March 13, 2017
Attending” John Kincart, John Savoca, William LaScala, Richard Fon, Anthony Tripodi
1. Ianuzzi subdivision, Baptist Church Road
With the applicant still waiting for Department of Health approval, the board approved a second 90-day extension. Mr. Capellini advised the board that he may have to come back for an additional extension due to the death of the applicant’s surveyor and the need to hire a new person.
2. Teatown Science Lab, Spring Valley Road/Public hearing
(See Planning Board, 2-27-2017.) The applicant explained the project. There were no public comments or questions from the board. The hearing was closed. The board will prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting.
3. Adrian Auto Body, Old Crompond Road/Public hearing
The applicant is still waiting for written approval from the DEP and a report from the town engineer that all issues have been addressed. Most of the discussion centered on the stormwater plan; rainwater leaving the roof will be stored in four underground tanks and used to pre-wash cars. Excess water will drain into the town’s existing stormwater drains. The hearing was closed but on the advice of Mr. Tegeder, the board will hold off with an approving resolution pending written notification from the DEP that it approves the stormwater plan. Mr. Tegeder noted that in the past, the DEP did not always accept the stormwater plan that had been approved by the town. When this happened and the DEP required the applicant to modify the plan, the applicant then had to go back to the Planning Board for an amended site plan approval.
4. Village Traditions, East Main Street, Mohegan Lake
Mr. Mallon returned with a site plan and renderings of his proposed new building. The focus of the discussion was whether the building should be moved slightly to make for a wider pathway between the existing building and the new one. The pathway will also provide access to the abutting vacant parcel (Envirogreen proposal) that is currently awaiting DEC wetlands approval. Mr. Mallon indicated his willingness to do whatever the board wanted.
The board ultimately decided that the wider pathway (20-24’ wide) was preferred, but that fog lines should be painted to define the path which would have the effect of deterring speeding.
Mr. Mallon agreed to keep the connection to the abutting development on a trial basis as long as it didn’t hurt his clients, adding that the pathway could actually be an enhancement. The board decided that formal cross easements between the two parcels would not be needed as long as there was an informal agreement between the two owners.
Mr. Mallon was advised to meet with Mr. Tegeder and the town engineer to work out additional details before returning to the board.
5.Unicorn Contracting Corporation, Kear Street (Murphy’s Restaurant)
Dan Ciarcia, the applicant’s engineer, presented a pre-preliminary plan for the redevelopment of four abutting lots, three of which are currently developed: Murphy’s Restaurant, the Coldwell Banker Building on Underhill Ave (owned by Peter Markatos) and the Grace Building, also on Underhill Ave, owned by Supervisor Grace. The fourth parcel, located at the corner of Route 118 and Kear Street, is vacant.
The proposal calls for demolishing the restaurant and in its place, erecting a 3-story, 40,000 square foot office/retail building that would be partially on the Grace property and partially on the Murphy property. The existing access from Kear Street would remain, but the main entrance to the new building would be from two existing curb cuts on the Grace property. The access to the Coldwell Banker building would be closed off. The existing parking for the three properties would be reconfigured, but the major parking area would be alongside Route 118. The future ownership of the redeveloped site, including possible cross easements, has yet to be worked out.
No proposed tenants were identified. And although a bank building was mentioned for the vacant parcel, the applicant, Paul Guillaro, said there were no firm plans for this site. (The applicant also built the Caremount building on Hill Boulevard.)
The general purpose of the discussion was for the board to identify potential issues with the plan that the applicant can work out prior to the submission of a formal application. Issues identified by the board included traffic, stormwater and the need for landscaping along Route 118 to screen the cars in the parking lot but leave the building and its signage visible.
In response to a question from the public, Mr. Fon said that once a formal application is submitted and the board reviews it at a few more work sessions, a Public Informational Hearing would be held.
6. Zat Construction, Route 6
The applicant is reviving a plan to subdivide this 18 acre parcel into 3 lots that could each be developed individually, and at separate times depending on the market, for a combination warehouse/office/retail use. One building has access from Navajo Rd; the two other buildings from a single access point on Route 6. The plan dates back to 2005 and, according to the applicant, was close to getting Planning Board approval when the 2008 recession lit. At the time, the Conservation Board had signed off on the plan, including mitigation measures involving the site’s wetlands and the plan was close to getting DEC approval. The plan remains basically unchanged, except that there will have to be some stormwater changes to meet newer regulations.
The applicant advised the board that the DEC had recertified the wetlands delineation about a year ago and that written confirmation will be forthcoming. The board will have to decide is this will be adequate to meet the town’s wetlands’ requirement. (During this discussion, and when the applicant said he would confer with Bruce Barber, the town’s environmental consultant, Councilman Bernard, who attends the meetings as Town Board liaison, indicated that Mr. Barber no longer works for the town.)
Given the time lapse since the initial public hearing, the board decided to hold a new public hearing on the plan on April 3 but will not take any final action on the plan until it receives the DEC wetlands approval.
7. Double Utility Poles/Town Board referral
(See Town Board, 2-28-2017.) The Board overwhelmingly supports the proposed legislation and will send a memo to the Town Board.