September 9, 2013
Attending: John Savoca, John Kincart, Richard Fon, Darlene Rivera, John Flynn (for work session only)
1. Hilltop Associates
The Board approved a second 90 day extension while the developer submits a new plan based on the two building lots to the DEP.
The Board approved the site plan. The county commercial zone requires that ABACA review the architectural details and report back to the Planning Board. The applicant will also need a variance from the ZBA if he plans to erect a sign.
3. Savannah’s Restaurant/Public hearing
The hearing, at which no one from the public spoke and there were no questions from the Board, was adjourned due to a problem with the hearing notices. The only change to the previously submitted plan is the need to erect an outside staircase for the building’s second floor.
4. Lake Osceola Square/Public Informational Hearing
A neighboring resident on East Main Street expressed concern over traffic, drainage to the lake, sewers, whether the existing bar on the site, which she described as an “eyesore” would remain, and whether access to the beach would be for anyone or just town residents. In response, the developer’s attorney, Al Capellini, said the issues would be addressed in future submissions.
The applicant will need a variance because of the shape of the building doesn’t conform to side yard setback requirements.
The hearing was closed.
5. Nelson residence/conservation easement
(See Planning Board, 8-12-2013) Based on an oral report from Mr. Barber, the Board appeared to have no problem altering the line of the conservation easement to reflect the current location of the stream. What remained at issue was the extent to which the owners could extend their backyard into the buffer area and remove invasive species and erect a fence while still complying with the intent of the original conservation easement. The Board will do a site visit in order to give the homeowner some guidance as to what it might consider acceptable to help them decide whether it is worth their while to proceed with the project. In the meantime, Mr. Tegeder advised Mr. Barber to submit a written report so that the reasons for the change in the location of the conservation easement can be documented for the future.
6. Staples Plaza
Two changes to the approved amended plan were discussed.
There will be a slight change (for the better) in the pedestrian crossing at the entrance to the site based on the DOT’s final determination of the area it will be taking as part of the Route 202 road widening project.
The applicant also wanted to relocate some of the site’s trash enclosures but the Board was concerned that one, in the vicinity of the Dunkin Donuts, was too close to the abutting property owner. The applicant will make some modifications to the plan.
7. Crompond Crossing
Because some of the buildings ended up using modular construction as opposed to stick built construction, the original site plan is “off” by a few inches for some of the buildings necessitating an amended site plan.
In a related discussion, the applicant advised the Board that he is still seeking a tenant for the planned second commercial structure.
8. Creative Living/Navajo Fields
Mr. Tegeder reported that based on a site visit made earlier that day, the applicant has made significant progress resolving the most important unfinished site issues but that there is still some work to be done.
It was clear that the Board would not address the “dome” site plan application until all the issues related to the February, 2012 Town Board issued wetlands permit have been satisfactorily addressed. The applicant also stated that DEC has yet to sign off on the earlier wetlands issue and, like the Planning Board, will not consider the dome application until the former issue is closed out.
Two major issues that remain unresolved are the mitigation plan required by the February permit and the location of a fire emergency access road to the second greenhouse at the rear of the second ballfield. The applicant also needs to submit a lighting plan.
By the time the applicant submitted the mitigation plan, it became apparent that there were portions of the plan that are in conflict with the separate “dome” site plan submission. These differences need to be resolved in what Mr. Barber explained was likely to be the need for a new third mitigation plan.
As currently planned, the access road crosses the second field, entering the ring road at roughly home plate and crossing the field across the pitcher’s mound and into center field, close to the location of the second greenhouse. That location meets fire code requirements.
The applicant advised the Board that in a conversation earlier that day with the building inspector, Mr. Winter said that a better location for the road would be to continue the “ring road” concept that currently exists as a wood chip path up to the greenhouse location. According to the applicant, this would require the applicant to convert the existing path into one with a stable base. He wasn’t sure the applicant would want to incur this additional cost and also whether the DEC would approve the change, setting up an issue of fire safety vs incursion into a wetland buffer.
In response to questions from Mr. Fon, it was explained that the extension of the ring road was only needed if the applicant continued to use the second greenhouse (another greenhouse exists between the first and second fields and has adequate fire truck access). The applicant then said that the greenhouse would not be needed when the dome was constructed. Mr. Tegeder noted that the ring road eliminated the possibility of a fire truck having to cross a ‘mushy” field and that it avoided the backstop issue at home plate. Mr. Kincart said that while he favored the road thru the field, the issue boiled down to compliance was preference. The issue was left unresolved pending DEC review.
Mr. Fon suggested that while the applicant is finishing off the wetlands permit issues, he might want to simultaneously begin discussions with the building department regarding the done and toilet facilities.
The applicant also said that it was possible to get the dome up this winter and “salvage” a portion of the season.
When Mr. Capellini raised the issue of the Board approving a negative SEQRA declaration (for the dome application), there was no comment from the Board.
9. Fieldstone Manor
Mr. Riina asked that a public hearing be scheduled and Mr. Tegeder advised him that a few more details were needed first regarding mitigation, screening, and the status of the fire tower. If these issues are addressed within the next two weeks, the Board can vote to advertise a public hearing at the September 23 meeting.
Mr. Fon advised the Board that he has heard that area residents are likely to raise traffic issues at subsequent meetings.
On a referral from the Town Board, the Board reviewed a site plan showing changes to the existing parking lot and changes to the front and rear of the building.
The applicant said he planned to make a presentation at the September 24 Town Board work session that would include a video that will show the changes.
The plan calls for the addition of about 80 new landscaped islands throughout the parking lot and some recontouring and new landscaping of the berm along Route 6. (The status of the existing white pine trees was not clear.) Additional drainage retention will be incorporated into some of the islands and changes will be made for ADA compliance.
A traffic analysis has determined that the 20,000 square feet of additional gross leasable area will not have any impact on existing traffic patterns and that the findings of a 2004 traffic study are still valid.
In response to a question from Mr. Flynn, the applicant said that the feasibility of a green roof had been explored but was not practical.
The Board anticipates that it will have additional plans to review at its September 23 meeting.
Al Capellini, the applicant’s attorney, said he was hoping for a November public hearing on the amended site plan application.
11. Spirelli Electric/ East Main Street, Shrub Oak
On a referral from the Building Department, the Board reviewed a site plan for an addition the residential second floor of the building that has a commercial use on the first floor and seven existing parking spaces. Other than the residential addition, which would not change the footprint of the building, there are no site changes. However, this came to the Board because there was no existing site plan on file.
The Board had no problems with the addition but asked the architect if his client could incorporate some landscaping in the front of the property along East Main Street.
While current owners operate the business and live upstairs, it was noted that if the use changed and the second floor was converted to commercial use (the property is in a C-2 zone), an amended site plan would be required.
The Planning Board will address the issue with a resolution at its September 23 meeting; a public hearing will not be needed.
12. Taps Express/Edgewater Street
On a referral from the Building Department, the Board reviewed a site plan that would renovate the existing building, converting what appears to be a double garage into a barn-like structure. The building is used for warehouse purposes and the upper level of the barn would be for attic storage. There is no existing site plan on file for the site.
The Board had no problems with the building, which it felt was a definite improvment, but asked the architect to speak to his client about doing some landscaping along the front of the parcel which is located near the Solaris parking lot and just before the Junior lake pool complex.