Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-20-PB TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD 09/20/05 Approved 09/27/05 with corrections Present: Interim Chairperson David Tyler, Planning Board Members : Rose Hilbert, David Means, Rod Porter, Darien Simon, John Wertis . Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun Excused : Margot Chiuten c A quorum is present at the meeting; the meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 pm by Mr. Tyler. Minutes : The minutes of the September 13th meeting were presented. Mr. Wertis suggested the term "Guests" not be used but rather "Others in attendance", he offered that Judith Cone had provided multiple maps of the project . Discussion resulted in several changes of text as noted by Mr. Tyler. Mr. Means motioned to accept with corrections, seconded by Mr. Wertis All in favor-Minutes approved Public Hearing- Mr. Rachun stated that Ms . Georgia had filed the 239 and the legal notices had been sent. Mr. Tyler questioned if the neighborhood mailings had been done . Ms . Carlisle Peck indicated that Ms . Georgia had done these as well . Ms . Thompson had 1 provided the names and addresses for both projects . Mr. Tyler stated that next week they would start with the Cone Project . He asked Mr. Rachun if this was a Type 2 action. Mr. Rachun stated no it was an unlisted action; it does not meet any thresholds of the Type 1 ; Ms . Thompson submitted a Short Form and . Long Form is needed for the Old Zoning, Short Form for the New Zoning. We are working with long in front of us with every project right now . Mr. Tyler offered that to his surprise Mr. Rachun told him the new law applies to every application now before the Board; even those who were complete before the law went into effect . He stated it does not seem fair to the applicants but that is the requirement. Mr. Rachun stated he verified this with the Association of Town ' s and another source ; he agreed it does not seem fair. Planning Board 2 09/20/2005 Mr. Tyler said he could not understand if somebody has made an application and relied on the old law , and then suddenly are told the rules have changed . Ms . Hilbert asked if they would be applying the new law to Judy Cone . Mr. Tyler stated yes but it is not critical there because the Site Plan part of the new ordinance is not terribly different from the old . Mr. Rachun offered that it is easier. Mr. Tyler indicated the one that is really dicey is Washington St. Partners. Last week he had suggested that the two having the Public Hearings on September 27`" would be under the old law, however this is not the case. He suggested everyone review the Zoning Law (August 30, 2005) books provided to them tonight by Ms . Georgia. Mr. Rachun stated the confusion all may have is she submitted a long EAF (SEQR) because that is the requirement under the old. This information can be reviewed. Mr. Tyler asked if she had submitted a short EAF as well . Mr. Rachun indicated he believed she had for one of the projects . Mr. Tyler stated Mr. Rachun should request a short form for the other project from Ms . Thompson prior to next week ' s meeting. Mr. Rachun stated it is so far removed from any of the thresholds of a Type 1 it should not be an issue. It does not have to be announced at the Public Hearing, but it does have to be done. Mr. Tyler offered that a 239 lam applies just to West Hill Community Church ; so we could pass a resolution on Judith Cone right after the hearing if the Board so desires . We will have to defer on West Hill Community Church until we hear from the County. Ms . Hilbert stated that in the past they would pass on condition the County had no objections-then it would get kicked back if the County had objections . Mr. Tyler stated that the County may not have an objection but it will come back with comments . It would be simpler if we could wait until the County has replied, if they come back with comments it has to be readdressed . The comments are to be taken into consideration in our decision. Mr. Means asked how long it takes for the County to respond. Mr. Rachun responded that they have 30 days . They are usually quicker then this . Mr. Tyler asked if we could ask them to expedite this one and have it faxed by Tuesday. Planning Board 3 09/20/2005 Mr. Rachun answered that this procedure has been old hat however he would do this . A 239 is strange it is a discretionary action; Site Plan is a gray area. Mr. Porter asked what about the Church triggers the 239 . Mr. Rachun replied that due to being within 500 feet of a County Road . It is questionable if the 239 is needed, however it has been done . Mr. Tyler asked if individuals felt set for next week ; they have to do formal procedure and see what the public has to say. Mr. Rachun stated that they had not heard from NYS confirming the filing of the new zoning ordinance. They normally send a card back that it is filed. Mr. Tyler stated that the state usually takes five days -they send a card back that it is filed. He suggested we contact Ms . Georgia next week to confirm the status of the filing. Either way they have Site Plan to do to apply to both projects . If in doubt he advised they do it under the old on the basis the old is more stringent, and due to not knowing if new has been approved . They would record this at the meeting. Mr. Rachun offered that the effective date would be when the state filed. Mr. Tyler researched the effective date in the Zoning Law which stated that the law is effective when — adoption, publication and filing as required by law . At this point in time it has been adopted, published and the filing by NYS is the final step . Ms . Simon asked if it would make sense to announce it has been adopted, published, but we have not been notified it has been filed. So, for purposes of procedure we are operating under the old law . Mr. Tyler stated we will operate under old law on the basis that it is somewhat more restrictive than the new ; if we satisfy the old law we should be okay. Ms . Hilbert offered she does not understand why the old law is more restrictive . Mr. Rachun offered that they had more requirements for a completed document . There were items that were not necessary. Ms . Simon offered that basically what made the old law more stringent was the additional paperwork required rather than specifications . Mr. Tyler asked if all felt comfortable with these projects and were ready to move on. The group indicated they were. Washington St. Partners : I r4 flA Lt Planning Board 4 09/20/2005 Mr. Tyler stated that after having spent time reviewing the minutes he asked the group to go around the table to state their concerns . His concern is on that little parcel having a drugstore, a gas station and a fast food joint seems way too intense . The drugstore would be fine it might possibly accommodate a gas station but adding the fast food into it makes for a real zoo . If there is any legitimacy to this intuitive reaction, he feels they need professionals to give them chapter and verse to support that . They obviously do not want to put conditions in or have partial denials and get sued and lose. Mr. Porter asked how Mr. Tyler would distinguish between the gas station and restaurant- to him they both generate a fair amount of traffic . Mr. Tyler offered two things- partly how they made their presentation the gas station goes with Kinney Drugs . They were saying if water does not work they can ' t do fast food and would go to retail . He viewed the fast food thing appears to be an after thought. Mr. Means stated that he thought the parking was shy. If a Kinney tractor trailer is in there making deliveries there is no way to back in. The way the dumpsters are set up on the property will block traffic flow. There is no room for snow storage . Mr. Tyler offered there is an awful lot of asphalt with run off and that must be a stormwater issue . Ms . Hilbert redirected back to the too much business on the land. She noted that there are percentages in the lot areas and yard requirements . A long time ago she had asked Mr. Frantz do the math to see if it is too much building for the lot. He found there is more than enough room for lot area and yard requirements . Mr. Tyler agreed with this however his issue is with traffic flow . Mr. Means stated he walked the site and there is 75 feet give or take in back of the land they are purchasing before it drops off It does not make sense to not incorporate that or at least have an easement on it for snow storage or to have a gravel runoff. Mr. Wertis suggested that we could have these items added as necessities therefore they would have to purchase more land. Mr. Means said yes if indeed this is something we could stand on . Mr. Wertis offered that if we are stating it is too intense, yet it is a legally conforming use, it seems we have to come up with why it is too intense. We have to come up with traffic , parking, etc . Mr. Tyler stated he understands this, however this is what site plan is for-to evaluate how this particular use will fit in and does it create problems . Planning Board 5 09/20/2005 Ms . Hilbert commented that they have requested two entrances . The parking is in the front and that allows the drive thru traffic to go along the side, around the back and back out the entrance without the pedestrians having to cross over the drive thru lanes . This is a good thing but if it gets reduced to one entrance then you have it completely circling around which is a bad thing. It would get pretty intense because if they are not going to one drive thru they have to go that way for both drive thru ' s . Mr. Porter stated he understands what she is saying but their proposal would be an entrance only for the individuals traveling South. However, the North would still have traffic coming in here to go thru the drive thru. Ms. Hilbert clarified this however if it is reduced to one then you have even more intense and more cars going by more pedestrians . If it is reduced to one entrance it is a major concern. Another thing is the flow and the trucks coming in- 14, 000 sq. feet is an awful lot of square footage for band-aids . So , it has been proposed that it could possibly be groceries too, so then you would have carts and other things that would be necessary to leave the store and go to the parking lot with cars circling around . Some local businesses that do drugstores state 14, 000 sq . ft . is not your average drugstore . Mr. Means stated that Palmer' s Drugstore is 4, 000 sq . ft . Mr. Wertis asked if 14,000 was the primary building or total , it was clarified that it was the primary. He offered if this should be put out to the applicants why it is so large. Mr. Means stated that the Shursave is 25 , 000 sq . ft . Mr. Rachun offered that the original Shursave was 13 , 000 sq . ft . then when they added on it went to 25 ,000 . Mr. Tyler offered the flow around the gas pump would be a circus . There is one row but access on both sides, thus cars would go in either direction . Mr. Rachun offered that even if they designate the one way there would be the people who go around the wrong way. Mr. Porter asked in terms of fire code could parking be allowed in front of the building. Mr. Rachun answered that as far as fire code it is five feet from the building-these developers have done other projects and are familiar with these regulations . Mr. Tyler asked if there were any other issues . Ms . Simon addressed the area that the traffic flow estimate looked extremely low in relation to additional trips per hour. She would like to know how they are calculating these things . Planning Board 6 09/20/2005 Mr. Means informed them the new drugstore has 48 spots for parking for 4 ,000 sq . ft. The zoning requirement states 70 . Mr. Rachun offered that this was indicated to them when they met with him initially. Mr. Porter offered that this was pointed out to them at the September 13th meeting as well . Mr. Tyler questioned the stormwater estimate, 9/ 10th of the lot is pavement . Ms . Simon stated this is her major concern, their calculations are completely bogus they are talking about changing from 4% impervious to 70+% impervious with no impact on stormwater. Mr. Porter stated the overall drainage is an issue, they discussed putting the water into the existing DOT ditch, and there is not a DOT ditch there. There may be a drain in front of the house- he believes there is a sluice that goes under the road to the Shursave side . Ms . Hilbert offered they are not allowed to do that anymore . Mr. Tyler questioned if Ms . Hilbert had any information on the water line on the property. Ms . Hilbert stated it is 3/4 inch, it is in poor condition, it was put in sometime between 1930 and 1963 , and there are no legal papers to be found. Mr. Tyler asked what would happen if they tried to tap into this line-would the Village cap it off Ms. Hilbert stated she could not answer that question at this time . Mr. Tyler offered there was no water district, but they could use the argument that this property is grandfathered so they could use it as a right . Mr. Rachun stated that extending water from the Village is discretionary. Mr. Tyler offered that they do not have to extend the water line ; it is already onsite with a meter. Mr. Means asked if they would have to increase the size of the pipe . Mr. Rachun offered that they could install a 10,000 gallon holding tank. Mr. Hilbert stated she was trying to figure out where they would put this tank. Mr. Rachun indicated there were several places it could be located. . . . . Planning Board 7 09/20/2005 Mr. Tyler asked Ms . Hilbert if someone should contact the Village . Ms . Hilbert offered it had already been done, the person with the answers is in Canada until late tonight. Mr. Means asked if they should have Mr. Wilson check into the legality. Mr. Tyler stated this is the Village ' s problem, not the Town ' s . Mr. Porter asked what bearing this would have on our decision . Mr. Means stated if they cannot get water. Mr. Porter answered if they do not have adequate water to do what they want to do , then they will have to come back and do site plan review ; water is not an issue for us . Ms . Hilbert offered that Mr. Rachun had indicated that they had to have adequate water and sewage on the Site Plan . Mr. Rachun clarified no, they have to show it on the Site Plan . Mr. Tyler asked what the existing water line services . Ms . Means offered that it services the pole barn . Mr. Tyler stated the reason he asked is grandfathering is limited to what the existing services provided. Ms . Hilbert offered that what it is being used for is a residential amount use . That is the history-it goes up and down, back and forth-but in general it has never exceeded normal residential use. Mr. Tyler wondered if the Village would take the position that if it is grandfathered it is serviced to one residential dwelling. On that basis they would not be able to have commercial access . The Village needs to know the history and have it documented . Ms . Hilbert indicated it is documented, when the new curb went in on Route 96 they found the line . The material it was made out of dated the line-it was an estimate that the earliest would be 1930 ' s the latest 1960 ' s . It comes off the hydrant in front of the fairgrounds . Mr. Tyler stated it answered his questions as far as he was concerned . If it is residential-it was never permitted. NEM Mains Eska rat Planning Board 8 09/20/2005 Ms . Hilbert stated there is no difference between residential and commercial according to the Village . _ Mr. Porter indicated this is an issue for the Village not for us . Mr. Tyler stated it was however it would have an impact on us . Mr. Porter replied it does not impact us , why are we discussing it . Ms . Simon stated they have to show they are going to have water, which is not an issue for us-other then they can show it or they don ' t show it . The detail of how they get it is not an issue for us because they have to deal with the Village . Mr. Porter stated the major issues are traffic, drainage, and lights . Mr. Rachun offered that what does concern us is height of sign. Unfortunately, it is not in the zoning ordinance . Mr. Means informed them they are proposing 12 feet wide by three different height proposals-37 , 21 or 15 feet high. Ms . Hilbert stated that Ms . Chiuten had concerns with the lights polluting over the edge. The other thing is the organization of Shursave ' s location across the street from the first entrance, she realizes this is a DOT item, but could they address their input as well . Mr. Porter stated they could offer it as a concern as traffic flow . But they cannot dictate where the driveways go . Mr. Tyler stated they can dictate but they have to have basis to do it . It is a public safety issue. We cannot say "we think"-we have to have an expert opinion, for a basis of our decision . Mr. Porter asked if we have substantial evidence does it go back to DOT . Mr. Tyler answered it would come back to us . The Town would get sued but a court would not over overturn us if we have a good rational basis . If there are two experts that disagree, DOT and our engineer, we have to give reason why we give more credence to our engineer vs . DOT , a court won ' t overturn us . Ms . Hilbert offered another area is landscaping she had been to the fairgrounds-the trees are on the fairgrounds they have no landscaping between that house and the edge of the fairgrounds lot . Landscaping will be an issue because they are not providing much land to landscape. Another thing is the area of the plan is just grass-why is this . Planning Board 9 09/20/2005 Mr. Porter offered it would probably be where the septic would be located . He offered that Ms . Chiuten had indicated a concern with issue about light, he was not sure where she got this information. Mr. Wertis stated it was designated on one of the maps . Mr. Rachun offered that we have site plan for lighting but it does not have 0 limit for lighting. Ms . Hilbert stated we do have lighting restrictions- it is stated you are not allowed to encroach on others property, i . e . glare and trespass . Mr. Tyler stated he would like to suggest all members familiarize themselves with Site Plan Review (Page 10) and Design Standards (Page 89 ) of the new Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Rachun offered there is material to be used for lighting standards . They are minimum required for outdoor safety, there are 1800 and 900 lumens outer bounds as outlining for lighting. But as far as 0 lot line of lighting the Town does not have this restriction . Mr. Tyler stated that just because the ordinance provides minimums not maximums they are charged with making the project harmonious with the neighborhood . Ms . Hilbert asked if they have a rear setback is that from the building or the edge of the parking lot. Mr. Rachun informed Ms . Hilbert it is from the building. Ms . Hilbert stated then they can put the pavement next to the edge of the property. Mr. Rachun indicated this is correct . Mr. Tyler asked if he could get the heads up if we know by Monday what ordinance we will be working under. If not filed by Monday we would be working under the old ordinance . Mr. Rachun questioned if the legal is advertised under the old ordinance ; the article and section of the new ordinance is different than the old ordinance can the Board act on it. Mr. Tyler answered this is a good question and he believes they should pass under both. Mr. Tyler suggested all look at the legal notice for the hearing. Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Means, seconded by Mr. Porter. Voted unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8: 57 pm. Respectfully submitted, Planning Board 10 09/20/2005 Robin Carlisle Peck rcp 09/28/05