A Game of Chicken - the Town vs. Propane Storage Project -- who is going to blink first?

The February 6 TOW Planning Board began with a previously adjourned Public Hearing for the Children's Enrichment Project, LLC in Hughsonville. Such care for the Hughsonville Hamlet has never been expressed before -- for a project that has very limited changes to the already existing buildings and will support 6 to 7 families and their children in enrichment activities. The Board of Health has agreed to the septic changes proposed by the engineering firm, the hours of operations were agreed to by the application (8 to 8) AND the installation of a sidewalk to promote hamlet walkability... because "GasLand has been required to add sidewalks". The fact that NOONE will be using these sidewalks and that the property will be used by the families ... NOT by the public... required very careful evaluation by the Planning Board, which they did with diligence never previously expressed for the Hamlet of Hughsonville. Whew! imagine when a more controversial project is proposed.... Oh Wait!! one was! we are so glad that zoning board has prohibited the housing of Roosters on the property - this will mitigate the obnoxiousness of a gas station operating for 18 hours a day a few hundred feet away. The special use permit was approved. Welcome to the neighborhood, and all kidding aside, this is a great addition to our neighborhood and will compliment the Hamlet.

Then came the "discussion for the Downey Energy Liquid Propane Storage", providing a master class in how excellent legal and professional representation can help an applicant. The Town has not been able to find an expert in Propane Safety Management who is not associated with the Propane industry, despite the applicant - who will be paying for the the expert - begging for a very long time that the town do so. Hint -- GOOGLE "Propane Safety Management" , call other municipalities and ask for their recommendations, establish criteria and begin to go through the list and interview them. Currently TOW Zoning Code prevents the development of such projects. However, given the enthusiasm from the Town Supervisor for the project ... the applicant is pressing forward... going through the Positive Declaration process and NYS SEQR evaluation steps. The Town and the Applicant are spending time and resources. Care to guess which side will be better prepared and more well versed in the process and the law?

Then two conceptual reviews were conducted - two separate projects for Stage Doors Road. The first, a replacement of the old Stage Door Furniture Store with a U-Haul facility - Drive-in Storage and renting trucks/trailers. The Planning Board was looking alternative designs from U-Haul and minimization of signs, arguing that rental trucks parked at the location will be labeled with "U-Haul." The proposed height (3 stories) is also a concern.

The second conceptual review is for a 3 to 4 bay warehouse on a 2 acre parcel. The area currently has warehouses. The conceptual design includes a 50 foot setback in the rear to help protect the residential area behind this parcel.

The Planning Board excused themselves for an executive session at 8:34 and returned at 10:06. Over the grumbling of stomachs among members and staff, the Planning Board Chairman explained that there were no votes during the executive session - however, after the executive session, the Planning Board did vote to recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals would serve as Lead Agency on the Alpine Commons Project. There are 11 issues that where raised that they ask the ZBA to address:

1. Proposed Subdivision and the implications of the density, which the Planning Board feels are excessive

2. Evaluation of the density for the entire lot.

3. Any precedent implications for future projects if a density zoning variances is granted.

4. The visual impact on neighboring properties from building heights.

5. Any precedent implications if parking variances are granted

6. Impacts from cut & fill recommendations to lower the height of buildings.

7. The impact of lighting on neighboring properties.

8. The impact of noise on adjacent properties.

9. Impact on public transportation requirements because of increase in population.

10. Pedestrian access to Route 9.

and last - 11. an evaluation of the affect on adjacent properties.

This is a good start - but there are other implications that need to be evaluated - traffic impacts, impact to schools, impact to emergency services, recreation requirements to name a few.

The Board adjourned at 10:!5.