Dubovsky

SBL: 59.14-1-18
Location: 702 Saw Mill River Road
Contact: Site Design Consultants
Description: Application to construct a main building with 2 commercial spaces below with 2 residential apartments above. A secondary garage/barn structure in the rear of the property.

 


Planning Board, 9-25-2017

The board okayed an amended site plan that addresses the concerns of DOH and DEP. The resolution retains the building’s original footprint, although ultimately DOH and DEP may require a smaller footprint. The approving resolution includes a tree permit that will require five trees in the front the property to be removed. The removal is necessary because of the revised site plan. There will be no tree removal in the rear of the parcel.


Planning Board, 8-14-2017

The board approved the first 1-year extension pending a review of a revised site plan.  During the work session portion of the meeting, Mr. Dubovsky advised the board that the DOH and DEP want the septic fields relocated. To accomplish this, the parking will have to be modified but the location of the proposed main building will remain the same.  Mr. Dubovsky will submit a revised plan.


Planning Board, 10-17-2016

The board voted for a re-approval. The applicant is still before the Health Department and the DEP regarding the septic system. It was stated that there have been no changes to the original SEQRA review.


Planning Board, 10-5-2015

Mr. Dubovsky explained that he’s been dealing with the Department of Health over septic system approvals for two years, but is close to receiving the permits.  The situation is complicated by the amount of fill existing on the site, which had to be removed and replaced with soil with acceptable percolation rates.  The Planning Board granted the requested extension.  


Planning Board, 8-11-2014

The board approved the first one-year extension.  The application is still pending at DOH and DEP.


Plannnig Board, 9-9-2013

The Board approved  the site plan. The county commercial zone requires that ABACA review the architectural details and report back to the Planning Board. The applicant will also need a variance from the ZBA if he plans to erect a sign.

 


Planning Board, 8-12-2013

The Board opened and closed a public hearing, leaving open a 10-day written comment period. There were no public comments.

 


Planning Board, 7-15-2013

The Board reviewed  site elevations for planned new building which Mr. Riina explained is actually smaller than the building that was shown conceptually on a plan a few years ago  when the adjoining lot was developed . The applicant is waiting for some curtain drains to kick in before doing a perc test on the adequacy of the proposed location of the septic field.   If the perc test is not satisfactory, the building size may have to be reduced.  The project may be set for a public hearing in August.

 


Plannng Board, 6-20-2013

Engineer Joe Riina presented a more detailed plan. The outside of the building will be similar to the adjoining property.  The project is not large enough to require DEP review.

 

In respone to Mr. Flynn’s concern that the second floor of the rear barn could be turned into an illegal apartment, Mr. Dubovsky assured the Board that he had no intention of doing that . His plan calls for constructing a pole barn which, he said, would not have a foundation, and therefore could not be used for a residence. He would, however, like to install a bathroom in the building, and raise the height of the doors so that, in an accommodation to the neighbors, his vans cold be parked inside.


Planning Board, 5-6-2013

As explained by the development team, the project consists of two commercial units with two one bedroom units on a second story, a rear building that will be used as a garage on the first floor and storage on the second, and 10 parking spaces.  

 

Two area property owners spoke out in opposition to the plan citing drainage issues and concern about runoff from the trailway that abuts the rear of the property and the change in the character of the area, arguing that the lot was too small for the proposed level of development. They said that they were okay with the existing commercial/residential building next door that had been approved several years ago but that they didn’t want to add any more development in the R1-80 zone.  Acknowledging that they had not measured the site, they raised the issue of the site’s proximity to a nearby stream and felt that there was a conflict for the town’s wetlands officer to make a determination as to the existence of wetlands on the site. The property owners also said the site that the DEP should review the site plan.  Mr. Fon advised them that the Health Department had jurisdiction over the location of the private well vis a vis the planned septic system.

 

Al Capellini, the applicant’s attorney, said he would take the comments under advisement. The hearing was closed.


Planning Board, 4-8-2013

The only change from the previous site plan was that the building in the rear will no longer be used for an office and will only be used for storage.  Regarding previous violations on the site, Mr. Tegeder explained that there were no real wetlands on the site; it was speculative, he said, whether there ever was a wetland. However, the site had been illegally filled without the required permit.  He added that the site had to be stabilized before any new work could take place.

 

There was a discussion of how drainage on the site is linked to drainage on adjacent properties.  The application will be scheduled for a Public Informational Hearing.

 


Planning Board, 3-11-2013

The Board reviewed a pre-preliminary application to construct a building with two commercial spaces with two residential units on the upper floor and a two story accessory building in the rear of the property for a garage withan office aboveon a site zoned county commercial.The applicant plans to relocate his electrical contracting business to the site.

The main issue before the Board was whether the property is/had been a wetland before fill was deposited on it several years ago when the adjoining property was developed. At that time, a stop work order had been issued and there was considerable history about what was being done on the subject site.

 

At the Board’s request, the applicant’s environmental consultant will be asked to review the site for wetlands and the applicant will submit a formal application so that the review process can begin.