Village to revamp planning application process

The Monroe Village Planning Board reviewed its application process at its September 24 meeting to improve efficiency and reduce confusion on the part of the applicant. Planning board attorney Elizabeth Cassidy outlined her proposed changes to the board, which included making it easier for applicants to understand what information they must provide and for missing information to be more identifiable by the board. The application will require the listed applicant to be the property owner, authorized tenant, or contractor and should not be consultants such as lawyers, architects or engineers, which should be listed as project contacts, Cassidy noted.

The new application process also emphasizes the importance of submitting materials on time, with late submissions resulting in applications being pushed to the following month’s schedule. Furthermore, applicants must appear at a work session preceding the regular meeting date, unless otherwise excused by the board.

“We have had a number of situations where the applicant goes, ‘I don’t need to show up at the work session,’ and then they have missed [planning board engineer] Dave’s comments, and they all of a sudden expect a resolution and they’re not going to get it.”

Other changes to the process included giving the board the right to limit the number of applicants discussed at a meeting and to not begin discussion of an item on an agenda after 10 p.m.

Ongoing applications

During the meeting the board continued its site plan review of a proposed expansion of an existing auto body repair shop on Elm Street, which will include the addition of office space. Planning board engineer David Higgins said that the applicant had not resubmitted their plans following comments from the previous meeting. He reiterated the variances required related to parking and noted the need for screening between the property and nearby residential units. Higgins also noted the Orange County Planning Board’s desire for the existing fencing on county land to remain, despite the applicant seeking its removal.

The board discussed the impact of vehicular fluids, raising concerns about the possibility of discharge entering nearby bodies of water. The representative for the applicant explained that they had consulted with the current operator of the auto body shop and were informed that the business was using an oil dry absorbing kit to address leakage issues on the spot. The representative said he suggested his client put that process in writing to confirm this is how they would address the issue.

The representative commented on the application’s lack of progress with the ZBA in its effort to obtain the required parking variances. Cassidy responded by saying that the applicant is assuming the risk that the ZBA will give them what they are asking for.

The board discussed whether the project could impact traffic and the character of the community, noting the likely increase in cars from the expanded facility and the proximity to a residential area. They also noted the site’s location near the Heritage Trail and the need for a possible zoning variance to address the matter. The board also reviewed the applicant’s potential energy use, to which the representative offered to consider options such as more efficient lighting.

The board decided to wait until it receives the updated documents before setting a public hearing for the application.