continued from page 4

G. Lake: How steep is it back there?

M. Miele: As you get up past up to the first one hundred, two hundred feet past lot #1 and lot #2 it starts to go up probably fifteen to twenty percent as you’re coming through. I mean a cul-de-sac we could bring along the contours a little bit more as we get to that. Again, we’re not here for that now, but

R. Carr: That doesn’t thrill me at all. Lot #1 and Lot #2 I have no problems with.

G. Luenzmann: Let me just get this straight. Over here, lot #3 has got this frontage. Is it right here in the road?

E. Gainen: Showed Mr. Luenzmann.

G. Luenzmann: This looks okay.

E. Gainen: I’m the land surveyor. This road wasn’t actually designed. It is just to show that

G. Luenzmann: You wanted to show us some access to the road out here. I just wondered. The only question I have is lot #3. That might be problematic in not knowing definitely how that contours out. It might mean you might want to take another look at it which might provide better access for that back property. Lot #1 and Lot #2 is fine. Lot #3 is problematic.

M. Miele: The remaining lands.

G. Monaco: At first I had problems with lot #1 and lot #2 but lot #3 is definitely problematic for me right now. You might want to look at another configuration.

E. Gainen: That was just to show that if we were to develop it, it would be something like that.

G. Lake: Anything else, Mr. Monaco?

G. Monaco: No.

T. Hamilton: Just looking at future development and what they’re expecting to do back there. Right now they’re showing like six lots in there. Do we have the soils formula to even show how many they can get?

D. McGoey: I think they do have adequate soils based on what information we have.

T. Hamilton: Enough for six more.

D. McGoey: They show that lot #3 itself can have eleven lots.

G. Lake: You’re here for sketch. I think what the Board is trying to point out is that they are a little concerned that, in good planning we look at everything now, which that’s one reason why at work sessions once in a while we ask this to be done. So, I mean, it’s only here for sketch. You’ve heard the Board’s opinion. We’re not going to take any action tonight anyway. I think they’re just asking you to be a little bit more creative or a little more detail and maybe that would solve the problems of the Board. Maybe it should go back for another work session and then we will take it from there.

M. Miele: Work session, more to work out lot #3?

G. Lake: We’re not going to design it. Yet, at the same time I think the Board is saying what is going to happen up in there with the steep hill in there. How do we get to it? You can road but then, is it going to be a Town road or private road?

M. Miele: Is it possible, all due respect to the Board. I don’t know if it’s possible, do it simultaneously? I know the agendas getting on a work shop.

G. Lake: You’re going to go back to a work session anyway because this is only here for sketch. When you call back up to get on a work session, just schedule it for the whole lot then.

D. McGoey: Show more details and get lot #1 and lot 2 in preliminary form.

T. Hamilton: Dick, right now, lot #1 and lot #2 is actually a separate parcel, right now?

D. McGoey: No.

M. Miele: Lot #1, lot #2 and lot #3 is all one tax lot.

T. Hamilton: Oh, the way you had it blacked out on the site it almost looks like a separate lot.

D. McGoey: Yes, I see.

M. Miele: It’s all one tax lot.

MOTION to TABLE for further review made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by G. Monaco.

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

9. BOWSER ESTATES - 6 LOT SUBDIVISION (SKETCH) - Bowser Road (21-1-62) #016-004

M. Miele: This is the parcel directly across the street from the previous application. It is a proposed six lot subdivision, four of them around the minimum two or two and a half acres with two larger, one about 5.3 and the remaining all the way about six and three quarters. All of that will access Bowser Road and they all meet zoning. The soils worked out okay. Again I am welcoming comments.

P. Owen: Lot #6, the front set back looks like sixty feet.

M. Miele: I think there was a slight error but more of representing an existing building.

P. Owen: Okay.

M. Miele: We weren’t proposing a new house. We’re representing the house that is existing on the lot.

G. Lake: Lot #6 has the existing house, right?

M. Miele: Yes.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board. Anything else Mr. Owen?

P. Owen: Nothing.

R. Carr: No, I don’t really at this time.

G. Luenzmann: Looking at the topographical elevations I see why you did the lots this way. It looks okay to me.

G. Monaco: I don’t see any problems.

T. Hamilton: What are all those buildings on lot #6? What, exactly, is on that?

Mr. Bowser: Garage, home and greenhouses.

G. Lake: Just don’t wander into the black dirt area.

M. Miele: No.

G. Lake: Have you done any test pits on this?

M. Miele: We’ve done a lot of test pits. As the soil maps indicate it’s better as you get closer to Bowser Road which is where we’re keeping our septics. As you move down, the contours are toward the black dirt area.

G. Lake: Dick, another work session on this?

D. McGoey: There is a lot of information needed for it to be in preliminary form on the site grading, the site distances. I guess another work session would be in order.

G. Lake: It was on the June work sessions.

D. McGoey: If you schedule a Public Hearing, can you schedule a work session before?

G. Lake: She said we’re on June work sessions now. So, it would have to be the second meeting of June.

D. McGoey: If you can get him in for a work session before the Public Hearing, then I don’t have a problem.

MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for July 7, 2004 made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by G. Monaco.

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

10. BANTA - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Route 211 East & Tower Drive (41-1-39.3, 39.5 & 39.12) #012-004

S. Kinklemen: I am from Poughkeepsie, New York.

G. Lake: Do you want to tell us what you want to do?

S. Kinklemen: Thank you. The project, we’re here on behalf of Banta Enterprises. The project consists of the re-development of the corner of Tower Drive and Route 211 East. There are four sites that are involved in this application. In process, it consists of one that was the current Super 8 on the corner. Adjacent to that is a Howard Johnson’s and empty restaurant. The third site is the HSBC Bank and the fourth site is in the rear and up on the hill which is currently a vacant parcel. The site, as you know, is challenged. The uses are older businesses that are in need of upgrading. There’s a lot of interesting problems as you can imagine there. As you see on the site where the sites are not connected. There’s a drainage ditch that runs through so is actually between the Super 8 and the Howard Johnson’s. There are a lot of traffic problems in that regard. The site doesn’t meet the standards of modern development. There is a lot of work to be done to make it an attractive, fully functional project and that’s really the goal of what we’re attempting here. The goal again is to create a campus one of inner-active businesses. The plan currently consists of the following. One is to take the Howard Johnson’s and upgrade it and that involves re-skinning the whole building so it has a whole new look to it. One of the processes is involving the re-facing of the Howard Johnson’s Motel and the empty restaurant. Both structures would be refaced. The new restaurant that will be going in there will be a Perkins Family Restaurant. We have some images of a recently constructed one in Newburgh, New York we can show you.

G. Lake: This is what we would be looking at on this?

S. Kinklemen: Yes. One interesting feature of the current Howard Johnson’s is that the entrance is to the rear. We don’t know the logic to that but in this process we’re doing some interior remodeling which will bring a new look to share the front. What we’re trying to do is create a campus where there’s parking that meets the requirements of the ordinance but that’s inner-grated to the difference phases. We have a restaurant business that features a lot of lunches and breakfasts. We have a business a corner. The second restaurant is a pizzeria. We have an image of that also. We are attempting as designers with all the structures to inner-grate the look of it so that we have the look of the individual franchises which is important to them and at the same time we are trying to co-ordinate it to have some continuity of materials and things like that so that the whole thing looks like it’s been combined together. At this point in time the Super 8 is not going to be changed. They’re working on a new skin on that and over the next couple of years there will not be any form changes.

G. Lake: Excuse me, the footprint for Super 8 is going to stay the same?

S. Kinklemen: Yes.

G. Lake: And when they re-skin it, it will stay the same?

S. Kinklemen: Yes. Just as a further point on that, the number of rooms in the Howard Johnson’s won’t change at all. We’re currently submitting an application. We’re just finishing up the structural work but there’s a new indoor swimming pool that was, a new enclosure that was recently installed. There’s going to be a Health Club, Pool and all that. It doesn’t change the footprint. The last part of the project along the highway is the current HSBC Bank. That bank is too small for their needs. They need to operate differently. It is a funky corner anyway. The plans are to build a new bank adjacent to it and then remodel the older facility so that it would become new retail space with in it, that’s currently signed up for that space. The last phase of the project will show you, is for truck parking. Right now it’s right on the corner there which is not very sightly. We’re putting them up in the back. It’s up the hill a little bit but the trucks will be able to get in and out easily and it’s a nice walk from there down as well. What we’re trying to do with the project is to create a campus and one that is comfortable for access. There’s a lot of traffic that will occur with the redesign. All the engineering and such will meet the current standards with sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, signage what you would expect. There are also improvements that we’re going to be able to do for that intersection with proposed new turning lanes. There is land that Banta will be contributing as part of their contribution for that effort. The site plan works with existing conditions as well as a reconfiguration. Some of the parking lots that don’t meet the standards of the ordinance but we’re not moving them. They will stay where they are. They will be all blacktopped and striped, so that won’t change. There is currently parking by the HSBC Bank and that will be improved as well. There’s currently a deed easement that, and is one of the comments from Mr. McGoey, benefits just these three parcels. We’re going to be able to eliminate that easement. In the process there’s a curb cut that’s currently on to Tower Drive that’s real close to the intersection. That’s going to be removed in this process. The curb cut that services the site in front of the Perkins Restaurant is also going to be removed. That will be a benefit as well. The plan is to just do a real nice job here to co-ordinate the uses here and change that intersection.

G. Lake: Let’s just talk a little about that turning lane?

P. Greeley: There’s two turning lanes that are associated with this project. The first turning lane is on Tower Drive getting into the Super 8 and what we’re talking about is widening along the section as your north of Route 211 down to get enough width to have a proper turning lane off of Tower Drive into the site. That’s the first turning lane. The second turning lane is what we would have to co-ordinate with the Town in terms of the intersection at Route 211 on a conceptual basis with a provision of a double left turn off of Route 211 on to Tower Drive. Where we are now with that is, Mr. Collin’s office is serving that section of Tower Drive. We’ve already indicated we’ve talked to the owner about having to dedicate some land on the Super 8 side in order to accommodate. At this point right now we know we have to co-ordinate with the Town to come up with a design and what our portion of that would be. The other thing in terms of traffic, what this plan allows by inner-grating the uses, for example, if I’m at the bank today and I wanted to go to Cosimo’s, I would have to get on to Route 211 heading towards Middletown, go down to the light, make a “U” turn and come back. By inner-grating this it allows better movement so it cuts down on “U” turns. Similarly, the other locations for example, even at the Tower Drive intersection of Route 211, some of the “U” turns would be eliminated by the inter-grating of the uses. The other component in terms of this access point which would be the connection out from what I call the service road on to Route 211 would be, we’re eliminating one way from that intersection and moving it away from Route 211 so there’s more depth to stack vehicles so as you come off of Route 211 on a right turn you don’t have to make a decision immediately. That movement will be given the right-of-way coming off of Route 211 and the other movements would be stopped. That will clean that area up. That’s pretty much where we are. We’re at a point where we’re getting the survey and we will have to put in as to our portion of that improvement at the Route 211 intersection.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board and see if they have any questions.

P. Owen: I don’t have any questions.

R. Carr: Do you have trees right in the middle of the parking lot? I’m just curious.

S. Kindlemen: There were be a protector around it.

R. Carr: I like the idea.

J. Lanc: Discussed this with Mr. Carr.

R. Carr: There are a lot of clusters. I guess my concerns of the project would be the traffic. There was also stormwater and the landscaping. If we can get some green in. It’s such a visible area.

J. Lanc: I will see if I could. At the present there is an entrance right about here. This is being used for parking. There are really no trees here. We’re not really adding that much here. We will be contributing some additional trees but I think this will looker better than before.

R. Carr: I’m not questioning that. I’m not saying that this isn’t a great improvement. If we can improve the traffic situation there it’s a great improvement. I’m just questioning.

G. Luenzmann: A couple of questions. This right hand turning lane that you’re cutting out of the existing property, is that what is going to give you the extra width to create another lane there for a left hand turn?

P. Greeley: The dedication area there that we’re showing has two purposes. One is to give us the width for the land turning into our property and also to help in terms of the widening to accommodate a double left and/or the other changes coming across from North Galleria Drive. It’s a duel purpose to have that strip there.

G. Luenzmann: I think this project overall concludes that intersection with the lane improvements. I, too, agree with Mr. Carr, that it’s very important because you have a chance here to really make it a showcase to make it a corner that stands out. I think you should really pay a lot of intention to the landscaping. I think it’s very important. It also makes everything here work better. What about sidewalks on Tower Drive and also Route 211?

G. Lake: I don’t think Route 211 because I don’t think the State would agree. I think we should have sidewalks on Route 211 because I see people in the road all the time, up and down the road.

G. Luenzmann: This is a start. I think you should consider sidewalks on Route 211.

G. Monaco: It will be a tremendous improvement. Sidewalks I think should be looked at.

S. Kinklemen: I appreciate your comments. The one difficulty that it’s a large project. There is a lot of site work here. We really only adding about ten thousand square feet. Do we really want to address the points of landscaping, which we will. But we ask you to keep that in mind, that it’s not like a huge new development. We’re stuck with where the buildings are located.

T. Hamilton: On the sidewalks, I was reading where the public was questioning why we don’t have sidewalks. We should contact the State and have them review it again, maybe they have changed their minds. There was an article in the paper that said they might look at it again. That’s one item. Let’s look at the lighting levels. The pizzeria, Dick’s comment, I’ve been in the Harriman restaurant and there is no enough room for people who are waiting for seats in the Harriman store. That’s one of Dick’s comments.

G. Lake: Let’s talk about that right now. On all the restaurants in the Town, we have asked for a bigger area outside.

S. Kinklemen: We haven’t colored it out but there is a triangular area in the front of the pizzeria.

G. Lake: I think this is becoming an important issue for us especially with the parking lots and kids outside. Another thing I have is the trucking parking. How will they get up there?Are you talking tractor trailers?

J. Lanc: Yes.

G. Lake: That movement they would make it?

J. Lanc: We have a computer program with the eighteen wheeler, we will have to make a modification here. They will be able to make this entrance.

G. Lake: The other one I have is the little through road that goes out towards the Middletown Motel. Is that going to stay intact?

J. Lanc: We are moving that a little bit. The road portion down here, we’re going to move it away from Route 211.

G. Lake: The parking. Is there going to be a shared parking arrangement where the businesses will rely on one another?

J. Lanc: I’m not sure if I understand the question.

G. Lake: The bank is open until 5 P.M. and the restaurant is open later.

J. Lanc: We have adequate parking right now for each of the businesses. Obviously they can share but they don’t have to.

G. Lake: Dick, do you have anything?

D. McGoey: Maybe they can give us an answer to my comment #2. The property consists of three tax parcels which means you’re going over lot lines and are you going to re-subdivide, are you going to meet your side yard setbacks, buffer zone? How are you going to do that?

Unidentified Person: We’re going for a commercial cluster.

D. McGoey: Are you going to consolidate all the lots or are you still going to have separate parcels?

Unidentified Person: They will be separately deeded.

D. McGoey: Are you going to be changing the lot lines?

J. Lanc: We will look into it. We are aware of it.

D. McGoey: And, it looks like you might need variances for the buffers or are you going to request waivers of those in the cluster agreement?

J. Lanc: We will request that in the cluster agreement.

D. McGoey: The other request they want, is that the existing restaurant the Howard Johnson’s is not functioning. The applicant is wondering if they can go in there and start renovations of the existing space without changing the footprint.

S. Kinklemen: The plan would be, it is an existing space. What we would like to do is bring the restaurant in, get it up and running and do the changes to the facade and also clean up the existing parking lot while we’re going through the process here.

G. Barone: I don’t necessarily have a problem with that provided that you don’t make any claim by doing this work, you’re getting invested rights to an expired or elapsed Special Use Permit. That would be an issue for myself.

G. Lake: The restaurant as you drive by, drags that whole building down. I am for having them go for it. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels.

G. Barone: They would have to come back for a Special Use Permit to do that.

G. Lake: Right.

D. McGoey: It’s been vacant for more than a year. The way it should be done if I were the applicant, is ask for a Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit for the restaurant only to get it going.

P. Owen: I don’t have a problem with the restaurant.

R. Carr: I have no problem.

G. Luenzmann: I don’t have a problem with it.

G. Monaco: Sounds like a good idea.

T. Hamilton: I don’t have a problem with the restaurant, but the parking lot. They should be able to do as far as the existing motel, there’s no reason why they can’t upgrade the parking lot.

MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING (RESTAURANT for Howard Johnson’s) for May 19, 2004 made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by G. Monaco.

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

P. Greeley: On the landscaping and the sidewalk issue along Route 211, we’re in Preliminary discussions with the Department of Transportation. We have a very wide right-of-way here and we just finished a project in Poughkeepsie where we were able to add some landscaping in the Department of Transportation right-of-way. We will have to get into more detail with those discussions. It would dress up the whole corner.

G. Lake: I still think the Board is interested in sidewalks also.

P. Greeley: The second part was about the sidewalks. We might be able to intra-grated the sidewalk into the site closest to the main highway.

P. Owen: And Tower Drive also.

P. Greeley: Tower Drive we will have to deal with the Town.