Augie's Prime Cut
Location: 3436 Lexington Ave
Contact: SJF Engineering Services
Description: Conversion of 2nd floor storage to a dining area for existing restaurant.
Planning Board, 2/27/2012
After reconvening the public hearing and listening to additional comments from the public, the board closed the public hearing and unanimously approved the site plan.
<!xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><!xml:namespace prefix = o />
Comments from two homeowners from Wiley Road focused on flooding they were experiencing caused, they said, by changes that had been made to a portion of the lot adjoining the restaurant owned by Jack Ward that the restaurant leased for parking. Given the layout of the two lots, Mr. Kincart noted that restaurant patrons were not likely to know whose property they were parking on. It was also pointed out that the Town had issued stop work orders when the improvements were being made to the Ward parcel. Acknowledging that Augie’s was not responsible for site conditions on the Ward lot, the board asked Augie’s owner, Sal Barrone, to work with the Wiley Road residents to see if some barriers could be placed on the Augie’s site that would control runoff to their property. The Planning Department will also contact the town engineer’s office asking them to review whether theimprovements on the Ward property met Code requirements. Finally, Mr. Barrone will look into blocking off access to the Ward lot.
Pointing out to the board that there had been no charges against his $750 escrow fee in the event that legal services were needed to process his application, Mr. Barrone asked how he could get his money back. Mr. Tegeder said he should submit a request to the Town Board. Mr. Barrone said that once he received the refund, it was his intention to donate the money to the Nutritin Center.
Planning Board,, 2/13/2012
The applicant reported an agreement to lease parking spaces from the neighboring hair salon and showed pictures ofthe redesigned garbage enclosure and fencing.This met with the Planning Board’s approval.There were no additional comments from the Planning Board or from the public, but the public hearing could not be closed because the applicant did not have adequate proof he had notified one adjoining property of the public hearing.The matter was tabled until the 2/27/12 work session.The applicant asked about the possibility of a temporary CO and was told to see the Town Board about that.
Planning Board, 1/23/2012
Planning Board 1/9/2012
The board reviewed an amended site plan that was required in order to legalize the conversion of the building’s existing second floor, previously used as an apartment, into dinning space. The actual renovation of the second floor was completed about a year ago without a building permit. The additional dining space triggered the need for additional parking. The current office use on the building’s third floor is being returned to storage use. In order to meeting state building code requirements, adjustments also had to be/are being made to the building’s interior and exterior stairs.
The new parking plan, which calls for a total of 47 spaces, is based on the restaurant continuing to use a portion of the parking lot of the adjoining hair salon for 18 spaces. In response to questions raised by the board’s attorney, the board was informed that the current lease to use the hair salon site has no set term and can be canceled by either party without notice. The board was not comfortable with this arrangement, which it noted could create a future parking problem if and when the owner of the hair salon site canceled the lease. The board requested that the applicant seek a five to ten year lease that would be binding on any future owner of the hair salon site. The applicant also told the board that as a long term solution to his parking needs he was trying to purchase one of two adjoining buildings.
The board also discussed the relocation of the garbage enclosure from its present position on the side/front of the property to the rear of the property. While Mr. Tegeder noted that the Planning Department had suggested the relocation in response to a complaint from the adjacent homeowner about the odors from the enclosure, it was noted that the proposed new location would be close to two houses. It was explained that given the requirements for truck access and turning movements, there were no other possible locations for the trash enclosure. The applicant advised the board that he is now having garbage removal five times a week instead of three, and also asked the board to reconsider the requirement for a stucco finish on the enclosure, saying that he preferred to match the existing fence which would be easier to keep clean and maintain.
The board will conduct a site visit and likely schedule a public hearing on the application for February 13th.