.A Dulgarian: Can you show me the extent of where
the sidewalks are on this site plan?
L.
Potter: They’re on either one or both sides.
A.
Dulgarian: What about the entrance road at Cottage?
L.
Potter: There are no sidewalks.
.A
Dulgarian: I would like to see them. I had problems without having
them on an eight lot. We have two hundred eighty three lots here.
I would like to see them along Cottage Street.
G.
Lake: I think the one big problem here is the tunnel down there
and to encourage people to walk through that tunnel.
A.
Dulgarian: What about the other end of Cottage Street?
G.
Lake: That runs into Middletown.
A.
Dulgarian: Where does MKA come into this across the street?
G.
Lake: To the left of it. I would say once MKA comes along and
if that ever happens and they do that connection then I would
argue different. We are also talking about interior sidewalks.
A.
Dulgarian: But nothing out to the main road.
G.
Lake: It would make a big difference if it weren’t fifty
five and above. The majority of those people are walking.
P.
Owen: The sidewalks are here. What is on the other side?
G.
Lake: There are a few houses over there.
P.
Owen: The only thing I’m concerned about this project is
the size.
G.
Lake: It’s up to you. I can call the vote.
P. Owen: I would want to take a look at it.
L.
Wolinsky: Is there a plan that’s been done, a Master Plan
for sidewalks? I would think that whatever determination would
await that somehow at some point.
P.
Owen: It probably will be put in the Master Plan.
L.
Wolinsky: It would be done by district. That’s the way a
lot of municipalities are doing it.
R.
Carr: I echo Mr. McGoey’s item #8. I really do think you
have to do something and that is also a narrow road you’re
kind of defeating the purpose.
G.
Luenzmann: As far as sidewalks I think there is a problem with
the tunnel because it would encourage people to walk through there
and that would be an unsafe situation. I kind of think the sidewalks
within the development would be enough. As far as that left hand
turn, I remember from a previous discussion they did propose a
separate lane, didn’t they? It was in my mind that there
was another lane where you could make a turn without backing everything
up on Mud Mills Road.
P.
Griely: There were two previous discussions. One was at a different
intersection down off of Silver Lake Scotchtown Road we were talking
about another turning lane. In this area we had talked about how
to end the left turns and our proposal at that time was with the
signal phasing. Based on Dick’s comment and I just checked
the plan again, we will be able to provide that widening as part
of the plans.
G.
Luenzmann: Okay. My memory did recall something on that.
P.
Griely: We can revise the plan to get that incorporated.
G.
Luenzmann: Now, all of this in here is going to be set aside for
just . . .
L.
Potter: That is all wetlands and nothing can be done in there.
G.
Luenzmann: I don’t have any other questions.
G. Monaco: I totally agree with you about the sidewalks in particular
along Cottage Street because of the tunnel.
G.
Lake: Why don’t you show the members on your plan?
P.
Griely: This is shown on sheet #25. This is the tunnel area. This
is the signal system that we would be providing. I think what
Dick was concerned about was if someone stops to make a left turn
that it would stop the free flow. In this area here there is enough
room to get some widening in for a left turn lane.
G.
Lake: Mr. McGoey and Mr. Barone, Conditional Final or Preliminary?
D.
McGoey: I have the resolution for Sketch Plan but I didn’t
get a chance to look at it but the SEQRA resolution I agree needs
to be worked on carefully in light of our study that we had. We
need to confirm not only the impact of this but throughout the
area that they be properly documented in the Findings Statement
that all the projects included in that study shall contribute.
We haven’t had a chance to talk to the applicant about that.
Personally I’m not prepared to recommend an approval.
L.
Wolinsky: Wait a second. I’m really upset.
G. Lake: Wait a minute. Let me ask a question.
L.
Wolinsky: Because you’ve had those documents for a couple
of months not just tonight.
D.
McGoey: The resolution, you mean?
L.
Wolinsky: Yes. You’ve had that resolution since October
and we went over them in the work session.
G.
Lake: We can either table or you can calm down please.
D.
McGoey: You can’t grant Preliminary unless you get through
the SEQRA stuff.
G. Barone: I think what Dick is saying is we have all of these
projects building in a very close proximity to each other and
they all have multi impacts on each other. I think what he is
indicating is he probably has to have some type of finding as
to all of them and a Negative Declaration for all of them combined
altogether. In essence we’re segregating the review of the
traffic impacts by these individual Negative Declarations. We
really need to bring it together as one Negative Declaration and
then you can proceed from there to address each of the individual
site plans for the Special Use Permit.
A.
Dulgarian: What happens when the Negative Declaration is separate?
G.
Barone: What we need to do is indicating a combined SEQRA finding
in the Negative Declaration on these five or six or how many other
projects are all considered to have one traffic study.
L.
Wolinsky: What is being suggested, not only is not legal, but
it’s incorrect factuals. First of all, what is unsetting
is that these resolutions were in Mr. McGoey’s hands for
a long time. I don’t know why they haven’t been reviewed.
The verbage in these resolutions does address the area wide traffic
impact studies. It is not fair nor is it legal to make us wait
until all the traffic issues are sorted out for all those other
projects. We’re all at different stages in the approval
process. Quite frankly, I’m aghast as to where we’re
going on that issue because we’re being asked to wait until
all the others are done. That can’t happen.
R.
Carr: I think it is about the verbage and not about the other
projects. It’s just a document that should indicate the
other projects in the proper way and not that you’re going
to have to wait until every project that’s involved has
reached the same conclusion.
L.
Wolinsky: Why don’t we do that this evening then. The resolutions
are here. Let’s do it.
G.
Barone: First of all, Dick was going to go from Conditional Final
to Preliminary Approval.
L.
Wolinsky: That’s fine.
G.
Barone: I think what we have to do is step back and not make you
wait for everyone else but at least get one SEQRA findings adopted
on all these projects before we isolate each one individually.
L. Wolinsky: But, we did it. It’s ridiculous. It’s
unfair.
P.
Griely: In terms of the traffic study and the mitigation package
that was put together, it’s truly spelled out all the different
mitigations for this area wide study and if that’s one of
the concerns I think it’s all spelled out in there.
G.
Lake: I think, and I really rely on the side table there, but
I truly and honestly believe that you are committed to doing all
the traffic mitigations and we’re committed to not have
somebody come back on us a couple of years from now. It has happened
to us. We want to make sure it’s done right. We need to
straighten out the mitigation on the traffic. What else is left?
D.
McGoey: The determination for Preliminary.
G.
Lake: We don’t do a lot of Conditional Finals. We really
haven’t been. Can you work this out between now and the
next meeting. I think we have a couple cancellations with people
who don’t have their maps. You have to understand. I’m
going to listen to my Engineer and my Lawyer.
L.
Wolinsky: I understand that.
G.
Lake: So, I’m going to . . .
P.
Griely: What will that date be?
G.
Lake: That would be December 17, 2003. Let’s try and get
the traffic totally done.
TABLED
for further review.
9. CHARLIE BROWN’S – SITE PLAN REVISION – 505
Schutt Road Extension – (50-2-58) #066-003
R.
Schmiel: I’m from Charlie Brown’s restaurant. What
I’m here for tonight is to have two items taken care of.
In the rear of our building on Schutt Road, we would like to put
a two sided fence against the back of the building just to block
off the kitchen door from the traffic going into the shopping
center.
A. Dulgarian: Where everybody smokes?
R.
Schmiel: That’s right. I had a meeting with Dick. We went
through and he agreed with this. He asked me to come to this meeting
and that’s why I’m here. The second item is on the
original Site Plan when this was approved originally for the restaurant.
It was a type of Canadian Hemlock on the back side of the building
and we’ve changed them to Arborvitaes just because they’re
a little hardier for where they are and I was asked by Dick to
just note that on the Site Plan so that everything is up to speed
on the Site Plan.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: I don’t see any affect it would have.
P.
Owen: I don’t see any harm in it.
R.
Carr: I’m okay.
G.
Luenzmann: I think it’s a good idea. I don’t have
any problem with it.
G.
Monaco: I have no problem.
MOTION
for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by
A. Dulgarian.
1.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
MOTION for SITE PLAN REVISION made by P. Owen and seconded by
A. Dulgarian.
2.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Luenzmann: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
MOTION
CARRIED. 6 AYES
10.
MANN EQUIPMENT– SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT – County
Route 76 (3-1-33.21) #001-003
J.
Tirolli: I will leave with you a copy of the Site Plan that has
the endorsement for the Department of Environmental Conservation
wetlands signed by them. The ones you have are not signed.
G.
Lake: Tell us what you want to do.
J. Tirolli: Mr. Mann wants to set up and outdoor sales display
of sales for construction trucks on this lot. We will utilize
the existing paved area for that purpose. The Department of Environmental
Conservation wetlands are in three sections and encumber a lot
with the one hundred foot buffer substantially however, we are
allowed to continue using that paved area without a permit. On
the plan we have indicated that there is a future chain link fence
that we would like to install and would like the Board to consider
in the process however, if we get Site Plan approval we will file
with the Department of Environmental Conservation we will apply
with them and if they do not grant us approval to install the
chain link fence then we would have to comply with the Site Plan.
If they do issue us a permit, we will have to come back to you.
It may not, in fact, be built. We have not submitted today the
landscaping plan. It’s a very small area outside the one
hundred foot buffer where we can landscape along old Route 17.
We will submit a landscape plan. Again, landscaping on a one hundred
buffer is not something that the Department of Environmental Conservation
prefers to see. They would like the one hundred foot buffer to
remain.
G.
Lake: Let me go through the Board. This is the . . .
A.
Dulgarian: The old diner.
G.
Lake: Right but it is for heavy equipment, cranes etc. and is
located near that gas station on the right. That’s the kind
of stuff he’s talking about. Will there be any repairs or
anything or just storage?
A.
Dulgarian: First, before we can go through this, I think there
are a couple of things here where we need our Planning Board Attorney
to advise us on item #2, #6 and #10 of Dick’s comments.
If you can give us some guidance there then I can proceed forward.
G.
Barone: The code does not consider this a motor vehicle sales
establishment provided the nature of the business is not selling
cars, vans or any vehicles to a franchised dealer, employee. The
location with the off ramp of Route 17 you have all the (not clear)
which requires more landscaping and setback. I don’t know
if you have a problem in complying with that twenty feet from
the property line versus ten feet from the property line.
J.
Tirolli: We do in a sense that we have a limited area to work
with outside of the buffer and the wetlands. The access is off
of the County Highway. The front door of the building is off facing
the County Highway. We feel that it is appropriately the front
yard and that’s a limited access highway and we could not
get a permit to construct an access. We feel it should be a side
or rear yard rather than a front yard.
G.
Barone: There is some merit to that claim. The Planning Board
can ask for sufficient landscaping, screening, fencing to mitigate
the visual impact from all points of view of this facility. There
is another issue as to the height of the equipment to be stored.
There is a limitation on storage outside being no higher than
the existing building or fencing.
