Minutes of a regular meeting of the
Johnson City Planning Board held on
Present: William
Klish, Chairman
Pamela Hysell, Vice Chairperson
Joanne Drimak
Leonard Sas
Beth
Westfall, Village Attorney
Daria Golazeski, Planning Director
Richard
Balles, Village Trustee
Dennis
Hannon, Village Trustee
Absent: Gerald
Putman
A brief work session was held at
Chairman Klish called the
meeting to order at
Chairman Klish noted the
emergency exits.
Minutes – A motion to accept the minutes of the
Privilege of the Floor
Tom Kelleher,
Dan
Gorey,
Bob
Zielewicz,
Communications – None
Contingencies – None
OLD BUSINESS
SEQR & Rezone Request –
Chris Stasney with Griffiths Engineering
and Sarah Grace Campbell with Hinman, Howard & Kattell, attorney for the
applicant, were present on behalf of the applicant.
Ms. Campbell presented a brief update of the
project. The number of units and buildings has been reduced from 21 building
and 84 units to 17 buildings and 68 units. Parking has been removed along the
rear of the community center and the size of the community center has been
reduced from 50’ x 175’ to 50’ x 120’. A meeting was held with the neighborhood
and the developer. Ms. Campbell gave a brief overview of what was discussed at
that meeting.
Chairman Klish asked about the park/picnic
area that was shown on the upper area of the preliminary site plan but is not
on the revised plan. Mr. Stasney stated that this area will remain mostly
undeveloped.
Chairman Klish asked if the size of the
units changed or just the number of units. Ms. Campbell stated that the size of
the units did not change.
Mrs. Hysell asked about the location of
the buildings and the topography. Mr. Stasney stated that some units may have
basements and others may not. Some of the land will need to be filled and
leveled and a couple of the buildings may be cut into the hillside.
Mrs. Hysell asked about the water table
and stormwater. Mr. Staseny stated that they haven’t done all the calculations
yet so they do not know the size of the retention pond.
Mrs. Drimak asked about fencing around
the pond. Ms. Campbell stated that the applicant will do whatever the Village
requires.
Chairman Klish asked erosion control. Mr.
Stasney stated that they would use stabilizing vegetation.
Environmental Review
The Board had an unanswered question from its review of Part
1 of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF).
B. Project
Description
Question #2 - How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth,
etc.) will be removed from the site? Mr. Stasney stated that there will be a
balance – approximately 48,000 cubic yards of material will be relocated within
the site.
Part 2 – EAF
On Part 2 of the EAF, the Board discussed the project’s
impacts and their magnitude.
1. The board commented that the proposed action would result
in a physical change to the site, but felt it was a small to moderate impact.
2. The Board did not believe there would be any effect on
any unique or unusual land forms.
3. The Board did not see any impact on any protected water
body.
4. The Board did not see any impact on any non-protected
existing or new body of water.
5. The Board did not believe there would be an impact on
surface or groundwater quality or quantity, however the developer must meet the
requirements of stormwater and erosion and sediment control ordinances of the
Village and NYS DEC.
6. The Board felt that the impact to drainage flow or
patterns, or surface water runoff will be small to moderate and could be
mitigated.
7. The Board did not find any impacts on air quality.
8. The Board did not see any effects on any threatened or
endangered species.
9. The Board did not see any effects on any non-threatened
or non-endangered species.
10. The Board did not find any impacts on agricultural land
resources.
11. The Board did not find any impacts on aesthetic
resources.
12. The Board did not find any impacts on any structure of
historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance.
13. The Board did not find any impacts on the quantity or
quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities.
14. The Board did not find any impacts on a critical
environmental area; that is not applicable to this site.
15. The Board did not feel that there would be an effect to
existing transportation systems.
16. The Board did not find any effects on the community’s
sources of fuel or energy supply.
17. The Board did not find that any objectionable odors,
noise, or vibration would result from the proposed action.
18. The Board did not find any effects on public health and
safety.
19. The Board felt that the proposed action would affect the
character of the existing community as it will cause a change in the density of
land use, but the current zoning would allow greater density.
20. The Board did not think there would be public
controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts.
A motion to declare the project an unlisted action under
SEQR and issue a negative declaration (copy of resolution attached) was made by
Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mr. Sas.
Motion Carried - Vote:
Yes – 4 (Drimak, Hysell, Klish, Sas)
No – 0 Absent – 1 (Putman)
A motion to recommend to the Village Board, approval of the
rezoning of
Motion Carried - Vote:
Yes – 4 (Drimak, Hysell, Klish, Sas)
No – 0 Absent – 1 (Putman)
Rezone Request - Hannah Enterprises, 71 &
The application is a request to rezone the properties at 71
and
Sarah Grace Campbell with Hinman, Howard & Kattell,
attorney for the applicant, was present on behalf of the applicant.
Ms. Campbell stated that the property owner has a tenant who
wishes to open a coffee shop/sandwich shop on the first floor of the building
which at one time was a tavern. Previous attempts to rent the property as
residential space were disastrous. Everything surrounding the property is
commercial. The applicant is aware that the lack of parking is a concern.
Attorney Westfall stated that the applicant may need to
apply for a parking variance.
Chairman Klish asked about future commercial development of
the property. Ms. Campbell stated that the property is attractive to the
adjacent
Mrs. Drimak asked about uses for the rest of the building.
Ms. Campbell stated that it would be residential if possible.
Planner Golazeski stated that the first floor of the
property was used as a bar until approximately ten years ago. The remainder of
the building was used as a boarding/rooming house.
Chairman Klish read the department head comments.
DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS
Code
Enforcement: If approved, an asbestos survey needs to
be done and issued to this department. If approved, said property must have a
building permit before any work is to be started.
Fire
Dept: Recommend
approval.
Planning Dept: Recommend
approval of rezone. Future uses require site plan approval.
Police Dept: NCI
Public Works & Water: NCI on the Zoning Variance.
B.
C. Planning: N/A
A motion to recommend to the Village Board, approval of the
rezoning of 71 and
Motion Carried - Vote:
Yes – 4 (Drimak, Hysell, Klish, Sas)
No – 0 Absent – 1 (Putman)
Site Plan Review - Peter Yeager, 805 Valley
Plaza
The
application is a site plan review to install a driveway on the side of the
building, a door on the side of the building and a fence in the rear of the
property.
The applicant, Mr. Peter Yeager was
present. He explained the driveway he wants to install.
Chairman Klish asked about installing a
fence at the rear of the property. Mr. Yeager stated that he thought that would
be a good idea.
Mr. Yeager explained that there is an
e-commerce business in the building requiring several delivery trucks arriving
at the building on a regular basis. They pull into the parking lot and back up
to the front door. They would like the delivery trucks to access the side of
the building. They plan on removing an existing window and installing a door.
Mrs. Hysell asked about the style of the
new door on the side of the building. Mr. Yeager described what the different
options he was considering.
Mrs. Drimak asked about the width of the
driveway. Mr. Yeager stated that it would be 11 feet. The average delivery
truck is 8 feet. The driveway would not go all the way up to the building.
There would be a strip of grass or landscaping.
Chairman Klish read the department head
comments.
DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS
Code
Enforcement: If approved, said property must have a
building permit before any work is to be started.
Fire
Dept: Recommend
approval.
Planning Dept: Recommend
approval.
Police Dept: NCI
Public Works & Water: Recommend signage indicating that the driveway is for deliveries only.
B. C. Planning: NCI
Chairman
Klish asked about a time frame. Mr. Yeager stated that he would like to begin
in 2-3 months
and have
the work completed by the end of summer.
A motion to approve the site plan for 805 Valley Plaza to
install a driveway on the side of the building, a door on the side of the
building and a fence in the rear of the property, with a completion date of
September 30, 2008 and including the Department Head Comments was made by Mrs.
Drimak and seconded by Mr. Sas.
Motion Carried - Vote:
Yes – 4 (Drimak, Hysell, Klish, Sas)
No – 0 Absent – 1 (Putman)
Area Variance & Amended Special Permit – Brain Rumpel,
The application is an area variance
request to reduce the minimum required side yard setback from 10 ft. to 5 ft.
and a request to amend a previously approved special permit that allowed
seasonal retail sales in an industrial zone to retail sales in an industrial
zone.
The applicant, Mr. Brian Rumpel was
present.
Mr. Rumpel presented the board with an
overview of the project. There will be two buildings constructed on the lot.
One building will be used for retail sales and the other building will be
storage of large vehicles. A variance is needed because the lot is so narrow.
Planner Golazeski stated that she and
Building Inspector Ken Jennison met with Mr. Charles Fenson, Mr. Rumpel’s
engineer, regarding the proposed plans and Mr. Fenson will be making changes to
the site plan based on their concerns.
Chairman Klish asked about the retail
use. Mr. Rumpel stated that one floor will house his wife’s dance store and the
other floor will house an alarm company.
Chairman Klish read the department head
comments.
DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS
Code
Enforcement: The dumpster cannot be in the five foot
area along the property line. No parking spaces shall be in the five foot area
along the property line. The buildings must meet NYS Building & Fire Codes.
The square footages do not match on the site plan and the chart. The two square
footages on the site plan do not match. A new and correct and approved site
plan needs to be issued before a building permit is issued. If approved, said
property must have a building permit issued before any work is to be started.
Fire Dept.: Need
information on amount of pavement around buildings for Fire Dept access.
Planning Dept.: Recommend
approval of variance & special permit.
Police Dept.: Handicap
parking spaces have above ground signage and pavement markings. Access aisle
between handicap parking have above ground sign “No Parking Anytime”.
Public Works & Water:
·
Storm water -
system detail drawings and design calculations are required.
·
Water – a meter
pit will be required, a minimum 2 inch service will be required. The two building services will come off of
the 2 inch service with shutoff valves.
The water service shall have a minimum of ten feet separation from the
sanitary sewer laterals.
·
Sanitary Sewer
– a clean out is required near the street boundary and at each building.
·
A complete
utility plan is required.
B.
C. Planning: Comments not yet received.
Town of
A motion to recommend approval of the area variance for
Motion Carried - Vote:
Yes – 4 (Drimak, Hysell, Klish, Sas)
No – 0 Absent – 1 (Putman)
A motion to recommend to the Village Board, approval of the special
permit for
Motion Carried - Vote:
Yes – 4 (Drimak, Hysell, Klish, Sas)
No – 0 Absent – 1 (Putman)
A motion to adjourn the meeting at
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Salva
Planning Board Clerk
A RESOLUTION
DETERMINING THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY REVIEW ACT OF THE PROPOSED SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 373 HARRY L.
DRIVE
WHEREAS,
JFF Development, Inc has filed an application with the Village of Johnson City
Planning Board to construct a Planned Unit Development of 68 unit senior
housing development consisting of 17 residential buildings with associated site
improvements including grading, stormwater pollution prevention plan
improvements on approximately 18 acres respectively (the “Project”). The Project is located on vacant land north
of Harry L. Drive and west of Richard Street in the Village of Johnson City;
and
WHEREAS,
in order to aid the Planning Board in determining whether such Project and
other related actions of the Village in connection therewith (“Action”) may
have a significant effect on the environment, the Planning Board has caused to
be prepared a Full Environmental Assessment Form (“EAF”), together with the
Preliminary Development Plan Drawings and other submissions related thereto;
and
WHEREAS,
the Planning Board has heretofore identified the Project as an Unlisted Action
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQR”) and expressed
its desire to act as Lead Agency for SEQR
review purposes; and
WHEREAS,
the Planning Board has duly reviewed the EAF, all Project submissions and other
reports and documents submitted by the Project Engineer, and others with
respect to the above-referenced Project, and has duly considered the impacts
which may be expected from the proposed Action and compared the same with the
criteria set forth in the applicable SEQR Regulations, including but not
limited to 6 NYCRR 617.7.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the
1. The Planning Board hereby declares that as of its
2. Based upon its review and consideration of the EAF and other
necessary criteria, the Planning Board hereby
finds that (a) the proposed Project constitutes an “Unlisted Action” and that
(b) the object of the above-referenced Action will result in no significant
adverse impacts and, therefore, is not an Action which “may have a significant
effect on the environment” and that since said Action will not have a
“significant effect on the environment”, no “environmental impact statement”
need be prepared, as such quoted terms are defined in the applicable SEQR
Regulations. The Planning Board’s
findings are set forth in greater detail in the Negative Declaration attached
hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
3. By reason of the foregoing, the Planning Board hereby
authorizes and directs the Planning Board Chairman to execute and file a
Negative Declaration in the form attached hereto and to sign and date the Full
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) submitted by the Project Engineer,
confirming that the Project and all actions related thereto will not have a
significant impact on the environment.
4. The Planning Board hereby authorizes and directs the
5. The Village Clerk is hereby directed to maintain for public
inspection a file containing a copy of this Resolution, the Negative
Declaration and all submissions to date concerning the Environmental Review of
this Project and all Actions related thereto.
6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.