7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
June 2007 Planning Board meeting
June 4, 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 is.
Motion Mr. Crandon made a motion to accept the May minutes. 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
B&C STORAGE FACILITY - SITE PLAN
State Fair Blvd. Tax Map Parcel Id# Part of 64 - 01 - 33.1
Mr. Charlie Lockwood was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said at the last meeting the Board did everything except accept the final signed plans. The Board accepted all of the data but the signed plans were not in the Board's hands so the Board asked the applicant to come back today with the signed plans.
Mr. Billings said another condition was an approved lighting plan and B&L has received that and they are all set.
Motion # 07-92 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to accept the final signed and stamped plans for B&C Storage for their site plan for State Fair Blvd Tax Map Parcel Id# Part of 64-01-33.1. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
LAMERE SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING
E. Dead Creek Rd. & Sheets Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 049-02-04.1
Motion # 07-93 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to adjourn the regular meeting to a Public Hearing for this item. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried, unanimously.
Motion # 07-94 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to waive the formal reading of the Public Hearing publication. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion, motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Geiss opened the Public Hearing for the LaMere subdivision and explained to the audience how the Public Hearing was going to be conducted.
Mr. Thomas LaMere was present to address the Board.
Mr. LaMere said they are subdividing the original farm lot off from the farm house. The farm house will be broken off into almost 3.3 acres and the rest of the farm lot will be retained as agricultural and be preserved for wildlife and the reason he gave the Board new maps tonight is because they did a little adjustment in the back corner of the lot they are dividing off because it was landing in the corn fields.
Mr. Geiss said lot 4 is now 3.297 acres and before it was 3.172 acres and this subdivision is just dividing the farm house off of the larger lot which is 73+ acres.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone wished to speak concerning this Public Hearing.
No one spoke.
Motion # 07-95 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Knapp. There was no further discussion, motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Geiss said that the LaMere subdivision would be reviewed later in the meeting because the Board has another Public Hearing and opened the Public Hearing for the GLR subdivision.
GLR - SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING
Jones & O'Brien Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 60-04-02.2
Motion # 07-96 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to waive the formal reading of the Public Hearing publication. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Ed Kiplinger, Fred Zolla, and Sally Barry were present to address the Board.
Mr. Zolla said that the map hasn't changed from when it was submitted last month and what they are asking to do is carve a 4.9 acre parcel out of the larger 28.4 acres and it is in a Planned Unit Development previously approved for senior housing and the plan here is to develop a small senior housing apartment building on that 4.9 acre parcel. Loretto Management has managed to secure funds from the U.S Dept. of Housing and Urban Development to build a forty unit 2½ story apartment building. There will be 39 units with one bedroom each and one two bedroom unit for a live in superintendent. It is independent living apartment building dedicated to the category of people defined by Loretto as the frail elderly which are people that need some services in their home and the intention here and what they are doing is developing independent
living and then Loretto would be there on site to provide services to people in their apartment units. The site plan unfortunately is not ready for formal submission to the Board and the architect and engineer are working on it so they hope to have that formally submitted for the Board's next meeting. At this point the only plan is to build this single 40 unit building but Loretto does have an option to purchase an additional number of acres from the current owner but there are no particular plans or funding available to do any additional development but they could talk about the possibilities if it is relevant.
Mr. Geiss asked that the applicant point out on the map the property in which they are referring to.
Mr. Zolla pointed out the property in question and also the surrounding properties along with the names of the roads that they are on.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone wished to speak.
Ms. Norma Goodman of 7658 Maple Rd. stated that she is in favor of this subdivision and with the aging population she thinks there is a need for this type of housing and she would like to see it go through.
Mr. Keith Ciarpelli of 7170 Jones Rd. asked how many miles it was off of Jones Rd. to the subdivision.
Mr. Geiss said that is directly across from Peck Rd. Ext.
Mr. Keith Ciarpelli said that there are no stop signs there on Jones Rd. and O'Brien Rd. and asked what they propose to do about traffic and speed and asked if there have been any surveys done or anything like that.
Mr. Ciarpelli said that they live in front of the soccer center and it was a great idea and the surveys of what they did from then to now he thinks are night and day and he can't even get in and out of his driveway between 5 and 7p.m. and it is terrible and it is also the noise and the traffic from the trucks.
Mr. Donald Goodman of 7658 Maple Rd. stated that it is a 5 acre parcel that the applicant wants to build on and asked if they had experience building developments like this on 5 acres parcels. This is Loretto and he thinks that they have a good reputation in the community for building good properties and he was just curious of what would be similar to this one but he is in favor of this proposal.
Ms. Gene Humiford of 103 Golfcrest Circle stated that she would be very much in favor of this application because she thinks that the Town of Van Buren does need more for the elderly and being in that category herself and thinking of selling her house and going into something like that she would like to remain in Baldwinsville.
Ms. Kathy Ciarpelli of 7170 Jones Rd. said that her concern is that they have lived there 21 years and the soccer center has come in which was a huge thing and the water park has gone in and she feels that the whole atmosphere of Van Buren has changed in a way that they were not expecting and there has been a lot of things that she has been sorry to see happen and it has kind of lost it's neighborhood feel as far as they are concerned so she is not for the subdivision for that reason.
Ms. Sally Barry of 4451 Route 20 stated that she is here representing Loretto and she is in favor of the project because it is something that they have been working on for a long time and as Mr. Zolla described it is a project that will house elderly individuals who have some frailty who need some home care services and they have a similar project that they have been operating for a number of years in N. Syracuse that some folks might be familiar with that has been very successful and very well received. It has a very nice opportunity for senior citizens to live in very affordable housing which is a large proponent of what this is all about, to make housing affordable, decent, nice, accessible, and to provide services to individuals in their independent homes/apartment settings so that they can stay in the community as long as possible.
Loretto has a pretty good track record she thinks in providing services and the partners that they work with in terms of the construction of the project and the design of the project also have a pretty long and outstanding reputation in the communities and they see a huge need in Onondaga County and in Baldwinsville for housing for seniors and there is a population increase as we speak in senior citizens so this is very much a needed resource in the community and they are hoping that the Board will see favorably in their project.
Ms. Joan Ramon of 87 Canton St stated that she is truly in favor of this proposal because she is elderly herself and she works with the elderly through the church and she sees the need constantly and she sees the waiting list at the different complexes that are in Baldwinsville and some of them are 5 years for trying to get into these places and she thinks it will be a wonderful thing to have another one.
Mr. Pringle said that he has received a number of phone calls from people on Leopold Blvd who all received notices for tonight's public hearing and for some reason haven't come tonight or are not sure of the process but there are a number of concerns with drainage and they would like to make sure the drainage plan gets reviewed and hopefully in this area drainage can be improved.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were any other comments either for or against this proposal.
Motion # 07-97 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried, unanimously.
The Board resumed the regular meeting.
GLR - SUBDIVISION
Jones & O'Brien Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 60-04-02.2
Mr. Ed Kiplinger, Fred Zolla, and Sally Barry were present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss read the County comments.
Mr. Kiplinger said that they had the same questions about the wetlands when they started this project because they had the Iannuzi survey that showed the wetland boundary and they also had some mapping that showed the DEC boundary and those two boundaries did not have the same two dimensional relationships on this site so they contracted Mr. Royder of the Collaborative to go out to this site in November or December and perform a wetland delineation and that delineation was limited to the properties that Loretto was interested in obtaining.
Mr. Kiplinger gave the Board a plan that was created showing all three wetland boundaries that shows the Ianuzzi 1974 wetland boundary, the DEC map wetland boundary, and it also shows the Environmental Collaborative 2006 wetland boundary.
Mr. Kiplinger said that the Ianuzzi wetland boundary and the Environmental Collaborative wetland boundary both coexist about in the same location and on the DEC wetland boundary he spoke to them and asked how long a wetland boundary was good for with delineation and the DEC said it was 3 years and the DEC would accept the latest delineation because the DEC is not sure when or how this was delineated and in DEC's opinion the Environmental Collaborative wetland boundary is acceptable as delineated in 2006.
Mr. Billings said that a point that needs to be clarified is whether or not this has been submitted to the DEC for their approval.
Mr. Kiplinger said that they had dialogue with DEC back in December and January and they discussed the project but they haven't officially submitted.
Mr. Billings said that it needs to be submitted and the DEC will then adjust their maps.
Mr. Kiplinger said that from their standpoint they have had the wetland delineated and they are comfortable with where it is delineated and they have a site plan that they are proposing that can work within that delineated area with the buffer included so they would have eliminated that impact in the buffer area.
Mr. Billings said that maybe the Board should point out that this is not uncommon and wetlands do change over the years and the wetland survey that was done in 1974 and subsequently changed by someone possibly the DEC sometime later and with the recent survey it is not uncommon for those three to differ and DEC typically would accept the latest delineation if it was done by a certified wetland delineation firm which it was but again it needs to be submitted to DEC so that they can accept it, approve it, and put it on their maps.
The Board had a discussion on when and how DEC listed their wetland boundaries.
Mr. Geiss asked if both lots are going to be accessed through the 60ft right of way off of O'Brien Rd.
Mr. Kiplinger said yes, in compliance with the DOT.
Mr. Geiss asked if they had the DOT conformance on that road or that driveway entrance.
Mr. Kiplinger said that they haven't received anything yet.
Mr. Geiss asked if it has been submitted.
Mr. Billings said that the DOT needs to approve the driveway cut onto O'Brien Rd.
Mr. Kiplinger said that they haven't yet.
Mr. Geiss said that during the Public Hearing there were comments concerning traffic, speed and the traffic at the soccer center versus traffic that will be coming out of this site. This area has been previously zoned under a PUD for senior citizen development and the Board is subdividing an area that was zoned for this purpose and tonight the Board is looking at the subdivision only and when the Board gets into site plan review traffic will be reviewed.
The Board and audience had a discussion about the stop sign located at O'Brien and Jones Rd and the speed limit on Jones Rd.
Mr. Geiss said that the Town can ask for a speed reduction and the County and the State would be the one to grant that reduction not the Town.
Mr. Ciarpelli said that his fear if this goes in and gets bigger and they use the other parcel he is going to lose his front lawn because the road is not big enough or they put a street in so it comes off of Jones.
Mr. Geiss said traffic will be addressed as the Board gets in to site plan as well as drainage; drainage will also be addressed with site plan review but tonight the Board is looking at subdivision and there is two issues on subdivision in which County Planning needs to see and that is the map prior to the Board making a decision and with this new information the map now answers a lot of the wetland and what the maps didn't reference were that they are able to build on that 4.977 acres with the wetland delineation and not going into the buffer.
Mr. Kiplinger said that they still have to do their final drainage.
Mr. Geiss said they have to final drainage and if need be they will have to work with DEC to maybe touch the buffer or adjust it or do some trade offs and he thinks with that the Board will look at accepting the new information and the Board would also like the applicant to submit and get a driveway permit from the DOT because the Board would not want to approve this and then not get a driveway permit.
Mr. Kiplinger said that he has had dialogue with Jim Stelter but he will get it in writing.
Mr. Geiss said that would answer the big question that County has raised.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were any other comments.
Mr. Billings asked if this is a two lot subdivision even though it is labeled lot 1 and lot 3 for the record this is a two lot subdivision and lot 2 was actually done some time ago.
Mr. Ciarpelli asked if they had a build out plan.
Mr. Kiplinger said that they have a conceptual plan but at this point they are a ways away from that but they have a conceptual plan and whether it is one building or two buildings or the way it is oriented they are not sure of at this time and even if they do have plans for a build out it would probably be 3 years or more from now.
Mr. Geiss said at this time only this almost 5 acres parcel is being considered and the applicant has talked about there might be a build out on that and there were questions that the Board raised in that the Soccer Center owns that property and the rest of the property all the way around of which they referenced the other drainage easements which border on Baker Blvd and that is where those sewer easements are that were referenced by County Planning because there is a big sewer easement that comes down that way but the entire area was zoned a PUD for senior center development back in 2005 and that went through the Town Board prior to that it was R-15 housing very similar to Seneca Knolls. It was looked at that time that with the soccer center that this was a good transitional area between the soccer center and the homes that were there.
Motion # 07-98 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to resubmit the new plans showing the DEC delineation to County Planning for review. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Ruddock said that he thinks that the need for the housing is very important and the concern of some of the people that spoke about the feeling like they lost their neighborhood and he doesn't know whether that has to do with density or whether it is scale of the neighborhood but he would ask that their architects try to make as human a scale as possible instead of building 40 apartments in one huge block trying to break it down and give it a more personable scale for the people.
Mr. Ciarpelli asked what this was going to look like.
Mr. Geiss stated that their site plan is not completed yet or submitted for review and the Board will be doing the subdivision first and then the site plan but some questions on the site plan might come in while they do subdivision because there have been some questions raised on traffic, drainage, and most likely lighting will be raised which will be the lighting plan and those will need to be reviewed by the Board and reviewed by the engineers prior to the Board looking at them.
Mr. Ciarpelli asked who takes care of the traffic.
Mr. Geiss said that the applicant will have to submit a traffic study to show what the traffic generated for this will be and the engineer will then review it.
Mr. Billings stated that the County is going to require that as well and they will have to evaluate the trips generated by this facility on that intersection.
The Board, applicant, and audience discussed the traffic.
GERALD SNOW - SUBDIVISION
New State Route 31 and Warners Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 047-02-6.1
Mr. Doug Reith was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said that this application was in last month and it was sent to County and there have been no comments from County as yet on this.
Motion # 07-99 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to postpone any review of the Gerald F. Snow subdivision until County Comments have been received. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Pringle made a comment about the new gentleman at County Planning.
The Board discussed County Planning.
LAMERE SUBDIVISION
E. Dead Creek Rd. & Sheets Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 049-02-04.1
Mr. James Virginia recused himself from this discussion.
Mr. Thomas LaMere was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss read the County Comments aloud.
Mr. Geiss said that the applicant still has frontage available on E. Dead Creek Rd. that accesses this land and they also have about 25ft of access off of Sheets Rd. The Board has had trouble with the County Planning Board before about reserving future access but the applicant has access shown so he doesn't know how the Board can reserve access on lot 1 because lot 1 does have access.
Mr. Billings said that it is just a comment not a recommendation.
Mr. Geiss asked if the Board had any comments.
Mr. Geiss said that lot 1 is not a residential building lot under Onondaga County Health Department's subdivision regulations and are therefore not approved by that department for residential use.
Motion # 07-100 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion with regard to SEQR that the Town of Van Buren Planning Board has previously taken lead agency concerning this unlisted action and this is for the subdivision into two lots. Lot 1 being 73.107 acres and lot 4 being 3.297 acres with lot 4 being divided off the large parcel which includes the existing building and to provide property around the existing buildings. There is no adverse environmental impact with regard to this subdivision. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion. Motion carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Mr. Virginia recused
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
Vote: 6 yes, 0 no, 1 other
Mr. Geiss said that there are no park fees concerning this because this is an existing residence.
Motion # 07-101 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the subdivision for East Dead Creek and Sheets Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 049-02-04.1. This is per the applicant's map which was submitted and dated 6/04/07 which is entitled "Final Plot Amended". This shows lot 1 of 73.107 acres and lot 4 of 3.297 acres. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Mr. Virginia recused
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
Vote: 6 yes, 0 no, 1 other
CONNORS RD. TRACT - SUBDIVISION
Connors Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 051-02-26
Mr. Mathew Freshette and Mr. Mark Edwards were present to address the Board.
Mr. Freshette said that they are looking at subdividing 5 lots out of the parcel.
Mr. Geiss asked if there is a right of way going through this property.
Mr. Freshette said yes, on the very west side.
The Board discussed the lot and the right of way.
Mr. Geiss said that this is going to be a major subdivision and the Board is going to have to hold a public hearing.
Mr. Geiss asked the applicant why they want long thin lots.
Mr. Freshette said that they were restricted by the 200ft of road frontage that was required and the maximum they could fit on this with 1225ft of road frontage was 6 lots and they plan to sell them off as single residence lots.
Mr. Geiss asked why long thin lots and why not run a road in because this is a development that they are proposing.
Mr. Freshette said that the farmer is selling one piece land in which he and Mr. Edwards are going to live on which will be 7.5 acres each and that will be the middle two and then the other three were then divided with the minimum of 200ft.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board has had difficulty in the past with long thin lots.
Mr. Edwards said that they are 300x1000ft.
Mr. Thomas said that they might have perk problems in the back.
Mr. Geiss asked the applicant if there was any difficulty here with perk problems today.
Mr. Freshette said that there wasn't.
Mr. Geiss said they are looking at developing these lots with all driveways coming off of Connors Rd and that is where the question still comes in as to why not an interior road that the lots would come off of and as he is looking at these long thin lots in that area the lots are well in excess of the 80,000sf and the area itself has more conventional lots in that whole area both along Van Buren Rd, along Connors Rd, and along N. Brickyard Rd. and this is quite a deviation and also the Board looks at with development of land that it is being done in the proper way.
Mr. Billings said that the Town code also has a 2½ to 1 ratio of length to width so a 200ft lot would have a maximum length of 500ft to avoid this situation.
Mr. Geiss said the there is a code restriction here of 2½ to 1 in AR-80.
Mr. Freshette said that there were not aware of that.
Mr. Ruddock said that the width of the lot is at the building line and on lot 1 it tapers back they have 225 but they are at the center line of the street and when it gets taken back to the setback of 60 he thinks it is going to be awful close when they figure out the angle of that cutback at the building line they may not make a buildable lot, they may have to increase lot one to 250 or something width because the width of the frontage of the lot is at the building line and the building line in an AR-80 is 60ft back from the property line not the center of the road so if they come back 60ft from the property line they might not get that width across the face of that lot to make it a buildable lot..
Mr. Edwards said that it is 125,000sf and the minimum is 80,000sf.
The Board and the applicant discussed the width of the lot, the building line and the 2½ to 1 ration code.
Mr. Geiss said that the Town code would encourage that the Town is not getting long thin lots because this is a development not just a subdivision and that is why the Board goes to major subdivisions for developers because looking at a parcel like this size and what is involved such as interior roads so that there aren't driveways coming on the Town roads when a parcel this big is developed.
Mr. Edwards said that they talked to Mr. Parks at the highway garage and Mr. Parks did allow access for all the driveways.
Mr. Geiss said that it is a flat road in that area with a little bit of a pitch to the west.
Mr. Billings said that is a sight distance issue versus a planning issue and the Board is dealing with a planning issue.
Mr. Edwards asked if this survey came back with lots 250ft wide and 500ft deep it would still be five of them would that be acceptable to the Planning Board.
Mr. Geiss asked what would happen to the remaining 500 plus feet in the back.
Mr. Edwards said that they would take it as an L shape.
Mr. Freshette said that they are primarily interested in this for their own use because he has a family of seven kids and they want to be able to plant trees and other things.
Mr. Billings asked why not build a short stub street with a cul-de-sac and have some pie shaped lots because they could still get six to eight acres out of those.
Mr. Freshette said that they were concerned with having a lot of neighbors and they wanted to have a lot of space because they both have large families.
Mr. Geiss said he understands what they are saying but they are still as Van Buren goes in a neighborhood area although it is AR-80 because of the lots that are bordering this on all sides.
Mr. Edwards said that they were looking at the lots on the other side of the street and the lots were just single residences with driveways connected directly on Connors Rd. especially the last one down which is the big house which probably spans 300ft by 500ft or even more than that so they were trying to keep in tune with that.
Mr. Geiss said that part of what the Board is trying to do in planning forward is that the Town roads are having a lot of driveway access on them and that causes traffic problems and the Board would rather see driveway access to interior roads and then one access to the Town road.
Mr. Edwards said that they looked at the fact that the park takes up three quarters of the right side of Connors Rd and the number of driveways actually feeding into Connors Rd are probably limited to less than a dozen.
Mr. Geiss said that there is a lot of traffic on Connors Rd. feeding to the park especially off of Route 690 and that kind of traffic is a concern among other things.
Mr. Geiss said that they have heard a lot of comments from County Planning and this is the kind of thing that County would come back to the Board for so he thinks that the applicant needs to look at that closer with the fact that a cul-de-sac or some type of interior road might be more appropriate here to feed off of rather than having all the driveways off of the front.
Mr. Geiss explained a major and minor subdivision, public hearings and also the normal comments that come back from County Planning with these types of subdivisions to the applicant.
Mr. Edwards said that the perks were done closer to where the residences would be and the land does drop off in the back.
Mr. Geiss said that they may want to get perk tests in the back and check that all out because before the ratio on lots were there in the past the long thin lots didn't perk that well usually when they get into more than two acres or 80,000sf and a lot of times they have an area to build the septic system with whatever perk they have and in this case they do have water on Connors Rd. and gas is on that side also so they are just looking at a septic not a separation from septic and water for wells.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was a particular reason for the five lots because they have 1200ft of road frontage and if they take two lots that is 600ft and he doesn't know if they can do this financially but if they could cut it to two lots they would meet the requirements and they wouldn't have to worry about anyone else coming near them.
Mr. Edwards said that now that the Board has brought up the 2 to 1 ratio they are going to have to reconsider.
Mr. Geiss said that the way the plans are a public hearing needs to be called and with the regulation to make any change of that they are going to need a variance from the ZBA and they would have to show why to the ZBA but this plan as it is a public hearing can't be called at this time. The Board has many questions on this and without a variance it violates the code.
Mr. Edwards asked if they came in with a plan that didn't violate the code but still had 5 lots feeding into Connors Rd.
Mr. Geiss said the Board would still have questions.
Mr. Billings said that another thing to point out is that this violates the Town's comprehensive plan or the intent of the comprehensive plan which discourages these types of lots so it is not just the code but it violates the intent of the Town plan.
Mr. Edwards asked if the comprehensive plan's intention is to make this a cul-de-sac type lots.
Mr. Billings said no but it is to minimize piano key lots.
Mr. Geiss said long piano key lots, multiple driveways on Town roads in the country is what the Board looks at when a development is done that there be a road off of the Town road and that the driveways come off of that road in lieu of the Town road. It is a traffic concern that the Board recognizes otherwise the Town would have strip development throughout the AR-80 district and that is becoming a big problem with the Town roads.
Mr. Billings said that the cul-de-sac is just one example of how they could get by lots like this.
Mr. Edwards asked if there were any other alternatives.
The Board discussed alternatives with the applicant and what the Town is looking for with the comprehensive plan.
The Board advised the applicant to revise their plans and to speak with the Zoning Officer if they have any more questions.
HOOPER - SUBDIVISION
Daboll Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 045-02-14
Ms. Laug was present to address the Board.
Ms. Laug said that they are not going to do anything with the land they just want to subdivide it because they are buying it and it is all the woods that is on the Hooper Farm.
Mr. Geiss said that they are subdividing lot 2 which is 12.92 acres off of lot 1 the remaining parcel which is 54.447 acres.
Mr. Geiss asked if this was all a wood lot.
Ms. Laug said there is an opening in the lot just before the woods kind of a drop off and they are not going to be doing anything with it and the only reason they are buying it is for hunting purposes.
Mr. Geiss asked how much frontage is on Daboll Rd.
Ms. Laug said a little over 270ft.
Mr. Crandon asked if they had driveway approval from County.
Ms. Laug stated that they did and provided the Board with a copy of the approval letter from County DOT.
Motion # 07-102 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Crego Meadows subdivision as a minor subdivision. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-103 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 Hooper Farms subdivision entitled Crego Meadows subdivision Daboll Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 045-02-14. This is a subdivision of property which is lot 1 of 54.447 acres and lot 2 of 12.920 acres. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-104 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer the Crego Meadows subdivision to County Planning for review. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
HOOPER - SUBDIVISION
River Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 045-02-16
Ms. Laug was present to address the Board.
Mr. Crandon asked if this was a wooded lot also and if the jagged line was the open field.
Ms. Laug said that it was.
Mr. Geiss asked if this was previously subdivided.
Mr. Pringle said that it wasn't.
Motion # 07-105 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Crego Woods subdivision as a minor subdivision. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-106 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 Hooper Farms subdivision entitled Crego Woods subdivision. Tax Map Parcel Id# 045-02-16. This is a subdivision into lot 1 of 34.49 acres and lot 2 of 27.447 acres. Lot 2 has a 60ft easement to River Rd. along the southerly property line of lot 1. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-107 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to submit the Crego Woods subdivision to County Planning for review. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant that approval will be needed for the 60ft right of way from County DOT because that is their access to that property.
KLOTZ FARM - SUBDIVISION
E. Sorrell Hill and Hoag Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 049-04-04
Mr. Doug Reith was present to address the Board.
Mr. Reith said that he was in front of the Board representing the owner who would like to subdivide basically 115 acres into two lots. Lot 1 fronting on E. Sorrell Hill Rd. and lot 2 fronting on Hoag Rd. Lot 2 is going to be 14.883 acres leaving basically 100 acres remaining.
Mr. Geiss said that they are also leaving a 60ft ingress/egress easement off of Hoag Rd.
Mr. Reith said that they were looking to create that to give access to get all the way back.
Mr. Reith said that there are a couple driveways on E. Sorrell Hill that are existing and they have applied for permits for the ingress egress up on Hoag and also a driveway on the east side of lot 2 but he hasn't heard anything back on those yet.
Motion # 07-108 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Klotz subdivision as a minor subdivision. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-109 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 Klotz subdivision on E. Sorrell Hill and Hoag Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 049-04-04. This is a subdivision of approximately 115 acres into lot 1 which is 100.375 acres which has frontage on E. Sorrell Hill Rd. and lot 2 which is 14.883 acres which has frontage on Hoag Rd also there is provision on the western boundary of lot 2 for a 60ft easement for ingress and egress from Hoag Rd. into lot 1. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-110 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer the Klotz subdivision to County Planning for review. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
FULTON SAVINGS BANK - SITE PLAN
7471 State Fair Blvd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 31-10-03
Mr. Michael Daignault was present to address the Board.
Mr. Daignault said that they would like to put a free standing ATM at the existing Fulton Savings Bank.
Mr. Geiss said that the plan shows that the ATM would only be 6ft off of the property line and they are also changing the ingress egress to Fulton Savings Bank and by the arrows on the map people would have to drive in the far exit and through the outside area to get to the parking lot.
Mr. Daignault said basically the entrance to the bank would be at that end of the property and people would take a left hand turn to go through and out.
Mr. Geiss asked how they would get to the blacktop parking lot.
Mr. Daignault said that people could still use the same entrances as far as the parking lot is concerned.
Mr. Geiss said then they would have people turning into them as well.
Mr. Geiss asked why they are so close to the road.
Mr. Daignault said it was so they could maintain a drive thru that was as close to the exit as they could rather than putting it somewhere else, they wanted it close to the end of the driveway as they could be.
Ms. Sabin asked why so close to the road; couldn't it be moved away from the property line.
Mr. Daignault said that they could do that and the only thing that they were trying to accomplish with this drawing was basically to have the traffic that is utilizing the ATM to be as close to the exit as possible after they had done their banking.
Mr. Geiss said that is a tight exit right now and there is barely room for two cars to pass.
Mr. Virginia said that they have exiting traffic cutting off incoming traffic based on the way it is as drawn.
Mr. Geiss said that he drove in the other day and there is only room for two cars on that entrance; one exiting and one entering and people have to go slow when they pass and if someone moves one way or another the other person has to wait for them to get out of the way and now they are going to be bringing traffic in where cars are going to be exiting.
Mr. Virginia said that they have to cut across to yield to the incoming traffic and there is no room to do a left turn there so he doesn't see how this location can work and be safe for those trying to enter the property from the location that they have marked on the map.
Mr. Daignault said that the ATM could be moved further in on the property if that would alleviate the situation they are not bound to have it there the only reason that they used that initially was so they were near the exit.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board has setback concerns because they have their primary structure and they are looking at putting another structure and the primary structure sets the setback so therefore this would be a secondary structure that doesn't meet the setbacks.
Mr. Pringle said that it would have to be behind the principal building's rear building line so they would need a variance because there is very little room on this property where they could put this without a variance unless they put it back by the canopy of the drive thru and that would be the only place they could do this without a variance.
Mr. Geiss said that they currently have one in the back of the building.
Mr. Daignault said yes, but it is very unsafe.
Mr. Geiss said yes, because cars drive by it.
Mr. Daignault said that the problem that they are having basically is that the ATM being where it is positioned is where cars pull up through the drive thru and people not wanting to wait in line to get to the ATM will drive around to the second lane and park their car and walk back to the ATM and now they are standing at the ATM and there are cars going by them so they are just trying to avoid someone getting run over and the logical thing to do would be to put in a free standing ATM based on the configuration of this building, traffic flow and the necessity of two lanes at the current drive thru.
Mr. Geiss said as proposed six foot off there are major traffic concerns with that and also that corridor has very nice landscaped setbacks and the building setbacks along the whole corridor of Village Blvd South and this would go into that very nice setback corridor; a green area for that whole corridor so the Board has not only traffic concerns but also for green area there and the traffic concerns just compound the problem because as shown he has come off of State Fair Blvd and turned there and if there is a car coming out he would be hung in the island until that car clears because they are going to come out and stop the whole lane of traffic from everyone exiting so he doesn't see traffic wise it working at all.
Mr. Geiss asked if there was any way of putting it as someone comes in to the west or is there any way that they could have a second lane where they could come over where the employee parking is; anywhere over in there where they could widen out an area that they could come in to and hit the ATM in there which might reduce the employee parking somewhat.
Mr. Daignault said so if he understands correctly what the Board is saying is that he should move it to the other edge to where the employee parking lot is.
Mr. Geiss said yes and then people could drive around and then go past the canopy and come back out and he doesn't know if trying to get another exit over at that point is going to cause traffic problems with that exit but if they move it over further and then want to still exit this way then they are going to lose all that parking in front of the bank.
Ms. Sabin asked if they have an ATM just inside the entrance to the bank where people could park in front and walk in.
Mr. Daignault said no the only ATM that they have is the one.
Ms. Sabin said that she doesn't see this configuration six feet from the road being workable.
Ms. Sabin asked if a lot of the ATM usage is after normal business hours.
Mr. Daignault said that it is a service organization and basically people want to be serviced and women do the majority of the banking and they don't like to leave their cars and they feel safer in their cars and they also don't like to leave children in their cars and this way they can come in bad weather and good weather and just drive up to an ATM. People don't want to get out of their cars and go into a lobby in the bank to use the ATM and he has seven of these free standing ATM's at other bank's and it is just the way to go because the customers like it and that is what was requested here.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board needs a letter from Fulton Savings Bank when this proceeds but he thinks that the proposal here being within 6ft is not acceptable and technically anything in front of the building line is not acceptable.
Mr. Pringle said that it is a PUD commercial that the Board used the local business setbacks for which is a rear building line setback and it is unique because it looks like State Fair Blvd is there front of the back but it is not Village Blvd is and they have very little room to use without getting a variance.
Mr. Billings said that they are going to need a variance no matter where they put it.
Mr. Geiss said that they need to come up with a better location for this looking at traffic and looking at maintaining the green area and they are going to end up with a requirement for a variance no matter where they put it on this lot.
RIVERIDGE DEVELOPEMNT LLC - SUBDIVISION
Tax Map Parcel Id# 045-01-01.2
Mr. Mastroianni was present to address the Board.
Mr. Mastroianni said that it goes right along River Rd. just north from Jack's Reef. The whole parcel is approximately 144 acres and they are coming in at this point to apply for preliminary plat for phase one because they have decided to split this into two phases. Phase one will consist of 27 building lots with a road that will be built to Town standards and the road itself is about 3300ft long and at the end they have put in a temporary hammerhead and then after that point it would go back out to River Rd. The overall plan is for this road to be a Town road and one portion at the top to be built as a private road because it is only going to service about 4 or 5 lots plus the 2 permanent residences out on the river. As before the developer is looking to put in public water as was talked about and the access back to there would be for a home
owners association for people living in this development.
Mr. Geiss asked how many lots there would be in the total subdivision including phase 2.
Mr. Mastroianni said 39 lots and the reason that they are phasing it at this point is because they are going through wetland delineation at the other end and that is going to take several months with the DEC and Army Corp. so they decided to some initial work at the south end. The archeological was completed before and nothing was found so there isn't any concern there and they also had done the traffic study for this and they received a State recommendation for lowering the speed limit to 45mph through the area.
Mr. Geiss said that the speed reduction was recommended but no action was taken because the development did not proceed.
Mr. Geiss asked if all the lots conform to AR-80.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes, each one has a minimum of 80,000sf.
The Board discussed where the proposed drainage facilities would be with the applicant.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they are concerned about water quality going into the Seneca River as opposed to volume.
Mr. Geiss said that there was talk about these drainage facilities along with the rest of the development that there was going to be a State recognized home owner's association.
Mr. Mastroianni said that is still going to be in place.
Mr. Geiss said that with subdivision the Board is looking at the PERK's out there because they have water and asked what the PERK was like on this property.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they have a variety and some came out good PERK's for conventional systems, and getting at the end and phase two some lots areas are going to have to have a shallow trench and a raised bed fore a higher PERK rate but mostly conventional with a couple shallow trench and all the field work and 90% of the design work is done and they will be submitting that to the County for their review of the septic systems.
Mr. Geiss said that he thinks the County is going to require design work for each lot because they are less than 5 acres.
Mr. Mastroianni said that is correct.
Mr. Billings said that they might want to check their length to width ratio because they have a couple lots that look deep since this is AR-80 the Town has the 2½ to 1 ration.
Mr. Mastroianni said along the back portion the land is not usable and if the Board looks at the contours a lot of it is a drop off.
Mr. Billings said that it is still a variance and it looks like a number of lots in phase 2 don't meet that as well.
Motion # 07-111 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Riveridge Development as a major subdivision. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-112 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 Riveridge Development Tax Map Parcel Id# 054-01-01.2. This is for phase one development which will consist of 27 lots and the overall project to consist of 39 lots. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-113 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to call a Public Hearing for July 2, 2007 at 7:05p.m to review the Riveridge Development subdivision Tax Map Parcel Id# 054-01-01.2. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-114 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to submit the Riveridge Development to County Planning for review. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant that a public hearing will be held next month and at that time there are going to be questions about sewer, drainage, public water which they have and how this works with the Town's comprehensive plan. Traffic and archeological has been completed but these should be included in the presentation at the public hearing.
FED EX GROUND - SITE PLAN
7020 Van Buren Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 58-01-38.3
Mr. John Walsh was present to address the Board.
Mr. Walsh said that the project consists of about three areas where they are adding additional parking and at the bottom of the sheet the Board can see that they are adding some more employee parking roughly 63 spaces and to the left 8 new tractor spaces on that side of the building and on the east side on top they are adding a little bit more pavement adjacent to the detention basin for a couple more yard parking spaces and as part of this the detention basin is being reworked to be a water quality basin as well as storm water management.
Mr. Geiss said that they will have to submit the details of the drainage to the Town engineer.
Mr. Billings said that it has been submitted but they haven't reviewed it yet.
Mr. Geiss asked if there is an expansion of this that they need so many more auto spaces.
Mr. Walsh said that is what Fed Ex wanted the last time so this is almost their full build out plan.
Mr. Geiss said that what the Board is looking at basically is additional asphalt area and drainage to accommodate that but then a new method of treating the drainage as well.
Mr. Billings said that it will be under the new MS4 regulations.
Mr. Walsh said that they will also have new snow removal areas.
Mr. Geiss said with the parking and the change in drainage this is significant and it needs to go to County.
Motion # 07-115 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 Fed Ex Ground Site Plan for 7020 Van Buren Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 58-01-38.3. This is for the addition of additional auto parking spaces and tractor as well as inbound spaces and changes to the treatment of the drainage for the overall project. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion # 07-116 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer the Fed Ex Ground site plan to County Planning for review. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
The Board discussed going to look at the property with the applicant.
HYACINTH LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC
Van Buren and Ellsworth Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 31-02-03 & 31-02-4.1 & 31-02-6.2
Mr. Jim Giancola was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said that this was before the Board before and the applicant didn't proceed at that time.
Mr. Giancola said that a few issues came up and it got put on the back burner. A few months back he went out and got the traffic study done by Jim Napoleon and Associates and he went to meet with the Town Board but had made a change and the Town Board felt that it was important to come back to see the Planning Board and it has been submitted to the County and he is not sure if there were any comments that came back because it was only a couple weeks ago and he believes the major thing with the County was the traffic study and there was a list of other items as the process went along but for the zone change the County was interested in the traffic study and there was a change unfortunately to the map at that time.
Mr. Billings said that the traffic study assumes a connection to Van Buren Rd. and the current plan doesn't show that so the traffic study is going to have to be redone.
Mr. Geiss said that is because the commercial lot, lot 74; originally they had gone through that to get out onto Van Buren Rd.
Mr. Giancola said that he is a little bit at a disadvantage here because he is going through this for the first time and the last time that he met with the Board the Town attorney required that he get the property surveyed so that it would go into the record properly so he was doing that at the same time and as he was changing these drawing he took the road out just for ease of the drawings and some of the original pictures that he showed the Board didn't make sense anyway because of the way that the water line comes through the houses on that street that they were going to take out anyway. Going through the thought process he thought it would be cleaner if he just made that one lot and the remainder they were asking R-15 for lot 2 and he is not sure if down the road if they are going to need to put a road in there or not he would just hate
to put it in there if he doesn't have to and he would probably prefer to leave it out but he doesn't know if he will have that option moving forward. He is just trying to anticipate what may happen as he goes along the process.
Mr. Billings said the question that he has is County Planning is recommending no access to Van Buren Rd. but is County DOT saying the same thing.
Mr. Giancola said that he spoke with Julian Clark at Plumley Engineering and they did speak with DOT and they said based on what they see the DOT doesn't anticipate a problem with a road cut for Van Buren Rd.
Ms. Sabin asked where they are going to show it.
Mr. Billings said at one time they had it in the drawing.
The Board discussed where the road cut used to be in the drawing.
Mr. Billings said that another one of County Planning's comments was that the commercial property not exit on to Van Buren Rd as well which is ridiculous because the Town certainly doesn't want commercial traffic going through the neighborhood.
Mr. Giancola said that the plan that the Board saw before the waterline went right through a few of the houses and just wasn't practical and they looked at some additional drawing in which it didn't have the road there and they changed the lot designations and at this point all he is really looking for is the rezoning and he thinks he is quite a distance away from approval on any subdivision plan.
Mr. Billings said that he thinks it impacts the commercial property.
Mr. Geiss said that it does and there might be a condition there based on road development and the Board can probably put a condition that if the road comes in off Van Buren then the commercial property would be reduced.
Mr. Pringle said the access can come off of that road and not directly on Van Buren Rd; if they put another road in going from Van Buren to the commercial and then into the development then access to the commercial can come off that road as well.
Ms. Sabin asked if the Board had talked about a second road before because the Board wanted access to get into the development quicker.
Mr. Billings said that the County Planning disagrees; not County DOT and he thinks there is an argument to be made there because he doesn't think that this is a good idea at all. There would be 75 lots there all served off of Ellsworth Rd. and he doesn't think that is a good idea and it is worth questioning County.
Mr. Geiss said that the commercial lot is on Van Buren and the rest would be R-15 and the Board can work on roads and subdivision after that.
Mr. Giancola said that based on what he has learned he feels that he still has quite a ways to go with this and he doesn't see this as the end and the Board talked about 74 lots but in his mind he sees several lots going away with some of the things that have been brought up to him so at this point he would really like to try and move forward with getting the zoning issue resolved because it is hard to move onto other things until he knows that is a reality.
Mr. Geiss said that this is going from R-40 to R-15 and local business and the applicant needs a recommendation to the Town Board.
Mr. Pringle said that the recommendation has already been given once but since there have been some changes and quite a bit of time the Town Board wanted reaffirmation from the Planning Board.
Motion # 07-117 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion that the Planning Board reaffirms their recommendation to the Town Board with regard to Hyacinth Land Development which is property on Van Buren and Ellsworth Rd. The Planning Board recommends the proposed zone change from R-40 to an accommodation of R-15 and Local Business with the Local Business being the lot fronting on Van Buren Rd. and that this also is sent to the Village of Baldwinsville for comment since the property abuts the Village. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Ruddock said that with the water line running through it and things like that would it be in the applicant's best interest to think about a zone change to a PUD.
The Board discussed a PUD with the applicant and the water line.
Mr. Pringle mentioned that there is a time frame tag on a PUD and this would have to be done within a certain time frame because they are locked in with a PUD or it reverts back to what it was originally.
Mr. Geiss said there is a lot more work to be done with a PUD and he is in favor of the R-15 himself.
Mr. Billings pointed out that this property does abut the Village and it probably ought to be sent off to the Village for comment.
Mr. Geiss recommended that the Town Board do that.
SYRACUSE SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - SITE PLAN
105 Button Shores Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 38-02-7.2
Mr. Jared Lusk was present to address the Board.
Mr. Lusk said that they are proposing a 160ft tower that sits on a 1/2ft foundation at the bottom so technically it is 160½ft tower on the Shute property on Button Shores Rd.
Mr. Geiss asked who they are trying to serve with this down on Button Shores Rd. because the Board was a little surprised because it is well off the main drag.
Mr. Lusk said that Exhibit F in the application describes the | ||