Minutes of a regular meeting of the

Johnson City Planning Board held on

September 25, 2007 at 7:30pm at

31 Avenue C, Johnson City, NY

Present: William Klish, Chairman

Joanne Drimak

Gerald Putman

Leonard Sas

Beth Westfall, Village Attorney

Daria Golazeski, Planning Director

Absent: Pamela Hysell, Vice Chairperson

A brief work session was held at 6:30pm.

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

Chairman Klish noted the emergency exits.

Privilege of the Floor

Julie Deemie, 153 Zoa Ave. – Asked if an Economic Impact Study has been done for the proposed Wal-Mart and if not, can one be done. Chairman Klish responded that an Economic Impact Study is not part of the Planning Board’s review so one will not be done.

Barbara Thompson, 94 Miriam St. – Concerned that traffic at the corner of Pavilion Road and Lester Avenue will need a traffic light and who would pay for it.

Communications - None

Contingencies – None

Minutes – A motion to accept the minutes of the September 10, 2007 regular meeting was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mr. Sas. The motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS

Environmental Review – Stella Ireland Road Associates LLC, 90 Lester Avenue

Mr. Robert Switala with Bergman Associates was present on behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Switala reviewed and updated the board on several key items related to traffic and stormwater. He also read a copy of a letter from the DOT giving their support to the final traffic study.

Traffic Improvements will include:

● At Airport Rd. and the Route 17 westbound ramps – signal adjustment

● Northbound on Airport Road to turn left onto 17 Eastbound – will provide dual left turns

and some modifications to facilitate this on the Eastbound ramp to Route 17

● Intersection of Airport Rd., CFJ Blvd. and Prospect St. - Widen Prospect St. to allow a

right turn lane, dual thru lanes on Airport Rd. southbound, CFJ Blvd. to Airport Rd. will have

dual lanes, a left turn lane and a left/thru/right lane.

Chairman Klish asked if the right turn from Prospect St. will be arrow controlled. Mr. Switala stated that

the light will be split-phased. The timing of the signals will also be changed.

● Gannett Dr. to CFJ Blvd. – right turn only

● CFJ Blvd. to Gannett Dr. – a small left turn lane will be provided

● Pavilion Dr. to Lester Ave. – restriping, right and left turn lanes onto Lester Ave., will provide

advance warning signs on Lester Ave. heading south towards the Pavilion Rd. intersection.

Regarding an earlier comment about a traffic signal at the intersection, Mr. Switala stated that

the traffic study did not warrant a light. Lester Avenue is wide enough for people to make the

right turn onto Pavilion Rd.

● Will provide emergency pre-emption devices on the Prospect Terrace Fire Department’s

equipment

● Signal retiming on Main St. and Glenwood Avenue.

Mr. Switala stated that there had been complaints that the traffic study was not more localized, looking at traffic using the local roads and systems. The initial traffic study had a larger percentage using the local roads coming to the site. The initial distribution was much higher than it is in the final study. After meeting with the DOT, BMTS and the Village, it was recommended that they use the DOT & BMTS models bringing more traffic to the site from Route 17.

Mr. Putman asked about the 14,000 sq. ft. retail B space - would they be willing to make modifications to the Pavilion Rd. intersection after the project is done should the traffic warrant it. Mr. Switala stated that yes, they could re-examine it at a later date. Ken Kamlet, attorney for Stella Ireland Rd. Assoc./Newman Development, stated that they have done that in the past on other projects.

Chairman Klish asked who would be paying for all of the traffic improvements. Mr. Switala stated that the costs will be paid by the applicant.

Mr. Switala stated that they will be raising the site comparable to the area. The Gannett site is at 850, Wal-Mart will be at 852. They are filling a low void and building on top of it. The runoff will be collected mostly in the driveway between the parcels, which will have oversized pipes allowing for more storage in the event of larger storms. There is a slope along the property line behind the homes on Market St. There will be 3 yard inlets placed at this site to collect the water. The residents in the area will see very little runoff from the site.

Mr. Putman stated that there was a question brought up at the public hearing that because the site is being raised, the neighbors fear that the water will sit in the yards. The yard inlets should mitigate some of the flooding that the neighborhood has experienced. Mr. Switala stated that yes that should help with the water problems in the neighborhood as now the water will have somewhere to go.

Mr. Switala stated that they met with the Village and City of Binghamton early in the process about an old box culvert that runs into the site. They were told that the culvert was shut off and does not receive any upstream flows. They will be removing the structure and installing a better system. Parking lot runoff will go into the inlets and this new pipe system. They will have a water quality unit that will remove sediment, oils and other types of pollutants before the water enters the Village system. The storage pipes are 48 inches in diameter. This will allow the discharge to be slower than predevelopment rates. Representatives from Gannett met with them regarding flooding issues and Gannett’s engineers agreed that this would not be a problem and should be an improvement.

Chairman Klish asked about the location of the water containment units. Mr. Switala stated that they will be in the main trunk line. Chairman Klish asked how many pipes would there be. Mr. Switala stated that there will be 15,000 linear feet of 48 inch pipe.

The Planning Board has received the additional information they were waiting for to complete their review of the Part 2 of the EAF. At this time, the Board discussed the project’s impacts and their magnitude.

Part 2 - EAF

1. The board commented that the proposed action would result in a physical change to the site, due to the fill that will be placed there, 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 felt that the impact on surface or groundwater quality or quantity would be small or insignificant and could be mitigated.

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 by the action plan.

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. The only structure remaining on site is the Pagoda, which is not on the National Register of Historic Places and will be moved into the adjacent CFJ Park.

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 moderate and will be mitigated by the proposed plans.

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.

Chairman Klish stated that to date 28 written comments have been received by the Planning Department regarding the project. The board has reviewed the comments and has taken into account any comments that were pertinent to the Board’s responsibility and believe that they have adequately addressed them. A letter from Bob Bennett, Superintendent of Public Works, in support of the stormwater, sanitary sewage and drainage plan. A letter has also been received from the NYS DOT in support of the final traffic study.

Mr. Putman asked about the use of permeable pavement and bio swales as suggested by the Broome County Environmental Management Council.

Mr. Switala stated that permeable pavement allows water to seep into the ground. Since the nature of the site is a Brownfield, this is not an application where this is practical. Bio swales are not appropriate for the site.

Mr. Sas read the following draft resolution for the proposed project:

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT OF THE PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT OF 90 LESTER AVENUE

WHEREAS, Bergman Associates (“Project Engineer”) on behalf of Stella Ireland Road Associates, LLC, has filed an application with the Village of Johnson City Planning Board to construct a 146,000 +/- square foot retail development including a 132,000 +/- square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter and 14,000 +/- square foot mixed retail building upon two separate parcels with associated site improvements including grading, stormwater pollution prevention plan improvements on 15.39+/- acres to be subdivided into two lots of approximately 14.1 +/- acres and 1.2 +/- acres, respectively (the “Project”). The Project is located on the former Endicott-Johnson Paracord site at 90 Lester Avenue 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 Proposed Subdivision and Site Plan Drawings and other submissions related thereto, including but not limited to a Traffic Impact Study; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has heretofore identified the Project as Type 1 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 held a public meeting to obtain public input and concerns regarding the potentially significant environmental impacts, which was held on September 10, 2007; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has duly reviewed the EAF, the Project Engineer’s Reports, including but not limited to the Traffic Impact Study, all Project submissions and other reports and documents submitted by the Project Engineer, the Village Planning Department and Village Director of Public Services, 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 Village of Johnson City, Broome County, New York, as follows:

1. The Planning Board hereby declares that as of its June 26, 2007 meeting it has and is acting as Lead Agency for the purposes of SEQR review concerning the Project and all actions related thereto.

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 “Type 1 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 Village of Johnson City Village Clerk, Planning Department and the Counsel for the Village of Johnson City to forward copies of this Resolution and the Negative Declaration to all appropriate agencies.

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.

A motion to accept the foregoing resolution was made by Mr. Sas and seconded by Mr. Putman.

Motion Carried Vote: Yes – 4 No – 0 Absent – 1

Subdivision - Stella Ireland Road Associates LLC, 90 Lester Avenue

The application is for the subdivision of a lot into 2 lots, one large lot of approximately 14 acres and one small lot of approximately 1.2 acres.

The Public Hearing was held on September 10, 2007. The hearing was closed at that meeting.

Chairman Klish read the Department Head Comments.

DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS

Code Enforcement: NCI

Fire: NCI

Planning Dept: Recommend approval. Filing of cross easements between parcels recommended with copies of the filed easements submitted to the Village.

Police: NCI

Public Works: NCI

Water: NCI

B. C. Planning: NCI

A motion to approve the subdivision was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mr. Sas.

Mr. Putman stated that most of the comments that were brought up at the Public Hearing have been addressed except for the cleaning of a pipe in the Little Choconut Creek.

Motion Carried Vote: Yes – 4 No – 0 Absent – 1

NEW BUSINESS

Area Variance – Mark Dellapenna, 35 Burns Street

The application is for an area variance to reduce the minimum required lot frontage for a two-family dwelling form 60 feet to 55 feet.

The applicant, Mark Dellapenna, was present.

Mr. Dellapenna stated that the house was a two-family dwelling. It has an upstairs bathroom and kitchen but is listed as a single-family dwelling. He wants to use the building as a two-family dwelling.

Mrs. Drimak asked how much work would need to be done to the house. Mr. Dellapenna replied that not much needs to be done, just some updating and painting.

Attorney Westfall advised the board that the variance is for lot frontage. Planner Golazeski stated that there is plenty of lot area for a two-family. At some point, the former owners abandoned the second dwelling use and lost their grandfathering.

Chairman Klish asked about widening the driveway from 8 ft. to 22 ft. Mr. Dellapenna stated that yes this is his intent so that the tenants will not have to park on the street.

Chairman Klish read the Department Head Comments.

DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS

Code Enforcement: We have no records on file showing the conversion from a single family to a two family. Department of Public Works (trash pickup) and the Clerk’s Office (water billing) shows the building to be a single family. Such conversion would require a building permit. A building permit must be obtained. If approved, said property must have a building inspection so to verify that the building is in compliance with NYS Building Codes and the Village of Johnson City Zoning Code.

Fire: Building needs to meet the code requirements for a two family house. No attic or

basement habitation.

Planning Dept: Overall lot size more than adequate for a two family.

Police: NCI

Public Works: NCI

Water: (No comments submitted)

B. C. Planning: No significant countywide or inter-community impacts with the proposed project.

NYS DOT: No comments or concerns.

BMTS: No comments on the area variance request.

NYS Health Dept.: No comments

A motion to recommend approval of the area variance application to the Zoning Board of Appeals including the Department Head Comments was made by Mr. Putman and seconded by Mrs. Drimak.

Motion Carried Vote: Yes – 4 No – 0 Absent – 1

A motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:35pm was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mr. Putman.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane Salva

Planning Board Clerk