R. Steinberg: I don’t think so. It’s pretty much.

G. Lake: I was just checking.

1. PRASSOS - 4 LOT SUBDIVISION - Pine Grove Road (6-1-53, 54) #094-002

C. Foti: We’re proposing, we have two lots on an approved subdivision on Howells Turnpike or an extension of Howells Turnpike. They are proposing to subdivide into four building lots basically for family members.

G. Lake: It’s two lots now and you want to go to four lots?

C. Foti: Right. It’s an existing two lots on a filed map #6764. One lot is 11.28 acres, one is 12.14 and we want to subdivide these two lots into four lots fronting on to Pine Grove Road which is basically an extension of Howells Turnpike.

G. Lake: When did you make this application?

C. Foti: This came in last year on October 8, 2002.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: I know it’s sketch but there are no dimensions. I know the reason I’m saying this is because they are such long and narrow lots and with the soils that you fall in. We’re taking as part of the soils formula way in the back and that shouldn’t be. It should be just the soils where the septic will be.

D. McGoey: To determine the number of lots, you take the whole parcel.

A. Dulgarian: What happens if the whole front of that is a soil that doesn’t percolate property?

D. McGoey: They can move the septic.

A. Dulgarian: My only other thing is like we said about the two hundred foot lots. This may be a little ambitious.

G. Lake: This is for strictly family members, is that what you are telling us?

Mr. Prassos: Yes.

P. Owen: Other than Mr. Dulgarian’s comments, just a suggestion about possibly staggering the homes where they are if at all possible.

R. Carr: I have nothing else to add.

G. Luenzmann: I was just picking up on what was said. They seem like long lots. Is that what you were thinking about Dick when you were suggesting the two hundred foot lot width?

D. McGoey: No. The lot width is something that the Board has undertaken since the recommendation for the zoning changes.

G. Lake: At the same time, this was in when it was allowed to be one hundred fifty feet.

G. Monaco: Nothing further.
T. Hamilton: Just a question. Dick, the original when it was a two lot we didn’t have it noted about no further subdivision on it, did we?

D. McGoey: You know, I had thought about that. I don’t believe it was on there.

C. Foti: No.

D. McGoey: It’s something that we would have asked for.

T. Hamilton: We would have done that.

D. McGoey: Because it exceeds the lot width to depth ratio area.

T. Hamilton: What about how many times it was subdivided? Have you researched to see when it was last subdivided?

C. Foti: It was subdivided in 1984.

G. Lake: Besides, he will need a Public Hearing any way because it’s four lots.

D. McGoey: He’s not ready for that at this time.

G. Lake: I’m just saying.

T. Hamilton: I don’t know. I can see maybe three.

G. Lake: Dick, the Highway Superintendent, is he looking to make two driveways into one on the property line do you think?

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Lake: It’s something we done away from over the years.

D. McGoey: Well, we’ve done it on a number of subdivisions.

T. Hamilton: As long as each one has enough width in the event there is a problem.

TABLED for further review.
2. ORANGE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT Route 211 East/Dunning Road (50-2-5) #003-003

C. Bazydlo: I’m an Attorney with Cuddy & Feder & Worby over in Fishkill. We’re outside counsel for Middletown Resources, the owners of Orange Plaza. What we’re here to discuss tonight is, we have a proposed modification to our existing Site Plan and Special Use Permit. With me tonight is Gerard Fitamant, who is the Design Engineer from Langan Engineering. Basically the proposal centers around two modifications to the existing site. As I am sure the members of the Board knows, K-Mart has stated they are going to close. They will be giving up their lease on this property. The first part of our Site Plan Modification deals with the re-division of the K-Mart space into a series of smaller retail facilities. The second major part of the Site Plan Modification is the previously approved Site Plan had what was called a retail “H” facility over in the corner.

G. Lake: Point that out please so that everybody sees exactly where you’re talking about.

C. Bazydlo: It is right down over here. This was a thirty thousand square foot retail space that was approved on the Site Plan and it was not built. The change we are proposing here is to not build that thirty thousand square foot retail “H” but rather build a series of pad restaurants in that same general area down there. There are some other modifications to the roadway in the back as it goes in back of K-Mart and some additional spaces in the back.

G. Lake: Let’s talk about first the road.

G. Fitamant: I am with Langan Engineering. I have a response letter to Dick’s comments I would like to distribute to the Board members so you can follow along with any of the responses that I have.

G. Lake: Are you going to re-configure back here some how?

G. Fitamant: Yes. We’re going to close that off.

G. Lake: Was there a separate letter on that?

G. Fitamant: Yes.

G. Lake: I don’t know if you prepared it or if it came from Dick.

G. Fitamant: We had prepared a letter that showed a modification to the back of that store. Our proposal is to curb all along this curve.

G. Lake: I think that was what was sent.

C. Bazydlo: That was an existing condition we kept but we still need to make that improvement.

G. Lake: Why don’t we separate it again like the last time. Let’s do the K-Mart part first. Let’s get through that and then we will move into the back with the three pads.

C. Bazydlo: What we are proposing in essence keep the existing K-Mart footprint and internally provide subdivisions with partition walls to break it down into five, six, or seven retail stores. We will keep the existing auto service center with the exception that the garden center portion we will be covering that.

G. Lake: You will be enclosing that. Some of these spaces are broken up to the configuration because maybe you have tenants for these spots.

C. Bazydlo: Though we can’t name who the tenants are, we have potential leases going with them so they’re sized according to the tenant.

G. Lake: They are sized so they do have people coming in.

C. Bazydlo: One thing I want to point out to the Board because we’re in a situation where we have an existing building footprint and we’re re-devising interior walls on it. We end up with some what I will call dead spaces in the middle of that. We’re labeling that as de-commissioned space. It’s not going to be storage. It’s not going to be warehouse space. It’s just as an empty space. It’s not meant for storage and it’s not meant for retail.

G. Lake: You’re total retail area isn’t going to change.

C. Bazydlo: In talking about just the K-Mart piece itself I think you actually end up with a slight decrease. The decrease is probably about ten thousand square feet.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board this section.

A. Dulgarian: These are all going to be rentals. You’re not selling anything?
C. Bazydlo: No. They’re all rentals.

A. Dulgarian: I don’t have anything at this point on that section.

P. Owen: Nothing right now.

R. Carr: Other than Dick’s comments about the loading, I have no problem.

G. Luenzmann: I am glad that something is going to be done about something that could have been an eyesore with a vacant space. Basically you say you have those pretty much leased out?

C. Bazydlo: Potentially, yes.

G. Luenzmann: What about the loading docks?

C. Bazydlo: That is two loading areas.

G. Luenzmann: One of the problems that we always had with K-Mart, they never had sufficient loading for that big space. Are you going to take care of that so that we don’t have that problem again? They had stuff stacked outside.

G. Fitamant: The types of retail that we would anticipate would go into this space is not the same as the K-Mart operation was.

G. Luenzmann: Just be aware that we always had that problem.

G. Lake: I think the Board is focused with an uphill battle trying to get the back cleaned up so, I think what we’re asking now is to make sure there is enough storage inside.

G. Fitamant: We’ve actually added an additional spot.

G. Lake: We just don’t want all the boxes or the crates left outside. I think we already talked about it in the work session. I’m sure it’s something that the Board is going to be looking at. We want to make the back look as nice as the front.

G. Luenzmann: And, that’s really true because if you have these three pads back here, you’re going to have to aesthetically nice looking all around. You’re just not going to be able a back area look like a loading area.

G. Monaco: You’re saying that the proposed tenants are not going to be industrial or something of that nature?

C. Bazydlo: I believe that we could say that they’re not going to be a high volume retail type of establishment like a K-Mart operation is.

G. Monaco: You’re fairly certain?

C. Bazydlo: Yes.

G. Lake: Please show the Board the drawing.

G. Fitamant: That is the front view and this is the side view which you won’t be looking at a fence or a garden center anymore.

A. Dulgarian: What about that little space in between?

G. Fitamant: It will be similar to what you have in front between the Kohl’s and Wal-Mart with the loading.

A. Dulgarian: Is that going to be for a loading area?

G. Fitamant: Yes. The service center will be dressed up also.

G. Lake: We will move to the back portion of the Site to the three pads.

G. Fitamant: At the present moment there’s a parking lot here that’s being used for an expansion area for the on-going construction at the Orange Plaza. We have three proposed restaurants with a parking field that will be shared by all three restaurants. On the side here is the Applebee’s and Chucke Cheese. We propose a total of fourteen thousand square feet from the original thirty thousand square feet. The flow of the trucks would be from entering here. We have a fifty foot radius curve here for the deliveries backing into either one of these spots and restaurant “C” has it’s own dedicated area. We understand Dick’s concerns with truck movements and we’ve provided an exhibit to show you.

G. Lake: Let’s go through the Board. I think there are comments that the Board will want to get across here.

A. Dulgarian: We have a pretty good opportunity here. We’ve had conversations amongst ourselves as Board Members that if I ever had the chance to re-design where we allowed Applebee’s and Chucke Cheese going in we would do it. The way it looks on paper and the way it turns out were for me different. I’m really not pleased with the layout there. We can’t go back and change it. I have no problem with restaurant “A” or restaurant “B” but restaurant “C”again it could pass on paper but it’s right at a place where there’s going to be a lot of traffic. If you keep all the restaurants the same and the traffic that was going to the restaurants was just to the restaurants I think it would be better. I’m not a designer or anything like that but to me if they would do something like that it would be a lot better. Also just while I’m on the subject this area is being used for snow storage and stuff like that in the winter. If we build back there I want to know where the snow storage is going to go. You guys have done a good job with that and not like the Galleria which is a terrible mess with the snow. A year or two from now if these are built where is your snow storage going to go? I think we’ve created a traffic situation where we’re putting pedestrians in spots where people could get hurt and such. If I ever had to do it again I would have any free standing buildings close to the lot line. I wouldn’t have them anywhere where the roads were. The traffic flow where Applebee’s and Chucke Cheese is at right now is ferocious. It’s because of us and I believe we have to learn from our mistakes and I have a problem with restaurant “C” being so close to the main thoroughfare. This is basically a ring road around the mall and I think they should be a little bit setback closer to the lot line.

C. Bazydlo: You would prefer this restaurant to be put further back.

A. Dulgarian: I’m just one person but. . .

G. Lake: I think he is really speaking out. We do talk about these once in a while and I know I have to agree with him about the traffic flow around those two restaurants are pretty tough.

C. Bazydlo: Basically the idea is to try to move it away from this intersection of the ring road.

P. Owen: I really do like Mr. Dulgarian’s suggestion moving it back.

R. Carr: I agree with Mr. Dulgarian about moving pad “C” back. You have the traffic coming in from another parking area here. As Mr. Cummings had mentioned earlier it makes more sense to make this road into a “T” where this would just be a. . . It made a lot of sense and you wouldn’t have this road coming out into a another parking area.
G. Fitamant: We had thrown that around as well but the thought was that it would just continue. You almost have that situation there today. It becomes more confusing than just having it closed off and having it somewhat isolated from the main traffic.

G. Lake: Maybe you will be able to do something. They know our concerns.

G. Luenzmann: The biggest problem I have with this whole back side is traffic. Just to give you an example I spend half my life at Home Depot and I wound up in the Chucke Cheese parking lot inadvertently and I thought I was looking at the Route 211 traffic right here at Orange Plaza Lane. I couldn’t get out. This is an opportunity to correct this huge traffic jam that we get on Dunning Farm Road. It gets crazy sometimes.

MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for April 2, 2003 made by G. Monaco and seconded by R. Carr.

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

3. TOWER RIDGE APARTMENTS - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Tower/Leewood Drives (40-1-64, 66, 47.4) #030-097

Recording tape became defective. Unable to transcribe.

MOTION for Planning Board to become LEAD AGENCY made by P. Owen and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

4. WARWICK SAVINGS BANK - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - Tower/Industrial Drives (41-1-26.421) #114-002

T. Haines: I am with Tectonic Engineering.

G. Lake: Please tell us what you wish to do.

T. Haines: We wish to subdivide the lot that the Warwick Savings Bank is sitting on now into two lots. The second lot we’re not proposing to develop right at this time. It’s simply going to be sold off. We will need a variance for the landscape buffer on the side yard but we meet all the other requirements.

G. Lake: Do you have Dick’s comments?

T. Haines: Yes I do.

G. Lake: Do you have any problems with them?

T. Haines: Well, since we’re not planning on developing that . . .

G. Lake: You still have to show that you can though.
T. Haines: Okay.

D. McGoey: This is here for sketch plan.

T. Haines: I did parking requirements for office space. I came up with forty nine spaces required for the lot that the bank sits on now. We do have one hundred five parking space there.

G. Lake: I think what you have to do is on the new lot that you want you have to show us a basic footprint of the maximum square footage that will fit along with the parking. I think that’s what we’re looking for, right Dick?

D. McGoey: That is correct.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: Nothing at this time.

P. Owen: Nothing at this time.

R. Carr: Nothing.

G. Luenzmann: Nothing.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

G. Lake: Dick, are you going to need another work session to get squared away?

D. McGoey: Yes but I think they need a denial to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

G. Lake: Can we do that now?

D. McGoey: Yes.

MOTION for approval of TWO LOT SUBDIVISION made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.

A. Dulgarian: Nay
P. Owen: Nay

R. Carr: Nay

G. Monaco: Nay

G. Luenzmann: Nay

G. Lake: Nay

MOTION DENIED. 6 NAYS. Applicant to seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Continue