Lowe’s Home Center (formerly Costco Wholesale)
SBL: 26.18-1-17, 18, 19 & 26.19-1-1
Discussion Amended Site Plan
Location: 3200 Crompond Road
Contact: Provident Design Engineering

Note: See Costco for a discussion of that site plan review.

Planning Board 12-21-2020

Pad A

The board approved the site plan for the new building that would house a “specialty grocer.” It also amended the site plan for the entire development to reflect a change in the striping of the part of the Lowe’s  parking lot near the contractor side of the building. The restriping eliminated some spaces for cars but facilitated better parking for trucks.

Pad A

The board has received a draft approval resolution but the resolution was not discussed and will likely be voted on at the board’s next meeting. Still unresolved is what material, timber, metal, or metal that looks like timber, should be used on the guiderails. The applicant will confer with the town engineer to resolve the issue.

Pad A

The applicant’s landscape architect advised the board that the landscape plan reviewed at the prior meeting had to be scaled back because the client determined that it was too expensive. She walked the board through the changes that included a reduction in the number of trees and shrubs and also using smaller plants.

There was also a discussion, but no decision, on whether or a section of the guardrail should be timber or metal. The former, more attractive material, is being used in other parts of the site, but there was some concern that a stronger material may be needed, at least in some sections.

The board was okay with the landscape changes and the Planning Department needs to review all the documents before the board votes on an approving resolution.

Pad A

Mr. Grace explained that a sliver of land for the double retaining wall that is a part of the site plan is actually on town owned property on Old Crompond Road. He theorized that the parcel, in the road’s right of way, was excess property. The long term solution, he said, was abandoning the parcel and transferring it to the town. But, as that process takes time, he asked the board for a license so that the applicant could proceed with construction. Supervisor Slater asked the town attorney to review that license agreement that Mr. Grace has drawn up and rejected the latter’s recommendation that the board vote at the meeting on the resolution he drafted that would authorize the supervisor to sign the agreement subject to the town attorney approving the text.

Pad A

The applicant provided more details on a few aspects of the plan, including the trash containers that will be totally enclosed. Also the landscape plan will include a statement requiring that the lawn at the western side of the property be mowed on a weekly basis. The board was pleased with the revised plan. Mr. Tegeder advised the board that a bit more fine tuning to the plan was needed before a resolution could be voted on. The applicant said he was hopeful that a resolution could be ready for the board’s next meeting.

As for the retaining wall, the board directed Mr. Tegeder to send a letter to the Building Department stating that the board has no problem with a permit for the wall being granted now.

Pad A

The applicant walked the board through design changes to the rear of the building, e.g., the dumpsters and recycling facility were relocated to the side of the building and other architectural enhancements made to the building as per the board’s request.  The applicant’s landscape consultant walked the board through the planting plan on the western most side of the site abutting Old Crompond Road.  One unresolved issue was a portion of the plan that called for a lawn area that would need to be mowed; Mr. Tegeder expressed concern about  how this would be maintained and suggested there might be other options requiring less maintenance. He will work with the landscape architect on possible changes to the overall plan.  Mr. Fon noted that the revised landscape plan would address the concerns of a homeowner in the area.

In response to a communication from former board member John Flynn who suggested that the board hold a public hearing on the request to approve the revised retaining wall before approving the amended site plan, Mr. Tegeder advised the board that past practice has been only to require a hearing when the changes to the original plan were significant – and  it was his optiion that the changes, e.g., the increased size of the building and the redesign of the parking and retaining walls were not significant.  The board agreed with his comments and a memo will be sent to the Building Department asking it to approve the building permit before the retaining walls.

The applicant wants to construct the retaining walls this fall before the weather changes and is concerned that the approval of the site plan will take more time.

Pad B

The board will send a letter to the ZBA indicting that it has no issue with the request for variances to exceed the amount of allowed signage and the front setback.

Pad "A"

Planning Board, 2-10-2020

While the applicant’s landscape architect explained how plantings would soften the appearance of the building, especially for westbound traffic, the board asked the applicant to look at ways to soften the appearance of the rear of the building facing Route 202.  While the applicant was “steadfast” that it could not turn the building around,  Mr. Tegeder said the board was steadfast in approving what was right for Yorktown.  The potential tenant is still not known but the development team continues to insist that the site plan is applicant driven.

Pad "A"

The applicant unveiled plans for a 12,700 sf building for a “specialty grocer.” The name of the prospective tenant was not revealed.  Pad “A” is the western most pad and close to Old Crompond Road.

The building would replace a potential 7,500 sf restaurant that was part of the original site plan approval for the entire site. Mr. Riina advised the board that the site plan was tenant driven and represented the best possible plan of several alternative plans that had been proposed. The plan will require two 10’ retaining walls along Old Crompond Road. The plan provides more parking spaces than required.

Mr. Tegeder advised the applicant that he needs to compare how the impacts of the proposed new larger building differ from what was originally approved.  He also advised the applicant to provide the board with visuals of the planned retaining wall and the rear of the building that would face Route 202.

The board approved the site plan.  Some changes have been made to the landscaping plan and the applicant was advised that some of the previously planted trees have died and needed to be replaced.  The applicant is waiting for approval for a front yard setback variance from the ZBA.

The board reviewed revisions to the landscape plan and also discussed the location of the dumpsters.

The applicant has made the changes requested by the board at the last meeting and the board had no other issues.  A resolution approving the new building is expected in September.

A representative from Breslin Realty advised the board that there was “progress” on the western most pad but that he wasn’t at liberty to discuss any details.

The applicant presented plans for a 5,800 sf building at the center of the site that would house three tenants: a Starbucks, a retail store operated by the Automobile Club of America, and a third still unknown tenant.  Because the approved site plan for the overall site anticipated a 4,500 sf building, this revised plan removes some of the previously approved landscaping and will require a higher retaining wall.  The required number of parking spaces will have to be recalculated based on the new uses. The applicant will also have to recalculate anticipated sewage flows, given existing concerns that the receiving Hunterbrook  pump station is at or exceeding its capacity.

In response to the applicant’s landscaping plan, Mr. Tegeder asked the applicant to provide elevations from Route 202 that would show whether the building roof would be visible over the proposed plantings.  He also asked the architect to provide elevations that would show the potential visibility of roof top HVAC equipment and suggested that since the public would view the building from both Route 202 as well as from Lowe’s that the façade be treated the same way and also include the same signage.

The applicant indicated that there was some interest in the western most pad, but not from banks, but no interest to date in the eastern most pad closest to the Taconic Parkway.

Without discussion. the board approved the amended site plan with changes to the provisions regarding guiderails.  Supervisor Gilbert advised the board that the building department was still working through a few issues with the applicant prior to the issuance of a CO.

(Note: Because conditions in the room made it difficult for the observer to hear some of the discussion, some of the following information is based on a discussion with Mr. Tegeder after the meeting was adjourned.)

Mr. Grace updated the board on the status of the homeowner sewer connections indicating that Breslin has made the connections for those who wanted sewers and given a check to those who wanted money in lieu of connections. The board is satisfied that that condition of the original site plan has been met. There was a brief discussion about the need for guiderails at two locations; the board decided that it might want one temporary guiderail and that it would postpone a final decision on whether one or two were needed until after the grade differential with the abutting pad site was approved. With bonding in place to complete the required landscaping, Mr. Tegeder said he saw no obstacle to the building inspector issuing a CO for Lowes.  The applicant said there was some activity relating to leasing the three pads but no leases had been signed yet.

Lowe’s wants to open on or about March 15, but before it can get a CO (certificate of occupancy) it must satisfy all the conditions of its site plan approval.  Three conditions remain unfilled: planting trees on Underhill Avenue, site landscaping, and reaching a satisfactory agreement with homeowners on Old Crompond Road about sewer connections.

The landscaping obviously can’t be done until the spring and opinions differed as to the progress of the sewer connections talks: Michael Grace, Breslin’s attorney, advised the board that 4 of the 9 homeowners had decided to take a cash payout from Breslin and opt out of sewers, two others are involved in remedying a construction issue involving their joint driveway and four others remain unresolved.  Calling the homeowners’ demands that Breslin pay for the sewer connections regardless of the cost (that could involve expensive rock excavation) a moving target, he said the sewer issue should not be used to hold up the opening.  As for the landscaping, he objected to providing a performance bond, but a Breslin representative said he had no problem providing either a cash bond tied to the estimated cost of the landscaping or tying a temporary CO (TCO) to the issuance of a building permit for one of the pads. He advised the board that the company was close to coming to agreement with a tenant for one of the three pads.

Speaking for the homeowners, Ann Kutter advised the board that the only reason some homeowners have said they would opt out of a sewer connection was that Breslin was not prepared the pay the full cost which was their unerstanding. She also advised the board that there were issues that were still unresolved and that the homeowners were not getting answers from Mr. Grace.

The board went into special session and voted to amend the site plan so that the requirement for the off site tree planting would be satisfied by Breslin choosing either the cash bond or linking the condition to the issuance of a building permit for the pads. The board left the fulfillment of the unfinished  landscaping up to the town board that has to decide whether to issue a TCO. Mr. Fon said that the record was clear regarding Breslin’s commitment on the sewer connections , but added that if an agreement with only one homeowner ws outstanding, possibly something could be arranged.

Without any discussion,the board approved the subdivision plan.

Authorized the supervisor to sign a Declaration and Restrictive Covenant Agreement with the developer for the maintenance and repair of the site’s water and sewer improvements.

The board closed the public hearing but reserved voting for the subdivision approval resolution.  The maintenance agreement for the water line has been signed but Mr. Grace again stated that the agreement wasn’t necessary and that the town should pay all costs associated with maintaining the line.

Mr. Grace said that the agreement with the homeowners has still not been signed, but Mr. Fon stated that the board has separated out that issue from the subdivision approval. He said that the issue was part of the record but that if homeowners continue to have an issue they need to deal with the building inspector and making the agreement a condition of the department granting a CO for Lowe’s.

Representatives from KJM Construction Management, hired by the town to oversee the construction of  water, sewer and stormwater facilities, gave an update report. They said that construction was about 90%. Once completed, the town will take ownership of the water and sewer lines, but as per an agreement that is close to being signed, Breslin will reimburse the town for the cost of labor and material related to maintaining the lines.

The one unresolved issue is the extent to which Breslin will be able to do a temporary paving job on Route 202 and Old Compond Road that would remain in place until the spring when the company would do a permanent paving job. For Route 202, the company  has proposed some temporary paving but the DOT, which controls what happens on the road, is opposed to the plan.  It was suggested that all involved parties meet with the DOT to try to resolve the issue. Old
Crompond Road is a town road, so the status of the road can be worked out between Breslin and the town.  Ann Kutter, a resident on Old Crompond Road spoke about difficult conditions on the road.

The board also asked KJM to work with Breslin to provide better traffic control when trucks have to work along Route 202.

KLM reported that Lowe’s is anticipating a March, 2019 opening.

Representing Breslin, attorney Michael Grace advised the board that there was an agreement between this client and the Old Crompond Road residents and that all that was left was executing the final agreement that will have Breslin pay to bring sewers to the properties.  However, Ann Kutter advised the board that there were still issues that had to be resolved and that nothing had been signed yet. Mr. Grace and Mr. Rosenberg from Breslni said they would provide the board with copies of the signed agreements. A public hearing will be held on the subdivision plan on December 3.

In a separate brief discussion, Supervisor Gilbert, who was attending the meeting, advised Mr. Rosenberg that the town still hadn’t received the final agreement for the maintenance of the site’s water supply system. Mr. Rosenberg said he would send a copy. Mr. Grace, who was supervisor when the town initially agreed to assume ownership of the site’s water supply lines, questioned why Breslin needed to pay for the lines’ maintenance. (See 2017 notes below.)

(See 11-21-2016 discussion below.) In a brief comment, Mr. Fon said that the board would table this  discussion until other issues were resolved. He did not elaborate.

Town Board, 4-10-2018

In an item not on the agenda, the board agreed to sign the site plan even though the maintenance agreement with the town regarding the water system has not been approved by the Town Board.  The general consensus was that the town’s approval was expected soon and that as long as the applicant was already doing work on the site, it made sense to sign the site plan.

While waiting for final sign offs from the Dept. of Health and DOT, the applicant requested the Planning Board sign the site plan so that it could get a building permit. The issue the board wants resolved before signing the site plan is the town’s approval of a maintenance agreement with Lowes regarding the site’s water mains; the DOH wants the system to be public, but the town wants to make sure that any future problems with any parts of the system are paid for by Lowes and not the taxpayers in the water district.  According to Mr. Tegeder, the town attorney is reviewing a draft agreement that was prepared last year by Lowes; he indicated that heavy revisions to the draft are anticipated.  The applicant was advised to work with Mr. Tegeder and the town attorney to resolve the issue.

The board authorized the supervisor to sign an agreement with KJM Construction Management for an amount not to exceed $235,800 to oversee some aspects of the construction project.  The money will come from the inspection fee that Lowe’s will be required to pay.

Town Board, 10-3-2017

The board authorized the supervisor to sign a Letter of Authorization to allow Lowes to submit its water and sewer application to the appropriate regulatory agencies.  The supervisor said that demolition was expected to start next week.

The applicant’s engineer gave the following updates.

Stormwater: The DEP wants a few “tweaks” made to the plan. The engineer doesn’t anticipate this to be a major issue.  The Watershed Inspector General’s office, which is advisory only, has recomen4ed two additional changes, one of which appears to differ with the DEP’s approach; this will have to be worked out with the DEP that has the ultimate approval authority.

Demolition: This should be started this week and will last about 4 weeks.

Sidewalks at Strang Blvd: the DOT person in charge of making the decision will be out until the end of the month but the engineer doesn’t anticipate any problem with the revised plan; he is preparing the engineering details in anticipation of getting DOT approval.

Water lines:  See 8/14/2017 summary below. Supervisor Grace has suggested that the best way to resolve the issue is for the town to take over the lines but form a water district that will consist of the four parcels making up the entire Lowe’s site. Ongoing maintenance of the water lines will then become part of the Common Area Maintenance Agreement that will share expenses for the maintenance of other common areas throughout the site. The water district would be taxed to generate the revenue needed to cover maintenance costs.

The applicant advised the board that he would be having a pre-construction meeting with town and DEP officials later in the week. (Note: At last week’sTown Board meeting, Supervisor Grace said that the applicant had received its demolition permit.)

The only issue discussed with the grass strip from Strang Blvd. The applicant said the DOT wanted a letter of support for the change it wants from the town. A draft of the letter has been writer; its contents was not discussed. In response to questions from Mr. Tegeder who wanted to follow up on the suggestion made at the previous meeting about the feasibility of a narrower strip, the applicant said that that would not work and still preferred to eliminate the strip altogeher. The board agreed with the applicant’s request.

Planning Board, 6-12-2017

Originally scheduled for a discussion during the televised special session, the board moved the discussion to a work session format to allow for a discussion of key issues: the duration of the permit for outdoor services and storage and the master sign plan. As noted below, after agreement was reached on both issues, the board went into special session, and voted to approve the resoltuions.

Special permit: A permit is needed for two areas: a permanent one behind the building where merchandise is off loaded and a temporary seasonal area in a parking area on the west side of the site.  The applicant wanted a five year permit for both sites in order to protect its financial investment and not have to come back to the board in a shorter period of time for renewals. The board, however, was concerned about the potential loss of parking spaces during the seasonal use for storage. In a compromise, the board agreed to a split permit: 5 years for the permanent storage that the board had no issue with and 2 years for the temporary storage so that the board could assess the impact of the loss of parking spaces.  The applicant explained that the timing of the seasonal storage varied by location.

Master sign: As a follow up to the previous meeting, the applicant presented an elevation showing how the proposed monument sign would be visible from Route 202.  As the sign with just Lowes met the requirements of the code, the board approved the master plan approving it so that the applicant could proceed to erect it. When the tenants for the 3 pad sites are identified and their signage requirements become known, the applicant may have to request an amended plan

The discussion was the parameters of a master sign plan for the development that showed renderings of both the location and size of the proposed signs.  The overall number of square footage of signs was within the town’s code. Details on the signs can’t be pinned down until the still unknown tenants for the satellite buildings are identified. So far, no tenants are known. Lowe’s is anxious to get approval as soon as possible for a proposed 12’ high monument sign. Mr. Tegeder had no inherent problem with the 12’ (town code allows up to 16’) but asked the applicant to show elevations of why 12’ was needed for visibility and whether a lower sign might be accept able.

The renderings were referred to ABACA for review and the applicant will return to the Planning Board on June 12.

After making some technical changes to the approving resolution, the public hearing on the  amended site plan was closed and the board voted to approve the site plan, along with wetlands, tree, and stormwater permits. Because legal issues surrounding the subdivision of the parcels remain to be worked out, the public hearing on the subdivision plan remained open. The applicant explained that at the request of the DOT, the applicant will purchase the additional 3+ acres abutting the 3+ acre DOT site that will be used for stormwater retention.  While the stormwater plan will remain the same, the additional acreage will change other calculations of the overall plan such as the percentage of impervious surface.

The applicant reviewed the highlights of the plan as discussed at earlier meetings. No tenants for the two restaurants and the bank building have been identified. The details of the 5-lot subdivision plan remain to be worked out, with the applicant requesting that the eventual plan leave open the possibility that the outer buildings could be sold to the user; in the event that happens, the applicant would return to the Planning Board. The applicant reported that soil borings for the detention ponds on the state DOT property were positive and the applicant will now finalize the site’s stormwater plan. The applicant is the contract vendee for the property. The details for the off site mitigation for the tree removal remain to be worked out.

Two people spoke up at the hearing in support of the project. Chamber of Commerce president Eric DiBartolo said the plan was helping to foster new development along Route 202. The hearing was adjourned  to December 5^th to give the applicant time to finalize the subdivision plan.

In a technical matter, in a separate action before the public hearing was opened, the board voted to extend the Costco site plan that was due to expire this week.

The applicant has responded to the Conservation Board’s memo. A more detailed lighting plan will be submitted once the tenants for the outer buildings have been identified. Mr. Grealy went over preliminary plans to add sidewalks around and connecting the outer buildings to the parking lot; the board was in agreement with the concept.

A memo from the Tree Conservation Advisory Commission, which the applicant had not seen yet, suggested two off site mitigation measures: planting 22 street trees along Underhill Avenue near Town Hall and installing deer exclosures and removing invasives at Sylvan Glen Nature Preserve. The applicant had no problem with either suggestion but wants to meet with TCAC and staff to work out details.

The applicant explained that it is still conducting tests on the DOT site to locate the best possible site for the detention ponds.

For taxing purposes with the future tenants of the out buildings, the applicant wants to subdivide the site into five lots: one each for the three out buildings, the Lowe’s building, and the remaining open space. All five lots would be owned by the same owner and each would be responsible for a share of the maintenance for the roads and open space on the entire site. A representative of Breslin explained that while the company has no intention of selling off the individual lots, it wants to preserve the possibly that a future tenant for one of the out buildings may have a corporate policy of owning its own site rather than leasing.

A public hearing on the plan will be held November 22nd.

After a discussion of any potential adverse environmental impacts not previously reviewed in the Costco plan, and based on a memo prepared by the Planning Department, the board adopted a resolution stating that there were no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the Lowes plan and that the board could proceed to review the site plan.

After doing a site visit of the additional parcel to be used for stormwater, Bruce Barber reported that 297 trees will be removed based on the town’s new tree law that  increased the size of a “protected tree” from 6” dbh to 8”dbh. Lowes plans to plant 334  new trees throughout the site.  The applicant will present a mitigation plan for the tree removal at the November 7 meeting that will include a mix of onsite and offsite mitigation at Sylvan Glen, as per the latter’s previously prepared Forest Management Plan. The plan will be based on the functional needs of the site  and will attempt to meet the same absorption benefits that the removed trees provided.

A representative of Lowes reviewed the company’s “green” measures and how they differ from the Costco plan.

As part of the site plan review, Mr. Flynn asked the applicant to consider more sidewalks in the front of the site linking the restaurant buildings and bank to the bus stop as well as the Lowes building. The applicant said he would accommodate this concern.

The lighting plan will follow that of Costco and include a mix of 16’ poles along the perimeter, 25’ polies in the parking lot (fewer than in the Costco plan) and 20’ along the building.  The  fixtures will all be “dark sky.”  The lighting for the bank ATM will have to be considered once there is a firm tenant.

A public hearing on the site plan will be held November 21.

The key issue discussed at the meeting was whether the plan created any significant adverse impacts (the key word being “significant”) that were not in the approved Costco plan; if there were, the applicant would have to complete a supplemental EIS.  It is the applicant’s contention that a supplemental EIS is not needed.

Having gone through each of the sections in the previously submitted Technical Memo, Mr. Fon said he saw either less of an impact, or an improved situation for the new plan’s visual impact, overall uses, parking, layout and traffic.  His one area of concern was that more information was needed on the landscaping plan, especially along Route 202.

Traffic consultant Philip Grealy explained that while the AM peak hour traffic will be heavier than Costco due to contractor’s visiting the garden center, the PM and Saturday peaks will be lower and that overall, when the peak AM and PM hours and Saturday peaks are looked at, the total traffic impact will be less than Costco – and the applicant will be making the same level of improvements.

Most of the discussion centered on the revised stormwater plan on the 3.3 acres the applicant plans to purchase from the state DOT.  While this could be considered a “significant” impact that involved removing a considerable number of trees, the general sense was that the proposed mitigation that called for adding 100 new trees and other mitigation measures would offset the tree removal.

Mr. Tegeder said he did not think that the new plan had any significant impacts but that he was still reading through the Technical Memo.  Several board members also have not had an opportunity yet to review the Memo.

Board counsel Anna Georgiou advised the board that after all the members have had an opportunity to  review the memo, at its next meeting (October 17) the board could come to a preliminary decision that a supplemental EIS would not be necessary and that it could proceed to review the site plan and environmental issues at the same time.

The applicant is still working out the details of the stormwater plan with the DEP and will meet on site with DEP staff  at the end of October to do some testing.  Plans for the road improvements that need to be approved by the DOT are about 95% completed.

Once more information is available on the stormwater plan and mitigation, the board will schedule a public hearing.

While the board is processing the amended site plan, the applicant will be able to proceed with plans to demolish the existing building. If less than 5,000 s        q. ft. of soil is disturbed, the applicant will not need a DEP permit but will need a town  stormwater permit (SWPPP).

The applicant wishes to create 5 separate lots on the overall site, one for each building and a fifth for the stormwater site. The applicant would own all five lots. What needs to be determined is whether this can/should be accomplished by a formal subdivision process or a simpler lot line adjustment.

In an amended site plan, representatives of Breslin Realty, the owner of the site that was originally planned for Costco, unveiled plans for Loewe’s Home Center, two stand alone restaurants and a stand alone bank.   No gas pumps are planned.

(See Costco, for a discussion of that plan.) 

Timetable and SEQRA review: The applicant anticipates beginning construction in 2017 and a 2018 opening.  Work may begin later this year or early 2017 on the demolition of the existing structures on the site and environmental remediation measures including the scrapping away of soil and removal of trees.  Subject to getting the proper permits and preparation of a stormwater plan (SWPPP), the latter work can begin while the Planning Board reviews the amended site plan.

Because, according to the applicant, the new plan does not create any new “significant” impacts, the applicant anticipates that a full SEQRA review will not be needed and that a supplemental EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) might suffice.  In its place, the applicant has submitted a Technical Memorandum that compares the impacts of the previously approved Costco site plan with the new plan. It will be up to the Planning Board to compare the impacts, request additional information if needed, and then document its analysis of why a new SEQRA is not needed.  According to the board’s counsel, the analysis of impacts will have to be circulated to outside agencies prior to Planning Board approval.

Plan: The new plan calls for a 120,663 sq. ft.  Loewe’s, plus a 25,448 sq. ft garden center, slightly smaller than the 151,000 sq. ft.  Costco structure.  The building has been moved somewhat to the north on the site and because the site is lower than Route 202, only a portion of the building’s peaked Loewe’s sign will be visible from Route 202. The two restaurants, 7,600 sq. ft. and 4,500 sq. ft. and a 4,000 sq. ft. bank will be located close to Route 202 with parking to the rear of the buildings.

According to the applicant, one of the restaurants may have a drive up window but it will not be a fast food type restaurant.  The applicant is currently negotiating with prospective restaurant and bank tenants who are prepared to work with the applicant to achieve some common design elements such as façade colors and textures.  If, however, the prospective tenants change, the architectural plans may need to be changed to reflect the tenants’ needs.

The garden center will include a propane tank exchange location.

The site’s main entrance at Mohansic Avenue will remain the same and the secondary access to the west has been shifted slightly.

Parking: Using a combination of parking requirements for the different uses which have different peak hours, and historical parking data from other Loewe’s locations, the plan calls for 512 parking spaces, or a ratio of 3.1 spaces/1,000 sq. ft.  (The Costco plan had about 610 spaces or a 4.0 ratio.)  The town’s code currently has no parking requirements for garden centers.

Traffic & Infrastructure: Even though the revised plan anticipates a 5% -15% reduction in peak hour traffic, the applicant will make the same  infrastructure improvements, e.g., road widening  and traffic light signalization, as in the Costco plan.  The applicant anticipates submitting the final road widening plans to the state DOT by late October.

The sewer and water infrastructure plans remain the same. The parcel is now in the county’s Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District. The applicant assured the board that the proposed sewer line has more than enough capacity to handle to heavier restaurant use as well as the proposed Crompond Terraces development to the west.

Financial impacts: Based on future assessed values supplied by the town assessor, the applicant anticipates that the revised plan  will generate  $1.2 million in taxes compared to $900,000 from Costco, with $132,000 going to the town.  The new plan will, however, generate less sales tax for the county because of the elimination of the gas pumps.

Full time employment is estimated at between 150-180 persons for Loewe’s and an additional 130 full time equivalents for the three additional buildings.

Market issues:  Based on an updated market study, the applicant concludes that Loewe’s will not have a negative impact on local mom and pop stores and that it could capture some of the $1 billion  in sales it estimates is leaving the area.

Landscaping and lighting: The landscaping plan will be similar to the Costco plan and will include a row of plantings on state property parallel to the southbound lanes of the Taconic Parkway. The lighting plan is still being reviewed but will include a combination of 16’ and 25’ poles as in the Costco plan.

Stormwater: The one major change from the Costco plan, although the applicant does not consider it a “significant” impact, is how stormwater will be treated. Whereas the Costco plan called for underground storage, the new plan utilizes above ground storage ponds on a 3.38 acre site north of the building abutting the Taconic Parkway that the applicant plans to purchase from New York State.  While this will involve the removal of trees, the applicant indicated that new shrubs of higher value  than the existing trees would be planted. The applicant anticipates that the state and city agencies that oversee stormwater will be more receptive to this more standard above ground approach to handling stormwater because it is easier to maintain.  Because of the site’s topography, stormwater runoff will be directed to outlets both the north and south of the site.

The applicant anticipates returning to the Planning Board in two weeks for the September 26 meeting.