April 27, 2020
Attending: John Kincart, John Savoca, William LaScala, Rich Fon, Aaron Bock, Robert Garrigan
1. Faith Bible Church
Withdrawn from agenda as per applicant’s request.
2. Taco Bell/Route 202/Public Informational Hearing
The applicant reviewed the plan. A fire hydrant will be installed with a connection to a water main on Old Crompond Road. After comparing anticipated water usage with the former restaurant usage, the applicant said he had satisfactorily addressed the town engineer’s concern over sewage flows to the Hunterbrook pump station. There were no public comments. The hearing was closed.
3. Correia/East Main Street, Jefferson Valley/Public Informational meeting
The applicant reviewed the plan. One of the two proposed buildings will be used by a contractor to store equipment and vehicles. The board appeared satisfied with a rendering of what the building might look like. Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, asked about the status of the tree permit, including the number of trees to be removed and whether there would be any disturbance to the protected woodland. In response, Mr. Riina said that the tree survey had not yet been done but that when it is available, the information will be sent to the Tree Conservation Advisory Commission. In response to Jay Kopstein’s question whether fire sprinklers would be needed, Mr. Riina said he didn’t think so but would check, adding it might depend on what is stored in the buildings.
The hearing was left open as the required notices were sent out late.
4. Nantucket Sound/ Kear Street/Public Informational Hearing
The applicant reviewed the site plan, landscape plan and architectural rendering. Both the landscaping and architecture will mirror the abutting Caremount building. It appeared that access will be from an existing easement on Kear Street although the status of a portion of the easement was not completely clear. The stormwater plan has been delayed because of corvid-19.The plan provides for 25 parking spaces, meeting code requirements. A tree survey has not been prepared yet. The trees along Route 118 (which are not on the applicant’s property) will be retained.
In response to the board’s comment about adding a sidewalk along Kear St, Mr. Riina explained that there’s a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street from the shopping center to Route 118. In response to the board’s question about providing a sidewalk connection from the apartments to Route 118, Mr. Riina explained that there were grading issues and also a sidewalk connection might require the removing of some of the trees.
Mara Ziedins said that the plan was too massive and out of step with the community. She said that more apartments were not needed.
John Flynn said he liked the apartments and the mixed use plan but thought that the third of an acre site was too small for the project. He also asked a series of questions about setbacks, parking spaces, the size of the plan’s two dumpsters, and traffic flow.
The hearing was adjourned as the notices were sent out late.
5. Nestle Wwater/Route 202
(Ses Planning Board 4-20-2020.)The board continued to discuss both the lighting and noise issues, neither of which appeared to be resolved by the end of the meeting. When Mr. Bock suggested that the approving resolution could include objective standards for both issues and that it would be up to the applicant to meet them, other board members objected to that approach. There were also objections to the board attorney’s suggestion that the approval resolution include a provision for the applicant to return to the board for a review after a fixed period of time, e.g., six months, so that the board could assess whethr thee were any problems or complaints. Mr. Fon said that he felt comfortable relying on the professional expertise of the applicant’s consultants who said that there would not be a lighting or noise problem.
The board appeared to agree on removing a condition that would have prohibited left turns out of the site. The consensus was that the drivers would know how to handle the traffic issue.
The applicant explained that 22 delivery trucks would be fueled by natural gas that will be serviced by a delivery truck. No fuel will be stored on site. The remaining 6 delivery trucks are diesel and will be fueled off site.
The applicant asked that the board begin work on the approving resolution but it appeared that the noise and light issues still needed tweaking.
6. Battery storage law/Town Board referral
There was a consensus that the minimum lot size should be increased to 40,000 sf from 30,000 sf. Mr. Kincart said he preferred not have allow the facilities in residential zones but was okay with the change to 40,000 sf. He added that he was not in favor of the proposed facility on Gomer Court because of its location adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Bock was okay with locating the facilities in residential areas as long as the board could control the screening.
In response to Mr. Kincart’s question about where there are similar facilities, Mr. Tegeder said that there are some upstate being built by utility companies near their sub stations.
Mr. Fon noted that at a seminar about these facilities about two months ago, he was told that the code was “fluid,” adding “that they’re going to happen.”
The board will send a memo to the Town Board suggesting the increase in the minimum lot size and also recommending that in residential zones, the facility could be the only permitted main use.
7. Commercial Water Meters/Town Board referral
While it was agreed that there were no Planning Board issues involved in the proposed legislation, Mr. LaScala took issue with the statement the water superintendent made at a Town Board meeting that there had been no testing of commercial meters for 30 years. Calling the statement a “fabrication,” he said he gets a letter from the Water Department every year about the need to test the water supply in his commercial building and that he even pays the town a $95 fee for the testing. Councilman Lachterman, the Town Board’s liaison to the Planning Board, explained to Mr. LaScala that he was likely confusing the required annual back flow testing with testing the accuracy of the meter that measures the amount of water used by the building.