FINAL
Minutes of Meeting
July 7,
2005
Members
Present: Guests:
Dennis Brawdy Drew
Reilly
Gerard Schwab Scott
Henry
Kevin O’Gorman M/M
Persinger
Tony Weiss R.
Stievator
Excused: Pastor Kohl
Bill Zittel Shawna
Dosser
Juanita Majewski Liasions
Edward
Krycia, Jr., Councilman
Absent:
Andy
Romanowski
****************************************************************************************************
Vice-Chairman Brawdy called the July 7, 2005 Meeting of the Eden Town
Planning Board to order at 7:30 PM.
Brawdy requested a motion to approve the June 2, 2005 minutes as
written and submitted, so moved by Jerry Schwab, Kevin O’Gorman seconded,
carried all ayes.
NEW &
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. David Kolodczak : Pre-submission 8561 N. Main Street. Change of use of building to accommodate
facility for health related programs/services.
Kolodczak submitted a floor plan as well as a site-plan at this
pre-submission meeting. Kolodczak’s
architect reviewed all the specs of the building (submitted) and found 1 item
delinquent, which were separate bathrooms, 1 female, and 1 male. Available parking indicated 12 spaces in
the rear and 3 in the front of the building, for a total of 15 spaces. Shauna Dosser (owner of the business)
explained the nature of the business and used the floor plans for visual. Brawdy asked hours of operation. Operation would be as scheduled classes
demands. Shauna felt that exercise
classes would accommodate approximately 20 people and the classroom would
accommodate approximately 25-30 people.
Alternate room would be about 10-15; however it is likely that these
rooms would not be filled simultaneously.
Brawdy stated that this is a change of use and that an up-dated site
plan must be submitted. There is a
hamlet overlay requirement, however the building façade has recently been
updated. Town Engineer Drew
Reilly had reviewed the plan and stated that this is a Type II Action under
SEQR, therefore does not require SEQR action. Brawdy stated that a site plan is
before you now, it is the requirement to have received this plan 15 days ago
for review, however, as it is before the Board now, we will waive that
requirement as the site plan meets the necessary requirements for site-plan
submission and the Board could act upon this submission contingent upon
creating a parking lot dustless, delineated as specified in the code through
Scott Henry, CEO. Brawdy stated that
the parking requirement is the major issue before the Planning Board with
this project. After discussion, Jerry Schwab
motioned to provide conditional approval based on final submission of site-plan
to Scott Henry, CEO, Kevin O’Gorman seconded, carried all ayes
2. M/M
Persinger – Pre-submission/Site Plan Review 8531 East Eden Small Engine Repair
shop. Brawdy stated for the Boards background, the Persingers did
receive approval for use variance from the ZBA, a copy of the minutes from the
ZBA has been circulated, which refers 2 items to the Planning Board with respect
to screening and parking. Mr.
Stievater, architect representing the Persingers was present to answer any
questions the Planning Board might raise.
Brawdy stated that the PB requirements would be 2-fold. First and foremost, parking to meet the
Towns Code for dustless, delineated and handicap parking with any “Change of
Use” business. Revised Site plan must
show size of the spaces, 10’x20’ minimum, 1 handicap space assessable space
with assessable aisles based on the building code of NY State. Screening – there are questions and concerns
from the neighbors regarding this issue.
Brawdy read from the code stating that
“all non-residential uses adjoining or abutting a residential use such
as this shall provide appropriate screening and/or plantings on the side(s) facing
the said residential use in the zone; in granting any site-plan approval the
Planning Board shall require such screenings or plantings that will
sufficiently insulate the residential from the non-residential areas.” The site plan submitted indicates fencing
on the north side and additional fencing in the rear of the building. Brawdy asked what type of fencing would be
erected. Mr. Persinger stated that it
would be a barrier fence. Brawdy asked
where specifically the residential areas were in connection to the
building? Persinger indicated that the
85’ fence would run along the north side residential lot and his lot. Existing trees run along the south side
residential lot and his lot although the trees do not belong to him. Indicated on the plan is a 6’stockade fence
on the east side for outdoor storage area.
Stievater stated that parking is indicated on the plan and that 3 spots
are required and one of them will be handicap accessible. Persinger stated that he will be operating a
small engine repair service i.e. lawnmowers, lawn tractors, snow blowers,
etc. Brawdy stated that the parking and
screening are clearly indicated and if the Board had any further
questions/comments regarding this plan?
Tony Weiss stated that M. Persinger understands what he needs to do to
comply. Kevin stated that the ZBA
already approved the plan. Brawdy
stated that the ZBA approved the use variance, but that the Persingers still
need to file a site-plan for approval by the PB. Kevin stated that this is a backwards way of process. Brawdy stated that he did not agree; if they
don’t have an approved use in the zone, then we cannot review a site plan
because we don’t have a reference in the code for unallowable uses. Stievater
commented that in most other areas these items do go to ZBA before
Planning. O’Gorman differed with that
statement. Reilly stated that ZBA
should have referred this use variance to the Planning Board before they gave
their final ruling so as to acquire PB input.
Health and safety issues, parking, screening etc. may not have been
taken into consideration by the ZBA without a recommendation from the Planning
Board. (To be discussed at the end of the meeting). Brawdy opened the floor to hearing of visitors. Residents from East Eden were present to
voice their concerns regarding this agenda item. R. Acanfora – 8549 E. Eden Rd., planted a double row of barrier
pine trees between the lots when the previous business was operating, for
visual screening. Now he is subjected
to Mrs. Persinger swearing and defaming his character because of the
retribution due to asking logical and respective questions. Mr. Acanfora is requesting a barrier fence
be erected so that he doesn’t want to look at all of the collective stuff. Mr. Acanfora stated that at the ZBA hearing,
Mr. Persinger stated that he would park equipment out front and that he refuses
to have to look at it. Brawdy stated
that the space out front indicates grass, and that therefore that is what will
be approved and allowed. Reilly stated
that the only storage indicated is in the back of the building, 15’x32’, and
the applicant agreed to completely enclose (contain) the storage with 6’ solid
stockade picket fencing, including an access gate. Brawdy stated that all outdoor storage must be indicated on the
site-plan; at this point no outdoor storage in the front is indicated and
therefore is not allowed. The Board
agreed that no screening is necessary in the front as there will not be
storage. Jerry Schwab added that if
equipment appears on the grounds where storage has not been indicated on the
site-plan and approved by the board, then the residents should call Scott
Henry. Reilly stated that all storage
must be indicated on the site-plan. If
it is not shown on the plan, then it is not approved, and then Scott Henry will
enforce it as not being allowed. Mr.
Acanfora stated that has yet to see Mr. Henry enforce anything at this point
and time. Reilly stated that in
defense of Scott Henry, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO), that now a plan has
been submitted and (pending) approval and now Scott has something on paper to
enforce, he has in fact been doing his job by citing the Persingers to appear
before the Zoning Board of Appeals, who required a Public Hearing and
notification of residents of the proposed operation, as well as enforcing the
site-plan submission requirement presented here before the Planning Board. A ZBA approval and a Planning Board
(pending) approval has been granted and now the Persingers must comply with
those approvals. If at some point Mr. Persinger expands his business, he will
need to present to the PB his proposed use and the same requirements that we
are discussing tonight, which is if you have a residential use against a
business use, there needs to be appropriate screening. So we would deal with the same issues as
tonight. Ms. Michlauski, 8519 E. Eden
Road, north-side of the Persinger lot, requests the fence between lots extend
to the back of the property. Ms.
Michalski asked the dimensions of the fence would be. Brawdy stated that it is indicated 85’ on the
site plan. The Board did not see that
it was necessary to extend the fencing at this time. However if the business
should expand and more outdoor storage would become necessary, then they
Persingers would need to re-submit a revised site-plan and extension of the
fence would be reconsidered. O’Gorman
suggested that the fence be erected with the good side out. Reilly and Henry both stated that there is
no requirement in regard to good side out in Eden. Therefore the Persingers could erect the fence whichever way they
prefer. Ms. Michalski asked if the Town
or Scott set the hours of operation of the business. Reilly stated that we do not set hours of operation. However, there is a noise ordinance and if Mr.
Persinger exceeds the noise level, the Police Department will require the noise
to be discontinued. Mr. Persinger
stated that he might be working in the shop later at night, but that he will
not be running engines during that time; he might perform some bench work. A resident asked if there would be a
drainage plan. There is a cistern
located in the back of the property and it has a continuous water flow. Scott stated the parking that is indicated
on the site-plan (under 5000 square feet) does not require a complete drainage
plan. The cistern is not under our
jurisdiction. Questions should be
referred to the Erie County Department of Health. Mr. Persinger stated that they have an entirely new septic system
and the cistern that you are referring to is an old system that cannot even be
exactly located. Reilly added that the
DEC would regulate anyone dumping oil into any sewer or storm water systems if
that should become an issue. Acanfora
stated that there has never been an issue with the use but rather with
procedural issues all along; the applicant had not applied for or secured the
proper permits, etc.
Tony Weiss motioned to approve, Dennis added the following conditions:
1. Parking surface to be dustless,
delineated for 10’x20’ spaces as well as handicap parking as per code.
2. The
only storage area allowed is an area 15’ x 32’ on the east side of building to
be surrounded with a 6’ solid picket fence, and a gate. No other storage is allowed on the
property.
3. The Screening fence shall
be 6’solid stockade, natural finish,
north side of property, minimum 85’
deep (ending in parallel line with the
rear storage area.) In the event expansion is necessary, the applicant will be
required to resubmit a revised site-plan to the Planning Board.
Jerry seconded, carried all ayes. Dennis referred the Persingers to follow up with Scott Henry to
acquire the necessary permits and for any other direction they might need.
3. Pastor Kohl for the First Baptist Church –
Hemlock Road. Brawdy reminded the Board of the ZBA
approval in 2002 that asked the Church to continue to investigate the
sufficient sources of off street parking.
That is the pre-submission proposal before us now. Pastor Kohl stated that they have not yet,
but are looking to purchase a lot west of the Church for parking as well as
recreational uses. Brawdy stated that
Scott Henry commented that the pre-submission is good for tonight’s meeting but
that a formal-professional site-plan would be required in identifying the
spaces at a minimum of 10x20’, with lanes, 2-10’ lanes ingress/egress lanes, 2
handicapped accessible spaces with access aisles, dustless surface –
delineated. A drainage plan must also
be submitted due to the size of the parking area. The lot that is under discussion was at one time used as a
baseball field and soccer practice field.
Drew stated that by utilizing this lot as indicated, the Zoning allows
for recreation uses and therefore, parking is required, therefore the parking
can be used for both the Church and recreation fields. Scott stated that the recreational uses must
also be indicated on the site-plan.
Scott also stated that the handicapped accessible spaces can be placed
closer to the Church rather than add them to the new parking lot and still meet
the requirements for handicapped accessibility. The Planning Board encouraged Pastor Kohl to move forward with
their plan to purchase the property for parking/recreational uses. Pastor Kohl stated that at sometime in the
future, they might want to erect a pavilion; Scott stated that they could only
do what would be approved on the site-plan.
Any future developments not indicated on the site-plan would need to be
re-submitted. Drew stated that likely
it would be a building permit application.
Brawdy directed Pastor Kohl to then proceed with submission of a
site-plan and to use the site-plan checklist as a guide to submission.
4. Minekime Subdivisions Signage. Although
not an agenda item, Scott Henry asked the Board to review the signage plan submitted
by Mr. Minekime to erect a sign for his new subdivisions. Reilly stated that the subdivision law
states that when a subdivision is approved, you may erect a sign, however it
must be approved by the Planning Board.
When we approved, a sign was not indicated on the plan, so an addendum
to the site-plan is before us tonight.
Dr. O’Gorman stated it is not an agenda item and we should not discuss
it until it is on the agenda. Brawdy
stated that the secretary brought to his attention that this item may very well
be the only item on the August agenda, therefore if we deal with it now, an
August meeting may not be necessary.
The Board agreed that it would then be discussed. Brawdy asked Scott if Minekimes’ plan meets
the requirements? Scott stated that
basically it does, the sign dimensions comply, but it is a corner lot and falls
under separate setbacks, and must be approved under the discretion of the
Planning Board. The plan indicates non-illuminated. The placement of the sign must be 30’ off each road. Jerry Schwab motioned to approve the
aesthetics of the sign and indicated to set the sign 30’ off from each road,
Kevin seconded, motion carried.
DISCUSSION:
Creative
Zoning for East Eden. At the May 2005 meeting, Drew Reilly
submitted a “Traditional Neighborhood” code (TND) that was written for Clarence
Hollow and distributed to the Eden Planning Board to review and use as an
example of what could be done to replace the LB in East Eden and a small area
near the North Collins town line area.
Ed Krycia stated that although this is no longer a pressing issue he
commented that we really should review this area because of the mixed use
etc. O’Gorman stated that he read the
description and feels that we do need to pinpoint specific needs/uses for this
area. Do we allow residential in
GB? Reilly stated that if you have a
commercial use, then you could be allowed a residential use within the building
(i.e. apartment above/behind). Brawdy
tabled this discussion until the next meeting.
Persinger Project: Drew Reilly stated that in a
nice way, we should ask the ZBA that in reference to use variances, they should
coordinate the issue with the Planning Board and not issue the variance then
sent it to the Planning Board after the fact, because once they have approved a
use variance, the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over the applicant. First of all SEQR should have been
done. Secondly, once they issue the use
variance it is very difficult for the Planning Board to work with the issue
because we don’t have a code. They are
not in a specific district and there is a lot of pressure on the PB to resolve
issues with the neighbors. They should
have been coordinated so that we could have a site plan that they could base
their use variance on and say to the public that it won’t alter the neighbor
hood or cause a health and safety issue.
Therefore we should have been involved in trying to help them with that
through the site plan. Brawdy restated
for clarification that the Persingers applied to the ZBA, they held a public
hearing, in a perfect world, the ZBA should have referred the plan to us, use
variances require SEQR and SEQR deals with all the issues that we need to
address.
Scott stated that in defense of the Zoning Board the record indicated
that building has always been a commercial use. It did not come to the PB first because it was originally a
non-conforming use. It is going to be
another non-conforming use…that is their jurisdiction. Secondly, they sought and got direction from
the Town Attorney. They processed the
application in accordance with the section of the code that allowed them to do
that and they received direction from the town attorney. Reilly stated that these use variances are
very rare but in the future they should be better coordinated.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Unless
something pressing is submitted before July 21, 2005, there will not be an
August meeting. The next scheduled
meeting will be held on September 1, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jerry Schwab motioned to
adjourn, Kevin O’Gorman seconded, carried all ayes.
Respectfully
submitted,
Catherine
A. Swiech
