Meeting Overview

Meeting of March 11, 2015

Town of Orangetown  Planning  Board

 

 

MEMBERS   PRESENT:  Kevin Garvey, Chairman; Bruce Bond; Vice Chairman; William Young; Michael Mandel; Stephen Sweeney; Thomas Warren and Robert Dell (arrived at 9:10 p.m.)

 

 

MEMBERS  ABSENT: None

 

 

ALSO  PRESENT:  John Giardiello, Director, Department of Building, Zoning, Planning Administration and Enforcement; Robert Magrino, Deputy Town Attorney; Ann Marie Ambrose, Stenographer and Cheryl Coopersmith,

Chief Clerk

 

Kevin Garvey, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Garvey read the agenda. Hearings as listed on this meeting’s agenda which are made a part of these minutes were held as noted below:

 

New Items:

Anellotech  Inc. Site Plan                                                                  PB #15-13

Addition  to Building  123                       Continued  to

Final Site Plan Review                            April 22, 2015 Meeting

401 North Middletown Road, Pearl River

68.08/1/1; LI zoning district

 

Silva Site Plan

Critical Environmental Area

Prepreliminary/ Preliminary/ Final

Site Plan and SEQRA Review

929 Route 9W, Upper Grandview

71.13/1/12; R-22 zoning district

 

Postponed  to

March 25, 2015

Meeting

PB #15-14

 

The Saloon Site Plan                             Final Site Plan Final Site Plan Review                            Approval  Subject Building Addition Plan                             to Conditions

45-49 West Central Avenue, Pearl River

68.16/1/9; CC zoning district

PB #15-15

 

 

The decisions of the February 11, 2015 Planning Board Meeting was reviewed, edited, and approved. The motion for adoption was made and moved by William Young and seconded by Stephen Sweeney and carried as follows: Kevin Garvey, aye; Bruce Bond, aye; Michael Mandel, aye, William Young, aye; Robert Dell, aye; Stephen Sweeney and Thomas Warren, aye.

 

 

The decisions of the February 25, 2015 Planning Board Meeting was reviewed, edited, and approved. The motion for adoption was made and moved by William Young and seconded by Stephen Sweeney and carried as follows: Kevin Garvey, aye; Bruce Bond, aye; Michael Mandel, aye, William Young, aye; Robert Dell, aye; Stephen Sweeney and Thomas Warren, aye.

 

301.:1.:10 S)!~310 NMO!

.                                                   .

lE r lJd    t   Hdl-J   SIOZ

 

NA\013~NVCIO  :JO  Nh\01

 

March 11, 2015 Planning  Board  Meeting

 

The Decisions  of the above hearings,  as attached  hereto, although  made by the Board before the conclusion  of the meeting  are not deemed  accepted  and adopted  by the Board until adopted  by a formal  motion for adoption  of such minutes  by the Board.  Following  such approval  and adoption  by the Board, the Decisions  are mailed to the applicant.  The verbatim  transactions  are not transcribed,  but are available.

 

Since there was no further  business  to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Bruce  Bond and seconded  by Michael  Mandel and agreed to by all in attendance.  The meeting was adjourned  at 10:35 p.m.

DATED:  March  11, 2015               /’l     {_   “f  /’I.    <»:   r1   ,.      0

The next Planning  Board meeting  is scheduled  for March 25, 2015.

 

 

Cheryl Coopersmith                    \….:..Jlfl-M          GtJOj~A  “4t=f\

Chief Clerk Boards and Commissions

 

30ld:JO S)JH310   NM01

 

Qt  t  Wd   1    Hd.1:1   5102

 

Nb\G!3DNV’HO dO NMO!

 

 

PB #15-13:  The Saloon Site Plan-  Final Site Plan Approval  Subject to

Conditions

 

Town of Orangetown  Planning  Board Decision

March 11, 2015

Page 1of9

 

TO: FROM:

Donald Brenner,  4 Independence  Avenue,  Tappan,  New York

Orangetown  Planning  Board

 

 

RE:                 The Saloon Site Plan: The application  of Bridget  Killen, owner, for Final Site Plan Review at a site known as “The Saloon Site Plan”, in accordance  with Article  16 of the Town  Law of the State of New York, the Land Development  Regulations  of the Town of Orangetown,  Chapter  21A of the Code of the Town of Orangetown.  The site is located at 45 –  49 West  Central Avenue,

Pearl River, Town of Orangetown,  Rockland  County,  New York, and as shown on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.16,  Block 1, Lot 9 in the CC zoning

district.

 

Heard by the Planning  Board of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting held Wednesday,  March 11, 2015, the Board made the following

determinations:

 

 

Donald Brenner  and Sarah Torrens  appeared  and testified. The Board received the following  communications:

1. Project Review Committee Report dated  March 4, 2015.
2. An interdepartmental memorandum  from the Office of Building,  Zoning, Planning  Administration  and Enforcement,  Town of Orangetown,  signed  by John Giardiello,  P.E., Director,  dated  March 11, 2015.
3. An Interdepartmental memorandum  from the Department  of Environmental Management  and Engineering  (DEME),  Town of Orangetown,  signed  by Bruce Peters,  P.E., dated March 5, 2015.
4. A letter from Brooker Engineering, signed  by Kenneth  DeGennaro,  P.E., dated

June  11, 2014.

5. A letter from the Rockland County Department  of Planning,  signed  by

Douglas  Schuetz,  Acting  Commissioner   of Planning  dated  February  26, 2015.

6. A letter from the Rockland County Department  of Health, signed  by

Scott McKane,  P.E., Senior  Public Health  Engineer,  dated

February  6, 2015.

7. A letter from the Rockland County Department  of Highways,  signed  by

Sonny  Lin, P.E., dated  March  11, 2015.

8. An interdepartmental memorandum  from the Bureau of Fire Prevention,  Town of Orangetown,  signed  by Michael  Bettmann,  Chief, dated  February 26, 2015.
9. Site Plans prepared by Leonard Jackson  Associates,  dated  March  17, 2014, last revision date of January  23, 2015:

Drawing  1  :  Title Sheet

Drawing 2: Layout  Plan

 

301.:l:H> S)fH310  NMO!

.                                                                       .

es  t ldd    t   Hda    5102

 

MA\0!3·0NVldQ  .:10  NA\Ol

 

10. Information Drawings:

• Survey Map prepared  by Robert  Rahnefeld,  PLS, dated January  21, 2008, revised January  29, 2008
• Survey  Map prepared  by Robert  Rahnefeld,  PLS, dated  December  29,

1989, revised June 20, 1991

11. Copies of the following Board Decisions:  ACABOR  #15-03,  Approved  Subject to Conditions,  dated January  22, 2015, ZBA #14-78,  Floor Area Ratio, Side Yard, Building  Height and Off-Street  Parking Variances  Approved,  dated

November  5, 2014 and PB #13-45,  Preliminary  Site Plan Approval  Subject to

Conditions,  dated July 11, 2014. The Board reviewed  the plan.

The hearing was then opened  to the Public. There  being no one to be heard from the Public, a motion was made to close the Public Hearing  portion of the meeting by Bruce Bond and seconded  by Michael  Mandel and carried as follows:

Bruce Bond, aye; Michael  Mandel,  aye; William  Young,  aye; Robert Dell, aye; Stephen  Sweeney,  aye; Thomas  Warren,  aye and Kevin Garvey,  aye.

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  before the Board, the application  was granted a FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

 

1. The following note shall be placed on the Site Plan: “At least

one week  prior to the commencement   of any work,  including  the installation  of erosion  control devices  or the removal  of trees and vegetation,  a

Pre-construction   meeting  must be held with the Town of Orangetown

Department  of Environmental   Management  and Engineering,  Superintendent   of Highways  and the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement.  It is the responsibility  and obligation  of the property  owner to arrange  such a Meeting”.

 

2. Stormwater Management Phase II  Regulations:  Additional  certification,  by an appropriate  licensed or certified  design  professional  shall be required for all matters  before the Planning  Board indicating  that the drawings  and project are in compliance  with the Stormwater  Management  Phase  11    Regulations.

 

3. The applicant shall comply with all previous  and pertinent  Board Conditions: ACABOR  #15-03,  Approved  Subject  to Conditions,  dated January  22, 2015, ZBA

#14-78,  Floor Area Ratio, Side Yard, Building  Height and Off-Street  Parking

Variances  Approved,  dated November  5, 2014 and PB #13-45,  Preliminary  Site

Plan Approval  Subject to Conditions,  dated July 11, 2014.

 

301.:1.:H>  S)lH310  NM01

as  t  Wd    “t .          HdH Sl02

 

Nli\Ol3DNV’~Q  .:IQ  NMOl.

 

4. The property lies within a special flood hazard area designated  as a Zone AE on Flood Insurance  Rate Map (FIRM),  Panel 167 of 207.  The  100 year floodplain base flood elevation  (BFE) is 222.66 feet using the National  Geodetic  Vertical Datum of 1920 and 221.66 feet using the North American  Vertical  Datum of
5. The BFE used for this application was 222.66  feet.   Based on the above

data, the lowest floor elevation  of the proposed  extension  should  be elevated  two feet above the BFE, or to an elevation  of 224.66 feet.  The layout plan shows the first floor elevation  of the extension  at 222.66 feet.  Therefore,  based on the above, the following  items need to be addressed:

 

1. The elevation views of the architectural plans shall label each floor of the building,  such as ‘first floor”.  “second floor”, etc.  The elevation  views shall also show each floor elevation  of the building  as compared  with the BFE.  In addition,  the BFE shall be placed on the elevation  views of the architectural  plans.

 

1. The open bottom areas of the building shall have a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed  area subject

to flooding.   Please provide  proof that this requirement  has been met.

 

 

1. The lowest floor of the extension shall be elevated two feet above the BFE.  Since the layout plan has the first floor elevation  of the extension  at the BFE, then the structure  has to be floodproofed  watertight  below two feet above the base flood elevation  with walls substantially  impermeable

to the passage  of water.   If the structure  is to be floodproofed,  then a New

York State Licensed  professional  engineer  or architect  shall develop  an/or review structural  design,  specifications  and plans for construction.   A floodproofing   certificate  shall be provided that certifies  the design  and methods  of construction  are in accordance  with accepted  standards  for meeting the above floodproofing   requirements.    Furthermore,  all structures below the BFE must be capable  of resisting  hydrostatic  and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy.   Please  provide details from a New

York State licensed  professional  engineer  or architect  for the above items.

 

5. Issuance of the floodplain permit is pending  upon submission  and approval  of the items noted in the above condition,  Condition  #4 of PB #15-13.

 

6. The applicant’s engineer shall submit documentation   (i.e. narrative  description, calculations,  etc.) as to why stormwater  controls/  SW PPP are not required for the proposed  addition.

 

7. The existing sanitary sewer building  connection  shall be shown on the plan.

 

30\.:L~O   S)t~310  NMO!

st ‘t IJd   ‘t  lld\l StOZ

 

N~;;3aNVllO .:10  NMOl

 

8. Drainage Review   Recommendation

The application  has provided  sufficient  information  to demonstrate  potential significant  adverse  impacts to drainage  can be mitigated.  The Planning  Board’s Drainage  Consultant  therefore  recommends  that the Saloon  Site Plan be approved  for drainage  subject to the following  comments.

 

Project    Description

This is the Drainage  Consultant’s  third drainage  review report to the Planning Board for this project; the last review was dated June 3, 2013. The property  is located on the north side of West  Central Avenue,  just west of the Muddy Creek culvert under West Central Avenue.  The project entails a 4, 127 square feet two• story addition  to an existing  7,944 square feet commercial  building.  The lot is almost completely  impervious  from the existing  building  and pavement;  the proposed  building addition  is over lands that are already  impervious.  The property  is located  in the 100-year  FEMA floodplain  of the Muddy Brook (elevation  221.66  NAVO), which  is also under the jurisdiction  of the Rockland County  Drainage  Agency.

 

 

Review   of Additional   Information

The applicant’s  engineer  has indicated  that the proposed  drainage  pattern will remain. As per the June 5, 2014 letter from Leonard  Jackson  Associates,  the parking  lot is not proposed  to be repaved.  If the parking  lot is to be repaved  in the future,  a grading  and drainage  plan shall be prepared  and reviewed  by the Planning  Board that shows the proposed  drainage  pattern.  Given the flat site and existing off-site  buildings  on the west, a new overlay  pavement  course  may adversely  impact the off-site  buildings  to the west if not properly designed.

The building addition  is constructed  on piers and has an open foundation covered with lattice. This is indicated  on the Site Plan, elevation  certificate,  and architectural  drawing  804. The proposed  lattice covering  the openings  shall be constructed  as per the architectural  not, which  requires  it to be open at the bottom and allow stormwater  runoff to flow underneath.  As per the engineer’s

description,  the stormwater  runoff will continue  to follow the easterly  drainage pattern and will not adversely  impact the off-site  building to the west.

Previous  alternatives  for proposed  parking  lot modifications  have been removed from the current  submission.

 

301.:1.:10  S)fH310  NMOl

8.S·  i  Wd    r  HdEJ   SIDZ

 

MIA©!3·~NV~O ;JO  NMO!

 

Continuation  of Condition  #8 ….

 

Project   Comments

1) As per the drainage  consultant’s  June 3, 2014 report and the

November  5, 2013 report, the applicant  shall demonstrate  if the project meets the definition  of a “substantial  improvement”,  which  may require flood  proofing of the existing  building. The applicant  shall address  the provisions  of Chapter

148, “Flood Damage  Prevention”  of the Orangetown  Code. The applicant’s

engineer  had indicated  that the project does not meet the threshold  of a substantial  improvement;  however,  documentation   shall be provided to support this to the satisfaction  of the Floodplain  Administrator.

 

2) As per the consultant’s  previous  requests,  an elevation  certificate  for the existing  building with the proposed  addition  has been provided.  However,  the BFE in Part 89 shall be in NAVO datum  as per the Rockland  County  FIS. The elevation  information  in Part C shall be converted  to NAVD datum. The conversion  between  NAVD and NGVD and source of the Part C elevation information  shall be provided  in the Comments  section. A description  of the “type of equipment  and location”  (Part C2-e) shall be entered  in the

Comments  section.

 

 

9. Rockland County  Department  of Planning  had the following  comments  which are incorporated  herein as conditions  of approval:

 

1) An updated  review must be completed  by the Rockland  County

Department  of Highways  and all any required  permits obtained.

 

 

2) An updated  review must be completed  by the New York State Department of Transportation   and all required  permits obtained.

 

3) An updated  review must be completed  by the Rockland  County  Drainage

Agency.

 

 

4) The minutes from the November  4, 2014 Zoning  Board of Appeals  meeting indicate that the applicant  has agreed to remove the sheds/  storage trailers shown on the Site Plan … The sheds are still shown on the Site Plan, with no reference  to being removed.   The Site Plan must be updated with a map note indicating  that these structures  will be removed  as required  by the Town of Orangetown  Zoning  Board of Appeals.

 

30\:BO   <,;)l~310 NMOl

g& }_  lilcl   i .    lld\.J   SlOZ

 

N~0139tfv~0  .:10  NMOl

 

10. Rockland County Health Department (RCDOH) reviewed the plans and found that there are no RCDOH approvals needed for this application.

 

11. The Rockland County Department of Highways reviewed the information and plans and provided the following comments:

1) The zero net increase in the peak rate of discharge for storm water from all design points within this project shall be demonstrated together with existing drainage location with grading, erosion and sedimentation control information.

 

2) Notes 15 on Drawing 2 indicate Orangetown Superintendent of Highway should be provided with plans while this development is bounded by County and State Highway only. Please correct.

 

3) A Rockland County Highway Department Work Permit will be required for the proposed development prior to any construction on site.

 

12. Based upon Rockland County Drainage Agency (RCDA) evaluation of available mapping and information submitted, the site has been determined to be within the jurisdiction of the RCDA. The previous proposal was for improvements within the envelope of the existing structure and therefore a permit was not requested. However, the current proposal is for the second floor development and building expansion. Therefore, a permit from the RCDA pursuant to the Rockland County Stream Control Act is required. Please have the applicant submit an application to RCDA immediately.

 

13. The Town of Orangetown Bureau of Fire Prevention had the following comments which are incorporated herein as conditions of approval:

 

• Drawing dated June 4, 2014 does not show any vehicle access to the rear of the building.

 

• All driveway areas other than designated parking spaces shall be dedicated fire lanes with striping and signs indication such. There are no parking spaces shown on the June 4, 2014 drawing.

 

• Decrease the size of the curb area around parking spaces 11-14. Does not apply if there are no parking spaces.

 

301;1;10  S’>1~310  NMOl

s& }_ \ild     t ·_        HdU   SUIZ

 

N:MG13DN’Hl0 ;IG NMOl

 

 

• Using the supplied occupancy calculations, there is a total of 179 persons on the 2″d floor and 120 on the roof; this is a large number to have exiting into the alley ways. There needs to be clear egress from the rear of the building, allowing occupants to evacuate the area. In addition, will these spaces be used during Parades, (Thanksgiving eve, etc., these are traditionally busy days and overcrowding has been an issue). The June 4,

2014 drawing shows a small walkway on the northwest corner of the lot, the alley between the Saloon and the adjacent building is obstructed by HVAC equipment, etc. and the driveway on the east side is against the creek with no protection to prevent patrons from falling.

 

 

• Sprinkler drawings, fire alarm drawings and construction plans shall be provided for review and approval.

 

• There is a generator shown on the drawing, clarify if this generator is proposed or presently in place.

 

14. The applicant shall comply with all pertinent items in the Guide to the

Preparation of Site Plans prior to signing the final plans.

 

15. All reviews and approvals from various governmental agencies must be obtained prior to stamping of the Site Plan.

 

16. TREE PROTECTION: The following note shall be placed on the site plan: The Tree Protection and Preservation Guidelines adopted pursuant to Section

21-24 of the Land Development Regulations of the Town of Orangetown will be implemented in order to protect and preserve both individual specimen trees and

buffer area with many trees. Steps that will be taken to preserve and protect existing trees to remain are as follows:

1. No construction equipment shall be parked under the tree canopy.
2. There will be no excavation or stockpiling of earth underneath the trees.
3. Trees designated to be preserved shall be marked conspicuously on all sides at a 5 to 10 foot height.
4. The Tree Protection Zone for trees designated to be preserved will be established by one of the following methods:

 

• One (1) foot radius from trunk per inch DBH.

 

• Drip line of the Tree Canopy. The method chosen should be based on providing the maximum protection zone possible. A barrier of snow fence or equal is to be placed and maintained one yard beyond the established tree protection zone. If it is agreed that the tree protection zone of a selected tree must be violated, one of the following methods must be employed to mitigate the impact:

 

30\~;W S’>l’tl310 NMOl

Qt  t  \Jd   1 ·.,        Hd\:l  filUZ

1+~~;3~NVMO  .:!O  N.lfl.OJ.

 

• Light to Heavy Impacts – Minimum  of eight inches of wood chips installed  in the area to be protected.  Chips shall be removed  upon completion  of work .

 

., Light Impacts  Only –  Installation  of%  inch of plywood  or boards, or equal over the area to be protected.

 

The builder or its agent may not change  grade within the tree protection zone of a preserved  tree unless such grade change  has received final approval  from the Planning  Board.  If the grade  level is to be changed

more than six (6) inches, trees designated  to be preserved  shall be welled

and/or  preserved  in a raised bed, with the tree well a radius of three (3)

feet larger than the tree canopy.

 

 

17. All landscaping shown on the site plans shall be maintained  in a vigorous growing  condition  throughout  the duration  of the use of this site.  Any plants not so maintained  shall be replaced  with new plants at the beginning  of the next immediately  following  growing  season.

 

18. Prior to the commencement  of any site work,  including  the removal of trees, the applicant  shall install the soil erosion  and sedimentation   control as required by the Planning  Board.   Prior to the authorization  to proceed  with any phase of the site work, the Town of Orangetown  Department  of Environmental Management  and Engineering  (DEME)  shall inspect the installation  of all

required  soil erosion  and sedimentation  control  measures.   The applicant  shall contact  DEME at least 48 hours in advance  for an inspection.

 

19. The contractor’s trailer, if any is proposed,  shall be located  as approved  by the Planning  Board.

 

20. If the applicant, during the course of construction, encounters  such conditions as flood areas,  underground  water,  soft or silty areas,  improper  drainage,  or any other unusual  circumstances  or conditions  that were not foreseen  in the original planning,  such conditions  shall be reported  immediately  to DEME.  The applicant shall submit their recommendations   as to the special  treatment  to be given such areas to secure adequate,  permanent  and satisfactory  construction.   DEME shall investigate  the condition( s), and shall either approve  the applicant’s recommendations   to correct the condition(s),  or order a modification  thereof.   In the event of the applicant’s  disagreement  with the decision  of DEME, or in the event of a significant  change  resulting  to the subdivision  plan or site plan or any change that involves  a wetland  regulated  area, the matter shall be decided  by the agency with jurisdiction  in that area (i.e. Wetlands  – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

 

30l::L~O S)t\1310  NMOl SS  “t   \Jcl    ‘t _        Hdl:I  Wl2 li~~;3~NV~O       ;JO NMOJ.

 

21. Permanent vegetation cover of disturbed areas shall be established on the site within thirty (30) days of the completion of construction.

 

22. Prior (at least 14 days) to the placing of any road sub-base, the applicant shall provide the Town of Orangetown Superintendent of Highways and DEME with a plan and profile of the graded road to be paved in order that these departments may review the drawings conformance to the approved construction plans and the Town Street Specifications

 

23. The Planning Board shall retain jurisdiction over lighting, landscaping, signs and refuse control.

 

24. All of the conditions of this decision, shall be binding upon the owner of the subject property, its successors and /or assigns, including the requirement to maintain the property in accordance with the conditions of this decision and the requirement, if any, to install improvements pursuant to Town Code §21A-9. Failure to abide by the conditions of this decision as set forth herein shall be considered a violation of Site Plan Approval pursuant to Town Code §21A-4.

 

The foregoing Resolution was made and moved by Bruce Bond and seconded by Michael Mandel and carried as follows: Kevin Garvey, aye; Bruce Bond, aye; William Young, aye; Stephen Sweeney, aye; Robert Dell, aye, Michael Mandel, aye and Thomas Warren, aye.

 

The Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign theses DECISION and file a certified copy in the Office of the Town Clerk and the Office of the Planning Board.

 

Dated: March 11, 2015           ~                        /f    _            ,  _   r–>–LD

Cheryl Coopersmith                                           La9;~Pi!.    :rv  \

Chief Clerk Boards and Commissions

 

st

301.:l:JO   S)ni310  NMOl

t  \dd    t .          Hda    SlOZ

–  —         –      .

N.MG13~NV~O    :JO NMOl