Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-15 - PB TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD 07/15/08 Approved 09/16/08 Present : Chairperson Ken Zeserson, Planning Board Members : Rod Hawkes, Mr. Means, Town Board Member David Kerness, Deputy Supervisor Dick Coogan, Excused : Mr. Porter, Ms . Schneider Applicant : Architectural Technologies Group, Inc . , Jason Demerast — Architect Scott Gibson, Stormwater Engineer Mr. Zeserson called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 pm . He introduced Mr. Demerast as the architect for this project and turned the presentation over to him. Mr. Demerast introduced Scott Gibson as the stormwater engineer. He noted that the members had received copies of the stormwater plan . He stated the biggest change from the initial plan is the establishment of ponds vs . the rain garden. They had to change the plan due to the type of soil found after the soil tests. He stated the first page starts with the stormwater plan. Then he added four of Scott ' s drawings that are pretty technical, they demonstrated the areas used. He demonstrated on each of the maps the grading, plans etc . Mr. Gibson proceeded to give a detailed and descriptive presentation of the stormwater plan . He stated if he was getting to technical please ask for clarification, it is difficult to know the audience ' s level of expertise in these areas . He stated as many might be aware stormwater has become the in vogue issue. He and Mr. Coogan have been involved in a coalition since March of 2004. This coalition is promoting Phase 2 regulations among municipalities . The state is encouraging the municipalities to incorporate a stormwater plan. In the past it was common for development to have large scale permanent stormwater control structures . In 2003 DEC reviewed and decided better control measures could be used for aesthetics and function. They also looked at disturbance areas of 1 -5 acres of disturbance. The design they have includes the temporary and the permanent control measures for this project. They used the 1 - 10- 100 stormwater data, they are managing the run off to leave the areas undisturbed. They need to capture and attenuate it to reduce disturbance. They used the soil type and land use to develop the run off and volume they will encounter. Initially, they had proposed rain gardens . Rain gardens are good to use for redevelopment projects, they can be used when the existing will be the same as the proposed by percolating it through the substrata. Unfortunately, the subsoil were not as impermeable as they had hoped and increases in impervious surfaces ; the models were overflowing. They would have had too have huge rain gardens . With this data they went to the pond areas as illustrated. The ponds are designed in accordance with DEC regulations, the pond at its deepest point is 4 feet deep . This acts as a plunge pool, the swales carry the flow into the plunge pool . It is attenuated by an aquatic bench. There will be a lot on natural growth i . e. reeds, lily pads etc . This will treat the volume from the parking lots . The pond elevation is controlled by a small orifice, it is 2 %2 feet orifice basically at the depth of the pool. As the 10 year storm factor is encountered it will attenuate and the grate will slowly let the flow out. There is an emergency spillway for the 100 year storm . The contouring is 4 circular bays that will catch 10% of first flush. The contouring is gently blended into the landscape, its external highest point is two feet above the surface. Once the aquatic vegetation takes place it will allow for a lush habitat. Planning Board 2 07/ 15/2008 There are stormwater swales to collect runoff, there is a north and south side of the site p but they will be capturing all of this during development, they tend to divert the flow off site during construction as is illustrated. The impervious surfaces have increased 60% due to the building and parking lots . They took the most Conservative approach, they modeled with asphalt, they may use gravel which will blend some infiltration. There are standard erosion control measures which are temporary. They have the statewide construction entrance as well as silt fencing. They will be using check dams to slow the velocity of water through the swales, there is not any vegetation thus this is used to create this temporary, rip rap is usually used. Mr. Wertis asked if this would be a year round body of water. Mr. Gibson affirmed it would be. Mr. Means asked if there is periodic maintenance. Mr. Gibson stated the four bays are are designed to capture the first flush, there maybe maintenance Squired if the four bays stay at 50%, the owner would have to contract to have them scooped out. The advantage is once they are stabilized and the vegetation is in place there is very little maintenance. They do promote at the minimum a 5 year inspection. Mr. Wertis asked what the linear measurement across the narrow part of the pond is . Mr. Gibson stated it is roughly 110 feet. Mr. Demerast noted it could be seasonably dry in which case for the most part the pond would be very small . Mr. Gibson stated one of the DEC regulations require aquatic benches to promote safety measures for these ponds . This is designed specifically for children ' s safety. Mr. Means asked if this would be planted or would it be natural . Mr. Gibson replied they have a list however, he has not seen one of these ponds that do not just take off on it ' s own. Mr. Wertis asked about the width and depth again. Mr. Gibson stated DEC is very specific, there are 5 different types of ponds. The largest is 5 acres which require drainage, they also get deeper. They require total maintenance berm, 10- 12 feet wide track to drive equipment in. This size pond is a pocket pond, there is existing road access along the entire rim. There is an existing 1 on 6 slope 2 feet high so any equipment could be driven into the pond for cleanup . Mr. Means asked for clarification on the rain measurements . Mr. Demerast stated in Tompkins it is 2 . 3 1 year, 3 . 9 10 year, and 100 year is 5 . 5 . Mr. Zeserson stated unfortunately the resident expert on stormwater is not in attendance tonight. But he felt is was sufficiently detailed and he felt confident. Mr. Wertis 'agreed, once Mr. Coogan reviews the numbers it should be sufficient. Mr. Zeserson asked about the impervious vs . pervious surfaces . He asked because in the letter this Board is directing it states the surface areas. Mr. Gibson stated it should be changed. The are looking at a different mix of asphalt. Y. Planning Board 3 07/ 15/2008 The City of Ithaca is experimenting with it at Cass Park, it is fairly expensive however as more people use it then the cost will go down. It has it ' s limitations it can only be used on flat surfaces, it is not shiny. An associate of his went to Maryland and they are using it heavily there. He would support it but the expense is an issue. Once they get solar heat they reduce ice build up . It is not designed for major throughfares but it is sufficient for parking lots. Mr. Demerast stated the size is designed for building expansion as well as expansion of the parking lots . Mr. Zeserson asked if the members had other questions . The members stated they did not. He expressed his appreciation to Mr. Gibson for his presentation. He further stated he would draft the letter for the Zoning Board of Appeals in support of the parking and height variances . Ms . Carlisle-Peck will take the letter to the meeting with her. Mr. Demerast stated the site plan only changed in minor ways, mostly due to the stormwater change design. He noted Mr. Gibson had pointed out the drainage swales and the concept is the same other than having ponds vs . rain gardens. The east end of the building has the silo represented. They rerouted water lines to get around the ponds . Mr. Hawkes asked if the pond plays a role in fire protection. Mr. Demerast replied it does not, because they are bringing a new water line in. They are looking at two different pitches a 6/ 12 vs . 8/ 12 they are not sure which way they are going to go but they will ask for the variation. This will make it appear more rural . They are not looking to construct on the third level, but it would depend on the construction type. They are still looking at recycling the siding on the building that is on the premises. Mr. Rachun stated he believes lead paint might be inside they will be testing that. They have located a silo they may be able to take down and reassemble for the site . Mr. Means asked what size the water line would be . Mr. Demerast stated they are using an 8 " water line to accommodate water supply and a sprinkler system . It is bigger than what they need, they could get by with a 6 inch. Mr. Zeserson stated with the time remaining he would like to discuss the conservation zone. They received maps from Sharon Heller who put together various overlays . They requested UNA, watersheds, soil types, and steep slopes . He wondered where the Board wanted to go from here . A discussion ensued with the members items discussed whether to include all UNA' s, use steep slope areas, watershed areas . It was determined they really need more definitive answers on how to proceed to determine the zones they would like to use. 1 . A walk around these areas would be helpful . 2 . Strengthening the law would oversee development using an overlay that requires site plan. 3 . A site plan could be required using a local law modifying zoning. An overlay could be done for the whole town. 4. Buffer areas due to amount of streams in the areas . 5 . The property owners in this area need to be compiled . 6 . Wetlands are covered under the DEC regulations . The move is to do more protection. Planning Board 4 07/ 15/2008 Mr. Zeserson stated the third area to discuss tonight in subdivision. The Houghton property brought up the major subdivision process which is a 17 step process in the zoning. Mr. Rachun stated they can reflect on whether it is a just law or well thought out however. It is probably a combination of a number of things. It is in place for orderly division of land to accommodate rural character and promote growth that won' t impact areas adversely, prevention of cookie cutter divisions is an example . Where does this leave Houghton and the Planning Board. He told the person who wanted to purchase to realistically purchase elsewhere, he agreed this would probably be beneficial. The subdivision law can be used to prevent development however this is not the intent . During the subdivision process several ideas were looked at 30/70, Comp Plan is looking at 100 acres allowing 10 units. They can have huge frontage . The onerous quality of this subdivision is he has 100 acres and he fronts three roads with a mile and a half of frontage. Our law states he shall provide information on roads, septic items he will not be doing. He recommends one of three things . 1 . Get an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals, if it is not applicable does the shall apply. 2 . Get a brief from Mariette (Town Attorney), this Board is authorized to request this . 3 . He does not believe this will come up again, a lot of people want to buy here. This could be tackled with the new zoning after the Comp Plan is completed . This particular subdivision law was tacked on at the end without a lot of interpretation or review. Mr. Zeserson stated this is being looked at due to this piece of property. If he proceeds the way he has been he would have the potential to have 18 houses . Mr. Rachun stated Mr. Houghton has been told that he would be approaching the 4`" lot which would irequire major subdivision. This man is not actively selling the lots, he has been approached by the buyers to sell, this area is very nice with a great view . Peter Houghton on the other side of the road has sold many lots, he just sold the last 14 acres . Chuck Houghton still does hay and rents the other fields to Switzer and other farmers. The question to ask Mariette is in Section 18.3 .5 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Review ; 18.15.2- requirements for a major subdivision plat review preliminary plat application "shall" include the following information . Does that to be interpreted that if it does not include the information it cannot be reviewed. In legal terms shall is usually a must, but there maybe legal precedence that if it is not applicable it is not required. The Town Attorney could determine this information. Mr. Wertis asked if this is a concern to us. Mr. Zeserson stated it is not now, however in the future it could be and they should have the legal definition for the future. Mr. Rachun stated Mr. Jolly was disappointed in the findings, and he mentioned that he would look elsewhere as Mr. Houghton is not in a hurry to sell anyways . But there are other parcels that have similar situations that could come up in the future. Mr. Zeserson stated he would compile the letter and have it reviewed by Mr. Rachun first. Mr. Wertis stated he liked this idea better than having it interpreted by the Zoning Board of Appeals he interprets leaving it up to them as passing the buck. Mr. Rachun stated the Zoning Board is a judiciary board they interpret zoning, this Board is an advisory board. The applicant has the option of going to the Zoning Board for an interpretation. Planning Board 5 07/ 15/2008 Mr. Zeserson stated he will cite this example and the zoning and ask for the interpretation for this application process . They read it as requiring the 17 items , this is hypothetical but would they be required to have the roads, septic etc . The next meeting will be the Public Hearing for the Architectural Technologies Group, Inc . on August 5th, 2008 . The minutes from the 06/ 17/08 and 07/01 /08 meetings were presented. Mr. Means made the MOTION, seconded by Mr. Zeserson to approve . ALL in FAVOR, Minutes approved. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 05 p . m . Respectfully submitted Robin Carlisle Peck Secretary 07/31 /08