Subaru, Goodwill and "Stone Brook Estates"

The May 18th Planning Board Meeting - with 2 members absent - began after the Planning Board's workshop where one Planning Board members continued to call into question the expansion of Subaru's Service Department without a corresponding increase in the number of employees and employee parking spaces. This is despite repeated reminders from other members, that the total number of parking spaces is what they review, not how many were allotted to employees.

When the public hearing (no-one from the public spoke) began, the Service Manager from Subaru explained that currently, when they have a complicated repair that is taking up a bay, or waiting for parts -- and another more simple repair requires the attention of a technician -- he needs to have a valet move cars around, push the car with a complicated repair out of a bay to free up a bay etc. With more bays, he will need less valet employees, use less parking area for cars waiting to be serviced and provide more efficient service to customers -- all with the same amount of employees. He explained that some employees will now be able to become technicians, instead of valets. He also explained that his headcount includes service advisors and is not only technicians working on cars. With this, the board approved that the planner will write a resolution approving the amended site plan which will be voted on at the next meeting.

The Architectural Review of the request by Goodwill to replace fencing with vinyl and stucco or vinyl walls was next on the agenda. The architect working with Goodwill researched the 1993 and 1997 site plans for Channel and determined that the area in question was always designated as "storage". The architect showed several renderings to the board who decided that just vinyl siding would be appropriate. (Goodwill is a tenant of the building, and owner also had a view, which the architect represented.)

Stone Brook Estates (237 Old Hopewell Road), represented by developer Michael Lund was next on the agenda. The Developer and owner of the property had been able to submit a site plan for 12 lots on a 14.4 acre parcel between the time that the moratorium on subdivisions of more than 3 lots had expired and when the town board voted on a 30 day extension. The Planning Board Attorney explained that while they were able to submit an application (and pay a fee) that the legislation passed prohibits the Planning Board from reviewing the application while the moratorium is in effect. This of course was not received well by the developer who felt compelled to argue the point. The attorney offered to provide a letter explaining the laws. It was also noted that the property in question may be subjected to a change in zoning that is currently being discussed in the town, requiring 5 acres per lot, and if that does pass, that the property would be subject to the new zoning requirements. So the ball is now in the Town Board's court - re: Zoning changes and if there is an extension to the moratorium on subdivisions. More is sure to come on this project.