Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-01-PB TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD 11 /01 /05 Approved 11/29/05 with revisions Present: Interim Chairperson David Tyler, Planning Board Members : Margot Chiuten David Means, Rod Porter, and John Wertis . Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun. Excused : Rose Hilbert, Darien Simon Public : Jim Seafuse, Brett Seafuse Applicants : Matthew Moore, Washington Street Partners A quorum is present at the meeting; the meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 pm by Mr. Tyler. Minutes : The minutes of the October 18 `h meeting were presented . Mr. Tyler submitted revisions to the text. 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 dealt with and this did not get addressed again . Mr. Wertis made the MOTION to approve the minutes, Mr. Porter seconded. Mr. Means, Mr. Porter, Mr. Tyler and Mr. Wertis approved, Ms. Chiuten abstained- Minutes approved. Cayuga Addiction Recovery Center- Mr. Rachun stated Cayuga Addiction Recovery Center has requested lights for the parking lot. During the Site Plan Review the Board had suggested the Center consider lighting for the lot. Unfortunately, now that the time change has happened the parking lot is dark and Bill Rusen is concerned . Mr. Rachun asked how the Board would like to approach the lighting either as an amendment to the Site Plan or have it meet the Design Standards according to the ordinance . Mr. Wertis noted that they had been using lights on the buildings but due to complaints these were changed and are no longer available . Mr. Porter commented that Cayuga Addiction had advised the Board that people would not be entering/exiting the lots during dark hours . But, with the time change it is dark at 5 : 00pm so now they realize they do need lighting. Mr. Wertis stated that there had been controversy over the lighting from that building from how it was set up at one time. So, maybe it would be wise for the Board to review . Mr. Rachun stated that the initial set- up would not have come close to the Design Standards that the Town has in place now . Mr. Porter asked if they install lighting now does it have to comply with the Design Standards-they have criteria with minimum etc . Mr. Rachun confirmed this and asked if the Board could review it at the next meeting. Planning Board Meeting 2 11 /01 /2005 Mr. Tyler stated if they can get a plan to Mr. Rachun fairly rapidly, at least 10 days in advance to review for problems . Then the Board could get review it without spending another meeting on it . Mr. Tyler asked the members if an amendment to the original Site Plan was acceptable, all affirmed this was acceptable . He advised Mr. Rachun to contact Mr. Rusen at Cayuga Addiction Recovery to relay this information. Mr. Tyler turned the meeting over to Mr. Means to chair the Washington Street Partners packet review of the meeting. Washington Street Partners : Mr. Means addressed the public/members stating at the conclusion of the last meeting the Board had not decided if the just then received application packet was complete . The assumption was the applicant would be here tonight to discuss any questions . Mr. Means asked the members if after reviewing the application if they had reasons it should not be accepted as a complete packet. Ms . Chiuten stated she had reviewed the traffic study and they had only analyzed the weekday PM peak hours . She would like the weekday AM and Saturday midday peak hour, the Saturday midday peak is particularly important for retail establishments . It shows a Kinney but there it also shows a retail component, she feels there may be a higher intensity of traffic at that peak window . Ms . Chiuten indicated she is not satisfied with the grading and drainage plan . It is not a grading plan; they merely connected the existing contours through the project . There are no drainage structures shown, it shows no proposed elevations on the building, she cannot tell if there is curbing on the parking lot, if there were -they would be capturing stormwater- she did confirm this is not in the TMDL Watershed, the cutoff is Town of Ithaca-but they still have to provide water quantity/quality treatments for stormwater. They haven ' t shown any potential basins, swales for water quality or quantity. Ms . Chiuten noted the southernmost driveway goes through an existing box culvert on Route 96 with no indication as to how this would be dealt with; part of the problem is this is not really a grading plan. Mr. Porter agreed with Ms . Chiuten and noted that this requires study because it could create problems on the other side of the road . Ms . Chiuten noted that the plan shows all the stormwater going into the swale on Route 96-she is not sure if this culvert is sized for this amount. Mr. Porter noted it is probably large enough, but the ability for it to be dealt with on the other side is questionable . Ms . Chiuten agreed the applicant would have to build a headwall out and culvertize under the driveway; not just drop it on top . Other, than these types of things she does not feel comfortable commenting on the rest. Mr. Means asked Ms . Chiuten what she noted on the lighting plans . Ms. Chiuten noted that the lighting plan looked better. Mr. Wertis commented that there are 0 ' s on the outside lowering the previous plans . Mr. Porter stated the other issue he had with the traffic study is the diagram noted left hand turns into both driveways . The Site Plan does not indicate this traffic pattern. Mr. Tyler stated that he has a comment for the merits section of Site Plan he questions if the second curb cut is necessary, appropriate or safe. Planning Board Meeting 3 11 /01 /2005 Mr. Tyler noted at the time of application he had requested that something in writing from the property owner authorizing the applicant to pursue the Site Plan process be provided . He notes there is a copy of a portion of the contract of sale but nothing authorizing this process . He is questioning why is it so hard to obtain something from the seller that authorizes the purchaser to make such applications for municipal approvals, Department of Health and Site Plan Review as necessary. It may seem technical but he would still like a letter stating this . Mr. Moore noted that they had felt Paragraph 3 of the contract would be satisfactory. Ms . Chiuten noted that she has seen a simple two sentence authorization letter that the property owner (such and such name) authorizes purchaser ( Washington Street Partners) and their representatives to pursue Site Plan approval and whatever other approvals they need. Mr. Means asked Mr. Rachun if he had received any information from the engineer. Mr. Rachun informed the Board the engineer stated it would be $ 1000 . 00 per review — drainage, traffic and Site Plan would be 3 separate reviews . Mr. Chiuten asked if this could be charged back to the Site Plan . Mr. Rachun noted that a reasonable charge could be charged to the applicant. Instead of giving the engineer carte-blanche he would like instruction from the Board. Mr. Tyler noted that they have the application in front of them . He does not know beans about traffic -they have the applicants study, he would like that looked at. He does not have any competence with stormwater —he would like this addressed. The last item was the Site Plan in general-safety issues , parking, backing up and pedestrian access . Mr. Porter stated that at this point in time he does not feel the need to have the Site Plan part done. Mr. Tyler noted that this project according to the size of the building in his estimation is probably a million dollar plus project . A $3 , 000 . 00 consultant fee would not be a big number-his sense is up to $ 5000. 00 would not be out of line . Mr. Means stated it seemed appropriate to obtain a motion. Mr. Tyler asked why the reluctance to have the Site Plan reviewed at this time. Ms . Chiuten noted that the Site Plan will be changing this it would have to be reviewed again after the revisions . Mr. Tyler MOVED the consultant be hired to do the review with respect to the traffic and stormwater aspect of this project . Ms . Chiuten stated she does not feel what is in front of them is complete. They should wait for the full drainage study and the traffic study; rather than having a consultant review them twice . Mr. Tyler offered to AMEND the MOTION to have the consultant review when the information is complete. Mr. Rachun asked if the Board could enumerate the items needed from the applicant. Mr. Moore offered that part of their submittal to the DOT- one of the things they are looking at is the drainage . The drainage plan is being added to and more information to make it more in depth . Mr. Tyler asked if what they have in front of them is not complete . Planning Board Meeting 4 11 /01 /2005 Mr. Moore stated that they had thought it was — however DOT is requesting more information from them. Ms . Chiuten asked who hires the consultant. Mr. Rachun stated the Planning Board authorizes the consultant then the Town Board approves that Ms. Chiuten offered that if there is a contract to be dealt with this could be done now so when the studies are completed they could progress forward. Mr. Tyler offered a MOTION to hire the consultant to review the traffic study and the stormwater/drainage plan when the Planning Board deems them complete. Mr. Porter seconded, All in favor-unanimously approved- MOTION APPROVED. Mr. Wertis noted in the bound folder submitted 2nd tab from the back is the SPDES application . The entire document seems to focus on the construction process . There is a section on page 7 of 9 that says if the project disturbs less then 5 acres and is planned for single family residential homes including subdivision or construction on agricultural property and does not have a discharge to a 303d or is not located within a TMDL watershed you do not have to answer questions 24 through 30 . This is not a single family home construction and therefore as a commercial development DEC does expect it to be filled in . And ' it has some of the information Ms . Chiuten was talking about. His thought regarding the application there are missing items thus the application is not complete . Mr. Porter noted that questions 24 through 30 need to be answered . Mr. Wertis replied the information he received was it may have gotten to Albany and then it may come back according to the Syracuse DEC office. Mr. Rachun noted they would have to get a special permit for the gas islands . He inquired where this would fit in the approval process . Mr. Tyler asked who would issue this permit. Mr. Rachun stated the Board of Zoning Appeals . Mr. Tyler stated he had a particular observation, there is a gas island with 3 separate pump stations. The ones that have two pumps are difficult to get vehicles in and out of — three pumps in line would not work very well . The alternative is to put them on the diagonal so cars can pass between vs . in a series . The special permit approval could be done after the Site Plan has been deemed complete-the Board could provide comments then refer it to the BZA. Then the Board could be continuing their process simultaneously. Ms . Chiuten asked if they would have to approach the BZA regarding the amount of parking spaces . Mr. Rachun replied if they leave the parking as it is-the Board does not have authority to grant variances for parking. Mr. Means noted the turnaround area for the handicapped area to the pump appears very tight. Mr. Moore noted that the parking spaces are 11 feet per driving lane thus it is 22 feet, from the back of the space to the pumps . The spaces are 9 x 20 feet . Ms . Chiuten commented that the handicapped spaces do not meet current NYS building code-the minimum width is eight feet. Mr. Moore noted that the spaces are 9 x 20 with additional aisle of 4 feet. Ms . Chiuten replied the NYS aisle requirement is 8 feet . . . . . , Planning Board Meeting 5 11 /01 /2005 Ms. Chiuten asked if they had requested flow rates, sprinkler, domestic water needs, etc . The plan in front demonstrates a well — do they need to review . Mr. Porter asked if this was a Site Plan review issue . Ms. Chiuten noted it was a SEQR issue . Mr. Jim Seafuse offered that with respect to his property (The Shursave) the County required plans to do septic and well tests . They did the flow testing, and had to do it 8 hours at a time . John Anderson took a generator and kept track by the hours for 3 or 4 days to turn into the Health Department . This is done prior to getting the permits from the Health Department . Mr. Porter commented that it is not an issue for the Board during Site Plan. Mr. Rachun stated Steve Mabee is the agent targeting this project . This is one of the criteria he has to look at as well as adequate location of the septic . Mr. Means asked how long the information would take to be obtained. Mr. Porter requested another piece of information-the diagram and style of the type of lights being used . Mr. Moore reviewed the list of requested items 1 . Traffic Study- Weekday AM and Saturday Peak Hours, as a separate study from the DOT study, but in addition. 2. Stormwater/Drainage-more detail , elevations, water basins, quality, quantity basically the questions 24 through 30 as indicated . 3 . Buyer Authorization Letter-letter from property authorizing purchaser to pursue all Site Plan, municipal, and approvals and permits with his signature . 4. Diagram of Lights and Style. Mr. Seafuse noted as far as the traffic study Saturday is their busiest, Friday and Sunday are almost tied. Sunday, has evolved into an unbelievably busy day. Ms . Chiuten stated that according to ITA standards Saturday morning to noon is considered the peak hour representative of the retail . It would give them a peak to consider. Mr. Tyler MOVED an AMENDED MOTION; the Planning Board requests the Code Enforcement Officer request Town Board approval to hire the Town 's engineering consultant to review the completed traffic study, stormwater/drainage plans, and Site Plan once the Planning Board deems the packet complete. Seconded by Mr. Means, All in favor-voted unanimously- MOTION APPROVED. Mr. Means noted the next meeting would be in two weeks . Mr. Wertis asked Mr. Rachun thought the Board should meet regularly every two weeks . Mr. Rachun replied the new Zoning Ordinance will result in increased reviews by the Board of Zoning Appeals as well as the Planning Board . He feels there will be substantially more business to be done that will necessitate bi-weekly meetings . Mr. Tyler noted that would be the November 15th and November 29`h of this month. Mr. Wertis asked if it could be designated as the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month, vs . ad hoc each week for planning purposes . Planning Board Meeting 6 11 /01 /2005 Mr. Tyler noted that it would make progress on the projects move along prior to the holidays . Members chose to meet the November 15 ` and November 29th at 7 : 30 pm . Mr. Moore indicated he should have some of the requested information for the meetings . Mr. Tyler motioned to adjourn, Mr. Means seconded, All in favor-MEETING ADJOURNE ) AT 8 : 24pm. Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle-Peck Secretary 11 /29/05 1 ti pit TOWN OF ULYSSES SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING BUDGET WORKSHOP NOVEMBER 1 , 2005 PRESENT : Supervisor Doug Austic, Town Councilpeople Lee Scott, Robert Weatherby; Roxanne Marino and Don Ellis ; Town Clerk Marsha Georgia. * *Note : Full discussion available on the tape dated 11 /01 /2005 . Mr. Austic opened the meeting at 7 : 05 pm.. and distributed some information the Board had requested. B FUND Mr. Austic stated that Mr. Rachun has advised him that with the new Zoning Law in place he is issuing more building permits that need special handling such as zoning hearings . Mr. Rachun feels that more time will be needed for the Zoning and Planning clerks . Mr. Austic is suggesting increasing B8020 . 1 to $ 10,200 . The Board discussed this . The tentative budget was changed . B8020 . 1 changed to $ 10,200 . • STUDY FOR WATER Mr. Austic provided information to the Board on Water District #5 . Mr. Austic said in most cases the Town would have to spend the money and than get reimbursed. For Water District #3 the Town had $ 500,000 from Assemblyman Luster to pay for the studies . Mr. Ellis feels the Town should not risk a lot of money unless they do it in a careful way such as adding to the budget an amount that goes into a reserve fund that we hold until the Town sees where the rest is coming from. Mr. Austic said that the Town does have a reserve fund for development that we could put the money into . Ms. Marino asked how much was in there now. Mr. Austic said around $20, 000 and there is another $ 15 ,000 to transfer. Ms . Marino said that she felt $60, 000 is too much. Mr. Ellis thought may be $30, 000 . Ms . Marino asked which account # is that $20,000 in. Mr. Austic said B 1440 . 4 . Mr. Austic said that if the Town wanted to raise the money the Town would have to get it from sales tax . Mr. Ellis is suggesting putting $ 30, 000 into the reserve fund and not into the engineer consultant fund. The Board increased B9950 . 9 by. $ 30, 000 and left B1440 . 4 at $6000. The sales tax would be increased by $30,000. Ms . Marino would like to see if the Town gets any funding for this project before moving forward, at least have a much larger discussion of the costs versus the benefit before moving forward. The Board discussed this further. Special Town Board 2 11 /01 /05 Mr. Austic did state that Barbara Lifton's office did contact the NYS Parks Office to find out What is going on. So Mr. Austic feels that her office will try to find some money. Ms . Marino asked who requested this . Mr. Austic said that he had asked the state for assistance but it would be the whole Board to make application. A FUND Mr. Austic said that there is no appropriation fund for the request from the Cooperative Ext. in the B Fund. Mr. Austic said that if the Town wanted to put something into the budget it would have to go into A Fund. Ms . Marino asked about putting money into the contingency fund in A and than finding more information about their plan and other options . Making a very small commitment to looking into pursuing this kind of help that the Cooperative Ext. suggested. Ms . Marino suggested increasing A1990.4 by $2500 which would be a total of $ 12 , 500 . The general ;consensus of the Town Board was that the Cooperative Extensions presentations was not good and there are several other programs in the County that may do the same thing. Mr. Ellis feels that the Town Board could take another look at it and leave the door and if it is a good program there are probably people who could benefit. MS . Marino feels the program has merit ; she has discussed this with Mr. Coogan who is on the Cooperative Ext. Board . Sales Tax will be increased to accommodate these changes . A Fund I Change A3005 to $65 ,000 . Mr. Austic reviewed the fund balances. The Board reviewed the changes that were made tonight and discussed the fund balance to use for the public copy. Personnel Review Mr. Ellis said that previously it has been discussed to do an overall personnel review and he suggested that at the end of January set a date to do that . Mr. Ellis suggested picking January 24th which is two weeks after the regular meeting and has a special board meeting. Hearing no further business Mr. Scott moved, seconded by Weatherby. Unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned . Respectfully submitted, i Marsha L. Georgia Ulysses Town Clerk MLG : mlg