Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-18-PB TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD 10/18/05 Approved with revisions as indicated using ( ) on November 1, 2005 Present: Interim Chairperson David Tyler, Planning Board Members : David Means, Rod Porter, Darien Simon, and John Wertis . Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun. Excused : Margot Chiuten, Rose Hilbert . A quorum is present at the meeting; the meeting was called to order at 7 : 38 pm by Mr. Tyler. Minutes : The minutes of the September 27th meeting were presented . Mr. Tyler submitted revisions to the text. Mr. Tyler stated he edits so the context is clearer. He has had occasions when he has reviewed minutes from meetings held 10 years ago and the context was difficult to understand. Mr. Porter offered that he found little difference in some of the changes i . e . allowed vs . permitted. He stated the amendments to text could be inserted with parentheses or brackets with a notation that it was done after review for context . Mr. Wertis asked if there are substantial changes to the minutes are they required to go through the changes verbally. He inquired if Ms . Carlisle Peck is reviewing the tape as well as using notes when she is transcribing the minutes . He did not see any substantive changes to be made . Ms . Carlisle Peck affirmed she does indeed listen to the tape-sometimes over and over again. In addition, she stated she has an issue with changing the text of the applicants based on what Mr. Tyler feels would be a clearer statement. Ms . Simon stated she had not noted any major changes in Mr. Tyler ' s or the original document. Mr. Porter motioned to accept with corrections, seconded by Mr. Wertis. All in favor - Minutes approved. Site Plan : Mr. Tyler stated he had been informed by Ms Georgia that the resolution needs to be done within five days ; for future reference he proposes a condition of the resolution be that the Site Plan would not be final until the minutes are transcribed and reviewed . Mr. Porter stated that Mr. Coogan used to circulate the resolution for comment then sign off on the resolution after that. He asked if this prevents the applicant from moving forward. Mr. Tyler stated yes in fact this does , Mr. Rachun cannot complete the process until they are finalized and signed off by the Planning Board . Mr. Tyler "signed off' on the West Hill Community Church and Judith Cone (MCCI) project as defined at the Public Hearing dated September 27, 2005 . Subdivision : Mr. Rachun received a Subdivision request today. It would be a simple subdivision on a collector road. The Planning Board needs to review and approve-he distributed copies of the map . He has reviewed the procedure and it appears to be a completed application . Planning Board 2 10/ 18/2005 Mr. Tyler asked how many lots . Mr. Rachun replied one lot into two , it is a simple subdivision. He referenced the Zoning Map in the books . It is the old Babcock property on Route 96 and Krums Corners Road . It essentially runs behind Sleeping Bear Futons . Mr. Tyler asked when they make the parcel on Krums Corners sufficient unto itself will there be a right of way on the road. (A private right of way running across the property from Route 96 to Krums Corners Road as elaborated below.) Mr. Rachun stated he does not know if they will retain right of the way on the connector road . This is owned by a gentlemen downstate that bought all the facilities and is using some of them for his poultry business and is using the rest as rental or selling the facilities . He offered the reason they have this type of map is a new requirement of the subdivision. They have to identify neighbors and the neighbor lot lines . Mr. Tyler asked if the Planning Board has to sign off on this . Mr. Rachun confirmed this and informed Mr. Tyler he has the embosser to use if approved. There is another project coming for a simple subdivision and another minor subdivision by the next meeting. Mr. Rachun stated the owner of the property is Cayuga Breeder Farm LLC , this survey was done prior to the current owner purchasing this property. The survey was used for him to purchase this property. The address is listed as PO Box 555 , Ferndale NY . Joel Abrahams represents him from Lama Real Estate . The tax parcel is 33 - 5 - 3 . 2 the property fronts Krums Corners Road, but it also fronts on the connector road. The property of interest is this parcel (indicated on map) there is a long connector right of way to this parcel which also fronts Route 96 . Mr. Porter stated this was an access road for Babcock Poultry to get to their buildings . They previously owned all of this property. Mr. Rachun informed the Board the party interested in this parcel- which measures 445 feet deep on the South boundary and on Krums Corners Road is . 342 feet, and the rear line is 307 . 7,1 feet-is Gimme Coffee . Gimme Coffee would like to use it for their roasting facility as such the traffic generated would be similar to the traffic that had been generated by ISA Babcock. ISA Babcock had used the building for maintenance equipment, the shipping dock was there and used it for shipping, their operations facility was also located there . Mr. Porter clarified what the other lines on the map were . Mr. Rachun stated that many pieces of this property had been broken off and sold previously. Mr. Tyler asked Mr. Rachun if any rights would be retained by the seller for the road that runs through the parcel . He offered they may secede it to the Eyman parcel if they do not use if for access . Mr. Rachu -i stated he would check but the operation of Gimme Coffee is totally separate r from the bird breeder but they might want access to Krums Corners Road. , } Mr. Wertis asked what type of questions should they be looking for. Mr. Rachun replied that the Town Board decided that the Planning Board needs to look at simple subdivisions on the main roads . Mr. Tyler stated that one item of discussion that came up previously -was when someone starts subdividing a parcel you may be foreclosing certain options in the future . When he looks at the project he evaluates if removing this parcel would impact what could be done VEMMISIIMESIBM Planning Board 3 10/ 18/2005 in the future with the remaining parcel . He does not see this situation with this project due to the irregular shape of the parcel . He would ask the applicant why they would want to subdivide the way if it appeared future plans could be impacted . Mr. Rachun asked if he would like to request the applicant come to the review meeting . Mr. Tyler stated he believed it was the plan of the Town Board to have an educational process for them . As was discussed earlier if the applicant were in attendance they could verify the question on the right of way on the parcel under review . Mr. Rachun stated that by right a subdivision is not something that the planning board can deny. The subdivision review keeps the Board informed that when a big project comes down the line the Board is aware of what has been happening along the collector roads . Mr. Means asked if they maintain an easement does the situation change . Mr. Tyler stated not necessarily-they do not have the ability to say no . Mr. Porter replied they could approve, stamp but question the right of way . Mr. Rachun stated he would ask an applicant for a survey that would be completed at that time and an easement would be designated . He would suggest the Board sign off and he will check on the easement . If there will be an easement then it is not a simple subdivision and he will request a new map and withhold the approved map . Mr. Rachun informed the board Gimme Coffee does not plan on changing the footprint of the buildings they plan on renovating the buildings for their use . They plan on redoing the exterior of the buildings to the original design. They will be bringing in coffee beans roasting them and then shipping them back out. The renovation process would not be part of Site Plan Review . Approval granted to Cayuga Breeder Farm, LLC to subdivide to Gimme Coffee for purchase of tax parcel 33-5-3. 2 contingent upon information received regarding easement of the gravel road. In addition, provide a copy of the recorded deed indicating the subdivision has been done. Mr. Means motion to accept, Mr. Porter seconded. Voted Unanimously Motion Approved. (Mr. Wertis questioned an omission and requested it be entered into the minutes. Mr. Wertis had noted to Mr. Tyler that in the Zoning Ordinance, if it is a simple subdivision on a collector road or state highway it is be dealt with as a minor subdivision not a simple subdivision. Unfortunately, this observation had been made but other items were addressed and this did not get addressed again.) Washington Street Partners : Mr. Rachun presented the new information from the applicants, including drawings and a bound submittal book. The prior traffic study has been provided at the request of Mr. Tyler-he wanted to remind the members that this is for the prior projects . Washington Street Partners have requested the old application be filed. He looked at the large plan and a cursory review is that the parcel in his estimation is being utilized in a more sensible manner. Mr. Tyler commented that he would be inclined to approve it on the basis that this is the maximum intensity of use for this size parcel . This would foreclose from future involvement if for say McDonald ' s decided to come on board and they look for additional development . Mr. Means noted the signs are smaller, 15 -20-30 . Planning Board 4 10/ 18/2005 Mr. Tyler asked where we go from here. Mr. Rachun stated he feels they would need time to review . Ms . Simon agreed they should review as a board first. Then have them come in later- having them come in so they can answer any questions we have come up with at our own review . Having them come in before we can discuss might be awkward and premature . Mr. Rachun noted that they will be invited to all Planning Board meetings . He advised the Board to review on a timely basis and set up a meeting with them in a month ' s time . Mr. Tyler asked what would be a good time for a working session for members . Ms . Simon appreciates that they are allowed at all meetings but she would like to have more time to review before a formal invitation is made. Mr. Rachun stated the clock has started once the packet is complete. The idea tonight was to review for a completed packet-he had done this with the Chair of the Planning Board . He feels it should be taken home for review for intelligent conversation however the task at hand tonight is to review for a completed packet-in his estimation it is . Mr. Means stated that if Mr. Rachun deems it complete then he has confidence it is . If it is complete it is our job to move it along. Mr. Porter asked 'if they had addressed the drainage. Mr. Rachun ' stated there is a drainage plan, a completed application does not mean it is completed to their satisfaction. The Planning Board can request additional information. Mr. Tyler also requested the new information be sent to the consultant for their review-he has done this . Mr. Tyler presented that they should try to develop a hypothetical timeline for this process . Recognizing that they are approaching November-December and the holidays . He asked when they have to schedule a Public Hearing. Ms . Simon asked if it is 60 days from when Mr. Rachun declares it complete or when the Planning Board deems it complete. Mr. Rachun stated that it states in Town law that it is when he states it is complete . However, it has been done as a joint decision by him and the Planning Board after review . It was delivered to him on Saturday-October 15 `h Ms . Simon inquired so we can have a meeting, they can come to the meeting and we can go through the packet and deem it is a completed application. Mr. Porter stated there might be additional information we want or need but they are not listed as requirements for the application. If Alex has gone through that list and stated they are done then it should be deemed complete . Mr. Rachun referred to the list of necessary items for Site Plan in the Zoning Ordinance 3 . 4 . 4 ; he listed items required. According to the list it is a completed application, beyond that the Board can request additional information. At Public Hearing something out of left field can be brought up that had not been considered, then additional information can be requested from the Public Hearing and it is continued . Mr. Tyler stated so it is a good idea to have additional information before the Public Hearing. The decision should be made 62 days after the Public Hearing. The Planning Board deems when the application is complete thus this process could extend over 120 days . He would like to establish a timeline-he reviewed the calendar and figured they could tentatively hold the Public Hearing in early December. Planning Board 5 10/ 18/2005 Ms . Simon understands that Mr. Rachun has deemed it complete, however she wants to have time to review and read it carefully before making this decision. Mr. Wertis commented that Mr. Rachun has informed us that it is complete. Ms . Simon noted she is aware of that, however it is up to the Board to decide if it is complete and she will not make this decision tonight . Mr. Porter reviewed the Zoning Ordinance which stated that the Planning Board has 30 days to schedule a Preliminary Review . Mr. Tyler stated that to make progress he would like to move ahead . Ms . Simon noted that they have 30 days to schedule a preliminary review, then they have 62 days to schedule a public hearing. So , if they start the clock today they have 90 days . Mr. Tyler indicated they should not try to stretch it out . Ms. Simon noted if they have the review in November they do not have to have the public hearing until January. Mr. Porter stated they should try to plan to schedule it in December. Mr. Tyler stated that often when a lot of time occurs between meeting information is forgotten. This is especially true with the holiday season approaching-people come back in January. Ms . Simon stated she is not saying she wants to do it this way. She is hearing people say we have to do it in December and that is not what she is seeing here . Mr. Wertis noted that after the preliminary review there might be additional information in which case there is 30 more days allowed for receipt of the additional information . Ms . Simon stated that it is her perspective that to try to schedule a public hearing for December is pushing things . They have not reviewed the material and do not know if additional information is required. Mr. Tyler and Mr. Porter indicated they are not trying to schedule but are trying to look ahead. Mr. Tyler stated if the Board has a meeting in November then meet with the applicants in late November they could schedule the public hearing for December which appears to be a logical time . Ms . Simon stated December is not a logical time for a public hearing; unless they plan on having it in the first week or ten days . After that people are not going to be showing up- because they are busy with other things . This is what she is saying by feeling pushed to have it in the beginning of December and she has not had a chance to look at the material yet. Mr. Tyler stated that if they have a target, they still have time to push it back. By pushing the envelope they (this Board) may run out of time . Ms. Simon stated she is starting to feel like she is being pushed into planning things, and scheduling things even tentatively. She is not sure they are ready to do that, she would like to review the material and get a feel if there is any additional material they need before scheduling a public hearing. Mr. Tyler stated the 30 60 days are maximums, we should be thinking in terms of half of that then if we run into problems we have a cushion . If we start out saying we will not be ready we are using part of our cushion right off the bat. Ms . Simon agreed we should not be pushing it to the end . Planning Board 6 10/ 18/2005 Mr. Tyler requested Ms . Carlisle Peck email Ms . Chiuten and Ms . Hilbert regarding the future meeting of November 1st or November 3rd . She will contact them and relay back to the board. Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Means, seconded by Mr. Porter. Voted unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9: 01 pm. Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Secretary rcp 11 /02/05 aI ? I.