|
Winery/Old Stone Church
Section
15.12 Block 2 Location:
Contact:
Louis Spizzirro , Chris Savara
CS Construction Description:
Application for a special use permit to convert a dwelling built prior to
1930 to an eating place pursuant to Section 300-68 of the Code of the Town of
See also Legal
Issues regarding the Winery lawsuit. 11/27/2007 (work session) February 26, 2008 Work
Session June 17, 2008 (For May 5, 2009 comments about
adjoining town owned property, see Winery |
|
November
23, 2009, work session Description: The ZBA requested the Planning Board process a
parking plan prior to their decision on the special permit. The building will be used as a
“winery” where people come to “purchase a taste of
wine”. There will be no
retail wine sales. The hours of
operation will be 4 pm to 1 am on Monday through Friday, 2 pm to 2 am on
Saturday and special events only on Sunday. Mr. Flynn said these hours of
operation would be in the applicant’s favor because the winery would operate
off-peak traffic times. There was discussion of how the
number of required parking spaces would be determined. Since the Town code does not include
“winery” and since the special use permit is for an
“eatery”, the Planning Board said that the parking requirements
for a “restaurant” were in force. Mr. Spizzirro
maintained that a winery is a less intense use than a restaurant and
therefore should require fewer parking spaces. Mr. Tegeder
pointed out that special use permits attach to the property, not the owner,
so the property could be sold and revert to a restaurant. Therefore the parking plan had to
accommodate a restaurant. Mr. Spizzirro was under the impression that the number of
seats in a restaurant determined the number of parking spaces required. Ms. Steinberg pointed out that the
number of parking spaces is determined by square footage, not seating. The Board reiterated, several times,
that the parking requirements would be those of a restaurant and be based on
area, not seats. No specific
number of spaces was discussed. Mr. Flynn urged the applicant
to review the parking plans developed for a restaurant under the
building’s previous owner.
The Planning Board and the previous owner had done considerable work
on this issue, especially on traffic circulation on and into the site. However, the old plans did not have
quite enough parking spaces, and the spaces were not exclusive to the
site. The applicant will lease space
across the street on Mr. Savara
asked about parking on Town-owned land along Mr. Spizzirro
asked “where the existing landscaping plan
came from”. Mr. Tegeder told him that it was a typical landscaping plan,
required for all projects. He
also said significant mitigation would be required for parking in a wetland
buffer area. Mr. Tegeder
suggested the applicant update the site’s survey to include the leased
land and to reflag the wetland, since wetland flags are only good for one
year. This will be useful in
laying out the parking plan. Mr. Flynn said the building was
a “worthy structure” that the Board wants to see kept up. |
|
January 11, 2010, work session Based on a parking plan developed by the site’s previous owner (Palmetto), the applicant was under the impression that an approved parking plan was already in place. Mr. Flynn told him that a parking plan had never been finalized and that the Planning Board always has had had concerns about the adequacy of wetland mitigation on the site. He urged the applicant to look for off-site wetland mitigation projects. This exchange was repeated several times throughout the discussion.
Mr. Sciarra described a plan to use Town-owned land to the west (in the adjacent strip mall) for parking, but the land in question is no longer Town-owned and this change hadn’t been recorded on Town maps. He expressed frustration that no progress had been made on the parking plan and about the time wasted because of inaccurate Town maps. Mr. Sciarra also expressed the opinion that the Town’s review of this project was being influenced by previous lawsuits, and that he “was tired of it.” Mr. Flynn assured the applicant that the Planning Board would review the project fairly, but with due regard to the Town’s regulations and the difficulty of the site and that the Planning Board was not concerned with the past lawsuits. Ms. Kutter, speaking for the Conservation Board, also said the CB was concerned with the site’s environmental constraints and mitigation, not the lawsuits.
Mr. Tegeder pointed out that the Planning Board’s review of the parking plan was being held up by the applicant’s failure to submit the information the Planning Board requested at the last work session, i.e. square footage of patron and prep space on which parking requirements are based an updated survey including the State land which will be leased for parking a reflagged wetland with verification by the Town’s wetland consultant revisiting new traffic conditions along Route 6 wetland mitigation measures
There was discussion about the specifics of the lease for the State land to be used for parking. Ms. Wagner said the lease could be revoked with 10 days notice, but Mr. Spizzirro said this wasn’t a problem because the special use permit could be made conditional on the availability of the State land for parking.
Ms. Kutter emphasized the Conservation Board’s concerns about wetland mitigation and asked to be informed when the wetland reflagging was finished so the Conservation Board could make a joint site visit with the Planning Board. Since the ZBA asked the Planning Board to approve a parking plan, the Planning Board will be the wetland permitting authority and will be advised by the Conservation Board. Mr. Sciarra asked if it would be necessary to provide mitigation for already paved areas and was told that the applicant needs to mitigate future changes. He asked if replacing wetland and its buffer with permeable gravel would be sufficient mitigation. Both Ms. Kutter and Mr. Tegeder reviewed the multiple functions of viable wetland plant and soil communities.
Mr. DeChiaro asked if he would be better off pursuing a zoning variance or a rezoning. He outlined the following strategy: Toward the goal of getting the winery operational and generating revenue as quickly as possible, he would request a special use permit from the ZBA with the stipulations that there be no on-site parking at all (i.e. all patrons arrive by cab) and that the number of patrons be strictly limited. Then he would pursue a zoning change from the Town Board and/or a change in the Town code to include “winery” and specify the parking requirements for this new use. This was the first the Planning Board and Planning Department had heard of this strategy. They thought it was “creative”, but probably not necessary. The consensus was that Mr. DeChiaro needs a parking plan, but he hasn’t given the Planning Board a specific proposal to review nor any of the requested information. Mr. Tegeder also mentioned that potentially the Planning Board could support a parking variance, which would be another approach to the lack of parking on the site. |
February 8, 2010, work session
Request for rezone from R1-20 to the
Transition zone
The applicant is no longer actively pursuing a special use permit for a
restaurant nor a rezoning to a transition zone, but rather is consulting with
the Conservation Board and the Planning Department to find a use for the site
that “will work”, considering the size of the property and its
wetlands constraints. However, the long-term strategy is to get the
property rezoned from R1-20 to Transition Zone. One possibility mentioned
is to reconfigure the amounts of public space and prep space in the building so
as to reduce the parking requirements. Ms Kutter
reiterated that the Conservation Board’s concerns were about incursions
into the wetlands, not the specific building use.
Louis Spizzirro, Chris Savara and Tom DeChiaro notified the Planning Board that the wetland on the site had been re-flagged and a parking layout designed based on the building’s proposed floor plan. The applicant wants to get on the Planning Board agenda before the next ZBA meeting and is “looking for validation” that the parking calculations are correct. Mr. Tegeder said the actual parking plan had not been submitted, although the applicant said he had hand delivered it to the Planning Department. There was some speculation about what could have happened to the paperwork. Mr. Tegeder suggested that in the future the applicant submit a letter indicating what documents are being submitted. In any case without the plans, the Planning Board couldn’t review the parking plan at this meeting. Mr. Tegeder said the parking calculations seemed “in the ballpark” and suggested he and the applicants “sit down in the same room” and hammer out the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Tegeder also told the applicant they need to submit a scale drawing of the parking lot, that a sketch is insufficient. Attorney Wagner asked for a survey of the State DOT property that will be leased for parking, as well as a copy of the lease. Mr. Tegeder said that survey information needs to be on the engineering drawings. Mr. DeChiaro asked about using traffic information from a study done by former owner Palmetto and was told this information is dated, but it could be used as a starting point. Mr. Tegeder said usually applicants hire their own traffic consultants then the data are reviewed to see how if comports with the Sustainable Development Study.
Return to Home