|
Developments on Route 6 in Mohegan Lake
The following specific developments are discussed below
1. Route 6 Plaza(CVS @Mohegan Ave(M (aka Route 6
Office Development)
2. Esposito Builders
3. Village Traditions (Old Mohegan Electric)
4. Dana Hair Salon
5. 1750 East Main Street
6. Corner Car Care
(See also Sustainable
Study and Mohegan
Issues)
Route
6 Plaza
Section 15.16 Block 1 Lot 21
Location: Route 6 & Mohegan Avenue, Mohegan Lake
Description: Three proposed buildings and a 4-Lot subdivision on 3.46 acres
in the Office zone
Planning Board, January 28, 2008 (work session)
Discussion Site Plan and Subdivision
The applicant had reviewed the draft resolution and comments on the project
and had no problems with any of it. Drawings were resubmitted.
The Planning Board noted that an existing residential dwelling abuts the
property under discussion and asked if during the construction phase the
limits of disturbance could be temporarily pulled back from the property line
so as to minimize the impact of construction on this neighbor. The applicant
was agreeable to this, but pointed out that eventually he would need to go
right up to the property line to put in the landscaping.
Questions were asked about the timing of improvements to the intersection of
Route 6 and Mohegan Ave.
with respect to the granting of COs. The
intersection work would coincide with the work on the property so it would be
finished by the time COs were required.
Planning Board, February 11, 2008
Decision Statement
This property will be subdivided into four parcels. Office buildings will be
built on three of them. The fourth, which borders Mohegan
Lake, will be donated to the Town of
Yorktown. Mr.
Klaus emphasized that approval was conditional on ABACA approving the site's
lighting plans and that no COs would be
granted until the required improvements to the Mohegan Ave./Route
6 intersection are completed. The applicant said that NYS DOT has already
conceptually approved of the proposed intersection improvements. The Planning
Board declared itself the lead agency under SEQRA for subdividing the
property, made a negative declaration of potential environmental impact based
on information provided in a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and
passed a resolution approving the subdivision. Then the Planning Board made a
negative declaration of potential environmental impact on the site plan and
approved the site plan, which includes an excavation permit.
August 18, 2008, work session
Planning Board Resolution #08-05 dated February 11, 2008 required the
application for an amended site plan to modify the existing driveway on to Mohegan Avenue.
The proposal is to realign the driveway of this project with that of CVS,
across Mohegan Ave.
Since there will be no increase in impervious surfaces and no net tree loss,
the Planning Board will approve the change by resolution after a public
hearing at the September 9th meeting.
September 22, 2008
A public hearing was opened on the amended site plan that would make a
geometric correction to the site plan to improve ingress/egress to Mohegan Ave. The
issue arose as part of the board's review of a proposed development across
the street.
As there were no objections to the proposed change, the hearing was closed., A decision statement is expected at the board's
October meeting.
October 6, 2008
Planning Board Resolution #08-05 dated February 11, 2008 required the
application for an amended site plan to modify the existing driveway from the
CVS parking lot onto Mohegan
Avenue. This modification was approved to
improve the alignment of this project's driveway with the one across Mohegan Ave.
October 20, 2008,
special session
Correcting a procedural oversight at the October 6th meeting, the board voted
to declare itself lead agency for the purpose of reviewing the amended site
plan, adopted a negative declaration for SEQRA purposes, and then readopted
the resolution it had approved at the October 6th meeting.
October 20, 2008,
work session
This was a request for a temporary sign permit announcing the opening of the
Learning Experience day care center. The board had no problem with the
application but wanted to hear from ABACA before reaching a decision. The one
outstanding question appeared to be how temporary was the temporary sign.
February 9, 2009
The board reapproved the subdivision and granted a one year extension on
the site plan approval.
Al Capellini, the applicant's attorney, explained
that the delay in starting the project was due to bonding issues which he
expected to be resolved within 2-4 weeks.
February 8, 2010, regular session
Request 1st One Year Time Extension
Location: 3571 Mohegan Avenue
Description: A 3-lot subdivision and site plan approved by Planning Board
Resolutions #08-04 and #08-05 on February 11, 2008.
Buildings have been built on two of the lots resulting from the subdivision
of this property. The third lot is supposed to have a bank on it, but
the applicant has not been able to find a bank tenant, so the building has
not been built. The Planning Board granted a one year extension of the
site plan for this vacant lot.
Esposito
Builders
Section 15.15 Block 1 Lot 41 (Route 6, Mohegan Lake)
Description: Proposed 8,354 sq ft two-story retail building with second floor
residence on 1.17 acres in the C-2 zone.
Contact: Site Design Consultants and Gemmola & Associates Architects
Planning Board, March 10, 2008
Discussion of Site Plan & Elevations
The board reviewed a revised site plan that incorporated some changes
requested by ABACCA (Advisory Board for Architecture and Community Appearance)
and showed a new landscape plan. The new plan also included a redesign of the
second floor residential space (requested by planning director John Tegeder) so that the space could be used only for one,
not two, apartments. The roof line of the building was also lowered.
The only unresolved issue was the type of outdoor lighting; the applicant
prefers a type of fixture that will cast the light downward onto the site and
not spill over to any residential buildings. ABAACA wants a
"colonial" type fixture that would shed light over a wider area. In
the absence of the ABACCA lighting memo, it was decided that the applicant
would bring samples of both types of fixtures to the next work session.
The proprietor of one of the proposed commercial spaces, a dance studio,
stated that her facility would operate between the hours of 7am-8pm.
Three residents from the area attended the meeting and although public
comments are usually permitted only during public hearings, they expressed
their frustration that they believed that the board was not listening to them
and that there were inaccuracies on the site plan. Specific disagreements
were over the proposed landscape plan and whether all existing trees, and
what size trees, were shown on the site plan. Mr. Tegeder
stated that the site plan did not have to identify all saplings on the site.
The residents threatened to sue if the plan was approved.
Once the lighting issue is resolved, the application will be scheduled for a
public hearing, most likely in April.
March 24, 2008 work
session
Two different lighting styles were discussed. One is a decorative fixture,
favored by ABACA. Lenses can be arranged in this type of fixture to prevent
light spillage off the site to comply with the building code, but this leaves
relatively unattractive bright spots at each fixture. The other is shaped
like a cigar box and is less "charming", but has the advantage of
more easily preventing light spillage from the site. The applicant is eager
to move the project along, so will use which ever fixture the Planning Board
specifies. Ms. Crispi suggested using the decorative fixtures in the front
and the cigar box shaped fixtures in the back, adjacent to neighboring
residential properties. The Planning Board concluded that the cigar box
shaped fixtures are preferable for the whole site, in consideration of the
residential neighbors, however the final decision
would be delayed until after the lighting issue is considered again at the
next ABACA meeting.
Other issues concerning the residential neighbors were discussed: Mr. Tegeder recommended that the landscape buffer between this
site and the neighbors be redesigned to provide more substantial buffering.
Mr. Tegeder explained that the neighbors are having
drainage problems that they attribute to drainage pipes which were crushed
when Wallauer's was built, allegedly on top of them.
Mr. Klaus said that the Planning Board was aware of and had taken into
account any drainage and/or utility easements on the Esposito property. In
any case, the applicant said that it was standard construction practice to
notify the town engineer if any pipes were unearthed during construction. Mr.
Tegeder suggested a note specifying that be
attached to the site plans.
Mr. Esposito pointed out that even though the public hearing on his project
had been closed, neighbors are still submitting comments and questions.
Although not legal obligated, he has been responding to all these additional
comments and now hopes the planning process can be
completed.
April 7, 2008
Decision Statement
The discussion of lighting fixtures was resumed (see work session 3/24/08).
ABACA would not approve the cigar box-shaped light fixtures that the Planning
Board favored. The applicant suggested a third fixture model which satisfied
both ABACA's aesthetics and met the Planning Board's requirement that there
not be bright spots or light spillage off site.
Mr. Capellini asked that the required traffic
impact payment ($57,200) be payable when the traffic improvements are
finished or before COs are granted, which ever comes first, rather than now,
before construction begins. The Planning Board agreed to this.
There was discussion about an Army Corps of Engineering wetland permit for
the project. Originally, ACE approval was required and granted, but the
approval expired before the project got Planning Board approval. In the
meantime, ACE regulations have changed so that it no longer has jurisdiction.
Mr. Tegeder instructed the applicant to provide a
copy of the new ACE regulations showing the changes, in order to verify that
an ACE permit was no longer required.
The Planning Board declared itself the lead agency under SEQRA, made a
negative declaration of environmental impact based on a long form
Environmental Assessment Form and approved the site plan.
October 5, 2009, work session
Ms. Wagner recused herself from this discussion.
This project is on Route 6 at Old
Farm Lane between Wallauers
and a pizza place. The foundations for the two buildings are in, but
some changes to the site plan might be necessary because the prospective
tenants have changed. The smaller, rear building was originally
supposed to house a dance studio with a second floor apartment. That
tenant has backed out and has not been replaced. The larger, front
building was originally going to be a take-out restaurant, but that has
changed to a full-service restaurant, which increases parking requirements
and concerns about dumpster placement. However, exactly what will be
required depends on the design of the restaurant's kitchen which is not ready
at this time. Probably 69 parking spaces will be required. The
site has 57 spaces. The applicants will probably apply for a parking
variance.
The Board and the applicants discussed various options to make up the parking
space difference:
Spaces along the building where the take-out window would have been. This
possibility will be referred to the Fire Marshal
§ Sharing
with Wallauer's. The applicant will inquire about
this, but without much hope of success.
§ Sharing
between the site's two buildings if their peak use times did not overlap.This option is hard to evaluate without
information about the smaller building's tenant.
§ Eliminating
the second story apartment. The applicant is reluctant to do this because it
trades rentable space for parking spaces, but Mr. Flynn pointed
out that the residential apartment's parking requirements might be
compromising the commercial use of the site.
§ Reconfiguring
the parking lot so that it was a cul-de-sac rather than a circle around the
larger building. Applicant will consider this, but it presents problems for
large delivery trucks servicing the restaurant.
There was lengthy discussion about
dumpster placement, but nothing was decided. Currently the
dumpster for both buildings is in the back of the site facing the neighboring
condos. The Board wants the dumpster with kitchen garbage moved away
from the residences. Mr. Tegeder suggested
contracting for two dumpsters, separating the garbage from the two buildings
and moving the kitchen garbage away from the property line. The
applicant pointed out that the condo property along their property line is
currently used for storage of the condo complex's maintenance vehicles and
materials, so the aesthetics of the area are already compromised.
Mr. Tegeder suggested the site be reconfigured,
depending on the requirements of the restaurant when its plans are available,
and the plans submitted to the Planning Department. From there it would
be referred to the fire marshal. He also asked that any revisions in
the landscaping plans be submitted to the Planning Department.
November
23, 2009, Work Session
Mr. Esposito reported that the Fire Marshal
gave his okay to the proposed parking configuration which included parking
spaces along side the restaurant building.
A landscaping plan, which was awaiting approval of the final parking
configuration, will now be submitted.
The applicant asked that the project be put on the Planning Board’s
12/14/09 agenda for final approval.
The PB agreed. Mr. Flynn
expressed surprise that the Fire Marshal was okay with parking spaces right
along the building, but Mr. Espositio explained
that the parking lot was large and open enough to provide adequate turning
radius for fire trucks.
December 14, 2009, Regular Session
Mr.
Klaus explained that the site plan revision did not include any changes in
the footprint of the parking area or the building, but that the parking had
to be redesigned when the building’s proposed use changed from a take-out to
a full-service restaurant. The Planning Board approved the site plan
revision.
January 11,
2010, regular session
The Planning Board went into executive
session to approve a revision of the parking plan for this site, necessitated
by an e-mailed opinion from the Fire Marshal. The revision requires two parking spaces
to be in front of the dumpsters, but these will be designated employee spaces
so the cars can be easily removed when the truck comes to empty the
dumpsters. The project will still be
one parking space short, and Mr. Tegeder said this
would have to be resolved before the proposed restaurant could get a CO.
February 8, 2010
regular session
The modifications to the approved parking
plan had already been approved by the Planning Board, pending receipt of the
fire marshals approval in writing, rather than by e-mail. The written
document was received, so the Planning Board approved the revisions to the
site plan.
Village Traditions, LLC (Old Mohegan Electric)
Sec 15.16 Blk 1 Lot 32
Location: 1821 East Main St.
(Route 6 and Lakeland Ave.)
Contact: Roy Fredriksen, PE
Description: Proposed expansion of parking lot to improve traffic and
accommodate additional parking for existing 2nd floor and barn
Planning Board, February 25, 2008 work session
Pre-Preliminary Application
The plan is to finish the second floor of this building and a barn behind it
as professional office space. The additional required parking is proposed for
the area in the back, between the existing building and the barn. Existing
parking which faces Lakeland
Ave. will be converted to a landscaped
pedestrian area. The area behind the barn will be left undeveloped and the
owner has invited the residential neighbors to use that part of the property.
The applicant asked the Planning Board for its preliminary input on the
project.
Originally the applicant was thinking of commercial usage in the expanded
space, but Mr. Tegeder pointed out that proposed
new zoning would not allow new commercial space, but rather professional
office uses. The applicant was agreeable to this limitation.
Mr. Klaus pointed out that the applicant was asking to double the square
footage being used which might overburden the site. The owner offered to keep
the barn as his own private office, rather than develop it, which would
reduce the proposed use expansion of the site.
The Planning Board was generally positive toward the project and asked for
information on the following:
1. existing conditions
2. potential
traffic impacts, especially on route 6
3. drainage
4. wetlands—the
applicant said that possibly part of the proposed parking lot is in a wetland
buffer area
5. significant trees on the
site—the owner said there were none, that the area is just scrub
March 23, 2009,
work session
The Planning Board emphasized its interest in coordinating traffic flow
between this site and the adjacent proposed Dana Cole Day Spa in order to
minimize curb cuts onto Route 6. The applicant said it would study and
address this issue. The Planning Board was interested in the proposed
use of the barn on the back of the Village Traditions property, since it
might have some relevance to the parking lot design currently under
consideration. The applicant has no plans for the use of the barn,
except as storage. The Planning Board said it would require a note to this
effect on the site plan and that the applicant would have to come before the
Board again if the barn was put to a different use. The applicant will
discuss water run-off issues with the Town Engineer.
For update on
traffic issue, see Dana Cole below, April 14, 2009.
June 22, 2009, work session
The site has just enough parking spaces for the proposed use of the
building's second story and of the barn in the back, so the applicant doesn't
want any reconfiguration of the front parking lot that would eliminate even
one parking space. See Dana Cole Hair Salon, June 22, 2009. A
plan showing the front parking lot entrance in the middle of the parking
area, rather than off to one side, also shows an awkward angling of parking
spaces. This is necessary so that cars can back out and turn without
blocking the entrance from Route 6. Mr. Flynn suggested the Planning
Board allow one or two fewer parking spaces on the site as a solution to this
awkward parking plan.
Walt Daniels, representing the Conservation Advisory Board, said the CAB
hasn't seen the mitigation plan for wetland buffer incursion.
The plans for use of the barn in the back of the site were discussed.
Although the barn probably doesn't have any historical significance, Mr. Tegeder requested photographs be included with
the application to document its appearance. The applicant said he was
not planning on changing the outward appearance of the barn and thought it
would be a good transition between the commercial zone on route 6 and the
neighboring residential area.
August
10, 2009, work session
Discussion Site Plan
The wetland mitigation plan was approved by the CAB, subject to a few
changes in the planting list. As per the Planning Boards suggestion,
one of the curb cuts into the front parking area was closed off. Two
side parking spaces were relocated to the rear. The project is awaiting
the Town Engineers comments on the storm water management plan. The
barn in the rear of the main building is being torn down and rebuilt outside
the wetland buffer. Mr. Tegeder
pointed out that the barn, dating from 1883, is on the town's historic
resource list, so the Planning Board will want to know how its materials will
be incorporated into the new structure. A public information hearing
will be held on September 14th.
September 14, 2009
Public Informational Hearing
The applicant explained that the existing barn will be demolished but
that the new barn taking its place will look very similar and that as much of
the original material as possible will be recycled into the new structure.
The new barn will be about 3,000 sq. ft. compared to 2,700 sq. ft. for the
current barn. The barn will be used for retail and office us.
There will be no new construction on the existing building fronting on Route
6 except for modifications to the existing second floor finished attic which
will be renovated for retail and office use.
The site's parking meets town codes and traffic into and out of the site
conforms with the plans developed in conjunction with the
adjoining Dana Cole Salon property. The existing parking spaces on the side
of the building along Lakeland
Ave. will be eliminated and made into a
pedestrian area. The site's stormwater runoff will
be retained under the parking lot.
There were no public comments and the hearing was closed.
December 14, 2009, Work Session
The
discussion centered on the Lakeland
Ave. entrances to the site’s parking lot. The
southern cut will be an entrance only, while the northern one, 46 ft away,
will be two way with a route into the adjacent Dana Cole parking lot. The
applicant thinks this will be confusing to motorists, and the Planning Board
agrees that many will go out the entrance-only driveway. The Planning Board
suggested the one-way driveway be made narrower to discourage egress.
The
applicant said the paved portion of the pedestrian/landscaped area planned
for Lakeland Ave
near route 6 was being made smaller in order to decrease the amount of
impervious surface on the site. If the amount of impervious surface is kept under 5000 sq ft, a full drainage study is not required.
Also the pavement reduction allows more landscaping. There was discussion of
the various types of pervious pavers available. The Planning Board agreed
with the applicant’s suggestion to coordinate the design of his pedestrian
area with one planned for the opposite side of route 6. Mr. Tegeder asked that the pedestrian area be better
connected with the public sidewalk along Lakeland Ave, so pedestrians will
realize this is meant to be a public area.
The
wetland mitigation area is along Lakeland
Ave., and the applicant will agree to any
species composition the Conservation Board specifies.
Some
engineering concerns still have to be addressed, especially with regard to
the traffic flow between this site and the adjacent Dana Cole site, but the
project will have a Public Hearing on January 11, 2010.
January 11, 2010, Regular session
Public Hearing
Description: Expand
existing parking lot to improve traffic and accommodate additional parking
for existing 2nd floor and barn.
Mr. Tegeder pointed out that the applicant had outstanding
application fees , therefore the Planning Board
could choose not to hold the public hearing.
Given that some members of the public may have come out to express
opinions, the Board decided to continue with the public hearing, but informed
the applicant that there would be no further discussion of the project until
all fees were paid.
Mr. Capellini and the applicant’s engineer summarized the
project. The plan is to finished the
existing second floor of a retail space, remove a barn in the back and
replace it with a “barn-like” structure, replace existing parking on the
Lakeland Ave side of the building with a landscaped pedestrian area, provide
parking in the back with a connection to the adjacent Dana Cole site. The goal has been to coordinate the
traffic/parking changes on the Village Traditions site with work being done
across Route 6, in order to have a comprehensive plan for the Route
6/Lakeland Ave. intersection.
Elimination of parking spaces on the side of the building will
eliminate traffic backing onto Lakeland
Ave. close to the intersection. The new parking lot will have two curb
cuts, but one will be entrance only to minimize cars turning out onto Lakeland Ave. The Village Traditions parking lot will
provide an entrance to the Dana Cole site, also eliminating a source of cars
turning on Route 6. The new barn-like
structure will be larger than the existing barn, but will be moved out of the
wetland buffer. Incursion into the
wetland buffer for the Dana Cole connection will be mitigated by plantings in
the area of the old barn.
Mr. Flynn asked if
the parking plan work if the Dana Cole site is never developed. Yes, it can stand alone. Town Wetland Consultant Barber asked that
the wetland be re-flagged. The
Conservation Board asked the applicant to address a waste removal plan. A resident Chris Sciarra
asked if the applicant had done a traffic study and was told that it had.
The public hearing
was adjourned.
February 8, 2010, Adjourned Public Hearing
The public hearing had
been adjourned at the last meeting, rather than closed, pending the payment
of required fees by the applicant (which have been paid), so the hearing was
continued at this meeting. Mr. Basharet from Rayex Group repeated a summary of the project. He
said there are a few engineering details to work out, and that the DEC is
ready to sign off on the flagging of the wetland, so he is hoping the review
process is close to completion.
Speaking at the public hearing, John Gordon, a Mohegan Lake resident,
informed the Planning Board that the barn in the back of the property, which
is slated for demolition, was formerly part of the Mohegan Lake Military
Academy and has oil painted murals on the inside of the barn siding, showing
soldiers in 19th century uniforms. Mr. Gordon, speaking as an artist,
asked if the town historical society might be interested and if there is any
plan to preserve the art work. Mr. Basharet
answered that, where feasible, parts of the old barn would be incorporated
into the new barn proposed to replace it. He said the barn’s historical
character would be duplicated, although the old barn itself is not actually a
historical structure. The painting might be incorporated into the lobby
of the new barn. The Planning Board asked for an estimate of how much
of the old barn would be preserved in the new. The owner of the
property, speaking as an antiques dealer, answered that in his opinion the
paintings are not old, not quality art and are actually in the category of
graffiti and/or pornography. He maintained that the Planning Board has
no authority to review what he does with the inside of his building. As
the Planning Board discussed how to address Mr. Gordon’s concern about the
paintings and how to evaluate their historical and/or artistic merit, the
owner became extremely irate—yelling, screaming, insulting and
threatening. The Planning Board repeatedly asked him to calm down and
listen. Mr. Basharet
apologized for his client’s behavior and repeated his desire to
complete the planning review process as soon as possible.
The Planning Board voted to close the public hearing. Meanwhile it will
await the final sign off from the Town Engineer on the stormwater
plan and from the DEC on the wetland flagging, and the matter of the
paintings on the inside walls of the barn will be referred to the Historical
Society.
Dana Hair
Salon
Section 15.16 Block 1 Lot 31
Location: 1833 East Main Street, Mohegan Lake
Contact: Architectural Visions, PLLC
Description: Proposed removal of the existing building and construction of a
new three-story building with associated parking.
See also Zoning
Changes
September 22, 2008, work session
The applicant presented a proposed site plan for the building and parking.
The plan calls for the existing building, which dates back to the 1800s, to
be demolished and a new 3-story building constructed on the old foundation,
assuming that upon examination it is determined to be usable. The applicant
said that while his original plan was to renovate the building, further
inspection deemed that not feasible. He will, however, attempt to keep some
of the old materials that have historic value.
The new building will include a hair salon on the first floor, spa on the
second floor, and possibly additional spa space and office space on the third
floor. The site plan calls for keeping the existing landscaping in the front
of the building as well as the existing circular entrance.
Most of the building and some of the parking is in the wetland buffer. Mr.
Klaus pointed out that if the existing building was retained and renovated,
its presence in the wetland buffer would not be an issue. However, as a new
building is being proposed, the board does have to consider the project's
impact on the wetlands and will require a wetlands assessment. Mr. Ryan asked
the applicant if he would consider relocating the building out of the
wetlands buffer, especially if the existing foundation proved unusable. The
applicant said he would study this option.
January 12, 2009, work session
The applicant has decided to renovate the existing building, keeping as much
as the existing building as possible and working his interior plans into the
existing floor plan. While renovating the existing building will cost more
than constructing a brand new one, the trade off for the owner is that if he
were to start from scratch, the plan would have to meet the new, stricter
code requirements dealing with wetlands and wetlands buffers.
The site will include 28 parking spaces. In order to limit the amount of
impervious surface, the parking will be divided into two sections: the front side
yard that will be paved with Belgium
block and employee parking in the rear that will be on gravel.
The site will be graded so that run off will sheet flow to a bioswale along one side of the property. This will slow
the runoff and also cleanse it until it reaches a catch basin further to the
rear of the site. The runoff from the basin, which will be released at a
lower rate than the site actually generates, will be released to the adjacent
town owned wetlands.
While ABACCA recommended that the building conform to the two adjoining
properties, the board took exception to this recommendation and instead
preferred that the building, while being in harmony with the two properties,
retain some of its original older flavor. Mr. Gioradno
asked what the rational was for having the new building look like the others
while the building had character of its own. The roof of the building will
include some gables, although the final design is subject to change. The
existing trees in front of the building will be retained.
In general, the board had a “warm and fuzzy” reaction to the preliminary
plan.
February 9, 2009
Public Informational Hearing
The applicant reviewed plans for the renovation of the existing building and
the creation of 27 parking spaces, 11 of which will be for employees. The
plan calls for less impervious surface that currently exists on the site.
The only comment from the public was from the owner of the adjoining property
(formerly Mohegan Electric) who was concerned about the plan's proposed
connection to his site so that cars exiting the salon that wanted to proceed
east on Route 6 could make a left turn at the traffic light. The property
owner was not objecting to the proposal; he was only concerned that this the
first time he had heard about its possibly. Mr.
Klaus explained that the board would not force the connection if the property
owner was opposed to it. He also advised the property owner that he could
review the proposed plans for the hair salon in the planning department's
office.
March 9, 2009, work
session
The applicant reported that the Conservation Board had done a site visit and
expressed concern over the proposed bioswale and
the possibility that the gravel parking area would compact over time and
become impervious. Mr. Klaus described the Conservation Board's memo as not
complimentary but not quite “doom and gloom.” He said that he had never heard
of a problem with gravel compacting.
The applicant will flag the site's wetlands and contact the town and DEC to
confirm. If that issue is resolved before next month, the board may schedule
a public hearing on the application. The applicant will also be meeting with
ABACA to review building materials.
April 14, 2009, town board work
session
Planner Robyn Steinberg explained to the board the need for a traffic study
to analysis the traffic impact of these two adjoining projects that are
currently before the planning board. Because the projects are in the
Sustainable Study Area, the town will use Jacobs Edwards & Kelcey traffic consultants to do the study. She
explained that traffic from the Dana Cole site wishing to travel west, would
exit from the adjoining Village Traditions site so that the left turn could
be made at the traffic light.
The board agreed that the plan made good sense and will authorize the
contract at next week's meeting.
April 21, 2009
The board authorized the study discussed at the April 14th work session.
June
22, 2009, work session
The recommendations of the traffic study were discussed. The traffic
consultants recommended that the site's circular driveway be eliminated by
closing off the western-most curb cut, and that traffic enter the Dana Cole
site from the front parking lot of the neighboring Village Traditions
property, then proceed to Dana Cole's parking in the back via a driveway
along the east side of the building. Egress would be via Dana Cole's
remaining eastern curb cut which would be exit- only.
Mr. Greenberg summarized the applicant's objections to this plan:
-the
property has two legal curb cuts, so the applicant doesn't see the wisdom in
closing one off and creating an awkward traffic circulation
-the plan
would rob Village Traditions of a parking space
-it would
be unclear to customers as to which driveway to enter for the Dana Cole Salon
-the turn
from the Village Traditions entrance into the Dana Cole driveway would be
difficult to negotiate
-the
circular driveway is in keeping with the historic character of the building
which is being preserved
Mr. Tegeder suggested that the Dana Cole Salon keep the
circular driveway and two curb cuts-one for entry and one for exit, but that
Village Traditions close their western curb cut and move their eastern one to
the center of their parking area. Then Village Traditions' customers
could either park in the front of that building or use the Dana Cole Salon
driveway to get to the parking lot in the back of Village Traditions.
This achieves the safety goal of distancing curb cuts from the
intersection. Representatives of both Dana Cole Salon and Village
Traditions and the Planning Board thought this was a good plan.
Mr. Greenberg reviewed recently revised plans for silt basins, bioswales and landscaping in the back of the
building. Walt Daniels, representing the Conservation Advisory Board,
said that the CAB had not had a chance to comment on these revised plans and
that the project did not have adequate mitigation to compensate for the
incursion of the parking lot into a wetland buffer. Mr. Greenberg said
that Bruce Barber, the Town's environmental consultant had approved the
wetland mitigation plan and suggested the CAB and Mr. Barber confer.
July 13, 2009
Public hearing on site plan
Mr. Greenberg showed the board a revised stormwater management plan that moved the gravel parking area out of the wetland
buffer zone and also relocated the bioswale. In
response to concerns from the Conservation Board that the gravel could
compact over time and lose its permeability, he said that ¾ “ stone which
would not compact would be used. The wetlands at the rear of the lot were
re-delineated with input from Bruce Barber. The applicant will replace
existing invasive species in the wetland area with a seed mix recommended by
Mr. Barber. The site plan retains the original circular driveway and will
have two access points to the adjoining property. Mr. Greenberg asked the
board to reconsider the $3500 cost for the traffic consultant's study which
he said was 99% boilerplate. The remaining 1% of the comments about removing
the circular driveway wouldn't work. He said that his own consultant had come
to the same conclusion at a cost of $850 and that the town's consultant had
received $7,000 for the study, half each from Dana Cole and the adjoining
Village Traditions property. In response Mr. Klaus said that that type of
request had never come up before. Mr. Tegeder
defended the study on the grounds that it did evaluate the impact the site
plan would have on traffic in the area and he reminded Mr. reenberg that a traffic study is done for all new site
plans in the Sustainable Study area. He acknowledged, however, that the
consultant did not have the historic knowledge about the circular driveway.
Mr. Flynn suggested that Mr. Greenberg submit his comments about the traffic
study in writing and that the board would consider it. There were no public
comments. The hearing was closed but will remain open for written comments
for two weeks. If all issues are resolved within the next month, the site
plan may come up for a vote at the board's August 10th meeting.
August 10, 2009
Decision Statement
Neither the applicant nor the Planning Board had any additional comments
on the site plan or the approval resolution. The Planning Board
declared itself lead agency and adopted a negative
declaration under SEQR. The site plan was approved.
1750 East Main Street
SBL: 15.12-1-2
Location: 1750 East Main Street,
Mohegan Lake
Contact: Raul Hernandez, Joel Greenberg, engineer
Description: Proposed renovation of existing building into a two-story
restaurant with associated parking.
June 8, 2009, work session
Discussion Site Plan
This is the former antique store/used clothing store next to Mohegan Motors
on Route 6. The proposed restaurant will be “authentic Latin cuisine.”
The Planning Board raised the question as to whether site plan review is even
necessary, given that all the renovation work will be interior and under Building
Department purview. The site's original plans date from 1973, but
the project was not built as specified in this plan. The Planning Board
decided it will need a current site plan to see how present conditions
deviate from those approved in 1973.
The parking spaces on the site are bigger than required by current
regulations and the aisles are wider. If they are cut down as allowed
by current regulations, there are 28 parking spaces. The proposed
restaurant will need only 27.
The applicant was instructed to verify that the old storm water plan still
works and to suggest ways to enhance it. The Planning Board also wants
information about traffic and landscaping.
|