NegDec: Putnam Valley Gas Station
Putnam County – The Putnam Valley Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed Warex Terminals Corp. will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. The action involves a 2.87 ± acre property within the CC-2 Zoning District. The subject property is currently developed with a 2,260 ± square foot convenience store and eight 8 fueling stations with associated parking. The applicant is proposing to install two 2 additional fuel pumps four 4 additional fueling stations, extend the existing canopy, expand the parking area, and make various landscaping and stormwater improvements. Additional underground fuel storage tanks are not required to facilitate the proposed action. The project is located at 157 Bryant Street in Putnam Valley, New York.Contact: Michelle Babnick, Putnam Valley Planning Board, 265 Oscawana Lake Road, Putnam Valley, NY 10579, Phone: 845 526-3740, E-mail: mbabnik@putnamvalley.com.
via ENB – Region 3 Notices 11/4/2009 – NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.
You would have made such a great Supervisor!
An Oldie but a Goodie
The PB decision was no surprise. This is an expansion of a prohibited use, except that they had to go back for a reinterpretation from the zoning board after bob changed the law. Gas stations werre a prohibited use in most of Putnam Valley. The man across the street wanted to put in a gas station and was prevented. I’d have to read the ZBA decision to find out exactly what bob’s change accomplished for them. I got yelled at by bob and yetter for asking questions about the law. It was allowed by a mere sliver of legal interpretation.
I left the cemetery in because it is an expansion of a non-conforming use. another mere sliver of interpretation. It abuts the site of bob’s new Adirondack style lodge/restaurant. Ah, drink up that healthy water. Mmmmmm, that’s good!
PV Zoning Board – January 29, 2009
Because of a question from Mr. Robert Tendy, I was inspired to watch the last zoning board meeting. For those of you who follow this sort of thing, the zoning board meetings will now be the 2nd and 4th Thursdays instead of the 3rd and 4th.
There are some zoning issues that matter right now.
Warex – You can see the essence of this controversy now on the ZBA meeting, Channel 20 and streaming media.
This is the gas station on Bryant Pond Road and Wood Street. They want to expand a non-conforming use. Non-conforming means that our code does not allow it. A gas station is prohibited in the ground and surface water overlay district. This gas station was already there, so is allowed to remain, but now they want to expand. They have eight dispensers. They want another four.
There was a dance around the expansion concept. Since there will be no new tank, there will be no expansion. Of course, there can be increased deliveries, and that was raised.
Interestingly, Mr. David Steinmetz, attorney for the applicant, seemed to argue both sides. It sounded like he was saying that this is not an expansion, but expansion is okay too.
He cited a lot of legal cases and he says it’s clear. But I wonder, if it looks like an expansion of a non-conforming use, and smells like…..
Does the Town want an expansion of a gas station? What is the question that the Zoning Board will be considering? The issues for the Planning Board to consider are another canopy and expanded parking.
Moving on to another expansion, last week there was an article in the North County News about the cemetery expansion. The article did not elaborate the issues. A cemetery, like a gas station is not allowed according to our zoning code. It is, therefore, a non-conforming use. There are a lot of issues with this expansion – wetlands, SEQRA, segmentation, steep slopes, different ownership of the parcels, and a building larger than the code allows.
Understand that a cemetery is exempt from property tax, so its success or expansion does not help with our taxes. Does its expansion have other community benefits? And what protection do we have when the chemicals and by-products leach into the groundwater?
Regarding other applications, there was a discussion of the Stein decision. I don’t know what that decision was. It involved lot coverage, joined properties, possibly coops.
There were a couple of discussions of projects that were completed without variances or permits. Someone said that he would not have approved the project if it hadn’t been built first, but that tearing it down created a hardship. If that is the logic that is used for approval, then why should anyone go for a variance beforehand. By that reasoning, it makes much more sense to build what you want, and then when it is finished, go to a zoning board that is willing to easily approve non-conforming construction, as long as you finish it first.
There was also a discussion about whether removing a garage door and replacing it with windows changes its use. There was only one member on the board who felt that it obviously does.
I would hate to see the zoning board become merely a rubber stamp for construction that is not in line with the code.
Mr. Maskiell said that the board has 62 days to make its decisions.
DP