Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 06 04 minutes planning board.pdfTown of Enfield Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 4, 2008 Present: Ann Chaffee, Jim McConkey, Rich Neno, Sr., Calvin Rothermich, Debbie Teeter, Doug Willis Excused: Virginia Bryant Also Present: Herb Masser, Town Board Liasion Guests: Chuck Feiszlie, Resource Associates; Mike Baroody, Velocitel/QAT&T Wireless Call to Order 7:00 p.m. May 7th meeting minutes: Motion to approve by A. Chaffee, seconded by D. Teeter, approved without dissent. Old Business 1. Proposed MET Tower: The Public Hearing notice was not issued, so the Public Hearing was re-scheduled for the July meeting. The Board apologized for the confusion and reiterated action could be taken following the Public Hearing. D. Teeter agreed to follow-up with the co-chairs and Town Clerk to make sure the notice was published as required. 2. Proposed Cell Tower: Mike Baroody from Velocitel presented packets and maps to the Board which included all items required for scheduling a Public Hearing at the next meeting, with the exception of the SEQR. Since the only change to the project is the tower height, the Board agreed Mr. Baroody could update the SEQR from the original project, a copy of which was provided and updated at the meeting. The Board reviewed the material, especially the projected coverage maps, and was pleased to see that the center of Town is expected to receive coverage. This has been the Board’s main concern with this project. The public Hearing will occur at the July meeting. New Business 1. Proposed Town Buildings Site Plan Review: H. Masser and Chuck Feiszlie, Resource Associates, presented preliminary drawings as the Sketch Plan phase of the Site Plan Review process. The Board review the plans an asked the following questions: • Why not one building for the Town Hall and Community building so that services may be shared (heating, well, septic, paring, facilities, etc.)? • Is there flood zone designation on this property? Mr. Feiszlie said he researched the parcel and there is not. • Why not site the highway building closer to the road, so that there would be less heavy equipment on the parcel’s road and they would be traveling shorter distance? • Regarding the public Safety Building: why rebuild rather than renovate? There have been DEC issues, the town has been fined, and a clean-up may be required if excavation occurs. Has the Town compared the costs to renovate vs. new construction? Why is this facility separate from the other tow structures? H. Masser responded that its prudent to separate what is often a criminal element from the general public that would be using the other town buildings, and to provide an accessible satellite office for local law enforcement. There was discussion about the placement of the road of the town parcel, and whether or not some of the wooded area should be cleared and the road area graded, and the possible visual impact of doing this. There was also a suggestion that green, or energy efficient, building techniques be incorporated. There was also a question about the need for the buildings in general and how they would e funded. Maser will take Planning Board comment back to the Town Board’s Facilities Committee for consideration. The next step would be to return to the Planning Board for a review when all the required elements are ready for submission, and then a Public Hearing can be scheduled. Motion to adjourn 8:30 by A. Chaffee, seconded by D. Willis.