7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
December 2007 PB Minutes
December 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 7:00p.m.
Those present joined in the Pledge 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
Jim Billings, Town Engineer
David Pringle, Codes Officer
Vera Cavallaro, Planning Board Secretary
MINUTES:
Mr. Crandon asked that the minutes show when Mr. Virginia returned to the Board after the Cleverly subdivision and corrected a typo on page 9.
Motion #07-237 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to accept the November Minutes as amended. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously on a roll call vote that follows:
Mr. Virginia yes
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
JR CLANCY INC EXPANSION - SITE PLAN
7041 Interstate Island Rd Tax Map Parcel ID# 056-03-07.1
Mr. Roger Whelan was present to address the Board.
Mr. Whalen said since the last meeting the Town engineer asked them to get grades because there are no as builds on the existing storm drainage that they are trying to relocate on the western property line so they had a surveyor put them on the drawing showing all the inverts and catch basin tops for the line that comes across Interstate Island Rd. and along parallel to the west border of the existing Clancy building and that discharges out to the end so they have all that data on there and they show the pipe and the location of the pipe to the far west property line and as of this morning per the Town engineer's request they added another catch basin in for cleaning purposes because the pipe is 400ft long. That is the only change to the plan. They are showing all the final grading also.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant that County Planning has not met yet so the Board does not have County comments so the Board can not make any decision tonight without County comments.
Mr. Geiss said that the variance that they received was conditioned on Town Board approval so the Board actually needs to wait for Town Board approval and County comments.
Motion#07-238 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to adjourn the J.R Clancy expansion until the Board's next meeting. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
DANIEL KERMES - ZONE CHANGE
3272 Stiles Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id#056-01-01.0
Mr. Daniel Kermes was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said that this was before the Board before and the Board gave a negative recommendation at the last meeting and the Town attorney said that the Town has the ability to condition what can be done in an Industrial zones so this is back in front of the Board and he asked the applicant to give the Board the restrictions or what they would actually do. The Town Board has asked that this be re-reviewed.
The Board discussed what conditions the Town Board was proposing for this property.
Ms. Sabin said that she thought that the zone change would be for a limited duration; only as long as the applicant owns the property and used it as the existing purpose of the plumbing business.
Mr. Kermes said at the Town Board meeting the Town Board was somewhat receptive about the zone change with certain considerations being set on the property because an Industrial zone change can encompass a lot more then he would like to do on the property and as of last week he spoke to Ms. Crego and they spoke about it being rezoned to Industrial and using the building for administrative use and personal/professional service and then the pole barn would fall under storage and the land use would be E3 which is outside storage and what that encompasses and what he is looking for is a contractor's yard and that limits him to stuff that falls under his plumbing business such as pipe and his back hoe.
Mr. Kermes said that most of his stuff is going to be kept inside.
Mr. Geiss said last month the applicant stated that they only had a couple things that would be outside and that they wanted to build a building for storage onsite.
Mr. Geiss asked if they get the building for storage what would be outside.
Mr. Kermes said most likely they would have the dump truck, 10 ton trailer, excavator, backhoe, and maybe a pile of runner crush for a sewer or water repair.
Mr. Geiss asked if the proposed contractor's yard would be fenced in.
Mr. Kermes said that he would be willing to do that.
Mr. Kermes discussed the problems that he has been having with the property due to people trespassing and that is why he would like to use the house for his office but also rent it so he would have help with the taxes and have someone there Monday thru Friday because in his nature of business they are out on the job. He would like to rent it out to a real estate, insurance agent or business that is low key.
The applicant discussed the size of the pole barn that he is thinking of putting up.
Mr. Kermes showed the Board an aerial view of the houses that are in support of the zone change and stated that the Town Board has a paper that each one of his neighbor's signed.
Mr. Kermes said that if he gets the zone change he is also going to fix up the 24' x 24' building on the property and use that for storage and maintenance on his vehicles.
The Board discussed the property that the State owns that is adjacent to the applicant's property.
Mr. Geiss said as he understands this the conditions that were discussed were that this would remain for the applicant only as long as they own the land and have a business there and it would not go any further than that.
Mr. Kermes said that is kind of hard because what does it become if he sells it.
Mr. Geiss said that it reverts back to R-40.
Mr. Kermes said that he can't really do that because the house is going to be converted to commercial business with a pole barn behind it.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board has to look at the conditions should they sell the property.
The applicant discussed with the Board how long his family has been in the plumbing business.
The Board and the applicant discussed the property reverting back to R-40.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board has difficulty with this being spot zoning and now the applicant is back in front of the Board with rezoning with conditions and one of the conditions that was discussed at the Town Board meeting was that the applicant was there and owned it or it would revert back to R-40 and it was sent back to the Board with that in mind.
Mr. Kermes said in all theory if that house is a business how can it revert back to residential. The house is gutted now and he doesn't think that would work with the way the laws are written.
Mr. Geiss said the house could be converted again.
Mr. Virginia asked Mr. Hunt if the Board could approve an industrial use but take away the outside storage on the sale of the property.
Mr. Hunt said that it sounds very unusual to him and it is hard for him to think of how that would work.
Mr. Hunt said that he did not attend the Town Board meeting so he doesn't know what the Town Board had in mind but the Planning Board can make any recommendation they wish to make to the Town Board so the Board can make something more specific than a negative declaration that was issued last month then the Town Board will make the final decision as to what to do.
Mr. Geiss said that he would consider something that was very defined and very specific otherwise he doesn't want industrial there because it is a wide open zone so he is not in favor of industrial but some very constrained industrial and very specific and that is the way he understood it was coming back.
The Board and the applicant discussed what was talked about at the Town Board meeting.
Mr. Kermes said that if the property were to revert back to R-40 and something would happen to him then it would be a hardship on his family.
Mr. Geiss stated that this property was bought as R-40 and the applicant knew that R-40 had restrictions.
Mr. Kermes said that he has had the dump truck, excavator, and things outside that property for a while now and to his knowledge no one has complained.
The Board discussed other contractor's yards within the Town.
Mr. Geiss said that 690 is the buffer between the Industrial and the residential and to put this in the middle without a lot of restrictions is putting industrial in residential zoning.
Mr. Kermes said ultimately this is coming down to the property having to revert back to R-40 and that is something he is going to have to sleep hard on because this is probably the biggest investment he will make.
The Board and the applicant discussed the area around the property.
Ms. Sabin asked if anything came in writing from the Town Board from that meeting.
Mr. Geiss said nothing came in writing but he did have a discussion with Ms. Crego about it.
Ms. Sabin said that she was thinking that the Board could go back and reference what was in that meeting from the minutes to see what the attorney and Town Board had specified what they thought could be done but it was her understanding that it was going to be a very limited use if they went along that way.
Mr. Geiss said that is how it was described to him and also that it would revert back to R-40 if this applicant was not in business or did not own it any longer.
Mr. Kermes said that Ms. Crego said that she would contact the attorney about that but he never heard back from her to see if that was even legal or allowable to have it revert back to R-40.
Mr. Geiss said with the conditions that they are talking about anything can happen and if the Board could put restrictions that would be a restriction.
Mr. Ruddock said a little more waiting might yield a better solution if the Town attorney speaks to Mr. Hunt and the new Town Board looking at their approach to the zoning code of the Town as to what could or couldn't be done because he doesn't think that this Board should be changing this.
Mr. Hunt said that he doesn't see a basis for doing this but he hasn't spoke to the Town attorney so he doesn't know what they are thinking.
Mr. Ruddock said the job of the Planning Board is to look at the Town code and it is the job of the Town Board to change the Town code so when the Planning Board looks at it the Board has leeway to do what needs to be done and looking at the code he doesn't think the Board can do what the applicant needs or what makes sense for that property.
Mr. Geiss said that he doesn't think the Board can make a decision other than what has already been posted at this time and that the applicant should work with the Town attorney and the Planning Board attorney will also talk to the Town attorney so that the Board can understand what might be possible and in the mean time he is asking the applicant to put in writing exactly what is being asked for.
Mr. Ruddock said that it is his recollection that Mr. Baldwin, the previous Planning Board attorney, when the Board started talking about reverting back to a different zoning Mr. Baldwin was adamant that is a real wrong way to go and in fact he thinks that Mr. Baldwin didn't think that it was really possible to have something change a zone and then go back.
The Board discussed a use variance.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant that the Board couldn't do anything more tonight and he thinks the applicant needs to work on this more and speak with the Town attorneys and the Town Supervisor but that he is more than welcome to attend the Town Board meeting with what they have.
Motion #07-239 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to adjourn to the Public Hearing. Mr. Virginia moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
HEADRUSH, INC - PUBLIC HEARING
Walters & Winchell Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 055-04-2.1
Motion#07-240 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to waive the formal reading of the public notice. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Geiss said that the applicant is not present but he could give a description if there is anyone in the audience that wishes to speak.
No one spoke.
Motion #07-241 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to recess the public hearing for Headrush, Inc until the January Board meeting and to republish the public hearing notice. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
HEADRUSH, INC - SUBDIVISION
Walters & Winchell Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 055-04-2.1
The Headrush, Inc subdivision application was adjourned until January 7, 2008.
FULL GOSPEL CHURCH OF GOD - SITE PLAN
Van Buren Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id#051-03-19.0
Mr. John Wicks and Mr. Matt Napierala were present to address the Board.
Mr. Wicks said that the Full Gospel Church of God proposes to build a one story slab on grade building on a parcel that they own for a sanctuary.
Mr. Napierala said that this is a development on a 20+ acre piece of property on the corner of Van Buren Rd and right off the interchange of Route 690. The exit ramp for Van Buren Rd is off to the north and this is on the south - southwest side of the 690 interchange. The development as proposed here is 9600sf sanctuary with classrooms, offices, and such. The site amenities that they are looking at on this currently vacant piece of property is a layout of the church facility, a parking field both in the front and to the rear of the proposed facility, a entry on to Van Buren Rd. that provided egress to Van Buren Rd. itself and the driveway is an approximate location of an existing gravel drive that exists there today. With regards to the overall components this design there is existing water further to the south along Van Buren Rd and part of
their proposal is to approach the Town for a water district extension to provide water service to the facility so it would have public water. There is no sewer in the vicinity so they have gone out and performed some test pits and perk tests to the east of the proposed development and the ground perked very well so they have prepared a sub surface leaching field design to the Onondaga County Department of Health for their review and approval of a septic system for this facility.
Mr. Napierala said that they have appropriate private utilities, gas and electric which will serve the site. In reviewing the zoning they meet the setbacks and lot coverage. The parking code requirements as they understand it is one space for every 5 seats for the sanctuary itself. The biggest layout of that sanctuary is about 300 seats which equates to a required parking of 60 parking spaces and they are showing the ability to create 72 parking spaces. With the phasing of this particular parking field itself what they are proposing is that the curb cut and the entry at the start of this project will be an asphalt entry way with a separation island for the entering and exiting traffic. The parking field in the first phases will be a gravel parking field and as the facility becomes on board the potential in the future of that parking field
will become an asphalt parking field. Looking at the storm water requirements and what is required by DEC as far as run off criteria they will be impacting over one acre so a SPDDS permit will be required under the DEC requirements and as such they have provided a wet pond design and that will provide the Town engineer the calculations and designs for that particular facility for mitigation of storm water with regards to the impact that they may have.
Mr. Geiss asked if they have talked with County DOT and State DOT about the entrance to the property.
Mr. Napierala said not as of yet but they have more than ample site distance both to the east and west directions along Van Buren Rd. There is no crown or dip it is a straight shot so they have very good visibility. When they look at the parking counts and what the flow of the traffic may or may not be for this particular use the peak time will be a Sunday which really is not in conflict, it is a contrast to the traffic flow patterns that they would see along Van Buren Rd.
Mr. Geiss said he doesn't know which agency comes into play with the entrance ramp so he thinks they have to contact the State as well as the County.
The Board discussed Downer St. where the other entrance ramp is.
The Board and the applicant discussed if the parking that was being provided was enough for the church.
Mr. Napierala said that they have ample space if they need to expand the parking area and with that amount of property the church can create recreation areas in the future but they will plan on the parking and if the Board desires they can show some bank parking or future parking as part of the review.
Ms. Sabin asked what the property is currently zoned.
Mr. Pringle said R-40.
Mr. Crandon asked if this was an allowed use.
Mr. Pringle said that it is allowed but they will need a special use permit from the ZBA.
The Board and the applicant discussed what programs the church would be providing.
Mr. Geiss asked about lighting.
Mr. Napierala said that they are going to utilize RUUD lighting and they haven't finalized the photometric but they can provide those and they aren't looking for a very high pole itself and a very low luminary.
Mr. Geiss said that there has been difficulty on other project that were next to ramps and shades had to be put in place because glare came on to the entrance ramp.
Mr. Napierala said that the lights are anticipated to be a shoebox design so a cutoff shield can be provided if needed.
Mr. Geiss asked that a lighting plan be submitted.
Mr. Wicks discussed with the Board the type of lighting that he prefers and that the lights are usually turned down after the service.
The Board and the applicant discussed the kitchen facilities.
The applicant discussed what types of events the church might hold and discussed the size of the eating area inside the building.
Mr. Wicks said that the sanctuary could hold up to 300 people.
Mr. Geiss asked the applicant if they are going to be putting in and paying for the water line or are they asking the Town to form a water district that is going to pay for the water line.
Mr. Napierala said that he thinks the intent is that they need to extend the water district and this project would be installing that water line to serve the site.
Mr. Geiss said that he just wanted to make sure that they were extending the water and not wanting the Town to do it.
The Board and the applicant discussed recreational areas outside of the building.
Mr. Virginia asked if the applicant was going to have signage that can be seen from Route 690.
Mr. Wicks said that there is no intention to have a sign or anything. People are only going to see the building and the lawn. There will only be the one sign that will be in the dividing median at the entrance that will conform to the codes.
Mr. Crandon asked if they will be clear cutting the trees between the onramp and the facility.
Mr. Wicks said probably not to the onramp but they do want to be seen from Route 690. He thinks it is smart to leave the screen by the ramp but to the north and the east it will probably be lawn area underneath the power lines.
Mr. Crandon said that they will need to provide shrubbery and green space in the front along Van Buren Rd. and asked if the center divider in the front would be landscaped.
Mr. Crandon said that he thinks the Board will want something more than the 8 or so trees that are being shown on the drawing.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board would like a landscaping plan.
Mr. Napierala said when they make their final plan they will add in some more trees and landscaping.
Mr. Virginia asked if they have done snow calculations and asked where they will put the snow since they have a limited parking area.
Mr. Wicks said that they haven't yet.
Mr. Napierala said that they will show snow areas and discussed where they might put the snow.
Mr. Crandon asked what type of construction the building is.
Mr. Napierala said what they have designed is a single story slab on grade, steel frame building with horizontal exterior siding and it is going to be like the colonial style. The roof is going to be darker grey asphalt shingle and they want it to fit in properly. The building height is about 30ft to the peak not including the steeple house and the spire.
Mr. Geiss asked what they need from the ZBA.
Mr. Pringle said they need a special use permit for this use and a special use permit for their monument sign.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant to bring in their site plan so that Mr. Pringle can bring it to the fire department for review.
Mr. Pringle said that the ZBA had to wait for septic approval and road cut approval before they can give any approvals for the special use permits.
Motion #07-242 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Town of Van Buren Planning Board as lead agency a single agency uncoordinated review for the unlisted action under SEQR for the Full Gospel Church of God site plan review Van Buren Rd Tax map Parcel Id# 051-03-19.0. This is for the construction of a church on Van Buren Rd on a 20.6 acre parcel. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion #07-243 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to send a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to the Full Gospel Church of God in that the parcel on Van Buren Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 051-03-19.0 requires a Special Use Permit for the use of this parcel for a church also that a Special Use Permit is needed for the monument sign for the parcel. This is a positive recommendation. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion #07-234 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer the Full Gospel Church of God to Onondaga County Planning for review. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
ARROW SPACE - SIGNAGE
Downer St Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 033-03-15.0
Mr. Joe Mastroianni was present to address the Board.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they were before the Board previously this year with Arrow Space Self Storage and received their approvals and they are looking to put in two monument signs. One will be single sided at the edge of the embankment seen along Route 690. The sign will be internally lit, 6' x 15' in size and 10ft above grade and they are looking for a second sign which will be 4' x 8' two sided and with the current zoning regulations they are only allowed 1sf of signage for every linear foot along the front of the building and their main building is turned perpendicular so they have only 20ft but technically the building is 190ft long. They are looking for a variance for the square footage for both signs.
Mr. Pringle said that they need a variance for 90ft. In a PUD district they are allowed one free standing sign at 32sf and their height is within code.
Mr. Pringle said that they put a sign up for him to look at and it can't be seen so he told the applicant that the only thing they could do was ask for a variance.
Mr. Geiss said that this does not need to be referred to County.
The Board discussed the positioning of the sign that faces Route 690.
Motion #07-235 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Town of Van Buren Planning Board as lead agency a single agency uncoordinated review for the unlisted action under SEQR for the Arrow Space signage proposed for Downer St Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 033-03-15.0. This is signage for a self storage facility located on this parcel. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion #07-236 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to send a positive recommendation to the ZBA for Arrow Space signage for the parcel located on Downer St Rd. This variance is required on the size of the sign. As proposed it is an increase of 90sf over the allowed square footage and they also need a variance for having a second sign. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
RIVERIDGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC - SCOPING SESSION
River and Daboll Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 045-01-01.2
Mr. Mastroianni was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss explained to the audience that a draft scoping statement had been submitted to the Board; and the Board is in the process of reviewing that to draft a final scoping statement; and that this meeting is not an open public hearing; and the Board is working with the applicant to develop the scoping for the environmental impact statement and there will be a public hearing after the applicant submits the draft environmental impact statement.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they submitted their draft scope last month but it was not submitted in enough time for the Board to review it so they are back this month.
Mr. Geiss said prior to that the Board issued a positive declaration and requested a draft scope which was submitted by the applicant. The Board found four major potential significant adverse environmental impacts on the SEQR positive declaration. The Board has received many comments on the draft scope from other involved agencies and the public, and the Board has reviewed all these comments as they were received.
The Board decided to go through the scoping statement question by question.
Impacts on Plants and Animals - Item 8
Mr. Geiss said that the Board has received comments from the other involved agencies and the public and one of the comments is that there is an impact on the plants and animals in the area and it needs to be studied. The applicant submitted a report that was dated October 9, 2007 that talked about the Indiana Bat and the Bald Eagle. There are other animals and he thinks the impact is on other animals in the area also that there could be an impact because they will be disturbing the land; small animals were referenced in the letters. The Bald Eagle the applicant stated was not nesting in the area and that is it not an endangered species but one of the comments was that it needs to be protected and that needs to be looked at and he believes that the applicant does have a letter that would cover some review on the animals that the applicant
might want to include some review as to the impact on small animals.
Mr. Mastroianni said one thing to point out as far as the animals are concerned is that the majority of the construction is in the agricultural fields. While they may have some rabbits, fox, or things like that out there where most of that would be in the forested area and they are not planning on impacting that during construction.
Mr. Geiss said that would be a mitigation measure and would be very appropriate for the mitigation end of this.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was one wetland area in phase one on the northern part.
Mr. Mastroianni said because of the contours there is a drop off there of about 60 to 100ft and he believes it is referred to as a forested marsh and that is a drop off down in there which they will not be developing or impacting because it is almost level with the shoreline going out.
Mr. Virginia asked if they were going to be grading lots up to that point.
Mr. Mastroianni said most of the lots are going to be graded just out to there but they won't necessarily be going right to the edge of the cliff.
Mr. Virginia said that he thinks one of the mitigating factors is to look at how far they grade towards those wetlands and maybe establish some type of buffer so this way they are not bringing any construction equipment near those wetlands.
Mr. Geiss said that they agree on the impacts but on the mitigation the applicant submitted a report that contemplated a restricted covenant on that and he thinks the DEIS need to look at that as one option or the other option is that in addition to the covenant that could lapse that there be some forever wild or limitation on how they go through that and he has been to a few places around Cross Lake and that floods everything up to the trees and it is similar to this but that this would not be clear cut or anything and remain forever wild with the understanding that they can have an access through it but not to cut it down and that happens for the habitat for the Indiana Bat and a habitat for the Bald Eagle.
Mr. Virginia said that there was talk at one point where the applicant was going to restrict the land owners via some type of deed restriction to that effect.
Mr. Geiss said a covenant on the deed and that is mentioned in their response.
Mr. Geiss read the part of the scoping statement where the applicant addresses the covenant.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board would want something further than someone else saying that the homeowner can do it he thinks that the trees need to be maintained and there should be a covenant that the trees need to be maintained and he looks at that as a mitigation also because the Board is also looking at maintaining the habitat for animals.
Mr. Knapp said the undergrowth also not just the trees because the covenant suggested only the trees.
Mr. Geiss said he would look at it as maintaining that whole habitat area and they might want an access through it to get to the water but a small access not clear cutting; it should be limited and again that would be a mitigation that can be looked at and discussed.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Board wants to see that detailed on the plan.
Ms. Sabin said that she would.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board should have that and the drafting of the covenant that would go with the deed.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Board would like to see that on the plan physically where that covenant is drawn on.
Mr. Geiss said that is something the Board could look at further on the SEQR.
Mr. Mastroianni said that may be futuristic looking into the future that may be a little bit hard to maintain because they may have a path going through there but 15 years from now the saplings have grown up that may be modified but a corridor with something no wider than so many feet but not a specific line.
Mr. Geiss said something like one corridor per lot no wider than 10 or 20ft.
The Board members all stated that was workable.
Mr. Hunt said just to keep the record clear what the Board is working towards tonight is the final scoping statement and asked if the Board was contemplating that the applicant provide the proposed language for a restrictive covenant as part of the draft environmental impact statement or is the Board asking that this be something that the applicant would submit at some point before final subdivision approval.
Mr. Geiss said that he thinks that would be something before subdivision approval and the mitigation would be that it would not be touched and the corridor would be set up and that it would be put into a covenant on the deed and the final words of the deed or covenant would be something the attorneys would look at together and draft up.
Mr. Hunt said that he thinks that is fine he just wanted that to be clear.
Mr. Virginia said lots 18, 20, and 22 and the wetlands there does the Board want to look at restricting access to the river on the lots that are going to require penetrating through those wetlands.
Ms. Sabin said that she didn't think that they could go through the wetlands at all.
Mr. Virginia said that is his question because on lots 20 and 22 if those residents want to access the river they are going to have to go through a wetland to get there.
Mr. Mastroianni said impacting the wetlands is not permissible.
Mr. Virginia said correct but how are they going to ensure that the residents are aware of that when the resident purchases that lot.
Mr. Mastroianni said part of the property map/survey and every other legal real estate document that they have will have it on there.
Ms. Sabin said that it has to be on the specific language of the deed for that parcel.
Mr. Geiss said that the wetlands will have to be shown on lots 18, 20, 22, and a portion of 24.
Ms. Sabin said that when the Board was talking about how much space would be left forever wild can the Board have that designated on the plan and she is not quite sure exactly how much space that the Board was saying.
Mr. Geiss said that he has that as aesthetic resources and also on the impact to the character of the community or the neighborhood.
Ms. Sabin said that she thinks that it also pertains to the impact of the plants and animals in that area as well.
Mr. Geiss said one of their mitigations is the forest area not being touched.
Ms. Sabin said she is just trying to figure out how they are going to designate or show that specific forever wild area.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they are going to show that on the map.
Impact on Agricultural Resources - Item 10
Mr. Geiss said that the applicant stated in the draft scope that they have specifically irreversible conversion of 72.5 acres of land in an Ag district under Ag & Markets Law Section 25aa and for mitigation the applicant has listed nothing.
Mr. Geiss said on Impact on agricultural resources he had several things and he pointed out at the last meeting that in the documents that he has the Town has 13,482 acres in the Ag District in the Town of Van Buren of which this project involves 144 acres and that is about 1.068 percent roughly. He thinks that they do impact the agricultural area in that they are going to be changing the natural contours to accommodate the development layout and with that they have drainage that needs to be developed in the surrounding area and in addition to normally not allowing any additional water to leave he sees that they have to control the water be it springs or water that has to go to the agricultural adjacent land so he thinks in this area they have reduction of farmland to address and then for mitigation they have drainage, storm water, septic
systems to address and the run off that would happen from those if there should be any. They have natural springs that they are going to need to address and then they do have this as farmland. The other thing is impact on agricultural resources is the right to farm comes in to play and they have dirt and dust created by the adjacent farmland and the mitigation would be that notice be given to any resident for the right to farm. Not only is there the dust and the dirt but also the noise from farming and that farmer has the right to farm so the mitigation there is addition to drainage, storm water, and septic systems is both doing drainage but also maintaining flow because there is need to keep water going because it does flow both ways. He thinks there are several items there that need to be addressed as part of that.
Ms. Sabin asked if the SEQR is on the entire 144 acres or is it only on the 72 acres.
Mr. Mastroianni said there are no phases.
Mr. Geiss said this is being done as 1 project and at this point there is nothing up in the wetlands to the north however there is a comment that the Board received from the fire department already of their desire not to have a long road with a cul-de-sac for a turn around and if a road is required then they are going to have to talk about the impacts on any wetlands to the north as well.
Ms. Sabin said that DEC also has questions on the upper portion as well.
Mr. Geiss said there are two things here. They have a comment on the fact that the road can't go that way without circling around and coming back out because normally if they had any way of putting in something like a city block so that they can approach it at to different ways rather than a long dead end and the fire department brings up a good point with their fire equipment along a dead end is not a desired way of developing this large parcel and with one phase the Board needs to look at the road going up and around once they put the road up and around the Board needs to look at the wetland up in the northern portion. As they put that road up they also have a hill that they have to start climbing.
Mr. Geiss said they can cover that here in that the wetland, drainage and things but he thinks somewhere they have to include in discussion of the fact that they have long road and there is a need for a circular type road in there for fire purposes and right now the fire department is saying that this is unacceptable. With that they are going to have to discuss the wetlands to the north as well.
Mr. Geiss said that they need to look at what the mitigation things will be with doing that road and how they are going to limit the impact to the wetland.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Board is going to require the applicant to punch the road through based on the Memphis Fire Department's comments.
Mr. Geiss said yes, that is what the Board needs to look at and as the Board first looked at this as a two phased project that road was going to be there and there was a couple comments based on segmentation and the Board is not segmenting now, the Board is looking at this as one project.
Impact on Aesthetic Resources - Item 11
Mr. Geiss said that he thinks that they have already offered some mitigation for the surrounding land use in that they talked about the animals and things by having the forever wild there is what he looked at for that but also something that he thinks that they need to look at is along the road too such as some type of planting. As he looked at it he thought of Seneca Estates where that has a wood fence and plantings along the road which would bring it into the character of the surrounding area but right now there isn't much along the edge of the road other than the ditch.
Mr. Mastroianni said when they first came in front of the Board two years ago they had entertained an idea of berming along there.
Mr. Geiss said that would be a mitigation measure.
The Board discussed other developments that have berms.
Mr. Geiss said having a berm there with some plantings on it as well mitigates the impact on aesthetic resources.
Ms. Sabin said that she would like the berm to be fairly steep, 8 to 10ft as well.
Mr. Geiss said another comment was the greenway but he thinks the Board looked at that as being forever wild or something in that nature and maintaining that as the way it is.
Impact on Growth and Character of the Community or Neighborhood -
Mr. Geiss said that the applicant had no mitigation identified in the DEIS, but he thinks there are several mitigation issues that need to be addressed.
Mr. Geiss said land use is in sharp contrast to the surrounding area and he thinks that they need to look at the water and the sewage, however it is going to be addressed and that the comprehensive plan being a requirement and that water wasn't extended up there and it is a mitigation to provide that there to get the water up there and provide for sewage but he thinks they need to discuss that because originally the water wasn't extended. It stopped short because it wasn't needed or wanted; he doesn't know which, up in that area.
Mr. Geiss said one of the things impacting the area and the community he thinks they need to address here is the variances that they are requesting from an AR-80 zoning district because the surrounding area is AR-80 and there are 8 variances being requested. That doesn't meet with the intent of the zoning code by getting all of these variances so he thinks that needs to be talked about here in this section and how they would mitigate that.
Mr. Geiss said that he has traffic as an impact and he believes the applicant has prepared a traffic study so they have that as mitigation so that would be part of this.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they would put it in the appendix.
Mr. Geiss said they have done the traffic study but whatever came out of the traffic study they can look at mitigation since that has been done. Noise is another impact on the character on the community and what mitigation measures can be done to limit the noise especially noise from construction and there is a couple things there that they can come up with as to what measures they can take to limit any noise during construction such as time of day, type of equipment, and that type of thing.
Mr. Geiss said the other thing here is on the impact of the character of the neighborhood is the archeological review and that was completed and they have compliance with SHPPO with regard to this and he thinks that could come in to play here as well and that should be included in the appendix.
Mr. Geiss said the AG and Markets right to farm law for the impacts of the surrounding neighborhood because farming is on three sides of this so that should also be included.
Mr. Hunt said the regulations also ask about alternatives and it may be that the Board has been describing alternatives as mitigation, and he just wants to make sure there aren't other alternatives.
Mr. Geiss asked the applicant to come up with other alternatives or mitigation measures that they might have for this and he is not saying that what the Board has come up with is all inclusive items that they can use.
Mr. Mastroianni said it is like a guide that they can branch off of.
Mr. Geiss said the final scope will be complete here when the Board wraps up tonight and the applicant can start a draft impact statement.
Mr. Knapp said different options in both lot sizes and proposed architecture design of the houses there would make a difference in how it affects the community and so on.
Mr. Geiss said that could be under aesthetics as well as impact on character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Mastroianni asked what the Board meant about different lot sizes.
Mr. Knapp said as they are looking at alternatives they have a proposed number of lots that they would like to have there.
Mr. Geiss said that comes into the question that he had on variances.
Mr. Knapp said that he is not saying that they would like all the options but if they put in only half the number of houses that is an option so that they wouldn't need any variances.
Mr. Mastroianni said most of the problem with the variances is just the 200ft depth.
Mr. Geiss said yes but there are 8 variances on 27 parcels and that is significant and he thinks that needs to be addressed.
Ms. Sabin said as far as other alternatives she thinks Mr. Knapp is suggesting an architectural style more of an old farmhouse might be something that someone would consider building granted they are looking at $350 - $500,000 homes most of the comments that have come in are camps or single story homes; do these house need to be two story homes. Can they be built to old colonial style or whatever is out there so it would more ties in to the existing homes.
Mr. Geiss said earth tone colors also. The architectural style has to do with aesthetics as well as the impact to the community and neighborhood because there is a change in density and how they mitigate that might be the aesthetic things that the Board is talking about.
Mr. Crandon said in regards to the variances that they need for lot sizes what would happen if they gave the extra land right back to itself and just left it forever wild. With the 2.5 to 1 ratio on some of the lots that are deep if they just didn't convey the land and left the land forever wild.
Mr. Geiss said the mitigation is to change the lots.
Mr. Crandon said put the building line or limit it so they can't build on it.
Mr. Geiss said or make the lots bigger.
Mr. Crandon said if they make the building area only 80,000sf or so then they don't need a variance.
Mr. Geiss said they could have the rest a common property under a home owner's association and that would be a mitigation measure.
Mr. Geiss asked the applicant if they had anything to add.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the Board has been very thorough.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board will get the draft out to them.
Motion#07-237 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to authorize the preparation of a final scoping statement by the Board and Mr. Hunt for submission to the applicant based on the items discussed this evening. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion
Mr. Geiss called for a Motion to adjourn at 9:38 p.m. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Vera Cavallaro
Planning Board Secretary
| ||
