Loading...
2002-01-23 ~ ... PAGGI, MARTIN & DEL BENE, LLP. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 56 MAIN STREET POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK 12601 PHONE (845) 471-7898/ FAX (845) 471..Q905 Memo Date; Re; Tatiana Lukianoff, Zoning Administrator- Town of Wappinger Peter J. Paggi f'O{J Wappinger Planning Boa~, attention: Barbara Roberti Hon. Gloria Morse, ToWn Clerk Hon. Graham Foster, Town of Wappinger Highway Superintendent Dan Wery, AICP Albert P. Roberts, Esq. Gray Engineering, P.C. Raymond E. Heinsman, LS. 10/23/02 "As - Built" Plan Candlelight Landscaping Site Airport Drive VIA FAX & MAIL To: From: cc: RECEIVEI' OCT 2 4 : TOWN CLERI, Comments: Please be advised that this office is in recei~ of an "As - Built" Plan of the above referenced site, prepared by Raymond E. Heinsman , LS., dated last revised Se~ember 30, 2002. On this date, our office conducted a field inspection of the site to determine compliance with the approved Amended Site Plan as prepared by Gray Engineering, P.C. (dated last revised July 1, 2002) and the Planning Board Resolution of Approval (dated July 15, 2002). Our findings indicate the following discrepancies: 1) The Approved Site Plan calls for twelve (12) paoong spaces along the front (north) side of the building, including eight (8) regular spaces and four (4) Handicap spaces. The Applicant has constructed the approved twelve (12) spaces, but only two (2) are Handicap accessible. 2) The installed site lighting facilities differ from the Approved Site Plan, including: . There is no light pole at the east side of the entry off Airport Drive. . There are two additional utility pole mounted lights, located at the southwest comer' of the site (behind the refuse enclosure), and at the northeast comer of the site (along Airport Drive). . Page 1 . There are four (4) wall mounted fixtures along the rear (south) side of the building, rather that the three (3) approved). . The wall mounted lights along the front (North) side of the building are lower wattage (60 watt) decorative fixtures, not the 'Wallpack." 1\ high pressure sodium fixtures specified. Additionally, these decorative lights are mounted at 6- 7 feet high, rather than the specified 14 feet height. 3) There are no protective bollards around the onsite well as indicated on the Approved Site Plan. 4) The shed along the easterly property line that was noted "To Be Removed" on the Approved Site Plan has not been removed. 5) The ditch along the rear (south) and side (east) property lines does not appear to have positive grade to its discharge point. Standing water and debris were evident along most of the ditch. 6) The installed site landscaping differs from the Approved Site Plan, induding: . The proposed Arborvitae screening around the refuse endosure has not been installed. . The proposed landscaping between the truck parking area and the ditchline Oe: along the easterly property line) has not been installed. . The proposed landscaping along the front (north) side of the truck parking area has been revised to indude eight (8) spruce trees, rather than the approved two (2) spruce trees and two (2) maple trees. . The proposed landscaping along the westerly side of the property has been revised to indude three (3) 2" caliper maples, rather than the approved two (2) 2" caliper maples and two (2) 5"-6" caliper maples. 7) The area located behind the rear (south) paoong area, and behind the refuse endosure area has been graveled over, and the Applicant is utilizing this space to pari( cars and equipment. 8) Where indicated on the "As - Built" Plan, the Applicant has substituted paving stone curbs in lieu of the approved concrete curbing. 9) The Retention Pond Outlet Strudure, induding grate and invert elevations, should be indicated on the"As - Built" Plan. 1 0) The truck parking area along the east side of the site appears to have been constructed at a higher elevation (1' _ 3':J:) than the approved Site Plan. For instance, the catch basin in this area was proposed to have a grate elevation of 166.0, however, it was installed at a grate elevation of 168.94. The pipe invert elevations and slopes were installed in substantial compliance with the approved Site Plan. It does not appear as if these higher grades will cause any difficulties with site drainage. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter. Thank you. S:IORAWINGSlPROJECTIDOCUMENTSlcandlelight.asbuilt. 1 0.23.02 . Page 2