Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contested gas‑station plan on County Route 78 put on hold after traffic, wetland and stormwater concerns
Summary
A proposal for a gas station and convenience store at 16–18 County Route 78 prompted objections over traffic circulation, tanker‑truck access, and possible wetland impacts; the Planning Board kept the public hearing open and asked engineers and county agencies to review submitted comments.
The Middletown Planning Board on Nov. 5 left a contested application to redevelop 16–18 County Route 78 open for further review after neighboring property owners and their counsel raised traffic, stormwater and environmental concerns.
The applicant’s representative, James Lee, presented the project and acknowledged prior submissions but asked the board to proceed with the public hearing. Christian Gates, speaking for nearby operator Gasland Petroleum, urged the board to keep the hearing open and demanded further studies, including a jurisdictional determination from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, a traffic study incorporating sight lines and curb‑cut adequacy, and a grading and erosion‑control plan. Gates said the site appears to contain an informational freshwater wetland, that plans show significant excavation and three new underground storage tanks, and that the proposed canopy is far larger than the previous facility.
"We would ask that the public hearing remain open so that the applicant can respond to these concerns and issues as well as allow the planning board to have time to consider them," Christian Gates said, listing specific concerns about tanker access and the potential for runoff to reach downstream properties.
In rebuttal, the applicant’s representative (James Lee) accused opposing counsel of previously representing the applicant and said he would pursue an ethics review; the board noted that conflict claims are a separate legal matter for the ethics process and counsel. Board counsel and members emphasized the need for the municipal engineer to review the new comments before the board acts.
Board staff recommended that CPL (the board’s engineering review consultant) and the Fire Commissioner review the circulation, tanker access and stormwater points raised by the neighbor’s filing, which the board had received on the day of the hearing. In light of those late comments, the Planning Board voted to adjourn the item for future consideration and keep the public hearing open so that engineers and the applicant can respond to the concerns.
The motion to adjourn the application for future consideration was moved and seconded and carried on a roll call of present members.
Next steps: the board asked staff to circulate the opposing submission and requested time for the municipal engineer to evaluate the traffic, tanker circulation and stormwater issues. The board also noted that a DEC jurisdictional determination could be requested by the applicant and that, if required, that determination should be obtained before final action.
Actions at the Nov. 5 meeting were limited to procedural direction and keeping the public hearing open; no final approvals were granted.
