Planning board waives hearing, directs refinements for amended Aon Hotel site plan and ARB

The Village of Woodbury Planning Board on Feb. 5 reviewed amended Architectural Review Board (ARB) materials and an amended site plan submitted for the Aon Hotel at 100 Estrada Road in the village’s Woodbury development and agreed to move toward formal approvals while requiring several outstanding technical items.

Attorney George Lithgow, representing the applicant, told the board the hotel team wants to open as soon as possible: “we would like to be open as soon as possible.” Lithgow and project staff asked the board to accept an as‑built survey and the applicant’s photos in lieu of new renderings so the hotel can finish ARB and proceed toward occupancy.

The board affirmed that the applicant must still provide engineering and plan clarifications for site infrastructure. Planning staff said the as‑built plan does not show retaining walls that were on the approved plan and that the stormwater pond must be demonstrated to meet the volume requirements of the approved stormwater plan (SWIP). Planning staff also asked for confirmation of parking striping, monument sign dimensions and setback, lighting details, and updated landscape and drainage spot elevations.

Board members repeatedly pressed the applicant on two items the building department flagged as critical to site function: (1) stormwater capacity for the on‑site pond, for which the applicant’s civil engineer must submit volume calculations and any amended SWIP documentation; and (2) loading‑area striping and operational controls for deliveries. Planning staff pointed to the municipal code’s loading‑space rules and recommended the applicant provide a written narrative describing expected deliveries, sizes and timing so the board can consider reasonable conditions limiting truck size and delivery hours.

Several department staff and consultants also raised safety and operations details the applicant agreed to address: location of guardrail on the main entrance, verification of valve‑box locations near mountable curbs, confirmation of transformer locations, and a recommended stop sign at the site driveway subject to the superintendent’s approval. The applicant said some utilities were sited per utility directives and that some pavement and canopy repairs have been studied and reported; geotechnical and video evidence were provided to staff about the canopy repairs.

Motion and board direction: the planning board voted to waive a public hearing on the amended submissions, voted to reaffirm the board’s 2016 SEQRA negative declaration for the project, and authorized counsel to prepare two draft resolutions — one for ARB approval and one for site‑plan approval — to be considered at a future meeting contingent on the outstanding clarifications and submittals being provided. The board’s action does not finalize project approvals; staff said the draft resolutions will reflect any remaining conditions the board requires.

Why it matters: the hotel building is substantially complete and the applicant pressed for a path to occupancy. Board members and municipal staff emphasized that building‑department sign‑off and any certificate of occupancy remain contingent on resolving site infrastructure, drainage, and ARB finish items, not only ARB photographic acceptance.

Next steps: the applicant will submit revised engineering calculations for the pond and SWIP, an updated conforming as‑built/site plan showing installed features and proposed corrections (retaining walls, parking striping, monument sign details), and a narrative on deliveries. Counsel will prepare draft resolutions for the board’s next meeting; staff recommended the applicant follow the H2M checklist line‑by‑line before resubmission.