FINAL
Minutes of Meeting
February 3rd,
2005
Members
Present: Guests:
Mark Agle Scott
Henry
Dennis Brawdy Drew
Reilly
Kevin O’Gorman Joe
& Julie Violante
Juanita Majewski Dick
Minekime
Gerard Schwab
Tony Weiss
Excused: Liasions
Andrew Romanowski, Alternate Edward
Krycia, Jr.
William Zittel
Absent:
****************************************************************************************************
Chairman Agle called the February 3rd, 2005 Meeting of the
Eden Town Planning Board to order at 7:30 PM.
Agle requested a motion to approve the January 6th,
2005 minutes as written and submitted,
so moved by Dennis Brawdy, Jerry Schwab seconded, carried all ayes.
NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Pre-submission
conference, Joseph Violanti – Main Street:
Car Wash, Restaurant, Movie Gallery. Mr. Violanti submitted a rough sketch (see attached) site plan for
review and described how he proposes that the property be used. Agle asked if the buildings would be stand alone
or attached. Violanti answered that the
carwash would be standalone and the other movie gallery & pizzeria would
most likely be combined into one building.
The lot is 175’ x 300’ together with a 25’ easement contiguous on the
southside of the property for egress/ingress in common with the “back
property”. Agle stated that during a
previous pre-submission meeting, there were several bullet items that were
discussed, including the technology of how the wastewater would be dealt with
and that the equipment must meet the
new standards. Your engineer would need
to certify that everything is in compliance with the latest county and state
requirements. Reilly advised Violanti
to contact Erie County Sewer Authority and solicit their help in determining
the water disposal. Reilly stated that
initially you referred to a metal building for the carwash. Aesthetics are crucial in the transition
Hamlet overlay district the metal building would not meet the
requirements. Reilly indicated that the
site-plan requirement checklist would be helpful so as to address parking for
the movie gallery, pizzeria and carwash and stacking of vehicles related to
carwash customers. The rough-site-plan
seems to address a good deal of the parking requirement. Brawdy stated that with respect to parking
and the overlay district, some of the recent applications that have been
submitted, we have required more greenspace in the front with less parking in
the front and moved the parking to the back and side of the property. Reilly stated that maybe the NAPA building
could be used as an example. Kevin
O’Gorman stated that would be a big mistake; do not mimic that design. The NAPA building should have been set
further back on the lot to create a better parking and ingress/egress
area. Agle concurred, adding that the
NAPA building was approved before the adoption of the Hamlet overlay
requirements. The Board discussed at
length the feasibility of one-way driveways vs. multiple driveways. Agle stated that the rational of the 25’
easement would be to give a direct crossway between future development of the
westside of Rt. 62 where there are 18 acres of property behind Violanti’s lot
that could possibly support many commercial lots, and future development behind
Shurfine (eastside of Rt. 62) eliminating multiple driveways. Reilly stated that he is not a traffic
engineer, but he will ask his staff for different options for the driveway
dilemmas. Brawdy asked if the carwash could
be turned 90 degrees and placed behind the building therefore addressing the
aesthetics of the carwash building and therefore altering the traffic
pattern. O’Gorman suggested a larger
combined driveway with NAPA & the carwash business. Reilly stated that he will request a GIS
aerial map and overlay the boundaries and look at the entrances and configure
the best viable options for these properties.
Reilly will forward this request to the State access management group
that studies the roads and access options.
Reilly stated that in regard to the zoning review, a special use permit
would be necessary for the carwash from the Town Board; the other 2 uses are
uses permited by right. Reilly added
that 20% of the property must be greenspace.
Signage needs to be addressed and note that pylon signs are not
allowed. Ground signs are preferred.
Brawdy stated that the “Stop-n-Go” did a good job with signage, you
could use them as an example. Reilly stated that we are trying to give you
enough direction to make some decisions, your next step is to hire an
engineer/architect to design this project for you. Have him or her do a couple
of sketches before they commit to a detailed plan. You realize that you are disturbing more than ˝ acre, so you will
need to create a detention facility for your stormwater, i.e. a detention pond
or underground storage. Reilly stated
for the record, that although it was mentioned at the previous meeting, that
the older equipment you intend to use may not be up to spec, please check with
the health department and the county sewer district as standards have changed,
make sure that your system complies with these new standards. Agle asked if the current pond on the
property has been filled yet? Violanti
stated no. Agle asked if Violanti was
working with the DEC for permits to fill in.
Violanti stated that he doesn’t think that a permit is required due to
the size of the pond being small and it is just an irrigation pond. Agle said that Violanti should double check
that point with the DEC. O’Gorman said
that he has always been curious as to why that pond was dug on the “high spot”
of that property, suggesting that there might just be a high water table,
spring or an artisian well in that area.
SEQR –EAF Form for the Beverly/Evelyn Drive Major
Subdivisions. Reilly drafted a negative
declaration for the Planning Board to review/revise and approve. (see attached
form) Reilly proceeded to read the form
point by point, alterations to the form were made. One specific change to the
initial plan for drainage is that there will now be 2 drainage ponds; one at
the end of Evelyn and one at the end of Beverly. It should be noted that Frank
Mantione, Chairman of the Environmental Conservation Board sent a memo
(attached) stating that the Conservation Board needs to be consulted for their
input whenever a proposed development will impact a “primary conservation
area”. After discussion of Mr.
Minekime’s proposed subdivisions, it was determined that the plans had been
submitted prior to the local law that charged the Conservation Board with this
authority (adopted in November 2004).
From the outset, the Planning Board considered the impact of these plans
to agricultural land preservation, it was determined that these particular
plans have a minimal impact, especially in light of the fact that the Master
Plan recommends this area for future development. Mr. Minekime’s project was already well underway and considered
grandfathered. In recognizing the
Conservation Boards authority, the Planning Board instructed the secretary to
forward all future subdivision plans to the Conservation Board for their
review. Reilly stated that he spoke
with Mr. Minekime’s engineer today who informed him that the ECIDA does not
consider these proposed subdivisions to be a violation of the water moratorium
but that the ECWA would not put it in writing.
The Planning Board did not see this as a problem since Mr. Minekime is
the one at risk, not the Town if he can’t tap the existing waterlines.
A motion
by Dennis Brawdy to approve the negative declaration as printed with revision
to #5 regarding the water moratorium statement. Juanita Majewski seconded, carried all ayes. The secretary was directed to file this form
with all SEQR interested agencies.
Drew
Reilly suggested that now might be the time to issue a preliminary plat
approval for these projects. Agle asked
how long after preliminary plat approval does the applicant have to acquire all
other approvals? Scott Henry answered
that he has 6 months. Reilly stated
that if necessary, Minekime could then file for an extension. Agle confirmed with Reilly and Mr. Minekime
that there were no significant changes in the design from what was proposed at
the sketch plan upon which the public hearing was held. Minekime stated that the only change is in
the number of ponds. The second dry pond
was not indicated on the original design but that drainage issues necessitated
the second dry pond. Minekime stated
that the pond would be placed behind the sewer pumping station. Reilly
confirmed that the number and configuration of the lots was essentially the
same.
Dennis
motioned to approve the preliminary plat:
1. Conditional
to review and approval of final drainage/engineering plans and
design,
2. Conditional
to ECWA approval for water for these developments, and
3. Conditional
pending final approval from the Town Board regarding an acceptable proposal
between Minekime and the Town regarding the recreation land issue relative to
the project.
Juanita
seconded, carried all ayes.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Dennis
Brawdy motioned to close the meeting, Kevin O’Gorman seconded, carried all
ayes.
Respectfully
submitted,
Catherine
A. Swiech
