Planning Board

April 20, 2020

Zoom meeting with John Kincart, John Savoca, William LaScala, Rich Fon, Robert Garrigan

1. 1961 Commerce Street, Public hearing

The applicant explained the plan.  The drainage improvements for the front of the building have been worked out but more discussions are needed about the sidewalk improvements along Veterans Road. Mr. Tegeder asked the applicant to consider planting some shrubs instead of lawn in front of the building.   A showroom for kitchens will occupy the space fronting on Commerce Street; a tenant for the remaining space was not identified.

There were no public comments. The hearing was closed with a 10 day period for written comments.  In the interim, the Planning Department will work on the approval resolution and the SEQRA neg dec.

2. Atlantic Appliance, Maple Hill Street/Public hearing

The applicant gave a lengthy presentation of the plan, including the stormwater plan and wetland mitigation.  The color scheme of the building and signage are still being worked out with ABACA.  The applicant will need a front yard variance from the Zoning Board. According to the applicant, the only outstanding issue is the required archeological study of the site, although he indicated that he did not expect the review to find anything of significance.

Steve Marino, the applicant’s environmental consultant noted that between 160-182 protected trees would be removed but that about 60 new trees would be planted.  He said that the forested area was not a “high value.”

Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, raised concerns about the lack of a required tree mitigation plan and also the need for the applicant to identify the extent to which the plan disturbed a protected woodland.  Mr. Fon noted that the Tree Conservation Advisory Commission had submitted a memo on the plan but the contents of the memo were not made public. In response to Ms. Siegel’s concerns, he said the board was taking the Tree Law requirements into consideration.

In response to Mark Lieberman’s question how a wetland could be changed and still be called a wetland, Mr. Marino explained that the existing wetland was being cleaned and modified with the result that the functioning of the existing wetland would be improved.

The hearing was adjourned.

3. Nestle, Route 202/public hearing

(See Planning Board 3-9-2020.) The board waived the requirement for a Public Informational Hearing.

Mr. Riina advised the board that a prior Phase I environmental study reported no problems with the site.  He said that the underground drains needed to be cleared.  The applicant prefers not to replace the chain link fence which he said was needed for security purposes with a more attractive looking fence with woven inserts which he said could be easily bent but he appeared willing to take another look at the issue.

The results of a noise study were discussed. According to the consultant, while there would be an increase in the noise from on-site beeping trucks, the consultant said the increase would be minimal and not heard in the winter when windows are closed.  A resident whose house is on Old Crompond Road expressed concern about the noise.  In response to his suggestion that a sound barrier be erected on vacant land between his property and the Nestle site, it was pointed out that the strip of land abutting the rear of the Nestle property was a paper road and there were questions about its ownership, e.g., whether the entire width of the paper road was owned by the town or whether ownership was divided between the abutting property owners.

The board also reviewed the issue of “right turn only” egress from the site and how trucks heading west would deal with the restriction.  The applicant pointed out that most of the delivery trucks would be heading east but said he would provide the board with more information. Tractor trailer trucks would also likely be heading east to I-684.  Also, the traffic light at Lexington Avenue would probably allow for sufficient breaks in the traffic to allow left turns.

In response to a question about whether the site would have on site fueling capabilities, the applicant said that most of the delivery trucks were propone powered. The board indicted that it would look into this issue .

The hearing was closed and with a 10 day written comment period.  The applicant will likely return to a work session to review additional site plan issues.