Minutes

Eden Planning Board

June 26, 2007

 

FINAL

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:                                                        MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mark Agle                                                                               Anthony Weiss

Dennis Brawdy                                                                       Juanita Majewski

Kevin O’Gorman                                                                    

William Zittel, Excused

Andrew Romanowski

Frank Meyer, Alternate                                                       

William Mahoney, Alternate

 

GUESTS:

 

Scott Henry, COE

 

Chairman, Mark Agle called the June 26, 2007 Planning Board meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Does everyone have a copy of the minutes of the May 29, 2007 meeting?  Are there any revisions or comments?  Hearing none, I make a motion that the Planning Board Minutes be approved as submitted and printed, seconded by Bill Zittel.  Being no discussion, all “Ayes” motion carried.

 

NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

 

ITEM 1

 

Mark – The first order of business on today’s agenda is from Dave and Jane Clemens.  It is a reconfiguration of the subdivision on Woodside Drive and Hillview Road.  This was previously discussed back in September of 2006 for a preliminary conference.  Every one should have a copy of the submission.  Basically this is 11 acres of land owned by Dave and Jane Clemens.  A review of the original plan shows the easterly 2/3 of that acreage configured under Map Cover 2189 and filed with the County.  The westerly 1/3 is a separate adjoining parcel.  Essentially Mr. Clemens was given direction previously to come back with a sketch plan that met the bulk requirements of the zone.  Under the filed Map Cover there existed 6 original lots with the homestead lot being located on Wolff Drive.  Under the minor subdivision regulation the applicants could, by right, create 3 additional lots from the westerly parcel, for a total of 10 lots.  Essentially what we have before us tonight is the resulting preliminary sketch plan showing the proposed 10-lot subdivision of the entire 11-acre parcel.  Dana, do you have anything to add.

 

Dana - The next move, after the building department reviews and verifies that the building lots conform to the bulk requirements of the zone, would be that the board, if they so choose, can schedule a public hearing for its next meeting on a preliminary plat at that time.  Based upon feedback received, the board could then possibly move forward to final approval.

 

Mark - This plan does fall under our major subdivision regulations so a public hearing is required, even though the overall number of lots proposed is the same as what the applicants could get by right.  Since both parcels were not part of the acreage covered under the originally filed subdivision, the overall plan must be reviewed in total.  The westerly parcel could have been considered a minor subdivision, but since some of the reconfigured lots overlap onto this parcel, it is best addressed as a single comprehensive plan.  We have the authority to approve both the minor subdivision and the reconfiguration of a previously filed subdivision and therefore the “cleanest” approach is to call the hearing on the complete plan.  There are numerous fees associated with this type of development.  The development fee on the original 6 lots was paid at the time of the original subdivision approval.  Our code imposes a development fee of $700 per lot and this would apply to the three lots we deem as being created as part of the minor subdivision approval incorporated as part of this proposal.  Therefore, rather than have each future homeowner having to pay the fees later, we would suggest you pay the $700 per lot fee now and therefore all ten lots would be paid up in this regard.  Basically you are looking at $2,100 as your development fee for the 3 lots. 

 

Motion by Bill Zittel: Approving the Sketch Plan and authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Plan that complies with the County filing requirements, said plan to be submitted no later than 14 days prior to the next meeting date of July 31, 2007.  At which time a public hearing will also be held on the plan.  A short form EAF must be submitted along with the required application form.  Motion seconded by Andy Romanowski.  All “Ayes” motion carried.

 

ITEM 2

 

Mark – Next we have Judy Almond before us looking to rent the front portion of her two family residence to Bob & Robin Ostronski for a coin/collectible retail business.

 

Ms. Almond  - The building was purchased because of the storefront with the intention of opening my own business when I retired.  Well I am still working and figured I would rent out the space in the meantime.  I am renting the space for a very small amount.  The storefront/retail area was pre-existing when I bought the property.  There is parking in the rear and there is a 4-car garage.

 

Scott Henry – We have been through this with various other businesses in the center of town and the change in use triggers certain building a fire codes.  Our records show that this property is two-family residential.  If you continue to use it as a two-family you don’t need to do anything.  However, if you want to pursue doing something different with it then you are required to follow the regulations for the zoning of the new use.  So you have some building and fire code issues which typically are addressed on evaluation by a registered and licensed architect.  They will tell you what changes, if any must be made to comply with the retail/commercial code.  As far as zoning goes the proposed use is permitted.  As far as parking requirements, you need one space for every 350 square feet of retail space and 2 spaces for each residential dwelling unit.  We have not been provided with the square footage so we cannot make any determinations as of this date.

 

Mark – Okay, so there will be 2 residential dwelling units and a small retail space.  So that is 4 spaces for the residential units and 2 spaces in back for the retail space plus any allowances for roadway parking.  Aside from the building code issues, we will need a site plan prepared by a licensed architect showing the entire lot, garage, buildings, driveway, location of the retail space, etc.  We cannot make a determination without seeing a site plan.  You also need to consider that the property is in the hamlet overlay area so there will be signage requirements unique to that zone.

 

Dennis Brawdy – What Mark is trying to say is that you must prepare a site plan.  An architect can assist you in preparing a site plan and unfortunately you will need to spend some money.  That is the minimum investment that anyone would have to do in town to do a change of use.  So we would need to start with that.

 

Mark - So who ever you would hire to prepare the site plan, you may first want to ask if they would be willing to come out give you a consultation and advice as to any associated building code issues.  If there is a lot involved, you might want to rethink your strategy.

 

Judy Almond – This seems excessive.  I work in retail opening and closing stores all the time.  I’ve had to go through planning boards for signage issues but I have never experienced anything quite like this.  This is the town I live in.  I don’t feel as though I am getting any help.  I feel these requirements are excessive for a building that has been in place for well over 50 years.  Visually nothing has changed.  It was and is a two-family residence unit as well as a business front.  It was like that when I bought it.  So how has it changed?  All of the older business/residential combination buildings around me have me concerned also.  Are they legal businesses?  Do they have firewalls and doors?

 

Dennis Brawdy – We are not singling you out.  Every business that comes before the Planning Board has to provide us with a site plan.  That is what we use to review and make our decision.  Building codes and such are not within our jurisdiction.  If there is a building code problem or violation, that is not something we as a planning board deal with.  Those are New York State Building Code Regulations and are enforced by the Code Enforcement Office.  We are saying that you (or any other business or person who comes in) that are seeking a change in use need to submit a site plan.

 

Mark – We have guidelines to follow and so does Scott.  He does not create the building codes he only enforces them.  We would love to have your business in town, but it needs to be within the framework of the codes.  Any architect you might hire can guide you as to the appropriate requirements for the site plan and should also be able to provide guidance relative to any building code requirements or identify any violations that may be present.  Dawn will send you the Site Plan Application Checklist form.

 

ITEM 3

 

Mark – Next we have before Ms. Renee K. Adams for seeking a Special Use Permit for her dog breeding business on Hickman Road.  Ms. Hickman can you give us an overview of your intentions?

 

Ms. Adams – My house is large and the dogs I want to breed are little lap dogs.  I had wanted at maximum capacity a total of 10 dogs consisting of 3 males and 7 females.  I wanted to put an outdoor kennel here on my lot.  I also have a puppy fence and a large dog run.  I don’t really plan on having any outdoor buildings.  I planned on keeping the dogs in my house for the most part.  The property to one side is a field does that matter?

 

Mark – Have you talked to anyone about the codes?  Are you aware of any of the guidelines relative to this type of use, such as that exercise pens and runways cannot be within 200’ of any lot line except 300 feet from the front?  So depending on where you plan on putting the runs, etc. you must take those dimensions into consideration.  Whether the neighboring property is a field, a house or whatever, does not matter.  You still have to have the pens and runs set back appropriately from the property boundary lines.  This use requires a Special Use Permit and the Town Board will make the ultimate decision as to whether to grant such a permit, in part based upon our recommendation.  So this board is the first place for you to start.  If you cannot fulfill the code requirements, you may also need to seek variances from the ZBA as well.  So according to the code provisions, you will need 100 square feet for every 10 pounds of animal.  So if you will be harboring 10 dogs at approximately 100 pounds total you would need to have 10,000 square feet dedicated to the animals.

 

Dana – How often will you be having litters of puppies?   The puppies need to be included in your overall estimate.  What do you currently have?

 

Ms. Adams – Currently I have 3 females and 2 males.  One female is pregnant and is due July 13 or so.  So I will be keeping at least one of her females.  This year I expect 2 litters and next year I expect to have 3 or 4.

 

Dana – So your growing will be progressive and you will have a minimum of 7 dogs, as of this year, permanently on the property.

 

Ms. Adams – Well, yes, I will be selling the puppies locally and via the Internet.

 

Dennis Brawdy – What Dana is saying or asking rather is that with your site plan submission, you will have to decide the size of your business.  You have to determine I will have this number of animals at any given time.  You have to come back to us with a site plan that accommodates what you plan to do.  For example, if you say I plan to have this number of dogs, say 10 throughout the year, including puppies.  Then that is what you have to abide by.  If you need to increase it to 20 dogs next year, then you have to come back before the Town Board to revise the Special Use Permit.  When you are doing something like this, boarding, breeding, grooming or a kennel, you have to stipulate the number of dogs you will be applying for and then a Special Use Permit can be issued by the Town Board.   The SUP is renewable every year.

 

Ms. Adams – That’s why I told you 10 dogs.

 

Dennis Brawdy – Ten years down the road, you have 100 dogs (just for number) and you have a neighbor that starts to complain.  The board is going to say, hey, you only have a SUP for 10 dogs.  Then that will become an issue so we are telling you that you have to think ahead a little and decide where you want to be.

 

Ms. Adams – I would be extremely responsible.

 

Mark – We are not questioning your intentions, but your proposed plan has to be reduced to a quantitative analysis.  You need to come up with a plan that supports what you want to do and the number of dogs you will have on the premises at any given time.  First you have to get the Special Use Permit and then you have to operate within the parameters of that permit.

 

Dennis - The Town is concerned with the number of animals that are supported by any SUP they grant as this is required by specific article of the code.  So you need to outline what you plan to do.  You need to pick a number to work with and then prepare a plan that supports that number.

 

Kevin - The other thing may arise is that you may need a variance.  So you may want to go and talk to the neighbors ahead of time and get favorable letters from them and when you go before the Town Board, you will be in much better shape down the road.  Unlike a prior submission in East Eden whose neighbors were against any dog boarding or breeding, etc.  If you have neighbors that are against it then you will have to stick to the letter of the law.

 

Mark – Just based upon what you have shown us so far, based upon the set backs, you will have a difficult time complying with those setbacks as far as pens and runways.  Now, that being said you can have a site plan drawn by a licensed engineer or architect attempting to meet these design codes and set backs.  But if you can’t then you have the option to apply for a variance.  That is just one more hurdle.  But these are the requirements and you need to consult a design professional to assist you laying everything out and preparing your site plan.

 

ITEM 4

 

Submission of a Sketch Plan Application for ARR Holdings, LLC.  Andrew Romanowski you will have to withdraw yourself from the Planning Board for this item.  For the purposes of creating a quorum, at this time alternate member William Mahoney will be empowered as a full member relative to this matter.  Andrew steps down introducing Mike Borowiak of Nussbaumer & Clark to present on his behalf.

 

Mike Borowiak – We represent Andrew Romanowski a/k/a ARR Holdings, LLC. for the development of a 7 lot residential subdivision on a vacant 37-½ acre parcel on Schintzius Road.  We supplied a complete application with some overall property plans.  The concept plan here is to create 5-acre building lots along Schintzius Road that would allow for some flexibility with house placement.  We are looking at a staggered outline rather than houses in a row.  Our goal is to create an estate size lot development utilizing the characteristics of the existing terrain.  Tucking some house farther back, having different set backs, curved driveways, something that would be really appealing.  The developer will have complete control over the architectural aesthetics of the development.  Whereby he will be developing all the lots.  We spoke to Dana at Wendel Engineering to address some of the issues they raised regarding hydric soils that I believe were only potential hydric soils and those would be only in the low land areas.  The lots are large enough were full avoidance of these low areas is possible and an investigation therefore, would not be necessary.  There is water available on the south side of the street along with the other necessary utilities to create this subdivision.  The reason for the 7 lots at 5-acre is that we wanted to be able to stay within the NY State Realty Subdivision Law whereby we would be exempt from getting any kind of health department approval at the plan approval stage (would still be required at the time if individual lot development).  According to the current Agricultural Zone Code, lots are 4-acre minimum.  Our original and alternate plan was for 9 lots at 4-acres each.  Under that plan we could only develop 4 lots every 3 years.  So we felt the 7-lot subdivision was the best way to proceed.  No infrastructure or extension of any public utilities would be needed.  Nor would there be any additional tax burden or any additional burdens on the various departments within town.  We feel this is the best use of the property.  Scott Henry interjected by stating that our Town code supercedes the NYS procedures and therefore major subdivision approval is probably required.  Mike Borowiak – As required, a cluster plan was also designed.  However with a cluster plan the lots would be 4 acres and once you go under that 5 acre threshold, the County requirements say that major subdivision is that the ground does not PERC then the County only allows you to build under that NY Realty Subdivision Law which is 3 splits or 4 houses every 3 years.  So it kind of precludes a cluster plans in an area where you don’t have sanitary sewer.  Obviously, most of the ground up there is not going to PERC.  There are actually several lawsuits pending out on Quaker Road in East Aurora.  There are 4 houses build and all of the remaining lots are vacant because they can only build 4 houses every 3 years. 

 

Most people are familiar with our Water Valley Subdivision.  That is one of the few cluster developments we were able to do without sanitary sewer because we had ground that had a good perc rate but there just isn’t a lot of that type of land to be had.  So really in the final analysis a cluster plan is not feasible and we did not want to do the maximum density because I think that gaining 2 more lots causes it to lose character.

 

Mark – Does anyone have any questions or comments?

 

Various discussion - Eden is actually at 3 lots every 6 years.  So only 3 homes could be build every 6 years.  Minor are not more than 3 every 6 years.  If you do 3 and you want to do 1 the next year you would need to come in for major subdivision or you can come in and do all 7 under 1.  If you wanted to handle this as minor you would come in create not more than 3 lots under minor, get approval for minor, wait 6 years and get a maximum of 3 again and wait 6 years and get 3 again for the Town.

 

So you would be looking at 18 years.  That is the problem with a cluster plan.  So the 5-acre lots are driving the issue based on the perc.  So it is a major subdivision in the Town’s eyes but it is not in the eyes of the County because the lots are at least 5 acres.  So if the lots are 5-acres or larger it is not a subdivision to the County but it is a health department issue and they allow sand filters.  The minimum frontage is 300 feet.  The set backs proposed are 150 feet.   Each driveway will be configured differently.  No one here will have the option to buy a lot and choose his or her own architect and build a house.  No we are not giving them that option.  We are looking to place the driveways and the houses with minimal impact on the surrounding land.  They won’t be straight bowling alley driveways.  The houses will be tucked in and with a curving driveway; you won’t have a house staring in your face from the highway.  These houses will be worth around $300,000+ without blinking an eye.   We don’t think yet, that there is a market for the $500,000 range home as in Water Valley, especially when you have the older existing houses heading up the road that are all lined up 50 feet or so off the road.  O’Gorman stated, the minimum Town set back is 50 feet.  If we were to approve this we would require 150 feet at this time.  We don’t want to approve cookie-cutter houses.  The remaining 22 acres, the field up farther is owner by someone else?  So you haven’t bought the other land yet?   That land is all open anyway and not part of this plan.  There will be minimal tree removal under this plan, with the exception of lot 1 which we will require timber management and has some drainage issues.   O’Gorman - Suppose we say that no driveway will run perpendicular to the roadway it must be meandering?

 

We all seem to like the lay out you have shown us.  We really need just to define the minimum 150-foot setbacks.  We need something more quantitative rather than meandering driveway.  Borowiak - We will put together some language for inclusion on the plan for defining the driveways.  Can we do preliminary and final plat approval at the same time?  Dana - We could have the public hearing on the preliminary plan, if there is no commentary that would make us reconsider the configuration shown here or require any other substantial change, we could approve the preliminary as also being the final plan based upon that.  Borowiak - The other thing is that if you follow the Town subdivision regulations set forth in the code, a drainage plan is to be submitted for the subdivision.  We feel that this applies to most small lot residential subdivisions but that it is really not applicable here since all lots are at least 5 acres.  Under the Town’s code, each lot will still need to come in with their own individual drainage plan and County Health Department approval at the time of building permit application.    I would like to come in with a preliminary/final plat at the July 31, 2007 meeting.  Have the public hearing at that time.  Hopefully we won’t have any major public opposition and we can get approval that night and go on our way.   Agle - You will need a Long Form EAF and a coordinated SEQR review, for which we will be lead agency.   The only provision we need shown is the 150-foot setback with the meandering driveway.

 

Motion by Agle to approve the Sketch Plan and authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Plan that includes the above stated revisions and that complies with the County filing requirements, said plan to be submitted no later than 14 days prior to the next meeting date of July 31, 2007.  At which time a public hearing will also be held on the plan.  Further declaring the Planning Board lead agency for the SEQR and authorizing Wendel Engineering (Town Engineers) to complete a lead agency mailing expressing their intent to involved and interested agencies and requesting comments for a 30 day period thereafter, upon receipt of a Full EAF and site plan from the applicant. 

Motion seconded by Dennis Brawdy.  All “Ayes” motion carried.

 

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS – Everyone still has to get in their required 4 hours of annual training.  Did everyone get the most recent information that Dawn sent out?  There are also a few other sessions coming up.  See Dana or Dawn for more information.

 

Kevin/various members - Additionally, here we are the Planning Board and there was a questionnaire sent to a majority of the well water using residents as to the quality and quantity of their water and the amount of interest that would have in connecting to the Town’s water supply.  There has not been one person who has approached this Planning Board about anything about any water project or water line.  I thought we were the planning board.  We get no ability to provide input?  Part of it is within the Ag zone under the Town’s Master Plan.   Who has the information as to this water line?  Why was the planning board not approached?  Supposedly, according to the Water Authority the most direct route is to come down Shadagee Road.  Even though that seems to conflict with the intent of the Town’s Master Plan.  Krycia - It is a transmission line.  O’Gorman - So a resident cannot tap into that line without a water district being applied for and created.  Krycia - Correct.  They can but you won’t have the water to supply it.  The Town of Hamburg claims we are lessening their water supply.  This will apparently alleviate our drawing from them.  It is scheduled to come down Shadagee Road and then down 62 southbound, to north Collins and ultimately Gowanda.  O’Gorman - So once you put the water line through the middle of an agricultural district then everyone will have access to water at some point.  I think the Planning Board should have been consulted.

 

Mark Agle – 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 July 31, 2007

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Dawn Palma

 

July 7, 2007