HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-19 - PB TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
01 /19/06
Approved with corrections 01/31/06
Present: Chairperson Margot Chiuten, Planning Board Members : David Means, Rod Porter,
Darien Simon, and John Wertis. Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun.
Deputy Supervisor Dick Coogan. Town Board Member Roxanne Marino
Applicants : Washington Street Partners-Joe Hucko, Matthew Moore, and Bruce Poushter
Public in attendance : Jerry Reynolds, Trumansburg, NY; Bret Seafuse, Trumansburg, NY;
Jim Seafuse, Trumansburg, NY; Darren Palmer, Seneca Falls, NY; John G. Wertis,
Trumansburg, NY; Andrew P . Moore, Trumansburg, NY.
A quorum is present at the meeting; the meeting was called to order at 7 : 05 pm by Ms Chiuten.
Minutes:
The minutes of the January 3rd meeting were presented . Due to other items on the agenda
the decision to table the minutes was made .
Planning Board Meeting-
Ms Chiuten stated that because they deemed the application complete at the last meeting;
part of the environmental review process is to declare lead agency. Since, they will be
taking the lead in reviewing for environmental this has to be done within 30 days .
An issue in Part 2 of the environmental review she discovered is that the project is in an
archaeologically sensitive area. She distributed maps from the SHPO website indicating the area
the project is located in. She has spoken to SHPO (State Historic and Preservation Office)
about this . Because the project is not federally or state funded, they cannot require a Phase I
(literature background, history) or Phase lb (digging of test pits for finds) they said likely they
would be interested in a Phase I but cannot require it. It would be up to the Planning Board to
make this decision regarding the application.
Mr. Wertis asked what an archaeological study would involve for the applicant.
Ms Chiuten replied that for the applicant it would involve hiring a company that could do
this work. Binghamton University has a research facility that can do this. They would
research the background literature, the history of the site, historically important buildings ;
archaeologically important buildings would not be the case with this site . Based on what
they find they may recommend a test site be done. If something is found they will review
it for importance. Unfortunately,
just by looking at the site they cannot tell ; the research would establish this .
Mr. Wertis asked if there was a way to tell what specifically had been found within the
circle as indicated on the map provided .
Ms. Chiuten noted that presumably something had been located within the area. She was
not sure what it was but there is a buffer area surrounding each find when it is established .
Mr. Wertis asked what the time expectations might be.
Ms . Chiuten replied it would be up to the consultant.
Mr. Porter asked Mr. Rachun if when the Shursave was constructed was this issue
brought up .
Mr. Rachun stated it had not.
Ms . Simon noted that some remodeling and revitalizing efforts have had to be stopped
due to exactly the same situation they are discussing . It caused major upsets not only to
the project but to the area around it because a study had not been done .
#
•
Planning Board Meeting 2
01 / 1 //2006
Ms . Chiuten noted that the Cayuga Green project downtown fell into this area. They did
the study and were able to place the pilings for the foundation around the "finds" for
future generations to locate . The items either have to be dug, categorized or left in the
ground for the future.
Mr. Rachun noted that he has an 1860 ' s Atlas that has no development on the property as
of that date. Settler development may have occurred after or earlier with the Native
Americans but it is pretty site specific .
Mr. Chiuten stated that after discussing this with Mr. Rachun and Mr. Coogan she offered
that they could send a letter to SHPO to see what they recommend .
Mr. Wertis stated he would like more detail on what was specifically found prior to
making a decision.
Mr. Rachun stated there are a number of these circles in Ulysses ; it could be a small item
or a burial ground. .
Ms Simon and Mr. Wertis agreed it would be helpful to have this information. Perhaps a
letter requesting this information could be sent and asking what they recommend.
Ms Chiuten agreed that would be a reasonable plan. SHPO indicated they have 30 days to
respond but the woman she spoke with indicated she was running 30-45 days to respond.
Basically, they . have DOT involved, DEC is involved but SHPO currently is not-the
question is do they want to get them involved .
Mr. Wertis noted the letter would not cost them anything; he is not sure what it does to
the process. But he would like to know what is there vs . finding out later that there is
something on the site .
1
Mr. Porter noted that there seems to have been digging on the site prior to this project.
Mr. Wertis asked Mr. Poushter if there had been a title search done.
Mr. Poushter indicated that they have the abstract and it would be available for research
to assist this study.
Ms . Chiuten noted that they have to make a determination on SEQR within 20 days of
declaring lead agency or receiving all applicable information necessary.
Mr. Porter asked if they could do their own research as to why this area is considered
sensitive .
The members agreed independent research should be investigated by the Planning Board
via telephone contact and internet searches .
Mr. Wertis made the MOTION, Mr. Means SECONDED :
Ms . Chiuten pursue via letter and telephone contact NY SHPO to obtain clarification as
to the specific items that were found in this area.
Ms . Simon will conduct an internet search to determine the specific finds for this area as
indicated on the SHPO website .
ALL IN FAVOR-MOTION APPROVED
Ms . Chiuten stated that the members had received the response from Barton and
Loguidice as requested from the Planning Board. All members acknowledged they had
their copy and would review for content.
DUE TO SPACE THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS MOVED TO
THE VILLAGE OF TRUMANSBURG COURT ROOM.
Planning Board Meeting 3
01 / 1 //2006
NOTICES WERE POSTED ON THE TOWN HALL DOORS NOTING THE
CHANGE IN LOCATION.
PUBLIC HEARING-WASHINGTON STREET PARTNERS
Ms Chiuten opened the hearing at 7 : 40 pm, the legal notices had been posted and notices
were sent to the neighbors as required by law. She stated that the applicant would be
giving a presentation about the project. The project has been at the Planning Board for
three months, it has had several reductions including scope and size . It will be going
• through Site Plan Review and Environmental Review however no action will be taken
tonight. The Public Hearing is not a question and answer period however public input
will be taken into consideration when evaluating the project .
Mr. Hucko introduced himself-the company he represents is Washington Street Partners
and they are based out of Syracuse, NY.
The project is approximately 2 acres located contiguous to the fairgrounds across the
street from the Shurfine. It is part of a larger parcel that they hope to subdivide into this
parcel . What they would like to put there is a 12,075 square foot retail building to be used
as a drugstore . He displayed the Site Plan as presented to the Planning Board. He stated
that the project had been through a lengthy process and has evolved into what it is now .
They have provided tremendous amounts of information to the Town Board regarding
grading, and other detailed information as requested .
Due to the two curb cuts on Route 96 they have submitted an application and plans to
DOT who have indicated that conceptually they are good to go with the highway building
permit .
DOT had been concerned with water running onto their right of way thus they have
designed a catch basin to be located on their property. This will retain 100% of the
drainage on their property, it is designed to catch then leach through a sand filtration
system excess drainage . There is a swale that is preexisting that will enhance this system.
The building on the property currently will have to be removed to make the lot in
compliance . There is a 15 feet setback that will have to be met for this project.
Mr. Jim Seafuse noted that the drainage would not be coming onto his property. The
DOT told him he had to have the drainage system in place that he has, they made it part
of his grading system and designed the plan . He questioned the well and the water
system .
Mr. Hucko noted that the well and septic have been consulted with Tompkins County
Health Department. The consumer consumption would be minimal i . e. hand washing,
drinking fountains etc . but if they require the plan to obtain a holding tank they would do
this .
Mr. Rachun stated that the Tompkins County Health Department has jurisdiction and
issues the testing, permits for the septic and water supply.
Mr. Bret Seafuse indicated that he understood the curb cuts had been conceptually
approved-does this mean yes officially.
Mr. Hucko noted no, it means DOT had received detailed Site Plan, DOT sent
correspondence with questions, WSP has addressed portions of it-they were told they
were okay to submit the highway work permit; historically they have received this permit
when this happens . It might be different with this project but typically it happens this
way.
Mr. Bret Seafuse stated that he does not know how much the board has to say in this but
traffic is a major safety issue. Their main entrance is 30 feet offset from the Shursave,
I
Planning Board Meeting 4
01 / 1 //2006
then there is another curb cut another 130 feet or so from that. That is 3 curb cuts within
170 feet.
Ms. Chiuten noted that DOT would look at that and in addition a traffic study was done
and simultaneously an independent consultant reviewed this . One comment was that
vehicles ' exiting this site due to the curve was a concern ; another question was if the cut
could be made across from the Shursave.
Mr. Bret Seafuse stated they are concerned, they have personally not had any results out
of DOT for the past 15 years . He would hope that DOT has information as to the traffic
and safety issues regarding this area.
Mr. Jim Seafuse commented that he does not have a lot of confidence in DOT . When
they started their project they found the State of New York really does not have a lot of
concern related to your property. It took them ten years to lower the speed limit to 45
mph. He cannot tell how many wrecks there have been but it must have been in excess of
50 ; some of these were pretty major. If you are going to rely on the State of NY to do
something you might as well not talk about it He still pays for the street lights down
there-he installed and still pays to have them lit down there. It has not happened in 15
years .
Mr. Bret Seafuse noted that they are zoned commercial, the other side is commercial
there is a lot of potential to be developed .
Mr. Jim Seafuse agreed that there is a lot of potential but before it can be developed, the
Town needs to address this and not depend on the State to do it. The State would not even
lower the speed limit even after 25 wrecks .
Mr. Porter stated the unfortunate part is that the Town cannot do this either. They could
ask for a caution light but could not require or get one installed either.
Ms . Chiuten noted that part of Site Plan Review is to mitigate to not make a problem
worse.
Mr. Wertis asked Mr. Hucko why the original plan called for the southern entrance to be
the dual entrance. The current plan specifies the northern entrance as being the dual
entrance why was this changed.
Mr. Hucko noted that that entrance lined up with the drive thru pharmacy and vehicles
would be exiting the drive thru in a straight line . The Village customers would enter from
the right hand lane thus made this the first curb cut.
Mr. Wertis noted that if they moved the dual entrance to the south end the traffic exiting
the drive thru pharmacy could still exit.
Mr. Jim Seafuse stated that he had asked for a second entrance down towards Maguire ' s
car dealership and the state would not allow it. He felt it would make a better entrance.
He just wanted to mention it again that if they believe the state has a grandiose idea to
help the community they will not.
Mr. Hucko noted that one of the requirements is to have a visual picture of the area; this
was provided and the state is aware of the road and the traffic .
Mr. Jim Seafuse commented the state if fully aware of what is going on, he is unsure if
they are doing anything about it. They are trying to keep everyone happy, the applicant is
a developer and paying taxes, this puts more money into the tax base . They are not
considering the traffic that is being generated from his place of business or their place of
business . They are looking at it as a piece of property on Route 96 that wants access ; they
review and approve without really considering the increase in traffic that will happen.
Mr. A. Moore stated it is hard to conceptualize the traffic flow in and out of this area and
what he can visualize does not do much for him.
Planning Board Meeting 5
01 / 1 //2006
Mr. Hucko stated that one of the requirements at the Town Board level and DOT level
were to have traffic studies done . These studies were done by engineers, while there may
appear to be a lot of guesstimates but there is a science (formulas) used to achieve the
results . Drugstores are not big generators of traffic volumes per se; they require parking
that would never be used . He does not live here and has never operated a business so he
cannot share the perspective 100% ; but he does not think it will be as much of a
contributor as other alternative uses might.
1
Mr. Means stated that the Planning Board had a lot of concern about this, and the
drugstore plan worked better then a gasoline dispensing station and a fast food restaurant
did.
Mr. Andrew Moore stated as a small town person he is missing the logic behind having a
drugstore on both sides of the street. Where is the income come from for these stores.
Mr. Hucko stated that his focus is somewhat narrower than this, he cannot speculate on
the business model . The developer plans and builds the building in anticipation of a rent
check.
Mr. Andrew Moore stated he appreciates this but is wondering from a town developmental
point of view it is a question what is the logic .
Mr. Means stated that it is a frustration for members of the Planning Board where does the
planning component fit. Why couldn ' t Kinney go there, Kinney spoke to Big M but they
could not come to terms with the size of the store. The Seafuse ' s were approached by
Kinney and they could not come to terms regarding the square footage either.
Ms Chiuten stated that this is an allowable use thus they cannot prevent them for doing this .
Mr. John G. Wertis questioned if they were interested in preventing projects such as this
and the dollar store going into next to Big M-he does not understand the logic of two dollar
stores within a mile of each other. What is the public venue, do they have a stand in this .
Ms Chiuten stated that they can show up at meetings , part of Site Plan is not just parking
spaces, but they look at traffic, stormwater, noise, historic and archaeological are also
reviewed. The public input is used when looking at all of these areas.
Mr. Wertis noted that the Planning Board can only enforce what is on the books . What is
on the books is really the purview of the Town Board so attendance and public comment at
Town Board meetings can impact the law.
Ms Chiuten stated that being knowledgeable about the environment helps i . e. if there is a
rare bird that nests there etc .
Mr. Wertis noted that in the previous case you have the Village and the Town, at present
time there is no machinery for the two boards to act in some form of togetherness in
planning. It is something the Town Board may look at for the future .
Mr. John G. Wertis stated that there are mechanisms for off track betting establishments,
strip clubs, pet shops for zoning created for specific ideas . There are a number of
communities that control their commercial growth . Whether it is through franchises but
they seem to have control .
Mr. Andrew Moore noted that there are boroughs in Brooklyn that have small shops; it
does not allow certain size or types of businesses.
Mr. Means noted that the current dollar store is located in Seneca County thus out of the
Village and Town ' s jurisdiction.
Mr. Bret Seafuse asked Mr. Rachun what zoning issues still remain on the project.
Planning Board Meeting 6
01 / 1 //2006
Mr. Rachun answered there are three actions to be taken;
1 . Planning Board has to approve the project under SEQR as an unlisted action .
2 . Planning Board has to approve the Site Plan has to be approved;
3 . Planning Board has to review the Subdivision.
In order for subdivision both lots have to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Once
the Health Department, DOT etc have signed off Mr. Rachun will review the plans for
building code issues .
The parking spaces in the plans are not sufficient per the zoning ordinance ; there are
minimum amounts — the Site Plan has less then needed. The applicant will have to appear
in front of the BZA to request an appeal .
Mr. Hucko stated it is the first he had heard that he would need to go to the BZA. He asked
if an alternative would be to use the green spaces to expand.
Mr. Rachun stated he could not answer for the BZA, but they would probably be
sympathetic .
Ms Marino asked if they could work together vs . waiting for the Site Plan. Could they go
now .
Mr. Rachun stated if they go to all these steps and does not get the variance, or does he go
to BZA without Site Plan, it is difficult to put one before the other. He understood it was
Planning Board then BZA, he has asked Mr. Wilson for clarification.
Ms . Chiuten stated that one of the actions the Board could take in the meantime is make a
recommendation to grant BZA approval .
Mr. Rachun stated that typically a variance is issued based on a denial , but it could be
issued as a condition process also . The Site Plan is approved as such as long as a variance
is issued by the BZA reduces the parking requirement .
Ms Marino stated that her recollection relating to this part of the zoning ordinance is that it
was the intended desire to have the BZA be able to issue a variance as a condition of Site
Plan Review .
Ms Marino requested information from the applicant related to the signs and lighting on
the project site .
Mr. Hucko displayed color pictures with the signs and reviewed the dimensions for the
signs as well as where they would be placed on the site. The sign near the road would be
set back so it does not obstruct traffic pulling out of the driveway. The types of lighting
for the site were discussed, there would be boxed lighting and pole lighting. The lighting
plan indicated 0 spillover to prevent any light pollution.
Ms Chiuten asked what type of buffer would be provided next to the fairgrounds .
Mr. Hucko indicated they would prefer to not remove trees, but due to the septic and
catch basin some will be removed. There is still a large green area that will remain.
Mr. Jim Seafuse commented that there are still a substantial number of trees left on the
fairgrounds side of the fence, the majority are actually on the fairgrounds so this would
still be intact.
Mr. Andrew Moore stated that with the sand filtration system they would not want trees
due to the roots growing into the system . They would probably be better using sweet
clover or something similar. He commented, as a school member, it is a good thing
because the tax revenue generated will help the school district and appreciates business
growth that will help support the school tax base .
Planning Board Meeting 7
01 / 1 //2006
Ms Chiuten asked for additional comments from the public , none were offered. She
stated she felt based on the information a decision to make a determination cannot be
done .
Mr. Wertis asked if the public hearing would remain open due to the fact they have
information that has not been reviewed .
Mr. Porter explained that they were recently made aware that this site is an overlay area
that is considered potentially archaeologically sensitive . However, nothing of this type
was addressed during the Shursave construction nor during the Flo-Tech project .
Mr. Coogan explained that since they were no longer hearing from the public they could
close the public hearing. Additionally, they could open a special public Planning Board
Hearing to obtain input from the public regarding additional information once received.
Mr. Wertis made a MOTION to leave the public hearing open until the next meeting
to obtain a response from SHPO, Ms Simon SECONDED,
Ms . Chiuten, Ms Simon and Mr. Wertis VOTED AYE,
Mr. Means and Mr. Porter VOTED NAY
MOTION DEFEATED
Mr. Porter stated he did not understand the purpose of keeping the public hearing open.
They have had other building within this area without any of this being done. The option
to have this study is still available regardless of whether the public hearing is open.
Mr. Rachun clarified the time expectations, the decisions the planning board needs to
make, and the timeline for the process . He agreed, in an advisory capability, with
Mr. Porter the public has had their input. They are not bound by anything they can deny
based on non receipt of information.
Ms Chiuten commented she is concerned that the public have a chance to give input.
Mr. Rachun stated that this is part of SEQR, the findings are available, if they do a "pos
dec" on the SEQR then it would require a public hearing, or if SHPO finds something it
would necessitate this .
Mr. Porter made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing, Mr. Means SECONDED :
Ms . Chiuten, Ms Simon and Mr. Wertis VOTED NAY,
Mr. Means and Mr. Porter VOTED AYE
MOTION DEFEATED
Ms Chiuten asked Mr. Rachun how they would set up a hearing on an unlisted action.
Mr. Rachun explained the procedure to establish a hearing for the above. Make the
determination as the lead agency, by default, they have the involved agencies . They could
set up the public hearing and hopefully have the interested agency (SHPO) information
back — listen to the public and make the decision.
Mr. Porter made a MOTION to close this public hearing and if the Planning Board
feels it is necessary schedule a public hearing at a later date. Mr. Wertis SECONDED ;
ALL IN FAVOR-MOTION APPROVED
WASHINGTON STREET PARTNERS PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8 : 27 pm.
Planning Board Meeting-
Ms Chiuten stated they need to declare lead agency for an unlisted action . She clarified
the difference between an uncoordinated vs . a coordinated review.
Planning Board Meeting 8
01 / 1 //2006 .
Mr. Coogan specified the responsibilities of the coordinated reviews and what would
happen if items were close to the SEQR thresholds .
Mr. Porter asked what the significance to the Planning Board is in declaring an
uncoordinated review.. .
Mr. Coogan stated that they would not have to send all the letters to the agencies . It
would take 50 days-20 to get letters out, 30 to get letters back. At this point as lead
agency a lot of the coordination has been done in an uncoordinated way. This allows the
Board to seek the additional information they are requesting.
Ms Chiuten noted that it would be better since they are requesting SHPO two weeks into
the process; they do not have to wait for the response .
Mr. Coogan noted that they can close and through a public notice reserve the right to hold
a special meeting after. If they had everything they needed they could make the decision-
they have 62 days, on the 63`a day their decision has been made.
Mr. Wertis made the MOTION to declare lead agency for an uncoordinated review
Mr. Porter SECONDED
ALL IN FAVOR-MOTION APPROVED
Ms Chiuten scheduled the next meeting for Tuesday, January 31st at 7 : 30pm.
Ms Chiuten stated that Mr. Hucko had indicated he had additional information to provide
in response to the consultants comments .
Mr. Hucko provided their civil and drainage engineers response as well as the traffic
engineers to the consultants report . All members and Mr. Rachun were provided with a
copy of this information on 01 / 19/06 at 8 :41pm . They collectively felt that some of the
findings in the report for the SWPP led to changes that resulted in a new report. The
information he is providing tonight should supersede the prior information provided.
Some of it is positive, it was an error in one instance- it was stated 70% impervious, and
it addresses some areas that the consultant reported on.
Mr. Porter stated that in essence this report was cleaned up .
Mr. Hucko stated yes definitely.
Ms . Chiuten informed the applicant all of the information would be reviewed and
discussed at the next meeting to be held 01 /31 /06 . The applicant is always welcome to
attend however no decision would be made that evening.
Mr. Hucko replied he understands this .
Mr. Means stated he appreciated all of Mr. Hucko ' s assistance in providing the
information for the board throughout a drawn out process .
Mr. Porter asked Mr. Hucko if there was anything he would like to add regarding the
material provided.
Mr. Hucko replied it is pretty self explanatory, the engineer took excerpts from the
consultant' s letter and responded, where they were necessary corrections were made and
clarified. The same thing with DOT-there was some misunderstanding on the part of
Barton and Loguidice with clarification the problem should be rectified . The information
provided tonight has not been sent to Barton and Loguidice but it will be delivered to
them by the applicant.
Mr. Wertis asked the applicant regarding the stormwater drainage structure since they
own the property would there be a yearly maintenance requirement. He strongly feels this
should be stated to maintain the area.
Planning Board Meeting 9
01 / 1 //2006
Mr. Rachun stated that this is not under the Town ' s purview.
Mr. Wertis questioned the curb cuts . Why the one closest to the village is the dual
entrance. The Site Plan was displayed and discussion regarding the placement of the dual
entrance was held. His main concern is having the double entrance on the northern end, it
seems safer to have it on the southern entrance of the property.
Mr. Hucko stated there are a lot of reiterations of this plan. In addition, the tenant had his
input into how it was designed. The parking area would be affected with the double
entrance at the southern end.
Mr. Bret Seafuse noted that the plan appears great, he would like someone to hangout
in that area between 4 and 6 every night .
Mr. Wertis stated he went to pick up the signs tonight on the site. He drove into the
driveway and he had to sit there 40- 50 seconds before he felt comfortable pulling onto
the road.
Mr. Bret Seafuse stated all the people coming home from Ithaca that want to pull into the
Shursave will turn in-but pulling out could get to be pretty tricky. They have asked for
additional driveways, lights but nothing has been done.
Ms . Chiuten stated that again it goes back to the Planning Board they will review and
pressure DOT to review the traffic and safety concerns . There is evidently a lot of
concern regarding the safety of this project from the public and will convey this
information to DOT .
Mr. Porter asked the applicant if essentially DOT had approved the two driveways .
Mr. Hucko said he did not want to misspeak, but DOT had sent a response, the applicant
provided additional information, and as of today they were informed to submit a highway
building permit. It has been their historic experience that once this happened it is
approved .
Ms . Chiuten asked the applicant if with their submission to DOT did they submit the
proposed Site Plan with a distance survey showing the Shursave driveway.
Mr. Hucko replied they had, in addition one of the documents they submitted today
showed the aerial view to scale with the driveways and distances within a 1 , 000 feet.
The applicant displayed the map as provided and indicated the driveways and information
provided per DOT ' s request.
Ms Marino addressed the board members and informed them the Town Board would be
reviewing the number of members as well as the length of their terms . This discussion is
scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 24th for any Planning Board members that are
interested in attending.
Members expressed specific areas specifically that the 7 year term seems daunting to
people considering joining, a five member board can get locked during voting as was
evidenced at tonight ' s meeting. The members agreed they would consider and if cannot
attend would get input to Ms Marino prior to the meeting.
Mr. Porter made the MOTION to adjourn, Ms . Simon SECONDED .
Mr. Rachun reiterated the next meeting would be held Tuesday, January 31St at 7 : 30 pm.
Meeting adjourned at 9 : 17 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Board Meeting 10
01 / 1 //2006
Robin Carlisle Peck
Secretary
02/01 /06