7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
January 2007 Planning Board minutes
January 3, 2007
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Board of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town Building, 7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, New York, was called to order at 7:00 pm.
Those present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
~Roll Call: ~~Harold Crandon present
James Virginia present
James Ruddock present
Eric Knapp ~present
Fred Thomas present
Mary Frances Sabin present
Anthony Geiss, Chairman present
~Also present: ~~ Brad Hunt, Attorney
James Billings, Engineer
Vera Cavallaro, Planning Board Secretary
~
DECEMBER MINUTES:
Ms. Sabin made a correction that on page 1 September minutes be changed to November.
~Motion Mr. Crandon made a motion to accept the December minutes as amended.~ Ms. Sabin seconded the motion, there was no further discussion; motion carried, unanimously on a roll call vote that follows:
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
Mr. Geiss introduced Mr. James Virginia to the Board and the audience as the new Planning Board member who has taken Mrs. Goodman’s place who retired in December. Mr. Geiss welcomed Mr. Virginia to the Board and stated that Mr. Virginia will not be able to vote tonight because the oath of office has not been taken.
Motion # 07-01 Mr. Geiss moved that the reading of the Public Hearing notice for Sun Meadows be waived. Ms. Sabin seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss opened the public hearing for Sun Meadows at 7:05p.m.
Mr. Jason Kantak was present to address the Board.
Mr. Kantak stated that at the last Planning Board meeting they presented Section Two with the same layout that they are presenting this evening; they have reduced the number of lots that were proposed previously by Dunn and Sgromo engineers and they separated out the lot widths to meet the Ryan Homes models that they are going to be putting on these lots. The plan that was submitted that is in front of the Board this evening was prepared by Doug Reith of CNY Land Surveying and is part of the final plat package and they have also submitted the drainage easements along with other easements and have given a legal description for all of them and that pretty much concludes everything to date.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone wished to speak for or against this.
No one spoke.
Mr. Geiss asked again if anyone wished to speak.
Motion # 07-02 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing for Sun Meadows at 7:08p.m. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
The regular meeting resumed at 7:09p.m.
SUBDIVISION – SUN MEADOWS – SECTION 2
Downer St and Rt. 690 Tax Map Parcel ID # 33-05-01 and 33-05-15
Mr. Jason Kantak was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss asked about lots 104, 103a, 102a, and 101a and 25a shown in Section Two and wanted to know why the lots are located in Section Two.
Mr. Kantak said that he can not speak for Doug Reith but what he does know about the lot line along Rt. 690 is that the property line that was part of Section One was reported incorrectly on the original survey that was approved for Section One and as part of going through the abstract of titles and talking to the State DOT and also getting all the information regarding the Niagara Mohawk easement this line had to be shifted slightly to correspond with the legal descriptions in the title according to the State and ultimately it affected lots 104, 103, 102, and 101 in Section One.
Mr. Geiss said that it is just a redefinition of that one line.
Mr. Kantak said yes, that one line and because of the highway boundary not being recorded correctly by Dave Hannig that had to be adjusted accordingly. Lots 25a and 101a were adjusted because of the increase in Section limit line so that Lot 25 and 101 were widened.
Mr. Geiss said that they extended them into the next area.
Mr. Kantak said yes, they were extended so they have to be amended. The acreage has also been adjusted accordingly and one thing that he wanted to point out is that all of those lots have not been sold and the only lot that was sold is 106.
Mr. Billings stated that he wanted to make sure that this drawing is consistent with the other drawing.
Mr. Kantak stated that it was.
Mr. Geiss said that this has been an adjustment in the lots and asked the applicant how many lots total.
Mr. Kantak said one on the interior and then they shifted those around.
Mr. Geiss said that they shifted those lots around to comply with the setbacks and to comply with the changes that were discussed and actually they came out of the discussions of the changes that were happening in Section One and the Board did not want to go through any further changes in Section Two after approval so that is why there is an adjustment from the preliminary plat that the Board saw awhile back.
Mr. Geiss asked if the Board had County Comments.
The secretary informed the chairman that County comments haven’t been received yet.
Mr. Hunt stated that the Board could not approve this without County comments.
Mr. Billings said that there is also another issue here; the Board can’t give final plat approval until the infrastructure is built or it is bonded for and Mr. Price indicated that they intended to bond for it and he has heard nothing along those lines.
Mr. Billings asked Mr. Kantak if that had been done yet.
Mr. Kantak stated that he didn’t think so.
Mr. Billings said that is another thing that is holding this up.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board can’t do final plat approval until they have that and they have to get on the Town Board agenda to do that and they weren’t at the Town Board meeting last night.
Mr. Kantak asked where the amount of the bond comes from.
Mr. Billings said normally that comes through Barton and Logiudice and then the Town Board.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board recommends that they set the bond because the Board doesn’t set the bond; the Town Board sets the dollar amount with both the town attorney and the town engineers.
Mr. Kantak said that he will have to get the bond set by the Town Board then.
The Board had a discussion with the applicant about exactly what was needed before the subdivision could be approved.
Mr. Geiss said for next month’s meeting the Board is going to need the Town Board to set the bond or the facilities need to be completed.
Mr. Billings said that they might want to call Mary Crego in the morning and make sure that they get on the next Town Board agenda and get Barton and Loguidice everything that is needed to put the estimate together or they can put the estimate together and let B&L look at it.
Mr. Kantak said and County comments also.
Mr. Geiss said yes, which will probably be out tomorrow.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were any other comments.
Mr. Crandon said that he would like some clarification; looking back through the December minutes and it must have been in the November meeting that the applicant brought up a proposal to make some adjustments to some lots widths on Section One as far as setbacks were concerned, every other 10 and 15 something like that.
Mr. Geiss said that was approved by the Town Board. This Board made a recommendation to the Town Board and they approved it.
Mr. Crandon said that there was discussion over 65ft lots if he recalls and Mr. Pooler came and cried on the Board’s shoulder over relative that they couldn’t sell 65ft lots.
Mr. Geiss stated that they could sell them but with the size of property that they wanted to put on that…
Mr. Kantak said that he could clarify that.
Mr. Crandon said please do.
Mr. Kantak said that in Section One there was a significant amount included in the preliminary plat and a significant amount were 65ft lots. It was not that Pooler could not sell them; and it’s not that the majority of people don’t want 65ft lots, they wanted a bigger house which results in needing a bigger lot so instead of eliminating all of the 65ft lots they just reduced the percentage of 65ft compared to the others because there still is a demand for a few 65ft lots.
Mr. Crandon said that he wanted to make sure that is entered into the minutes because he doesn’t want them coming back in a couple of months with 65ft lots that they can’t sell.
Mr. Geiss stated that is what was said in the beginning.
Mr. Crandon said that Section Two has some also.
Ms. Sabin said yes, but they have reduced the number.
Mr. Geiss said that they adjusted the lots and that is what the Board is looking at is an amended plan from what they first submitted as a preliminary plat and the outcome of what was happening in Section One. They moved these lots around because they had some bigger lots here and they took one lot out so that they removed one of the 65ft lots however they did not eliminate them totally.
Mr. Kantak said that one whole section was all 65ft lots and a few sporadic ones here and there and now they are down to four.
Mr. Ruddock said that they have four 65ft lots and one 68ft lot and then they have a 75ft lot and 71ft lots all over the place. If they took the four out of the 75ft lot and threw it down into lot 50 now lot 50 would be a 721/2ft lot as opposed to making one really big and one marginally bigger; it would even them up a little bit better.
Mr. Geiss said that they have a couple 49 and 50ft wide houses he believes was the discussion and that is why they have a 75ft. there as alternatives. That was discussed when they reviewed it.
The Board had a discussion about the lot sizes in Section Two.
Mr. Crandon asked that on lot 47 where they have a 75ft lot if they are going to build a monster house there and then they are going to build to puppy dogs beside it.
Mr. Geiss said that it is their desire and that is where they put the 65ft lots.
Mr. Billings said that the setbacks are the same.
Mr. Crandon said but that is not really balanced.
Mr. Geiss said that he doesn’t know if he wants three identical houses in a row from the way he looks at planning.
Mr. Crandon said but they might not want one that terrifically shadows the other two.
Mr. Geiss said that he doesn’t have any trouble with this and he doesn’t think overshadowing is proper in discussing this because they are not going to overshadow in his opinion. They went through the 65ft lots and the Board told them that with this they are not changing the 65ft lots.
Ms. Sabin said and there will be no relief on any setbacks.
Motion # 07-02 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare that this is insufficient information to complete the action on this subdivision application due to the fact the Board does not have County comments and that the Board needs more information from the applicant regarding bonding to the Town for facilities and therefore the application is incomplete. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Ruddock asked Mr. Hunt if the surveyor goofs up and has and incorrect measurement for subdivision Section One which was approved and now the lots that were affected negatively are being removed from the approved subdivision of section one and being added to the proposed subdivision two. Can they change subdivision one like that? It is an error and he thinks that the error needs to be corrected but it looks like subdivision phases; the approved subdivisions are being changed without a Board action and that bothers him. He stated that he would be glad to do it but it seems like they are doing a re-subdivision. They are re-subdividing the other one and it seems like they need some verbiage saying that is the intent of the proposal and he sees that there is a note on the right hand side of the drawing that states that
these are in here but does the surveyor get to change the subdivision.
Mr. Hunt said that sounds about right to him and he doesn’t think it would be too hard to add in language to that effect in the course of this application for subdivision of Section Two.
Mr. Ruddock said that he would feel a little more comfortable if they can get something like that. The two need to be linked because they are taking something from one and giving it to another; one has been approved and one hasn’t been approved and that requires some type of action of some Board. If the Board could get that clarified with the attorneys before the next meeting so that when the Board does vote on it he would like to hear something from them saying that it is ok.
Ms. Sabin asked if that was something the Town Board would have to approve since it is a change to their PUD.
Mr. Geiss said that subdivision is a Planning Board function not a Town Board function.
Mr. Crandon said that he thinks it ought to be acted upon as Mr. Ruddock has stated and the heading of the action should state that it is affecting Section One as well as Section Two.
Mr. Geiss asked if this should be re-advertised saying that Section One is being modified to comply with the new line as well as doing Section Two since they are going to be back next month; that might be the proper way.
Mr. Hunt said that he doesn’t see any harm in doing that.
Motion # 07-03 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to call a public hearing for February 5, 2007 at 7:05p.m.for Sun Meadows Section Two and modification to Section One. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Knapp. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
SUBDIVISION LOT 6 – ACTION SPORTS
3417 Walters Rd., Tax Map ID #055-04-02.0
Mr. Geiss said that the Board was awaiting and has now received a notice from the State that the State lowered the speed limit on both Walters and Winchell Rd. to 40mph. This was a requirement in order to do driveway locations for the subdivision that the Board had needed and it was also a comment from the County. One thing on the County comments which were read into the record previously is that County wanted to have a resubmission of this application. In discussion on it last month the Board discussed why they would want it resubmitted and the only reason why that the Board could come up with was that County thought that the subdivision would change if the applicant didn’t get the speed reduction. If this is to be approved tonight the Board needs a supermajority which is a minimum of five positive votes to go
forward with this.
Mr. Julian Clark was present to address the Board.
Mr. Clark said that he is here representing Jacob Wright of Action Sports. Mr. Wright subdivided the property last year into 6 parcels and is now looking to divide the 6 parcels into 2 more parcels in order to develop lot 6 or what is going to be lot 6 which is 2.976 acres into the Quaker Steak and Lube and the 5.8 acres would be a lot for further development. The lots meet all the requirements of the PUD zoning created for this project. There were two issues; one was the County comments for the speed limit reduction and the second was the easement agreements which he will have to refer to the attorney for because he doesn’t know where they are with that; otherwise everything is in line for the project. The long form SEQR has also been submitted.
Mr. Geiss said that he doesn’t know if the inter-reciprocal agreements were necessary for subdivision.
Mr. Billings said that was correct.
Mr. Geiss asked Mr. Clark how many acres the new lot is.
Mr. Clark said that it was 2.976 acres.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone had any questions or comments.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Billings if they were satisfied with lot lines and drainage since things have been moved around so many times.
Mr. Billings stated that they were satisfied and it has been checked.
Ms. Sabin asked if all the easement agreements have been satisfied language wise.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board doesn’t need that for this subdivision but it will be important on the next item.
Motion # 07-04 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the subdivision for Action Sports Lot 6 at 3417 Walters Rd. Tax Map ID # 055-04-02.0. This is the subdivision of 8.811 acres into lot number 6 which is 2.976 acres and lot number 7 which is 5.835 acres. This is as submitted on applicant’s plan entitled “Final Plot Walters Rd Property Subdivision Amended 2” dated 11/21/2006. The NYS DOT signed by Diana Graser has approved the application and reduced the speed limit to 40mph which allows road access to these properties and also that the County has asked for further action and they recommended disapproval. This has not changed so therefore the Board is going to proceed with the subdivision as was originally proposed but now acknowledging the road speed change. Mr.
Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried; on a roll call vote as follows:
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
Vote: 6 yes, 0 no Motion carried.
PROJECT PLAN – ACTION SPORTS – QUAKER STEAK AND LUBE
3417 Walters Rd., Tax Map ID #055-04-02.0
Mr. Julian Clark was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss asked Mr. Clark if there have been any modifications to the plan.
Mr. Clark said yes, they received the fire plan review and adjusted the plan with those comments.
Mr. Clark showed the actual comments to the Board.
Mr. Geiss asked what the comment was on the fire lane.
Mr. Clark said that it be changed to 20ft.
Mr. Geiss stated that there was a 15ft width showing on the map.
Mr. Clark measured the width on the map and it proved to be 20ft. although the writing on the map stated 15ft. Mr. Clark said that the map is mislabeled and he would have the map corrected.
Mr. Clark said that the other comments were that they had to extend the fire lane, hydrant relocation, post indicator valves needed to be shown on the line going into the building and two curved islands needed to be removed.
Mr. Clark showed the Board where all the changes and additions had taken place on the map that was provided.
Mr. Geiss stated that those were the fire departments comments which the applicant has incorporated into the plans and the only deviation would be that the lanes need to be labeled 20ft instead of 15ft. and there is also a 10ft lane that should be 20ft as well.
Mr. Geiss said that County comments also included a recommended disapproval because of the speed limit on Walters Rd. where the speed limit again has been changed by the NYS DOT in a letter dated December 4, 2006 signed by their Transportation Operating Engineer. Here is where the Board is talking about parking however on inter-reciprocal agreements and asked the applicant where they stand on that.
Mr. Clark said that he seen an email last week from Mr. Wright’s attorney to the Planning Board attorney with updated easement language but after that he said that he doesn’t know anything about it.
Mr. Hunt said that he has not received any emails on it himself; the last he knew the agreements had not been finalized.
Mr. Geiss stated that the parking agreements are not finalized yet.
Mr. Crandon said that they received their speed limit reduction faster than he thought they would.
Mr. Geiss asked the Board if they wanted to proceed or wait for comments.
Mr. Billings told the Board that he had some communication with Mr. Clark and he would just like to clarify that this is shared parking between two facilities and as Mr. Clark calculates for the restaurant they have 138 spaces for the restaurant. He asked Mr. Clark if that was correct.
Mr. Clark said yes.
Mr. Billings stated that they have one for every three seats and there are 413 seats so there is a total of 138 spaces required for the restaurant. The indoor BMX facility, the original paintball facility was required to have 126 and they are expanding that quite a bit.
Mr. Clark said that through Mr. Wright’s operations they are of the opinion that they only need 50 spaces for what they have now for parking and what they estimate that what they would want to have that would bring that up to another 85 spaces and that would be a total of 135 for this facility.
Mr. Billings said that the way he would interpret that is two different lots, two different uses and the number of spaces would be added to so from his calculations they would need 273 spaces and what they are proposing is 184 spaces so what he is suggesting is that they need to go to the ZBA for a permit, do they not need to go to the ZBA for a Special Permit for offsite parking anyway?
Mr. Clark said that he thought that was why they were getting the shared agreement so that these 138 spaces up above the water park would be available to the restaurant and/or the paintball. It was his understanding that they had to provide on their property enough spaces to do what they wanted to do on the property so in total they have a requirement for 974 spaces total and they are providing 1,052 spaces total.
Mr. Billings said for the total site.
Mr. Clark said yes, total site.
Mr. Billings said what they are saying is that lot one provides overflow parking.
Mr. Clark said yes and that is why the reciprocal easements allow anyone to park anywhere to go anywhere.
Mr. Billings said that he just wanted to make sure that is clear to the Board that all parking requirements for these two facilities are not met by the parking lot alone on lot 6.
Mr. Crandon said that the Board knew that when they started out.
Ms. Sabin asked that on the parking summary on the preliminary site plan stamped 1/03/07 it says one parking space for every five seats and she thinks that last month the Board said it was actually supposed to be one spot for every three seats.
Mr. Clark said that in the new parking summary that Mr. Billings and he are referring to it is one for every three.
Mr. Crandon asked if they anticipate parking space available across the access road on what is lot 7 now.
Mr. Clark said that they are not sure what they are going to do with lot 7.
Mr. Geiss asked Mr. Clark to show the Board where the 1,000 spaces will be located on the site plan.
Mr. Clarks said that the 200 room hotel will have 207 spaces, the Wingate or lot three has 87 right now but with build out it will have 121, the indoor motocross which sits by itself anyway is required to have 106 and it has 106, for lot one they provide 434 spaces and based on their calculations they need 243 so that is where a lot of their overflow parking is up above the water park.
Mr. Billings asked if that included the future expansion.
Mr. Clark said no the calculation for how much they need for the water park only includes the first forty five thousand; none of the calculations include any future work, the additional water park or the conference center or the expansions to either hotel.
Mr. Billings said that they would have to consider additional parking for that in the future.
Mr. Clark said that Mr. Wright is trying to acquire other properties which will then come into play. They also have 184 parking spaces available in the immediate vicinity of the restaurant and Mr. Wright’s property.
Mr. Geiss asked when this gets built there will be the BMX, the restaurant, and the one hotel.
Mr. Clark said yes.
Mr. Geiss asked how many spots are going to be available for parking when they get built.
Mr. Clark said that they will build it up to meet the 273 required.
Mr. Geiss asked if the hotel had sufficient parking at this time.
Mr. Clark said yes that was built to what was approved.
Mr. Thomas asked if the hotel has a restaurant.
Mr. Clark stated that they just had a continental breakfast.
Mr. Crandon asked if the restaurant that they are proposing has a drive thru or take out business.
Mr. Clark stated that it would have the take out service where people would have to park and come in to pick it up but that they would have a reserve parking space for that.
The Board had a discussion about the type of take out service and what was similar to it in the area.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board still does not have agreements between property owners or between the properties because some of them are common owners.
Mr. Billings said that even with the agreement he still thinks they need a Special Use Permit because the way that the code reads it says by Special Use Permit they could park on adjacent lots. He just wants to make sure that they know they may have to go to the ZBA and now might be the time to do it.
The Board had a discussion on how Rite-Aid was done years ago at the mall.
Mr. Clark said that he thought in creating the PUD it allowed the Planning Board to handle the parking.
Mr. Geiss said that the Planning Board agreed to handle the setbacks on the properties within the PUD so that the Planning Board could control having multiple buildings in the area; he doesn’t think that they talked about parking in their control by creation of the PUD.
Mr. Billing said that he just wants to make sure if they have to go to the ZBA now would be the time to do it.
The Board decided that it would better if they got it done now.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board doesn’t have the inter-reciprocal agreements either so therefore this would be the appropriate time to go. That was the conflict he had in whether the Board should proceed or not tonight because that is something that the Board had asked for at the last meeting and it is not done yet and he doesn’t know when they will be done is what he is concerned with.
Ms. Sabin that she thinks that the Board is going on month three that those were supposed to be done because they were supposed to be done in September. It really comes down to the language between the attorneys for all parties agree to it.
Motion # 07-05 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to send a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning parking at Action Sports which is looking at parking for the whole property as lots 1 thru 7 that the parking be considered in common and that they be required to have agreements among property owners that parking can be shared and that it is the Planning Board’s understanding that this would require a variance/special use permit from the ZBA to achieve this. Again this is a positive recommendation from the Planning Board which is in favor of this action. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-06 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the application as incomplete at this time due for the need for the ZBA Special Permit and the fact that the property agreements on parking are needed. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Billings said that he would like to point out that those agreements have to be for access along with parking. Lot 5 needs access across lot 6 because otherwise it is going to be landlocked.
Mr. Geiss also asked that the dimensions be corrected on the plan.
Mr. Crandon asked if a lighting plan was also discussed and drainage as well. Didn’t the Board suggest that they put together a lighting district amongst all the property owners?
Mr. Clark said that they submitted a lighting plan.
Mr. Crandon said that all of this needs to be brought together.
Mr. Billings said that what he thinks is being talked about with the lighting will not be a town district.
Mr. Crandon said amongst itself and also the privilege for drainage to control the drainage amongst all the entities.
Mr. Billings stated that they already have that covered.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board should also send the revised plan down to County Planning since the Board has a month to do it.
Mr. Crandon asked that a copy of the speed reduction letter be included.
Mr. Ruddock asked Mr. Clark if people are going to come from the overflow parking on lot 1 down to the Quaker Steak restaurant, the drawing he has in front of him about one third across the top from the left hand side there appears to be a sidewalk; is that true? He said he is looking for a way for pedestrians not to have to walk out into the parking lot or through the rest of it. They have sidewalks in different places or what looks like it might be a sidewalk, is there some way that can come across and lock in as opposed to people not getting onto the sidewalk, if they could be connected that would be good.
Mr. Clark said yes.
Mr. Ruddock said that it looks like there is just sheet flow across the parking lot that drains on the east end; what is going to be done with the water that comes across the entrance, where is that going to be collected; unless the pavement is sloped.
Mr. Billings said that it all goes to lot 7.
Mr. Crandon asked if there are basins to catch it.
Mr. Billings said that there are basins in the parking area but the water from the entrance will go down to the main road and ultimately into the drainage basin.
Mr. Billings asked Mr. Clark if there will be a swale on the east side of the road.
Mr. Clark said yes.
Mr. Crandon said don’t they think there should be a basin there to catch the water instead of it running through the driveway.
Mr. Billings said that there are basins on each side of the driveway, much of the parking area drains into a closed drainage system. It is just a small part that is running down the driveway.
Mr. Crandon asked Mr. Clark if they ever have discussed the landscaping part of this because they have a diagram on the map with a few trees on it and he doesn’t know if they have ever really discussed if they are actually doing this or is that just their conception of where the trees might land.
Mr. Clark said that was their intent but he said that Mr. Wright is thinking about the bigger scheme and has plans to have a landscape architect to do the whole facility.
Ms. Sabin said last month they talked about having Cornell Cooperative Extension and the Board suggested that Mr. Wright might want to contact them.
Mr. Clark said yes because the Board wanted the signage and the landscaping in a package.
Mr. Crandon said than they are going to bring in something for the Board to approve it’s not going to be open-ended to their discretion.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board could make the landscaping plan a condition for the approval.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board would also like to see a new schedule on parking and what is going to be built so that they are committed to lot 1 construction of parking and the same condition will be on the BMX. The lighting plan was referenced and the Board is going to be looking for that.
Mr. Clark said that has been submitted.
Mr. Billings said that he received a PDF today.
Mr. Geiss asked Mr. Billings to get that resolved by next meeting. He said he just wanted to make sure that he didn’t skip over the fact that the Board wanted to see that.
Mr. Geiss said that the next item is the project plan for BMX and that is going to have the same conditions as this one.
PROJECT PLAN – ACTION SPORTS – BMX
3417 Walters Rd., Tax Map ID #055-04-02.0
Motion # 07-07 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the application as incomplete at this time. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously
Mr. Clark asked if the first subdivision could be signed.
Mr. Geiss said that he is waiting for the agreements on parking.
KASSIS SUPERIOR SIGNS
(Representing Meyers Properties) 7030 Interstate Island Rd., Tax Map ID #056.-03-01.1
Ind-A Zoning District.
Mr. Jim Williams and Mr. Kevin Bostrom were present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said that last time they had an 89’ x 73’ foot sign.
Mr. Williams asked if the Board would like him to explain what happened.
Mr. Geiss said yes he thinks the whole Board would like to know that one.
Mr. Williams stated that the lady that normally handles it was on pregnancy leave so she had a substitute and their application was correct it was approved that way and then she commenced to include the previous request which was in May which they had approval for also; she put that in because they had all these requests in a computer so that they can just generate payment for these permissions that they give. In other words, if someone is facing the Thruway than they have to pay the Thruway Authority annually; so they generate bills from these approvals.
Mr. Geiss said that he didn’t know that they had to pay the Thruway; is that why they don’t sign their approval letters.
Mr. Williams said yes, that is why they don’t and he specifically asked that and so did Dave Pringle the next day after the meeting and the Thruway Authority said that they don’t sign the letters and the letters just go through the computer. It is generated that way.
Mr. Geiss said that he had two comments on the application. The letter says that this permit is valid only for the sign designated and the application dated and there is no date by the Thruway and then further down they give the applicant a permit that is valid effective 11/01/2006 and will expire on 10/31/2007 so the Thruway is only giving them a one year permit.
Mr. Williams said right it’s annual.
Mr. Geiss said they have to reapply.
Mr. Williams said yes.
Mr. Geiss said in this the Board is only looking at a 20’ x 10’ft sign which is shown on the applicants previous packet information.
Mr. Williams said that his application indicated that it was 40ft high and that is what the Thruway Authority approved.
Mr. Geiss said yes, 40ft high and 20’ x 10’ft.
Mr. Williams said yes, 200 square feet. The original sign that they removed because of the expansion in the center of the building that was 143 square feet but the building itself added six bays to the east which added another 120 linear foot of frontage to the Thruway as well as to Interstate Island. Those are things to consider but essentially it has to go in front of the ZBA because it is beyond the square footage that is allowed.
Mr. Geiss said that this Board needs to send this on to the ZBA and wanted to know if this required the Planning Board’s approval to go on.
Mr. Williams said that essentially the ZBA looks to the Planning Board for a recommendation; they don’t necessarily have to follow it.
Mr. Geiss said that the Planning Board recommends that the ZBA considers this for a variance and he believes it has to be a variance in an Industrial A.
Mr. Geiss asked Mr. Billings if the 40ft is allowed in the Industrial A.
Mr. Williams said that his strategy on the height is due to…
Mr. Geiss said that the strategy doesn’t matter until he gets an answer on the height.
Mr. Billings said that a free standing sign in Industrial is 25ft. in height. He believes they need a variance for both size and height.
Ms. Sabin asked if it is free standing.
Mr. Geiss said yes, it is a free standing sign in the corner of the lot next to the Thruway.
Mr. Geiss asked with signs the Board recommends the variance then it comes back to the Planning Board for final approval.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone had any questions.
Motion # 07-08 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to send a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals the request is for a sign for Meyer’s Campers, a free standing sign to be located at the south east corner of the property approximately; a sign that is 10ft by 20ft in size and a total of 40ft high. This will require a variance by the ZBA for both height and size. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
ROBERT PUTZER – SITE PLAN
7107 Jones Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 058-01-26.2 R-40 Zoning District
Mr. Robert Putzer was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss stated that this application was started a while back.
Mr. Putzer said that he would like to put a storage unit in for boat and car storage.
Mr. Geiss asked if everything was going to be indoors.
Mr. Putzer said that is correct.
Mr. Geiss asked where the access was from.
Mr. Putzer said that it was from his other property on Jones Rd.
Mr. Geiss said this is actually next to Peck Rd Extension but that access is only going to be off of Jones Rd. through the other property and one of the things that held this up was that the previous mapping did not show the right of way all the way to Jones Rd. and that is what the Board was asking for because they had just an arrow to Jones Rd.
Mr. Crandon asked if this was where the on ramp is to the Thruway exit 39.
Mr. Geiss said yes.
The Board had a discussion about where the property was located.
Mr. Putzer said that the Chapmans used to own it originally.
Ms. Sabin said that the map still says Chapman on it.
Mr. Putzer said yes but it’s not like that on the deeds.
The Board and Mr. Putzer discussed the property and surrounding properties.
Mr. Crandon asked how the driveway was going to be.
Mr. Putzer said gravel, just crusher run.
Mr. Crandon asked Mr. Putzer what they proposed to put in.
Mr. Putzer said 40’ x 240’ indoor storage not to the public.
Mr. Crandon said this is for private stuff.
Mr. Putzer said yes.
Mr. Thomas asked if they ever put power to the other building.
Mr. Putzer said no.
Mr. Thomas asked if the new building was going to have power.
Mr. Putzer said yes he would like it to because he would like to put in a trash compacter.
Mr. Geiss said just to refresh the Board it was June 27th that the County Planning sent the Board comments on this and their comment which was resolved he believes was that applicant must provide an engineering study to verify the NYS DOT that proposed development would not create additional storm water run off into the State and or County systems respectively.
Mr. Billings said that is their standard.
Mr. Geiss said he believes they established that run off here is away from this property and it is gravel so there is no additional run off and that was the only comment the County had back in June of last year. The big thing as he remembers it is the applicant needed to show on their map that there was a right of way all the way to Jones Rd. This is for indoor storage only.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone had any comments.
Mr. Ruddock said that this is a separate parcel not connected to the access parcel so there is a lot there and it has access to a right of way.
Mr. Geiss said that it has access to that right of way however the applicant is showing the right of way to Jones Rd. as their access now. The new right of way which is a 60ft right of way to Jones Rd. and the applicant owns all of it.
Mr. Ruddock said so the Board is not making a nonconforming lot.
Mr. Geiss said no.
Mr. Ruddock said that there were two lots here and the applicant joined the two of them.
Mr. Putzer said yes.
Mr. Crandon asked if the right of way and the property with the building is all one or is that two separate. He asked if it was all contiguous.
Mr. Putzer said that it is.
Mr. Crandon asked if it was one tax map number.
Mr. Putzer said no it is not and showed the Board on the map the parcel that have different tax map numbers.
The Board has a discussion about the parcels.
Mr. Billings asked if this was under the new code because storage isn’t allowed in an R-40 in the new code.
Mr. Geiss said that it was submitted in June 2006 when the old code was still in effect.
Mr. Billings said storage is allowed in the old code with a special use permit.
Mr. Geiss said that this application has been hanging around since 2005.
Mr. Billings asked if the applicant has been to the ZBA for a special use permit.
Mr. Putzer said yes, he was just waiting for the right of way to be put on his map.
Mr. Ruddock asked what the side yard requirements are.
Mr. Billings said that it is 20ft.
Ms. Sabin said where it has Chapman property labeled on the drawing to her she finds that confusing to have it listed as something other than the current owner. She understands that it probably was a Chapman property a long time ago but it someone glances at it they may think this is different.
Mr. Putzer said that he has owned the property for about 8 years and he can have that changed it won’t be a problem.
Motion # 07-09 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion with regard to SEQR that the Board has taken lead agency previously on this project as an unlisted action. This being a site plan review for property with access to Jones Rd. and also has an original right of way off of Peck Rd. Extension however all access will be to Jones Rd. through a 20ft right of way through the adjacent property. Upon review of this, this is all for a proposed indoor storage building located in an R-40 and that this application was generated in 2005. There is no significant adverse environmental impact with regard to this application. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-10 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the Robert Putzer site plan for 7107 Jones Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 058-01-26.2. This is for the proposed indoor storage building on the lot and shows that it has a 20ft right of way out to Jones Rd. Conditions of this would be that the applicant maintain the area between the building and the Peck Rd Extension right of way in it’s original condition being a green area or trees however the terminology may be for it and there will be no access for this project onto Peck Rd. Extension and also that the area immediately off Jones Rd. would be maintained back to the building line of the adjacent houses in normal residential conditions such as clean it up back to the front building line of the buildings. Again this is for enclosed
storage only on this property also that the map which is dated 11/24/06 be amended to show the current property owners in that the Chapman property is no longer the name for this and that map be submitted to the Town for their records prior to the issuing of a building permit. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Ruddock wanted to note that this action is being taken under the old Van Buren Town Zoning Code and that it was originally an application started in 2005.
Mr. Geiss asked if the Board would accept that as an amendment to the above Motion.
Amendment to Motion # 07-10 was accepted.
PLAINVILLE TURKEY FARMS, INC – SITE PLAN
Pottery Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 055-01-10.1 IND Zoning District
Mr. Julian Clark and Mr. Mark Bitz were present to address the Board.
Mr. Ruddock recuse himself on this item.
Mr. Clark said that Plainville is proposing to construct a warehouse and office on the property they own on the corner of Pottery Rd. and Herman Rd. 8,640 square feet of office space and some unfinished area for future use and 22,200 square feet of cooler and freezer warehouse with some engine and electrical rooms and so forth for the warehouse area. There will also be some light duty pavement for vehicles and some heavy duty pavement for the trucks. They are here tonight to start the approval process and hopefully get it sent to County. They have submitted a full SEQR and they have received some comments from the Town engineer regarding the site plan and the SEQR form which they have addressed and he can provide a new SEQR form this evening.
Mr. Clark submitted the new SEQR form.
Mr. Geiss asked if Mr. Billings has seen the new SEQR form yet.
Mr. Clark said that he just gave the new SEQR to Mr. Billings today.
Mr. Geiss asked Mr. Clark to leave the SEQR forms with the secretary since the Board was not going to have time to review them this evening and since they might change because the engineer had other comments. Mr. Billings also had comments on parking.
Mr. Clark said that the Town Code requires for office and warehouse a total of 51 spaces; 29 spaces for the office, 11 for the existing current warehouse proposal and another 11 for the future warehouse. Plainville has determined that they only need 17 spaces to run the facility and they were planning on showing an available 23 spaces and a future 11 spaces could be built if needed.
Mr. Geiss said so before this is done there is going to be a variance needed.
Mr. Clark said that if the Board wants them to build 51 spaces they will but they only need 17 and they will show that they have room to build the 51 if it is ever needed.
Mr. Geiss said that if they only show that they are building 17 and 51 are needed than they are going to need a variance to be conditioned if they show a future parking area but they are going to need a variance.
Mr. Clark said that he was under the impression from earlier projects that if they showed that they had the ability to provide parking the Board wanted they just don’t need that many.
Mr. Geiss said that he thinks that they have provided some paved and unpaved parking areas that were sufficient.
Mr. Clark asked unpaved as in grass.
Mr. Geiss said unpaved as in gravel in other words an improved area and it has to be sent down to County Planning so the Board can not take any action this evening and if they are not going to show sufficient parking to code than a variance is needed.
Mr. Billings said that if they really only need 17 spaces than there is no sense in building the 51 spaces they should go to the ZBA.
Mr. Bitz asked why the code doesn’t allow for 3 people working in a 20,000 square foot warehouse.
Mr. Geiss said that in some cases there is the need for that many spaces because of the warehouse operation and in this case they are saying it is going to operate differently and this is why the Town has the variance procedure and they can obtain that. The Board went through that part of the Code and he doesn’t know if they have had any comments in the last five years concerning that because the Town just revised that and it took five, six, seven years to do that and in all that time there wasn’t any comments on parking on that area. To be honest it was considered as sufficient and if it needed to be changed it would be done by variance. It is a viable request; it is something that can be handled by variance and like he said if they are not provided then a variance is needed.
Mr. Bitz asked if the area that the trucks use qualify for parking.
Mr. Geiss said if they are shown as parking spots. They have to be shown on the plan as parking.
Mr. Billings asked if he meant the heavy duty area.
Mr. Bitz said yes.
Mr. Billings said that the answer would be no because he’s assuming that is where the trucks are going to be parking.
Mr. Geiss said that they would have to be shown as parking and paint and stripe them for parking and they are not going to be available for the trucks. There is also a need for a fire review and he believes it has not been completed on this so that would also have to be submitted and the property with the fire flow requirement here would have to be reviewed as well. He knows Mr. Pringle has talked to the fire department on this and the Board will need to know if the fire flow is available up there so if the applicant can supply that they will need that for their review because this is a high point in the water system and there was a comment made at the last meeting that there is a new tank and the new tank is not on this system or this portion of the system. Yes, it is very close to this area but it is not on this system.
Mr. Geiss asked about the storm water management plan.
Mr. Billings said that he did receive that and it is at hand.
Mr. Geiss said so that is being reviewed.
Mr. Crandon said that he was by the site today and noticed that they have access on to Pottery Rd. and asked if they have a driveway permit for that access or did they just put it in.
Mr. Clark said that he thinks that they have an application in.
Mr. Bitz said that they do have an application in.
Mr. Crandon asked if it has been approved yet.
Mr. Bitz said that he is not sure.
Mr. Crandon said that he doesn’t see any reason as to why it wouldn’t be but they still should have that.
Mr. Bitz said that he did talk to them and they looked at the map and liked where the driveway was going.
Mr. Crandon said that it looked to him like the dozers just put it in.
Mr. Bitz said that they got a little ahead of themselves.
Mr. Crandon said that they just want to make sure everything is up front and proper.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board needs to send this down to County Planning.
Motion # 07-11 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion send the site plan for Plainville Turkey farms, INC to County Planning for review. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion, motion carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock recuse
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
Vote: 5 yes, 0 no 1 other Motion carried.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board has to make a recommendation to the ZBA in regards to parking.
Mr. Geiss asked if they are proposing 17 parking spots.
Mr. Clark said 17 automobile.
Mr. Thomas said that they are forecasting phase two and the possibility of 100 jobs wouldn’t that enter into their parking or is phase two way off.
Mr. Billings said that if they come back with anothe | ||