7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
Planning Board April 2007
April 2, 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
Jim Billings, Engineer
Dave Pringle, Codes Enforcement Officer
Vera Cavallaro, Planning Board Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes were approved as written.
Motion Mr. Crandon made a motion to accept the March minutes as written. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, 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
PADDOCK FARMLAND - SUBDIVISION
Old State Route 31 Tax Map Parcel Id# 046 - 06 - 11.1
Mr. Jeff Hagar was present to address the Board.
Mr. Hagar said that it is a 60 acre piece of farmland that is in his mother-in-laws family and they would like to subdivide off a 2.6 acre parcel in order to build a home. Currently the property is being used for agriculture.
Mr. Geiss and Mr. Pringle discussed previous subdivisions on this property and decided that it would be classified as a minor subdivision.
Mr. Geiss said that they have 262ft of frontage and asked Mr. Pringle if this is a legal lot in an AR-80 zone.
Mr. Pringle said that it is.
Mr. Geiss said that the final decision could not be taken this evening because the application needs to be referred to County and asked if anyone had any questions.
Motion #07-45 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion with regard to the Paddock farmland subdivision on Old State Route 31 that the subdivision be declared as minor. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Motion #07-46 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 subdivision of the Paddock farmland Old State Route 31 Tax Map Parcel Id# 046-06-11.1. This is a subdivision as shown on the applicants' submitted map entitled John F. Paddock and Carolyn Paddock dated 12/19/2006 with latest revision 2/23/2007. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Motion #07-47 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer the Paddock farmland subdivision to Onondaga County for review. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
WHEREAS Town Code Section 175-5 (C) establishes the criteria for the reservation of parkland on residential subdivision plats or the imposition of a sum of money in lieu thereof; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of such a provision is to prevent deterioration in the quality of park and recreational services to residents in the Town of Van Buren as a result of a new residential development; and
WHEREAS, based on the present and anticipated future needs for park and recreational facilities in the Town relative to the projected population growth in the Town to which the Paddock subdivision will contribute, a proper case exists for requiring that a park or parks be suitably located for playground or other recreational purposes within the Town; and
WHEREAS, a suitable park or parks of adequate size to meet the Town's requirements can not be properly located within the Paddock subdivision, nor is there a need for such additional facilities in the immediate neighborhood,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a proper case exists regarding the Paddock Subdivision development for requiring the developer pay a park fee of $150 per lot.
Mr. Geiss adjourned the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing for Cannata Meadows Subdivision.
Motion # 07-48 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to waive the reading of the Public Hearing. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Lou Cannata Jr. was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said that a Public Hearing is to hear comments from the public and the Board will start out by listening to a presentation from the applicant and then the Board will open it up for comments by the public.
Mr. Geiss explained to the audience how the Public Hearing was going to be conducted.
Mr. Cannata said that last month when they were in front of the Board they showed a proposed road and they showed it to the DOT and the DOT did not like the road there so another option was to place the road where they have it now on the map and they are under contract to buy the property. Lot 2 is the commercial parcel which they have under contract for sale and Lot 3 is the residential parcel. The other little parcel is being taken out of Lot 3 and is being combined with their lot.
Mr. Billings asked Mr. Cannata to clarify what lot the highlighted parcel in coming off of.
Mr. Cannata said that they own a good portion of the triangle and with buying that house they are able to make that a viable lot.
Mr. Crandon said on the map they have Lot 4 and Lot 1 in that group where the garage and business is and asked if they were sure they don't want to make that all Lot 1.
Mr. Cannata said if they did that it would become part of their business and they want to just leave it as it is and rent the house, they have no intention to clear the lot or demolish the home.
The Board had a discussion about Lot 4.
Mr. Geiss opened the public hearing up for comments and asked if there was anyone who would like to speak either for or against this proposal.
Mr. McKeen of 7414 O'Brien Rd. spoke against the proposal.
Mr. McKeen said that his concern is that he sees no access or no way of controlling the flood zone/water that goes through that property that goes to Route 48 and to the golf course. Nothing there is road level and one side of the property is heavily wooded and when they take that down there is going to be a lot of erosion and water and there is no drainage system from the road to their property and the back side of the property drops off terribly about 20 to 30ft from road level at least and he sees no provision for holding water for flood zone. The creek that runs through their property that goes under Rt. 48 is the end of a larger drainage system and there is no room for a holding pond to control flooding from the golf course or heavy rains or snow and currently the homes on the north side on Route 48 their back lots are currently under
water because of drainage problems in that area and he sees nothing being done about water drainage in that area to make sure that it does get to the river without flooding anyone else out.
Mr. Geiss thanked Mr. McKeen for sharing his concerns and asked if anyone else would like to speak.
Mr. Geiss asked again if anyone would like to speak for or against this proposal.
Motion # 07-49 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing for Cannata Meadows. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss called the Planning Board regular meeting back in session.
CANNATA MEADOWS - SUBDIVISION
State Fair Blvd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 064-01-33.1
Mr. Cannata Jr. was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said that Kristy King is actually the current owner of the property that the applicant has a contract with for Lot 4 and she is in favor of this.
Mr. Geiss said that from what he heard at the public hearing DOT didn't like the area for access so this would be their access to the back. The proposed driveway location for Lot 2 is over across from Van Ness Rd. and the Board will have that at a later date.
Mr. Geiss said that there was a question raised at the Public Hearing with regard to drainage. This being a subdivision no drainage was shown other than there is going to be a wetland across Lot 2 for drainage so there is a drainage easement that is being set up for that.
Ms. Sabin asked who was going to own that drainage easement or be given the right to use that.
Mr. Billings said that it is in a drainage district so he assumes that it is going to be the Town.
Ms. Sabin asked if that means that the Town can go in and make sure that this drainage is being maintained.
Mr. Billings said that the Town will maintain it.
Mr. Geiss said that at this time there are no provisions for doing anything else with regard to Lot 3 which was referenced by Mr. McKeen at the Public Hearing.
Mr. Ruddock asked if Lot 1 has become 107ft bigger to the North towards Lot 2 and they have taken what they were going to leave as the easement and that is being incorporated into Lot 1 the existing property.
Mr. Cannata said yes, they have a little bit on Lot 2 and the rest on Lot 1.
Mr. Ruddock said that when he goes over to the South side of the Lot 4; Lot 4 used to be 1.01 acres and he asked where the West property line is because when the Board looks at that drawing there is that jogged parcel that is attached to their's and part coming out of Lot 3 and on the backside there is a dash line that says PUD residential and then Business District is that chunk being added to this lot and was it part of Lot 4 originally.
Mr. Cannata and the Board had a discussion on the area that Mr. Ruddock was referring to.
Mr. Ruddock said that when they have two different zones on one piece of land it gets easy for someone to mistakenly think that they can put a business use on a residential piece or a residential use on a business piece because typically right now it's being used as a residential piece and his thoughts right now is that it needs to be clearly explained to people in the future whatever they do with this piece of land that they have a mixed use across that piece of land and it is not clean.
The Board had a discussion about the uses on the property.
Mr. Geiss said basically what he thinks they have there is a 60ft access for right of way to the back Lot 3 which is down to the south and to the east so that in the future development can occur on Lot 3.
Mr. Cannata said that DOT liked this better than the last right of way that they proposed.
Ms. Sabin asked if there should be a new legal description in the measurement that says the exact coordinates to show what is in there so that it is not confused.
Mr. Pringle said that Lot 4 is currently zoned Local Business with a Residential use so it has a legal non-conforming use and it could be conditioned that once the use is gone the lot becomes part of Lot 1 and it would all be under a business district and eliminate the Residential use.
Ms. Sabin said so for a legal description; when this is brought down to the County Clerk's Office whether it is 40ft or 50ft of that back parcel do they have a special note in the legal description that that has a special use or a different use.
Mr. Geiss said that he doesn't know if the back 40 or 50ft would be a problem and the Board has even seen properties that are in two different Towns and in this case as he sees it the primary use is going to be out in front with that building and that is a Local Business district and that will be what that will be used as and with that setback in the back they are not even going to be coming in on that 40 or 50ft that is up into the PUD residential.
Mr. Pringle asked if the applicant explained why they were adding that extra piece to the back of the lot.
Mr. Geiss said so it becomes a legal lot. The frontage is not changing and as far as the use the back 50ft won't come into play because setbacks and other things won't allow them to build anything there. The Town would not allow anything to be built back there.
The Board had a discussion about combining the Lots in the future but also that a public road could be put in between in the future so combining might not be an option.
Mr. Billings asked about the proposed use for the block of land that is being added to Lot 1 because it could be split by a road in the future.
Mr. Cannata said originally when the road wasn't proposed there it was meant for a buffer and they just kept it there.
The Board had a discussion on the block of land being added to Lot 1.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant since they are creating a new lot they are subject to park fees and since this is a major subdivision it will be $350.00.
Motion # 07-50 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion with regard to SEQR for the subdivision for Cannata Meadows State Fair Blvd Tax Map Parcel ID# 064-01-33.1. The Board has previously taken lead agency with regard to this and called it an unlisted action however with regard to that the Board is now working with the latest map concerning this which is now dated March 9, 2007 which shows a different access off of Route 48 which is now to the east of Lot 1. Previously the Board was looking at an access to the western edge of Lot 1. This will be an unlisted action under SEQR. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-51 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer the Cannata Meadows subdivision to Onondaga County Planning for review. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss adjourned the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing for Harbour Heights.
HARBOUR HEIGHTS - SECTION 8 & 9 - PUBLIC HEARING
Waterfront Dr. Extension Tax ID # 36-07-19.1
Motion # 07-52 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to waive the reading of the Public Hearing. Mr. Virginia moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss explained to the audience how the Public Hearing was going to be conducted.
Mr. Dan Barnaba and Mr. Doug Beachel were present to address the Board.
Mr. Barnaba said that they preciously made an appearance at the last meeting where they gave the Board an update on the project and since that time they updated their project board. This original project board resembles what was put before the Planning Board and the Town Board from the time that they pursued a zone change. A zone change was granted to PUD and there were some conditions placed on that some of which are the phasing of the project; the project needs to be built in a certain order, the types of building lots that can be used within the project and perhaps a density. They came in and showed a maximum density and as they have pursued their approvals their density has gone down as they had to make room for various utilities and roadways. They have updated the Board to show some of the sections that have been constructed which are
sections 4, 5, 6, and now section 7. The construction is completed in sections 4, 5, and 6 except for one building lot and the road and the majority of the utilities have been installed in section 7 and Niagara Mohawk will be in there this week beginning the installation of gas and electric services. Eleven or twelve of the thirty two lots have been purchased and there will be a year and a half to two years left of activity until these lots are consumed. The reason they are back before the Board is because they are making arrangements for two more sections to be developed and because they are being developed in close succession with one another they have decided to pursue the approvals simultaneously. Section 8 coming in from South Gate Rd. heading north encompassing all the dotted line areas and these lots will be consumed almost entirely by Eldan Homes. Section 8 comes in and connects with Section 7 and Section 9 being the piece in between and another reason why they showed the
comparison is because they had some attached homes that didn't get approved so they made a decision not to pursue that anymore and what they are showing is lots that are labeled DV which stands for detached villa and the villa applies to smaller sized homes, smaller frontage and smaller lots. He believes almost all of their guaranteed or promised work to the Town has been completed. There are some property transfers that still remain to be completed with the waterfront residents as they agreed to deed the property between the public road and their homes to them and they have negotiated with several of the land owners and they thought that it would go quicker since they are not charging the land owners anything for the property but the land owners have decided to get their attorney's involved and that seems to be slowing things down. They have recently negotiated with the Town for an additional structure to go in a detention basin that may improve a preexisting drainage situation on
Commodore Circle and eventually when the top soil pile is removed they will deliver this property to the Town and the dedication for a use as a future park and that will be graded and presented to the Town.
Mr. Barnaba said that he is not sure if he has the lot count precisely between sections 8 and 9 but he believes there are approximately 54 lots in Section 8 and 44 lots in section 9. He doesn't want to lead the Board to believe that just because they get preliminary plan approval for the rest of the project at once that it will be constructed in its entirety; they are not precisely sure how much of the project will be constructed at one time but they will proceed with the road in that direction essentially tying into the sewer that stubs at that point.
Mr. Geiss opened the public hearing up for comments and asked if anyone wished to speak either for or against this proposal.
Motion # 07-53 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing for Harbour Heights. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
HARBOUR HEIGHTS - SECTION 8 & 9
Waterfront Dr. Extension Tax ID # 36-07-19.1
Mr. Doug Beachel and Mr. Dan Barnaba were present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said basically they are going to be building in from South Gate and that was the original proposal and what was set up and to make Section 8 connect with the sewer it needs to be brought up to where they were before.
Mr. Barnaba said that it also gives two ways in and out of the subdivision and probably just in time with the development of this section will take some pressure off Commane Rd.
Mr. Geiss read the County comments aloud.
Mr. Geiss asked if the burming and screening was up in Section 6.
Mr. Barnaba said that County comment is troubling for a couple reasons and they think that they have addressed the County's concerns. When they pursued approval for the entire project there was a land ownership issue between the pump station and the river and that is because this treatment facility before it became a pump station used to discharge its overflow directly to the river and in order to make the road work which was one of the things that the County requested and if the Board remembers their original design showed a cul-de-sac they pursued this road connection at the Town's request that required them to get that property from the County and the County didn't need it anymore with the construction of the pump station so it was easy for them to declare it as excess. They had to go through a bid process and through the County's process
of declaring it surplus land, it had to go to auction essentially and they had to bid on the property but even after that bid was accepted somebody thought it would be nice that the pump station should be screened and they don't have a problem with that because they are trying to sell homes so they agreed as part of the purchase proposal to screen it and since that time they believe they have constructed some form of burm and they have put in Pine trees there and the Town's engineers have visited the site many of times and they previously have received a letter from the County suggesting that some additional work still needed to be done and they believe they have gone back and addressed that issue and they just don't have all of their correspondence in hand tonight but they will be addressing this with the County. It is a contractual relationship between Eldan and the County in exchange for some property they agreed to conduct some services and apparently there is a little bit of a
dispute.
Mr. Geiss asked what the date of the letter is.
Mr. Barnaba said that the letter is dated May 30, 2006.
Mr. Geiss asked if that is when they responded and provided more.
Mr. Barnaba said that Mr. Beachel met the gentlemen at least once at the site and obviously it hasn't deterred people from buying any houses.
Mr. Geiss said that there are two other items; responsibility for ownership, maintenance and liability of the storm water drainage facilities and open space. There is a combination here and he believes there is going to be a home owners association.
Mr. Barnaba said at the time that they put the proposals together yes; it was their intention to create a deminimus home owners association. The State has a home owners association referred to as a deminimus home owners association which is part of a State law CPS cooperative policy statement 7 regarding home owners' associations and for a small amount of dues maintenance in these areas will be taken care of by a home owner's association so it is still possible that they pursue that but he doesn't want to make that a guarantee. When they do their market studies sometimes people are turned off by home owner's associations so he would like to reserve the right to perhaps dedicate this to a conservation organization or extend the lot lines back so that the home owner's would take title to all that but that is probably the most least palpable of
the options because some of these wetlands have buffers and their wetland permits either suggest or mandate because they don't want the home owner's to think that they can do something to the property other than leave it as is but if they did deed it to the home owner's they would certainly put a restrictive covenant in their deeds putting them on notice that they can't do anything with the property. The problem is the DEC doesn't want to be in the position where they have to enforce all those covenants so they would rather see ownership of the property stay with anyone but the home owner's. He is still inclined to pursue the home owner's association if they can keep the dues to a nominal annual fee and they may even pursue the idea of lawn care and snow removal. They intend to reserve that decision just prior to putting homes on the market. The law requires that they can't put the homes on the market and actually sell until those home associations are approved by the Attorney
General's office so the decision will be made well before selling.
Mr. Geiss asked if there was to be a home owner's association what homes would be included.
Mr. Barnaba said all the homes sold in red that are being built by Eldan Homes.
Mr. Geiss said so basically Section 8.
Mr. Barnaba said it was always the intention that Section 8 would be reserved for Eldan Homes and they are much more adept and familiar with organizing and creating home owner's associations but they wouldn't do that for the other builder and they would appeal to a different buyer and they don't want their sales forces to compete. Ryan Homes is looking for families and younger couples and people that wouldn't be interested in that level of service for that type of home ownership.
Mr. Geiss said that the question comes in on the responsibility if ownership and it's not defined at this time.
Mr. Barnaba said that he can't say that it is and he doesn't know if it is required for preliminary plan approval.
Mr. Billings said that preliminary plan approval defines the lots, the way they have shown it here they would continue to own it.
Mr. Barnaba said essentially what would happen is that they would go all the way through final plan approval construction and assuming they create a home owner's association after it is constructed then they would deed the property to the home owner's association or to a conservation organization.
Mr. Billings said that until they do that they are responsible.
Ms. Sabin said that she has a lot of concerns about home owner's associations having been in one for 18 years and 54 units doesn't seem like a sufficient number of lots to have to pay to maintain this open area but again she doesn't know what the cost of the maintenance is going to be long term yearly.
Mr. Barnaba said that they are talking nothing, they are talking about the tax burden and they would come in as the property managers and negotiate a classification of the property with as little tax as possible and hopefully no district fees are put on it. Maybe 300 to 500 dollars a year so it would be 500 dollars a year divided by 44 units and it would be $10 a year for each of them and then any other amenities that they put in there such as occasional maintenance and the only thing that they would consider at this point is probably a wood chip walking path which maybe every two or three years due to washouts or something and maybe some signage such as no trespassing or private property type of thing so maybe once a year a new sign would need to be budgeted. The other services that they are contemplating are perhaps lawn care, snow removal
and occasionally maintenance for an entrance monument if they even choose to put one in.
Ms. Sabin asked if they are taking out the traditional homes in the home owner's association.
Mr. Barnaba said yes
Ms. Sabin said that her concern is the how the home owner's association would be run in the long term. Would it be done by a management company or just the individual people that are there because unless it is really handled by a management company it can fall flat on its face quicker than they can imagine.
Mr. Billings asked if the law addresses that.
Mr. Barnaba said that it does; essentially there are three major documents that are filed with the home owner's association. A proposed budget to everyone that is buying has a breakdown to where their dues go and that is subject to change as the direction of the home owner's association decides to change the nature of it. There is a declaration of deed covenant and that explains what people can and can't do with their property and then there are bylaws and the bylaws essentially direct how the association is run.
Ms. Sabin said what she is saying is if they have 40 some owners and no one wants to get involved the home owner's association is down the tubes.
Mr. Barnaba said that is true; most people that buy into the community come into it with a very good understanding of what they are getting. There is a lot of disclosure requirements; there are contracts and they have to read these documents.
Ms. Sabin said that she would have to disagree because with having run a home owner's association at various times during the last 18 years and most people haven't got a clue of what it is and they don't care. All they want to know is why their rates were raised even if it's 10 to 15 dollars a month. How is this going to be handled and who is going to put out that correspondence?
Mr. Barnaba said that is what people like to say but for those that are represented by a real estate agent that is being paid to commission the transaction or an attorney that is getting paid to advise them in the transaction and that usually falls on deaf ears for them because they usually have them sign a disclosure statement that says they have read and understand the bylaws.
Ms. Sabin and Mr. Barnaba discussed instances where even real estate agents claimed they had no idea about the home owners association and the negative aspects of home owners associations.
Mr. Barnaba said that his sole motivation is to create a property here that 10 years down the road people drive thru it they are so impressed with that particular community that they want to buy a property from him in another community so he doesn't trust the residents to take care of the property long term and if he creates a home owners association he has some mechanism for them in the time that they are still in there because they manage the home owners association until their last building lot is sold and when they are done in there then they transfer directorship to the residents.
Ms. Sabin said that is when it falls apart.
Mr. Barnaba said that the alternative is deed covenants.
Mr. Barnaba had a discussion with the Board about property managers.
Mr. Billings said that this is a regulated wetland and if it starts to fall into disrepair for whatever reason the DEC is going to want to come after someone.
Mr. Barnaba said that the DEC's enforcement mechanisms have just evolved; what's happened is ten years ago it wasn't uncommon for a developer or builder to say that they know there are wetlands back there and that they can't touch them but that the residents can do whatever they want so people would be filling the wetlands and trying to claim them so the DEC asked the developers to start putting covenants in the deeds but that is tough to enforce.
Mr. Geiss brought up the County comment that states that a deed restriction must be put in place to protect the proposed open space portion of the site for future development and deed restriction was part of the discussion that just took place and the Board is talking about the open space around pond a and b and also to the east of the road that goes over the wetlands.
Mr. Barnaba said that the majority of it is wetland and he can't imagine that it could be developed and he supposed that somebody may try to install some structures in that area but they do have some adverse possessors in there; there are some fences and some shed lines that encroach upon the property and he supposes if they contacted him and wanted to negotiate about the opportunity to buy some of that before they remove their structures maybe they would be inclined to do that and he thinks that this is a little bit unusual from the County and he thinks this is a jurisdictional thing.
Mr. Geiss said that he brings them up because the Board needs to know what is going to happen with that open space.
Mr. Barnaba said that he reads that comment as sort of a cautionary comment to the Board and that the County wants the Board to find out from him what he plans to do with that space and he doesn't want to touch it and in order for this crossing to occur where they are taking away some wetlands they have to create more wetlands so there is a mitigation plan in this community with the extent that they are filling some in they are cleaning some up. He doesn't know how much of it is traversable by the residents but there is some preexisting pathways in there and they are happy to clean them up a little bit or not perhaps the idea would be to deter any use of the property but there a couple of nice looking ponds.
Mr. Geiss said that the question becomes is that land going to remain in their name but what happens when they leave the project.
Mr. Barnaba said that is will be either a conservation organization or a home owner's association or he will sell it to the neighbors in the back.
Mr. Geiss said that when they talk about bringing the lot lines over they are going to have to come back in front of the Board; they can't just sell it.
Mr. Barnaba said faced with the alternative of owning it or coming back to the Board and asking for a subdivision, they might decide to pursue a subdivision; it is not their intention to own property long term and he supposes if they were faced with that and had no one to dedicate it to they would form their own conservation organization and they understand that there are State law mechanisms where they could do that. The property is a liability that they don't want and either does the Town or he would dedicate it to the Town.
Mr. Geiss stated that the Town doesn't want the liability.
The Board discussed the open space and also that it is part of the drainage system and easements that might run thru the open space.
Mr. Billings said that the ponds are part of the drainage system.
Mr. Barnaba said that it is not uncommon for this property if it gets deeded to a home owner's association to have easements on it but to the extent that the Board requires facilities or waterways in here for drainage there will be easements on top of them that is another one of the reasons they keep title of the property so that they can encumber it with easements before they pass it on to someone else.
Mr. Billings asked about the two ponds that are there for drainage purposes.
Mr. Barnaba said that the lot lines are terminated before the ponds and it is kept as open space but if the Board feels that they want residents to have ownership over those basins as opposed to it being open space than they can extend the lot lines.
Mr. Billings said the applicant says that they are part of the drainage system that is needed but they are not being constructed per the Town's requirements, they are per the DEC requirements. They are not part of the localized drainage system and they can function as drainage systems but they are not part of the drainage district itself; if the ponds are going to be part of the open space than they are going to be just like the wetlands in the back.
The Board discussed what would be part of the drainage system.
Mr. Barnaba said that he believes at one time or another they created one large drainage district for this entire area so to the extent that there is an expense associated with maintaining these facilities the Town has a taxing mechanism within that district to recover that expense.
Mr. Billings said that which are in easements. The Town is not going to maintain those big wetlands.
Mr. Barnaba said that all the property is in a district but what the Town is allowed to maintain must be kept within an easement.
Mr. Billings said that the facilities that the Town is responsible for do not include the wetlands.
The Board discussed putting conditions on the final plot approval and giving the wetlands to another entity or to the home owners.
Mr. Billings asked if any of this was part of their DEC permit.
Mr. Barnaba said that there was some discussion and some negotiation that occurred at the very end and the DEC originally agreed to allow them to operate within 50ft of the 100ft buffer in exchange for the home owner's association and when the DEC reneged on that they took the home owner's association off the table. That doesn't mean that they weren't going to do it they just didn't want to guarantee to the DEC that they would.
Mr. Geiss said that another condition would be that they satisfy the needs of the pumping station.
Mr. Barnaba said that he has a concern about that because it is subjective because who decides that it is satisfied.
Ms. Sabin said that there needs to be written qualifications of what the County expects.
Mr. Barnaba said that he believes that they did everything that was expected of them.
The Board had a discussion about the pump station and the lots surrounding it.
Mr. Billings said that they have satisfied the conditions that the Town had placed on them for final plat approval for that section. The issue in question is the County's requirements and for some reason they don't think they are satisfied.
Mr. Pringle said that the County doesn't know if it is done or not done and they called him and asked him if they knew anything about it and he said that he did not.
The Board discussed the County and if the applicant has discussed the pump station with the County.
Mr. Barnaba said that if the Town's engineer or Codes Enforcement Officer go over there and feel that they need to do something than they will do it.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone had any questions.
Mr. Thomas asked that if detached villas would have two car garages.
Mr. Barnaba said yes.
Mr. Thomas said that over the week there were articles in the paper about snow removal that Lysander was burdened with and he had a conversation with the Town's Highway superintendent and asked his thoughts on the lot sizes and this is a case in point that he can see big problems after Mr. Barnaba is gone with snow removal on these narrow lots because there is just no place to put it and Mr. Parks said that something like this proposed but in other places he is having these problems and Mr. Parks just hasn't gone to the newspapers about it so he thinks it is something that really should be considered because as long as the world is here they are going to have winter for at least four months.
Mr. Barnaba said that the narrower the lots the more driveways or surface area within the same linear foot of road so the more of a problem for snow removal and he has actually seen some Towns where they were battling over the lot widths where they have two at the garage but the requirement is that they narrow it to one at the point of access at the road so it is actually like a three car driveway instead of a four car driveway and that gives a little more room for snow storage.
Mr. Thomas said that they are talking at least a 22ft driveway.
Mr. Barnaba said yes, 22 to 24ft wide and by the time they take into consideration the road right of way it is about 35ft and the front yard setbacks are 22ft.
Mr. Thomas said that if people use a snow blower they can cover up vegetation and not hurt it but when a push plow is used they are going to kill it and most people start putting shrubs in their yards and then they have no place to go with it and it causes a real problem.
Mr. Barnaba said that they managed their first association over the winter this year and they actually had to go over their snow plow provider's service contract and bring in a pay loader in February to remove some of the snow and obviously that is a fee that would go back on to the home owner's.
Mr. Thomas said that he is concerned about the Town because when it comes out to the road then the Highway department is in trouble and that is what he sees happening.
Mr. Geiss said that he doesn't know that won't be a problem no matter what the width of the lot because he has seen it with 100ft wide lots in other areas through Village Green and Seneca Knolls especially with the big storms this year the plows had no place to put it and they have to hire someone else to lift it and get it out of there and some of them did go across the road with it.
The Board discussed snow removal.
Mr. Ruddock said that there is one pond labeled detention basin and two indicated adjacent to Route 690 on the east side of the property; which ones are required for drainage of this project the ones at the river or the ones at Silversides Way in between the two traditional ones' does it include the ones by the DV lots which are the three basin just before the wetlands and then the other two that are right by the entrance. Which ones are which? Which are part of the DEC wetlands and which are required for the proper drainage of the hard surfaces of the subdivision?
Mr. Billings said the pond by the river and the smaller pond on Silversides are both detention ponds along with the big ditch are all drainage facilities.
Mr. Ruddock asked about the two that are labeled drainage basins at the corner; one is labeled and the other two are not and across at the entrance there are two bodies of water.
Mr. Billings said that as he recalls those are there for water storage and are part of the wetland system and they may be mislabeled.
Mr. Barnaba said that they are mislabeled and that is where they have to maintain the water and not allow for a run off of an accelerated pace so that it leaves the property the way it traditionally does. The DEC requires them to improve the water quality before it leaves the site so some of these facilities may be designed for water quality purposes and that is why some of them resemble the shape of a four bay they traverse through two facilities before they leave the site and the Town may not have any maintenance obligations or requirements for this.
Mr. Billings said that the Town does not and they also have some overflow characteristics when putting the road in they actually created a little bit of back water or the potential for some back water and those ponds are a place for the back water to go.
Mr. Ruddock asked on the ones that are on the DV lots the actual structure appears to encroach upon the back portion of those lots and on lot 77 it could be as much as 15 to 20ft. and what the Board has seen in the past is when they have a small lot and people want to put a shed up and other things on these small lots it starts getting out of hand and his thought would be if there is any way for those water holding facilities to be formed so that they don't encroach upon these people's lots he thinks that would be most desirable.
Mr. Billings said that he suspects that is very possible and he thinks the lines that are shown on the drawings are just general locations and he agrees that they shouldn't be on top of someone's back yard.
Mr. Barnaba said to the extent that they can try to accommodate that during the process of creating the contract drawings they may be able to alter some of this and the way he understands the ordinance between a preliminary plan approval and the final plan approval they are allowed a little bit of latitude in shifting some of the lot lines so they can try to accommodate as much of that as possible and he agrees with the Board's concern; lots like these are sold at a much reduced premium and the owner's through covenant even with a home owner's association there still are deed covenants and if it is a Town facility even though they think it is not before they put in a shed or something hopefully they come in to get a permit and the Codes Enforcement Officer has an opportunity to come out and make sure they are not putting it in a Town's
easement.
Mr. Ruddock said whatever they can do to pull those back and push the contour line just a little bit to be able to keep it off of the back sides of those parcels would be desirable.
Mr. Thomas asked if that was a live stream going out of pond B.
Mr. Barnaba said that there is a man made ditch and there was a live stream that went all the way over to Dead Creek in the 60's when the subdivision was built and the stream was diverted by way of this ditch so this ditch is the overflow for the two ponds. A lot of the problems in here have to do with saturated ground water conditions and a lot of it is pumped into the pond.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were any other questions.
Motion # 07-54 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion with regard to Harbour Heights Sections 8 and 9 Tax Map Parcel ID # 036-07-19.1. At the Board's last meeting lead agency was taken with regard to SEQR for this project. This is the proposal to subdivide some 54.5 acres into 98 single family residential lots. This being Section 8 which is 54 proposed lots and Section 9 which is 44 proposed lots. This is as shown on maps submitted by the applicant which Section 8 is two maps which are dated February 16, 2007 and Section 9 which is dated February 16, 2007 and are entitled Preliminary Plan for Harbour Heights. In this plan there was an overall SEQR done on the entire project and this is the final two phases of this project which does essentially agree with what the original plan was and this plan does show that there will
now be access from South Gate into the property and now there will be two means of ingress and egress from Harbour Heights which would be from Commane Rd. and from South Gate. This was a previous requirement of other approvals on this project and further that the applicant has worked with the NY DEC and the Engineer Corp. with regard to the regulated wetlands on this project and has provided and worked out a means of crossing the wetlands as part of this project and has to supplement some other additional land for the wetlands that are taken off. The drainage facilities on this work into the other sections of Harbour Heights such that the facilities overall can handle the drainage flow that comes through the entire project. There is some open land here that is being shown at this time as open land where the regulated wetlands are. There is therefore no significant adverse environmental impact with regard to this proposal. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms.
Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss said that with regard to this subdivision there are park fees that are involved overall and there was a commitment to $100,000.00 in park fees for all of the Sections therefore park fees for this would be the balance such that the total of $100,000.00 is paid in park fees.
Motion #07-55 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain the following motion:
WHEREAS Town Code Section 175-5 (C) establishes the criteria for the reservation of parkland on residential subdivision plats or the imposition of a sum of money in lieu thereof; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of such a provision is to prevent deterioration in the quality of park and recreational services to residents in the Town of Van Buren as a result of a new residential development; and
WHEREAS, based on the present and anticipated future needs for park and recreational facilities in the Town relative to the projected population growth in the Town to which the Harbour Heights subdivision will contribute, a proper case exists for requiring that a park or parks be suitably located for playground or other recreational purposes within the Town; and
WHEREAS, a suitable park or parks of adequate size to meet the Town's requirements can not be properly located within the Harbour Heights subdivision, nor is there a need for such additional facilities in the immediate neighborhood,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a proper case exists regarding the Harbour Heights Subdivision development for requiring the developer pays a park fee of $69,900.00. The Park fees should be paid with the filing of the maps. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07 - 56 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion in regard to Harbour Heights Sections 8 and 9 Tax parcel ID # 036-07-19.1. This is for the subdivision Preliminary Plot Approval with regard to Section 8 which is 54 proposed lots which are both the combination of the detached villas and traditional homes and for Section 9 which is 44 proposed lots for traditional homes. These lots all shall meet the provisions of the PUD requirements which have previously been placed upon these properties also in addressing the comments from the Town that prior to final plot approval that the applicant will determine the responsibility for ownership of open lands which predominately these lands are in the regulated wetland of the area but they will determine that whether it be with a home owner's
association or that they land is conveyed to some other entity be it a conservation or if they further wish to subdivide the land of which the subdivision be subject to the Planning Board review and approval. Any deed restrictions if necessary would come with final determination of that land but this will be a requirement that this will happen before final plot approval. The applicant with regard to the County's comments about landscape berming and screening; the applicant has satisfied the Town's requirements with regard to the sewage pumping station. With the Water Environment Protection they had done additional work in consulting with the Environmental Protection for the County and that the lots on the cul-de-sac in the area there have all been sold with the exception of one lot so in looking at the screening necessary it hasn't hampered the lots that have already been sold in this area so again the Town has been satisfied with the screening requirements and should another tree
or bush be required that they be added by the applicant but just reasonably so that this can be closed out of that portion of the project. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. Motion carried on a role call vote that follows:
Mr. Virginia yes
Mr. Thomas no
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
Vote: 6 yes, 1 no, 0 other
Mr. Ruddock said that he thinks there have been some minor changes to the project plan that was originally approved for the entire subdivision and they have made some road alignment changes and some lot changes and he would consider them minor but he believes the process requires Planning Board approval. Maybe the easiest way if for the Planning Board is to adopt this new plan as the amended project plan and it might be good to clean that up.
Motion # 07-57 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to adopt this modified plan which is dated March 20, 2007 as the amended project plan for the Harbour Heights Planned Unit Development. Mr. Virginia moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
PLAINVILLE TURKEY FARMS, INC - SITE PLAN
Interstate Island Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 056-03-10.1 IND Zoning District
No one was present to represent Plainville Turkey Farms.
Motion # 07-58 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to table Plainville Turkey Farms. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
ARROW SPACE, INC - SITE PLAN
Route 31 at W. Sorrell Hill Rd. Tax map Parcel ID# 33-03-15 PUD Zoning District
Mr. Joe Mastroianni and Mr. Joe Kiselica were present to address the Board.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they were in two months ago and that they have made some changes since that time to address the comments from the Board. The major change is that they had an office building with storage off to the north and the building configuration has slightly been altered as far as how much is office space and how much is going to be storage off the end and this is going to be a climate controlled storage space as was previously stated. One of the comments was for landscaping they have added more landscaping around the fill area on the north and east side of the property and they have added more lighting on the buildings and the fencing also. They are doing a black chain link fence down the sides and an ornamental across the top.
Mr. Mastroianni gave the Board a packet which contained elevation views of the buildings, examples of the storage buildings, examples of the chain link and ornamental fence, and also of lighting.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they originally came in showing building lighting and since last meeting they have added lights coming in the access road which will be on 10ft high poles with a lantern formed light. They have had a photometric simulation done which they have provided to the Town engineers showing the foot candles.
Mr. Geiss said that he sees the fencing that they have and asked if at one time there was going to be screened fencing along the Route 690 side.
Mr. Mastroianni said that was on the original plan when Arrow Fence was going to relocate.
Mr. Geiss asked what fencing is going to be going along Route 690.
Mr. Mastroianni said that it was going to be the 6ft chain link and they have also talked with the DOT about replacing the fencing and they in theory said that if they can give them the DOT number they would allow them to do emplacing procedure with surveyors drawing up everything and locating the fencing the DOT will allow the to replace all the fencing with something equal to or greater to what is there. The ornamental will be up in the front and a slide gate also.
Mr. Geiss said that they have a little bit of lighting that is going off site to the west.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they will positioning the Blue Spruce trees across there to diminish that down plus the nearest residence is quite a ways across from there.
The Board discussed what type of trees that are going to be planted.
Mr. Geiss asked if everything was going to be elevated at 436.
The Board had a discussion about the elevation of the property.
Mr. Geiss asked if there was a cut and fill that they are doing.
Mr. Mastroianni said that there is going to be some access cut coming out of there because of the amount of topsoil that is going to coming off of there so most of it is basically going to be topsoil. What they are looking at doing is the lower area here will be possible future and doing some fill across there.
Mr. Geiss said that they are showing a road cut off of the driveway to that lower area.
Mr. Mastroianni said that it was for possible future use of some type and the drainage that they had for the previous project they are basically keeping the same it will be slightly oversized but in the event that there will be additional something built in the lower end it will already be set for handling it.
Mr. Crandon asked what their intent was between Route 31 and the row of trees up by the building; is it going to be mowed or is it going to wild, is it going to look like regular lawn, bush hogged or nothing at all.
Mr. Kiselica said that he wasn't planning on mowing it.
Mr. Mastroianni said that it would be more like a meadow and they will probably go over it probably two or three times and take it down.
Mr. Crandon said seed it over and bush hog it so to speak then for a couple years until something else pops up.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they would not let it go to scrubs.
Mr. Crandon said that he has a couple problems with the facility and he thinks he has mentioned them before. They are working on getting it aesthetically better but the best view of this property in his mind is on Route 690 heading south crossing the river bridge; it can be looked right into and he has real difficulty with the red roofs and he thinks it is adding insult to injury.
Mr. Kisalica said that he wanted to keep it in line with his current facility.
Mr. Crandon said that the current facility looks good but they are not looking down on it like from a helicopter and very few people do that they kind of look at the building sideways where here they are going to be looking down on it particularly people traveling on Route 690. Once people are down on Route 31 or East Sorrell then they are kind of looking sideways at it but the aerial view coming south on Route 690 he thinks the red roof is offensive and he would like them to change it to green.
Mr. Kisalica said that he really does not want to change it to green.
Mr. Crandon said that is his suggestion for one and they are going to put a chain link fence all around the property on the front and he's not worried about up in back because no one should be back there but as far as people looking in the back side of the property down in to it he thinks that is going to be with difficulty. Taking the south boundary they have just logged it off and he assumes that is probably going to stay wild so it is going to be a difficult area to manage relative to building or improving on that property but down in the front he thinks the trees around the front of the facility being the north boundary are too thin and he would like to see that thickened up at least by double and he would like to see some trees down along the road as well. He is not going to make this easy for them because this is a nice corner property
and he knows they usually do a good job but he thinks this property deserves to look nice and he is going to ask them to put extra trees not only along the building and along the road and he is very opposed to the red roof.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they planned on putting the trees one every 50ft and eastern Red Cedar and Red Maple are going to expand out but they could put them closer.
The Board had a discussion about the size of tree the applicant planned on planting.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they don't want the trees to block the entire view of the building.
Mr. Crandon asked if they were going to have a sign out front.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes.
Mr. Geiss said the Board would like some more landscaping down by Route 31 and they would like the applicant to look into their roof color but the Board is not dictating anything this evening because this needs to be referred to County.
The Board discussed the color of the roof with the applicant.
Mr. Geiss said that this is going back to County but County was concerned with storm water management and erosion and how that would be prevented and that hill is going to require something so that there isn't any erosion as it starts to vegetate and the rains this spring over on O'Brien Rd. they had some trees from the top slide right down to the bottom and nothing was ever done to that bank and he doesn't know when it was dug but the Highway Department digs that out every year. One of County's first comments from February with the other project was to prevent erosion on that part of the site.
Mr. Billings said that B & L is looking at their drainage and erosion measures right now.
Mr. Geiss read the previous County comments and said that erosion control is critical.
The Board had a discussion about how steep the property is.
Mr. Geiss said that if they are going to fill that area they have to watch out to prevent a gully in the road and erosion and everything which could end up off site even in front.
Mr. Virginia asked about down in front where they have cut all the trees and obviously they are developing that right now but when they come in and develop that and they talk about bringing fill are they going to take those stumps out and level that so it doesn't look like a logged parcel.
Mr. Mastroianni said that it will look presentable.
Motion # 07-59 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion that the Board has previously declared the Planning Board as lead agency and that this was an unlisted action. It was on a modified plan that what the Board is seeing right now and he would like to reaffirm that the Planning Board is the lead agency single agency uncoordinated review for this still unlisted action under SEQR. This is for the development of Arrow Space which is on the property at the corner of the ramp to Route 690 South and Route 31 and is a proposed self storage facility. Mr. Knapp moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion, motion carried, unanimously.
Motion # 07-60 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer the site plan for Arrow Space, Inc to County Planning for review. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
BEMIS PROPERTY AMENDED - SUBDIVISION
Rt. 31 and Conners Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 32-03-11.1
Ms. Bemis was present to address the Board.
Ms. Bemis said that she would like to sell 3.52 acres to her neighbor's who have just build a new home and they would like to add that section to their land.
Mr. Geiss said that it is labeled Bemis but Holmes owns it now.
Mr. Geiss asked why the applicant left 49.92ft between the 3.12 acres and the other lot.
Ms. Bemis said that it has been added to her property and in the new deed that she has there is a telephone pole above her driveway and she has moved her lot there to up to the edge of the corn field.
Mr. Geiss said that Lot 3a is going to be combined with this other lot.
Ms. Bemis showed the Board on the map what she was combining.
Mr. Geiss said that the map needs to be updated to show what has been combined.
Mr. Geiss explained that Ms. Bemis was dividing off the 3.52 acres to be combined with the Holmes property and that she has already combined the 49.92ft. to her property.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant to ask her surveyor to show that the 49.92ft has been combined to her property and the property that is labeled Bemis be changed to Holmes.
Motion # 07-61 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Bemis property subdivision as a minor subdivision. Mr. Virginia moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Amendment to Motion # 07-61 The land is being subdivided to be added to an existing lot so no new lots are being created which makes the subdivision a minor subdivision. Mr. Virginia moved to accept the amendment, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-62 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Town of Van Buren Planning Board as the lead agency single agency uncoordinated review for the unlisted action under SEQR for the Bemis property subdivision which is shown on the applicant's map dated December 28, 2006 which is the formation of Lot 3b which is going to be combined with the Holmes property as part of this whole action. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-63 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion that there will be no park fees with regard to this subdivision because no new lots are being formed. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-64 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion the Bemis Property subdivision 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.
PALMIERI - SUBDIVISION
6642 Canton St. Tax Map Parcel Id# 053-02-19 and 054-02-7.1
Ms. Palmieri was present to address the Board.
Ms. Palmieri said that she would like to add a little parcel to the north of her property.
Mr. Pringle said that the applicant will be adding .448 acres to the Palmieri residence.
Ms. Sabin asked if that made this a conforming lot.
Mr. Crandon said that the property right where the curve is the property is a little rough.
Mr. Pringle said that this is so the applicant can have driveway access to the property.
Ms. Palmieri said that she is doing this because she is trying to sell her property since last summer and she had to put a fence in because she has a retarded son and that eliminated their driveway.
Mr. Geiss asked who owns the remaining lands.
Ms. Palmieri said Marvin.
Mr. Geiss asked if the Board has something from Marvin giving permission.
Ms. Palmieri said just his word.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant that the Board is going to need something in writing that gives permission for the subdivision.
Ms. Palmieri said that she was told that was going to be handled after this because these papers have to go to him for him to sign from the attorney and the attorney stated they couldn't do anything until she gets the subdivision.
Mr. Geiss said that they can't subdivide land without the owner's consent because they are subdividing someone else's land and adding it to the applicant's.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant that the Board needs a letter from the owner that says he agrees to the applicant's proposal to take .448 acres from his parcel to be added to the applicant's.
Ms. Sabin said that it is still not quite a conforming lot.
The Board discussed the lot's dimensions and the zoning of the property.
Ms. Palmieri said the reason why they picked them numbers is because they found an existing survey so they went with what was surveyed in 1980 and said that she could just write a description about it this piece and the Board could take whatever she has there and that was supposed to save her money.
Mr. Pringle said that the Board is not creating a non-conforming lot.
Mr. Thomas said that the applicant needs a variance.
Mr. Pringle said that a variance is only needed when a non-conforming lot is being created. The lot is already non-conforming.
Mr. Geiss said that if the Board is going to change a lot that it has to be conforming and the problem that the Board is having is that to make the lot conforming the applicant needs to 150ft of frontage in an R-40 district.
The Board had a discussion about how much more frontage the applicant would need.
Ms. Sabin said that the applicant would need about 24ft.
Ms. Palmieri said that there is only a little cliff there and then it runs into the County culvert and then narrows off into a pie about three feet deep back to about 40 to 60ft near her property.
Mr. Crandon asked if the applicant could approach Mr. Marvin and tell him that the Planning Board is going to require that a legal R-40 lot be created and that more land is needed.
Ms. Palmieri asked if the property needed to be resurveyed.
Mr. Crandon said yes.
Ms. Sabin said that if the owner is not using it than they really shouldn't have a problem with it.
Mr. Pringle said that the applicant does have an option of obtaining a variance and this is kind of a hardship case and a driveway is needed and there is no room on the property for a driveway and the applicant is parking on the road and this could be a good case for a variance and he is not sure if Marvin could give her any more property to make this a legal 40,000sf lot and she would have to buy a lot more property to achieve that. There is a huge ravine behind the house and it is worthless property.
Ms. Palmieri said that she only owns 66' x 132'.
Mr. Geiss said that maybe this is reason for a hardship and the applicant could apply | ||