Minutes of a regular meeting of the

Johnson City Planning Board held on

January 22, 2008 at 7:30pm at

243 Main St., Johnson City, NY

Present: William Klish, Chairman

Pamela Hysell, Vice Chairperson

Joanne Drimak

Gerald Putman

Leonard Sas

Jeff Jacobs, Village Attorney

Kenneth Jennison, Building Inspector

Bruce King, Village Trustee

Absent: Daria Golazeski, Planning Director

A brief work session was held at 7:00pm.

Reorganization of officers – A motion to keep the same slate of officers as last year was made by Mr. Putman and was seconded by Mr. Sas. The motion carried. President – Bill Klish, Vice-President – Pam Hysell, Secretary – Joanne Drimak.

Chairman Klish called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.

Chairman Klish noted the emergency exits.

Minutes – A motion to accept the minutes of the December 19, 2007 regular meeting was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mr. Sas. The motion carried.

Privilege of the Floor

Julie Deemie, 153 Zoa Ave. – Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Gave the Planning Board members copies of soil types and descriptions for the project area. Concerned about potential environmental issues, run-off and the proposed drainage pond.

Dan Gorey, 65 Richard St. – Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Presented a list of concerns to the Board ranging from effects on property values, run-off, impact on Village Services, etc.

Steven Sees – 45 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Has not heard anything about a promised meeting between the developer and the neighborhood. Feels the proposed buildings are too close to the existing homes on Richard St.

Matt Weiss, 105 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Feels the proposed buildings are too close to the existing homes on Richard St. Has small children and is worried about their safety.

Tom Kelleher, 72 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Asked if rezoning requests are ever denied. Worried about impact on property values. Claims that studies have shown surrounding property values are decreased by 20% with developments like the one being proposed. Asked if there has been discussion of compensation for the neighbors to make up for the decrease in values.

Greg Deemie, 153 Zoa Ave. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Concerned about the proposed retention pond.

Mark Kulikowski, 41 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Feels that the project is only focusing on one side of Richard Street and not taking into account the impacts on neighboring streets.

Dan Gorey, 65 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Asked why the developer is not putting the entrance to the development on Harry L. Drive.

Darryl Jensen, 95 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Concerned with drainage issues. Already has a problem during heavy rains.

Steven Sees, 45 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Concerned about drainage. Backyard is all clay and has large puddles after it rains. The existing properties on Richard Street have short backyards. Asked why can’t the developer reconfigure the property to have more vacant land between the neighbors and the development.

Pat Chamberlain, 50 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Questions the need for another senior community in the area. Worried about run-off. Would move because of the development ruining the neighborhood. Asked that other options be considered for the land, for example having the Village purchase the site and turning it into a nature area.

Greg Deemie, 153 Zoa Ave. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. There is a 200ft. elevation change from the top to the bottom of the hill. Concerned with how this slope will be dealt with.

Monica Silas, 136 North Broad St. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Not opposed to development but is concerned with run-off and flooding.

Julie Deemie, 153 Zoa Ave. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Stated that she ran the rational equation regarding the storage pipes and did the same thing for the Wal-Mart site.

Tom Kelleher, 72 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the proposed senior housing project on Richard Street. Stated that he is not against development of the property. He would just like it to be within the current zoning laws and protect the integrity of the neighborhood.

Communications – None

Contingencies – Chairman Klish read the following comments received from Broome County regarding the site plan approval for 68 Harry L. Drive for an addition to the JC Veterinary Hospital:

B. C. Planning: No significant countywide or inter-community impacts associated with the proposed project. The applicant may wish to consider placing an emergency exit on the exterior wall between the counter and cages as pets could be easily evacuated from this area. This project must comply with the Building Code of NYS and the Fire Code of NYS.

BMTS: No comments.

NYS DOT: No concerns. In the event any work will be conducted in the highway right-of-way, a Highway Work Permit must be obtained from our Department prior to the commencement of the work.

BC EMC: No significant comments. However, we would like to remind the

applicants, if operations at the site involve the use of hazardous materials, the business may

qualify as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste, which would

allow the application for a permit to dispose of any hazardous waste at the Broome County

Household Hazardous Waste Facility at the Broome County Landfill.

OLD BUSINESS

Revised Site Plan Review – Kradro Realty Corp., 80 Arch Street

The application is a site plan review for a 67-space parking lot. Ken Ellsworth with Keystone Associates was present on behalf of the applicant.

Chairman Klish explained that this application was held over from the December 19, 2007 meeting due to the concerns of the Department of Public Works.

Mr. Ellsworth stated that the DPW’s concerns were responded to in a letter dated January 9, 2008. Additional comments were received on January 18, 2008 from the DPW. The parking lot layout was revised to include the DPW’s comments and concerns. Landscaping, mulching and edging will be added. Wheel stops and concrete pads for pedestrians will also be added. Will meet with the contractor prior to final paving. Run-off is being handled through the use of a swale alongside the landscape buffer.

Chairman Klish stated that the wheel blocks are in but not anchored yet. Mr. Ellsworth stated that he would check into that.

Chairman Klish read the Department Head Comments.

DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS

Code Enforcement: No comments received.

Fire Dept: Recommend approval

Planning Dept: Compliance with DPW requirements. Will lighting be adequate?

Police Dept: Recommend approval.

Public Works & Water:

· The area between the parking lot and sidewalk and/or asphalt, on plan indicates it will be mulched. The Keystone cover letter indicates this area will be landscaped. Assuming that this area will be mulched, some type of edging should be installed to prevent the mulch from migrating onto the sidewalk and/or asphalt.

· Since this parking lot will not have curbing, wheel stops shall be provided for the outside spaces. The wheel stops shall be not less than 24 inches from the front of the parking space (§274-109 B(2)).

· There should be at least two concrete pads, five feet in width, placed on the east side and west side of the parking lot, to allow for pedestrian traffic to and from the sidewalk and parking lot.

· Prior to top course asphalt placement, the paving contractor must have an on-site meeting with representatives from the Public Works Department to ensure that the proposed raised parking lot edges will be sufficient to “prevent runoff from entering the street”.

· No work shall be performed on the drainage system until the proper permits are obtained from the Public Works Department.

B. C. Planning Dept: N/A

Mrs. Hysell asked about a time frame. Mr. Ellsworth stated that work will resume in the spring when the asphalt plants reopen. They should be done by the end of May.

Mrs. Hysell asked about snow removal. Ara Kradjian, property owner, stated that plowing is taken care of by UHS.

A motion to approve the revised site plan including all of the Department Head Comments, addressing the DPW and Water Department’s considerations, anchoring of the wheel stops and with a completion date of September 1, 2008, was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mr. Putman.

Motion Carried Vote: Yes – 5 No – 0 Absent – 0

NEW BUSINESS

SEQR & Lead Agency Designation – Harry L. Drive Senior Living Center, 373 Harry L. Dr.

The application is for a Planned Unit Development consisting of 21 four-residence buildings, a community center, roadways, curbs, sidewalks, landscaping, utilities and a stormwater management pond.

Chris Stastny with Griffiths Engineering and Sarah Grace Campbell with Hinman, Howard & Kattell, attorney for the applicant, were present on behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Stastny gave a brief update of the project. The drawings are still preliminary. They are still making modifications and do not have new drawings ready to present.

Chairman Klish asked if the retention pond was open. Mr. Stastny explained that it is a reserve area for stormwater management and one option is a pond but there are other options they are considering.

Mr. Putman asked if the buildings would have basements. Mr. Stastny stated that it may be a mixture but all the living areas are single level.

Mr. Putman asked if the units are rental or purchase units. Ms. Campbell stated that they will be rental units.

Mr. Putman asked how they would control who rents the units. Ms. Campbell explained that it is an age- restricted community that will be restricted to senior citizens and there will be an application process with an income qualification.

Attorney Jacobs stated that lead agency letters had been sent to all of the involved agencies and that the Village had not received any objections to the Planning Board being the lead agency. Therefore, the Planning Board will be the lead agency.

Environmental Review

The Board began its review of Part 1 of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF).

A. Site Description

#1 – Present Land Use: Other (Unimproved parcel) The board agreed with the applicant’s answer.

#2 – Total acreage of project area: 19 acres. The board agreed with the applicant’s answer.

#3 – What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Mardin Channery Silt Loom. According to Mr. Stastny, there are 6 different types of soil on the site, with the predominant soil type being the Mardin Channery Silt Loom.

Question #8 was blank. According to Mr. Stastny, in the test pits the depth of the water table is 12 feet in the very lowest part of the site.

Question #15 was blank. According to Mr. Stastny there are no named streams on the site, only intermittent ditches throughout the site.

Question #16 was blank. The answer is no, there are no lakes, ponds or wetland areas within or contiguous to the project area.

B. Project Description

Question #2 - How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? This question remains blank. The volume will be determined for cut/fill during design.

Question #4 – How many acres of vegetation will be removed from the site? The applicant answered 15 acres. 10 acres will be revegetated after construction as lawns/grassed areas.

Question #13 – The board changed the answer from yes to no – subsurface liquid waste disposal is not involved.

Question #22 was blank. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity. Mr. Stastny stated that they will be connecting to the Village Water System.

Mrs. Drimak asked about the potential for increased traffic. Attorney Jacobs briefly explained the process for the Environmental Assessment Form. The issue of traffic will be addressed in part 2 of the form.

A motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50pm was made by Mr. Putman and seconded by Mr. Sas.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane Salva

Planning Board Clerk