Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees press developer on utility routing and parking for proposed 209–211 Main St. infill project
Summary
Developer presented a proposal for 17 units and 1,600 sq ft of commercial space at 209–211 Main St.; trustees favored routing sanitary to the front (to avoid long easements across village land), asked the applicant to revise plans to minimize long‑term constraints on the municipal lot and to address a 34‑space parking shortfall.
A proposed infill project at 209–211 Main St. prompted technical scrutiny and a preliminary direction from the board.
Applicant architect Robert Sansale and engineer Rich Cordone presented a property‑line development for an infill lot adjacent to the municipal (Broadway) parking lot. The proposal included 17 residential units above parking and about 1,600 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space; the applicant said the site would need access through the municipal rear lot and requested the village’s permission to route sanitary and storm utilities across village property.
Rich Cordone explained site constraints: "the only way that we're really able to develop this lot is to be able to get bring our sanitary and our storm which are both gravity fed um utilities out the back of that building," citing a roughly 22‑foot elevation difference between the state road in front and the rear lot. Trustees and staff pressed about long‑term easement and maintenance risks if a sanitary lateral runs across municipal property, noting that per code property owners are responsible for laterals to the main. Paul Freley (village engineer) emphasized that storm water improvements in the rear lot could be designed to benefit the village if the developer upgrades and the village accepts the improved system.
Board direction: trustees expressed a preference for routing the sanitary service to the front of the building if technically feasible (pumped ejector system), while allowing storm drainage design to be coordinated with the village so the municipal system is not compromised. Trustees also noted the project has a parking shortfall (roughly 34 spaces required; 17 provided under building) and discussed payment‑in‑lieu options and potential use of the forthcoming multimodal parking facility and municipal permits for overnight parking.
What’s next: the board asked the applicant to revise civil drawings to show the preferred sanitary/front routing option or a firm justification for a rear gravity solution, provide a finalized parking analysis and describe how the municipal lot will be restored or improved after any construction access.
