FINAL
Minutes of Meeting
April 7th,
2005
Members
Present: Guests:
Mark Agle Drew
Reilly, Town Engineer
Gerard Schwab Scott
Henry, Code Enf. Ofc.
Kevin O’Gorman Mike
Best, Rec. Board
Dennis Brawdy Smolinski’s
Tony Weiss Violanti’s
Juanita Majewski
Excused: Liasions
Bill Zittel Edward
Krycia, Jr., Councilman
Andy Romanowski, Alt.
Absent:
****************************************************************************************************
Chairman Agle called the April 7th, 2005 Meeting of the Eden
Town Planning Board to order at 7:30 PM.
Agle requested a motion to approve the March 3rd, 2005
minutes as written and submitted, so moved by Jerry Schwab, Dennis Brawdy
seconded, carried all ayes.
NEW &
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Site-Plan
Review – Vince Vacco, represented by Mike Best– Proposed use of property
located at W. Church & Derby Road for 2 soccer fields. Chairman Agle stated that site plan was
prepared based on the input that the Planning Board gave to them during the
presubmission last meeting. If the
Planning Board should take action here tonite, you must understand that it is
still contingent on whatever relief you get from the Town Board in regard to
the Zoning, and all fees must be paid in full as well. Drew stated to Mr. Best that the proposed
use is not allowed in the SR zone; but is an allowed use in the RR zone, and
that the Town Board scheduled a Public Hearing to consider rezoning the area
from SR to RR. Drew stated that
Parking, Drainage, Ingress/Egress and signage are among the requirements. Parking and soccer fields need to be changed
so that a 50’ setback off property line requirements are met. Generally, a paved parking lot would be
required; however for a possible temporary use for a couple of years for a
recreational use, so is it something we feel we must require? Probably not, it is not environmentally
sound for this purpose. Juanita asked if this rezoning is temporary until the
Minekime project is under way? Drew
added that according to the Master Plan, this whole strip is slated to
eventually be businesses; therefore, allowing this use is a way of holding the
green space for now until future development pressure dictates. Scott added that according to Section 108-3D
of the Code (fees) requires a review fee of $400 to be paid at the time of
site-plan submission, according to our records, this has not yet been
done. Also, for consideration, Section
225-30 D of the Town Code requires the location and extent of all uses to be
shown. Notwithstanding the use of the
property as a commercial driving range approved by the Planning Baord in
February 2004, GIS data indicates (and assessor’s office confirms) this property
to be a Class 105 (productive farmland) and benefits from an agricultural
exemption, yet this agricultural use/location is not identified on the site
plan. Agle stated that at this point, they don’t have a viable plan due to
zoning; they need to seek that relief from the Town Board. Kevin O’Gorman stated that Vince needs to be
alerted to the fact that the Assessor’s can go back 8 years and reassess this
property; Vince may owe some back taxes that he is not aware of. Agle stated that it is not our jurisdiction
for this consideration. Vince needs to
take it up with the Assessors and the site-plan approval is not contingent on
this matter. Henry stated that if there
is a farm on this property, and if all uses are required to be shown, then this
is not a complete site-plan. Taking all
of this into consideration, Dennis Brawdy motioned to approve the site plan
with the following contingencies:
1. The Parking lot and soccer fields must
comply with the applicable setbacks as set forth in the bulk requirements in
the appropriate zone.
2. All required
site-plan and permit fees are paid in full;
3. Conditional upon the applicant
obtaining appropriate zoning relief to accommodate the use by action of the
Town Board;
4. Submit a revised site plan indicating
ALL uses of the property including agricultural uses if applicable.
Juanita
Majewski seconded, carried all ayes.
Drew stated that this is a Type II action under SEQR and that there will
is no negative impact
Mark
Mohr – East Eden Tavern, 8163 E. Eden Road:
(recferred to the Planning Board for input by the Town Board). Mohr requested the Town Board to consider
rezoning the area so as to allow apartments.
Mohr stated that the bar/restaurant business is really not viable
anymore due to the liability costs and the State imposed smoking ban. He would like to convert his building from a
bar/restaurant to 3 or 4 apartments. Currently under light business, 1
apartment is allowed as long as the storefront is maintained. Mohr stated that
since this property is so close to the church that if the bar doesn’t reopen in
60 days, the liquor license will not be reissued. O’Gorman stated that is the
neighbors in the area spoke as to whether they would prefer a tavern as opposed
to an apartment building, they would probably prefer an apartment building, we
would be hard pressed not to recommend it.
O’Gorman stated that we have to be careful as to what changes are made
because what we change in one LB changes all LB areas. Drew stated that the only place to have an
apartment building is in the Hamlet Residential zone so (1) rezone to HR or (2)
The Town could creatively change the laws that dictate the allowable uses in
the LB district. Remember that HR zone does not allow businesses, therefore, if
someone wants to put a restaurant in the area, they will not be allowed. Ed Krycia commented that about 5 years ago,
the TB had a similar situation in Office Business/General Business, you
couldn’t have apartments above businesses without jumping through a lot of
hoops. This could possibly be done in
LB as well. O’Gorman stated that Mohr
doesn’t necessarily want a business downstairs. Brawdy stated that we need to
give this area as much flexibility as possible. The best case scenario is for a property to be used in its entirety. Ed Krycia disagreed, we are looking for
mixed use and we need to keep those options open. There is a restaurant up there that is very successful, so the
area can support these types of businesses.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Board to table
this matter until the May 5th meeting and that Drew would gather
samples from other Towns as to how they may have creatively drafted their LB
zones to allow for mixed use. Mark Mohr
stated that he was not in a rush and that he would wait for further
recommendations from the Planning Board.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
REPORTS:
Drew
Reilly up-dated the Board about the State DOT report concerning their
recommendations on the proposed development of the former Mroz lot next to NAPA
on Route 62 and the 20 acre parcel immediately behind. At prior meetings, we were looking at
NAPA-Shurfine area to include a small plaza area including a carwash;
Hullaballoos behind this property, and a Seniors complex behind Shurfine. The Planning Board was trying to consider
various options for thoughtful/coordinated development plan for this area. Therefore, the Board directed Drew to ask
the State DOT for a traffic study for ideas.
Upon reviewing feedback from the DOT Traffic & Safety Department,
Access Management Department and Maintenance Department, it is apparent that we
need to sit down with them to discuss their input as all have different ideas
and needs. One thing that we all agree
on is limiting the number of curb cuts onto Rt. 62. and also agree that the
Planning Board requesting the access to the back 20 acres was a great idea and
that will serve as a primary driveway for all of the future businesses. Mr. Violanti submitted a new sketch of his
property, putting into practice many of the suggestions from the last Planning
Board Meeting. Agle and O’Gorman agreed
that he did a nice job incorporating the suggestions. John from NAPA has
conceptually agreed to a joint driveway between the two properties. The
combined driveway will be directly across from the north driveway of
Shurfine. O’Gorman suggested that Mr. Violanti speak with John and suggest
that he consider a backdoor entrance and have the majority of his parking in
the rear of the store and leave the front for greenspace/landscaping. Mark Alianello, engineer for Smolinski’s, stated
that the new plan from Violanti’s might restrict access for utilities to the
back acreage. Drew stated that all the parties involved will need to meet and
discuss all the options and how each one’s future plans will effect the others
and find common ground to work together. State DOT stated that for future
development, you may want to consider a future connection out to Shadagee
Road.
ADJOURNMENT
Dennis
Brawdy motioned to close the meeting at 8:30pm, Kevin O’Gorman seconded,
carried all ayes.
Respectfully
submitted,
Catherine
A. Swiech
Next
Meeting Scheduled for May 5th,
2005 @ 7:30 PM.
