Minutes

Eden Planning Board

May 29, 2007

 

DRAFT

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:                                                     MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mark Agle                                                                            Dennis Brawdy, Excused

Kevin O’Gorman                                                                  William Zittel, Excused

Juanita Majewski                                                                 Andrew Romanowski, Excused

Frank Meyer, Alternate                                                        Anthony Weiss

William Mahoney, Alternate

 

GUESTS:

 

Scott Henry, COE

 

Chairman, Mark Agle called the May 29, 2007 Planning Board meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.

 

Firstly, in accordance the Town Code, since we do not have a quorum of members, we will appoint one of our two alternate members who are present.  I recommend that Bill Mahoney fill that seat for tonight.  Do any other members have any questions or concerns?  Seconded - Kevin  All in favor.…carried.  Okay, Bill you are the voting member tonight.  Frank you will get your turn.

 

Motion made by Mark Agle to approve the Planning Board Minutes of the April 24, 2007 meeting as printed and distributed, seconded by Juanita Majewski.  Being no discussion, all “Ayes” motion carried.

NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

 

ITEM 1

 

The first order of business on today’s agenda is a proposal from Julie Smoliski.  This was previously discussed back in February/March 2006, at least in conceptual detail.  Now we have a preliminary site plan before us for the proposed use.  Julie can you refresh our memory as to what the exact use is?

 

Julie - Basically it is going to be an indoor play and party center for kids.  There is nothing in the Southtowns for indoor activities for kids so they can be out of the elements.  Inside the play center would be physical activities, hand-eye coordination, a lot of just interaction with other kids, playtime areas and birthday party areas.  We are also going to have a concession or snack area that will service the birthday party areas.

 

Mark - It’s not restaurant based, like a Chuck E Cheese or something like it?

 

Julie – No.

 

Summary of discussion - Part of the prior discussion was that this is a 20-acre site in a GB zone.  Primary frontage is on Shadagee Road with an alternate access strip out to Main Street.  Much of the prior discussion centered on the ability to coordinate this use with some of the other potential uses along that remaining section of Main Street to utilize a common driveway for access rather than having 4 or 5 separate driveways right near the intersection of Shadagee and Main Street.  The drive would be situated so as to be compatible with the Shurfine driveways directly across the Street.  It appears that the way you have it drawn on the site plan is you have the main driveway on Main Street and an auxiliary driveway on Shadagee Road, which was how it was suggested at the prior meeting and be planned so your Main Street Driveway could potentially line up directly with a future driveway to serve lands behind the Shurfine.  One of the other discussions we had previously was potential use for the remaining acreage.  You have 20 acres in all.  I don’t know if you have given any thought to future use of the remainder of the property.  Mr. Smolinski indicated they had not.  The thinking was that it would be good planning if the parties gave some forethought to how future development could be accommodated in terms of access and utilities, etc.

 

Scott Henry indicates that the property is zoned GB and the building appears to meet the minimum set back requirements.  Parking is at the discretion of the PB, although it might be adjusted down somewhat to add a few handicapped spaces with access areas, but outside of that you may want to look at some building features, specifically, the appearance, signage and lighting to make sure everything is in accordance with the Hamlet Overlay since the site is within the Hamlet Overlay/Transition Area which has its own set of requirements according the Town Code, so as part of the final submission we will want to see building elevations and other things like that, including signage and lighting to make sure that they comply with those things as well.  But as a preliminary site plan, the basic bulk requirements appear to be in order.  Dana, do you have anything to discuss?

 

Dana [Town Engineer] – What would be the estimate hours of operation?

 

Julie – During the week Monday through Thursday it would be 11 am to 7 pm.  Weekends, Friday and Saturday, would be 11 to 9 and on Sunday it would probably be noon to 5.

 

Dana - Are you expecting younger aged children that would require parents to stay or older ones that could be dropped off?

 

Julie – No, there would be no dropping off.  That requires other training and/or licensing.  Kids can only be dropped off for birthday parties when other parents are present and in charge.

 

Dana – Okay.

 

Mark – Does anyone else have any questions about the general layout?

 

Kevin –I’m concerned about the rest of the land.  We can approve this as it is and that’s it case closed and you will have then utilized your entire frontage requirement for this use and leave none to support future development of the rest of the property.  If you are going to do this, in this GB zone, and if you are going to want to develop the rest of the land in the future, you cannot have a 25-foot driveway and you need to make the appropriate provisions now.  The property is owned by 1 person and it is one of the last remaining GB properties in town.  We can make a stipulation that this is the building, everything else is done and there will be no future development and that’s fine.  But if you want to develop it, say 5 or 10 years down the road, then you need to put in a decent driveway.  25’ is not sufficient, is it Scott?  Will you be able to have 4, 5 or 6 businesses using a 25’ driveway?

 

Mark Smolinski – That’s why we put that road off of Shadagee.  So we could possibly have a strip mall in the back with other stores.  I don’t think we are limited to 25’ on this driveway. 

 

Kevin – Do you own more than 25’?

 

Mark Smolinski – No?  But I don’t that that would be a problem. 

 

Kevin - My concern is that the driveway should be delineated for future development so that you don’t come back later and say we don’t have any width and we need to run a 60’ driveway out to Shadagee and dump out to a different road.

 

Mark Smolinski – The stipulation with the property owned by Violanti was that he would be responsible for putting in the road.

 

Mark – That’s all well and good but we cannot rely on a maybe.  Violanti is not a party to this proposal.  He is not here and it does not mean anything if its not in writing.  We talked to you previously about obtaining a wider section to access the property.  The property to the South is for sale, isn’t it?

 

Julie – Yes.  I’ve already spoken to owner but she will only sell the entire property.  She won’t just sell some land for us to gain more access.

 

Various discussion - A while back when Violanti was here, he did seem receptive to possibly giving you use of more of his land for a wider access out to Main Street. But you would need an easement from him to incorporate it in the plan.  Otherwise, until you have something in writing he can back out and leave you stranded and then we are on the record as being opposed to that narrow driveway supporting who knows how many other uses you may propose in the future.  The primary thrust of our prior discussions on this matter was that we wanted to channel the outgoing traffic so that it corresponds with the Shurfine driveway across the way as well as any future access for any additional buildings behind Shurfine.  This would also eliminate another major access out onto Shadagee Road in such close proximity to its intersection with Main.  The thought process was to funnel everything out to Main Street at a pre-planned location.  That might be something worth exploring.  I know he [Violanti] is working his property so I don’t know if he is planning on moving forward.  I think he was somewhat receptive to this common access concept back then but we cannot speak on his behalf.  If an easement is put on paper now which allocates an adequate access right of way, then in 5, 10 or 15 years down the road, access for development on the rear property won’t be a difficult issue as it will have been properly planned for up front.  In this way there is a meeting of the minds between the adjoining property owners as to this common access strip and it can then be delineated on the development site plans of all affected owners

 

You are going to have to do some more work on this before moving forward to the next submission.  I think conceptually what you have come up with is what we talked about at the previous meeting.  It looks okay.  It seems the parking and everything is adequate although I haven’t done the calculations here obviously, but Scott can advise us on that anyway.  But is seems to meet all the requirements of the bulk zone.  You’ve got the screening in there.

 

Our major concern is that the main access road should be onto Main Street and the secondary access road onto Shadagee Road.  We don’t want a lot of additional traffic on Shadagee Road, which is zoned RR.  You need to at least contemplate the potential future development for the remainder of your property and make sure you have put in the proper utilities and a proper access road to support that development.  If you don’t plan accordingly, you will not have adequate frontage to meet code requirements to support any future buildings or businesses.  If you don’t plan properly and you put in Hullabaloos according to this plan, you will have exhausted your available road frontage for this single project and leave none to support any additional or future building and your remaining GB land will be left undevelopable under the code.

 

Kevin  - If you think this through more and Hullabaloos takes off, the next this you know, other businesses like Joe’s Pizza or ABC Store will want to be in your strip mall or whatever it turns out to be.

 

Julie – Well that is the other thing we were going to do in Hullabaloos in the front area of the building, we wanted not only the restaurant for the patrons and parties but we wanted to have take out food service as well.

 

Kevin – But I thought you were not going to have a restaurant?

 

Julie – Well we will have concessions inside for the parties, pizza, wings, chicken fingers, etc., but we would also have food for take out for people to come in and pick up.

 

Discussion - Well that is essentially a restaurant or a pizzeria and that is not what is shown in your plan.  That is a whole different use than what you originally described.  We recollect you said you would have snack items for the kids for birthday parties, etc. you did not say anything about a restaurant, takeout or otherwise.  That is a different use and different rules and will also create more traffic, more people, etc.  Essentially you are saying you will be a “Chuck E Cheese” type party exercise place with a takeout restaurant.  There is a difference between concessions for the patrons and a takeout restaurant and both have different code requirements.  If that is your intended use you need to show us a site plan as such.  But that is not the concept you have presented us with here today.  If you want to put in a private road for your business it would be your responsibility to maintain everything that you put in.  If you put in a public road, the Town would maintain it but it would need to be built according to town specs.  In any event, you need to plan better for the future or you can put in Hullabaloos and that’s the end of it.  All you want to do is have in your control enough property so that you can establish that 70’ right-of-way if and when viable tenants show up.  Then you can make the offer of dedication to the Town and then come in with a commercial subdivision, recoup your costs from those tenants as part of what you charge them, and then build out the balance of the property accordingly.  However if you simply want to build this as shown on this plan, then 5 years down the road you will have to pay a hefty price for that additional footage.  As a PB we are trying to help you plan a tract of 20 acres in a GB zone before you go forward and box it in.  Otherwise down the road if you or your children come in and say, we want to put in a “Tops” and you only have 25’ of frontage,  we will have to tell you cannot do it.  We want to avoid that by coming up with a plan for the future.  Now is the time to lay it out properly.

 

In any event, the codes are clear on what you need for the uses you are considering and you can work through fulfilling those requirements.  Conceptually, notwithstanding the restaurant use you just mentioned, this plan meets the general  requirements but the issue of access is something you need to take up with the surrounding landowners to see if you can’t gain more frontages on Main Street because it is to your benefit in the long run.  If you want to put in Hullabaloos as shown you can probably go ahead and get started this summer as long as you are clear on your use and it meets the code.

 

Scott Henry – Just for the record storm water management and erosion control plan is required because of the impervious surface area and you might want to think about screening on the East Side since there is a house between the building and Main Street.

 

Mark – Okay Julie, we hope to have you back soon. 

 

ITEM 2

 

Mark – Next we have Eileen & Michael Sheets on Knoll Road with an application for a pond.

 

Scott Henry – Firstly, we don’t seem to have an actual survey of the land in the packet.  In accordance with the bulk regulations I would like to see the boundaries of the property and I would like to see the pond on it with the dimensions of the water line.  I don’t see that here and I don’t have a relative location of the pond based on front and rear footage.  Usually a site plan contains the dimensions of the lot and where the pond will sit.  You need a more comprehensive line drawing or boundary map and then just the pond on it with set back dimensions to the front, sides and rear.  You need a minimum of 35’ and the total of the yard has to be at least 100’ but none of those dimensions are shown anywhere in this packet.

 

Discussion - We need an overall map of the property with the pond dimensions and pond set backs.  It appears as though you have more than enough land, but we need to see specifically where it will be on the whole property.  The only other thing that is required is to have either the soil conservation service approve this design or have a licensed engineer approve the design.  The certification stamp on the design provided does not indicate that he is a licensed engineer so you will need to confirm whether he is or he isn’t.  He needs to be a P.E. or the design needs to certified by a NYS licensed P.E. and you will need a site plan or survey showing where the pond will be on the lot.  The P.E. can take your survey and depict the pond on it showing all the boundary lines and distances from the pond to each of those property lines.  We need to see where it sits on the property in order to confirm that it is in accordance with the code requirements.  It could be conditionally approved based upon your completion of those things and then Scott can issue the permit.

 

Motion is made by William Mahoney to approve the pond submission based upon the applicant fulfilling the following conditions: 1.  The proper certification of the design by a NYS licensed Professional Engineer, 2. Submissions of a site plan or survey showing the pond in proper relationship to all property boundary lines.  3.  Final approval of the foregoing by the Town Code Enforcement Officer.  Seconded by Juanita Majewski. All “Ayes” motion carried.

ITEM 3

 

Mark - Our third and final submission for tonight is the proposed Verizon Tower.  Mr. Tom Greiner is before us with a new proposed site as we had previously directed him to seek alternative sites.

 

Verizon - The previous submission was for the Swartz Field area behind Smith Hardware.  At the time, the Planning Board suggested that two alternative  sites  be considered by Verizon.  The first being the Feasley farm property, however the parties were not able to come to an agreement for a lease on that site.  The second property was the Eden Bowling Center property and that has been negotiated favorably.  It is on this property that we seek a SUP for a new Verizon Tower.    This tower will fill in the signal gaps between the North Collins Tower, the Evans Tower and the northern Hamburg Towers.   We would still need to go before the Zoning Board as we do not currently meet the set back requirements.  This new tower will be built in accordance with the most recent code requirements, which are more stringent than all towers built prior to 2006.  The second site is in an industrial area.  This site is obviously acceptable, as you have submitted this new plan.  So the question is, if you want to move forward with this tower on this site, you already know about the variance issues.

 

Kevin – This tower location seems more visible from the South than the prior location.

 

Juanita - There are other issues besides aesthetics.  The first tower was in the hamlet overlay and it was too close to the park and in the middle of town.  It wasn’t just a visual aspect at the first location.  The tower doesn’t belong in or next to a park.  It is much better suited to the industrial park area.  Cell towers are becoming like telephone poles they are just there and you no longer notice them.  They are everywhere and for the most part you don’t even realize they are there.

 

Mark - Frankly, no matter where it is located, it will be visible from somewhere.  I don’t see where either location is all that much different In terms of visibility.  There was somewhat of a concern as to the park location.  In any event, we currently have two sites proposed.  We need to forward our recommendation to the Town Board.  The sites both meet our criteria from a planning perspective.  We can recommend to the Town Board that either site, or both sites be considered for approval of a SUP and they can then weigh the public hearing input and opt for whichever site they prefer and then refer it back to us for site plan approval.

 

Mark – Dana, do you have anything to add?  Yes, this is an unlisted action under SEQR which means that the coordinated review is not required on it.  That’s only required under Type 1 Actions, so if the Town Board wished to do so, they could waive the coordinated review and just get the appropriate documentation after that.  If not, then they can then authorize to do a mailing for the coordinated review and establish themselves as the lead agency and do a complete coordinate review with the thirty-day mailing to the agency for comments.  Our view of this is that the way the cell tower is designed there is no traffic impact and no commercial impact, the tower only has a visual impact.  So it is the Town Board’s decision as to whether they feel the need to do a complete SEQR process on this.

 

Mr. Greiner - We would request that the Planning Board refer us to the Town Board so that we can proceed and move forward as quickly as possible.  As you indicated, a coordinated review is not required.  Obviously you would each do a single agency negative declaration on this.

 

William Mahoney – Both sites are located in a GB zone.  However, I would think that the surrounding uses at the “Bowling Center Site” (a storage facility and the other industry) are far better suited to a cell tower than the other area because it is in the Hamlet Overlay and from a resident standpoint the “Smith Hardware location” abuts a Town Park.

 

Mark – I propose that we make a recommendation to the Town Board to consider the “Bowling Center Site” for a SUP with the Applicant be required to meet and fulfill the following conditions:

 

·       Prepare a final set of plans for the site selected that are in substantial compliance, in terms of scope and intent, shown on the submitted preliminary plans that were reviewed and serve as the basis for this recommendation.

·       Secure any and all required zoning variances necessary to accommodate the use as proposed.

·       Submit a Site Plan in accordance with Town specifications for approval by the Planning Board.

·       Comply with all other applicable laws, codes, ordinances, or directives of the Town or otherwise.

 

This recommendation will be made with the caveat that the “Smith Hardware Site is also acceptable to us and if the Town Board so chooses then it is at their discretion alone.

 

Seconded by Juanita Majewski.  All in favor – Juanita “yes”- Mark “yes” – William “yes” and Kevin “No.”  Therefore by consensus of the Planning Board the recommendation will be so made.

 

Okay so the next step is the Town Board Meeting.  Thank you.

 

Mark Agle – Any reports?  No.  Okay, I make a motion to adjourn.  Kevin O’Gorman – Seconded.  All “Ayes” motion carried.  Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

 

The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for June 26, 2007

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Dawn Palma

June 11, 2007

 

 

Note:  William Mahoney – I have just one question – Is there any way we can get these Wendel information sheets prior to the meeting.  Dana – I can try, but they were only completed yesterday.

The Planning Board’s recommendation is as follows:

 

MEMO

 

 

TO:              Glenn Nellis, Supervisor and

                    Eden Town Board Members

 

FROM:         Mark Agle, Chairman

                    Planning Board

 

RE:               Special Use Permit Application

                    Upstate Cellular Network d/b/a Verizon Wireless

 

DATE:          June 6, 2007

 

Upstate Cellular Network d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit (“SUP”) for the construction of a 195 foot telecommunications tower in the hamlet area of the Town of Eden.  The Planning Board has reviewed their initial site proposal behind the former “Smith Hardware” store and also an alternate proposal behind the “Eden Bowling Center”.  Each site is zoned General Business and each is viable from the Planning Board’s perspective.  However each site will require the Applicant to obtain Site Plan approval, a Tower SUP, and some zoning variances in order to support the proposed use.

 

Upon careful consideration of the submitted preliminary plans for each of the foregoing proposals, the Planning Board makes the following recommendation to the Town Board:

 

By consensus of the members present at its May 29, 2007 meeting, the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board favorably consider approving the proposed use, as requested by Verizon, for the Eden Bowling Center site (3 members [Agle, Majewski, Mahoney] and 1 alternate member [Meyer] advocating this site as primary site). 

It should be noted as part of this recommendation, that if in their discretion the Town Board desires rather that the Smith Hardware site be approved for the use, the Planning Board by consensus, also considers this to be a viable site alternative (1 member [O’Gorman] advocating this location as primary site, other members would support this site if selected by the Town Board).

 

We further recommend that if either of the above referenced sites is approved by the Town Board for the proposed use; that prior to issuance of the necessary SUP permit, the Applicant be required to meet and fulfill the following conditions:

 

·       Prepare a final set of plans that are in substantial compliance, in terms of scope and intent, shown on the submitted preliminary plans that were reviewed and serve as the basis for this recommendation.

·       Secure any and all required zoning variances necessary to accommodate the use as proposed.

·       Submit a Site Plan in accordance with Town specifications for approval by the Planning Board.

·       Comply with all other applicable laws, codes, ordinances, or directives of the Town or otherwise.

 

Thank you for your favorable consideration of our foregoing recommendation.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Mark Agle, Chairman

Eden Planning Board