HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-31 - PB TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
01 /31 /06
Approved with corrections 02/16/06
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.
Applicants : Washington Street Partners-Joe Hucko and Matthew Moore.
A quorum is present at the meeting; the meeting was called to order at 7 : 34 pm by Ms Chiuten.
Minutes :
The minutes of the January 3rd and January 19th meetings were presented . The members
noted no changes to be made to the January 3rd Minutes, Ms Chiuten had made
corrections to the January 19th Minutes Mr. Means made the MOTION to approve,
Mr. Wertis SECONDED . All in favor. MINUTES APPROVED
WASHINGTON STREET PARTNERS :
Mr. Wertis stated that while reviewing the Zoning Ordinance the Washington St. Partners
project is a non-conforming use; this size drugstore would not be allowed in a B1 district.
Ms . Chiuten stated that in light of this she would move this item to the top of the agenda.
Mr. , Rachun stated that to bring everyone up to speed, Mr. Wertis noted that a B1 district
allows a retail store maximum 3 , 000 gross square feet . This is based on the fact but not
the reasoning, 3 , 000 square feet is minimal . The avenues he expressed to the applicants
are they could go for an area variance ; the BZA meets on the 15th of February. Based on
the fact that 3 ,000 square feet are such a minimal number and a drugstore is typically
10, 000- 12 , 000 square feet. This is a more realistic number. It may help if the Planning
Board expressed this information to the BZA; if the applicant had something of this sort
in hand they would have no problem issuing an area variance . If it was later contested he
could not see the Supreme Court looking at this with any problem, they would probably
feel 3 ,000 square feet is almost punitive for a store. The dollar store going in now is
10, 000 square feet. He does not have any idea how it got into the Zoning Ordinance-at
first glance he thought it stated 30, 000 square feet.
Ms Chiuten stated she is wondering two things, if they head down the route for a variance
does that set up a bad precedent by approving such a large increase, and do they follow-
up with a change in the Zoning Ordinance to substantiate the variance.
Mr. Rachun noted that if they did go in that direction, the Planning Board as an advisory
board could suggest to the Town Board that 3 ,000 square feet is not necessarily a logical
number for a retail store. The stores around here i . e . Shursave and Palmer Pharmacy are
all over 10,000 square-these are not big they are nominal and none of them would be
allowed in our town. He cannot think of a 3 ,000 square foot store in the town-maybe
Rent-a-Flick in the village but it is a very small number.
Ms Wertis stated he does not believe it was the Town Board ' s intent but rather oversight
in listing the amount at 3 , 000.
Mr. Coogan stated he would not be surprised if it came out of the hamlet district. The
items were kept small ; it would be like a storefront. Somehow it ended up in the Business
district.
Mr. Means asked what Mr. Coogan meant by the hamlet .
Mr. Coogan explained the hamlet area was designed as hamlet business i . e. Jacksonville
and at the crossroads there would be storefront stores . It was decided it was too small to
Planning Board Meeting 2
01 /31 /2006
deal with but it was pulled into the business district. The item had been in the draft and
final since July 2004 . Mr. Coogan was referring to Mr. Frantz ' s drafts of the zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Wertis asked how to proceed from here .
Mr. Porter noted that the only way to proceed is to have the applicant seek the area
variance ; they cannot make a quick change to the zoning ordinance . They can approve on
a contingency basis .
Mr. Hucko stated it is just another hurdle. They understood they already had to go to the
BZA for the parking variance . So , they had planned on attending the next meeting; so
presuming the approval is conditional they would be willing to seek variances for both.
Ms Chiuten asked if it would be worth talking to Mr. Wilson, how long term outside of
this project would this variance establish a precedent.
Mr. Porter stated that he served on the Village Board and it always seemed to be an issue
and the reality of the situation is they are not . Each case is an individual basis , case by
case with circumstances surrounding each item .
Ms . Simon noted that if they recommend the variance and follow up with a change in the
zoning ordinance, they presumably explain and express what is wrong with the original
code in the first place .
Mr. Rachun stated he cannot imagine it is not a mistake. There was never any
conversation on limiting the size of stores . The rest of the section does not limit any
lumber stores, restaurants, marinas etc .
Mr. Wertis noted it does not make any difference where it came from, it is an error and it
maybe a symptom of the document. His concern is they really need to communicate to
the Town Board they need to look closely at this document, develop a problem list and
act on this list .
Ms Chiuten stated that if the applicant goes for a variance and the Planning Board
recommends to the Town Board to adjust the square footage-the Town Board replies that
this was the intent and we are keeping it this way, what happens .
Mr. Rachun stated if this was the plan, the next applicant that comes in will go down the
road. The applicant does not need the Planning Board recommendation to go the BZA;
anyone can go for a variance . What they would benefit from is a letter from the Town
Board stating that 3 ,000 sq ft is a harsh number for a retail business . They could get the
advice from the town attorney, there may be Town Board members who did get this put
in-he cannot believe that is true, but will get clarification.
Mr. Coogan noted Mr. Wilson will be in at 11 : 00 am and he will consult with him as
soon as possible, he cannot remember the 3 ,000 square feet being discussed within the
business district, he does recall the hamlet district during discussion.
Mr. Means asked if it makes sense for this Board after consulting with Mr. Wilson, to
make a recommendation to the BZA.
Mr. Porter asked what they would be asking Mr. Wilson .
Mr. Rachun stated that they would be asking if the Town Board thinks 3 ,000 square feet
is a good idea. Ms Chiuten is concerned that such a large variance from 3 , 000 to 12 ,000
would be setting a precedent.
Mr. Porter clarified that they would be asking Mr. Wilson if the Town Board confirms
the 3 ,000 square feet-would this variance be setting a precedent .
Planning Board Meeting 3
01 /31 /2006
Ms Chiuten stated if the law does not change then the attempt to have smaller businesses
may have represented a comprehensive plan .
Mr. Wertis stated that Mr. Wilson sat in on almost all the reviews to give legal advice, so
he may have some knowledge of what happened .
Ms Chiuten stated she is not sure how much the intent matters but rather what the future
intent would be .
Mr. Hucko stated it is purely speculative on his part but having no restriction on the other
types of other retail stores he cannot understand logic for a zoning ordinance . There is no
limitation on other items that are higher impact.
Mr. Rachun stated that he is sure the BZA would use that in their statement of fact. They
would look at the other high impact activities where the skies the limit, they only have to
be 70% of the lot-so if you have a 10 acre lot there could be a 7 acre store .
Mr. Hucko stated inversely they have restricted based on lot coverage and parking-so that
is how they could control it .
Mr. Porter noted that the paragraph listing the 3 , 000 square feet and the hours of
operation restricted does ring bells related to the hamlet district .
Mr. Coogan questioned if the drugstore would be clarified as a retail service vs . a retail
store.
Mr. Porter stated that they could translate that interpretation, but then how would they
interpret the next paragraph .
Mr. Wertis asked where they were in the process, how much rush do they have to do .
The BZA meeting is scheduled for February 15th and the applicants planned on attending.
There is a Town Board on February 14th ; it seems like two different things . Somehow,
straightening out problems with the Town Board-what would the plan be.
Ms Chiuten stated that the Site Plan could be approved on contingency for both area
variances . The Board independently should pursue getting these changes to the Town
Board she is not sure if it is a request or formal motion .
Mr. Porter noted that is the past it has been done as a verbal request or a written
resolution to the Town Board .
Discussion resulted in composing the following recommendation to the Town Board .
Mr. Means MOVED, Mr. Porter SECONDED the MOTION :
The Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby recommends to the Town of Ulysses
Town Board a review of the Zoning Ordinance (August 30, 2005) and address errors,
omissions and conflicts as evidenced in Article XIII, Section 13 . 2 , potentially limiting
retail stores to 3 ,000 gross square feet .
Ms Chiuten called the vote :
Ms . Chiuten Aye
Mr. Means Aye
Mr. Porter Aye
Ms . Simon Aye
Mr. Wertis Abstained
MOTION APPROVED
Mr. Rachun stated he wanted to go over a few things, if all are not up to speed with the
SEQR law he would recommend they get up to speed . He would be willing to go over the
Planning Board Meeting 4
01 /31 /2006
process during office hours ; he has hand outs etc . that are helpful . The issue with SEQR
in this process is a classification that is an unlisted action.
There are three types of actions-
TYPE 1 — This type typically indicates there would be a fairly strong impact on the
environment, whether it is negative or positive is determined by filling out a fairly
lengthy environmental assessment form typically followed by a scoping checklist and
environmental impact statement.
TYPE 2 — These never get a review and are looked at quickly, naming a Town office,
dedicating a street, very minimal with no environmental impact.
UNLISTED-These are about 85 % of all the SEQR applications, they are not pigeon
holed . You have to look at them like they are a Type 1 and look at the threshold barriers
you have to exceed in a type 1 . This will make an unlisted action basically follow the
review level of a Type 1 ; i . e . parking for a 1 ,000 cars, stores of 100,000 square feet or
greater, water usage at 200 ,000 gallons a day.
These are all state levels, a lot of municipalities adopt their own, Village of Trumansburg,
Town of Ithaca and Town of Lansing have but Ulysses has not-we use the state levels .
So , when looking at a project like this and looking at a Type 1 this is far removed from a
Type 1 -parking for 60 cars, 12 ,000 square feet-their levels are low so typically it is not an
action that is reviewable . But it does not mean under Site Plan you cannot utilize the
agencies you would like to-DOT, DEC and SHPO ; but it is his advice to review them
under Site Plan vs . SEQR due to the fact that they are so far removed from a Type 1 . In
addition, information has already been sent to the agencies and to be reviewed .
Mr. Wertis asked if SEQR should be done early on to identify these areas .
Ms Chiuten noted that they are within the time frame .
Mr. Rachun stated yes they were within the time frame. The original application was
much larger; however he was asked what his determination was and he would have
classified it as an unlisted action.
Ms. Chiuten stated that even though it is an unlisted action if there are a number of small
multiple impacts they can make the determination that further review because of
compounding issues . That caused her concern when it was the larger project due to the
gas tanks and drainage issues .
Mr. Wertis asked when Mr. Rachun states they use state thresholds ; is this by Town Law
or Board policy how is this established .
Mr. Rachun replied if there is no local law then the state law is in effect. If the town has a
board that has any discretionary power or action over an action; development or changing
zoning, that board has the responsibility to enforce SEQR.
Mr. Wertis stated he felt it would be helpful if each of them had the SEQR law
individually and be knowledgeable about the thresholds . He copied Mr. Coogan ' s SEQR
law but does not know how to go about the thresholds .
Mr. Coogan copied and distributed to all members the State Environmental Quality
Review NYCRR Part 617 .
I
Ms Chiuten requested the members review the first packet the applicants had given to
each member containing the SEQR information. She noted that if they had questions they
could come back and reference Part 1 of the document .
Mr. Porter stated that in the past they had read through the questions in the past
individually and then completed each impact.
WASHINGTON STREET PARTNER SEAR REVIEW PART 2-
Planning Board Meeting 5
01 /31 /2006
Each item was discussed and the decision was made to declare each portion of part 2
as follows :
IMPACT ON LAND —
1 . Yes-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
2 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON WATER
3 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
4 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
5 . Yes-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
6 . Yes-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON AIR
7 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
9 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10. No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12 . Yes-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
14. No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
15 . Yes-Proposed action will result in major traffic problems Potential Large Impact
other examples were listed as small to moderate impact
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT
17 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
18 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR
NEIGHBORHOOD
19 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
20 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact
Mr. Rachun stated that Mr. Peter Meskill (Tompkins County Sheriff) should have the
information back within two weeks . The accident reports were requested from DMV for
this part of Route 96 . The report will be sent for Barton and Loguidice for analysis .
Ms Chiuten stated she had drafted a resolution regarding SEQR, the question is do they
want put a resolution forward . Do they wait do get the information then put the resolution
or pursue tonight.
Mr. Rachun stated that the public hearing was not listed as a SEQR hearing however
because it is not a Type 1 a hearing is not necessary. Once the information is received the
SEQR process can be completed and a resolution passed . He asked if a meeting on
February 16th would work for the members . He also asked if the board would send the
Planning Board Meeting 6
01 /31 /2006
applicant away with a resolution or their feelings regarding the area variances . He spoke
with two members of the BZA and they both agreed the parking should be maximums vs .
minimums and allow the applicant to scale parking down.
Ms Chiuten noted that part of the Site Plan Resolution listed the variance requests .
A lengthy discussion was held and edits were made to Ms Chiuten ' s draft regarding the
area variances recommendation .
Mr. Porter MOVED Ms . Simon SECONDED the MOTION :
The Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby recommends to the Town of Ulysses Board
of Zoning Appeals an approval of area variances for the reduction in the number of
parking spaces , pursuant to Article XVII-Design Standards, Section 17 . 3 , and Subsection
17 . 3 . 1 , of the Town of Ulysses Code from the +/- 60 parking spaces required by
Subsection 17 . 3 . 1 to the +/- 54 parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan, finding
that such reduction will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site, will leave
adequate parking for all the reasonably anticipated uses on the project, and will not
otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community, and for an increase in
floor area from 3 , 000 square feet required by Article XIII, Section 13 . 2 , to 12 , 075 gross
square feet . Finding that typical floor area for retail stores requires more than 3 , 000
square feet; unless determined not to be necessary by zoning officer' s interpretation.
Ms . Chiuten called the vote :
Ms . Chiuten Aye
Mr. Means Aye
Mr. Porter Aye
Ms . Simon Aye
Mr. Wertis Aye
MOTION APPROVED
Mr. Rachun asked Ms Chiuten how SHPO would be dealt with .
Ms . Chiuten stated that the Board members were satisfied with the background
information they were able to obtain. They felt it was far enough from the doorstep of
sensitivity that no further study is required .
Mr. Rachun stated the other item mitigated during SEQR was the traffic study. He will do
what he needs to do to get the information back from Barton & Loguidice . Once this is
back they only item necessary are the variances and the interpretation.
Ms . Chiuten and Mr. Porter indicated they would prefer to wait to have the BZA and
Town ' s interpretation approval . They can then approve without contingency.
Mr. Porter asked if there are other items that should be reviewed for impact on Site Plan
approval .
Ms . Chiuten noted that the Site Plan should be reviewed for Design Standards from the
Zoning Ordinance .
Mr. Porter noted he did not have any specifically.
Ms . Chiuten stated she had a question at the Public Hearing about buffer and the
adjacency to the fairgrounds . However, the consensus at the Public Hearing was the
majority of the trees were on the fairgrounds side.
Mr. Wertis noted that the way the project is laid out; because of the infrastructure it rules
out the replanting of large trees on that property.
Planning Board Meeting 7
01 /31 /2006
Ms . Chiuten commented unless there was site reconfiguration. She stated she would like
to see more detailed planting for the infiltration basins ; just a matter of grasses, shrubs,
and materials there.
Mr. Porter stated there were questions from Barton & Loguidice about 'the water retention
basin.
Mr. Hucko noted there had been a response given to the Board members at the Public
Hearing. The traffic engineers had sent a response to the traffic issues . There was a letter
from the engineers Synapse that commented to each of the issues brought up by Barton &
Loguidice .
The members retrieved their copies of the document . Ms Chiuten read the notation
regarding the overflow spillway.
Mr. Hucko stated that the engineers agreed with their comment and they revised the
survey which is attached to the letter.
Mr. Hucko stated DOT had given their conceptual plan approval . He presented a letter
from DOT . However, the summary stated that because the seller has a gravel driveway
within 75 feet of the Site Plan ' s southern curb cut they will not allow the southern curb
cut exit . So , they will conceptually only approve the northern ingress and egress .
Ms Chiuten asked what the difference was between the Shursave driveway and their
driveway. She asked Mr. Hucko if they had maps indicating this to the DOT .
Mr. Hucko replied they had provided this information to DOT and the members .
He does not know if it relates to across the street. They just met with them this afternoon-
they showed them pictures that are just a storage shed if he changes this he would have to
get approval from the Planning Board and ultimately DOT. DOT gave the analogy he
could use it as an auction barn on Saturday morning. They will conceptually approve if
the seller closes that access way. If not , they will approve with northern ingress and
egress .
Mr. Porter noted that potentially they would eliminate the southern entrance .
Mr. Hucko stated he would respectfully request that in the review of the Site Plan he does
not believe the closing of the southern will have an effect . But would prefer to have it
now so they can get approval within two weeks or so .
Ms . Chiuten noted there are several issues going on when looking at Site Plan, obviously
the adjacency to the Shursave driveway but then the bigger corridor issue, multiple curb
cuts and driveways on that section of 96 . This should be taken into consideration, part of
the issue is the project on hand is what is under Site Plan, and the Board cannot dictate
what happens off the site .
Mr. Hucko stated what he is hopeful of is that the Board and DOT ' s approval will be in
tandem . They will approve two curb cuts subject to the closure of the seller ' s driveway.
If they cannot get it closed they will move forward with a single ingress and egress .
Ms Chiuten stated that if the implication is they can function with one ingress and egress
that may be the preferred choice in term of Site Plan approval .
Mr. Wertis noted there are two issues dealing with DOT and common sense . They are
concerned with Mr. Auble and the applicant driveway ' s but they are not concerned with
the Shursave sending out cars on 96 making left hand turns and the applicant sending cars
out on 96 making right hand turns . He cannot understand this logic .
Ms Chiuten commented that they have asked Barton & Loguidice to readdress this issue
and they have requested the accident reports from this area.
Mr. Porter asked when they have this information what do they do with it.
Planning Board Meeting 8
01 /31 /2006
Ms . Chiuten stated they would send the information to Barton & Loguidice and ask them
to address this with DOT . They want to make sure this information was taken into
consideration when this was approved . The accident information was not provided them
when this project was reviewed.
Mr. Wertis clarified that the southern egress would be for the drive thru part of the
pharmacy there would be one way out . He asked if there was a document showing this .
Mr. Hucko indicated the copy that had this information . He added that this traffic would
be very limited and there would be no two way traffic on this side of the building.
Mr. Rachun noted that for a minor subdivision the Planning Board reviews but the final
approval is by the Zoning Officer.
Ms . Chiuten asked if they would like to compile a list . The areas of concern from the
SEQR were the traffic and the archaeological dig . which has been resolved.
Mr. Hucko asked if the letter from DOT had resolved the traffic issue ; they had
conceptually approved their plan.
Mr. Porter replied not at this point in time.
Mr. Hucko asked why are they asking for the accident information, this is kept at the state
level and whenever they have gone there they have this data.
Mr. Rachun stated they are asking Barton & Loguidice to review DOT ' s recommendation .
The Planning Board has discretionary action they could say one driveway cut and they
want it south . They can submit a traffic plan based on what the Planning Board requests
and DOT can approve that too . The applicant ' s have been approved on the Site Plan the
Board would like Barton & Loguidice to review for issues or problems . He noted that in
fairness he will request they get this information as soon as possible .
Mr. Coogan noted that the County Planning Department will be sending a comment as a
result of the 239 1/m regarding this project.
Ms Chiuten stated that a request for a maintenance schedule for the retention basins can be
made.
Mr. Wertis noted this had been added in the resolution but he is unsure how this could be
enforced .
Mr. Rachun stated this would be a duty of his office as long as part of the resolution state it
be maintained, a schedule would not be necessary .
Ms . Chiuten noted the fencing around the dumpsters is showing chain link fencing. The
intent was to screen the dumpsters .
Mr. Porter asked if there were any additional information needed .
Ms . Chiuten noted that she would like to request a solid fence on the dumpsters for
screening. She asked if they were set -they would deal with traffic and safety issues upon
receipt of accident reports from Mr. Meskill, DMV and Barton & Loguidice, more
information on plantings for the infiltration system and comments from County Planning.
Mr. Porter noted the applicant needs to provide a statement indicating the fencing around
the dumpster as well as details regarding the plantings for the filtration system .
Ms . Chiuten asked if Thursday, February 16th would be acceptable . It is a court night
however due to it not being a Public Hearing members felt it would be sufficient to meet in
the conference room .
The next meeting to be held Thursday, February 16th, 2006 -7 : 30pm.
Planning Board Meeting 9
01 /31 /2006
Ms . Chiuten asked if the resolutions she had prepared should be tabled . All members
agreed .
Mr. Coogan stated on the 22" of this month they are trying to get the Planning Coalition,
Tompkins County Municipal Officers Association to use that time (4 : 30-6 : 00) DEC has agreed
to come in and do a presentation on stormwater for Planning Boards . It is strictly for Planning
Boards and what they think the board should be doing and looking at. It is a good time to
ask them a lot of questions . He believes the speaker will be Ellen Hahn.
There is a very good SEQR conference in Syracuse ; it takes a look at practical applications .
The cost is $ 500 . 00
Mr. Rachun stated they need something on the County level ; they had been given
periodically given in the past. Someone from DEC or from the state level has come,
these have been very helpful in the past to give an overview and answer questions .
Mr. Porter noted that part of the lot they are subdividing is not in the B1 district. He
asked if this was significant-he demonstrated on the map provided by the applicant for
subdivision .
Mr. Wertis asked how they would define this .
Ms . Chiuten answered it would have been done through GIS .
Mr. Porter noted their garbage bins and part of the parking would be within this area.
Mr. Coogan stated he thought Mr. Frantz had designated the zoning according to lot lines .
Mr. Rachun noted Mr. Frantz did not do the boundaries by lot lines ; he has had other
situations like this . They only way the applicant could have done this map are by scale and
it would be considered arbitrary.
v
Mr. Means made the MOTION to adjourn, Mr. Wertis SECONDED . All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9 : 39 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Robin Carlisle Peck
02/06/06