and
bring it up to current Town standards. Basically we are going
to agree to go along with Mr. McGoey's comments. I believe I touched
on a grate many of them.
G.
Lake: I will go through the Board.
A.
Dulgarian: First of all, it looks like a very ambitious project.
It looks like they packed a lot of stuff on a very small parcel.
It looks like it's very close to a lot of single family homes.
I would be looking for some substantial screening there.
P.
Owen: Those are basically some of my feelings too. What's on the
other side of the property? I see some single family homes coming
. . .
A.
Fusco: On the other side it's currently vacant property. We do
have a project before you for single unit seniors.
G.
Lake: An adult community.
A. Fusco: We are co-operating with them. They have asked us for
an emergency access and we've agreed to give them one and vise
versa. We will be working in concert with those folks in order
to improve the situation so that we have emergency access from
our project to theirs. One of the comments which I did not touch
upon was that Mr. McGoey asked for some additional buffer or possibly
some additional setbacks next to the single family homes. We believe
that we can accomplish that and still stay within the frame work
of the project that we have by shifting some of the project around
and with the proper screening of evergreens and hardwoods.
R.
Carr: I go along with the previous comments.
G.
Monaco: I have to agree with Mr. Dulgarian's comments. I notice
the one building near the Orange & Rockland right-of-way.
Do you have some kind of letter from them?
A.
Fusco: Yes. We do have a letter from them and have it right here.
I will send a copy to the Secretary and Mr. McGoey. It's from
Orange & Rockland. It's dated September 12th and basically
they asked us to be at least twenty five feet away from their
tower and we're thirty feet. They asked that our profile be cut
down. We only had l.7 feet of fill where we're crossing it. Basically
the last sentence of it is Orange & Rockland is granting conditional
consent based on the comments above and subject to our review
and complete detail plans for working in the easement.
S.
Silverman: I think the Board should be aware that the relationship
of apartment projects, many apartment projects will go to a point
of ten to twelve units an acre. This one has fourteen usable acres.
With the wetlands, but even on the develop-able portion we're
on the far low end of the scale for units per acre as would be
normal development.
G.
Lake: I think the Board is just trying to point out the single
family homes that are there and that if you could do a little
re-arranging.
A.
Fusco: Absolutely. We want to be good neighbors.
A. Dulgarian: To answer what you were discussing, lot configuration
and layout too. I understand your restrictions with the wetlands
but that's what we take into consideration. That's not our fault.
Every applicant comes to us and try to pack as much stuff on his
property as he can and it's up to us to make sure that it's in
the best interest of our code and the neighborhood. That's all
we're doing. I would like to see something from Mr. Smith or our
Water Department letting us know what we have to work with here
because I can't water my lawn but I can approve one hundred and
forty units. I don't get it.
A.
Fusco: I would be more than happy to see them as well. One of
the things we're probably looking at about thirty thousand gallons
a day would be the usage. I understand there is a drought and
every drop counts. It's not necessarily significant. You're probably
looking at a half of one percent of what the Town usage is. The
owners are looking to have market rent garden apartments. They're
hoping to create a nice atmosphere here. There is a modest recreational
area. They are looking to come up with something attractive. You
can see that by the rendering. In summation we would like to move
forward in the approval process to be able to get to a Public
Hearing sooner than later.
G.
Lake: Dick, can we set Lead Agency?
D.
McGoey: Motion to send out notice of intent.
MOTION
for notice of intent to become LEAD AGENCY made by P. Owen and
seconded by G. Monaco.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
Motion
carried. 5 AYES
1. JACOBS COUNTRY SERVICE - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Route
211 West (34-1-4) #054-002
CANCELLED.
2. ASHLEY ESTATES II - 28 LOT SUBDIVISION - Howells Turnpike (6-1-13.21)
#040-002
C.
Foti: We have a seventy acre parcel on Howells Turnpike. We're
proposing a twenty eight lot subdivision. All the lots are accessed
from a project road which is twenty nine hundred feet and there
is also a cul-de-sac in here of nine hundred feet. All these lots
were re-sized at the Planning Board's request to an approximate
two hundred foot road frontage. We've also done a wetlands delineation
and we have a couple of wetland crossings. They are just under
a quarter of an acre.
G.
Lake: Dick's comment letter. Mr. Barone what do we do on a case
like this?
G.
Barone: The legislation that's proposed is not going to take affect
with any pending applications. What's proposed is going to apply
to applications made after the legislation is passed. Anything
that's already been applied for is grand fathered in for lack
of a better term. It wouldn't apply to this project.
P.
Owen: So we're going to have two sets of requirements going on
possibly in the same meeting.
G.
Barone: In the future you will have the pre-amendment applications
and the proposed applications.
P.
Owen: So we may have before us may be a three lot subdivision
with one set of requirements and then the next person comes in
and possibly needs the other set of requirements.
G.
Lake: This application did come in a while ago. We did ask him
to re-size the lots closer to a two hundred foot frontage.
A.
Dulgarian: On the road widths did we get?
G.
Lake: I think we got thirty feet on this, right?
D.
McGoey: Yes.
G.
Lake: We did all of that.
D. McGoey: In the original application they had a lot of driveways
going out on to the Town Road. Now they've made that all interior.
There's been a lot of changes.
G.
Lake: There's no driveways going out to Howells Turnpike.
D.
McGoey: Right.
MOTION
for notice of intent to become LEAD AGENCY made by P. Owen and
seconded by G. Monaco.
A.
Dulgarian: Aye
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
Motion
carried. 5 AYES
3.
MIDDLETOWN MEDICAL - SITE PLAN - Edgewater Drive (53-4-10.2) #069-002
A. Fusco: I'm representing Middletown Medical. With me is Mr.
VanVoorhis the Architect on the job. Basically we're before you
today because we are proposing an addition on to the Middletown
Medical office building closer to Maltese Drive. One of the things
that we had to do on the site plan because there is a lot of existing
parking and a lot of existing landscaping is we needed additional
parking. The owners of the property have an option on the former
Fulton Chevrolet used car lot on the intersection of Route 211
and Edgewater Drive. That's the darker part of the plan that you're
looking at in the lower left hand corner. We're able to come up
with quite a bit of additional parking space if the land were
purchased. We ultimately got an option on that property after
we unsuccessfully tried to acquire the Schwab property immediately
adjacent to it. Substantial offers were made but not taken. We
also tried to work a deal with Denny's for parking and were unable
to come to a term to substantiate beyond the means of the project.
Basically what we've done is we reconfigured the parking to allow
for some additional off-site parking at the intersection of Route
211 and Edgewater Drive. During work sessions we were told that
we would have to be within five hundred feet of the buildings.
We showed that in double lines that we are within five hundred
feet as you walk to the project. In addition to that the buildings
are less than three hundred sixty feet apart and this is all owned
by the same person. The buildings actually have different corporate
names but the ownership is all the same. That was one of Dick's
comments. We will verify the ownership and/or just give a lease
between it because they are all the same owners. The Board has
the right to allow parking off-site if it is within five hundred
feet. I think we've demonstrated that. Some of Dick's comments
also relate to the fact that we are ten parking spaces short.
We are going to request a variance of ten parking spaces which
is not a lot considering that the requirements is two hundred
and fourteen and we've been able to come up with two hundred and
four. We have added some pockets of parking which is in the darker
areas in the northerly portion of it. We've added a couple of
spaces here and there just to get any many as we could. In addition
to that one of the things that we have received was from the Planning
Board Attorney related to if in fact it was a hazard having folks
cross Edgewater Drive. One of the things that we intended to do
is to try to utilize this as much as possible for employee parking
and hopefully they will come in the morning and leave in the evenings
so there is not going to be a lot of traffic in and out. It would
be more or less all day parking. If required we would be more
than happy to pay for any crossing signs if it would be required
by the Town in order to have some crossings. We don't believe
it is that hazardous because Edgewater is a secondary highway.
One of the things that we recognize is that we are a little short
of parking but as much as we would like you to approve the format
and let us go on our way we recognize you have certain restrictions
in that regard. However, we would like to have some sort of formal
or even informal vote of confidence sort of speak in relationship
to the parking particularly the Fulton Chevrolet piece because
the owners have an option that expires October 1st and this has
been the only resource that we've been able to come to terms with
to allow this project to proceed. We're proposing a modest amount
of renovation for additional medical space and storage space but
in order for us to even come close to complying to the parking
we need to purchase this property. We would like to be able to
come away from here this evening if at all possible with at least
an informal nod of the head if you would find that type of concept
acceptable so that we can bring this back to the owners. The property
probably would be sold subsequently because I also represent Mrs.
Worts of Fulton Chevrolet and at least four or five used car dealers
that are fighting at the chance to use that piece.
R. VanVoorhis: What we're going to be doing is adding a small
addition to the side of the building. The existing building over
on the Maltese Road side. We were submit the drawings formally
as we move forward. What we're doing is looking at doing storage
space on the first floor. The second and third floor actually
overhang the existing parking. The addition does include the parking
count that's shown there. What they're looking for mostly obviously
is additional examining space would be on the second floor and
the third floor we've shown it about one third storage and two-thirds
examining space. They need a lot of medical record space. The
elevations will be very similar to the existing building.
G.
Lake: No matter what, you still have to go to the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
A.
Fusco: We recognize that.
G.
Lake: This off-street parking lot, what is our chances of that
becoming an employee parking lot realistically?
A.
Fusco: We will identify it as an employee parking lot. We have
no problem with doing that.
G.
Lake: How do we know if that's going to happen?
A.
Fusco: I understand what you're saying. One of the things that
we can do is . . .
G.
Lake: You know if I feel bad I wouldn't want to have to walk that
distance.
A.
Fusco: This facility is very strict in how they treat their consultants
so I'm assuming they treat their employees the same way.
R.
Carr: There are no sidewalks. How would people walk from this
parking lot on to Edgewater over to the lot where the buildings
are?
A.
Fusco: We would be more than willing to put sidewalks there.
R.
Carr: Once they get over to here they would have to walk through
the parking lot.
G.
Lake: Can you put a sidewalk in there?
A.
Fusco: More than likely, the thirty spaces here for employees
would be in this first building.
R. VanVoorhis: The patients themselves would really park over
in this area here. Yo go there now a lot of these spaces are not
being used right now. I think when we take the employees off of
here that will clear up some space here for patients. Your concern
I think would be mostly in the morning, afternoon and evening.
A.
Fusco: We've added ten or twelve spaces in this area. We don't
disagree with you. We tried to purchase this property at a substantial
amount of money and for what ever reason it was pulled back by
the family.
MOTION
for approval of SITE PLAN made by P. Owen and seconded by G. Monaco.
P.
Owen: Nay
R.
Carr: Nay
G.
Monaco: Nay
G.
Lake: Nay
Motion
denied. 4 NAYS
4. PROKOPOV - 12 LOT SUBDIVISION - County Route 78 (69-1-1) #063-099
D.
Yanosh: We were here a year or so ago March 2001. We got a Preliminary
Approval subject to a couple comments about working with the City
as for the drainage easement that goes along lot #10. It's been
this long waiting for the City to decide about the width of the
easement. Mrs. Prokopov couldn't be here tonight. She was doing
all the dealings with Mr. Johnson and now Mr. Guertin and the
City about the maintenance agreement and whose going to own the
easement and whose going to upkeep it, etc. Nothing has been finalized
yet. We've lapsed our time for Preliminary Approval. We haven't
even gone to the Health Department or the Department of Environmental
Conservation.
G.
Lake: Basically you're telling us you need time.
D. Yanosh: Also the Attorney let me know in March about an Article
78 that was brought against the Town for this approval. There
is a contract vendee who is not the applicant. It's the contract
vendee who was purchasing. Remember we had the three lots across
the way and with the Public Hearing going on the time frame or
what ever he had filed the Article 78. I had nothing to do with
it. I have no idea. He was supposed to buy twelve lots and now
he is only going to be able to get ten or something like that.
It is still in Court.
G.
Barone: Is this a new application or is this the old application?
D.
Yanosh: It's the same map. Carol said we had to produce a new
application because the time lapsed.
G.
Barone: So, this is a new application but based upon . . .
D.
Yanosh: If I changed anything maybe it was stuff for the City.
The City wanted us to stake out the property line up above across
the street. All we need to do is go to the Health Department for
water and sewer.
G.
Lake: You've been with the City all this time?
D.
Yanosh: Yes.
D.
McGoey: I'm not sure if Preliminary Approval has lapsed. If it
was approved March 21st.
D.
Yanosh: The year 2001.
D.
McGoey: Oh, yes.
G.
Barone: It's a new application based on the approval. You're not
reinstating what was previously approved and your not extending
what was previously approved.
P.
Owen: So, we would . . .
G.
Barone: They're starting from square one again.
P.
Owen: Okay.
G.
Lake: Do we have to set a Public Hearing?
G.
Barone: Yes.
MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for November 6, 2002 made
by G. Monaco and seconded by P. Owen.
P.
Owen: Aye
R.
Carr: Aye
G.
Monaco: Aye
G.
Lake: Aye
Motion
carried. 4 AYES
5. CALIENDO - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - Silver Lake Scotchtown Road
(52-12-1.3) #045-002
CANCELLED.
