October 15, 2015

Avenue; she said that the left hand turn out of the site is a challenge during peak traffic hours. Chairman Buechler asked Ms. Dolan if the bowling alley site has any restrictions when exiting; she said that she does not know. Mr. Williams asked Ms. Dolan if there is safe ingress and egress from the site; she replied yes. Chairman Buechler asked Ms. Dolan if the trees remain on Eagle Rock Avenue will they visually impair the driver; she said the foliage may cause an impact on drivers. Ms. Dolan said that the trees must be limbed so that they do not hinder the site line. Mr. Keller asked Ms. Dolan if she would recommend sight triangles; she said that sight triangles could be provided as a condition of approval. Kate Keller asked Ms. Dolan if the sign location will visually impair the driver; she replied no. There were no further questions for Ms. Dolan from the Board Members or the Board Professionals. Chairman Buechler asked if any members of the public had any questions for Ms. Dolan; there were none, Mr. Williams called his next witness. Peter G. Steck approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Chairman Buechler stated for the record that Mr. Steck has testified before this Board many times and he is accepted as an expert in Professional Planning. Mr. Steck stated that he submitted two reports and he is testifying from the 9/28/15 report tonight. Mr. Steck stated that the building on the site was previously a diner but is presently vacant. He said that the existing building will be removed to accommodate more space for the new building which will take advantage of the New York City skyline. Mr. Steck stated that the property is in a split zone; the parking is in a B-2 zone and the refuse area is in the PURD zone. He detailed all of the items of relief that are required stating that the “d-1” use variance is required because of the PURD zone. Mr. Steck stated that because of the irregular shape and orientation of the property the PURD portion cannot be used for residential use. Chairman Buechler stated that if the applicant reduced the size of the building they would not need the “d-1” variance. He advised Mr. Steck that he does not feel that he met the requirements for a “d-1” use. 11