Minutes of a regular meeting of
the
Johnson City Planning Board held
on
June 24, 2008 at 7:30pm at
Present: William Klish, Chairman
Pamela Hysell, Vice Chairperson
Joanne Drimak
Gerald Putman
Beth
Westfall, Village Attorney
Daria Golazeski, Planning
Director
Absent: Leonard Sas
A brief work session was held at 7:00pm.
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 May 20, 2008 regular meeting and the June 4, 2008 special meeting was
made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mrs. Hysell. The motion carried with all
those present voting.
Privilege of the
Floor - None
Communications – Chairman Klish read revised
comments from Building Inspector, Ken Jennison stating the Michael Anthony
Cleary is not required to provide restrooms at his temporary hot dog
stand at
Contingencies – None
OLD BUSINESS – None
SEQR - David A. Gonen,
The applicant’s engineer, George
Haus and Sarah Grace Campbell with Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP, the
applicant’s attorney, were present.
Chairman Klish advised the board
that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variances for parking and lot
size. The Village Board held their public hearing for the 2 special permits
that are being requested, but cannot vote on the permits until the SEQR is
completed.
Ms. Campbell requested that the
narrative be amended to remove the word student in two places.
Attorney Jacobs advised the board
that the Lead Agency request letter that was sent out to the Village Board and
the Zoning Board incorrectly referred to the project as a type 1 action, when
it should have been an unlisted action. The Zoning Board and the Village Board
have no objections to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency.
Environmental Review
The
Board began its review of Part 1 of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF).
As
requested by the applicant’s attorney, the Board removed the word student in
the Name of Action and Description of Action in Part 1 – Project Information.
A. Site
Description
At
question #9, the board was advised by Planner Golazeski that the name of the
aquifer is the Clinton Street Ballpark Aquifer.
B. Project
Description
At
question #1h – project description, the board changed the type of housing units
from Dorm Style to Multiple Family.
Question
#23, Total anticipated water usage per
day, had been left blank. Mr. Haus provided the board with the answer of 19,875
gallons/day.
The
Board began the Part 2 of the EAF and discussed the project’s impacts and their
magnitude.
Part 2 - EAF
1.
The board did not believe that the proposed action would result in a physical
change to the site.
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 that there would be any impact on surface or
groundwater quality or quantity.
6.
The Board did not believe that there would be any impact to drainage flow or
patterns, or surface water runoff.
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 feels that any impacts to existing transportation systems would be
small to moderate.
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 and noted that,
if anything, the proposed action would have a beneficial impact.
19.
The Board felt that the proposed action would affect the character of the
existing community and thought it would be an improvement.
20.
The Board did not think there would be public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts.
Attorney Jacobs read the
following draft resolution:
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
NON-SIGNIFICANCE UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT OF THE PROPOSED
WHEREAS,
David A. Gonen (“Applicant”) has filed an application with the Village of
Johnson City for the re-development of two vacant factory buildings 135-139 Baldwin Street (ENDICOTT JOHNSON
CENTURY & SUNRISE BUILDINGS) located within the Village of
Johnson City into housing consisting of approximately 159 one and two bedroom
apartments with an 1375 sq ft coffee shop/café in the century building (the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project will require a
Special Permit to allow for residential use in an Industrial Zoning District; A
Special Permit to allow retail sales in an Industrial Zoning District; an Area
Variance to reduce the minimum required lot size from 10.97 acres to 2.38 acres
and a parking Area Variance to reduce the minimum number of required off-street
parking spaces from 344 to 191; and
WHEREAS,
in order to aid the Village of Johnson City Planning Board (“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”); and
WHEREAS,
the Planning Board has identified the Project as 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, as lead agency, has duly reviewed the EAF all Project
submissions and other reports and documents submitted by the Project Engineer,
the Village Planning Department 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, as lead agency, has
completed reviewed and considered 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.
2. The Planning Board,
specifically finds that there will be no:
(i) substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water
quality or quantity, traffic or noise levels; substantial increase in solid
waste production; substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding,
leaching or drainage problems; (ii) removal or destruction of large quantities
of vegetation or fauna; substantial interference with the movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; impacts on a significant
habitat area; substantial adverse impacts on a threatened or endangered species
of animal or plant, or the habitat of such a species; or other significant
adverse impacts to natural resources; (iii) impairment of the environmental
characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area as designated pursuant to
subdivision 617.14(g) of this Part; (iv)
creation of a material conflict with a community's current plans or
goals as officially approved or adopted; (v) impairment of the character or
quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic
resources or of existing community or neighborhood character except positive
impacts from the revitalization of blighted former factory buildings; (vi)
major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy; (vii)
creation of a hazard to human health; (viii) substantial change in the use, or
intensity of use, of land including agricultural, open space or recreational
resources, or in its capacity to support existing uses; (ix) encouragement or
attraction of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few
days, compared to the number of people who would come to such place absent the
action.
3. By reason of the foregoing, the Planning
Board hereby authorizes and directs the Planning Board Chairman to execute the
Negative Declaration and to sign and date the Full Environmental Assessment
Form (EAF) submitted by the Applicant, 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.
At a regular meeting of the
Drimak – yes Putman – yes Hysell
– yes Klish – yes
The
motion passed by a vote of 4-0, with no abstentions. Planning Board member Sas was absent.
A
motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20pm was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by
Mrs. Hysell.
Respectfully
submitted,
Diane
Salva
Planning
Board Clerk