1821 East Main Street (Route 6 at Lakeland Ave.)
(As of 2015, see also abutting property, Envirogreen Associates)
Town Board, 10-3-2017
Acknowledging that he had erred when he said the July hearing had been closed, Supervisor Grace reconvened the hearing. There were no public comments. The board took a “consensus” vote in support of the rezoning but postponed a binding vote until the approving resolution and related documents were drafted.
Town Board, 9-26-2017
In an item not on the agenda, the board realized that it had not issued a decision statement on the proposed rezoning after the July public hearing. Mr. Tegeder was directed to draft an approving resolution for approval at a future meeting.
Planning Board, 8-16-2017
Without any discussion, the board approved the first 1-year extension
Town Board, 7-18-2017
Supervisor Grace opened the hearings. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Tegeder explained the reason for the rezoning and the proposed connection to the adjoining property. After stating that he had some concerns over the application, the board voted to adjourn the hearing.
Town Board, 6-13-2017
Pursuant to discussions at the Planning Board, the board scheduled a public hearing on July 18 for rezoning the property from the “O” office zone to country commercial to accommodate the mixed use. While the applicant advised the board that the neighbors were supportive of his project, Councilman Bernard anticipated opposition to the rezoning from the neighbors who opposed the RPG rezoning on Lexington Ave.
As a side issue, the board was advised that the Cipriano property next door that has been in discussion with the DEC will be on the next Planning Board agenda.
Planning Board, 5-8-2017
Mr. Mallon presented a revised plan that addressed the board’s previous concerns. Now that there is general agreement on the concept plan, Mr. Mallon has to go before the Town Board and request permission for a Zone change to C2R.
Planning Board, 3-13-2017
Mr. Mallon returned with a site plan and renderings of his proposed new building. The focus of the discussion was whether the building should be moved slightly to make for a wider pathway between the existing building and the new one. The pathway will also provide access to the abutting vacant parcel (Envirogreen proposal) that is currently awaiting DEC wetlands approval. Mr. Mallon indicated his willingness to do whatever the board wanted.
The board ultimately decided that the wider pathway (20-24’ wide) was preferred, but that fog lines should be painted to define the path which would have the effect of deterring speeding.
Mr. Mallon agreed to keep the connection to the abutting development on a trial basis as long as it didn’t hurt his clients, adding that the pathway could actually be an enhancement. The board decided that formal cross easements between the two parcels would not be needed as long as there was an informal agreement between the two owners.
Mr. Mallon was advised to meet with Mr. Tegeder and the town engineer to work out additional details before returning to the board.
Planning Board, 10-17-2016
Mr. Mallon showed the board a concept plan for a revised site plan for a 3,000 sq. ft. office building that would include a single apartment on the top floor. He said the design would be more compatible with the single family homes along Lakeland Street than his earlier plan and that in conversations with the homeowners, they all supported his new plan. As part of the plan, he will consider a driveway connection to the abutting property. The Planning Board was supportive of the concept and gave Mr. Mallon the okay to proceed to develop more detailed plans. If he pursues the apartment idea, he might need approval from the Town Board.
Planning Board, 8-8-2016
Removed from the agenda. No reason was given.
Planning Board, 7-11-2016
Calling his appearance at the previous meeting a “debacle,” Mr. Mallon said that his architect and engineer had met with Mr. Tegeder to review any future plan. In the meantime, the board voted 5-0 to reapprove the earlier plan.
Planning Board, 6-27-2016
Mr. Mallon advised the board that he is seeking a change in his approved plan. Instead of the barn (it wasn’t clear if the existing barn had already been demolished), he wants to construct a mixed retail/office building on the same footprint but change the orientation of the building so that it faces the other residential properties on Lakeland Street and looks like a residence. He said the new building would be the same square footage as was previously approved.
The Planning Board advised him that he needs to return with more detailed drawings of his revised plan, including changes, if any, in square footage, bulk requirements and parking requirements and that he will likely need an amended site plan.
Planning Board, 8-10-2015
The board approved a second one-year extension. On behalf of the applicant, attorney Al Capellini said that the project’s original bond was still valid but that the applicant wasn’t sure if the original DOT was still valid. In response Mr. Tegeder said that regardless of the status of the DOT permit, the site plan required the curb cuts. However, if the DOT wants to modify the plan before issuing a new permit, it can, and the town would have to change the site plan approving resolution. There was no discussion about the joint access with the proposed Envirogreen project.
Planning Board, 7-13-2015
(See Envirogreen Associates.) On the agenda for a one year extension, the board voted 3-2 to table any action until its August meeting and clarification on the proposed connection to the abutting Envirogreen proposal.
Due to economic conditions, the property owner has not demolished the barn and constructed a new building in its place. Also, some curb cuts, required as part of the original site plan approval, have not been done. The major outstanding issue is the owner’s willingness to work with Envirogreen on the shared ingress/egress even though the plan for the abutting property is much different (and larger) than the original plan he agreed to. The owner’s concerns include the wear and tear and maintenance of the shared ingress/egress, issues that need to be worked out in an easement agreement. According to Mr. Tegeder, while the owner appeared opposed to the shared arrangement at a June discussion on the Envirogreen application, in a subsequent discussion, he appeared more willing to work with the neighboring property. The board strongly favors the joint ingress/egress plan for safety reasons. A second issue is whether the applicant’s original DOT permit is still valid.
Planning Board, 6-9-2014
The board retroactively reapproved the earlier site plan and granted a one year extension. Attorney Al Capellini advised the board that the applicant will be returning at a future date to discuss changes in the original ingress and egress plan that was linked to the redevelopment of an adjoining site.
Planning Board, 6/11/2012
Mr. Mallon advised the board that because of lack of funds or a prospective tenant, he is not ready to proceed with either demolishing the old barn and replacing it with a new structure, or completing the second story of the building and, as a consequence, is requesting 2 one-year extensions of his approved site plan and the release of his performance bond.
Mr. Flynn advised Mr. Mallon that even though the demolition permit for the barn had expired, he still needed to request that the Building Department “close out” the permit before the Planning Department could consider the bond release. The Department will review what site work has been done and recommend either a reduction or total release of the bond. The delayed second story plans did not affect the bond. The board approved the requested extensions.
Planning Board, 1/9/2012
During Courtesy of the Floor, he property owner, Mr. Mallon (sp?) asked the board to consider a modification of his approved site plan relating to the materials used to construct the required garbage enclosure. He wants to substitute “barn-like” material for the approved stucco finish in order to “make it look better” and be more functional. Mr. Tegeder said that while the original requirement called for stronger materials that could withstand being “beaten up,” he saw no problem with the change. Instead of approving the change via resolution which would have postponed a decision, the board agreed to approve the change by having the Planning Department do a memo which would require the owner to maintain the enclosure in good order and which would be binding on future owners of the site.
(See 2008-2009 development summaries for discussions relating to original site plan approval.)