Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Modification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board reaffirms lead‑agency review for revised project at 278–282 Main Street; applicant to submit comparisons to prior approval
Summary
The Planning Board declared itself lead agency under SEQR for a revised application at 278–282 Main Street and asked the applicant to provide a side‑by‑side comparison of the current design against the previously approved scheme.
The Planning Board declared itself lead agency for SEQR review of a revised proposal at 278–282 Main Street and instructed staff to prepare draft approval materials for the next meeting if the project’s changes remain minor.
Applicant Michael Decordova presented changes driven by structural and cost considerations: the Fifth‑floor addition was pulled back 2 feet on three sides to reduce structural steel costs; first‑floor awnings were removed for cost savings; balcony elements were eliminated; and the applicant proposed dedicating a prominent panel on a stair/elevator tower for public art. Decordova said he hoped the board could reaffirm the prior SEQR determination because the footprint changes were primarily design‑level.
Board members asked the applicant to supply a clear comparison of the previously approved design and the current revision so members could quickly identify substantive differences. Planning staff reported the previous project had received approval in 2022 and that an extension had lapsed; the board asked staff to circulate the original approval drawings alongside the current package.
The board voted to declare itself lead agency for SEQR; members discussed whether a public hearing was required and agreed the project’s use is permitted under current zoning and that a hearing was not necessary in this case. The applicant requested timely review to meet a Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) schedule; staff said the board would try to prepare draft materials for the next meeting and advised the applicant about permitting timelines.
Board members supported the idea of prepared mounting areas for art but said they wanted assurance that any art installation would be implemented; the board noted past conditions requiring a prepared surface or other commitments for murals on other projects.
Staff and the applicant agreed to provide the requested comparison materials to speed review at the next meeting.
