higher than the road entrance. That’s the
only problem I see with this.
D. Yanosh: They are pretty lots. If you go up in there they
are nice and wooded.
T. Hamilton: Is there a place to park at the bottom of the
driveway?
D. Yanosh: We can do that if we have to.
G. Lake: It sounds like the Board is happy with the sketch
plan.
MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for April 21, 2004 made
by G. Luenzmann and seconded by A. Dulgarian.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
T. Hamilton: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES
1. ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL EXPANSION - SITE PLAN - 75
Crystal Run Road (60-1-50.1) #090-003
A. Fusco: I represent the Orange Regional Medical Facility and
we’re here to propose an 83,000 square foot expansion
of the existing facility on Crystal Run Road. We have before
you a plan that we have worked out to show the parking and also
the green area that we have down here for a grass and or landscaped
area. One of the things that we have done is, obviously, parking
is going to be a critical situation in this project. The previous
project when it was originally built did have variances from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for the parking. It was done in
two different venues. The first time was a forty two percent
reduction and was four hundred twenty spaces. The second time
it was approved for three hundred and twenty two spaces. In
this venue, we need an additional five hundred fifty three spaces
and in order to comply with the ordinance. That would give us
a total of nine hundred and thirty five. The site really can’t
hold that but in addition to that we’ve done a number
of different surveys to determine what our needs are. There
was an in-house survey done and in addition to that John Collins
Traffic Engineers did one for us at the same time. They came
up with four hundred and eighty five plus fifteen additional
spaces that would be needed for reserve. We felt, looking at
it, that we would like to exceed that and we went somewhere
between what was required and what the traffic engineers had
recommended and we came up with seven hundred give or take number
that we would like to present to you this evening. One of the
things that we did do is that we tried to maximize as much of
the property as we could without interfering with the front
buffer because we knew that it was something that was near and
dear to the Board. We did attempt to do that and even towards
that end we did put parking underneath the building so we do
have additional parking that we placed under the building which
would be quite a bit of additional costs. We weren’t able
to hold that front area completely because of the demand that
we have for parking. One of the things that we have done, however,
and I know that it’s important that we comply with the
aesthetics and try to meet our neighbors front yards as well.
I would like to show you the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, there
is a parking area within fifty feet. One of the things that
we wanted to do was to also show, that’s why I have the
map colored in front of you is that we’re trying to give
you as much green area as we can and we propose a very aggressive
landscaping in the front to shield the parking. I believe that’s
what happened with the Blue Cross Blue Shield building as well
that there is that parking lot there but it is fairly well shielded
by high shrubs of varying heights that they were able to do
that. We are also respectfully requesting if we are allowed
to proceed to the Zoning Board of Appeals that we are able to
also receive a variance toward the fifty foot buffer along the
side yards. In other areas we do have some parking and also
some driveway areas. We are requesting two variances from the
Zoning Board of Appeals which is a reduction in the parking
from nine hundred thirty five to seven hundred and in addition
to that a variance which would allow us to interfere with the
fifty foot side yard landscaped areas. One of the things that
I think we’re trying to do is to as much as we can to
maximize the utilization of the property, this facility is going
to be a large service to the public obviously since it is a
medical facility. It will create some additional jobs obviously
and it will be a benefit to the community.
G. Lake: Let me go through the Board again. I thought the last
time you were here, I felt we had made a very strong case for
leaving the front alone. I also thought that we discussed trying
to share or do something to the detention water, the detention
ponds, to try and save the front. I thought we were hoping or
as least I was before you came back and we put you back on the
agenda was and I appreciate trying to use the property one hundred
percent but I strongly feel that in the best interests not only
for Horton Medical Center who wants to go out on Crystal Run
Road and improve this property and we welcome to open arms as
far as I’m concerned but at the same token I think it
benefits everybody out there to maintain that frontage. I realize
your parking is a concern. I thought we were going to talk about
possible change issues tonight and different things we could
do there. I really think to expect us to be looking at basically
the same footprint after the whole Board and I’m going
to go through the Board again. I didn’t expect to be sitting
here talking about the front parking again. That’s my
opinion. I realize you’re on a tight spot. I am one hundred
percent behind Horton Medical Center. Everything they have a
little something, we do what we can but I think it’s for
everybody’s good housekeeping out there. We have a good
thing going out on Crystal Run Road and I don’t think
I want to be the one to sit here and say we’re going to
start giving some of that good thing away. We will send you
to the Zoning Board of Appeals if that’s where you want
to go but I’m going to tell you now before you go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals it doesn’t mean that we have to
approve that site plan. Let me go through the Board.
A. Dulgarian: Yes. I concur. The front yard is not an option.
P. Owen: I don’t want to get rid of that frontage area.
R. Carr: I agree.
G. Luenzmann: I don’t want to get rid of it and even with
leaving the green in front you’re still short on parking.
I think that if you’re going to add an addition you’re
going to have enough parking without infringing on setbacks.
You might have to put two or three rows of parking on your new
addition.
T. Hamilton: The front buffer is a definite. December 8, 1997
they were granted variances back then because they knew they
were short on parking and now they’re back in five years
later to expand even more and look for more variances. Now we’re
going to end up with a building that at some later date if by
chance they build a new hospital they might not need this building.
We’re going to have a building that wouldn’t meet
anything. Everything is going to be non-conforming in that building
alone. I’m not going to go with it.
G. Lake: I think we aught to look at the retention ponds. I
thought you were talking about sharing them.
A. Fusco: I can address that.
G. Lake: I know on the property next door there is some retention
out front but it’s nicely done. I think the parking can
be overcome. You know I think you know where the Board feels
about safety in the front. It’s very important to us.
A. Fusco: I understand that. We will try to comply with that.
One of the things that you had mentioned was the drainage and
sharing the drainage. We are preparing to make presentations
to the neighbors in that regard. If in fact we are successful
then obviously that would change the layout that we presented
to you. We don’t necessarily believe that we are going
to be successful but we are going to do our best. That would
allow us to go back into the retainage area for some additional
parking. One of the things that I do want to make sure that
all the Board members understand is we’re not asking for
any variances in the front. We do comply within the letter of
the law. Also, with the existing setback which was established
when Blue Cross Blue Shield. It’s not just drainage in
front. It’s actually parking within fifty feet of Crystal
Run Road. So we tried to maintain that existing building or
parking setback as well as the letter of the law. We’re
not asking for any variances in the front. One of the things
that I might ask is that if in fact we were able to move some
of the parking in the front maybe not as much as you can see
before you, is that something that could be considered? For
example if we only come up to this area and are allowed to put
this additional one row in instead of two rows, I think that
might also assist us. As I said, you already put in some premium
dollar parking spaces from elevating the building so we are
trying to cooperate. Again, we’re not asking for variances
below what we feel is needed. We had a parking survey done by
reputable engineers and we exceeded that by over two hundred
spaces. We believe we want the building to work as was stated
regardless of whether it changes hands in the future or not.
Again, we have no problem with re-working it and work with the
Planning Board Engineer to try to come up with that but we would
like to be able to proceed at least with the count to the Zoning
Board of Appeals and also the side yards if possible. We will
continue to try to look at additional parking, facilities in
the storm water area to be able to share and any other ideas
that we can come up with. We will try to shrink the usage of
the front but we would like to have a little flexibility. Again,
we will present to you an aggressive landscape buffer.
G. Lake: As far as pursuing your parking to the Zoning Board
of Appeals, I believe that’s an issue that can be worked
on. I trust the Zoning Board of Appeals would look very closely
at the numbers from the engineering that you had done by the
Traffic Engineer but at the same token we would be looking at
the same numbers. I think we can work through the parking. I
think that some of the other things I’m hoping you can
work through with your neighbors. If you want to go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals to start that process at this point, we can
send you down a recommendation.
A. Fusco: We appreciate that.
G. Lake: We don’t need to deny you to go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
A. Fusco: Just a recommendation would be adequate.
G. Lake: I think we would send you to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Let me go through the Board to see if they have any additional
comments.
A. Dulgarian: I don’t have anything.
P. Owen: Nothing.
R. Carr: Nothing.
G. Luenzmann: I would just like to say that when you go to
a medical facility it’s always a hard time finding a place
to park and here you are with a situation where you’re
really short on parking. I’m just thinking about the service
that would be available to clients that they can’t park.
I understand your problem but really you might be trying to
squeeze too much building into too small a space. That’s
the bottom line. I think you have to be more creative on the
parking and more or less forget about the front otherwise it
will impact the whole corridor.
T. Hamilton: Nothing.
A. Dulgarian: If we give him a referral, is that like giving
our stamp of approval?
G. Lake: That’s why I said we would send him. I mean,
he has a right to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I’m
not even sure why we have to send him. They can just go, can’t
they?
G. Barone: He either needs to get a denial or a referral.
R. Carr: Is there a difference between referral and denial?
G. Barone: The only difference is if he is denied by you and
then he goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals, he doesn’t
have an application so he’s not protected. I would want
a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
G. Lake: Refer with no comment.
G. Barone: You’re not recommending one way or the other.
G. Lake: It’s just getting him there.
MOTION to refer the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals
made by P. Owen and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
T. Hamilton: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES
P. Owen had to leave at this time.
2. SGOBBA - 7 LOT SUBDIVISION - EXTENSION TO PRELIMINARY - Route
302 (5-1-34.2) #103-002
G. Lake: Go ahead.
J. Nosek: We need an extension to Preliminary Approval. We
need approval from the Health Department before we can come
back to this Board for Final Subdivision Approval. We haven’t
actually made application to the Health Department yet because
we had to drill a well on the lot and test it which has taken
some time. It’s been approximately six months since we
had our Preliminary Approval and we’re just now making
application to the Health Department. We’re going to be
there for some time. We’re here to request a six month
extension.
G. Lake: So, so far you’re tied up in the Health Department
because of the well.
J. Nosek: We drilled it and tested it.
G. Lake: And now, you’re going to the next phase.
J. Nosek: Now we’re proceeding with the application.
G. Lake: Okay. Mr. Barone, we received his letter I believe
around the 23rd of December for the extension. I think we’re
now out of it.
G. Barone: My understanding is some people sent in earlier
than that, is that correct?
D. McGoey: I think on the 17th.
M. Hunt: It was dated the 17th.
G. Barone: As I understand it, they made a petition within
the six months. They are claiming hardship on the grounds they
couldn’t get the well in to get their Health Department
Approval as well as we didn’t have any meetings for them
to be heard before the expiration of the sixth month. I would
say under Part J of our subdivision regulations that they’ve
made their case for hardship and you can consider the extension.
A. Dulgarian: Can we give the year just to make sure.
G. Lake: That was going to be my next question.
G. Barone: I think it limits it to six months. May it six months
and come back in five if you don’t have the approval.
T. Hamilton: Can you do more than two?
G. Barone: It doesn’t limit you as to the number.
MOTION to grant a SIX MONTH EXTENSION made by A. Dulgarian
and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
A. Dulgarian: Aye
P. Owen: Aye
R. Carr: Aye
T. Hamilton: Aye
G. Luenzmann: Aye
G. Lake: Aye
MOTION CARRIED. 5 AYES
