Planning Board, 4-25-2016
The applicant is requesting a site plan modification allowing for a change in a portion of the curbing to facilitate trucks. The board had no issue with the request and will prepare a resolution for a vote at the next meeting.
Planning Board, 4-11-2016
After the applicant made some changes to the sign plan pursuant to ABACA requests, the board approved the plan.
Planning Board, 3-28-2016
A representative of Signs Ink was before the board to discuss a Master Sign Plan for the site. The applicant will have to go ABACA for plan review, including the individual store signs and a proposed monument sign.
Mr. Tegeder noted that the Master Plan requirement, originally intended for commercial complexes such as the Staples Shopping Center, should probably be tweaked to eliminate any possible confusion that a Master Plan was needed for a smaller shopping area such as the PEG Realty site.
Joint Meeting: Planning Board and Town Board, 4-6-2015
Explaining that he felt the $250,000 bond was a burden on small developers (in this case the owner of the A&S Pork Store), Supervisor Grace told the board he felt that performance bonds should be only if site improvements were external to the site, such as sidewalks. He said the town would never “call” the bond if the property owner didn’t finish work that just involved the owner’s site. Members of the Planning Board and Planning Director Tegeder explained, however, that the bond requirement was needed to assure that stormwater and utility connections done on site but which involve external factors, were satisfactorily completed. They also raised the issue of what might happen if a building was started but never completed. It was agreed that in the future, the amount of the bond requirement, that is determined by the town engineer and is a percentage of overall site development costs, will be broken down into those improvements that involve town concerns and those that don’t.
Planning Board, 12-8-2014
During the regular session, the applicant needs to make a change (steeper) in the grade of the roadway connecting his parking lot with that of the adjacent bowling alley. This is necessary because of an error in the original survey. The drainage remains the same, there will be no change in the number of parking spaces and the area is curbed which will contain cars. The Planning Board approved this change.
During the work session portion of the meeting, there was discussion of the performance bond situation for this project. The Planning Board required a performance bond, the applicant acquired the funds and received his permit to install his building’s foundations while the weather still permitted. However, the Town Board refused his check for the bond. This was the first the applicant knew of this situation. The bond was for stormwater and parking lot work on private property, but which could impact public spaces if done incorrectly. Therefore the Planning Board requires a bond for protection, which is now lacking in this case because the Town Board would not accept the bond. The Planning Board will keep the bonding requirement in its approval resolution, and Mr. Tegeder will draft a letter to the Town Board.
Town Board, 11-25-2014
(See Planning Board, 11-24-2014.)
In an item not on the agenda, the board was given a resolution to accept a check for $231,097 as a performance bond for site work for the Valley Commons commercial development on Hill Boulevard.
Supervisor Grace and Councilman Murphy took strong exception to the proposed resolution on the grounds that it was unfair to keep and tie up someone’s money for infrastructure improvements that were on the applicant’s property and would not be turned over to the town. Supervisor Grace explained the rational for performance bonds and said he would propose a resolution at the next board meeting to change the Planning Board’s policy requirement for performance bonds for commercial projects.
Councilwoman-elect Siegel, who had attended Monday’s Planning Board meeting when the issue was discussed, tried to explain the background that led up to the receipt of the check but the supervisor and councilman were not interested in what had transpired.
Planning Board, 11-24-2014
The issue: Because the applicant’s contractor doesn’t have a track record, he can’t get the performance bond that was a condition of site plan approval several years ago. (The bond is designed to guarantee that infrastructure work in completed and completed satisfactorily and is a requirement in the town code.) Without the bond, the applicant can’t get a building permit to begin construction on the commercial building that he says is 60% leased with the plan for summer occupancy.
Possible solutions: Mr. Tegeder outlined several possible solutions that would allow the applicant to proceed with the infrastructure work that has already been started and, at the same time, allow him to begin work on the building, including eliminating the bond requirement or substituting a letter of credit for the bond (the applicant said he has the $230,000 in cash needed to complete the work). While trying to help the applicant, the board was concerned about setting a precedent that could leave the town with an unfinished bulding. After some back and forth and with the assurance that it was dealing with very special circumstances that would not set a precedent, the board decided in a 3-1 vote, with Mr. Savoca voting no, to allow the applicant to get a more limited “foundation permit” as opposed to a full building permit so that the foundation could be put in before the weather turned and at the same time, the applicant was given 30 days to obtain a letter of credit.
Planning Board, 11-18-2013
The board approved a one year extension on the approval of an 11,600 SF commercial building
Planning Board, 12-3-2012