FINAL
Eden Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
August
5, 2004
Members
Present: Guests:
Dennis Brawdy, Vice Chairman Scott
Henry, Building Inspector
Anthony Weiss Kristen Haight,
Town Engineer
Kevin O’Gorman Ed
Krycia, Liasion
William Zittel Darryl
Phillips
Gerard Schwab Scott
Bley
Andrew Romanowski, Alternate Dick Minekime
Excused: Don Braasch
Mark Agle
Juanita Majewski
Absent:
______________________________________________________________________
Vice-Chairman Brawdy called the
Meeting of the Eden Town Planning Board to order at 7:30 PM. Brawdy requested a motion to approve the July 1st, 2004 minutes
as written & submitted, so moved by Bill Zittel, seconded by Jerry Schwab, carried all ayes.
NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Pre-submission
– Darryl Phillips – Service & Repair Shop @ 8259 N. Main Street (Don Nowak property). Phillips has
thoughts of leasing the current shop and is looking for input from the
Board. Brawdy stated that since
this is not a change of use, a simple site-plan that shows what portion of the
building you will be occupying and specifically indicating the dedicated,
delineated parking, and how that relates to the current tenant’s space. Brawdy also stated that there is an
outstanding requirement in regard to landscaping from a previous site-plan
approval which has not been completed as of yet. This will unfortunately adversely effect your
site-plan approval. O’Gorman stated
that the Board could potentially approve a site-plan, with the understanding
that it meets the requirements set forth by the building inspector, but pending
the completion of the required landscaping.
Brawdy stated that it is time for Mr. Nowak to step up to the plate and
complete the landscaping, just as all of the surrounding businesses have
done. Phillips told the Board that he
is planning to rent the collision shop and in the future, use the two service
bays in the front for an “express oil change” shop. Brawdy advised Mr. Phillips to obtain a copy
of the stamped site-plan from Mr. Nowak, transpose your specific uses onto that
site-plan, including the parking area (there are standards for parking that you
may acquire from Mr. Henry in regard to size, access, turn-arounds,
etc.) Submit that plan to this Board
for the September meeting so that we have a record of use for you and other
potential future tenants. However, no site plan will be approved without Mr.
Nowak first meeting the landscape requirements.
Bley Subdivision: Brawdy stated
that he did receive some background information from Chairman Agle in regard to
this sub-divide. Scott Bley stated that
this property is basically farmland that has been sub-divided and one lot has been
developed. Scott owns a 6-acre parcel,
and three other parcels are owned by his brothers. His question is what the family needs to do
to comply so that if a lot is sold, the potential buyer may build on the lot
residentially. In particular, the lot
listed as L.T. Bley. The lot
meets the 200’ road frontage, but is 8’ short (192’ lot size) of the
standard. Brawdy stated that Mr. Harold
Bley (father) conveyed 5 lots in 1995.
Technically, that falls under the auspices of a major subdivision. These conveyances happened through the
county, but never received major-subdivision approval from the Town. Brawdy questioned Scott as to how this
situation could be remedied after the fact.
The Klug (178’ width) lot was conveyed as an unbuildable lot, L.T.
Bley’s lot is also unbuildable due to size (192’
width), John Posenjack built
a residence on the center lot. O’Gorman
suggested that the simplest solution would be for Mr. Klug to convey 8’ of
property to L.T. Bley, meeting the 200’ lot standard. Scott stated that if Mr. Klug did that, his
property would devalue. O’Gorman stated
that is isn’t worth much now because it is designated as unbuildable. O’Gorman asked if they were looking for both
lots to be accepted as is. Scott replied
yes, that would be the best-case scenario, and what would it take to make these
lots marketable? Brawdy stated that an
option could be to request a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
to accept the lots as they are. Only the
Zoning Board can determine whether or not 192’ could be buildable. O’Gorman stated that another solution would
be to approach John Posenjack to acquire 20’ of
property, thus moving the property lines for L.T. Bley and Mr. Klug therefore
creating 2 buildable lots. These
laws were in effect when your parents applied 12 years ago; they haven’t
changed. The Planning Board has no
ability to set aside the requirement; only the ZBA can issue a variance. Scott
Henry stated that subdivision approval by the Planning Board is required; if
the ZBA approves the variance, a proper plat indicating the lots must be
submitted to the PB for approval. Brawdy
stated that if the ZBA approves a variance, then your next step is to check
with Scott Henry for the subdivision application/requirements for submission. With
a correct plat, Mr. Henry stated that this subdivision could be treated, and
potentially approved in the minor subdivision review process bypassing
the major subdivision process.
Special
use permit recommendation requested from the Town Board regarding Dick Minekime’s request to convert 2679 Hemlock Road property from an office building into a residency,
in an industrial zone. Mr. Minekime
explained that he had previously requested this special use permit in
1995. The building currently houses a
furniture showroom in the front and 4 offices in the back. The tenant occupied the office space for 8
years, but has recently moved out, and that has again initiated the request to
convert the space. This residence would
be used to by the tenant of the balance of the building. There are 2 tenants in the old Nagel Mill,
both are cabinet makers, one of them is occupying the front of 2679 as a
showroom. One of his employees would
live in this apartment, looking for the exception to the normal rule of an
industrial area because he would be the watchman of the property. Next door, there is an identical situation
with Page & Harms, where David Harms lives in the house and he is able to
do this because he is considered the “watchman” for their industrial
property. The tenant would be an
employee of the business next door with a possible purchase of the property
down the road. The front would continue
to be a show room but the back would be a 900 square foot, two-bedroom
apartment. Bill Zittel asked under this
premise, who will ensure that the watchperson is an employee of the
business? Brawdy explained that the
Planning Board could make a recommendation to the Town Board to require an
annual renewal with evidence of employment.
Minekime stated that he wasn’t exactly sure
how the rule reads as to whether or not is has to be an employee during the
daytime, as long as the person is paid to be the watchman after hours. Zittel stated that essentially you want an
apartment back there so that anybody could live there. Minekime stated
that the real issue is whether or not it is safe for someone. If it were a residence, parking would be less
of an issue, and as far as the question of safety, the residence next door is
identical and houses a family. Brawdy
stated that the Planning Board reviewed this issue in 1995 and most of the
concerns at that time there were parking issues. The Board at that time recommended approval,
but the Town Board did not approve the special use permit. The Planning Board can recommend any conditions
to be placed on the special use permit.
Scott Henry read the language of the code §225-19 (B) (3) “One dwelling unit only on any lot for the
exclusive use of an attendant, watchman or caretaker employee in connection
with any permitted use on said lot” in an industrial zone. “ Therefore this apartment could not be
used by just anyone, but an employee of the company. Kristen Haight
asked Mr. Minekime what has changed in the course of
9 years? Mr. Minekime replied that his tenant left; it is an economic
issue. Brawdy stated that the PB
recommended approval in 1995 and nothing has changed since then. Therefore, the recommendation should still
stand. O’Gorman stated that he has the
same concerns then that he has now. If
it is a single guy employeed by the company and
acting as the “watchman”, then that’s fine, but children DO NOT BELONG in this
area. There is no real need for a watchkeeper. Other
area businesses do not have a watchman. Minekime disagreed.
Page & Harms agree with this issue; they have a residence and they
have children. In fact, they were the
only children that ever were a problem to Minekime’s
property. O’Gorman stated that is because they are the only children in the
area and reiterated that is exactly the reason children do not be long
there. Zittel stated the law provides
for this situation in the zone, and that is what we have to consider. O’Gorman stated that IF they work for the
company, fine, but NO children should be allowed. Put that in the requirement. Minekime stated
that he had no way to legally restrict anyone from renting from him. Henry stated that the nature of the special
use permit adds an added layer of scrutiny, and that will be used by the Town
Board; there will be a public hearing and issues will be flushed out, and the
Town Board will explore the reasons why the previous Town Board denied the
permit and take all this into consideration when they make their decision. Dennis Brawdy motioned that after reviewing
the 1995 Town Board and Planning Board Minutes that addressed Mr. Minekime’s prior request for a special use permit, using
the language of the code, §225-19 (B) (3)
“One dwelling unit only on any lot for the exclusive use of an
attendant, watchman or caretaker employee in connection with any permitted use
on said lot” in an industrial zone”, the Planning Board recommend the Town
Board to approve the special use permit (the same recommendation from the 1995
request), with a recommended condition that the Town Board require an annual
renewal and proof that the resident is indeed an employee of the business
occupying the storefront. Bill Zittel
seconded, 3 aye, 2 nays. The 2 opposing votes felt that health and
safety issues were still a concern in regard to children possibly occupying
that space and should be considered by the Town Board.
Preliminary Plat Submissions for the Beverly and Evelyn Drive Major Subdivisions – Dick Minekime. Brawdy stated that the plans were submitted
the day of the meeting, not allowing time for the Planning Board to review them
before the meeting. Brawdy asked Minekime to address the Recreation Land
issue. Minekime
stated that to his knowledge, the Recreation Board recommended to the Town
Board to accept 1-acre of property at the corner of Beverly and Evelyn, next to
the existing park, to use as off-street parking. Minekime’s position
is that he does not wish to offer that particular parcel as at some point and
time he intends to extend Evelyn northward, then directly west into Schreiner
for a future subdivision. Brawdy stated
that this recreational acre is not part of the subdivision plat,
therefore we can continue our process and leave the details of recreational
land to the Rec and Town Boards to work out. Just for a point of information Minekime stated that he gave all this information to Jim
Brass. The Rec
Board did not meet last month due to a death of a spouse of one of the Board
Members. Minekime
proposed deeding 5 acres of land to the Town, and continue to use the part on Beverly. In the
future, that park parcel would deed back to Minekime
in exchange for the already deeded 5-acre parcel. The park would be used until such time the
proposed road extension began. Then a
year after the road was built, giving access to the 5-acre parcel. This would give ample time to use the
improvements that were made to the present park. The immediate issue for Rec
is really not land, but a parking area for the park eliminating unsafe street
parking. In the interum,
Minekime would allow parking on his property. In the future, there are farms that will
probably be sold for residential building.
Swartz field is behind these properties.
If/when this area develops residentially, more
land could be acquired, making a 10-15 acre town park. O’Gorman stated that there would be a
railroad line running through this area.
Do not try to connect these park areas, creating a safety issue. Minekime continued
to explain the preliminary plats submitted, basically indicating the sewers and
topography. Brawdy moved to schedule a
public hearing for September 2nd, 2004 at 7:45 pm, seconded by
Zittel, carried all ayes. Kristen
reminded Minekime that one other requirement will be
a SPDES permit requirement.
DON BRAASCH – Site Plan Review –
Southwestern Blvd –Scott Henry reviewed the requirements set forth at
the 2-5-04 meeting: A site-plan that
shows the two properties, and indicate what the proposed use of the property,
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. Braasch stated that the entrance to the off-the-road
parking area is 40’ wide. A 12” culvert
pipe was placed under a State Permit. No
buildings will be erected. Brawdy asked
Scott if the screening indicated was sufficient? A 6’ berm
plus the 4’ trees. There is current vegetation consisting of trees and
brush and the berm will begin there, 20’ wide (10’
feet on either side). 16 Jack pines 4’
in height on a 6’ height minimally, 8’ wide berm
equal in length to the site line from the hotel. Kristen stated that whenever you increase the
height you need to widen the bottom. Braasch agreed.
Brawdy requested a motion. Schwab
motioned to approve the site plan contingent upon the modification to the berm as mentioned above, be completed by September 1, 2004,
Weiss seconded, carried all ayes.
Kristen asked if drainage was an issue? After
discussion, it was determined that current drainage should be sufficient.
Kevin O’Gorman was called away, therefore Andy Romanowski
acted as a full-board member at this point of the meeting.
Schwab
motioned to adjourn the meeting, Romanowski seconded,
carried all ayes.
REPORTS: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None
Respectfully Submitted
Catherine A. Swiech
The Next Meeting will be held on Thursday, September 2nd,
2004 with a Public Hearing Scheduled for 7:45 pm regarding the Beverly &
Evelyn Major Subdivision.
