MOTION
CARRIED. 7 AYES
MOTION
for SITE PLAN APPROVAL subject to D. McGoey’s comments made
by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES
1. GREEN - 11 LOT SUBDIVISION - Bendlin Lane (32-1-16.1) #107-002
D.
Yanosh: I’m the surveyor for the project. This is a 28.71
acre parcel of land on Bendlin Lane. It’s in the RA zone.
The proposal is for an eleven lot residential subdivision. Lot
#1, the one on the corner at the beginning of the property has
an existing house. We had a work session a couple of months ago.
We hoped to get the surveying and topography done but the snow
storm came so we haven’t had a chance to do the topography.
The survey is completed. This is for sketch plan. We propose a
single road to come in, a cul-de-sac at the end and come back
out again. A nice rural area backed by the railroad tracks. No
more extension to the road because of the railroad tracks.
T.
Hamilton: What about Dick’s comments?
D.
Yanosh: Like I said these are things we have to do as we go along.
So far as soon as the snow gets off we will take care of it. We’ve
taken care of the road angle off of Bendlin. If we can fit that
ninety degree, we think we should be able to. Do you want it to
be straight or. . .
D.
McGoey: The Highway Superintendent could like to have a turn in
the road.
D.
Yanosh: Okay. We will probably make it a little wider.
D.
McGoey: How about the issue with the other side of the tracks?
D.
Yanosh: There is no right-of-way right now. I can do some more
research on it. It is the way it was cut off years ago.
T.
Hamilton: Dick, is there enough information on these for us to
even look at it?
D.
McGoey: Yes. They are not asking for action, just sketch.
D.
Yanosh: Just sketch.
T.
Hamilton: How many lots, what sizes?
D.
Yanosh: We start at 1.48, 1.45, 2.6, up to 3.6 acres. We have
a variety in there. We do meet the two hundred feet. There is
two hundred feet around the curbs. This was in prior to the new
zoning being revised so, we meet all those prior codes in that
respect.
A.
Dulgarian: I see the Federal Wetlands goes around.
D.
Yanosh: We will show it. This is just for sketch.
A.
Dulgarian: Dick’s comment #2 about lot #1.
D.
Yanosh: There’s a house on it right now.
A.
Dulgarian: Is that a lot line there or is that part of this parcel?
D.
Yanosh: All part of this parcel.
A.
Dulgarian: I really have no problem with that.
P.
Owen: I don’t have anything.
R.
Carr: I have a question about the road issue.
D.
Yanosh: What he wants me to do is to straighten it out right here.
G.
Lake: I think he wants the lots bigger.
R.
Carr: Lots bigger.
D.
Yanosh: Let me see if I can give lots #2 and #3 a little bit more
frontage, a little bit more acreage. Lot #4 is pretty big.
G.
Luenzmann: The road. I didn’t catch the comment. Are you
going to straighten that out?
D.
Yanosh: Sure.
G.
Luenzmann: What’s the story on the back piece?
D.
Yanosh: I’m going to check out and see if there’s
a right-of-way. I don’t think we do. I looked at the deed
and there isn’t. I will do some more research with the railroad
to see if there is anything.
G.
Luenzmann: For sketch plan, it looks pretty good. The only thing
some of those lots are a little smaller.
D.
Yanosh: I will see if I can straighten them out a little bit.
G.
Monaco: For sketch, it looks good. See if you can do something
better with lots #2 and #3.
T.
Hamilton: As long as he is going to try and work out the new road
around to the back. The Highway Department has let him know that
he has to make some changes and I’m not sure how we’re
going to work the lighting and the drainage district yet but we
will work on that.
G.
Lake: I agree as far as I think the lots should be a little bigger
and closer to what we’ve been asking for. We have tried
very hard to keep going in that direction.
A.
Dulgarian: What about the road width?
D.
Yanosh: It will be thirty feet.
TABLED
for further review.
2. SAM’S CLUB FUEL CENTER - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT
- North Galleria Drive (78-2-5.12) #116-002
W.
Schneider: I’m with CEI Engineering representing Sam’s
Club this evening.
G.
Lake: Can you give the Board a description of what you would like
to do?
W.
Schneider: This is a sketch plan to show a proposed fuel center
on the existing Sam’s Club site located at the right-in,
right-out on the North Galleria Drive right in the front corner
of that property. You have plans that shows what we have right
now which includes the eight pump dispensers and the kiosk which
is located just behind the pumps. It is an automated facility
so that little kiosk is primarily for a single person to sit in
and to monitor the site if they ever decide to go that way. The
kiosk is pre-manufactured, they bring it in from off-site and
set it there and plug it into the local utilities. The site is
managed by a Sam’s Club employee that will monitor this
site. The fuel truck route is shown on there to show that the
truck can actually get in and out of the site. That was on of
the things that came up in the comments when we had our first
meeting here. On the bigger drawing, the truck actually enters
into the site through the right-in and goes into the existing
truck bay area where the truck loading docks are. What we normally
try to do is keep the truck from going in the front of the main
store and driving directly across in front of it which is why
we didn’t use the other entrance to either try to get out
or try to get in to the site. Obviously if we did some off-peak
hours loading of the fuel that we could take it right in front
of the main store without impeding pedestrian traffic.
A.
Dulgarian: How does the truck come in?
W.
Schneider: The truck comes down North Galleria Drive from Route
211, does the right in and goes into where the existing service
area is where they have the truck loading bay. There is a truck
turning radius in there that accommodates their trucks that back
up into there. That truck can go in there and make a U turn to
circle and exit that and come back out.
A.
Dulgarian: Are you kidding me? If they can’t make a direct
entrance to where these pumps are I don’t think that’s
very good planning.
W.
Schneider: Well, we’re trying to keep as much green space
on the landscape islands. If we cut those back too far we start
losing definition of the aisles. The trucks are designed to off
load fuel from the right side of the truck so we have to keep
the tanks and the truck in that orientation otherwise you could
make the loop around but the truck would be on the wrong side
of the tanks. In order to maintain that, this can be modified
obviously. There’s some room there for the truck to move
around.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board. This is here for sketch. It
is just an idea on their part.
Basically, the number one comment that Dick has on our list, you
know we had another facility. This is my opinion only. We weren’t
very favorable on it. We felt it was just a lot of extra congestion.
I’m not even sure you can afford to give up that many parking
spots. I personally just don’t think it mixes well at this
particular area. I said it when the Orange Plaza people came in.
They wanted to put a gas pumping facility out there. We’re
looking at the same thing here. I can see us going down our strip
with every facility coming in from the Galleria to Home Depot
maybe wanting gas pumps and I just don’t think it’s
good. I don’t think it’s good for this location. I
also don’t think it’s good for the Town. That’s
my only opinion. I will go through the Board and ask them to speak
now.
A.
Dulgarian: I agree one hundred percent. It’s exactly what
you said is what we said when the K-Mart project came in. You
have co-mingling traffic. The most important thing is the precedence
it makes by letting it go. The reason we don’t let them
go is because the parking lot is already configured for retail
sales and the minute you start throwing extra stuff in the parking
lot especially a gas station that generates in and out, in and
out I can see a lot of fender benders and people getting run over.
I think as a Board we opposed it before and I back it one hundred
percent.
G.
Lake: I will just make another comment. The bottom line is this
is going to be wholesale facility.
W.
Schneider: Correct. It will be a member facility.
G.
Lake: I’m not trying to regulate anybody’s business
or deny anybody doing business but surely I can see this being
ten or fifteen cents cheaper than anybody else and then we haven’t
even talked about the added traffic that it would generate.
P.
Owen: I just think we had big problems with the K-Mart proposal.
I think there are a lot more problems with this one because there
is a lot more congestion, a lot more traffic difficulties with
co-mingling and I just can’t really see them coming up with
a viable plan.
R.
Carr: I concur with my other Board members. Co-mingling is a big
problem.
G.
Luenzmann: The problem is that this is designed as an after thought.
When those buildings were put up, a gas station is normally designed
into the overall scheme. There is also the issue with all the
extra traffic and the type of operation that’s going to
cause people to go into a crowded parking lot. There are safety
issues all over the place on this type of thing. Right now, I
see too many problems.
G.
Monaco: I agree. There is such a conflict with traffic flow here.
Having seen other projects that looked real good on paper, I can’t
even imagine this at all.
W.
Schneider: I’m sorry, the navigation part. That’s
just for the fuel truck. Cars can make those turns with no problems.
G.
Monaco: What I was trying to say is it was designed for retail
sales and now you’re going to have retail sales with the
added traffic flow of pumps.
T.
Hamilton: The traffic flow, the getting people in and out. The
problem of the bulk delivery person with leaving that lot and
how does he get back to Route 211which Dick brought out. Also
on the precedent part, I think it would be bad for us to choose
not. When K-Mart came in we had stated that we were not in favor
of that. There was some word that came out we had heard that Wal-Mart
now wanted to do it. We kind of put the stop to both of them and
now coming in here I think we should stick to our guns and say
we’re not looking to mix the gas stations into our shopping
center area down North Galleria Drive. I don’t think we
need it.
G.
Lake: You’ve basically heard the feelings of the Board.
This was here just for sketch. You do have the option of continuing
on and going back to another work session.
W.
Schneider: Can I clarify a few points from my notes?
G.
Lake: Sure.
W.
Schneider: The co-mingling, what are you referring to, I heard
that a couple of times.
A.
Dulgarian: Diesel traffic with retail shopping traffic.
W.
Schneider: You’re talking trucks and cars. That can be accommodated
by timing. They are only open certain hours and not 24/7 so something
along those lines.
A.
Dulgarian: Personally that was one of my issues.
W.
Schneider: I just wanted to clarify what co-mingling was.
A.
Dulgarian: As Mr. Hamilton said, when we were looking at K-Mart,
Wal-Mart was already talking about it and if we approved K-Mart,
they wanted it also. We’re trying to avoid that.
W.
Schneider: The reason we brought it at this time was because this
is an existing facility. All the newer facilities have the gas
station program incorporated into it, including the Wal-Marts.
G.
Lake: And we also said what was going to happen. Wal-Mart will
be coming in next with the same thing.
W.
Schneider: It could very well be. Actually the new Super Wal-Mart
in the plaza where the K-Mart is right now, I don’t think
they will.
G.
Lake: I think you have the feelings of the Board on the sketch.
I don’t think they are happy with the location and things
like that and several other things.
W.
Schneider: Was that ever resolved, your comment #3, the Planning
Board Attorney to advise about the canopy being located within
the front yard closer than the front lot line?
D.
McGoey: We’ve sent them all to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
G.
Barone: It would be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
TABLED
for further review.
3. ASHLEY ESTATES II - 28 LOT SUBDIVISION - Howells Turnpike (6-1-13.21)
#040-002
R.
Steinberg: I’m the owner of the property.
C.
Foti: I am with Fusco Engineering.
G.
Lake: Your hear tonight to for us to be the Lead Agency.
C.
Foti: Basically it’s seventy five acres on Howells Turnpike.
We are proposing approximately thirty eight hundred feet of interior
roads with twenty eight building lots.
G.
Lake: Let me ask you something. How much of that interior road
is done?
R.
Steinberg: We cleared trees and we cleared the entire road to
get in there for septics and well testing.
G.
Lake: What you’ve done and I’ve been out there you
have slapped the Planning Board in the face as far as I’m
concerned because you have not only cleared it, you have made
the road. We’re here tonight to become Lead Agency and I
go out after a couple of calls. We know it is a sensitive area
at this point and I go out to make sure it’s just not a
reaction. You have built almost the whole road. You are ready
to start putting the fill in. I think you have put pipe in a couple
of spots. I was there today again.
C.
Foti: Where it is wet.
G.
Lake: You don’t have approval from the Department of Environmental
Conservation. We don’t know where your wetlands are. We
don’t know what fill you have gotten and that piece of land
that was too steep I believe in the back that we had discussions
with at work sessions. Am I correct?
C.
Foti: There are some steep properties there.
G.
Lake: And do you know where the wetlands are? Did you cross any
wetlands with the road?
R.
Steinberg: Yes.
G.
Lake: Did you have permits to do that?
R.
Steinberg: Well, I spoke to the Building Inspector.
T.
Hamilton: The Building Inspector doesn’t do that.
G.
Lake: Once you’re in the process and I want to apologize
to the Planning Board and the people out there hearing me talk
like this but I will not apologize for this. You have made this
road and this is a road we will now take.
T.
Hamilton: We don’t have to take it where it is though.
G.
Lake: I hope he’s smart enough to know that is not what
I’m saying. Can we have our Attorney state the law on what
he can do wants he starts the process and what he can’t
do.
G.
Barone: He can’t clear and disturb the site as he has. He
shouldn’t have put a road in there without having approval.
We have one case pending now where someone did do site grading
and improvements without approval. You should not be doing anything
in sensitive areas without approvals.
R.
Steinberg: Basically what’s cleared was to allow us to do
all the testing of the wells.
G.
Lake: No. I was out there again today. I was out there a couple
of times. I received calls on this. If you call that clearing
to do septics, I will take you take you out to another project
that we have twenty lots and you can barely see it. I’m
not denying you the fact of going in and doing septics. I’m
not denying you your test pits. What I am saying, you have cleared
that forty feet across.
R.
Steinberg: I’m not denying that.
T.
Hamilton: Well, that’s against the law what you did.
G.
Lake: And way beyond. I think it is a slap in the fact, not only
for the Planning Board but for the residents that you say you
want to be part of Town.
T.
Hamilton: I think Mr. Lake also is we should give the Department
of Environmental Conservation some kind of notice that there has
been disturbances in the areas of the wetlands without them being
notified.
G.
Lake: Do you have any Department of Environmental Conservation
permits at this time?
R.
Steinberg: No.
G.
Lake: And you went across wetlands?
R.
Steinberg: They’re not flagged wetlands.
G.
Lake: They are still wetlands. You might have disturbed slopes
that you wouldn’t have been allowed to do and we’re
here tonight to become Lead Agency to make sure this doesn’t
get done wrong. You’ve done enough in the past. You know
where I stand.
T.
Hamilton: Table it.
G.
Lake: I don’t know if we can table it. Mr. Barone, what
is our legal steps that we must take now?
G.
Barone: Right now, you have to do Lead Agency status. It is up
to them to come back with plans, a scoping statement, etc.
T. Hamilton: Was the Department of Environmental Conservation
notified of the Lead Agency status that there were wetlands?
G.
Barone: They were supposed to have been notified.
G.
Lake: Dick, we’ve had several work shops with this already.
These comments that you have, have you guys addressed any of these
comments yet or your just waiting for the Lead Agency?
C.
Foti: Basically, we’re here for Lead Agency. The agricultural
resources, we had handed in a letter by researching about eight
months ago. About fifteen hundred feet is the nearest agricultural
property. I have no problem including it.
G.
Lake: I think it should be done.
G.
Monaco: What kind of control do we have since they have already
done what they’ve done and we don’t know whether they’ve
actually. . .
G.
Lake: That is what I was going to bring up now. What I would like
Mr. Barone to do to protect the Planning Board is as we’re
setting Lead Agency is also to send out and I will have to get
together with him about what I think has happened out there so
if the Department of Environmental Conservation isn’t aware
of it, they will be and any of the other agencies. I think they
had a right to the process but at the same time I think we need
the extra tap to make sure that we do protect the Town since this
may be a problem for us.
MOTION
for LEAD AGENCY made by T. Hamilton and seconded by G. Monaco.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
T.
Hamilton: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 7 AYES
G.
Lake: Dick, on your other two items.
D.
McGoey: Yes.
G.
Lake: Should we hold off until you can do a field review?
D.
McGoey: Absolutely.
G.
Lake: At this point, I think I want you to get out there. I will
try and accompany you and anybody else on the Board.
D.
McGoey: Okay.
Continue
