Meeting Overview

 

Meeting  of May 22, 2013

Town  of Orangetown   Planning  Board

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:  Kevin Garvey,  Chairman;  Bruce Bond; William  Young; Michael  Mandel;  John Foody; Jeffrey  Golda and Robert  Dell

 

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:

 

155 Corporate Drive Site Plan Final Site Plan Amendment  to Approved  Site Plan Review 73.15/1 /18 & 73 .19/1/1; LIO zoning  district	Final Site Plan ApprovalSubject to Conditions	PB #13 -19
The Pointe at Lake Tappan Site Plan		PB#13-20
Final Site Plan Amendment  to Approved  Site Plan Review	Postponed to June 12th Meeting
73.10/1/4,  5, 6 (partial);  PAC zoning  district
HillsideCommercial Park Site Plan		PB#13-21
Final Site Plan Review	Disapproval of
68.11/3/39  & 40; LI zoning  district	Final Site Plan

 

The decisions  of the April 24, 2013  Planning  Board Meeting  was reviewed,  edited and approved.  The  motion for adoption  was made and moved by Michael  Mandel and seconded  by Bruce Bond and carried  as follows:  Kevin Garvey,  aye; Bruce Bond, aye, Jeffrey  Golda, abstain;  Robert  Dell, abstain;  John Foody, aye;

Michael  Mandel,  aye, and William  Young,  aye.

 

The decisions  of the May 8, 2013  Planning  Board Meeting  was reviewed,  edited and approved.  The motion for adoption  was  made and moved  by Michael  Mandel and seconded  by Bruce Bond and carried as follows:  Kevin Garvey,  aye; Bruce Bond, aye, Jeffrey Golda,  aye; Robert Dell, aye; John  Foody, aye; Michael

Mandel,  aye, and William  Young,  abstain.

 

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 William  Young and agreed to by all in attendance.  The meeting  was adjourned  at 9:05 p.rn.  The next Planning  Board meeting  is scheduled  for June  12, 2013.

 

DATED: May 22, 2013

Town of Orangetown Planning Board

 

 

3m.:l:W ~)f 1:131~  N&Dl ft! Zl tJd   LI .fllr ml NJMH3$NV~O30 NRtOl

 

 

PB #13-19:  155 Corporate Drive Site  Plan Amendment: Final Site Plan

Approval Subject to Conditions

 

 

Town of Orangetown Planning Board  Decision

May 22, 2013

Page  1of9

 

TO:

 

FROM:

Douglas Bartels, P.E., Russo Development, 570 Commerce

Boulevard, Carlstadt, New Jersey 07072

Orangetown Planning Board

 

 

RE:               155 Corporate Drive Site Plan Amendment: The application of 155

Corporate Drive, lnc., owner, for an Amendment to the Final Site Plan, at a site

known as “155 Corporate Drive Site Plan Amendment”, 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 155 Corporate Drive, on the South side of Corporate Drive, 850 feet west of Olympic Drive, Orangeburg, Town of Orangetown, Rockland County, New York. Tax Map: Section 73.15, Block 1, Lot

18 & Section 73.19, Block 1, Lot 1; LIO zoning district.

 

Heard by the Planning Board of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held

Wednesday,   May 22, 2013, the Board made the following determinations:

 

Antomio DelVecchio appeared and testified.

The Board received the following communications:

1  .  Project Review Committee Report dated May 15, 2013.

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 May 22, 20-13.

3. An Interdepartmental memorandum from the Department of Environmental

Management and Engineering (DEME), Town of Orangetown, signed by

Bruce Peters, P.E., dated May 17, 2013.

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

Thomas B. Vanderbeek, Commissioner of Planning, dated May 3, 2013.

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

Sonny Lin, P.E., dated May 6, 2013.

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

Scott McKane, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer, dated May 2, 2013.

7. An Interdepartmental memorandum from the Bureau of Fire Prevention, Town of Orangetown, signed by Michael Bettmann, Chief Fire Inspector, dated

May 13, 2013.

8. A letter from Russo Development signed by Douglas G. Bartels, P.E., Vice President – Development, dated April 29, 2013, attachment of a report entitled “Exterior Sound Evaluation of Proposed Data Center Operations”, prepared by Lewis S. Goodfriend & Associates, dated March 22, 2013.
9. Copies of PB# 13-13: 155 Corporate Drive Site Plan: Amendment to

Preliminary Site Plan Approval Subject to Conditions/ Reaffirmation of Neg. Dec., ZBA #13-34, Approved with Conditions, dated May 15, 2013 and

ACABOR #13-23, Approved subject to Conditions, dated May 16, 2013.

10. Copies of the previous Site Plan Approval Board Decisions: PB #11-52, Final

Site Plan Approval Subject to Conditions, dated November 9, 2011,

ACABOR #11-34, Approved Subject to Conditions, dated September 8, 2011, ZBA #10-92, Variances, dated July 20, 2011 and PB #10-05, Preliminary Site Plan Approval Subject to Conditions, dated July 9, 2010.

 

 

 

3!JB::i0 SXH31~Nli\01 si·il  Md    A.I lir  EW Rit013~NV80  .10  NA\01

 

 

11. Rider #1, Project Description; Rider #2, Project History  of applications  and Approvals;  Rider #3, Summary  of Variances/  Waivers  Granted  by the Planning Board and a Summary  of Variances  Granted  by the Zoning  Board of Appeals, Required  Modifications  to the Relief Granted  and New Variances  Requested.
12. A copy of a letter from Russo Development signed  by Richard  G. Berger, to

the Town of Orangetown  Zoning  Board of Appeals,  dated April 4, 2013.

13. Stormwater Pollution  Prevention  Plan for 155 Corporate  Drive, prepared  by

Russo  Development,  LLC, dated  October  30, 2009,  last revised

April 26, 2013, with required  SWPPP  Certifications.

14. A copy of a letter from Russo Development to the Town  of Orangetown

Zoning  Board of Appeals,  signed  by Richard G. Berger, dated April 4, 2013.

15. Plans prepared, signed and sealed by Douglas  G. Bartels,  P.E. and

Jack Shoemaker,  PLS, Russo  Development,  dated October  30, 2009,  revised

April  26, 2013,  unless  noted: C1:  Title Sheet

C2:     Existing Conditions  Plan

C3:    Site Plan

C3.1:  Construction  Logistics  Plan, dated  February  15, 2013

C4:     Overall  Grading  Plan, dated  May 21, 2010

C4.1:  Grading  & Drainage  Plan

C4.2: Stormwater   Management   Plan and Details, dated  February  17, 2010

C4.3: Stormwater   Management   Plan and Details,  dated April  5, 2010

C5:     Utility Plan

C5.1:  Off-Site  Utility Plan for TC 1, dated  February  15, 2013

C5.2:  Off-Site  Utility Plan for Water  Main Extension,  dated April 26, 2013

C6:     Profiles

C7:     Profiles

C8:     Construction  Details

CB .1: Site Identification  Sign Plan & Details, dated April  19, 2013

C9:    Construction   Details C10:  Construction   Details C11:  Landscape  Plan C12:   Lighting  Plan

C13:  Landscape  & Lighting  Details

C14:  Soil Erosion  & Sediment  Control  Plan

C15:  Soil Erosion  & Sediment  Control  Plan

VT1:   Vehicle  Turning  Plan, dated January  6, 2011

 

The Board reviewed  the plans.

 

There  being no one to be heard from the Public, a motion was made to close the

Public Hearing  portion of the meeting  by William  Young  and second  by Bruce  Bond and carried  as follows:  Bruce Bond, aye; Michael  Mandel,  aye; William  Young,  aye; Robert  Dell, aye; John Foody, aye; Jeffrey  Golda,  aye and Kevin  Garvey,  aye.

 

 

!Ji~UiiC~~B310N•ti U!lW     Ll·Drml KA013~N”fl.W .:W NA\0!

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing and the testimony before the Board, the application was GRANTED  A FINAL SITE PLAN APROVAL 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 I l 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 II Regulations.

 

3. The applicant shall comply with all pertinent and applicable conditions of previous Board Decisions:

 

Decisions for Amendment to the Site Plan:

• ACABOR #13-23: Approved Subject to Conditions, dated May 16, 2013
• ZBA #13-34: Front Yard, Building Height and Loading Berth Variances

Approved with Conditions, dated May 15, 2013

• PB #13-13: Amendment to Preliminary Site Plan Approval Subject

Conditions/ Reaffirmation of Neg. Dec., dated March 27, 2013

 

Prior Board Decisions:

• PB #11-52: Final Site Plan Approval Subject to Conditions, dated

November 9, 2011

• ACABOR #11-34, Approved Subject to Conditions, dated September 8, 2011
• ZBA #10-92, Loading Berth, Front Yard and Building Height Variances

Approved with Conditions, dated July 20, 2011

• PB #10-05, Preliminary Site Plan Approval Subject to Conditions, Neg. Dec., dated July 9, 201o

 

4. The revised SWPPP is acceptable.

 

5. The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and details, last updated

April 26, 2013 is acceptable.

 

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

 

• The parking requirements lists the breakdown for the parking provided. The previous review listed 23 spaces required for 46 employees for the data center,

and this submission lists only 20 employees for a need of 1 o  spaces.  However,

footnote #2 states that the employee count wlll be 46 employees for two shifts, or

23 per each shift.  This discrepancyfor the number of employees must be corrected.

3:~1~.:10 S)l’831~ R.lf1l

SI zt W  LI mF t!IZ

 

U013~~VBO .:W  NA\Gi

 

 

 

 

Continuation of Condition #6 ….

 

• Drawing VT1 illustrates the  turning  movements for  fire  apparatus.    The southwestern turning radii seems to extend beyond the proposed asphalt curbing and perhaps into the area landscaped with  some type of tree.   Is this space sufficient for the fire apparatus? In addition, the turning movement thought the parking lot adjacent to the building, on the east side, shows the turning radii to be coming very close to many of the parking spaces.  Is there sufficient turning room in this parking lot if vehicles, especially large ones, are parked in these spaces? This  plan  must  be reviewed  by the  local fire department and the  Rockland County Office of Fire & Emergency Services.

 

• The conditions of the March 6, 2013 letter from the Rockland County Department of Health must be met.  In addition, all required permits must be obtained from  the  Health  Department for  the  three  proposed  50,000 gallon underground storage tanks.

 

• If any public water supply improvements are required, engineering plans and specification for these improvements shall be reviewed by the Rockland County Department of Health, prior to construction. In order to complete an application for approval of plans for public water supply improvements, the water supplier must supply an engineer’s report pursuant to the “Recommended Standards for Water Works, 2003 Edition”, that certifies their ability to serve the proposed project while meeting the criteria contained within the Recommended Standards for Water Works. These standards are adopted in their entirety in 10 NYCRR, Subpart 5-1, the New York State regulations governing public water systems. Further, both the application and supporting engineer’s report must be signed and stamped by a New York State licensed professional engineer and shall be accompanied by a completed New York State Department of Health Form 348, which must be signed by the public water supplier.

 

• Public sewer mains requiring extensions within a right of way or an easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Rockland County Department of Health prior to construction.

 

 

• A review shall be completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and any required permits obtained.

 

• Water is a scarce resource in Rockland County; thus  proper planning and phasing of this project are critical to supplying the current and future residents of the Villages, Towns, and County with an adequate supply of water. A letter from the public water supplier, stamped and signed by a NYS licensed professional engineers, shall be issued to the municipality for this project, certifying that there will be sufficient water supply during peak demand periods and  in a drought situation.

 

 

 

 

 

!f®’B.:iO  S)HBl~  Rlltll

 

gf.I·W    i1·11r··mz

~··        .,. –                  .

 

 

Continuation of Condition #6….

 

• Several of the proposed plantings on the Landscape Plan do not indicate what type of plant is being proposed, such as the symbols along the southern and western sides of the building. ln addition, 11 FA are proposed along Corporate Drive, but another species is also proposed along this roadway, with no indication as to the type of plant.  All proposed landscaping must be clearly labeled on the Landscape Plan. The landscaping plan shall be revised accordingly.

 

• There shall be no net increase in the peak rate of discharge from the site at all design points.

 

• Prior to the start of construction or grading, a soil and erosion control plan shall be developed in place for the entire site that meets the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control.

 

7. The Rockland County Highway Department found that the proposed action will have no foreseeable adverse impact upon county roads in the area.

 

8. The Rockland County Department of Health reviewed the Site Plan and requests the applicant forward three (3) sets of plans to the Rockland County Department of Health to be stamped and signed as approved.

 

9. The Town of Orangetown Bureau of Fire Prevention held that the proposed amendment to the approved Site Plan has changed drastically and the following comments shall be incorporated herein as conditions of approval:

 

• Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) Room shall be clearly identified: size, type of UPS being used; a room built per Section F-608 of the New York State Fire Code may be required.

 

• Generator area – provide details of exhaust system and area where exhaust duct work will penetrate roof and/or walls.

 

• Data Racks: provide height, width, dimensions of aisles.

 

• Fire alarm systems must be addressable, with two dedicated phone lines, or an approved method of communication and direct connection to 44 Control

System must be NFPA 72 compliant.  Fire alarm plan must be submitted and

approved prior to installation.

 

• An NFPA 13 compliant fire sprinkler system must be installed and designed to protect the specific hazards in this occupancy. (Generators, batteries, etc …)

 

• All egress must comply with Chapter 10 of the New York State Fire Code.

 

 

Continuation of Condition #9 ….

 

• Portable fire extinguishers must be installed as per NFPA 10 Guidelines.

 

• Underground diesel fuel tank storage must be in compliance with Section 3403 of the New York State Fire Code.

 

• The East side of the site (main entrance area) shows a revised parking arrangement then previously presented. The applicant must provide the following on the Site Plan:

 

1) A fire access road in access of 150 feet must provide a tum-around for the fire apparatus, or

2) In an area highlighted on the Site Plan, an analysis of the turning radiuses so that a piece of fire apparatus with a 44 foot six inch wheelbase and overall length of 47 feet can maneuver into the parking area and out without turning around.

 

• West side parking or loading dock area appears to not allow any access for fire apparatus past the chiller area. Please clarify.

 

• All entrances, fire apparatus access roads, gates, etc … must comply with

Appendix FD of the New York State Fire Code.

 

• Key Boxes for Fire Department access must be installed in locations to be determined.

 

• A Certificate of Compliance Fire Safety must be applied for with the appropriate fee and Fire Inspections and acceptance tests of various systems will be conducted as needed during construction.

 

• All fire lanes and fire lane signage must be in compliance with the New York State Fire Code and approved by the Town of Orangetown Bureau of Fire Prevention.

 

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

Preparation of Site Plans prior to signing the final plans.

 

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

 

12. 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.

 

 

 

 

 

::ml:l.:W  S~H310 Nf’ll

~.zJ..t!d   lt·mr··.mi

 

~J\Ol3~tfil’UO dO  NA\tU

 

PB #13-19:  155 Corporate   Drive  Site  Plan Amendment:     Final  Site  Plan

Approval   Subject   to Conditions

 

 

Town  of Orangetown    Planning   Board  Decision

May 22, 2013

Page 7of9

 

 

13. 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 reserve 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 1 O 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:
• 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.

 

14. 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.

 

15. 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.

 

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

 

 

3~1.:l;jO S)iH31~1UIG1

Si ZI fdd    !I ·mr· ml

NJAOl3fJMVHO so Ni\01

 

 

PB #13-19;  155 Corporate   Drive  Site  Plan Amendment:   Final  Site  Plan

Approval   Subject   to Conditions

 

Town  of Orangetown    Planning   Board  Decision

May 22, 2013

Page 8of9

 

 

17. lf 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).

 

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

 

19. 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

 

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

 

Override

The  Board made a motion to override  Conditions  #3 of the May 3, 2013 letter from  Rockland  County  Department  of Planning,  signed  by

Thomas  B. Vanderbeek,   Commissioner   of Planning,  for the following  reasons:

 

 

#3.  The Borough of Old Tappan,  New Jersey is the reason this proposal was referred to the Rockland  County Department  of Planning.  The municipal  boundary  is along the southern  property line of the subject property. The  New York State General  Municipal  Law states that the purposes  of Section  239-1,  239-m  and 239-n of the law shall be to bring pertinent  intercommunity   and countywide  planning,  zoning,  site plan and subdivision  considerations   to the attention  of neighboring  municipalities and agencies  having jurisdiction.   Such review  may include  inter• community  and county -wide  considerations   in respect to the

compatibility  of various  land uses with one another;  traffic  generating characteristics   of various  land uses in relation to the effect of such traffic on other land uses and to the adequacy  of existing  and proposed thoroughfare  facilities;   and the protection  of community  character  as regards  predominate   land uses, population  density,  and the relation between  residential  and nonresidential   area.

 

PB #13-19:  155 Corporate  Drive Site Plan Amendment:   Final Site Plan

Approval Subject  to Conditions

 

 

Town  of Orangetown   Planning  Board  Decision

May 22, 2013

Page 9of9

 

In addition, Section 239-nn was recently enacted to encourage the coordination of land use development and regulation among adjacent municipalities, so that, as a result, development occurs in a manner that is supportive of the goals and objections of the general area. An updated review must be requested from the Borough of Old Tappan, and all of the issues contained in the May 3, 2010 letter from the Borough’s consulting engineer, Thomas Skrable, P.E., must be considered and satisfactorily addressed.

 

The Board held that the New York State General Municipal Law is applicable to municipalities only in New York State, not those located in another state, in this case the Borough of Old Tappan, New Jersey.   In addition, the Borough of Old Tappan had been mailed a referral package for this application and  had not provided any written comments for the meeting.

 

A motion to override the condition was made and moved by William Young and seconded by Michael Mandel and carried as follows: Bruce Bond,

aye; Kevin Garvey, aye; Robert Dell, aye; Michael Mandel, aye; Jeffrey

Golda, aye; William Young, aye and John Foody, aye.

 

The foregoing Resolution was made and moved by John Foody and seconded by Michael Mandel and carried as follows: Bruce Bond, aye; Kevin Garvey, aye; Michael Mandel, aye; William Young, aye; John Foody, aye; Robert Dell, aye

and Jeffrey Golda, aye.

 

The Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this

Decision and file a certified copy in the Office of the Town Clerk and the Office of the Planning Board.

 

Dated: May 22, 2013

Town of Orangetown Planning Board

 

 

::?~i.:U:O  S)H81~ NIA£ll

 

Si. Zl Md   L! mir ml

Rfi\Oi33N’il10  so N&0-1

 

TO: FROM:

Donald  Brenner, 4 Independence  Avenue,  Tappan,  New York

Orangetown   Planning  Board

 

 

RE:                 Hillside  Commercial  Park Site  Plan: The application  of Route 304, LLC, owner,  (Donald  Brenner,  attorney  for the applicant),  for Final Site Plan Review,  at a site to be known as “Hillside Commercial Park 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 on the West side of Route 304 right of way on the South  by Hillside Avenue  and on the East by the CSX railroad right of way,  Pearl River, Town  of Orangetown,  Rockland  County,  New York. Tax Map: Section  68.11,  Block 3, lots  39 & 40; LI zoning  district.

 

Heard by the  Planning  Board of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held

May 22, 2013, at which time the Board made the following  determinations:

 

 

Donald  Brenner,  Edmund  Lane and Stuart Strow appeared  and testified. The Board received  the following  information.

1. A Project Review Report dated  May 15, 2013.
2. An interdepartmental memorandum  from the Office of Building, Zoning, Planning  Administration   and Enforcement,  Town of Orangetown,  signed  by John Giardiel!o,  P.E., Director,  dated  May 22, 2013.
3. An Interdepartmental memorandum  from the Department  of Environmental

Management  and Engineering  (DEME),  Town of Orangetown,  signed  by

Bruce  Peters,  P.E., dated  May 17, 2013.

4. Letters from Maser Consulting, Planning Board Drainage  Consultant,  signed by Joseph  T. Caruso,  P.E., dated  May 7 and 22, 2013.
5. A letter from the Rockland County  Department  of Planning,  signed  by

Thomas  B. Vanderbeek,   P.E., Commissioner  of Planning,  dated  May 14, 2013.

6. A letter from Rockland County Highway  Department,  signed  by Sonny  Lin, P.E., dated  May 10, 2013.
7. Letters from the New York State Department of Transportation,   signed  by

Mary Jo Russo, dated April 1, 2008 and May 2, 2013.

8. An Interdepartmental memorandum  from the Bureau  of Fire Prevention,

Town  of Orangetown,  signed  by Michael  Bettmann,  Chief Fire Inspector,  dated

May 13, 2013.

9. A copy of a letter from the Borough of Montvale, New Jersey,  addressed  to Thom  Kleiner,  Orangetown  Supervisor,  from Wolfgang  Voght,  Chairman, Montvale  Environmental   Commission,  dated  November  21, 2008.
10. Submitted at the meeting, a letter from  Michael  Palko, 40 Rollins Avenue, Pearl River, New York,  undated.
11. Submitted at the meeting, a letter from Joanne  Di Lorenzo,  Registered

Landscape  Architect,  dated  May 22, 2013.

 

 

-;~U.:10 ~~}J31~ ru).@1

 

u,.!\~     LlilDfmi

~~;~3~N’/tiOso N!!Ol

 

 

12. Site Plans prepared by Brooker  Engineering,  dated August  29, 2007,  last revision  date of March 20, 2013:

Drawing T:   Title Sheet

Drawing  1  :        Layout  Plan

Drawing  2:   Grading  and Utility Plan (1  of 2) Drawing  3:   Grading  and Utility Plan (2 of 2) Drawing  4:   Soil Erosion & Sediment  Control  Plan Drawing  5:   Landscaping  &  Lighting Plan

Drawing 6:   Existing Condition Plan

Drawing 7:   Road Profiles (1  of 2) Drawing 8:   Road Profiles (2 of 2) Drawing 9:   Drainage Profiles

Drawing 1 O:  Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Profiles

Drawing 11 :   Force Main Profiles

Drawing 12: Construction Details (1 of 2)

Drawing 13: Construction Details (2 of 2)

Board Member Michael Mandel recused himself from the meeting. Public Comment:

Darcy Castelero, representative of Assemblywomen Ellen Jaffe, noted that a current New York State bill was under consideration to create a bi-state council to review projects for impact on streams, rivers and other environmental issues. She also raised concerns that the proposed type of facility attracts Jaw enforcement issues.

 

Joanne Di Lorenzo, Registered Landscape Architect, 12 Moore Avenue, Pearl River; submitted a letter, dated May 22, 2013. Ms. Di Lorenzo held that the proposed project was overdevelopment of the site and discussed the conditions of the ACABOR decision.

 

Michael Mandel, member of the Town of Orangetown Planning Board, however recused from the proceedings of the item and speaking as a private citizen, 94

Grove Street Pearl River; noted that the Muddy Creek flows through the property

and any development on the site needs approval from the Army Corp of Engineers. He also had issues with condition #7 of the Preliminary Site Plan Approval regarding storage of dirt on the site.  He held that the storage would

raise the flood plain level elevation and cause problems downstream.

 

Bill Clark, 73 Hillside Avenue, Pearl River; noted that the Saloon Restaurant Property has been flooded out and many times rebuilt. The project site had an application in 1985 of a trucking company that the Planning Board denied, so why would the Board approve it at this time.  He felt that the Board should consider the opinion of the people.

 

Amy Bach, 25 Rollins Avenue, Pearl River; held that the Planning Board should follow the “Spirit” of the law when reviewing the project.

 

Tracy Hancock, 48 West George Street, Pearl River; requested clarification of a

Zoning Board of Appeals de·c·. ision.. !1:”-nx””r”t” ul\:&~1

3·c1:J .;i 0  ;;:. -~a.:! I\I     t’Hfl.  .

 

;a.•·.~l·W    l.J. llf  ml

 

Nli013~NV’cl0 .:IO MPAOl

 

 

May 22, 20·13

Page 3 of 6

 

 

 

Andrew Wiley, a Pearl River resident; disagreed with the interpretation of a Zoning Board variance.  He held that the Zoning Board of Appeals may have reviewed a different plan that the Planning Board when reviewing the project application.  Mr. Wiley requested information regarding the acreage of the site and the need for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Army Corp of Engineers review and approvals.

 

Bridget Killen, 45-49 West Central Avenue, owner of the Saloon Restaurant; raised concerns regarding overdevelopment of the site and continued flooding of her property.

 

Carman Riley, 77 West Central Avenue, Pearl River; discussed flooding of Pearl

River and requested that the Board review the project with this in consideration.

 

Mike Palko, 40 Rollins Avenue, Pearl River; submitted a letter to the Board. He raised concerns regarding the loss of trees on the site, increased noise to the area, increase stormwater runoff and damage to the community.

 

Lisa Robertson, 48 West Lewis Avenue, Pearl River; raised concerns regarding development of the site.

 

Eileen Emsworth, 117 East Carroll Street, Pearl River; discussed similar flooding to her property when the Cherry Brook flooded and damaged her house.

 

A motion was made to close the Public Hearing by Bruce Bond, and seconded by John Foody and carried as follows: Kevin Garvey, aye; Bruce Bond, aye; William Young, aye; Robert Dell, aye; John Foody, aye; Jeffrey Golda, aye and Michael Mandel, recused.

 

A motion was made to reopen the Public Hearing by Bruce Bond, and seconded by Robert Dell and carried as follows: Kevin Garvey, aye; Bruce Bond, aye; William Young, aye; Robert Dell, aye; John Foody, aye; Jeffrey Golda, aye and Michael Mandel, recused.

 

A motion was made to close the Public Hearing by Bruce Bond, and seconded by

Jeffrey Golda and carried as follows: Kevin Garvey, aye; Bruce Bond, aye;

William Young, aye; Robert Dell, aye; John Foody, aye; Jeffrey Golda, aye and

Michael Mandel, recused.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT:

 

1  .                The Board found that the applicant received Preliminary Site Plan approval of a plan dated 8/29/07 by decision of this Board dated February 13, 2008.  On May 22, 2013, the applicant presented revised plans for Final Site Plan review, with the revisions dated March 20,

2013. The revised plans included a significant change to the road layout and parking on the site.

 

 

3a1d.:!O  ~~lf~1~Nia01

“nw   i1tmr··mz

 

N-~~~35N\fti0 .:!O  N!iOl

 

 

May 22, 2013

Page 4 of 6

 

 

 

2. The Board found that the applicant changed what had been shown on the 8/29/07 plan as two, 2 lane roads running parallel to each other on the eastern side of Lot 1. One of the 2 lane roads serviced Lot 1   and the other serviced Lot 2. The 3/20/13 plan shows one 2 lane road servicing both lots. While this change might be preferable to the previous plan (see Item 41 in February 13, 2008 Decision), the new plan shows 71 parking spaces for the proposed building on Lot 1 directly off of this 2 lane road servicing both lots. The proposed use on Lot 1   is as a self-storage facility with 2 employees, requiring 1   parking spot. The 8/29/07 plan showed 7 parking spaces, which were in

excess of what was required (See item 40 in February 13, 2008

Decision). The 71 parking spaces shown on the 3/20/13 site plan are

a significant change from what was previously shown and far in excess of what is required for the proposed use. The location for these 71

parking spaces presents a danger when backing out of the spots onto the road that is used for both sites, which is unnecessary given the proposed use at the site. This proposed parking does not provide for safe accessibility to the uses on the site. The applicant did not offer any alternatives such as parallel parking or temporary loading/unloading area for access to the storage facility, or take the opportunity that was afforded to address the Board’s concerns regarding this significant change in the parking plan.

 

3. The Board found that the excess parking on Lot 1 would also have a negative impact upon the subject site as well as adjacent properties by having an unnecessary impact on the layout of impervious area. Rockland County Department of Planning indicated there was excess parking and recommended impervious area be reduced. (See note 7,

4/16/13 Department of Planning Letter) and the New York State Department of Transportation expressed concerns regarding the increase in parking (See note 2, 5/2/13 NYS DOT Letter). The proposed use of the building on Lot 1   does not call for this excessive parking and would adversely affect neighboring properties with perpetually empty parking areas which are of little to no value to the use on the subject property.  Further, the area where these parking spaces are shown could better serve the site and lessen its impact on surrounding areas if these spaces were eliminated in favor of more natural landscape, creating less impervious area.

 

 

::J:>B.:!O  s~H31~ wm~1

 

SiEl Yd    l.l tmf· ml

N~Ol35NV’c!Oso NJ.01

 

PB #13-21:  Hillside Commercial Park Site Plan- Disapproval of Final Site

Plan

 

 

Town of Orangetown Planning Board  Decision

May 22~ 2013

Page 5of6

 

 

 

4. The Board found that the proposed use on Lot 2 calls for 66 parking spaces according to the calculations of the Town Code as shown on the 3/20/13 plan. The 8/29/07 plan showed 110 spaces. The revised plan from 3/20/13 shows 104 parking spaces on Lot 2, which is still 38 more spaces than necessary, creating greater impervious surface than is necessary. (See also, Note 7, 4/16/13 RC Planning Letter and note

2, 5/13/13 NYS DOT Letter).  The applicant did not provide an

alternative such as “land banking” some of these spaces for future use, if necessary, or eliminating them all together.  The parking on the east side of the building on Lot 2 is not far from a residential neighborhood beyond the railroad tracks and across the street (Railroad Avenue)

from Lot 2. These spaces could have been eliminated to provide for screening and/or more of a buffer area between the commercial and residential area for aesthetic and noise concerns, or reduced in

number. The applicant did not offer any alternatives for the parking configuration on Lot 2, or take the opportunity that was afforded to continue consideration of the matter to address this concern.

 

5. The Board expressed concerns about the size of the 82,750 square foot two story building located on Lot 1. This large size causes a greater impervious area in a location where there is concern for drainage impact upon the site and that of properties in the vicinity of this site. This would also have a negative impact on the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding residential community. Given the proximity to numerous residential properties, the applicant was asked to consider an alternative to the size of the building so as to reduce the aesthetic impact upon neighboring properties, while still achieving the goals of the applicant. The applicant did not agree to adjourn the hearing for an opportunity to consider and/or present an alternative.

 

6. The Board found that the applicant showed only one means of access to the site. The Town of Orangetown Fire Inspector, in a letter dated

5/13/13, recommended that an “emergency vehicle only” access gate may be required to allow for secondary access.  Such access, if feasible, must be shown on the site plan or alternatives provided, for

the safety of the users of the site and responding emergency services personnel. The applicant did not provide such “emergency vehicle only” access, or demonstrate that same could be adequately addressed on the site plan.

 

 

~mu.-.rn  s”At131~  im.01

 

G~!W    il~·mz

 

~Ol3~HrvBOso tim01

 

 

PB #13-21:  Hillside   Commercial    Park  Site  Plan-  Disapproval    of Final  Site

Plan

 

Town  of Orangetown    Planning   Board  Decision

May 22, 2013

Page 6of6

 

 

7. The Board requested that the applicant  address  its concerns  regarding parking at the site, the size of the building,  screening  and related matters  as set forth in the record  of the proceedings   before the Board on May 22, 2013.   The applicant  ind[cated that it did not wish to

adjourn the proceedings  to address  these  areas of concern  and requested  a vote on the plans “as is”.

 

On the basis of the foregoing,  including  all of the submissions  to the

Board and all proceedings  had before  it at a public hearing  on the

• matter  on May 22, 2013, a motion was made to DISAPPROVE   the

Final Hillside  Site Plan dated  3/20/13.

 

 

DECISION:   In view  of the foregoing  and  the testimony  before  the  Board,  the application  for  FINAL  SITE  PLAN WAS  DISAPPROVED.

 

The foregoing  Resolution  was made and moved  by Bruce Bond and seconded  by Robert Dell and carried  as follows:  Bruce Bond, aye; Michael  Mandel,  recused; William  Young,  aye; John  Foody, nay; Robert Dell, aye; Jeffrey  Golda, aye and Kevin Garvey,  aye.

 

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

 

Dated: May 22, 2013

Town of Orangetown  Planning  Board