Stage Road building may become retail spot

The Monroe Village Planning Board continued its review of the proposed repurposing of an existing building at 330 Stage Road and Route 17M to include an automotive repair shop, furniture store and additional retail use, during the October 22 meeting. The board reviewed several issues with the applicant’s representative, including screening, lighting and potential concerns associated with the autobody shop; however, the project’s potential impact on nearby wetlands and flooding mitigation was the focus of discussion.

The planning board engineer reviewed the expected flood mitigation criteria with the representative, noting that the site plans should show the existing and proposed finished grade and flood elevation mitigation area being created to offset the disturbance of the floodplain. In addition, Planning board attorney Elizabeth Cassidy shared an email she had received from the Monroe village planner, claiming that the site plan would need a wetlands delineation, despite previous assumptions to the contrary. In the email, the planner said the Ramapo River is a state-protected stream and that the site plan shows construction activity nearby. He added that the state requires a permit for any disturbance to the bed or banks of protected streams. He further commented that wetlands change over time and that there were some inconsistencies with current and previous delineations. After Cassidy reviewed the planner’s concerns, she read a resolution, which was passed by the board, declaring its intent to serve as lead agency in the state environmental quality review of the application and to circulate that notice to the state Department of Environmental Conservation, the Army Corps of Engineers, Orange County Department of Planning, Monroe Fire District, Monroe Department of Public Works, and any other parties the board deemed appropriate. There was some debate over whether the application would need to be referred for historical review because, while the proposed project was not in the historic district, it was in proximity. Cassidy said she would review this with the planner.

In addition to environmental concerns, one board member questioned the safety of the access to the retail store, considering that potential shoppers would have to drive through the auto body shop and asked the applicant representative to consider alternative measures.

Other projects

During the meeting, the board continued its review of an application for Choco Cheese to build a one-story, 1,855-square-foot addition for cold storage to support a first-floor bakery. The project engineer reviewed the building design with the board, with the discussion focusing largely on awnings and whether they should be on individual doors or continuous across the building. The engineer explained that the applicant wants to be sure the public knows which doors are prohibited and did not want awnings over those doors. However, the board wondered if already having awnings over those doors might ease the process, should those spaces become individual businesses.

The board also discussed whether there was a need for bonding for the project. Cassidy shared that she thought it wasn’t needed, because no public improvements are anticipated for the project, but the village code suggested otherwise. Cassidy explained that bonding is usually needed if the project is putting in things like drainage infrastructure, altering public curb cuts, or other changes that impact the public. She offered the example of the development of a subdivision where the developer doesn’t finish the road, leaving lot owners adversely affected. In this instance, the village can come in and construct the road on their behalf, thus the need for bonding. The board agreed that clarification from the village attorney was needed.

During the meeting, the board discussed the inactivity of certain approved projects, including the Verizon Tower, which was approved earlier this year. The board recalled how there was a big push to get it done and that little had happened. The board also referenced a subdivision that has had no construction and questioned when applicants would need to seek approval for extensions and new permits. Cassidy clarified that site plan approvals must secure a building or site work permit prior to the one-year expiration of their approval. Once a building permit is issued, if work ceases for a period longer than six months, the applicant must secure an extension of site plan approval from the planning board for a reasonable period not to exceed one year.