Loading...
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