FINAL
Eden Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
February 5, 2004
Members
Present: Guests:
Mark Agle Scott
Henry, Building Inspector
Dennis Brawdy Drew
Reilly, Town Engineer
Anthony Weiss Ed
Krycia, Councilman
William Zittel Vince
Vacco – Golf Range
Juanita Majewski Don
& Dave Braasch
Gerard Schwab Mike
Kiolbioka
Andrew Romanowski, Alternate William Trask, Town Attorney
Excused: Phil Thorsell, Seniors Complex
Mike
Bolo
Absent: Burt
Ramos, resident
Kevin O’Gorman
______________________________________________________________________
Chairman Agle called the February 5, 2004 meeting of the
Eden Town Planning Board to order at 8:00 PM. Agle requested a motion to approve the January 8th,2004 minutes
as written & submitted, so moved by Bill Zittel, seconded by Jerry Schwab,
carried all ayes.
NEW
& UNFINISHED BUSINESS
VINCE VACCO – SITE PLAN: GOLF DRIVING RANGE – W.
Church Street. Chairman Agle stated that after reviewing the
site plan, it seems as though all of the requirements have been addressed. Vacco stated that
the driveway will be dustless using either millings
and/or oil and chip, which ever one is most cost effective. The sign will be on the front corner as
indicated on the site plan and meets the signage requirements. Majewski asked Vacco
if there would be a concession stand? Vacco replied that
it may be a consideration in the future.
Bill Zittel motioned to approve the site plan as submitted as well as
a negative declaration under SEQR as the project poses no adverse environmental
impacts. Majewski seconded, carried all ayes. Vacco
was directed to apply for necessary building permits from the Building
Inspector.
DON
BRAASCH: Pre-submission conference in
reference to a Notice of Violation referred to the Planning Board by the
Building Inspector. Chairman Agle
requested background information from Mr. Henry as to why this was referred to
the Planning Board. Henry stated that he
responded to complaints regarding the use of property on Southwestern Blvd. It is a
vacant lot being utilized by Mr. Braasch as a
construction lot. There are building
materials, cranes, trailers, railroad ties, etc. stored on the site. A covered culvert pipe has been in place to
provide access to said lot. There are
also 3 unlicensed commercial truck vehicles parked in front of the Southwestern
property which technically constitutes a junkyard. If the trucks are eliminated, then the
storage of building materials and equipment is a permitted use in the PI
zoning. Along with
that however, certain screening requirements due to residential properties
being adjacent to this site.
Basically, we need to get this property use identified, reviewed and
whatever necessary steps should be taken to ensure compliance with the zoning
code. Mr. Braasch
stated that in regard to the unlicensed vehicles, one vehicle is a piece of
construction equipment and therefore should not be considered as a motor
vehicle, it is for construction use only.
The other 2 vehicles belong to the previous owner of the property. Henry stated that even though the 2 vehicles
belong to someone else, it is the responsibility of the owner to address
them. Mr. Braasch
stated that the vehicles will be removed.
Braasch stated that the anticipated use of
this property is to expand an existing building located on the adjacent
property owned by him onto this property.
The proposed use would be for same use as in the past back as far back
as 1968, and that is construction; housing bulldozers, cranes and other
construction materials and equipment.
Mr. Braasch referenced the codebook by stating
that upon written request by the owner and upon payment of the fee by to the
Town Clerk, the building inspector has the authority to issue a Certificate of
Occupancy. Henry agreed and went on to
explain however that the use of land is subject to site plan approval of the
Planning Board. Mr. Caldwell (previous
owner) might have had at some point had minor overlap onto the property, it certainly was not to the extent of the
existing, proposed use. This could be
resolved by simply conveying your intentions to the Planning Board through a siteplan and then the Planning Board could take into
consideration the Town Code requirements for screening, etc. No one is telling you that you cannot use
this property for your intended purposes, however
there are steps that you need to take to legitimize the use of the adjacent
properties. Agle stated that the use is
consistent with the zone. Since you own both contiguous parcels with an
existing building located on one that you intend to expand across the lot line
onto the other, you should merge both properties into one tax parcel. The Planning Board would then require a site
plan that shows all the property you own and shows the configuration of any
improvements and your intended use; i.e. a parking lot, buildings, site
screening along the property lines, etc.
Agle asked if there would be any more clearing of the property? Braasch answered no
and that there are some screening trees that currently exist and they would be
kept. Henry stated that under
landscaping in the code, there is a general requirement that states that all
non-residential uses adjoining/abutting a residential zone or use shall provide
appropriate screening and/or plantings along said residential use. Specifically lumber and building material,
sales and storage is permitted provided that any lot between the outdoor
storage shall be surrounded by a fence or wall with a height of not less than
6’ nor more than 10’. Agle referenced a
previous property (Schwanz) in the area that the
Planning Board required trees, a berm and fence. Mr. Braasch stated
to satisfy the Board he would be willing to move most everything off of the
property and leave the majority of lot unused except for the driveway. Agle stated that for the next meeting the
following would be required: A site-plan
that shows the two properties, and indicate what you propose to do; placement
and width of the driveway, the size of the paved storage area, existing and
proposed buildings, indicate existing tree lines, where the curb cuts are
located, current and future storage areas, and indicate proposed
screening/plantings etc. Mr. Henry or
Cathy can supply you with a site-plan development check-list for your
reference.
Attorney
Mike Kobiolka for Anne Weidner Minor Subdivision – 8174 N. Main Street. Chairman Agle
stated that a minor subdivision application was received and reviewed by the
subdivision review committee and it was determined that the application should
be referred to the Planning Board for review and recommendation. Several issues need to be addressed. Primarily this property has insufficient
frontage as it exists as a single parcel, dividing it would further decrease
the existing frontage. DEC has
identified wetlands on a majority of one of the proposed sublots. Creek traversing the
frontage on March Road.
Essentially we would be approving a subdivision of property whereas
substantial variances would be required to develop that lot. Mr. Kobiolka stated
that he was referred to this Board by Mr. Henry. In reference to access, it might be possible
to achieve rights-of-way from parcel A to B and B to A. Ms. Weidner has been trying to sell this
property for about 9 years, realizing that there are wetlands, there is no
intention to ever develop this property; the purpose of subdividing is to
decrease the amount of property and tax responsibility for the owner. Chairman Agle asked that if development is
impossible, then for what purpose would a purchaser
buy the property. Reilly stated that
this Board has the responsibility of insuring that when a new lot is created,
it must be considered as a building lot.
If a lot is created by a subdivision of property then the presumption that
the Building Inspector is required to issue a building permit for that
property. It might be possible to work
with the Town Attorney to work out a deed restriction or to file a map with the
County and create a non-building lot that can be used for recreational
purposes or Conservation easement only.
Technically, at this point that is not possible due to the current laws
of the Town. We could recommend to the
Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance, however it is not likely to occur
because there is no frontage. It would
be advantageous to sell the proposed lot to an adjoining property owner
insuring access in that way. Chairman
Agle stated that the required frontage is 200’ in the zone and the proposed lot
has only 17 feet on March Road; and cross easement suggestion is not really the
solution. The frontage on N. Main
Street is 43 feet,
therefore the combined frontage is a sub-standard 60 feet. Mr. Kiolbioka
stated that there is currently an access road along the edge of the ditch, past
the wetlands to the higher, drier land.
Reilly stated that IF on the map, it is officially submitted to the
County which would state “Non-Buildable” on it and
requiring proof of filing before final approval, then it might be
possible. Of course you cannot demand
the owner to do this, however, that could be a condition of sub-division. Open development areas require 30 or 40’ of
frontage so by possibly obtaining 13-23’ of frontage from a neighbor, the
Zoning Board would have more to work with you on. This topic was tabled while Mr. Kiolbioka spoke with Bill Trask,
Town Attorney. Discussion resumed and
Mr. Kiolbioka reported that Mr. Trask
stated that the Planning Board could the Planning Board could make a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in regard to a variance. Majewski asked who had the responsibility of
placing restrictions on the land? Brawdy felt that it would not be fair to just
pass this on to the Zoning Board without any restriction recommendations. Henry stated that there is the technical
matter of the reduction of the overall frontage, and then the protection value
of having a stipulation that the land cannot be developed.
Chairman Agle stated that the
recommendation should consider a variance for the road frontage. Pending a successful Zoning variance, the
Planning Board would approve the Minor Sub-division site plan with the
restriction that it cannot be improved or developed in it proposed
configuration. Henry stated that the
Zoning Board would probably be more comfortable considering the variance if the
Planning Board took jurisdiction over the division of property. Stating that the variance is a technical
issue, insuring them that there is no impression that this lot will ever be
developed with the granting of said variance.
Dennis Brawdy motioned to refer this
application to the Zoning Board with the following recommendation:
A) That
the Zoning Board give favorable consideration in granting this variance with
the understanding that there would be a restriction placed upon the proposed lot (Parcel B) stating that it
“cannot be improved or developed in its present configuration”. Bill Zittel seconded, carried all ayes. Kobiolka was
directed to submit his application for variance to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Phil Thorsell: Presubmission:
Proposed Senior Citizen Housing and Medical Park: Mr. Thorsell gave
oral presentation of a propsed senior citizen complex
with a community center. He was
approached and asked to consider placing a medical park within the community
center. Mr. Thorsell
asked the Board what steps he would need to take to make this happen? Chairman Agle stated that it would be
basically the same as indicated to Mr. Thorsell at
the first pre-submission conference. A site-plan showing the proposed use, the layout of the complex,
traffic patterns, placement of the buildings. Henry stated that the rear area of the
property is zoned HR which would facilitate the residential. Along the front, closer to the road is GB and
could be used for the Medical Park. Currently there is no mixed use zone in the
Town of Eden. Therefore a variance would be required or a
rezoning. The Zoning issue would need to
be addressed by the Town Board. The
Planning Board needs to see something on paper so as to conceptualize the
plan. Brawdy added that an important
item to address is access, single access being preferred. Mr. Thorsell stated
that he will likely submit two plans, one with and one without the Medical Park
concept. Reilly stated that as an added
bonus, the County has agreed to extend the sewer to that area, operating a
grinder pump system.
Chairman Agle recognized Mr. Ramos
who voiced his concerns regarding the proposed senior citizen housing/medical
park complex. He is the adjacent
neighbor to the Shurfine Plaza and is
concerned about over development in the area.
Chairman Agle informed Mr. Ramos that Mr. Thorsell
will need to submit plans to this Board and that this proposed project would be
discussed during several meetings before final site plan approval would be
issued and that Mr. Ramos is welcomed to attend these public meetings. If rezoning or variances is required, Mr.
Ramos and surrounding neighbors distanced 500’ of proposed development area
would receive a notice announcing a Public Hearing as a requirement of the Code
where he and his neighbors would have the forum to voice their opinions and
concerns.
REPORTS:
Recommendations for changes to the Telecommunication
Facilities and Wind Energy System Codes were discussed. All the proposed changes are highlighted on
the attached drafts and have been submitted to the Town Board for their
review. Dennis Brawdy motioned to the
proposed changes to the Town Board and that they consider adopting these codes
as revised by the Planning Board, Bill Zittel seconded and carried all
ayes.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Bill Zittel
motioned to close the meeting, Mark Agle seconded, carried all ayes.
Respectfully Submitted
Catherine A. Swiech
The Next Meeting will be held on Thursday, March 4th, 2004 @ 8:00 PM
