May 9, 2016
Attending: John Savoca, John Flynn, Rich Fon, Anthony Tripodi
1. Little Sorrentos Restaurant/ Route 202
(See Planning Board, 4-25-2016.) After reviewing a resolution with the applicant, the board voted to approve the resolution. (Note: The discussion about the details of the resolution was not audible to the public.)
2. JCPC Holdings, Front St.
Although shown on the agenda for a “decision statement,” no vote was taken on a resolution as some of the required final plans had either not been submitted or had not yet been reviewed by town staff and advisory boards.
Joe Riina of Site Design Consultants was filling in for Dan Ciarcia, the applicant’s initial engineer. He advised the board that some changes had been made to the plan in response to the town engineer’s comments but that the stormwater plan was still being worked out in addition to a final landscape plan and lighting plan. The applicant expects to appear before ABACA on May 10 to discuss the landscape plan which will impact the residence to the rear of the site.
Steve Marino of Tim Miller Associates presented the latest plan for the off site mitigation, adding that the town engineer and Bruce Barber had not yet seen the plan. Mr. Quinn advised the board that his review of the plan was important because it could result in changes to the site plan. The EAF also needs to be completed.
After Mr. Flynn indicated that given the missing details he was not ready to vote on a resolution, and it became clear that there were not three votes in favor of a resolution (As this was Mr. Tripodi’s first meeting, he was not in a position to vote on the application), Mr. Capellini asked that the decision be put off two weeks until the next board meeting. He repeated his position that the board should consider following past practice and approve applications subject to conditions, adding that, “time often kills a project” and that process was taking precedence over the substance of the project. When Mr. Riina said he wasn’t sure if he would be able to complete the stormwater plan by the next meeting, Mr. Capellini noted that the site plan could always be amended if changes were needed after the board approved the plan.
3. Blumberg Subdivision, Baptist Church Road/Public hearing
(See Planning Board, 3-14-2016.) The board opened and closed the hearing. The only comments were from the applicant’s attorney and engineer. The subdivision was approved.
4. Ianuzzi Resubdivision. Baptist Church Road/Public hearing
The board opened and closed the hearing, leaving open a 10 day written comment period. The town engineer and Bruce Barber are still doing their technical review. Based on a previous discussion, it was agreed that the applicant did not have to do a tree survey.
5. Marathon Development, Kear Street
Listed on the agenda for a decision statement, the item was moved to the work session portion of the meeting. John Savoca recused himself, explaining that he may have a pecuniary interest in the project.
Most of the discussion focused on the stormwater plan and technical disagreements between Mr. Quinn, the town engineer, and Joe Riina of Site Design Consultants. At the heart of the issue was the quantity of pre and post development runoff from the site during certain storm events and the extent of the applicant’s responsibility to reduce run off that existed pre development. While the stormwater plan showed runoff to both to the rear of the former Food Emporium Building and on to Kear Street under certain circumstances, Mr. Capellini argued that that the applicant should not be required to improve what already existed on the site. Mr. Quinn, however, said that it made sense for the post development plan to improve on the existing situation. He also expressed concern about long term maintenance problems associated with the porous pavers used in the rear portion of the site and the possibility of surface run off in the parking lot creating icing problems. It was noted that the stormwater plan was based on “green infrastucture’ practices which differed from “standard” DEC stormwater practices.
The discussion ended leaving the stormwater issue up to the two engineers to work out given the constraints of the site and the possible solutions including additional underground storage and connection to existing catch basins in Kear Street and the drainage system in the rear of the Food Emporium building.
There was also a brief discussion revisiting the parking issue but it was generally agreed that the applicant had previously submitted sufficient information to justify the reduction in the required number of parking spaces.
Mr. Capellini raised the issue of needing a SEQRA negative declaration determination before DEP would begin its review of the application. He suggested that the negative declaration could be made before the board was ready to vote on site plan approval. The board’s attorney had no problem with this approach once it was determined that required steps for making the determination had been followed.
6. Restaurant, 3787 Crompond Road (Stephen Brophy)
Repeating its support for the project, the board said it needed more information about the history of the site and its existing uses before moving forward: a 2 family house, the landscape business, and the used car business. Mr. Riina advised the board that the special permit for the landscape outdoor storage yard had expired but that the business was applying to the ZBa for a new permit.
The fate of the second access to Route 202 was also briefly touched on, as well as the problem of making left turns out of the site, but both issues were left to future site plan discussions once the “history” of the site was clarified, including the types of vehicles used by the landscape business.
Mr. Quinn indicated that he wanted to see the “rest’ of the application, including a survey of property that identified the current uses. Notwithstanding the need for additional information, a public informational meeting will be scheduled.
7. Dumpster Law/Town Board referral
Mr. Fon agreed that regulating dumpsters in order to prevent littering was the right thing to do, but he cautioned Councilman Bernard who was present at the meeting in his capacity as liaison to the Planning Board, that the law would “open the box” when it came to regulating dumpsters on older sites where the site plan did not address the dumpster issue. How detailed a review do you want, he asked Mr. Bernard. Mr. Tegeder suggested that each case would have to be looked at separately and that some might need only a memo and resolution while others might require an amended site plan that could involve parking, environmental and other site plan issues.
Councilman Bernard said that the Town Board had discussed the feasibility of requiring the owner of a shopping center with multiple tenants each having its own dumpster, e.g., Turco’s, to use a compactor instead of dumpsters but decided not to include such a provision in the law. Mr. Tegeder suggested that as part of an amended site plan, the Planning Board might require a compactor and that the property owner would then have to work out lease details with the tenants.
It was noted that proposed law does not have a waiver in terms of the properties that must comply with the law although the law does give the Planning Board discretion to vary the law’s requirements.
The Planning Board has until its next meeting to finalize its comments.
At the conclusion of the agenda, the board went into executive session for ‘advice of counsel.”