MINUTES
EDEN PLANNING
BOARD
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
FINAL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Agle, Chairman
Andrew Romanowski, Alternate
Gerard Schwab
Kevin O’Gorman
Bill Zittel
Juanita Majewski
Tony Weiss
GUESTS:
Dana Braun, Wendel
Mike Bolo
Mr. O’Brien – O’Brien’s Pub
Bill Gugino – B & B Homes
************************************************************************
Chairman, Mark Agle called the September 26, 2006 Planning
Board meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Mark
Agle requested a motion to approve the July 25, 2006 Planning Board Minutes as
submitted and printed, so moved by Bill Zittel, seconded by Kevin O’Gorman,
carried all “ayes”.
NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SCHINTZIUS RD. - Mark Agle called forward Mr. Bill
Gugino of B & B Homes, Inc., 14220 Route 29, Springville, NY for a
pre-submission conference as to a possible 9 lot new major subdivision on
approximately 37 acres on Schintzius Road.
He provided the members with a survey map depicting the correct parcel
of property and to replace the one that was erroneously submitted and
distributed to the members with their agenda packet for tonight’s meeting. He did not leave a copy of this new survey
with the board. Mark asked Mr. Gugino if
he was aware of the current codes and the requirement of 200’ frontage per
lot. Mr. Gugino-Yes, the farm was
divided and a 22-acre lot that was split and sold to another family member
leaving the subject 37.45 acre parcel further down the road as shown on the
survey I just handed out. Mark-since we
all were provided and reviewed the wrong survey you submitted, our
understanding of the subject parcel is not correct as far as the number of
parcels that would be allowed. The new
parcel shown is larger than what we were erroneously provided. However, we can still speak generally to this
concept as of right now. This area is
zoned agricultural so the lots must be a minimum of 4 acres and require 200’ of
frontage. This area does not have sewer
so septic would be required. The area
does have a water line running the entire length of the roadway. The number of lots proposed would be subject
to major subdivision approval, a long form EAF, SEQR, and submission of a
cluster plan. Some areas are not suited
for cluster development, however this area might be appropriate. So you should submit a sketch plan showing
all major environmental features of the property including all woods, fields,
hedge rows, tree lines, wetland areas, creeks, gas lines, etc., throughout the
property. That would help determine how
the lots could be best arranged in a cluster development. If you read our code, the cluster development
does allow maybe for tighter density but here because there is no sewer that
tightens up that requirement quite a bit.
You know the property better than we do since you actually have seen and
probably walked the (correct)
parcel. We have not and are at somewhat
of a disadvantage (since we were provided
with the incorrect survey). Mark
asking Dana, is there anything else from an engineering standpoint about the
SEQR or anything else that you would like to discuss? Dana, just that the cluster allows for much
more creativity and because this parcel does have many environmental features,
the Town might also want to preserve and try to make use of lands for any new
residents and existing residents since there are houses on the opposite side of
the roadway who will also have to be taken into consideration. Future development has an impact on the
current view and/or landscape for existing residents and the board will
therefore follow a thorough and creative thought process on this and any future
development. We would prefer not to have
just straight lines, no typical cookie cutter developments. According to the maps, there may also be a
very bad wetland soil area in this spot.
Mark – Dawn has copies of our subdivision requirements that will walk
you through the whole four or five step design/review/approval process. Primarily you would to be concerned with
three major steps. You are now just in
the pre-submission planning stage which will include your cluster plan and
sketch plan, then there is the preliminary plan/public hearing stage, and then
final plan stage. Each one of those
really accomplishes different things.
The first would be input from us.
The second would be input from the public and the third would be what
all the different agencies see and sign off on and of course, we would need to
approve it as well. Obviously there is
an application process and fees and requirements that go along with each step
and Dawn will get you all of that. Kevin
O’Gorman inputs the possibility of smaller lots. Mark interjects that the septic requirements
would most likely prohibit smaller lots and would be driven by the County
requirements. Mr. Gugino states that he
is aware of the basic septic requirements for a three or four bedroom house and
that with 4-acre lots there is plenty of room.
If we could put in smaller lots that would be all the better for us
obviously but we would also have to configure in a road or a cul de sac. Mark - the overall depth of the property does
not appear to lend itself to that either.
Andrew – because of the number of lots that you are asking for, it’s
going to trigger a major subdivision with the County and depending on the
percability of the soil. That’s the
issue you will run into because of the number of lots you are looking to put
into it will trigger a major subdivision and the county will look at the
percability of the soil and assuming that you don’t perc, then they will limit
the number of lots your allowed to put in.
Mr. Gugino - Right. Bill - I
think that was our thinking on keeping with the larger lots because we were
aware of the soil conditions. But if we
go with smaller lots would he need a variance?
Mark – under the code, we have the ability to approve a cluster
development plan as long you’re still dedicating the entire lands to the
project. So long as the rest of the
associated lands would then be cut off from future development, we may have
some flexibility as to the smaller lots but the County still has the final say
as to what is allowed and what is not because of the septic issue. Andy Romanowski, the County may limit the
number of lots that can be developed only allowing a few lots every 3 or 4
years, a phasing in so to speak, just to be sure there are no problems along
the line. I think that as long as you
keep the minimum square footage required for the septic you can do it but they
may limit the number of lots. You will
have the worst-case scenario of either the NY Real Property Law or the Major
Subdivision Laws if you don’t perc. If
you have a major subdivision without sanitary sewer and you don’t perc then you
still have to meet the major subdivision requirements. Kevin - There is no sewer up there? Tony - No, not on Schintzius and not in East
Eden. You may be better off with the
larger lots in the long run and would probably get the same amount of money in
the end. Mark - You might have to get
creative in your thinking. The acreage
is a large rectangle box. You also
apparently have a view from up there to consider as well. Kevin - A view of what? Dawn – I live across the street and I have a
view of Lake Erie, parts of Canada and parts of the City from my back
porch. I don’t know if the other side of
the road would have the same view. Mark
– I think that if you follow the requirement of the code. It certainly is a use that is contemplated in
that zone as long as you meet requirements but one of the requirements that we
will expect and look upon is certainly some sort of a cluster plan. We would like to see that especially in that
area. If it is something that looks good
and we can work with you on then it might be the preferable alternative for up
there. Mr. Gugino, so what you want to
see is a cluster plan as one of the proposals.
Mark – Yes. Mr. Gugino – If it’s
possible. Mark – Yes, in fact according
to the requirements it would be a separate required sketch plan. You would have two plans, one would be your
more conventional layout configured however you think is best suited to the
layout of the land and the second sketch would be a cluster development of some
sort, and we talked about different plan variations here tonight whatever works
within your site and depending on what you think you can get by with the County
in terms of sewage and what not. Mr.
Gugino – When you say a minimum lot, I don’t know what that necessarily would
be. Mark – I don’t know what size houses
your looking at and what kind of septic system or sand filter system you are
looking at in relation to lot sizes. So,
I guess that’s all we can tell you right know.
Mr. Gugino – we needed some direction before coming up with our final
plan and I think you have been real helpful in doing that and actually gave
some ideas that we hadn’t thought of.
Mark – We may have been more helpful if we had reviewed the correct
survey from the start. Mr. Gugino – I
apologize for that my secretary sent over the wrong one. Mark – Actually, some of those things went
away because I think the other lot had a gas line in the middle of it, which
would prohibit building location, at least according to the survey you showed
us here. So you need to show us every
element and all physical features of the land in question. You know about the SEQR requirements right. Mr. Gugino – Yes. Thank you.
Mark – Good Luck.
OBRIEN’S PUB – Mark - At the last meeting we
discussed the parking requirements based on the usage for the upstairs with the
ten additional spaces next door and prior there were only 8 shown but I see the
latest plan does reflect 10 spaces in accordance with what we determined would
be the requirement based upon our review at the last meeting. Mr. O’Brien – the spaces shown next door are
actually on the pub property. Mark –
Yes, I see that additional property is dedicated to the Pub on this current
plan. I think the only other thing that
has come up is that; if you will recall on the original plan that we approved
you have got that deck/patio area along the side and it was brought up as to
whether or not that could be covered or enclosed. To me that is a building permit issue but
Scott suggested that you come before us with that concept. Scott – I had a discussion with the architect
and he was concerned as to materials to be used within the building code. Mark - yes, but from our perspective we
already approved the plan for that area to be used for that purpose and in that
manner. Unless there is something that I
am missing here, I think that the applicant just needs to come and see Scott to
satisfy the building codes requirements.
I know there are probably fire code requirements as well but Pat will
have to see you about those matters. In
terms of our review here and the site plan, our requirements have been
met. Does anyone have any discussion? Kevin – I just have a question, if he were to
put up an awning instead of a roof, does that come under your jurisdiction
(meaning Scott) as well. Scott – It
depends on several issues that would need to be evaluated on specifics and not
hypothetically … (a few inaudible words of discussion). Mark – as far as what we have in front of us
for the current site plan, is there any thing else for discussion. If not, I will make a motion to approve. Seconded by Bill Zittel. All ‘Ayes” carried. Mark – Okay, so you’re
all set with us, you just have to work with Scott on the building issues and
for the addition upstairs that’s up to Scott to take care of. (Addition to record – Pat indicates the plan
includes the addition of an 8 x 2 addition for a second means of egress from
the basement and for better acceptance of deliveries. So noted).
GAL-COR, - Mark - At the last meeting we approved the
submitted site plan with conditions.
They submitted a revised site plan, which reflects the revisions that we
wanted to see according to those conditions.
Specifically, they have showed the parking area with and adequate number
of spaces being dedicated to this use and delineated, the dust free surface is
noted, it shows the portion of the building to be used by other tenants, and it
does have the appropriate seal by an architect.
My understanding is that they still have not paid the required
fees. So we can approve this plan based
on the revisions but we need to keep on the record that they need to pay the
necessary fees before Scott can issue the Certificate of Occupancy. Bill Zittel - I make a motion to accept the
plan as approved with a contingent upon all outstanding fees and bills being
paid prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Seconded by Juanita. All “Ayes” motion carried. Mark - Okay that’s all the hurdles they
have to clear with us. Everyone was
anxious for us to do our thing and now we are waiting for them to follow
through. Therefore, Scott should not be
seen as the bad guy if they don’t pay their fees to the Town as required. So someone will need to keep after them for
the fees.
Some brief discussion as to the next meeting being on
Halloween. Scott has kids. Dawn has kids. (Trick or treating is from 5 pm to 8 pm) Mark
mentions maybe Monday the 30th. Nothing
confirmed.
Kevin – motion to close.
Seconded by Mark. Carried and
adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dawn Palma
