - GCSWCD Watershed Assistance Program
2
Acknowledgements
The Mountaintop Better Site Design Roundtable would not have been possible without
the time and effort spent by the roundtable members and the generous support of the
Catskill Watershed Corporation and the Greene County Soil & Water Conservation District
(GCSWCD) Stream Management Implementation Program, funded through the NYC
Department of Environmental Protection. The GCSWCD Watershed Assistance Program
(WAP) secured the grants to support low impact development and better site design
planning in the Mountaintop communities.
We would also like to thank the Town of Jewett for hosting three of the Roundtables and
all of the subcommittee meetings, the Kaatskill Mountain Club at Hunter Mountain for
hosting the kick-off workshop, the New York State Department of Conservation, and the
New York City of Environmental Protection for their partnership and assistance in the
Roundtable.
Staff and consultants for the project included Jeff Flack, Executive Director and Michelle
Yost, Watershed Program Coordinator of the Greene County Soil & Water Conservation
District; Lillian Stewart and Emily Ramlow, interns with the Greene County Soil & Water
Conservation District; Barbara Kendall of Kendall Stormwater Services and Liz Axelson of
Morris Associates.
Copies of this document are available from:
Greene County Soil & Water Conservation District
Watershed Assistance Program
PO Box 996
Tannersville, New York 12485
518-589-6871
email: [email protected] website: http://www.gcswcd.com/swp/wap/mbsd.html
Contacts for additional information:
Greene County Watershed Assistance Low Impact
Development Program:
Michelle Yost, Watershed Program Coordinator
Watershed Assistance Program
PO Box 996
Tannersville, New York 12485
518-589-6871
Better Site Design publications and information:
Center for Watershed Protection
8390 Main St., 2nd Floor
Ellicott City, MD 21043
410-461-8324
http://www.cwp.org
DEP:
Joseph J. Damrath
NYC Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Supply,
WOH Stormwater Programs
71 Smith Street
Kingston, NY 12401
(845) 340-7234
[email protected]
DEC:
Carol Lamb-Lafay, Stormwater General Permits
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-3505
3
Executive Summary and Highlights
Executive Summary
This document, a product of the Mountaintop Better Site Design Roundtable, is the result of
a year- long consensus process initiated by the Greene County Watershed Assistance
Program. The purpose of the project was to review existing development codes and
identify regulatory barriers to Better Site Design (BSD) and Low Impact residential and
commercial development at the site level in the Mountaintop communities. Revised
stormwater
regulations issued by
the New York State
Department of
Environmental
Conservation (DEC)
and the New York City
Department of
Environmental
Protection (DEP) in
2010 require the use of
BSD principles and LID
practices when issuing
permits, therefore
building flexibility into
local ordinances will
allow more treatment
options for applicants
to meet regulatory controls.
A cross-section of local government, non-profit, environmental, business, and community
professionals formed the membership of the Roundtable. Through a consensus process,
members of the Roundtable selected and adapted various Better Site Design Principles to
meet the needs and current conditions within their own community. Roundtable
recommendations include proposed code and ordinance revisions or recommended
planning procedures that would increase flexibility in site design standards and support the
implementation of environmentally beneficial practices in accordance with zoning, site plan
and subdivision laws.
The 21 Better Site Design Principles adapted by the Village of Tannersville Roundtable
members are designed to meet the following objectives, which are consistent with DEC and
DEP rules and regulations:
(1) reduce overall site impervious cover;
(3) integrate stormwater management; and
(2) preserve and enhance existing natural areas; (4) retain a marketable product.
4
Code modifications and other Roundtable recommendations for 19 of the Principles were
crafted to provide flexibility, support, and guidance for developers implementing Better Site
Design. The Roundtable process focused on model development principles that were
deemed pertinent to local conditions.
Highlights
Source Control for Stormwater Management
•
•
•
•
Encourages use of green infrastructure practices such as rain gardens, bioretention,
stormwater planters, and vegetated swales to slow stormwater down, soak it in and
spread it out.
Recommends the Village adopt "Proposed Green Infrastructure and Runoff Reduction
Amendments for Local Laws" as an amendment to the subdivision or zoning law (see
Appendix 2).
Promotes education on stormwater management by providing information at local
town and village offices.
Recommends long term maintenance of stormwater management practices and green
infrastructure through maintenance agreements.
Preservation of Natural Features and Conservation Design
•
•
•
•
Promotes using natural resource inventory information to identify appropriate areas
for development as well as important natural resources.
Recommends coordination of development applications across the mountaintop by
providing the same checklists for all communities, providing consistency for project
applicants.
Considers amending the zoning/site plan/subdivision law to implement resource
analysis review, or concept plan review, as an official procedural step.
Supports guiding development away from sensitive areas such as floodplains, streams,
wetlands, erodible soils and steep slopes to protect residents and the community
from flood damage and severe erosion on steep slopes.
Reduction of Impervious Cover - Streets, Parking and Lot Development
•
•
•
Encourages techniques to slow water down before it reaches streams and roadside
ditches by installing improvements to handle runoff at the source.
Supports a minimum road travel-way width of 18 feet and alternative cul-de-sac
designs to minimize impervious surfaces and allow for flexible road designs in the
challenging mountaintop terrain.
Recommends shared parking, permeable pavements and green infrastructure in
parking lots to reduce impervious surfaces and allow for infiltration of stormwater
where feasible.
5
Introduction
Purpose
This document presents specific recommendations on how to integrate innovative best
management practices into local site design within the Village of Tannersville in order to
improve development projects, control stormwater at the source on both small and large
projects, and support applicants facing regulatory stormwater requirements. The
recommendations were crafted in conjunction with community residents representing a
variety of local interests, both public and private, that participated in the Better Site Design
Roundtable initiated by the Greene County Watershed Assistance Program (GCWAP).
Background
Protecting water resources and landscape character while encouraging economic
development requires local governments, developers, and site designers to consider
changing the way that land is developed. Deciding where to allow or encourage
development, promote redevelopment, and protect natural resources are difficult issues
that jurisdictions have to balance.
Furthermore, the Village of Tannersville is located in the northern Catskills in the New York
City Watershed. In addition to state and federal law, municipalities in the Watershed must
follow New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations to protect
the drinking water supply. Land development is regulated by the New York City Watershed
Rules and Regulations and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges from Construction Sites (GP-0-10-001). See Appendix 1 for graphics from the
Mountaintop Low Impact Development (LID) Guide depicting the overlap between New
York City and New York State stormwater regulations.
While effective site plan and subdivision review, zoning (where applicable) and
comprehensive planning are critical, communities should also explore measures to minimize
the impact of impervious cover, maintain natural hydrology, and integrate stormwater
treatment within development projects. These recommendations, which are consistent
with Stream Management Plans adopted by the local communities, are land planning
techniques that reduce the potential impact of development on water quality and flood
hazards.
Toward this end, the Greene County Watershed Assistance Program (GCWAP) assisted six
municipalities in the Catskill mountains of New York State with a better site design (BSD)
roundtable planning process. The purpose of a local site planning roundtable is to examine,
choose and adapt 28 Better Site Design principles for local application by identifying how
6
local codes and ordinances can be modified to meet three basic objectives:
1. Reduce overall site imperviousness.
2. Preserve and enhance existing natural areas.
3. Integrate stormwater management.
Through the Roundtable process, the participating municipalities examined their local codes
and planning procedures to determine if they encourage or discourage various low impact
site design principles. Low impact design using green infrastructure is now required by DEC
and DEP for projects that must prepare a full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). Use of LID with green infrastructure practices also provides benefits for smaller
projects that may not require a SWPPP by slowing down and soaking in stormwater,
doubling as landscaping, and enhancing the aesthetics of development projects, village
centers and hamlets. Using grant funds from the Catskill Watershed Corporation, the
GCWAP commissioned Kendall Stormwater Services, LLC, assisted by Morris Associates, PC,
(the consultants) to guide the communities through the code review and consensus process
for proposing local code changes and planning procedures.
The Village of Tannersville was one of six communities involved in the Mountaintop Better
Site Design Roundtable. This document provides the results and recommendations of the
Local Site Planning Roundtable for the Village of Tannersville.
The 28 Better Site Design Principles act as benchmarks upon which more specific code and
ordinance recommendations were adapted for the Village of Tannersville. The benefits of
applying these principles are summarized below:
Benefits of Applying the Model Development Principles
Local Government:
• Assist with stormwater regulations compliance
• Streamline the planning process
• Address localized flooding and stormwater runoff problems
• Enhance community character
Homeowners:
• Increase property values
• Create more pedestrian-friendly hamlet areas
• Less cost for stormwater treatment
• Result in a more attractive landscape
• Reduce car speed on residential streets
• Promote neighborhood designs with a sense of community
Developers:
• Provide flexibility in design options
• Reduce development costs
7
•
•
Streamline the planning process
Allow for more options in locating stormwater facilities
Environment:
• Protect stream corridors
• Protect local stream and lake quality
• Generate less stormwater pollution
• Reduce soil erosion during construction
• Protect forests, wetlands, and habitats
Mountaintop Better Site Design Roundtable Process
Mountaintop Better Site Design Roundtable members convened over a twelve-month
period to become familiar with the Better Site Design Principles, to review existing codes
and ordinances, to work in subcommittees, and to reach consensus on a final set of
recommendations. The Roundtable consisted of 30 members representing a wide range of
volunteer and professional backgrounds and experience related to local development
issues. The process included the following steps:
Universal Low Impact Development Manual for Mountaintop Communities - April - June
2011
The consultants worked with GCWAP to prepare a Low Impact Development Manual that
identifies structural and non-structural design options to promote on-site stormwater
management where possible, taking into account mountaintop topography, soils and rural
settlement patterns. The manual is available at:
http://www.gcswcd.com/swp/wap/mbsd.html
Better Site Design Roundtable Kickoff Meeting - June 22, 2011
About 35 interested people from across the mountaintop participated in the kick-off Better
Site Design workshop. Those attending included local government representatives,
developers, engineers, county agencies, and regulatory agencies. The kickoff meeting
introduced attendees to the Better Site Design Principles, put into context the aims of the
roundtable process within the mountaintop area, and presented for comment an outline of
a new Low Impact Development Manual for the Mountaintop Better Site Design
Roundtable.
Review of Local Codes – July 2011 – September 2011
Supported by a grant from the Catskill Watershed Corporation to the Greene County Soil &
Water Conservation District and assisted by interviews with community members, the
consultants used the "Code and Ordinance Worksheet for the Mountaintop Better Site
Design Roundtable" to analyze the local codes, laws and ordinances of the six municipalities
in relation to 28 Better Site Design Principles.
8
Roundtable #1 – October 26, 2011
Roundtable participants met and heard a presentation of the Code Review results from the
six municipalities. Roundtable members then discussed the results and reviewed the goals
and objectives of the project. Members then divided into two subcommittees according to
expertise and interest:
• Residential Streets & Lots
• Conservation of Natural Areas
The subcommittees discussed which Principles they would accept or decline to work on and
identified possible code changes or improved planning processes to discuss in subsequent
meetings.
Subcommittee Meetings and Consensus Building – November 2011 - February 2012
Both subcommittees met in November 2011 and January 2012 to discuss a subset of the 28
Better Site Design Principles and develop preliminary recommendations.
Roundtable #2 – March 23, 2012
The Roundtable participants met together to review and comment on the work of the
subcommittees so far. Members included a wide range of community participants (elected
and appointed officials), engineers and designers, developers, and government officials
representing NYSDEC and NYCDEP Stormwater Programs.
Subcommittee Meetings and Consensus Building – April 2012 - May 2012
Both subcommittees met in April and May 2012 to complete work on the Better Site Design
Principles they had selected and to develop final recommendations.
Draft Recommendations Documents - May - June 2012
The consultants worked with the GCWAP to organize code change and planning procedure
recommendations for each participating community into a final document for that
community to consider for adoption. Some of the recommendations were the same for all
six municipalities, however for some of the better site design principles each municipality
developed their own recommendations to reflect community needs.
Roundtable #3 - June 27, 2012
The Roundtable participants shared the final recommendations with community members
at the final Roundtable.
9
Roundtable Membership
This document of recommended development principles was created by a cross-section of
professionals volunteers representing local government, engineering and design firms,
development, village and town residents who participated in the Mountaintop Better Site
Design Roundtable.
Members of the Roundtable provided volunteer and technical expertise to tailor the model
development principles for each of the six municipalities. These recommendations reflect
the members' professional and personal experience and do not necessarily carry the
endorsement of the organizations and agencies represented by their members.
We thank the following members of the Mountaintop Better Site Design Roundtable for
their time, expertise and dedication to this project:
Gene Beers
Harold Goldberg
Robert Pelham
Jeff Flack
Donna Bernard
Karl Gonzalez
Tom Poelker
Michelle Yost
Lynn Byrne
Christopher Hack
Paul Slutzky
Barbara Kendall
Roy Carlson
Paul Hennessy
Kathie Tatara
Liz Axelson
Sondra Clark
Robert Hermance
Richard Volpi
Emily Ramlow
Beverly Dezan
William Maley
Stephan Walker
Lillian Stewart
Doug Van Deusen
Leigh McGunnigle
Dave Weiman
Darrin Elsom
Carol Muth
Jesse Fraine
Lindsey Ostrander
Town of Jewett
Planning Board
Town of Jewett
Planning Board
Town of Lexington
Councilwoman
Town of Ashland
Planning Board
Town of Ashland
Planning Board Chair
Town of Lexington
Planning Board
Lamont Engineers. P.C.
Engineer
Kaaterskill Associates
Engineer
Engineer
Delaware Engineering
Village of Hunter
Planning Board
Town of Windham
Councilman
Village Board of Trustees
Town of Windham
Planning Board
Town of Lexington
Village of Hunter
Mayor
Village Board of Trustees
Town of Windham
Councilman
Town of Windham
Planning Board
Village of Hunter
Engineer
Village of Hunter
Planning Board
Town of Windham
Supervisor
Greene County Soil & Water
Conservation District
Greene County Soil & Water
Conservation District
Facilitator
Kendall Stormwater Services, LLC
Facilitator
Morris Associates
Student Conservation
Association
Student Conservation
Association
Town of Windham
Planning Board
Town of Jewett
Supervisor
Engineer
10
Recommended Model Development Principles
Through a consensus process, members of the Village of Tannersville participating in the
Mountaintop Better Site Roundtable adapted 21 out of 28 Better Site Design Principles to
meet the needs and current conditions within the Village of Tannersville. Roundtable
recommendations include specific code and ordinance revisions for 21 of the Principles that
would increase flexibility in site design standards, promote awareness of the tools that are
available to landowners, and support the implementation of environmentally beneficial
practices in accordance with the Village’s current site plan, subdivision, zoning and local
highway laws, where applicable. The Principles are divided into three categories:
1. Source Control for Stormwater Management
2. Preservation of Natural Features and Conservation Design, and
3. Reduction of Impervious Surfaces (Driveways, Streets and Parking Lots)
Source Control for Stormwater Management
Principle #1: Runoff Reduction
Use non-structural stormwater control practices and engineered green infrastructure
techniques to slow down and infiltrate stormwater close to development and impervious
surfaces.
Recommendations
The Roundtable supports this principle and endorses the following recommendations:
1. Provide more tools in municipal codes for the applicant and stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) designer to meet state and city regulations for runoff
reduction and stormwater management. For this purpose, the Roundtable participants
recommend that the Village of Tannersville adopt the "Proposed Green Infrastructure
and Runoff Reduction Amendments for Local Laws" as an amendment to the site plan,
subdivision, or zoning law (see Appendix 2).
2. Local boards and developers should look for creative means to meet water quality
reductions the regulators are looking for, e.g., non-structural stormwater practices and
green infrastructure.
3. Incorporate maintenance requirements and responsibility for stormwater practice
maintenance in local codes and procedures. For projects that the local boards have
determined need a legal mechanism between the municipality and the property owner,
Roundtable members recommend that the Village Board of Trustees use the "Sample
Maintenance Agreement" included as Schedule B of the "Proposed Green Infrastructure
and Runoff Reduction Amendments for Local Laws." (see Appendix 2).
4. Consider maintenance of LID practices as part of normal landscaping and upkeep. Some
practices can be designed to be self-maintained since there is a strong second home
11
market and people may not be available for clean up. For guidance on stormwater
practice maintenance local staff and boards should refer developers and property
owners to the Mountaintop LID Manual at:
http://www.gcswcd.com/swp/wap/mbsd.html (hard copy available at the town hall).
The LID Manual summarizes maintenance requirements from the New York State
Stormwater Management Design Manual, Appendix G at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/swdmappendixg.pdf.
5. Consider charging the facility or landowner for back maintenance when the municipality
bears the cost, such as the mechanism used by the Town of Jewett where the Town
levies maintenance costs through property taxes.
6. Develop and distribute to local applicants a packet of information on state, city, and local
(where applicable), stormwater requirements including information about green
infrastructure and erosion and sediment control practices (see Principle #16). The
packet should cover the design, construction, monitoring, and maintenance phases of a
development project and include relevant websites and resources. Distribute as fact
sheets Figures 2, 3 and 4 from the Mountaintop LID Manual to illustrate the thresholds
that trigger a stormwater permit (Appendix 1). All information should be available in
both paper and electronic (PDF) form.
7. For small building lots that fall under the threshold for New York State (one acre) and
New York City (two acres) stormwater regulations, provide education to building permit
applicants including the benefits of infiltration using green infrastructure and
information on construction of rain gardens, stormwater planters, vegetated swales,
etc. Also provide information on what is regulated under other laws (such as New York
State Protection of Waters and Protection of Wetlands, Articles 15 and 24) that may be
applicable to their project.
Rationale
Overall benefits: By treating and infiltrating stormwater at the source using better site
design (BSD) and LID, the volume and rate of stormwater runoff will be reduced, pollution
will be treated on site through plants and soil, and the need for end-of-pipe treatment
options will be reduced. BSD and LID are integrated management approaches to landscape
design and stormwater treatment that focus on how the developed site is planned and
designed to minimize hydrological impacts. BSD/LID techniques incorporate stormwater
management requirements by utilizing natural stormwater treatment through conservation
design and riparian buffers as well as engineered practices such as rain-gardens and swales
to reduce impervious area and increase infiltration.
Streamlining the development process: Incorporating green infrastructure solutions at the
beginning of the design phase can potentially make the permitting process easier, lowering
overall costs and benefitting the applicant, the designer and the community.
Code amendments: The proposed green infrastructure amendments (Appendix 2) provide a
simple mechanism for local boards to ask for LID and BSD practices to achieve runoff
reduction goals. The amendments consist of four short paragraphs that clarify the purpose,
12
definitions, and SWPPP requirements for city and state regulations. The amendments
reference the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (SWDM), bringing
consistency to the local codes and awareness to project applicants who might not otherwise
be familiar with green infrastructure principles. DEP refers applicants and municipal boards
to the SWDM as the technical standard for vegetation treatments that should be applied in
stormwater management practices.
Maintenance: While DEC has regulatory authority to ensure proper installation and
maintenance of practices in a SWPPP, and the responsible party for O & M of stormwater
facilities should be identified in the SWPPP, enforcement is an issue. Long-term
maintenance can be reduced if stormwater management using green infrastructure is
installed with low-maintenance native plants and is treated as part of a regular landscaping
upkeep.
Principle #2: Vegetated Open Channels
The Roundtable members combined discussion of vegetated swales with the runoff
reduction discussion (Principle #1), rather than as a separate principle.
Principle #3: Rain Gardens and Bioretention Areas
Use bioretention and rain gardens for slowing down and treating stormwater in commercial
and residential development and redevelopment, using criteria in the NYS Stormwater
Management Design Manual to design these practices.
Recommendations
1. Add language to local codes that encourages use of bioretention (Fig. 1) and rain
gardens where appropriate. For this purpose, the Roundtable participants recommend
that the Village of Tannersville adopt the "Proposed Green Infrastructure and Runoff
Reduction Amendments for Local Laws" as an amendment to the site plan, subdivision,
or zoning law (see Appendix 2), since these amendments include bioretention and rain
gardens in the definition of green infrastructure.
2. Provide information to applicants and contractors on how to apply bioretention and rain
gardens as well as other LID practices in the mountaintop area. For this purpose,
distribute Tables 6, 7 and 8 from the Mountaintop LID Manual, which describes the land
use and site characteristics appropriate for different practices. Also, distribute or make
applicants and contractors aware of the GCSWCD website references for native plants in
Appendix 6 of the Mountaintop LID Guide, "Plants and Ground Covers for Various Site
Conditions" at: http://www.gcswcd.com/swp/wap/mbsd.html. Link local municipal
websites to the GCSWCD website for easy reference.
Rationale
13
Bioretention areas and “rain gardens” (a type of bioretention area) installed on individual
lots can result in a 50% annual reduction in runoff volume from residential development
projects and can reduce the amount of pollutants entering local water resources (Pitt,
1987), while providing landscaping and visual enhancement. By adding the green
infrastructure amendments to local codes and providing information on bioretention and
rain gardens to applicants, people will become more aware of the types of practices that
complement landscaping for development projects. By providing information to local
applicants about DEC and DEP green infrastructure requirements at the beginning of the
planning process, application processes will be streamlined, potentially saving costs for
developers.
Figure 1. Bioretention
Area (NYSDEC, 2001)
Principle #4: Rooftop Runoff
Allow rooftop runoff to be discharged to yard areas, and allow temporary ponding of
stormwater on front yards where local flooding is not a concern. Capture rooftop runoff
with control techniques such as cisterns, rain barrels, rain gardens, stormwater planters and
green roofs designed using NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual criteria or
equivalent.
Recommendations
1. Encourage strategies for use of on-lot LID practices to handle rooftop runoff from new
development. For this purpose, the Roundtable participants recommend that the
Village of Tannersville use language adapted from the NYS Stormwater Management
Design Manual to amend the site plan, subdivision and/or zoning code as follows,
“Encourage development designs that reduce runoff volumes and rates by directing
runoff from residential rooftop areas and upland overland runoff flow to designated
pervious areas where feasible using practices such as stormwater planters, green roofs,
and rain gardens. Include grading considerations for proper movement of water in the
design of such practices."
14
2. Provide education to applicants on the types of practices available for handling on-lot
stormwater and rooftop runoff, under what conditions each practice is suitable, and
resources to assist with their implementation. To meet this goal, provide applicants
with the copies and/or web links to the Mountaintop LID Manual Tables 6, 7 and 8 as
well as Appendices 5 and 6.
Rationale
Where topography, soils and land uses are suitable, infiltration of stormwater on or near
the development site reduces flooding and contributes to recharge of groundwater
supplies. LID practices such as stormwater planters, rain gardens, green roofs, and rain
barrels installed on individual lots can result in a 50% annual reduction in runoff volume
from residential development projects and can reduce the amount of pollutants entering
local water resources (Pitt, 1987).
Principle #5: Infiltration
The Roundtable members addressed stormwater infiltration practices in the Runoff
Reduction and Rooftop Runoff discussions (Principles #1 and 4), rather than as a separate
principle.
Principle #6: Stormwater Ponds and Stormwater Wetlands
The Roundtable members addressed stormwater ponds and wetlands in the runoff
reduction discussion (Principle #1), especially as that discussion relates to maintenance.
Ponds and wetlands were not discussed as a separate principle.
Principle #7: Hydrodynamic Separators
Discourage hydrodynamic separators as a stormwater management practice in suburban
and rural areas to prevent trapping of amphibians and other small animals.
Roundtable members determined that this principle is not applicable to the mountaintop
communities since hydrodynamic separators are used on a limited basis, primarily in
downtown village and hamlet areas where tight retrofits are needed because of land
constraints.
Preservation of Natural Features and Conservation Design
Principle #8: Community Planning for Natural Resources
Consider natural resource protection in land use decisions by compiling and maintaining a
municipal natural resource inventory (NRI) or open space inventory (OSI) that is used by the
15
local boards in plan review.
Recommendations
1. Use existing inventory and map resources created for the Town to identify what
resources would be impacted by development. For example, streams and their
corridors; wetlands and adjacent buffer areas; floodplains; wooded and steeply-sloped
areas are sensitive areas and important habitats. Specific town-wide inventory,
mapping and assessments have been done by GCSWCD (resource maps) and Delaware
Engineering (Mountaintop Regional Watershed GIS Mapping Project) to guide applicants
and the planning board in site reviews. Map and data resources and related internet
links are available on the GCWCD website at: http://www.gcswcd.com/maps-data.html.
2. Local boards should refer to community wide mapping completed as a result of
comprehensive planning or other resource inventories when considering subdivision or
site plan applications. For example, Lexington’s Stream Corridor Overlay (SCO) mapping
is an important resource for development site resource analysis and locating
development in less sensitive areas.
3. The Village Board of Trustees should consider requiring a resource analysis map that
would be submitted prior to a submission of a concept or sketch subdivision or site
plan. The resource analysis map should show the relationship of a property within its
neighborhood context, including natural and built features. Initially, the use of resource
analysis maps could be done as an informal practice as it relates to basic planning and
environmental review. Encourage applicants and Village Board members to use the
GCWCD GIS web maps and data resources including aerial photography and other
features (floodplains, streams, wetlands, soils, steep slopes and other sensitive areas).
4. Consider amending the zoning/site plan/subdivision law to implement resource analysis
review as an official procedural step. A resource analysis map would generally show “an
identification of the site’s natural and man-made features which may present assets and
liabilities for layout of the proposed buildings and improvements”. Revise checklists for
site plan and subdivision applications by repeating the local law changes in the
checklists. Recommended local law language is provided below:
Village of ________Local Law Section [_____] Resource analysis map.
• Prior to a submission of a sketch plat for a subdivision / site plan, or when otherwise required
by the Village Board of Trustees, an applicant must submit a resource analysis map and
participate in a discussion with the Village Board of Trustees to determine a conceptual plan
for the proposed subdivision / site plan. The submission shall include an identification of the
site’s natural and man-made features which may present assets and liabilities for layout of the
proposed buildings and improvements. This will provide an opportunity for the applicant and
the Village Board of Trustees to discuss the development, areas planned to remain
undeveloped, and general access alignment. This pre-application process is required to assure
that the Village development goals are recognized as they may apply to the site in question.
• An aerial map at an appropriate scale, showing the relationship of the subject property within
its neighborhood context, including natural and built features existing within 2,000 feet of the
16
site should be submitted. This information may be acquired through various readily available
sources. This is an initial step to identify natural features such as streams, watercourses,
waterbodies and wetlands; steep slopes, erodible soils, areas that are wooded and other
sensitive areas.
Original source: Town of Red Hook (Dutchess County, NY) Code Chapter 120, Subdivision of
Land, section 120-23.
5. As an alternative to #4, the Village Board of Trustees may consider implementing
concept plan review including a resource analysis map. Recommended local law
language is provided below:
Village of ___________Local Law Section [____] Concept Plan review.
(1) This part of review permits an applicant to submit his concept for a subdivision / site plan
without incurring the significant costs of detailed planning for discussion with the Village Board of
Trustees. The Board will review the concept plan as early as possible in the project review to
discuss whether the proposal generally complies with the pertinent supplemental regulations
herein and the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of _______.
(2) The submittal for concept plan shall contain the following information:
(a) A vicinity map sketched to a scale of 2,000 feet to the inch, showing land owned by the
applicant; and indicating the relationship of the site to existing community facilities which serve
it, such as roads, shopping, schools, etc.
(b) Resource analysis map(s) of the site showing:
[1] Soil types and boundaries; and bedrock outcrops.
[2] Topography; and steep slopes (over 25%).
[3]Wetlands plus buffer areas; wet areas; water bodies; and watercourses.
[4] One-hundred-year floodplains.
[5] Vistas and viewsheds into or out of the property.
[6] Areas of contiguous forest lands and wooded areas.
[7] Nearby significant topographic features and historical structures.
[8] Existing parklands, recreational and/or public open space.
(c) A conceptual drawing of the entire proposed development showing:
[1] The outer perimeters of the site, including the use of abutting lands and connections to
community roads, pedestrian pathways and transportation, water supply and sewage
disposal.
[2] Location and identification of proposed uses, structures, including landscaped and open
spaces and associated amenities.
[3] An outline of the interior roadway system, parking areas and the connection to existing
roadways.
[4] Any other information which would assist in the review of the applicant's concept.
(d ) A general report prepared by the applicant about the compatibility of the concept with the
Comprehensive Plan of the Village of _______.
(3) Within 30 days of the submittal of the above materials, the concept plan shall be discussed at a
Village Board of Trustees meeting. The applicant shall be permitted to present the concept. The
Village Board of Trustees will provide comments and recommendations about the site, its
resources, the concept plan and compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan.
Original source: Town of Pawling (Dutchess County, NY) proposed amendment to Code Chapter
215, Zoning, section 215-31.2.
17
6. With proper permission, the Village Board of Trustees should do an on-site visit of
properties that are proposed for land development. The site visit should occur after
examination of resource analysis maps and concept or sketch plans. Notification under
open meetings law should be done in instances where a quorum of the Village Board of
Trustees may be present.
7. Coordinate development application checklists so that all of the mountaintop
communities have the same checklists. There should be consistency between Towns
and Villages for the Applicants’ Representatives (Engineers and Surveyors) and for
decision-makers.
Rationale
Identifying and retaining natural resources and sensitive areas in their natural state
prevents increases in stormwater runoff and related erosion and sedimentation by
preserving existing stormwater infiltration areas. The creation of a community-wide
inventory and assessment of natural resources and habitats provides a record of resources
that are known and are of concern to the community. It fosters awareness of the location of
natural areas worthy of preservation that contribute to quality of life and add economic
value to nearby properties.
The use of community-wide assessments and resource analysis maps during local board
reviews allows a site-by-site assessment to identify the parts of properties that are more
appropriate for location of buildings, access and parking areas. For example, the
identification of flood prone areas; stream buffers; and wetlands can result in the
preservation of natural features that can reduce stormwater runoff and attenuate flood
waters. The location of buildings and improvements in areas that are higher and dryer
protects both business and community assets from flooding and erosion.
The recommended local law amendments provide best management principles that give
the Applicants’ engineers and designers more options to meet regulatory controls, making
the local regulations strong but flexible. The conceptual plan review process provides the
Village Board of Trustees with a clear statement of the natural resource and other
information that should be requested from the applicant prior to the first meeting. The
ability for an applicant or design professional to meet with the Village Board of Trustees
early in the process can save the applicant time and expense in the design and review
processes. A site’s environmental constraints can be identified; and recommendations can
be given on site layout and what constitutes a complete application.
A site visit provides information to Village Board members that may not be obvious from
maps and plans. Mapping resources may not show smaller wetland areas and intermittent
streams, which are important aspects of a site’s drainage patterns and capacity to retain
runoff.
18
Principles #9 and 18: Locating Sites in Less Sensitive Areas, Habitat Protection
and Conservation Overlays
Leave floodplains for flood control by preventing new building and filling in the 100-year
floodplain. Protect steep slopes and highly erodible soils by promoting proper grading
techniques and erosion and sediment controls. Provide incentives for development on
previously altered sites or in designated priority growth areas. Obtain information about
rare or unusual habitats rare species and make the information available to the Village
Board of Trustees and Zoning Board. Use habitat protection guidelines or a conservation
overlay district to encourage protecting large, contiguous and unaltered tracts of forests,
meadow and shrubland complexes, wetlands, stream and river corridors, and areas with
high habitat diversity.
Recommendations
The Roundtable supports these principles and endorses the following recommendations:
1. Incorporate language in local laws that prevents development in floodplains. The Village
Board of Trustees should have the discretion to say “no building in the floodplain area”.
Consider using language from the Town of Jewett and Lexington subdivision regulations
as follows, “Land subject to flooding or land deemed by the Planning Board [change to
Village Board of Trustees] to be uninhabitable shall not be platted for residential
occupancy, nor for such other uses as may increase danger to health, life or property or
aggravate the flood hazard.” Such language should be incorporated to regulations
governing the review of subdivisions, special permits and site plans.
2. Consider adopting flexible language in local laws that gives the Village Board of Trustees
the discretion to guide development away from sensitive areas (floodplains, streams,
wetlands, wet areas, erodible or wet soils, steep slopes and other sensitive areas).
Adopting these local law changes supports best management practices that protect
against flooding and erosion. Suggested language for subdivision and site plan
regulations is provided below:
• “Location in less sensitive areas. The Planning Board [change to Village Board of Trustees] may
require in the subdivision / site plan design that structures and improvements be located in less
sensitive areas. Sensitive areas consist of streams, watercourses, waterbodies and wetlands
and adjacent buffer (100-foot) areas; steep slopes, erodible soils, areas that are wooded or
have large trees and other sensitive areas. These natural features, which add value to
residential developments and to the community should be preserved.”
Original source: Sections of the Town of Red Hook (Dutchess County) Code Chapter 120, Subdivision
of Land, from Article VI. Design Standards
• Where possible, natural or existing topographic patterns which contribute to the beauty and
character of development may be preserved.
• The proposal shall result in minimal degradation of natural features; and may be required to
conform with geological and topographic features to the extent practicable.
19
Original source: Town of Red Hook, Chapter 143, Zoning, section 143-116 Site plan design criteria
3. Define natural features in local law provisions that are intended to protect them. A
suggested simple, clear definition of wetland is provided below:
WETLANDS
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation designated wetlands and those
adjacent lands areas within 100 feet of the delineated wetlands; and federal wetlands regulate by
the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
of Land, section 120-5
4. Site design should incorporate areas of vegetation that may be preserved as part of
landscaping or require tree or other plantings as in the suggested language below:
Street Trees. Trees shall be planted along proposed streets at intervals approved by the
Planning Board [change to Village Board of Trustees] except where unnecessary due to the
presence of significant, preservable existing vegetation. Trees and other vegetation to be
preserved shall be specifically identified on the subdivision plan.
of Land, section 120-20
•
Plants that are indigenous to the area and others that will be hardy and harmonious to the
design and exhibit a good appearance shall be used.
Original source: Town of Red Hook, Chapter 143, Zoning, section 143-116 Site plan design criteria
•
Rationale
The proposed local law changes correct deficiencies in existing laws and emphasize flexible
standards that can be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Village Board of Trustees
during review of subdivisions and site plans. The proposed amendments further protect the
community against flooding and prevent erosion by guiding development away from
sensitive areas such as waterways, wetlands and floodplains; steep slopes; and significant
wooded areas. The proposed provisions also improve the community, local water resources
and development projects by encouraging tree planting, landscaping and preservation of
vegetation; providing areas for infiltration; preventing erosion; and removing sediment
from runoff.
Principle #10: Preservation of Undisturbed Areas
Roundtable members opted not to address this specific principle as it is addressed in
relation to principle # 9 above, and principles #16 and #17 below.
Principles #11, 12 and 13: Stream Buffers, Wetland Protection and Wetland
Buffers; Stream and Wetland Buffer Uses and Enforcement
20
Maintain and restore vegetated stream buffers and provide flexibility in buffer design to
protect natural resources such as freshwater wetlands, steep slopes and the 100-year
floodplain. Protect local wetlands to provide flood control, wildlife habitat, recreation
areas, and natural water quality treatment. Encourage low impact uses in stream and
wetland buffers such as passive recreation to be compatible with conservation. Encourage
planting of native vegetation in buffers and provide enforcement and education
mechanisms.
Recommendations
1. The Village should consider providing support for creation of a county or regional
wetland board. The primary purpose of the regional wetland board would be to provide
regional resources, information and mapping of wetlands. Since most of the wetlands in
the Mountaintop communities are relatively small, mapping and related information
would be based primarily on the soil survey.
2. Consider adopting an amendment to the site plan/subdivision/zoning law to protect
streams, wetlands and waterbodies. Crafted by the Roundtable Natural Resources
Subcommittee, the following language is suggested:
“In order to preserve beauty along streams for environmental and ecological reasons, it is
recommended that all disturbance or construction be located beyond 100 feet of any streambank, or
the edge of any waterbody or wetland.”
3. Consider creating a zoning law overlay district to protect streams, floodplains,
wetlands and other environmentally sensitive features. Instead of requiring that a
specific permit be required for development in overlay districts, provide
supplemental standards for development that can be addressed during site plan or
subdivision review. Any proposed legislation should address the potential expenses
involved in extensive surveying of natural features. Suggested language is provided
below, which could be adapted for this purpose:
“E. Within the Stream Corridor Overlay District, the Planning Board [change to Village Board of
Trustees] may grant Site Plan approval only if it finds that, with appropriate conditions attached,
the proposed activity:
1. Will not result in degradation of scenic character and will be aesthetically compatible with
its surroundings.
2. Will not result in erosion or stream pollution from surface or subsurface runoff. In making
such determination, the Planning Board [change to Village Board of Trustees] shall consider
slopes, drainage patterns, water entry points, soil erosivity, depth to bedrock and high water
table, and other relevant factors.
3. Will comply with other applicable provisions of this local law.”
Source: Town of Lexington Zoning Law, Section 4.08. Stream Corridor Overlay District
21
4. The Village should consider circulating applications for lead agency as part of the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review process. A notice
with a description of a project, plans and an EAF (Environmental Assessment Form)
would be circulated to “involved” and “interested” agencies including the DEP. This
step would be separate from the required referrals to county agencies that are
regularly made under General Municipal Law 239-l and 239-m.
Rationale
Riparian buffers restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
water resources such as streams, lakes, wetlands or vernal pools. The streamside
vegetation in a forested buffer system shades the stream and keeps the water cool; and
the tree roots help stabilize the stream banks. Trees use excess nutrients before they
reach the stream, soil particles trap pollutants, and the organic soils remove nitrogen.
Porous grass-covered land within the buffer can increase infiltration and water storage,
absorb nutrients, control concentrated runoff, and evenly spread surface flow. The
benefits of riparian buffers can be summarized as follows:
Benefits of Riparian Buffer Protection
1. Filter sediments, nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), pesticides, and other
pollutants in runoff.
2. Stabilize stream banks and bed, and reduce erosion.
3. Increase community-wide property values.
4. Provide shade, which helps keep summer water temperatures cool. This is of critical
importance for native brook trout as well as the introduced brown trout.
5. Provide food and habitat for terrestrial and aquatic life.
6. Reduce flood damage and flood damage claims.
7. Protect quality of drinking water supplies.
8. Help maintain stream flows in summer.
9. Provide for infiltration of storm water runoff.
10. Support recreation and tourism industries by providing pleasant areas to fish and enjoy
the streams.
Native trees, shrubs and grasses are important contributors to the overall quality and
viability of the environment. In addition, they can provide noticeable economic benefits to
developers and homeowners.
The proposed amendments provide a simple way to integrate natural resource standards
with existing site plan and subdivision review procedures. Using this model, the Town of
Lexington has implemented floodplain and stream corridor overlay districts, which include
requirements that come into play during review of site plan, special permit, subdivision or
building permit applications. Since the requirements are addressed under existing local
laws, there is no need for a separate set of regulations. This approach avoids the potential
additional costs and time involved with permitting, administration and enforcement under
separate floodplain, wetland or stream corridor local laws.
22
By circulating SEQR documents to DEP early in the process, DEP will be informed of
environmental constraints related to the project and can provide a response regarding
DEP regulations for streams, wetlands and riparian buffers early in the project review.
Principle #12: Wetland Protection and Wetland Buffers
The Roundtable members combined discussion of stream buffers; and wetlands and buffers
(Principles #11; #12; and #13) together because they are so closely related. Please refer to
the section above.
Principle #13: Stream and Wetland Buffer Uses and Enforcement
The Roundtable members combined discussion of stream buffers; and wetlands and buffers
(Principles #11; #12; and #13) together because they are so closely related. Please refer to
the section above.
Principle #14: Open Space and Flexible Design
Protect natural resources, steep slopes and floodplains and reduce impervious surfaces
through local land use techniques such as open space design, conservation subdivision or
cluster development.
Roundtable members opted not to address this principle separately since the Town of
Lexington and Town of Jewett already have open space or cluster provisions in their local
laws. Recommendations for other communities were considered under Conservation
Incentives (see Principle #19).
Principle #15: Open Space Management
Roundtable members opted not to address this principle as it was not considered to be
applicable to the mountaintop communities.
Principles #16 and 17: Clearing and Grading, Tree and Forest Conservation
Protect natural resources and water quality by reducing erosion and control sediment at
development sites, designing control practices using, “New York Standards and
Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control” (Blue Book). Encourage preservation of
forests at residential development sites. Show limits of disturbance on construction plans
to prevent clearing of trees and natural vegetative cover during construction. Use forestry
best management practices for timber harvesting and tree cutting.
Recommendations
23
1. Provide the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) with a copy of the Blue Book describing
accepted erosion/sediment control practices. The CEO should be familiar with the full
Blue Book available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8694.html or the “lite” version
of the book that can be found at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/bluebklite.pdf).
2. Add basic language to existing subdivision/ site plan regulations to prevent clearing and
grading of land without obtaining prior permission. Suggested language is provided
below:
“No clearing, grading or tree removal may be undertaken in excess of one-half (1/2) acre of land
without site plan approval from the Planning Board [change to Village Board of Trustees] with the
exception of the harvesting of Christmas trees; the clearing of land for rights-of-way for utilities;
reasonable site clearing preparatory to construction for which a building permit has been issued; the
clearing and maintenance of land for agricultural purposes; and the harvesting of trees and firewood
for the personal use of the property owner.”
Original source: Town of Lloyd, Chapter 100, Zoning, section 100-53 Site plan review
Rationale
If there is no specific development proposed involving a site plan or subdivision application,
land owners are not necessarily required to get approval from the Village Board of Trustees
to clear land. This leads to unregulated clearing that may be conducted without proper
grading, drainage, erosion and sedimentation control practices. Clearing and grubbing of
trees and other vegetation increases stormwater runoff on a site, reduces the amount of
runoff that recharges groundwater resources, and increases the likelihood that erosion and
sedimentation will occur. A simple amendment to local regulations will ensure
implementation of effective erosion and sediment control practices for all projects.
Reduction of clearing and grading also results in lower site preparation costs for the
developer.
By addressing timber harvesting requirements under an existing local law (zoning), there is
no need for a separate set of regulations. This approach avoids the potential additional
costs and time incurred by the municipality for permitting, administration and enforcement
under a separate timber harvesting or tree removal local law. Providing an exemption for
plans and operations to be conducted by foresters in the NYS Cooperative Forester Program
provides an incentive for landowners to choose carefully who will be responsible for forest
management on their property.
Principle #18: Habitat Protection and Conservation Overlays
The Roundtable members combined discussion of habitat protection and conservation
overlays with the discussion of locating sites in less sensitive areas, stream buffers, wetland
24
protection and wetland buffers, and stream and wetland buffer uses and enforcement because
they are so closely related (See Principles #9, 11, 12 and 13).
Principle #19: Conservation Incentives
Encourage incentives and flexibility in the form of open space and cluster development to
promote conservation of stream buffers, forests, meadows, wetlands and other areas of
environmental value.
Recommendations
1. The Village of Tannersville should consider adopting open space design, conservation
subdivision or cluster development provisions.
2. The Village should provide written materials to subdividers about the benefits of
compact development and open space subdivision design. Shorter roads and utility
pathways, which would reduce land disturbance, would cost less for the developer. Lots
would be more marketable for prospective owners desiring to live near open, scenic
lands. The cost of operation and maintenance of common facilities, whether publicly or
privately owned, would also be less with shorter roads and utility systems.
3. The Village should consider the feasibility of creating a “Green” District. This would be
an area in a municipality where a developer might get a tax break or other incentive for
certain types of low-impact development. The developer would have to show a practical
need or reason to request such an incentive from a municipality. This scenario would be
more likely when the mountaintop area municipalities are under pressure from more
development proposals.
Rationale
Open space design, conservation subdivision or cluster development permits the same
density of lots and residences as would be permitted in a conventional lot layout but on a
smaller area of a site. By allowing smaller size lots than normally permitted in a given zoning
district substantial area of a site can remain as open space and used for LID treatments as
site conditions allow. Using resource analysis and concept plan processes will locate
development in less sensitive areas, leaving more sensitive areas in a natural, open state.
Smaller lot sizes arranged in a more compact layout translate into shorter roads and
driveways, less overall land disturbance, and less impervious cover, resulting in less
stormwater and its associated impacts.
Open space subdivisions provide advantages for developers and future residents: lower cost
construction and maintenance of improvements; built-in stormwater infiltration areas;
homes located near permanent open space, etc. However, there are significant site
limitations on development in the mountaintop region, making it difficult for the Village to
25
provide incentives for compact design. Since density is generally reduced as a result of site
development constraints, the option to add density for retaining more open space is usually
not feasible.
Reduction of Impervious Cover
Principle #20: Street Width and Drainage
Design residential streets for the minimum required pavement width needed to support
travel lanes; on-street parking; and emergency, maintenance and service vehicle access.
These widths should be based on traffic volume. Design and repair streets and roads with
adequate drainage to control stormwater and address local flooding.
Recommendations
1. The existing road specifications for the Village of Tannersville specify a minimum width
of 18 feet. The Roundtable recommends that this minimum width be retained in the
code, as it provides the local boards with flexibility to minimize impervious surfaces
where feasible.
2. Consider amending the road specifications for the Village of Tannersville to specify
design of storm sewers, ditches, culverts and stormwater management practices for
new development ( contributing watershed less than 2000 acres) using "Urban
Hydrology for Small Watersheds", NRCS TR-55 and "Computer Program for Project
Formulation Hydrology," NRCS TR-20 methodology.
3. Consider amending the road specifications for the Village of Tannersville to specify
design of culverts and bridge openings on village roads using a 50-year design storm
plus 2’ of freeboard and free flow of the 100-year storm event. For design of peak
flows for culverts and bridge openings in natural streams use regression equations
developed by the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) and the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) described in, "Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in
New York,“ as revised and updated in, "Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics
of Streams in New York State," and facilitated by the online calculator, "StreamStats"
at: http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/
4. Encourage techniques to slow water down before it reaches streams and roadside
ditches by installing improvements to handle runoff at the source, such as a series of
impoundments with check dams, grade stabilization structures or other practices
designed using NY Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.
5. Planning should emphasize minimal land clearing for new streets; with larger
developments, avoid dead end streets.
Rationale
26
Residential streets are often unnecessarily wide and these excessive widths contribute to
the largest single component of impervious cover in a subdivision (Center for Watershed
Protection, 1998). Narrower street widths not only reduce impervious cover, but also
promote lower vehicular speeds and increased safety and can reduce construction and
maintenance costs.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for
Local Roads and Streets (Rural Roads) of less than 400 average daily trips (AASHTO, 2004)
allow for a total minimum width of the traveled way of 18 feet when the design speed is 40
mph or less (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Minimum width of traveled way (feet) for specified design volume (vehicles per day)
Design speed
(miles per hour)
15
20
25
30
40
45
50
55
60
All speeds
Under 400
400 to 1500
1500 to 2000
18
20 ¹
20
18
20 ¹
22
18
20 ¹
22
18
20 ¹
22
18
20 ¹
22
20
22
22
20
22
22
22
22
24³
22
22
24³
Width of graded shoulder on each side of road (feet)
2
6
5¹x²
Over 2000
22
24³
24³
24³
24³
24³
24³
24³
24³
8
¹ For roads in mountainous terrain with design volume of 400 to 600 vehicles/day, use 18-foot traveled way
width and 2-foot shoulder width.
² May be adjusted to achieve a minimum roadway width of 30 feet for design speeds greater than 40 mph.
³ Where the width of the traveled way is shown as 24 feet, the width may remain at 22 feet on reconstructed
highways where alignment and safety records are satisfactory.
From: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, (Exhibit 5-5. Minimum Width of Traveled Way
and Shoulders) 2004, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,
D.C. Used by permission.
Designing stormwater infrastructure using TR-55 and TR-20 methodology as required in the
New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (page 4-10) will allow more
capacity for stormwater, minimize damage to roads, and provide consistency with DEC
stormwater regulations for both small and large development projects. For free flow of
natural streams, use of the regression equation method is beneficial as described by USGS,
"Using regression equations can determine whether culvert, bridge, and stream ford
designs will preserve stable bankfull geometry and prevent backwater situations and (or)
sediment aggradation caused by over-wide or undersized channels." (USGS, 2009 p. 24).
DOT specifies design of culverts on local roads and streets using the 50-year design storm
(DOT, 2011), so including this specification in local codes will provide consistency with
county, state and federal requirements.
27
Principle #21: Street Length
Reduce total length of residential streets by examining alternative street layout to
determine the best option for increasing the number of homes per unit length.
Recommendation
The Roundtable supports this principle and endorses the following recommendation:
Consider amendments to the Village of Tannersville regulations to provide more flexibility to
allow, where feasible, smaller frontage requirements, smaller setbacks, shorter roads, and
shared driveways. (Also see principle #19 - Conservation Incentives). Involve the Highway
Department and Fire Department in the decision-making process for code amendments for
these items.
Rationale
Reducing street length will reduce the amount of impervious surface in a development,
thereby reducing the volume of stormwater runoff and associated pollutants. Techniques
to reduce street length also minimize grading and the length of stormwater infrastructure,
which results in lower costs for developers.
Principle #22: Right-of-Way Width
Wherever possible, residential street right-of-way widths should reflect the minimum
required to accommodate the travel-way, sidewalk, and vegetated open channels. Utilities
and storm drains should be located in the right-of-way wherever feasible.
The Roundtable members felt that right of way widths required by New York State law
(three rods, at 16.5 feet per rod, 3 rods = 49.5 feet) should be followed and that any
reduction in right of way width would not be feasible in the mountaintop climate where
snow removal is an important objective. Therefore this principle was not discussed in the
Roundtable.
Principle #23: Cul-de-Sacs
Only use cul-de-sacs where absolutely necessary. Where cul-de-sac streets are necessary to
protect natural resources allow innovative designs such as landscaped islands with
bioretention areas. hammerheads, or a smaller radius. The radius of cul-de-sacs should be
the minimum required to accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles.
Recommendations
28
1. Consider an amendment to the Village of Tannersville road specifications that provides
more flexibility for cul-de-sac design as follows, " Whenever a permanent dead end is
allowed on a subdivision road, a turnaround shall be constructed. This turnaround shall
take the form and be constructed consistent with the AASHTO manual "A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004,"(Figure 3); the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and Urban Land
Institute Manual "1990 Residential Street Design;" and DEC stormwater guidelines, or
such other form as shall be acceptable to the Highway Superintendent , Village Engineer
and Village Board of Trustees. A snow easement shall be provided on each turning
circle as directed by the Highway Superintendent.
2. The Village Board of Trustees should encourage connections to existing or planned
streets whenever possible.
3. The Village Board of Trustees may use the Sample Stormwater Maintenance Agreement,
or pertinent sections of the Maintenance Agreement as applicable, (See Appendix 2 of
this document, Schedule B) to enforce maintenance when stormwater management
practices such as bioretention areas are planned for cul-de-sac center islands.
Rationale
As impervious surfaces, cul-de-sacs generate high volumes of stormwater runoff and high
levels of stormwater runoff contamination from pollutants deposited on the surface. By
making local codes more flexible, the Village Board of Trustees will have the authority to
allow cul de sacs or alternative designs given specific development constraints faced by the
mountaintop communities. Careful design involving input from the Highway
Superintendent will ensure that cul de sacs with center islands will be accessible for plowing
and emergency vehicles.
Landscaped islands in the cul-de-sac designed for stormwater management can be used for
snow storage, stormwater infiltration, and stormwater treatment to reduce pollutant
loading to adjacent waterways. Stormwater management practices designed and installed
per current specifications (New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual) can
provide water quantity and water quality control. AASHTO guidelines include dimensions
for traditional and alternative cul-de-sac designs and include landscaped islands (AASHTO,
2004).
29
Figure 3.
Types of
Cul-de-sacs
and DeadEnd Streets
From A
Policy on
Geometric
Design of
Highways
and Streets,
2004, by the
American
Association
of State
Highway and
Transportatio
n Officials,
Washington,
D.C. Used by
permission.
P = Passenger
Car
SU = SingleUnit
Truck
WB = Wheel
Base - applies
to semitrailer
trucks
Principle #24: Sidewalks and Curbs
Roundtable members felt that sidewalks and curbs have minimal application in the
mountaintop communities therefore this principle was not discussed.
30
Principle #25: Driveways
Reduce overall lot imperviousness by promoting pervious driveway surfaces, shared
driveways that connect two or more homes together.
Recommendations
1. Where feasible, the Village of Tannersville should limit the size of driveways and
encourage shared driveways, offering the Model Shared Driveway Agreement to
applicants (Appendix 3) as a mechanism for ensuring that costs of maintenance and
repair are shared by both parties. The Model Shared Driveway Agreement can be
expanded upon to spell out maintenance responsibilities and other considerations.
2. Encourage use of porous pavement or pervious pavers for driveways, properly installed
and maintained using specifications in the NYS Stormwater Management Design
Manual. Provide information to applicants about local maintenance options such as the
availability of a vacuum truck.
3. To minimize disturbance during driveway construction, consider adopting a local
stormwater law or grading and clearing ordinance, referencing the New York State
stormwater manuals in any local law. The "Sample Local Law for Stormwater
Management and Erosion and Sediment Control" is an example of a comprehensive
local law (available on the GCSWCD Mountaintop BSD website at:
http://www.gcswcd.com/swp/wap/mbsd.html). Chapter 65 of the Town of Dover Code,
Erosion and Sediment Control, is an example of an erosion control law adopted by a
rural community with steep slopes and rocky soils (available on the GCSWCD
Mountaintop BSD website at: http://www.gcswcd.com/swp/wap/mbsd.html). When using
Chapter 65, revise Section § 65-9.B. to remove the reference, "manual titled, "Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Guidebook," published by the Dutchess County Soil and
Water Conservation District," and replace it with, "manual titled, "New York Standards
and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control," published by the New York State
Soil and Water Conservation Society."
Rationale
Driveways create impervious surfaces that generate stormwater, associated pollutants , and
potential local flooding problems. By limiting the size of driveways and encouraging
impervious surfaces, stormwater impacts can be reduced. Both DEC and DEP use the New
York State Stormwater Management Design Manual as the technical standard for pervious
materials in development projects. By adopting a local law that references these standards,
technical requirements are clear from the start, potentially streamlining the review and
approval of development projects.
31
Principles #26, 27 and 28: Parking Ratios, Shared Parking and Parking Design
Standards
The required parking ratio governing a particular land use or activity should be enforced in
order to curb excess parking space construction. Existing parking ratios should be reviewed
for conformance taking into account local and national experience to see if lower ratios are
warranted and feasible. Encourage shared parking where feasible to reduce impervious
area in hamlets and villages, including enforceable shared parking agreements. Reduce the
overall imperviousness associated with parking lots by providing compact car spaces,
minimizing stall dimensions, incorporating efficient parking lanes, and using pervious
materials in spillover parking areas. Provide stormwater treatment for parking lot runoff
using bioretention areas, stormwater planters, and/or other practices that can be
integrated into required landscaping areas.
Recommendations
1. Existing parking requirements in the Village of Tannersville's Zoning Law Section 11.9.B.
"Additional Requirements for Specific Districts" provide flexibility, allowing for approval
of parking lot dimensions during the site plan review process. Continue to implement
these regulations where applicable.
2. Continue to implement existing shared parking provisions specified in the Village of
Tannersville's Zoning Law. Provide model shared parking agreements to applicants to
facilitate maintenance and repair (examples in Appendix 4).
3. Encourage permeable surface materials for parking whenever feasible and encourage
designers to create green infrastructure stormwater practices that double as
landscaping amenities for parking lots. The Northwest Connecticut Council of
Governments created Model Parking Standards that provide language to encourage
pervious paving materials and landscaping (posted on the GCSWCD Mountaintop LID
website - see website references).
4. Continue to implement existing parking provisions in the Village of Tannersville Zoning
Law that provide flexibility to reduce parking: in §3.7, for the Residential R-1 District,
Table 1, “No minimum or maximum stipulated;” and §6.11, for the Central Business
District, Table 4, "No on-site parking is mandated."
Rationale
Parking lots generate high volumes of stormwater runoff and high levels of stormwater
runoff contamination from pollutants deposited on the lot surface. Stormwater
management practices designed and installed per current specifications (the NYS
Stormwater Management Design Manual) can provide water quantity and water quality
control, while providing landscaping and visual enhancement. Adopting and enforcing
minimum parking requirements that call for landscaping, pervious surfaces and shared
parking provides municipalities and developers with clear standards for both reducing
stormwater impacts and streamlining the development process.
32
Appendix 1 - Graphic Depictions of DEC and DEP Stormwater
Requirements from the Mountaintop LID Guide
(Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5)
33
*Note:
Newly
paved
driveways
only - If less
than 100 ft.
from a
perennial
stream² or
less than 50
ft. from a
wetland¹ or
intermittent
stream can
apply for an
Individual
Residential
Stormwater
Permit
(NYC DEP)
Driveway
Min. 100 ft. (*See Note)
Min. 50 ft.
(*See Note)
Intermittent Stream
Wetland¹
Min. 50 ft.
(*See Note)
Wetland¹
Min. 100 ft.
Min.
100 ft.
Perennial
stream²
Min. 100 ft.
Figure 2. (REVISED
8/15/12) New Single
Family Homes Outside
Designated Hamlet
Areas:
NYCDEP and NYSDEC
Stormwater
Requirements and
Minimum (Min.)
NYCDEP Setbacks – If
all Discretionary
Approvals Received After
March 1, 2010
Min.
100 ft.
Perennial Stream²/
Watercourse³
House
Septic system
•
1 acre or more soil disturbance anywhere –
Basic SWPPP; certain projects require Full
SWPPP (NYS DEC)
•
2 acres or more clearing or grading within
100 ft. of watercourse³ or on slopes of 15%
or more
– Full SWPPP (NYCDEP)
•
Common plans for development or sale of
land that will result in 5 acres or more
disturbance of total land area
– Full SWPPP (NYCDEP and NYSDEC)
Septic system
Set back must be 100 ft.
minimum from a watercourse³
(includes perennial and
intermittent) or wetland¹
Contact NYCDEP at (845)
340-7234 to schedule a preapplication meeting to begin
the Individual Residential
Stormwater Permit (IRSP)
process
Definitions (NYCDEP)
¹Wetland - means any area mapped as a wetland by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law
²Perennial stream - a watercourse that flows throughout the year from source to mouth
³Watercourse - a visible path through which surface water travels on a regular basis, including an
intermittent stream, which is tributary to the water supply
Low Impact Development Manual for the Mountaintop Better Site Design Roundtable
Page 14
Figure 3. Inside Hamlet and Village
Areas: (REVISED 8/15/12) NYCDEP and
NYSDEC Stormwater Requirements and
Minimum (Min.) NYC DEP Setbacks
Hamlet or Village Boundary
Inside Designated Village or Hamlet area
Existing
Road
New commercial, institutional,
multi-family building or paved
surface less than 100 ft. from a
wetland* or watercourse*
requires Full SWPPP
(NYCDEP) with LID techniques
Wetland*
New
commercial
building
Perennial
stream*/
Watercourse*
New parking
lot
100 ft.
Hamlet or Village Boundary
Figure 4. Outside Hamlet and Village
Areas: NYCDEP and NYSDEC
Stormwater Requirements and Minimum
(Min.) NYC DEP Setbacks for
Commercial, Institutional, Multi-family
or Industrial
Existing Road
Perennial
stream*/
Watercourse*
Wetland*
100 ft.
Commercial, institutional, multi-family,
industrial land uses:
• Existing facility - Expansion of less than
25% total impervious surface within 100 ft.
of wetland* or watercourse* requires Full
SWPPP (NYCDEP) with LID techniques
• No new impervious surfaces allowed within
100 ft. of a watercourse* or wetland*
*For definitions (NYCDEP) see Figure 2
Page 15
Figure 5. Existing and New Roads: (REVISED
8/15/12) NYCDEP and NYSDEC Stormwater
Requirements and Minimum (Min.) NYC DEP
Setbacks
Intermittent stream
Wetland*
Min.
50 ft.
Perennial stream*/
Watercourse*
Min.
100 ft.
100 ft.
50 ft. 100 ft.¹
New
Road
¹New road with
impervious surface
between 50 ft. and
100 ft. of an
intermittent stream
or wetland* requires
Full SWPPP
(NYCDEP)
Installing a new
paved road requires
Full SWPPP
(NYCDEP)
Paving

Footnotes:
50 ft.
Intermittent stream
or wetland*
Widening

Widening an
existing road
within these
distances should
be done on the
side away from
the water
resource
Paving an existing
dirt or gravel road
within these
distances requires
Full SWPPP
(NYCDEP)
a. Outside Designated Hamlet
Areas – no new roads with
impervious surface within 50 ft.
of intermittent stream or
wetland* or within 100 ft. of
perennial stream*, except paving
existing dirt or gravel roads or
where necessary to provide
access to two or more parcels or
a subdivision in which case a Full
SWPPP is required
b. This example refers only to
existing and new roads; for
bridge and stream crossings
refer to DEP Watershed Rules
and Regulations or call NYCDEP
at (845) 340-7234
Existing
Road
* For definitions (NYCDEP) see Figure 2
c. New road construction
disturbing one acre or more
requires Basic SWPPP (NYS
DEC)
Page 17
Appendix 2 - Proposed Green Infrastructure and Runoff
Reduction Amendments for Local Laws, including Sample
Maintenance Agreement
Proposed Green Infrastructure and Runoff Reduction Amendments for Local Laws –
Include where appropriate in the Stormwater or Drainage Law, Site Plan Law,
Subdivision Law, or Zoning Law
Potential language to be added to local codes is in BOLD and underlined.
Please Note: Any local law revisions should be reviewed and approved by
your municipal attorney.
Purpose section – add:
Encourage the use of green infrastructure practices to control stormwater runoff
such as protecting natural areas, reducing impervious cover, and runoff reduction
techniques to the maximum extent practicable.
Definitions section – add:
Green Infrastructure - Green infrastructure approaches infiltrate, evapotranspire or
reuse stormwater, using soils and vegetation rather than hardscape collection,
conveyance and storage structures. Common green infrastructure approaches include
green roofs, trees and tree boxes, rain gardens, bioretention areas, vegetated swales,
pocket wetlands, infiltration planters, vegetated median strips, reforestation, and
protection and enhancement of riparian buffers and floodplains.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) -a plan for controlling stormwater
runoff and pollutants from a site during and after construction activities.
SWPPP Requirements for full SWPPPs:
When a full SWPPP is required by New York State and/or the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection, the SWPPP must include a description of
each post-construction stormwater management practice, including documentation of
the five step planning process for runoff reduction using green infrastructure as
outlined in the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, most
current version or its successor, using the practices in Schedules A1, A2 and A3.
Schedules A1, A2 and A3 are attached
Schedule B is a Sample Maintenance Agreement that could also be referred to
the in local code. This was originally developed by the Lake George Commission.
Prepared 1/19/12 by Barbara Kendall, Kendall Stormwater Services, LLC
37
Schedule A1
Green Infrastructure Planning General Categories and Specific Practices (From: New York State
Stormwater Management Design Manual, Table 3.1)
Group
Practice
Preservation of
Undisturbed Areas
Preservation of Buffers
Reduction of Clearing
and Grading
Preservation
of Natural
Resources
Locating Development
in Less Sensitive Areas
Open Space Design
Roadway Reduction
Sidewalk Reduction
Driveway Reduction
Cul-de-sac Reduction
Reduction
of
Impervious
Cover
Building Footprint
Reduction
Parking Reduction
Description
Delineate and place into permanent conservation easement
undisturbed forests, native vegetated areas, riparian corridors,
wetlands, and natural terrain.
Define, delineate and place in permanent conservation easement
naturally vegetated buffers along perennial streams, rivers, shorelines
and wetlands.
Limit clearing and grading to the minimum amount needed for roads,
driveways, foundations, utilities and stormwater management
facilities.
Avoid sensitive resource areas such as floodplains, steep slopes,
erodible soils, wetlands, mature forests and critical habitats by
locating development to fit the terrain in areas that will create the least
impact.
Use clustering, conservation design or open space design to reduce
impervious cover, preserve more open space and protect water
resources.
Restore the original properties and porosity of the soil by deep till and
amendment with compost to reduce the generation of runoff and
enhance the runoff reduction performance of practices such as
downspout disconnections, grass channels, filter strips, and tree
clusters.
Minimize roadway widths and lengths to reduce site impervious area.
Minimize sidewalk lengths and widths to reduce site impervious area.
Minimize driveway lengths and widths to reduce site impervious area.
Minimize the number of cul-de-sacs and incorporate landscaped
areas to reduce their impervious cover.
Reduce the impervious footprint of residences and commercial
buildings by using alternate or taller buildings while maintaining the
same floor to area ratio.
Reduce imperviousness on parking lots by eliminating unneeded
spaces, providing compact car spaces and efficient parking lanes,
minimizing stall dimensions, using porous pavement surfaces in
overflow parking areas, and using multi-storied parking decks where
appropriate.
38
Schedule A2
Green Infrastructure Techniques Acceptable for Runoff Reduction (From: New York State
Group
Practice
Conservation of natural
areas
Sheetflow to riparian
buffers or filter strips
Vegetated open swale
Tree planting / tree box
Runoff
Reduction
Techniques
Disconnection of rooftop
runoff
Stream daylighting for
redevelopment projects
Rain garden
Green roof
Stormwater planter
Rain tank/Cistern
Porous Pavement
Description
Retain the pre-development hydrologic and water quality
characteristics of undisturbed natural areas, stream and wetland
buffers by restoring and/or permanently conserving these areas on a
site.
Undisturbed natural areas such as forested conservation areas and
stream buffers or vegetated filter strips and riparian buffers can be
used to treat and control stormwater runoff from some areas of a
development project.
The natural drainage paths, or properly designed vegetated channels,
can be used instead of constructing underground storm sewers or
concrete open channels to increase time of concentration, reduce the
peak discharge, and provide infiltration.
Plant or conserve trees to reduce stormwater runoff, increase nutrient
uptake, and provide bank stabilization. Trees can be used for
applications such as landscaping, stormwater management practice
areas, conservation areas and erosion and sediment control.
Direct runoff from residential rooftop areas and upland overland runoff
flow to designated pervious areas to reduce runoff volumes and rates.
Stream daylight previously-culverted/piped streams to restore natural
habitats, better attenuate runoff by increasing the storage size,
promoting infiltration, and help reduce pollutant loads.
Manage and treat small volumes of stormwater runoff using a
conditioned planting soil bed and planting materials to filter runoff
stored within a shallow depression.
Capture runoff by a layer of vegetation and soil installed on top of a
conventional flat or sloped roof. The rooftop vegetation allows
evaporation and evapotranspiration processes to reduce volume and
discharge rate of runoff entering conveyance system.
Small landscaped stormwater treatment devices that can be designed
as infiltration or filtering practices. Stormwater planters use soil
infiltration and biogeochemical processes to decrease stormwater
quantity and improve water quality.
Capture and store stormwater runoff to be used for irrigation systems
or filtered and reused for non-contact activities.
Pervious types of pavements that provide an alternative to
conventional paved surfaces, designed to infiltrate rainfall through the
surface, thereby reducing stormwater runoff from a site and providing
some pollutant uptake in the underlying soils.
39
Schedule A3
Stormwater Management Practices Acceptable for Water Quality (From: New York State
Group
Practice
Micropool Extended
Detention Pond (P-1)
Wet Pond (P-2)
Pond
Wet Extended Detention
Pond (P-3)
Multiple Pond System (P4)
Pocket Pond (P-5)
Shallow Wetland (W-1)
Wetland
Extended Detention
Wetland (W-2)
Pond/Wetland System (W3)
Pocket Wetland (W-4)
Infiltration Trench (I-1)
Infiltration
Infiltration Basin (I-2)
Dry Well (I-3)
Surface Sand Filter (F-1)
Filtering
Practices
Underground Sand Filter
(F2)
Perimeter Sand Filter (F-3)
Organic Filter (F-4)
Bioretention (F-5)
Dry Swale (O-1)
Open
Channels
Wet Swale (O-2)
Description
Pond that treats the majority of the water quality volume through
extended detention, and incorporates a micropool at the outlet of the
pond to prevent sediment resuspension.
Pond that provides storage for the entire water quality volume in the
permanent pool.
Pond that treats a portion of the water quality volume by detaining
storm flows above a permanent pool for a specified minimum
detention time.
A group of ponds that collectively treat the water quality volume.
A stormwater wetland design adapted for the treatment of runoff from
small drainage areas that has little or no baseflow available to
maintain water elevations and relies on groundwater to maintain a
permanent pool.
A wetland that provides water quality treatment entirely in a shallow
marsh.
A wetland system that provides some fraction of the water quality
volume by detaining storm flows above the marsh surface.
A wetland system that provides a portion of the water quality volume
in the permanent pool of a wet pond that precedes the marsh for a
specified minimum detention time.
A shallow wetland design adapted for the treatment of runoff from
small drainage areas that has variable water levels and relies on
groundwater for its permanent pool.
An infiltration practice that stores the water quality volume in the void
spaces of a gravel trench before it is infiltrated into the ground.
An infiltration practice that stores the water quality volume in a shallow
depression before it is infiltrated into the ground.
An infiltration practice similar in design to the infiltration trench, and
best suited for treatment of rooftop runoff.
A filtering practice that treats stormwater by settling out larger
particles in a sediment chamber, and then filtering stormwater through
a sand matrix.
A filtering practice that treats stormwater as it flows through
underground settling and filtering chambers.
A filter that incorporates a sediment chamber and filter bed as parallel
vaults adjacent to a parking lot.
A filtering practice that uses an organic medium such as compost in
the filter in place of sand.
A shallow depression that treats stormwater as it flows through a soil
matrix, and is returned to the storm drain system.
An open drainage channel or depression explicitly designed to detain
and promote the filtration of stormwater runoff into the soil media.
An open drainage channel or depression designed to retain water or
intercept groundwater for water quality treatment.
40
Schedule B
SAMPLE STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Whereas, the Municipality of ________________("Municipality") and the _______________ ("facility owner")
want to enter into an agreement to provide for the long term maintenance and continuation of stormwater
control measures approved by the Municipality for the below named project, and
Whereas, the Municipality and the facility owner desire that the stormwater control measures be built in
accordance with the approved project plans and thereafter be maintained, cleaned, repaired, replaced and
continued in perpetuity in order to ensure optimum performance of the components. Therefore, the
Municipality and the facility owner agree as follows:
1.
This agreement binds the Municipality and the facility owner, its successors and assigns, to the
maintenance provisions depicted in the approved project plans which are attached as Schedule A of
this agreement.
2.
The facility owner shall maintain, clean, repair, replace and continue the stormwater control measures
depicted in Schedule A as necessary to ensure optimum performance of the measures to design
specifications. The stormwater control measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
drainage ditches, swales, dry wells, infiltrators, drop inlets, pipes, culverts, soil absorption devices,
stormwater ponds and wetlands, bioretention and rain gardens, tree boxes, green roofs, stormwater
planters, rain tanks and cisterns, and porous pavement.
3.
The facility owner shall be responsible for all expenses related to the maintenance of the stormwater
control measures and shall establish a means for the collection and distribution of expenses among
parties for any commonly owned facilities.
4.
The facility owner shall provide for the periodic inspection of the stormwater control measures, at the
frequency recommended in the Design Manual to determine the condition and integrity of the
measures. Such inspection shall be performed by a Professional Engineer licensed by the State of
New York at least once every 5 years. The inspecting engineer shall prepare and submit to the
Municipality within 30 days of the inspection, a written report of the findings including
recommendations for those actions necessary for the continuation of the stormwater control measures.
5.
The facility owner shall not authorize, undertake or permit alteration, abandonment, modification or
discontinuation of the stormwater control measures except in accordance with written approval of the
Municipality.
6.
The facility owner shall undertake necessary repairs and replacement of the stormwater control
measures at the direction of the Municipality or in accordance with the recommendations of the
inspecting engineer.
7.
The facility owner shall provide to the Municipality within 30 days of the date of this agreement, a
security for the maintenance and continuation of the stormwater control measures in the form of ( a
Bond, letter of credit or escrow account).
8.
This agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the County Clerk, County of _____________together
with the deed for the common property and shall be included in the offering plan and/or prospectus
approved pursuant to ______________.
9.
If ever the Municipality determines that the facility owner has failed to construct or maintain the
stormwater control measures in accordance with the project plan or has failed to undertake corrective
action specified by the Municipality or by the inspecting engineer, the Municipality is authorized to
undertake such steps as reasonably necessary for the preservation, continuation or maintenance of
the stormwater control measures and to affix the expenses thereof as a lien against the property, and
/or to levy the maintenance expenses undertaken by the Municipality on the annual taxes of the
property owner (check language with your local attorney).
10. This agreement is effective ____________________
From: Lake George Park Commission Model Stormwater Management Ordinance, Schedule E, Revised 11/1/10 and 6/7/12
41
Appendix 3 - Model Shared Driveway Agreement
SHARED DRIVEWAY AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Background of Agreement
Users are owners of adjacent properties in the (City, Town, Village) of _______________,
New York. User One:____________________, is owner of the property at
________________________(address)_________________________(tax parcel number).
User Two:________________is owner of the property at ___________________________
(address)________________________________(tax parcel number). The Users own
properties that abut each other and have access from ______________________. There is
a driveway that serves both properties. The Users have determined that it is in their mutual
interest to have executed and recorded an agreement for sharing the costs of maintenance
and repair of the driveway. The purpose of this Agreement is to place into writing the
mutual rights and obligations of the Users of the jointly used driveway.
Agreement
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises and intending to
be legally bound, the Users (parties) agree as follows:
1. Grant of Easement. Each party grants to the other a permanent easement
over and across their respective properties for the purpose in ingress and egress to their
adjoining properties.
2. Sharing of Costs and Expenses. The parties shall share the expenses as
follows: _____________________, his/her successors and assigns shall pay one-half of
the maintenance and repair of the driveway that is jointly used. ___________________,
their successors and assigns shall pay one-half of the costs of maintenance and repair of the
jointly used driveway that is used solely by them.
3. Binding Effect. This Shared Driveway Agreement shall not be modified
except in writing signed by the parties, their successors or assigns. This Agreement and
its obligations and benefits shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
This Agreement dated this _______day of _______________, 20____
(Signature – User One)
(Print Name – User One)
(Signature – User Two)
(Print Name – User Two)
Adapted for New York from the Township of Halfmoon, Centre County, Pennsylvania.
42
Appendix 4 – Model Shared Parking Agreements
Example 1: Model Legal Shared Parking Agreement
EASEMENT FOR SHARED PARKING
WHEREAS, the parties to the easement wish to take advantage of the shared
parking provisions of Chapter
of the (City, Town Village) of
Municipal Code.
1. For consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) paid in hand, present and future
benefits to be derived by Grantor and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor,
,
(Name)
doing business as
,
(Name)
.
hereby conveys and warrants to Grantee,
(Name)
doing business as
,
(Name)
its successors, heirs and assigns, a nonexclusive, perpetual easement for motor vehicle
parking on the following described real property:
[Legal Description of Servient Estate]
situated in the (City, Town Village) of
,
York for the benefit of Grantee’s property described as:
County, New
[Legal Description of Dominant Estate]
situated in the (City, Town Village) of
York.
,
County, New
Such parking easement shall be applicable only to the following parking lot(s)
located on the above-described servient estate. [Include a map or sketch of the lots or
parking facilities applicable to this easement, should more than one exist upon the
subject property.]
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
43
1. This easement shall not be altered or terminated without the express written
permission of the [Pick one but should match the local code language: Planning Board,
Code Enforcement Officer] of the (City, Town, Village) of
or his/her designee.
2. Grantor covenants that there are
(#)
of motor vehicle parking spaces
on the above-described property and that Grantor shall not decrease that number of
parking spaces without the express written permission of the [Pick one but should
match the local code language: Planning Board, Code Enforcement Officer] of the
(City, Town, Village) of
or his/her designee.
3. Grantee shall post and maintain signage on the dominant and servient estates
directing its customers and employees to parking.
4. Grantor may temporarily close the subject parking lot(s) for maintenance and
repair. Cost of repair and maintenance shall be paid by
.
5. Neither Grantee nor Grantor shall change, alter or expand the use of their
respective properties described above so as to require additional parking under the
provision of the (City, Town, Village) of
Municipal Code in
excess of existing parking spaces without the express written permission of the [Pick
one but should match the local code language: Planning Board, Code Enforcement
Officer] or his/her designee.
DATED this
day of
. 20
.
GRANTOR
(Signature) (Print Name)
GRANTEE
(Signature)
(Print Name)
Adapted for New York from the Better Site Design Handbook (Center for Watershed
Protection, 1998) and Wells, 1995.
44
Example 2: Model Shared Use Agreement for Parking Facilities
Effective:
This Shared Use Agreement for Parking Facilities, entered into this
, between
, hereinafter called lessor and
, hereinafter called lessee.
day of
In consideration of the covenants herein, lessor agrees to share with lessee certain
parking facilities, as is situated in the (City, Town, Village) of
. County
of
and State of
, hereinafter called the facilities, described
as:
[Include legal description of location and spaces to be shared here, and as shown on
attachment 1 - map].
The facilities shall be shared commencing with the
day of
,
20
, and ending at 11:59 PM on the
day of
, 20
, for [insert
negotiated compensation figures, as appropriate]. The lessee agrees to pay at [insert
payment address] to lessor by the
day of each month [or other payment
arrangements]. Lessor hereby represents that it hold legal title to the facilities.
The parties agree:
1. USE OF FACILITIES
Lessee shall have exclusive use of the facilities between the hours of
[AM/PM]
[day] through
[AM/PM]
[day]. Lessor shall
have exclusive use of the facilities between the hours of [AM/ PM]
[day]
through
[AM/PM]
[day].
2. MAINTENANCE
Lessor shall provide, as reasonably necessary asphalt repair work. Lessee and Lessor
agree to share striping, seal coating and lot sweeping at a 50%/50% mutual split based
upon mutually accepted maintenance contracts with outside vendors. Lessor shall
maintain lot and landscaping at or above the current condition, at no additional cost to
the lessee. [Revise as necessary to meet local needs]
3. UTILITIES and TAXES
Lessor shall pay all taxes and utilities associated with the facilities, including maintenance
of existing facility lighting as directed by standard safety practices. [Revise as necessary
to meet local needs]
4. SIGNAGE
Lessee may provide signage, meeting with the written approval of lessor and the [City,
Town, Village] of
, designating usage allowances. [Revise as
necessary to meet local needs]
45
1. ENFORCEMENT
Lessee may provide a surveillance officer(s) for parking safety and usage only for the
period of its exclusive use. Lessee and lessor reserve the right to tow, at owners
expense, vehicles improperly parked or abandoned. All towing shall be with the
approval of the lessor. [Revise as necessary to meet local needs]
6. COOPERATION
Lessee and lessor agree to cooperate to the best of their abilities to mutually use the
facilities without disrupting the other party. The parties agree to meet on occasion to
work out any problems that may arise to the shared use.
7. INSURANCE
At their own expense, lessor and lessee agree to maintain liability insurance for the
facilities as is standard for their own business usage. [Revise as necessary to meet local
needs]
8. INDEMNIFICATION
[This section should describe indemnification as applicable and negotiated. Legal
counsel should be consulted for appropriate language to every agreement].
9. TERMINATION
If lessor transfers ownership, or if part or all of the facilities are condemned, or access to
the facilities is changed or limited, lessee may, in its sole discretion, terminate this
agreement without further liability by giving Lessor not less than 60 days prior written
notice. Upon termination of this agreement, Lessee agrees to remove all signage and
repair damage due to excessive use or abuse. Lessor agrees to give lessee the right of first
refusal on subsequent renewal of this agreement. [Revise as necessary to meet local
needs]
10. SUPPLEMENTAL COVENANTS
[This section should contain any additional covenants, rights, responsibilities and/or
agreements.]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective
Date Set forth at the outset hereof.
[Signature and notarization as appropriate to a legal document and as appropriate to
recording process negotiated between parties.]
Adapted for New York from the Model – Shared Use Agreement for Parking Facilities
developed by Stein Engineering, 1997, in the document: Model Zoning Regulations for
Parking for Northwest Connecticut, Northwest Connecticut Parking Study – Phase II.
Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments, 2003.
46
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets, p.384, 395. Washington, D.C., 2004.
American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and Urban Land Institute
Manual. Residential Streets. 1990.
Bannerman, et. al. “Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin Stormwater.” Water Science Technology, (1993)
28(3-5):241-259.
Center for Watershed Protection. Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in
Your Community. Ellicott City, MD. August 1998.
Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc., Model Zoning Regulations for Parking for Northwestern Connecticut.
Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments and Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials.
September 2003.
Kendall, Barbara L. Proposed Green Infrastructure and Runoff Reduction Amendments for Local Laws.
2012.
Lumia, Richard, Douglas A. Freehafer, and Martyn J. Smith. Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in New
York. United States Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5112.
Mulvihill, Christiane I., Barry P. Baldigo, Sarah J. Miller, Douglas DeKoskie, and Joel DuBois. Bankfull
Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State United States Geological Survey,
Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5144.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", NRCS Technical
Release -55 (TR-55).
Natural Resources Conservation Service. "Computer Program for Project Formulation Hydrology," NRCS
Technical Release-20 (TR-20).
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York State Stormwater Management
Design Manual, Albany, NY, 2010 or most recent version.
New York State Department of Transportation. Highway Design Manual - Chapter 8. Highway Drainage Revision 61, March 25, 2011.
New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. New York Standards and Specifications for
Erosion and Sediment Control, Albany, NY, 2005 or most recent version.
Nolon, John R. Well Grounded: Shaping the Destiny of the Empire State – Local Land Use Law and
Practice. Pace University School of Law, White Plains, NY. March 1999.
Pitt, Robert E. Small Storm Urban Flow and Particulate Washoff Contributions to Outfall Discharges.
Doctorate Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 1987.
Sample Local Law for Stormwater Management and Erosion & Sediment Control, originally
47
published in the Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Local Officials, NYSDEC and NYS
Department of State, 2004, the Sample Local Law was subsequently revised in 2006, 2010 and 2012.
Steuer, et. al. Sources of Contamination in an Urban Basin in Marquette, Michigan and an Analysis of
Concentrations, Loads, and Data Quality. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report
No. 97-4242. 1997.
Wells, C. Impervious Surface Reduction Study: Final Report. City of Olympia Public Works Department.
Water Resources Program. Olympia, WA. 1995.
Websites
General Code.com at: http://www.generalcode.com/ (Search for local codes with progressive standards
by entering key words such as green infrastructure, low impact development, bioretention, etc.)
Mountaintop LID website including LID Manual, Model Zoning Regulations for Parking, NYS Sample
Local Law for Stormwater Management, Town of Dover Chapter 65 Erosion & Sediment Control at:
http://www.gcswcd.com/swp/wap/mbsd.html
New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29066.html
New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/swdmappendixg.pdf
Plants and Ground Covers for Various Site Conditions - See Appendices to the LID Guide - pages 107 to
126 at: http://www.gcswcd.com/swp/wap/mbsd.html
Streamstats at: http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/
48

Village of Tannersville Mountaintop Better Site Design Roundtable

Transcription

Similar documents

Urban sprawl in Harju County

city place

Stormwater Pioneers Award Ceremony

Jim Gills, Lake County Engineer

Part 4 - Govlink.org

Flo Well Installation Instructions

Hydromedia Brochure

Directions to Ardgillan Travelling north from Dublin

007 Kardamyli (Wikipedia)

Lyndale Farmstead Park - SouthSide Operations Center Parking Lot