Minutes of a regular meeting of the
Johnson City Planning Board held on
July 24, 2007 at 7:30pm at
243 Main St., Johnson City, NY
Present: William Klish, Chairman
Pamela Hysell, Vice
Chairperson
Joanne Drimak
Gerald Putman
Leonard Sas
Beth Westfall, Village
Attorney
Daria Golazeski,
Planning Director
Absent: None
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 June 26, 2007
regular meeting as presented was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mr. Sas.
The Planning Board unanimously approved the motion.
Privilege of the Floor - None
Communications – None
Contingencies - None
OLD BUSINESS
Environmental
Review, Special Permit and Subdivision –
Stella Ireland Road Associates, LLC,
90
Lester Avenue
Mr. Robert
Switala and Mr. Frank Dolan, with Bergman Associates were present on behalf of
the applicant.
Mr. Switala
presented a brief overview of the proposed project to the board.
The site is
the former Ranger Paracord industrial site. All the buildings on the site were
demolished. The site is approximately 15 acres, which will be subdivided into 2
lots, one large lot of approximately 14 acres and one small lot of
approximately 1.2 acres. They are proposing a 132,000 sq. ft. retail building
on the large lot and a 14,000 sq. ft. building on the small lot. The site is
zoned industrial. With the proposed layout no variances are needed. The Village will relocate the Pagoda
Pumphouse building. Access to the site will primarily be via CFJ Blvd. to
Gannett Drive. There will be no access
to the site from Market Street and Lake Avenue. The site can also be accessed
via Lester Avenue to Pavilion Road. All the light fixtures will be located on
the site and it has been designed so that there is almost no light spillage
onto the residential area. They are proposing a 6 ft. high black chain link
fence around the perimeter of the property. They will also install a solid
vinyl fence in the rear of the site and additional landscaping per the board’s
request. The application meets the required setbacks and parking.
Mr. Dolan gave
an overview of the traffic study. They studied 14 intersections in and around
the parcel, on Friday, April 20th from 3 – 7pm & on Saturday,
April 21st from 11am – 2pm, which are the times that retail stores
generate most of their traffic. Eleven intersections were studied in April and
an additional three intersections were studied on June 22nd & 23rd.
They also looked at an additional ten intersections at the request of the City
of Binghamton. The report has been submitted to the NYS DOT and is being reviewed.
They anticipate the majority of the traffic (60%) would be using Route 17 to
travel to the site. They determined that the Route 17/Airport Road interchange already
has poor levels of service. They propose changing the timing of the traffic
lights at the Airport Rd./CFJ Blvd./Prospect St. intersection, adding a left
turn lane on CFJ Blvd. coming out so that the traffic going left will have its
own left turn lane to store in and adding a right turn lane on Prospect Street
to Airport Road.
Chairman Klish
asked if a separate turning lane would be needed for traffic going west on CFJ
Blvd. to Gannett Drive. Mr. Dolan stated that they did not see a need for that
Because of the gaps in traffic flow.
Mrs. Drimak
asked if that would result in the traffic stacking up in the intersection. Mr.
Dolan stated that changing the timing of the area traffic lights should prevent
that from happening.
Mr. Putman
asked about increases in traffic turning from Lester Avenue to CFJ Blvd. Mr.
Dolan stated that they are anticipating an increase of approximately 50
vehicles per hour northbound and 45 vehicles per hour southbound.
Chairman Klish
asked is there is adequate room to add a lane on CFJ Blvd. to turn onto Downs
Avenue. Mr. Dolan stated that they feel there is enough room for another lane.
Chairman Klish
advised that the applicant that the NYS DOT and BMTS are still analyzing the
data in the traffic report and the board needs to wait for their
recommendations.
Mrs. Drimak
asked about the internal intersection where Gannett Drive and Pavilion Road
meet. Mr. Dolan stated that the intersection would be a 4-way stop.
Chairman Klish
asked about a traffic light at Gannett Drive and CFJ Blvd. Mr. Dolan stated
that based on their models, a traffic light is not necessary; that a stop sign
will be adequate with the timing changes he mentioned earlier.
Mr. Sas asked
about the intersection of Pavilion Road and Lester Avenue. Mr. Dolan stated
that they are not recommending any changes to that intersection.
Chairman Klish
asked about the status of the Brownfield cleanup process. Mr. Ken Kamlet,
attorney for Newman Development Group, stated that they are actively addressing
this with the DEC just as they did with the Gannett site (the northern parcel).
They received a Certificate of Completion for the Gannett site in late December
of 2006. They are at the stage with the southern parcel of having submitted a
supplemental investigation work plan that was approved by the DEC. There is a
supplemental investigation report that is currently under review by the DEC and
the State Dept. of Health. Following the review there may be additional monitoring
required by the DEC. There will then be a remedial action work plan developed
and implemented and then they will get a Certificate of Completion. They will
remediate to the DEC’s satisfaction. The
standard is the protection of public health based on the anticipated use of the
site.
Chairman Klish
asked about a time frame for the cleanup. Mr. Kamlet stated that this is
difficult to predict. They have met with the DEC in Syracuse in the last few
weeks. There are several public comment periods built into the approval process,
providing ample opportunity for public comment.
He said there is information on file at the public library, as well as
at the Village offices.
Mrs. Drimak
asked about the depth of the contamination. Mr. Kamlet stated that it is
primarily fill material, fly ash, from during the operation of the Ranger
Paracord Plant. He said it is not heavy-duty contaminants, and is not very
mobile or soluble; it hasn’t moved in decades.No ground water contamination has
occurred beneath the layers of fill. On the Gannett parcel the primary
contaminant was petroleum related and on the southern parcel the potential
primary contaminant concern is heavy metals associated the fly ash fill
material. The fill depth varies from 2 feet to 9 or 10 feet.
Chairman Klish
asked about the time frame for the development of retail space B. Mr. Switala
stated that they intend to develop this site at the same time as retail space A
(Wal-Mart). There will be little excavating at space B, it will mostly be
additional fill and encapsulation. They will be raising the elevation of that
site.
Chairman Klish
asked about potential problems with relocating utilities. Mr. Switala stated
that they have met with Bob Bennett at the DPW and the City of Binghamton
Engineer. There is a large sewer main that transects the site that the
residents of Market Street still contribute to so they will relocate the main
around the proposed building. Also, there is a large storm box culvert on the
site. It does not receive any flows from the City of Binghamton so they will
remove it and use standard storm water catch basins.
Chairman Klish
asked about the hours of operation for the proposed Wal-Mart. Mr. Switala
stated that it will be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Attorney
Westfall asked about the stormwater plan. Mr. Switala stated that they just
completed the plan and will be submitting it to the Village and the DEC.
Environmental
Review
The Board
began its review of Part 1 of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and made
some corrections to Part 1:
A. Site
Description
Question #1 –
Present Land Use: Industrial & Commercial. The board agreed with the
applicant’s answer.
Question #2 –
Total acreage of project area: 15.30 acres (the 15.85 acres included Pavilion
Drive)
At question
17.b the Board changed the answer from “no” to “yes” because the applicant will
have to relocate a sewer line and extend the water line. The Board made the same change at question
B.11.
At question
B.1.f, the proposed number of parking spaces is 659. The required ratio is 4.5
and they are at 4.51.
At question
B.18, the applicant indicated that they do not anticipate the use of herbicides
or pesticides in connection with the construction. As for the garden center, it
will include landscaping products, but those will be contained.
When asked
about tractor trailer deliveries, the applicant said they anticipate 3 full
tractor trailer deliveries between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm. Tractor trailers are not permitted to idle
for more than 5 minutes, but Wal-Mart’s goal is no more than 3 minutes.
For garbage
collection, the plan includes a compactor area.
They estimate garbage pick-up twice a week, during business hours.
On Part 2 of
the EAF, the Board discussed the projects impacts and their magnitude. The
Board was not able to complete Part 2 because it is waiting for additional
traffic information and the stormwater plan, but the Board did discuss the following
portions of Part 2:
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
did not address this section regarding surface or groundwater quality or
quantity, until it receives the Stormwater Prevention Protection Plan (SWPPP)
and it will be reviewed by the Director of Public Services.
6. The Board
did not address this section regarding drainage or flow patterns, or surface
water runoff, pending receipt and review of the SWPPP.
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 address this section regarding any impacts on aesthetic resources,
pending receipt of a response to information the applicant has submitted to the
state parks department.
12. The Board
did not address this section regarding any impacts on any historic structure,
same as no. 11 above.
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 address any impacts to existing transportation systems, pending the
receipt of additional information on the traffic study and comments from the
DOT and the BMTS.
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.
The Board will
wait for the receipt of the various items (SWPPP, traffic, and reply from state
parks) before completing its review of Part 2 of the EAF.
A
motion to declare the application a minor subdivision and set a public hearing
for Tuesday, August 28, 2007 was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mr. Sas.
Motion Carried Vote: Yes
– 5 No – 0 Absent – 0
A motion to
recommend approval to the Village Board of the special permit application for
retail sales in an industrial zone was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mrs.
Hysell.
Motion Carried Vote: Yes
– 5 No – 0 Absent – 0
Ms. Golazeski
confirmed that the lead agency letters had been sent to all of the involved
agencies and that she had not received any objections to the Planning Board
being the lead agency.
A motion to
adjourn the meeting at 8:45pm was made by Mr. Putman and seconded by Mr. Sas.
Respectfully
submitted,
Diane Salva
Planning Board
Clerk