|
Sec. 25.20 Block 1 Lots 2 & 3 Location: 3901 Crompond Road, Crompond Contact: Sue Braddick of Gemmola & Associates Represented by: Ed Gemmola, architect and Matt Karavaic, owner Description: Converting an existing restaurant into a retail children's furniture outlet store. Project to consist of alteration/addition to existing building with an accessory storage building. April 21, 2008 work session Discussion: Pre-preliminary application I Luv My Kids sells children's furniture, educational toys, car seats etc. and is moving from its current location on Route 6 in Mohegan Lake. The architect reviewed the proposed changes in the building to convert it from restaurant use to retail/office space. The upper floor, to be used as office space for this business, will be extended over an existing area of the first floor. The building will be re-roofed and re-sided. A storage warehouse building will be build along the west property line, bordering the Hess gas station. The proposed new use of the property will be less intense than when it was a restaurant, i.e. septic and parking requirements will be less and since the business depends on mail order and print advertising, signage requirements will be minimal. Mr. Tegeder advised the applicant to meet with the Town Engineer to discuss the possibility and timing of a sewer hook up. The Planning Board conceptually approved the preliminary plans and requested a calculation of impermeable surfaces and a storm water management plan. July 14, 2008, work session The applicant went through a check list of requirements, including the recommendations of ABACA, with the Planning Board. The Town Engineer has not yet submitted her review of the project. Much of the discussion centered on the possibility of a single entrance driveway shared between this and the adjacent property. The Planning Board favors this arrangement as a way to reduce congestion on Route 202. Mr. Tegeder pointed out that NYSDOT would be receptive to a shared driveway because it was party to a sustainable development study of this area which encouraged shared parking and limited curb cuts. The owner/applicant was not amenable to the idea of sharing a driveway with the neighboring property, because they are trying to create an atmosphere friendly to babies and mothers which is incompatible with a car sales lot, the proposed use for the neighboring property. Also he pointed out that the curbs and sidewalks along route 202 have just been renovated, and the required DOT approvals for curb cuts would considerably slow the approval process, even in light of the sustainable development study. He also mentioned liability issues if his parking lot has through traffic. Mr. Flynn explained that the LDK site would not have through traffic, but rather incoming traffic would turn one way to this site and the other to the adjacent property, and the owner could maintain his baby-friendly atmosphere. Mr. Klaus summarized by assuring that the Planning Board's goal is not to delay this project, but rather to keep options open. He directed the applicant to summarize his objections to a shared access driveway in writing. A public information hearing was tentatively set for the August Planning Board meeting. August 18, 2008 Public Informational Hearing Mr. Gemmola gave an overview of the project, including the fact that the site will have only about 1/10 the traffic as the former restaurant had. Most of the traffic will be families with young children, probably in strollers. The low-key, family-friendly nature of the business was emphasized. The warehouse will serve only this store and deliveries will be made by box truck. The project will be phased with the warehouse being built after the site is sewered, since its proposed location is right on the edge of the existing septic system. There were no questions from the public but the Public Informational Hearing was continued because the applicant had not provided receipts of public notification of the hearing. The applicant asked for direction about the possibility of combining the entrance driveway with the adjacent property (PGNA, LLC aka Suzuki), without which he cannot go forward with driveway design and landscaping. The applicant is very resistant to the idea of a combined driveway as antagonistic to his business' family-friendly atmosphere. See PGNS, LLC aka Suzuki The applicant showed pictures of traffic on the adjacent site including car transport trucks. The Planning Board said it was leaning toward requiring a combined driveway to reduce the number of places where traffic turns onto and off of Crompond Rd. NYSDOT and Westchester County Highway Department also favor shared driveways. Mr. Flynn told the applicant to come to a work session to discuss the issue and to design a common driveway that the applicant could live with. September 22, 2008, regular and work session The public informational meeting adjourned from last month was reopened so that the applicant could meet the public notification requirements. Mr. Gemmola repeated much of the basic information about the plan that was presented at the board's August meeting (see above). He reiterated the applicant's concern about the board's request to share an egress with the adjoining car dealership site that is now before the board for approval for a used car facility. He showed the board two site plans, one with and one without the shared egress. While it could be done, he said, his client hoped that the board would not require it. In addition to the mix of traffic, the applicant was concerned that the need to get new curb cut approvals from the NYS Department of Transportation could delay the project for a year or more. As the applicant is proposing to use the same ingress and egress that was used by Sunshine Pizza, no DOT approval would be required. Mr. Gemmola also reported to the board that he had five meetings with ABACCA and that they were close to agreement on the issues of landscaping, lighting, signage, colors and materials. Responding to questions about the warehouse use, Mr. Gemmola and the owner of I Luv Kids explained that deliveries, which come every couple of weeks, come in UPS trucks or small trucks, not tractor trailers trucks. The public informational hearing was closed and then the board took up the issue again at the work session portion of the agenda. The main issues discussed were the shared egress from the adjoining site plus an exploration of a possible new road to the rear of the site. Noting that the two adjoining properties were before the board at the same time, Mr. Klaus explained that the board had a unique opportunity to review the concept of the shared egress which would provide safer egress onto Route 202. He noted the problem on Commerce St where there are adjacent exit points for Wachovia Bank and the Catalo Building. He and Mr. Flynn suggested a slight modification in the I Luv Kids site plan that might provide for better traffic flow. They suggested that the two applicants talk to each other and see what could be worked out. Albert Capellini, the attorney for the adjoining use car lot site was present at the meeting and, on behalf of his client who was not at the meeting, said that his client was open to discussing the issue with I Luv Kids. Mr. Flynn noted that while the board was reviewing the site plan, the applicant could continue with his plans to renovate the existing building so that he would not lose time. The applicant also expressed concern over what he felt was the town engineer's excessive requirements for on site drainage that would require three subsurface storage tanks. He said that the site had no history of flooding and felt that the requirement, which he said was costly, was not needed. Mr. Tedeger said that the drainage requirements were a New York State requirement and Mr. Klaus advised the applicant to discuss the issue further with the town engineer. There was a brief discussion of a new road that had been proposed by a consultant that would run through the rear of several adjoining properties, including the I Luv Kids site, and run parallel to Old Crompond Rd and Route 202 and exit at one end at Garden Lane. The purpose of the road would be to reduce traffic on Route 202. Mr. Klaus said that he was not overly concerned about this possible rear access and Mr. Flynn noted that it was a proposal that was a long way from being considered. November 10, 2008, work session All ABACA's concerns have been addressed. DEP approval for the proposed extension has been received. The amount of impervious surface on the site will be significantly reduced because unneeded parking areas will be landscaped. Currently the building interior is being renovated to bring it up to code. Previously the Planning Board had required this applicant to work with the owners of the adjacent site (a proposed car sales office) to construct a common driveway for the two properties. The sale of the adjacent property did no go through so currently there is no development planned. Therefore the Planning Board released LDK Project LLC from any obligation to construct a common driveway. However, the Planning Board will include language in this site approval that in the event the adjacent property is developed in the future, LDK Project will be required to cooperate with the installation of a common driveway, but will not be responsible for any expense or design or approval responsibility. The applicant agreed to this. The applicant emphasized to the Planning Board that delays in the planning process were causing severe financial hardship. The Planning Board instructed the applicant to proceed with preparing the engineering for the project and said the Board would recommend a temporary CO so that the business could open asap, even though not all requirements had been met. January 26, 2009, work session The proposed warehouse has been down-sized to fit totally on the existing asphalt. The applicant has addressed all ABACA and DEP concerns. Any outstanding engineering department concerns will be made conditions of the approval resolution. A public hearing will be held at the February 9th Planning Board meeting. Still missing is the language of the agreement with the owner of the adjacent property concerning the construction a common driveway if and when the adjacent property is developed. The adjacent owner will be required to construct the driveway, but the owners of this site will grant the necessary access to do so. February 9, 2009 Public Hearing Mr. Gemmola told the board that the applicant's attorney will be drafting the language for the easement that facilitate the construction of a single driveway cut with the adjoining site in the event that that site is developed. Construction of the driveway will be the responsibility of the adjoining property owner but he will need access to the I Luv Kids site for the construction work. Mr. Gemmola said he also has to review the latest memo from the town engineer to see if there are any outstanding issues. Mr. Gemmola told the board that the owner was not likely to begin construction immediately on the warehouse and that the site plan map would mark the warehouse building as “Phase II” so the owner will not have to return to the board for approval once he is ready to construct the building. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was adjourned.
February 23, 2009, work session Mr. Riina told the board he was in the process of reviewing comments from the town engineer and ABACA. The only unresolved question was whether he would have to flag the wetlands across the street as the buffer zone touches on a small portion of the site, mostly in the area of the sidewalk (that the state put in) and the landscaping area, neither of which would have any significant impact on the buffer zone. (Mr. Riina cited the lack of exactness on the town's existing environmental maps, noting that they could be off by five or so feet.) He anticipated that he could get the wetlands delineated by next month. Mr. Tegeder suggested that if everything except the wetlands issue was resolved by the March 9th meeting, the decision statement could include a provision that the approval was subject to the applicant receiving an administrative wetlands permit that included a mitigation plan if one was deemed necessary. Mr. Riina also has to review the stormwater calculations; the site plan actually reduces the amount of impervious surface and is under the threshold required for a full plan in the town's code. At the board's suggestion, the applicant will install oil and grease filters into the catch basins that are part of the state's drainage system. The applicant will also need to prepare the easement language as discussed at previous meetings. March 9, 2009 The board resumed the public hearing during which there were no public comments. After closing the hearing, the board voted to approve the site plan, subject to clarification on the language of the easement that would provide an alternate driveway plan in the event the adjoining site came in for site plan approval at a future date. The language is to be noted on the site plan. Mr. Riina advised the board that a stormwater plan was not needed for the site as the town code did not require one for renovations of less than 5,000 sq. ft. He also said that because the sewer line and stub connection to the building (located in or around the planted area) were already in place, a wetlands permit was not needed. The board also issued a SEQRA negative declaration for the project. |