 | Upcoming Planning Board Agenda Planning Board Minutes (Planning Board Meetings are usually held the first Thursday of every month;) |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
| Upcoming Planning Board Agenda Planning Board Minutes (Planning Board Meetings are usually held the first Thursday of every month;) |
||||
FINAL
Minutes of Meeting
November 3rd,
2005
Members
Present: Guests:
Jerry Schwab Scott
Henry, CEO
Bill Zittel M.
Bolo
Absent:
Kevin
O’Gorman
****************************************************************************************************
Chairman Agle called the November 3rd, 2005 Meeting of the
Eden Town Planning Board to order at 7:30PM.
Agle requested a motion to approve the October 6th,
2005 minutes as written and submitted,
so moved by Bill Zittel, Dennis Brawdy seconded, carried all ayes.
NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1.
John Bosse –
Preliminary Plat Map: Proposed Lake Tim
Tam, 15 Lot Major subdivision – Eden Evans Townline Rd. Mr. Bosse submitted a new version of his
proposed development for a portion of the overall project, the plan is for ten
lots along Townline Road that meet the zoning requirement of 150’ wide lots. Agle had a few questions about the current
submission. As you know, you submitted
a development plan about 3 years ago that covered the entire site. Do you still have any plans to develop the
remainder of the site? We are curious
as to how this current plan will integrate with your future development. Bosse responded by stating that Erie County
has such a bad reputation; he had a factory interested in coming into the area,
but at this time, they have lost their interest, primarily due to the state of
the County. Agle wanted to make clear
for the record that for intent and purposes, the previous submissions, plans,
SEQR application and the Public Hearing held in 2001 all pertained to the
previous submissions, and are therefore now considered null and void. We are staring with a clean slate with a
proposed major subdivision for Townline Road consisting of ten 150’ x 200’
lots. Mr. Bosse responded that he
understood and agreed. Now, in regard to this submission Agle asked Mr. Bosse,
there is a lot, highlighted in yellow and separate from the other 10 lots; what
is its purpose? Bosse stated that it is
a 65’ lot reserved for road access to the interior of the property for future
development. Romanowski advised Bosse that if he intends to build a road, be
sure to relay that information to his engineers to make sure that they leave
sufficient width for a private and/or public access road. Agle asked Bosse to confirm that this
separatelot is not party of this submission.
Bossee agreed so for the purposes of this descussion we are only
considering the 10-lots. Agle stated that in summary, your attendance at the
October 6th meeting will be considered you presubmission conference;
this November 3rd meeting to be you first submission, which is a
sketch plan, which is the very first stage of a major subdivision process. What that means is that the sketch plan is
reviewed and we will provide you with any other in-put that we would like to
see incorporated into the design for your next step, which would be a preliminary
plan along with your entire application and SEQR forms; we will then initiate a
coordinated SEQR review and set a public hearing date and proceed. Mr. Bosse stated that he already filed the
SEQR. Mr. Agle reminded him that the
previous SEQR was for previously submitted plans and that as agreed earlier,
those entire applications are now considered Null and Void by this Board. The process must begin anew relative to this
plan. The previous SEQR addressed a
much larger, entirely different project scope.
It is not applicable to just the 10 lots. Agle stated that part of the SEQR addresses storm sewer,
sanitary sewer, road access, and emergency vehicle response will be entirely
different than before. The new SEQR
will cover a significantly smaller project, but is still must be done and be
specific to this project represented on this plan. Agle asked Scott Henry if the lots comply with the zones bulk
requirements? Henry responded that they
comply as long as there is public sewer and public water. Agle stated that the utilities existence and
capacity will be confirmed through the coordinated SEQR review. Dennis Brawdy motioned to waive the cluster
plan requirement as these lots are similar to those across the street. Another
basis for waiving the requirements is that at the 2001 public hearing, this
type of lot was in conformity with the existing neighborhood. Agle seconded,
carried. Agle reminded Bosse that he
is getting the benefit the previous public hearing by us knowing that the Town
of Evans as well as the surrounding neighborhood have no objections to this
type of lot layout design. Agle stated
that now that you have followed our prior direction regarding lot size, we will
now direct you to move toward the preparation of your preliminary plat based on
that design; there is an application form that has to be filed for major
subdivision; a SEQR application has to be filled out, then the coordinated
review will be initiated and a public hearing date may then be set. Rob asked if Erie County sewer had any
concerns regarding the capacity of the lines that service those lots? Agle stated that the Board received the
scopeing draft but that he was not sure whether we ever received the results;
but of course that draft was for a plan far more aggressive that the current
plan. That’s why it is important that a
new SEQR is prepared and filed.
2.
Jon & Mike
Armstrong – (Not present) Minor 3-Lot Subdivision Application – 2177 Hemlock
Road. They were before us several
months ago for a presubmission as to what they could do with this
property. They have decided to submit
an application for just three-lot a minor subdivision. However due to the history of this parcel, Agle
felt that it would be a good idea for the Planning Board to review and have an
opportunity for in-put in this development.
Over the years several major subdivisions, some being 100 lots, some 50
lots, had been submitted for this site.
This plan proposes 2 lots with the remaining parent parcel being 93
acres (three-lot total). The 2 lots
exceed the current bulk requirement of the suburban residential zone. Juanita wanted to discuss drainage and the
wetlands on the remaining parcel. When
we look at this plan, are we only to look at the 4 acres that comprise the 2
lots or are we to address the remaining 93 acres as well? Juanita is concerned about the possibility
of future subdividing of the remaining 93 acres. Scott stated that we must deal with the specific application
before us now and that all future subdivision applications for this parcel will
be presented to the Planning Board as well for review at that time. Agle agreed that if they ever wanted to make
utilization of any or all of the remaining parcel, then we would consider the potential
impact on the wetlands at that time. If
at some time the current owners sell this parcel, or come back with a new
re-subdivide, it may have an impact on this property. When other developers
proposed subdivisions on this parcel, we stated that drainage could not be
directed toward the road. They would
have to discharge it to the back; does that still apply? Scott replied, when there are only 2 lots,
we don’t really address the issue.
Juanita said, then 2 more lots and it goes on and on without the
drainage ever really being addressed.
Brawdy clarified the subdivision ruling, three lots once in every 6
years. Scott stated that if they
returned to subdivide before the 6 years, then they would roll over into a
major subdivision and they would need to meet all the requirements of a Major
subdivision applicant including a comprehensive drainage plan. Juanita pointed
out that there is only 1 access road indicated on the map; however there is
another access road for the gas well, this is part of the service road for the
sewer line. Juanita asked Scott how
exactly the drainage would be handled?
Scott responded that in a major subdivision typically there is a
drainage map that lays out how the storm water will be handled. In a minor subdivision, it is addressed as a
lot-by-lot issue. You could fairly well
argue that depending on the placement of the house there would not be that much
displacement of water. The footprint of
a single family dwelling on a 2 acre lot would not create a large amount of excessive
water runoff. The issue is to protect
the dwelling and to deal with a minimal amount of stormwater on the
property. Agle stated that they must
address the drainage as part of the building permit application, a site-plan
will indicate the drainage flow.
Juanita stated that she understands that these 2 lots do not create a
major impact; however, I’m looking at the potential accumulative effect in the
future, of an area that had an environmental impact according to the Master
Plan. Scott stated that there is
nothing in the current zoning code that identifies that area as an area needing
special requirements. The Master Plan
merely lays out considerations that spread out over decades and at this point
the Town has not adopted any higher standards for the zone in that area. A consideration laid out in the Master Plan
does become a requirement until it is formally adopted. Romanowski asked if they needed to comply
with the SPEDES requirement for a minor subdivision? Scott said they did not.
Juanita asked if they could that any further proposed development in of
this parcel be required to be presented to the Planning Board? Agle stated that they could state as a
requirement that any further future subdivision of this property must be
referred to the Planning Board for its review.
Scott added that in the letter of approval of minor subdivision to the
applicant, it could state that a condition of the approval that any further
division of the property, due to the sensitivity of the area of the property,
it must come to the full Planning Board rather than just to the Minor
Subdivision Committee. Remember that
the Planning Board is the approving board, but that the Committee was created,
and legislated under the Code as a hand-off committee able to review and
approve minor subdivision applications as most of them are so routine. Although it is at the discretion of the
Committee to refer any such applications to the Planning Board for them to
handle as they see fit. Rob stated that
the Board could also stipulate that any further development of this larger
parcel would require a drainage master plan to be submitted. Agle stated that he is not in favor of
automatically imposing that on somebody in the future, at least not just for
frontage lot development. If they were
to come in with a major subdivision of any kind a drainage plan would be a
requirement at that time anyway.
Juanita stated that she has lived there for 30 years, and with the
development across the road, there has been a significant difference. Agle motioned to approve this minor-subdivision
with the condition that any future subdivision of this property would require the applicantion to go to the
Planning Board for review with specific consideration being given toward
drainage, Juanita seconded, carried.
REPORTS: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
Chairman Agle opened to the floor to the
public. Dick Minekime and potential
future tenant Jim Martin requested information regarding an existing office
space on N. Main Street (specifically Jeanne Chase’s former office), to be used
as a doctor’s office. Agle stated that
he did speak with Martin earlier, as did Ann and Cathy, and explained to him
the process. Any change of use
requires a site plan reiview. An
important part of that review as far as our jurisdiction, is the site plan of the
property and the parking that will be dedicated for the proposed use. What parking is available on-site and what
parking is off-site is considered. If
there is not enough combined on-site, then the Board has certain ability to
assign credit for certain off-street parking.
We know that there is a shortage of parking, but it is a major concern
that must be addressed. Building plan
issues must be addressed through Scott for the State building code
requirements. Minekime stated that
there will not be any physical changes and no size changes, still be used as an
office, so what is the difference? Agle
stated that when Jeanne Chase (County Legislator) occupied the office, it was
basically a one-person satellite office.
There may have been a receptionist and possibly a constituent visited
intermittently. Agle stated that
parking space requirements are driven by the use and the number of employees,
proposed patrons, and the hours of service, etc. Minekime stated that he went though this before and had spent
over $2000 in overhead paperwork just to change a bathroom. Now I’m not changing anything and there is a
new concern about being able to open the office by January 1, 2006. He is 2 months early in his request, and
doesn’t see why approval can’t be given.
Agle stated that Minekime/Martin needs to submit a presubmission form by
November 17th in order to be placed on the December meeting
agenda. To expedite the process, he is
welcomed to also submit a site-plan at that time indicating parking spots, traffic
flow. See the site-plan check list in
the code for the requirements of a site-plan.
Minekime stated that everythinig that was submitted for the Jeanne Chase
office should be adequate. Agle stated
that the site plan “may” be adequate, outside of the fact that there may be
more parking spots required. As you
said, it may be square-footage driven, but in addition to square footage, there
always are parking spots dedicated to employees over and above what the square
footage is, and what is the expected client volume? Scott stated that for
obvious reasons, the Planning Board should not be under the gun to make
decisions without presubmission. This
is not an agenda item for tonight.
Change of use triggers a new site plan to be submitted. The Town Board adopted a law making it a
requirement for site plan review for change of use. Specifically, the impact of parking for a medical office versus a
satellite office that has one person and maybe one employee is enormously
different. The presubmissions give the
Planning Board the opportunity to review and digest the information. Even if there are no additional changes to
the building, the PB needs the time to review the proposed impact of a change
of use. Agle agreed with Scott in
regard to the site-plan issue, without having any plan submitted, it is not our
job to design it, but for the next meeting, we need to see what has already
been discussed reduced to a plan for our consideration. The parking must be shown based on those
requirements set forth in the Code.
Brawdy stated that if you review the site-plans that we have reviewed in
the past, you will see that this Board has bent over backwards to get them
in-out as quickly as possible without bypassing the procedures. Certainly if you give us something to work
with, we will extend the same courtesy.
We want to see businesses in Town and we want to see the buildings
occupied, but we must follow the process.
We will be able to turn that process around as long as that plan is
complete as we have just discussed.
Agle added that even if there is some minor deficiency on the
application, typically we can still move and grant a conditional approval
provided that the plan gets revised accordingly. That is in regard to site-plan only. That is not to say that there might not still be building code
issues that will need to be addressed.
Outside of that, at this time, I don’t know what other direction I can
give you, but as Dennis said, we want to work with you, but we must follow the
same process for all applicants.
Juanita asked about the timetable of the Creative
Zoning issue; Mark said that Drew gave us a sample code for review and the last
discussion on it we agreed that since there is no driver to push changes
through since the East Eden Tavern issue appears to be resolved, there is not
urgency to address it and is why we have continued to table it for some future
date.
Respectfully
submitted,
Catherine
A. Swiech
| Town
of Eden, Town Hall, 2795 East Church Street, Eden, New York 14057 Phone: 716 992-3408 Fax: 716 992-4131 Contact Us |