October 6, 2013
Attending: John Savoca, John Kincart, John Flynn, Rich Fon, Darlene Rivera
After spending approximately two hours reviewing text changes to the FEIS that had been prepared by staff and the town’s consultants that reflected the concerns/issues that had been raised during the board’s chapter-by-chapter review of the FEIS, the board voted unanimously to accept the revised document, creating a new “Revised FEIS” document in order to distinguish it from the FEIS submitted by Costco.
Attorney Lisa Hochman set out the next steps in the process. After the changes approved that evening are finalized into a document, roughly one week, the Revised FEIS will be officially stamped in and recorded. From that date there will be a 10 day written comment period. The board has 30 days to issue a Findings Statement, but that deadline can be extended by mutual consent. In the interim, while staff begins assessing the written comments, it will also begin to draft the Findings Statement, with the expectation that it may be adopted sometime in November.
As discussed at previous meetings, many of the issues raised during the FEIS review will be dealt with during the site plan stage. Mr. Flynn suggested that a map identifying pedestrian access would be very helpful.
2. Yorktown Farms
Dan Ciarcia, the engineer for the project, requested that the siting of a house on a particular lot be changed in order to accommodate the wishes of the prospective buyer. The requested change would encroach on a wetland. The board advised Mr. Ciarcia to take another look at the issue and come back with a plan that reduced the incursion into the wetland to no more than two feet.
The applicant said he was ready to file the subdivision map which would allow him to apply for a building permit, but the board had issues with the map and asked him to make changes and come back at a future meeting.
4. Lake Osceola Square
The applicant showed a new map with few changes based on feedback from the last meeting, mostly dealing with landscaping. The board also wanted to see a cross section that would show the height of the building from East Main Street. When it was suggested that the applicant arrange for a balloon height test, Mr. Capellini noted the cost of setting one up. No decision was made. The future ownership/operation of the beach remains to be decided. The property owner said that if the town is not interested in operating the beach, he would limit the use to boat launching; the public would be able to walk around the lake area.
The board will do a site visit and most likely schedule a public hearing in November.
5. BJ’s Wholesale Club/C-3 rezoning for gas pumps
In response to last meeting’s concerns about the location of the refueling operation, the applicant showed three revised plans, one of which was rejected, but two of which the board considered workable and an improvement over the original plan.
The applicant will prepare an expanded EAF (Environmental Assessment Form) that will include stormwater, gas station operating procedures, a traffic analysis, and also the visual impacts of the proposed action.
In response to Mr. Fon’s concerns about cleaning up the appearance of the frontage along Route 202, the applicant said that they would take care of it even though the frontage belongs to Urstadt Biddle, the owner of the non-BJs portion of the shopping center. Additional landscaping is planned along the frontage.
The board also asked the applicant to include some additional landscaping in the upper portion of the site (the part closest to the stores). The applicant agreed.
One issue the board left to the Town Board to decide was where to draw the line for the new C-3 zoning; a portion of the current lot (to the rear of BJs looking south) backs up to an R1-20 residential zone and even though it was said that the area was a wetland and not likely to be developed, there was concern that sometime in the future a C-3 use, such as warehousing, could back up to the residential land which was currently vacant.
Staff will draft a letter to the Town Board indicating the board’s positive recommendation for the rezoning.
6. Crompond Terraces
Mr. Fon referred to a memo from the Conservation Board that raised concerns about protecting the existing grades on the site.
The consensus of the board was that while they liked the idea of a mixed use, the plan, as presently presented was “way too much.” When Mr. Fon again expressed concern about the width and Old Crompond Road, Mr. Ciarcia said that that problem was not insurmountable. Mr. Tegeder suggested that a master plan for the vacant parcels in Bear Mountain Triangle area (the Crompomd Terraces site, plus two currently vacant sites between Route 202 and Old Crompond Road) be prepared. One possibility, he noted, was that instead of access to the Crompond Terraces site coming from Old Crompond Road, a new road could possibly come in from Route 202 from one of the vacant sites.
Mr. Ciarcia asked the board for suggestions on what it wanted but the board generally felt that this was up to the applicant to give something to the board and convince the board of why it should recommend a zone change.
All agreed that the current half acre zoning didn’t make sense. Mr. Kincart liked the idea of age oriented housing,
7. Ryder subdivision
The board reviewed a new plan for the 2-lot subdivision (See Planning Board, 10/21/2013) that is almost entirely wetlands or wetlands buffer. In general the board did not like the new plan and suggested the applicant look at other options, one of which might be to just have one house on the lot.