J. Sweeney: We?re providing what your code requires. If the other unit is occupied to come back here for a Special Use Permit we will have to address any additional parking requirements that you?re going to have at that time.

T. Hamilton: Just the traffic flow between Resnick?s and your proposed use.

C. Pilletteri: Presently this is open between Resnick?s and the Blockbuster parcel. It will be perfectly lined up exactly as it is existing. There will be no change to that. We are adding some green space which is currently asphalt.

D. McGoey: I don?t particularly agree. I looked at it in the field and the fire department looked at it in the field. The access drive in front of Resnick?s comes directly in front of your building straight across. Your green space that you?re providing there is going to block that access to your store. You?re going to have to turn left and then turn right to get out of the parking lot in the back.

C. Pilletteri: This is as it is currently. This is the drive aisle.

D. McGoey: I know it?s a drive aisle but it?s not the main drive aisle across the front of the building. The main drive aisle for Resnick?s is here in front of the building. You?re blocking that with the green space.

C. Pilletteri: We also have a very steep grade.

D. McGoey: Will blacktop do it?

C. Pilletteri: Actually no. There is a small dirt driveway there. It is not really an official driveway connection. This is not currently an open authorized access drive right into our parcel. This is asphalt but it is not striped as an open lane.

D. McGoey: I?m not sure I agree. I know the fire department has a problem with that for access by fire fighting equipment. We?re going to have to resolve that.

C. Pilletteri: I spoke with the fire department regarding the access and I was questioning their concern of why he was so concerned with having to fight a fire that would essentially be on this property and this property at the same time. We do have a very large signalized access drive where any fire vehicle can access the property. That remains a bit of a mystery to me.

G. Lake: I will now open this up to the Public?

W. Cummings: We have just a couple of comments after reviewing the plans. We would ask you to reconsider relocating the ten parking spaces on the side of the building. We didn?t notice them until recently. Historically over the past five years we?ve tried to refrain from putting parking spaces next to large commercial buildings basically as a safety concern in case there is a fire and we have to go up the side of the building and we have cars there. We?ve put ladders up next to buildings and stuff falls on cars. It?s a safety concern. Initially I didn?t think it was a problem because on the Site Plan he identifies proposed additional parking. I was told this evening that the parking is included in the original comments. So we would ask you to relocate those ten spots possibly to the other side just so we can get to the building. There is on the plan a canopy for carts in front next to the siamese connection. Again, historically we?ve found that when canopies and storage of carts are next to the siamese connection it never fails the employees put the carts past the siamese connection and we can?t get to it. So, we would ask you to relocate that addition away to possibly the side of the building. As the Town Engineer said, I?ve still not been able to identify the actual cross lengths here between the two parking areas and that means the thoroughfare that?s used by both pieces of property. Our concern is to keep everything aline for two reasons. Obviously to be able to cross the traffic for motor vehicle accidents and to be able to move fire fighting equipment without making sharp lefts and rights. Obviously a forty three foot long fire apparatus has some difficulty making sharp turns if we have to go back and forth. Another reason is because we have to lay hose, etc. I have spoken to the Town Engineer and we would like to see it aligned properly. The only other comment we had is the fire lane is identified as a five foot wide fire lane. The Town requires a six foot wide fire lane. I?m sure that will be brought up during the construction phase.

MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 8:04 P.M. made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

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: You have additional fire department comments. Also, how about Dick?s comments? Are you going to address them?

J. Sweeney: I will address some of them. I assume you are talking about Dick?s comments of September 8th, is that correct?

D. McGoey: Yes.

J. Sweeney: The first thing I want to talk about is the issue of aligning the drive. If there is a way to do it, we will do it. If not we will try to justify what we think. We will attempt to better accommodate the fire fighting or safety procedures but we think we have alignment but if we believe there is something better we will do it. Let me first talk about what I think is an important one and that is the issue of cross-easements. It?s easily looked at and thought about but it?s not just so easily done. An easement from one property to another and envision yourself and your neighbor and you giving an easement to your neighbor to travel onto your property is problematical to the owner of the property. It reduces his value of the land in some respects and it creates an intrusion on his land. You never know when it is going to fall down the road. You are actually granting to the adjoining owner, it this case, Dr. Lee and I can?t think of the other property owner, you grant him the right to intrude on his property. There is an intrusive affect and the land owner in this case has asked to be compensated by the other owners for that right. There is no real ability to accomplish what Dick is trying to accomplish here on a voluntary basis. The owner of the property, the Rosenberg Family as I said wanted to be compensate for that type of intrusion. Dr. Lee and the other property owner don?t want to do that so, I don?t know what we?re going to do in that respect. It?s something that I?m not sure that any government agency can compel in that circumstance and I don?t want to force it. It seems easy but it?s very difficult. In regard to item #2, I understand the liquor store is being re-built and does it really reflect what?s on the plan now but we can reflect approximately what is being built but to actually go out and detail the meets and bounds would require another survey. I?m not sure that?s what you want and it?s an expense and time consuming. We can do an approximation if that will satisfy Dick?s concerns.

D. McGoey: Get it close.

J. Sweeney: We will get as close as we can. We talked about item #1 and I said that?s the inter-connection between the rest of the property. If we can do it better, we will do it better. In terms of the other items I think they care pretty simple.

C. Pilletteri: Item #3 regarding adding the notes, that?s no problem and we?re going to do that. Item #4 regarding the numbering of the seats, that?s not a problem either. Item #6 is regard to the fire department comments. I was just curious if he could respond if I have to relocate the ten or twelve parking spaces along the building here. That is since we are required to have all the spaces that are shown on the site, that does present us with a hardship. If that?s a code requirement we would be willing to look into that. The parking spaces are five feet away from the building which I believe is okay for fire code. The siamese connection location, we can certainly look into re-locating that if it needs to be further away from the canopy. All these stores, all their carts are under the canopy. If we need to keep an access point open here is necessary we can look into that as well as keeping this open. I don?t know if the Engineer would like this one closed as a result of that. We can look into that further if that?s necessary. Item #7 is regarding the trench detail. We can address that, that?s not a problem and Item #8 is a detail that was previously on the plans that some how disappeared and that will actually be put on the plan. That?s not a big deal.

J. Sweeney: I?m not sure whether or not we we?ve covered all the items. I would love to get out of here with some kind of a conditional approval tonight subject to Dick?s ultimate approval of the issues that he raised which I think we can deal with.

G. Lake: The parking spots, I don?t know if that?s code at this point but I know we strive very hard to keep parking spaces away from stores.

J. Sweeney: There is already a five foot separation there.

G. Lake: We realize that. In the fire service, when you do get cars parking that close it does make it tough especially in confined little spaces. Once that truck pulls up into this driveway, it certainly becomes very confined.

J. Sweeney: If we can do it, we will do it. I?m not sure we can squeeze down, we will try.

G. Lake: As far as the alignment, do you want to look at that again?

D. McGoey: Absolutely.

G. Lake: I guess it is up to the Board if they would like to leave that up to Dick to look at the alignment or if they want to come back.

A. Dulgarian: How many things are we going to have him look at? Ten spaces, the alignment.

J. Sweeney: I can?t do the cross-easements but we can show a potential cross easement area but I can?t give it to you.

D. McGoey: It sounds like the cross easement issue is a matter of the owner wanting the compensation from Lee and the other property owner, not the fact that you can?t do it.

J. Sweeney: I can?t do it legally because I can?t give an easement. I can show it but I can?t legally give an easement.

D. McGoey: We do this on every parking lot in the Town. We?ve done it to every adjoining shopping center. You?re leaving an access between Resnick?s.

J. Sweeney: Dick, I can show you the access but the legal right to move from one property to the other property I can?t give you.

G. Barone: Are you saying that you will put on this plan a right-of-way?

J. Sweeney: No. Right-of-way is a legal term. I can give you a physical access.

G. Barone: Correct but you?re not going to put it in writing or in a reportable form regarding that?

J. Sweeney: I can?t give you that. I can give you the physical access, can I not?

C. Pilletteri: We?re installing a possible access.

J. Sweeney: That, I can do.

G. Barone: But you?re not willing to record an easement. . .

J. Sweeney: It is not in my control.

G. Barone: Then, you?re not going to put on the plan any barrier.

J. Sweeney: No barriers.

C. Pilletteri: No, we are.

J. Sweeney: I?m sorry.

C. Pilletteri: We?re showing it as a possible future connection point if we in fact installed it. That work is going to be another further loss of parking which we can?t afford. We have the additional spaces that we can put in there. It?s just going to take up some of the landscaping that we?re providing now. It?s all subject to agreement by the owners.

J. Sweeney: Carl is saying that we can put the additional spaces in the green space.

T. Hamilton: Dick, I do not ever remember parking spaces that nose in on the long side of the brick building where Rotundo?s Pizza used to be. When did those parking spaces there go in, nosed in with that curb coming around the corner? I don?t ever remember that.

D. McGoey: I don?t think they were.

T. Hamilton: What happened to the fire lane that used to be there?

A. Dulgarian: You?re right.

W. Cummings: Yes, that was a fire lane.

T. Hamilton: They were never there before in the original process. On the side of Rickel?s you have to remember that they had an outside area selling stone, shrubbery. Maybe that made the count lower. I don?t know when it changed because that area was never parking before.

J. Sweeney: Let us see if we can resolve this parking also with Dick. I?m not sure. I don?t know.

A. Dulgarian: Now we?re talking about twenty five spaces.

J. Sweeney: I believe we?re talking ten.

A. Dulgarian: You have twelve here and you have fifteen here.

C. Pilletteri: There are thirteen new spaces proposed.

A. Dulgarian: Correct. And we?re questioning the twelve also, so now we are looking to re-locate twenty five spaces.

C. Pilletteri: We can make up for these in the access drive. These, the only other place on site to provide the parking would be along here, along this side of the building.

D. McGoey: I?m wondering why there aren?t some back here.

J. Sweeney: Let?s look at it.

C. Pilletteri: We could certainly add some parking along here and eliminate this but it?s not going to compensate for that number of parking spaces. There is not enough room.

D. McGoey: Can you design this here?

J. Sweeney: No, you can?t.

D. McGoey: What about specified cart parking?

C. Pilletteri: Carts are all stored within the canopy.

D. McGoey: Okay and there?s room on the sidewalk to walk passed them?

C. Pilletteri: Yes, plenty of room.

J. Sweeney: Do you want to leave the parking in the hands of Dick?

G. Luenzmann: Dick, what?s the impact of the item #5 where the easements are not going to be granted?

D. McGoey: I think what they are telling us is that they will provide the access point and people would be able to use it but there won?t be any legal agreement between the other two parties.

G. Luenzmann: I understand that but are we going to have a problem with that?

D. McGoey: We would only have a problem with it if one of the property owners decided to put a barrier up.

G. Luenzmann: Well, we didn?t allow Mr. Lee to put a fence up, correct?

A. Dulgarian: We made him take it down.

G. Luenzmann: You?re right. There is not a parking lot in this area where they don?t share.

J. Sweeney: I?m not saying they won?t share but what I?m saying is I can?t give you the legal document that says that one is entitled to the other.

G. Luenzmann: I understand.

G. Lake: That?s simply because one person is looking to get paid from the other person.

G. Luenzmann: It seems to me that issue has got to be solved.

T. Hamilton: Dick, when Mr. Lee came in wasn?t that brought up at that time?

D. McGoey: Yes it was.

T. Hamilton: How did he handle it with us then?

D. McGoey: We told him that we didn?t want that fence there and that when something happens to the adjoining lot.

G. Luenzmann: I remember that very specifically. I don?t think we should . . .

J. Sweeney: I?m saying that there will be an open connection but the use of the word easement is a legal term and it?s one guy giving the right to cross the other guy?s property and that?s the problem. We don?t control it.

R. Carr: So, you?re not going to put the curb. You?re going to have a curb opening.

J. Sweeney: We are.

G. Lake: You said before you wouldn?t.

J. Sweeney: We have to relocate those parking spaces. There is no question about it.

C. Pilletteri: It?s shown as proposed here but we?re willing to show it open to the property line.

G. Lake: What do you guys want to do?

A. Dulgarian: Is this entire parking lot going to be re-paved?

C. Pilletteri: It will be re-surfaced. There?s not going to be any re-grading done.

A. Dulgarian: It will have a topcoat?

C. Pilletteri: Yes. The existing parking lot is in a horrendous condition.

A. Dulgarian: That?s my point. Do you know if the existing loading docks are sufficient for this building? I know that it is something we look at with all new buildings. I don?t want anybody loading in the front.

C. Pilletteri: This is a proposed loading dock. This is brand new. These existing loading docks in the back service the empty portion of the building which is not part of this project.

A. Dulgarian: This shaded area is brand new?

C. Pilletteri: Yes. This is a brand new loading dock here.

A. Dulgarian: So that will be adequate for both the grocery and the retail?

C. Pilletteri: Yes.

P. Owen: Nothing here.