Minutes of a regular meeting of the

Johnson City Planning Board held on

October 23, 2007 at 7:30pm at

243 Main St., Johnson City, NY

Present: Pamela Hysell, Vice Chairperson

Joanne Drimak

Gerald Putman

Leonard Sas

Beth Westfall, Village Attorney

Absent: William Klish, Chairman

Daria Golazeski, Planning Director

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

Mr. Putman called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.

Mr. Putman noted the emergency exits.

Privilege of the Floor

Monica Silas, 136 North Broad St. – Asked about the status of a petition submitted to the Village Board regarding the project at 90 Lester Ave., which Mayor Lewis stated that he would forward to the Planning Board. Attorney Westfall explained to the board that the petition asked questions about what the tax burdens would be to Village homeowners and what the cost would be to taxpayers in the future. There are five questions on the petition relating to cost, which are not within the Planning Board’s jurisdiction. There is one point on it that says, “FEMA states that the Village of Johnson City must provide reasonable proof that this project will not endanger the public in the event of anticipated flooding. Can the Village provide it?” Attorney Westfall stated that this might be why Mayor Lewis referred the petition to the Planning Board because the board may have addressed this in their SEQR Review. The rest of petition would have to go back to the Village Board. The petition asks the Village Board to delay their vote, however the petition was submitted after the Village Board’s vote. Mr. Putman stated that the Planning Board did an extensive SEQR Review on this project and found that there were no adverse environmental impacts associated with the project. One of the issues was storm water and the effect that it would have as a result of the project. This was addressed appropriately in the SEQR application or the applicant indicated that they were going to provide some additional drainage and storm water management to alleviate that situation. That document is available for review. Mr. Putman believes that this issue has been addressed satisfactorily by the applicant and agreed to by the Village’s expertise as well as others.

Ms. Silas is worried about flooding to the south of the site. She asked that, if instead of raising the site 8 feet, could the site be level and built there. Mr. Putman explained that if you look at a map of the flooding of the Chenango River, the Lake Avenue/Market Street section of the City of Binghamton is unfortunately at the end of that flood plain. That has been an issue for a lot of years. There were ponds there when Endicott-Johnson was there that were filled in, in favor of drainage pipes. This area is the low spot of the Chenango River basin.

Ms. Silas asked about traffic. She stood on Pavilion Drive by Lester Avenue. From the crest of the hill to the other side of Pavilion Drive heading north, if a car is doing the speed limit, it takes less than 5 seconds to cross that. She stated that there is no plan to install a traffic light at that intersection and feels that this is a dangerous situation. Mr. Putman stated that yes, no signal will be installed there, however at a previous meeting the developer agreed to readdress the situation if needed.

Ms. Silas asked about pedestrian traffic and children going to the park. Mr. Putman stated that the crosswalk is at the existing light and children will need to use that crosswalk.

Julie Deemie, 153 Zoa Ave. – Ms. Deemie stated that sometime in August there were 3 catch basins or drains added to the east side of the embankment to the Wal-Mart plateau where the building will go. Are these drains still planned to be put there? Mr. Robert Switala with Bergmann Associates stated that yes these are still planned. Ms. Deemie asked if they are catch basins. Mr. Switala stated that yes they will collect the water in that area and will relay it to the underground storage system. Ms. Deemie asked about capacity. Mr. Switala stated that all this information is outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that this Village has a copy of and is open for the public to examine. She doesn’t think that it is wise to empty a flood zone B pocket of water coming from the Chenango River into the Little Choconut Creek.

John Kolly, Town of Dickinson Planning Board – Stated that none of the information that they have requested regarding traffic, drainage, and road improvements has been received as of 5:30pm. Attorney Westfall stated that she knows that Village Planner Dee Golazeski provided that information to the Town. Mr. Kolly stated that the Chairwoman of the Planning Board does not have this information. Attorney Westfall reiterated that Planner Golazeski provided information to the Town through Town Attorney Oliver Blaise. Mr. Kolly continued to argue that the Town has not received any information. Attorney Westfall advised Mr. Kolly to check with the Town. Mr. Putman stated that just because the Planning Board Chairwoman has not received any information, does not mean that the Town has not received it and not passed it on to the board.

Thomas (Last name unintelligible), north side of Binghamton – Concerned about traffic and would like to see speed bumps on the local roads to slow down the traffic. Mr. Putman stated that the traffic study addressed the increased traffic in years to come. Putting speed bumps on a public through fare is not practical and may not be legal. People need to adhere to the local traffic laws. Thomas stated that the NYS Police have identified the area as one of their excessive and aggressive driving areas.

Monica Silas, 136 North Broad St. – Stated that as of Monday, according to the EPA the site has not been cleaned up yet. She stated that at a previous Planning Board meeting it was stated that construction would begin as soon as the site plan was approved. Mr. Putman explained that once the Planning Board takes action on the site plan, there are still some final approvals that are required from the DEC. Any approval by the Planning Board would be conditioned upon the applicant receiving DEC approval.

Marc Newman, Newman Development Group (Owner and developer of property at 90 Lester Ave.) – Pointed out that this project, as far as the approval process and the regulatory requirements, are no different than the Gannett project. They will be doing everything by the book. No one is moving forward with this project if they do not clean up the site to the satisfaction of the DEC, their lenders and Wal-Mart. From a drainage standpoint and an environmental standpoint, this is the same site as the Gannett building, which turned out beautifully.

Barbara Thompson, 94 Miriam St. – Concerned about raising the site 8 feet. Stated that Bergmann Associates made a lot of revisions and on pages 2 and 3 on the latest revision, there is an error in the tax map number of the parcels owned by Stella Ireland Associates in the City of Binghamton (57 Lake Ave., 67 Lake Ave., and 67½ Lake Ave.). Worried about the errors and asked if the Village Engineer reviewed the plans. Mr. Switala stated that lots of agencies reviewed the plans, including Village Officials, County Officials, NYS DOT Officials, DEC Officials and other professionals. The storm water plan improves what is on the site today. There is currently no way to detain water if there is a problem. They are reducing predevelopment runoff. Mr. Putman stated that the Village Engineer has looked at these drawings and has all of his concerns have been resolved and he has given his approval.

Julie Deemie, 153 Zoa Ave. – There is a formula that people in storm water management are aware of. Stated that impervious pavement and retail establishments the amount of drainage is increased. When and where will environmental clean-up hearing take place and how will it be publicly announced? Attorney Westfall stated that she is not aware of any environmental hearing. There is a work plan in process that the DEC has to give final approval to.

Monica Silas – Stated that the EPA says there needs to be a public hearing prior to final approval. Mr. Ken Kamlet, Attorney for Newman Development Group stated that the EPA is not involved. The DEC is the agency involved. There is no public hearing requirement. There is a public comment period prior to the acceptance of the final remedial action plan. That will be noticed in the newspaper and by other means. The public will have ample opportunity to comment in response to that.

Marc Newman, Newman Development Group (Owner and developer of property at 90 Lester Ave.) – Three environmental firms have looked at this. This property has been studied and studied and studied throughout the years since they bought the property in 1993. When the property is developed, the quality of what is there, the safety to the environment and surrounding community will be a lot safer than today’s standards because they are going to be encapsulating anything that is left in the ground under the brownfields, no different that what was done at Gannett. The concerns raised at this meeting would have been and should have been raised during the Gannett process by the neighbors. Mr. Putman stated that most of this was addressed during the environmental review and the traffic studies and these are available for the public to see. The DEC does have final approval with respect to the drawings.

Steve Griffen, 181 Grand Ave. – Wondered if anyone ever questioned Mr. Johnson when he was building all of his factory buildings. Employed by Wal-Mart. They are very safety conscious. This will do nothing but positive stuff for the community.

Suzanne Beckley, 42 Myrtle Ave. – In talking to her neighbors and others in the community, she has found far more acceptance of the Wal-Mart project than those that have concerns. We need to consider what the majority want. Concerns have already been addressed. Fears are unjust. We need to move forward. This will be a good thing for our community.

Bill Huston, 94 Ackley Ave. – Concerned about raising the site 8 feet tall, 14 acres. Where will the water go? A lot of water will be displaced. Containment tanks will not be big enough. The site is acting as a buffer now. Water is being absorbed into the ground. There is a lot of research to look at. People are not complaining because they don’t understand the scale of the problem. People have called for an economic impact study. Environmental Impact Study was done by Bergmann who was paid by Newman. An independent traffic study has not been done. A lot of data exists from communities that have had big box retailers move in and then watched their local downtowns close up. The Planning Board is supposed to plan and design the community. Other places have exciting, vibrant downtowns. Will not add to the character of Johnson City. Believes that it will be a net economic deficit.

Mr. Putman stated that the board’s charge at this meeting is to approve a site plan for a retail establishment on a piece of property. It does not matter if it is a Wal-Mart or something else. The Environmental Review has been completed. We have had public hearings on it. Everyone has had the opportunity to voice their opinions on the project. There has been a traffic study done. All of these studies have been reviewed by experts in the appropriate field. He feels that the board has done an appropriate review. The Village Board has made the decision to grant a special permit. The Planning Board’s responsibility at this meeting is to review the site plan presented for this retail establishment. It is not the board’s charge to do economic impact studies.

Communications – None

Contingencies – None

Minutes – Approval of the minutes of the September 25, 2007 work session and regular meeting was held over in order to give the board ample time to review them.

OLD BUSINESS

Site Plan Review – Stella Ireland Road Associates LLC, 90 Lester Avenue

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

Mr. Switala handed out and reviewed a copy of a fact sheet that was presented to the Village Board outlining the site design, storm water and traffic.

Mr. Switala explained that the finished level of the Wal-Mart will only be 2 feet higher than the Gannett building. They are filling a low spot. The amount of impervious surface will be less than the Ranger-Paracord Building that was formerly located on the site. There will be less run off after the development. Today there is no relief for groundwater. The water is contained. They are creating area to collect it and release it over a longer period than what would typically be done. They have received a letter from BMTS, the NYS DOT and the City of Binghamton Traffic Board, all in concurrence that the final traffic report is acceptable.

Mrs. Drimak asked for a clarification regarding raising the site 8 feet. Mr. Switala explained that the entire 14 acre site is not being raised 8 feet. There is a low spot in the back perimeter that will be filled in and raised 8 feet to match existing grades. The driveway area will be the new lot spot and will only be raised 1 foot. In some places they are meeting the existing grade.

Mr. Sas asked for confirmation that the changes made to the traffic study were in direct response to questions asked by BMTS, NYS DOT, and the Village and not the developer or Wal-Mart. Mr. Switala stated that yes this is correct. They changed their models based on information and models provided by BMTS and the DOT.

Mr. Sas stated that he originally asked about putting a traffic signal at the intersection of Lester Avenue and Pavilion Rd., but after visiting the site and driving around the area on numerous occasions, he realized the because of the curve and rise of the road that a signal would be less safe. Mr. Switala stated that this is a correct observation.

Mr. Ken Kamlet stated that in response to the comments from the Town of Dickinson, Bergmann did generate reactions and analysis which was submitted to the Town.

Mr. Sas stated that in reply to Mr. Kolly’s regarding the Town of Dickinson, any action taken by the board will be subject to confirmation that the Town has received the documents they requested.

Mr. Putman asked about the formula used to calculate parking. Mr. Switala stated that they used the calculation for a shopping center – one parking space for every 222 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. This was at Planner Golazeski’s recommendation.

Mrs. Drimak asked if garbage and snow removal will be taken care of onsite. Mr. Switala stated that yes they would be.

Mr. Putman stated that the site plan the board is reviewing at this meeting is only for the Wal-Mart store. It is not for the other retail establishment, “Retail B”, listed on the site plan. That will require a separate site plan. review with it’s own requirements.

Mr. Putman read the Department Head Comments.

DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS

Code Enforcement: The structure and its use need to be in accordance with NYS Building Codes and

Local Laws. Stamped drawings need to be submitted with your building permit

application.

Fire Dept.: I see no problems with plans. Need Fire Dept. Connection in front of building.

Planning Dept.: Recommend approval.

Police Dept.: Handicap parking should be signed “TOW AWAY ZONE” per attached

NYSDMV “P” letter. Handicap aisle should have above ground signage stating

“NO PARKING ANYTIME”. If approved, Wal-Mart should provide the Village

with a letter requesting the enforcement of parking; handicap, fire lane, etc.

Proposed intersection improvements pending NYS DOT approval. Intersection

at Pavilion Rd. and Gannett Dr. should be a four way stop, stop sign, stop bar

and “STOP” on pavement.

Public Works & The latest revision addresses all of my previous comments. One outstanding

Water: issue is the development of the new easement for the relocated sanitary sewer

lines, which Bergmann indicates that they are aware of.

B. C. Planning: This department has been supportive of this project since it was first proposed and recommends approval of the project as shown on the September 17, 2007 site plan that was submitted to this department for review. As noted in the letter of October 12, 2007, we suggested the addition of a green island in the parking lot and several treed areas. These items would enhance the transition between CFJ Park and the residential neighborhood. We would also request that consideration be given to using sustainable materials during construction and to attaining LEED certification. As the inclusion of the green island in the parking lot and use of sustainable materials are only suggestions and not modifications to the site plan, it is not anticipated that an extraordinary vote is required under section 239-M of the General Municipal Law.

Mrs. Hysell asked what the time frame of the project would be. Mr. Newman stated that they would probably start in the spring. Completion would probably be at the end of the year.

Mrs. Drimak read the following resolution for the proposed project:

RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the site plan, together with all of the additional documents submitted in connection with this application, in accordance with section 274-98 of the Village Code,

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

The Planning Board finds that the site plan, together with the additional documents submitted in connection with this application (including but not limited to the Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the Final Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and subsequent correspondence, the department head comments, and the responses to the 239 referral) satisfy the objectives set forth in §274-98 of the Village Code. The Planning Board finds that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the concerns and questions raised by the Planning Board, the neighboring municipalities, and the public.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Planning Board hereby grants the site plan submitted by Stella Ireland Road Associates, LLC for 90 Lester Avenue and hereby incorporates all of the documents submitted in connection with this application as part of the site plan.

2. This approval is subject to the following conditions:

a. Completion of Brownfield Cleanup Program to the satisfaction of DEC, together with final approval from the DEC and filing of final work plan and DEC approvals with the Village, prior to issuance of building permit.

b. Relocation of sanitary sewer and storm water lines in accordance with submitted plans, with all installations to be inspected and approved by the Village Department of Public Works.

c. Installation of water lines on site to be inspected and approved by Village Department of Public Works.

d. Incorporation of all department head comments.

e. Compliance with Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including additional comments from Village Director of Public Services.

f. Maintenance of clean roads in site area during construction.

g. Incorporation of comments in connection with 239 review, as well as comments submitted by Town of Dickinson and City of Binghamton, except for the comments noted in the letter from Broome County Department of Planning and Economic Development dated October 12, 2007 and the comments from the Environmental Management Council (EMC), as noted in the SEQR resolution.

h. Infrastructure improvements to be made and paid for by applicant, in accordance with the site plan, SEQR resolution and the final traffic impact study.

i. Information/directional signage in accordance with site plan and other signage per code. (Pole sign on CFJ previously received a height variance.)

j. Dumpsters/garbage service to be provided by applicant or site tenant or operator as required by the Village Department of Public Works.

k. Snow removal to be provided by applicant or site tenant or operator as required by the Village Department of Public Works.

l. Trucks prohibited from idling in violation of New York State law, consistent with applicant’s goal of not more than three minutes.

m. For construction vehicles, Applicant will use best efforts to utilize the same traffic pattern currently utilized by Gannett, entering the site off Lester Avenue and exiting the site off Gannett.

n. Incorporate comments contained in letter from Gannett dated September 10, 2007, except for the addition of a second right-turn only onto CFJ Boulevard. Turn lanes will be in accordance with final traffic impact study, as agreed with NYS DOT and BMTS.

o. Cooperation with the Village in relocating the pagoda.

p. Pre-construction meeting prior to beginning fill work on site.

q. Applicant shall be required to obtain separate site plan review for second use on Lot 2.

r. All applicable DOT, Broome County, and Village of Johnson City highway work permits.

s. Completion of construction by December 31, 2009, but Planning Board will consider a reasonable request for extension of that date.

t. Confirmation that copies of requested documents were provided to the Town of Dickinson.

The question of the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was moved by Planning Board member Drimak and seconded by Planning Board member Sas and was duly put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows:

Planning Board member Drimak voting yes

Planning Board member Hysell voting yes

Planning Board member Sas voting yes

Planning Board member Putman voting yes

Chairman Klish voting (absent)

Dated: October 23, 2007

NEW BUSINESS

Site Plan Review – T.J. Madison Construction Co. for Meier Supply Co., Inc. – 123 Brown St.

The application is a site plan review for a 10,000 sq. ft. addition. Mr. Tom Lowe from T.J. Madison Construction Co. was present on behalf of Meier Supply Co., Inc.

Mr. Lowe explained that the project is to construct a 10,000 sq. ft. addition to the existing warehouse. Meier Supply supplies HVAC equipment for wholesale distribution to various branches throughout the area. The building addition will be of similar height, color and structure to the existing building. They will be disturbing about 1/3 of an acre during the construction phase of the project. The use of the building will be low hazard storage. The property is zoned industrial. Hours of operation are Monday – Friday, 7am – 5pm. The building will be located on the east side of the building. The existing truck traffic occurs on the opposite end of the building. The property next door was purchased for temporary and future parking.

Mr. Putman asked when the anticipated construction start date would be. Mr. Lowe stated that they would like to start next week.

Mr. Putman explained that the 239 comments from Broome County have not been received yet, so the board cannot act on the application until those comments arrive. Attorney Westfall explained that the county has 30 days from the receipt of the application to provide their comments. Diane Salva, Planning Board Clerk, stated that the application was referred to the county as soon as it was received by the Planning Department, approximately during the second week in October. Mr. Putman stated that the board was willing to consider a special meeting if the comments are received before the next board meeting.

Mr. Sas asked Mr. Lowe to point out the location of the loading docks on the copy of the site plan, which Mr. Lowe did.

Mr. Sas asked about the standing water in the area of the docks. Mr. Lowe stated that they are looking into the problem but it wasn’t originally part of this project.

Mr. Putman read the Department Head Comments.

DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS

Code Enforcement: The structure and its use need to be in accordance with NYS Building Codes and FEMA Flood Regulations. Stamped drawings need to be submitted with your building permit application.

Fire Dept: Plot plan ok.

Planning Dept: Comply with requirements of code to submit elevation certificate for building. Building should be 2 ft. above base flood elevation. Recommend approval.

Police Dept: No comments submitted.

Public Works: NYSDOT should be contacted for permission to discharge storm water onto NYS Route 17 Right of Way.

Water Dept: NCI

B. C. Planning: Comments not yet received.

Mrs. Hysell asked is sprinklers are required in the building. Mr. Lowe stated that no they are not.

Mrs. Hysell asked about the time frame. Mr. Lowe stated that they will begin as soon as possible. They are expecting the steel for the project to be delivered on November 11^th.

The application was held over pending receipt of the 239 Comments from Broome County.

Area Variance – JC Town Center Associates, LLC, 420 Harry L. Drive

The application is an area variance to increase the maximum allowable square footage for an advertising sign.

Mr. Ken Kamlet, attorney for Newman Development Group, was present on behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Kamlet gave the board a one-page fact sheet that explained the need for the variance. The proposed pylon sign is the same width as the existing Toys R Us and Christmas Tree Shop sign. They will be adding 4 other signs for the other tenants, which are half the size if the existing panels. They are tripling the number of tenants in the plaza. The variance is for doubling the overall square footage of the sign. It is the most modest request that could be made to accommodate the tenants. Photo simulations were provided to show what the sign would look like if the variance is granted as opposed to what it would look like as the code currently allows.

Mr. Putman asked if a variance was needed for the existing sign since that is already larger than what the code allows. Mr. Kamlet replied that he had the same question, but that occurred prior to Newman Development owning the property.

Mr. Sas asked about the distance of the sign to the road. Mr. Kamlet stated that the sign will not be any closer to the road than it currently is and it will not be wider than it currently is.

Mr. Putman asked if the actual height of the sign was 21ft. 8in. Mr. Kamlet stated that this is correct.

Mrs. Hysell asked if the sign would be illuminated. Mr. Kamlet stated that yes it would be.

Mr. Putman asked who would be responsible for maintaining the flowers in the in planter at the base of the sign. Mr. Kamlet stated that the property owner would be responsible for that.

Mr. Putman read the Department Head Comments.

DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS

Code Enforcement: No Comment. Owner needs to apply for a sign permit if approval is granted.

Fire Dept.: Recommend approval.

Planning Dept.: Toys R Us sign would be considered an advertising sign, which is 93.75 sq. ft. and prior conforming sign before subdivision of parcel. Rest of signage would be 281.25 sq. ft. proposed verses 150 sq. ft. allowed by code. I feel that a directory sign would be important for this plaza.

Police Dept.: No comments received.

Public Works: No comment on variance request.

Water Dept.: NCI

A motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals, approval of the area variance application to increase the maximum allowable square footage for an advertising sign from 150 to 365 sq. ft. was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mrs. Hysell.

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

Area Variance – Dr. Prasad & Dr. Peri, 180 Harry L. Drive

The application is an area variance request to increase the number of business signs allowed from 2 to 3 signs.

Mr. Jeff Yoder from Pac Sign Co. was present on behalf of Dr. Prasad and Dr. Peri.

Mr. Yoder explained that the current signs are 2 sets of small plastic letters on the front and west sides of the building. They are proposing 2 illuminated signs that would be 2ft by 6ft on the east and west elevations. They are going to leave the existing letters on the front of the building, which would constitute a third sign.

Mr. Sas asked if the existing signs are illuminated. Mr. Yoder stated that they are not.

Mrs. Drimak asked if the signs will be illuminated night and day. Mr. Yoder stated that the signs will be on a timer. They will turn off shortly after the office closes for the evening. They will not be illuminated 24/7. They would turn on around 6am.

Mr. Yoder stated that the way the building is situated, the signs will not present a safety factor to passing motorists.

Mr. Sas asked about the illumination of the signs. Mr. Yoder stated that the signs will be internally illuminated.

Mr. Putman read the Department Head Comments.

DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS

Code Enforcement: No Comment. Owner needs to apply for a sign permit if approval is granted.

Fire Dept.: Recommend approval.

Planning Dept.: Signage allowed on site is 210.75 sq. ft. Proposed signage is 24.34 sq. ft. Proposal seems to be minimal.

Police Dept.: No comments received.

Public Works: No comment on variance request.

Water Dept.: NCI

B. C. Planning: N/A

A motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals, approval of the Area Variance application for 180 Harry L. Drive, including the Department Head Comments was made by Mrs. Hysell and seconded by Mr. Sas.

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

Site Plan Review –Edward Suer, 129 Brown Street

The application is a site plan review for the addition of a metal building for a current tenant.

Gary Whistle from Whistle Design was present on behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Putman explained that the 239 comments from Broome County have not been received yet, so the board cannot act on the application until those comments arrive.

Mr. Whistle explained that the property is at the end of Brown Street. Along with the application, two flood certificates were submitted, one for the building that exists and the other for the proposed building. The existing building is 2 ft. above the floodplain and the proposed building is 2 ft. higher than that.

The location of the addition would also allow the property owner to increase the number of parking spaces and bring the off street parking up to code. A variance will be needed because the proposed addition is too close to the property line. They want to share loading dock ramp. If they put bring the building in 10 feet from the line, as the code calls for, it will be in the middle of a driving lane. The existing building is already located approximately 1½ feet on NYS Property. They are currently in negotiations with NYS to purchase 10 feet behind their property from the state to add to their lot. Unfortunately this could take over a year. The building will be identical to the existing building.

Mr. Whistle passed out new copy of page 2 of the site plan to the board, as there is an error in note #9 regarding the parking.

Mr. Whistle stated that the changes will be aesthetically much better and safer for customers and employees. They are also trying to get an easement that has already been granted to Mr. Suer to be permanently transferred so they can create a cul de sac at the end of Brown St.

Mrs. Drimak asked if there would be any differences or changes as a result of acquiring the property from the state. Mr. Whistle stated that there would be no changes. The additional land would remain green space. Any drainage on site will be drained towards either the Finch Hollow Creek Channel or the Little Choconut Creek.

Mr. Sas asked if there would be a change in business hours. Mr. Whistle stated that there would be no change in the hours. The business may hire a couple more employees.

Mr. Putman read the Department Head Comments.

DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS

Code Enforcement: The structure and its use need to be in accordance with NYS Building Codes and FEMA Flood Regulations. Stamped drawings need to be submitted with your building permit application.

Fire Dept., Planning Dept. & Police Dept.: Comments not yet received.

Public Works & Water Dept.:

1. The storm water from the parking lot should not be allowed to flow directly into the Finch Hollow and Little Choconut Creeks. A storm water infiltration practice, as outlined in Chapter 6 of the New York State Storm water Management Design Manual, should be designed and put into place.
2. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to any construction activities.
3. The existing building encroaches onto NYSDOT property. How will this be addressed?
4. How will the 0.35 foot proposed offset be addressed? Is a variance required?
5. Roof runoff of all the buildings must be connected to the requested storm system.
6. The existing asphalt in the area of parking space #3 encroaches onto NYSDOT property. A barrier should be placed to eliminate future encroachments.
7. In accordance with § 270-9 Plumbing Plan to be submitted, a plan of the entire site’s water system must be supplied to the Water Department.
8. In accordance with § 270-41 Location and installation of Meters,

B. Setting near property line. In all cases, irrespective of meter size, where the distance from the property line to the front wall of the premises is greater than seventy-five (75) feet, the Department may require that the meter be set at or near the property line. A master meter should be installed in the water manhole at the end of Brown Street. This is the manhole that is improperly labeled as a storm manhole on the site plan drawings.

9. There is no location for the dumpsters on the site plan and they are not enclosed.

B. C. Planning: Comments not yet received

Mr. Sas asked to have snow removal addressed at the next meeting.

The application was held over pending receipt of the 239 Comments from Broome County.

A motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:20pm was made by Mr. Sas and seconded by Mrs. Drimak.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane Salva

Planning Board Clerk