MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ELLICOTT PLANNING BOARD HELD AT THE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 215 SOUTH WORK STREET, FALCONER, NY 14733 ON JUNE 14,
2006 AT 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Evans, Dave
Carlberg, Phyllis Belin, Paul Shanahan, Attorney William
Wright, Code Enforcement Office Randy Woodbury and Secretary Valerie
Pierce.
ABSENT: Gary Swanson and Ron Calanni
Chairman Evans opened the meeting at 7:06 PM.
Motion made by Dave Carlberg, seconded by Dan Evans
to approve the minutes of the May 10, 2006 meeting.
Carried. Ayes – 4 Noes – 0 Absent –2
Randy Woodbury told the Board he received a call
from Mr. Shelters, who requested this application remain on the table. Mr.
Shelters has received two bids for blacktopping and is getting ready to start
but is waiting for a third quote for the blacktopping. He is trying to get more
compliant with his existing Site Plan but is still considering the office space
and has hired Jerry Erickson, PE.
Depending on the cost he may decide not to do the modifications.
The application for Mr. Shelters will stay on the
table for the next meeting.
Gary Swanson entered the meeting at 7:08 PM.
Jeff Holley, Operations Manager for Hanson
Aggregates, and Scott Wheaton, Area Manager for the Jamestown Plant, requested approval for the
modifications to the facility on Allen Street.
Mr. Holley provided two colored maps to show the
Board the structures they plan to remove and the new ones they plan to build.
They are requesting the Board approve the completion of a project that was
started in 1997 when B. R. DeWitt Company erected a new ready-mix plant to
replace the old outdated operation. Prior to that in 1996 they installed a
dispatch office.
Hanson intends to remove the old concrete plant, the
two storage buildings and the three houses along Allen Street that were
purchased in 2002. They will erect a building around the existing ready-mix
plant and install a new steel silo, which will allow them to run the operation
in the winter. They plan to add an employee parking area in the corner for 20
vehicles. Mr. Holley stated this property is in much need of clean up. They
need to do this project for the efficiency of their operation and aesthetics.
They had an engineer do storm water calculations.
There is no net change in the storm water drainage plan. The parking lot has
less square footage than the structures they are removing and they have
increased the actual grass area.
Mr. Woodbury said he met with Mr. Wheaton on site
and the company is familiar with the new federal regulations for storm water
quantity and quality. In August of 2005
they were visited by the EPA and did show Randy the documentation of that
review. It is the EPA’s authority to monitor all the water on site. Hanson has
a plan in place, so if the water standards do change they can retain more water
on site and sample it before it is discharged. Based on the report they
received this is not anticipated. The
primary point of discharge off this property goes into a culvert underground to
the Industrial Park. Randy told the Board that some of the water goes under
Kingsview’s property to Allen Street and into the County system.
Mr. Holley explained to the Board:
1)
nothing
changes with the conveyor with the existing concrete batch plant
2)
the
new building will go around the plant and the addition of the one silo and bin
structure in the back will allow multiple aggregates in their mix
3)
they
propose to landscape in the spring since they will not be removing the houses
until December
4)
the
wall will match the existing block wall and will be 6 feet high
5)
there
will be no change in utilities
6)
the
traffic patterns will not change but there will be one new entrance for the
employee parking
7)
there
is an area on the plan that was proposed for aggregate storage - Mr. Holley
said they would extend the wall to contain the aggregates - currently that area
is being used for parking by the factory across the street
8)
the
silos are 72 feet high and 12 feet in diameter
9)
Mr.
Woodbury has the building plans showing the elevations.
The Board continued with the Site Plan checklist
noting:
1)
everything
that is being demolished in shown on the plans
2)
there
are no changes in the drainage
3)
the
parking areas will be gravel – that is what is currently there and the Board
has the option to waive the requirement and can be included in the motion for
approval
4)
there
will be no pedestrian access
5)
outdoor
storage is shown on the plans
6)
they
would have to come back for approval if they want to store aggregates in the
northeast corner – the code requires a 10 foot setback for any structures in an
industrial district and they would need a variance from the Zoning Board
7)
fire
hydrant is noted
8)
existing
signs are noted on plans
9)
they
are leaving three existing trees – the ones in the parking area will be taken
down
10)
outdoor
lighting is marked on the plans – poles in the parking areas and on each corner
of the building
11)
the
landscaping will be done in the Spring of 2007
12)
the
project schedule – contractor will start as soon as possible after they get
approval – the scheduled completion for the ready mix operation would be by
mid-December 2006
13)
this
project needs to be referred to the County Planning Board – Mr. Woodbury was
not able to do that since the plans did not come in before this meeting
The Board cannot grant approval without the County referral.
The applicant needs to revise the short form EAF before the Board can review
this and so Randy can send the EAF along with the plans to County Planning.
Mr. Holley asked if they need to appear for the next
meeting and the Board told them if there were no changes they did not have to
appear. Attorney Wright said if the County identifies anything off the plans
they see need attention Randy could notify them and they would be required to
come back.
Motion made by Paul Shanahan, seconded by Dave Carlberg
to refer this application for Hanson Aggregates to the County Planning Board.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent - 1
Brad Lawson, Operations Manager for Tanglewood Manor
presented
the revised site plan and requested the building be moved 10 feet to the north.
Mr. Lawson explained to the Planning Board:
1)
the
Town Board rezoned the 40-foot of property in the back to neighborhood business
2)
all
the set backs requirements are met on the modified site plan
3)
the
building has not changed – it has the same square footage, same interior and
exterior
4)
they
have added a porch
5)
they
are in negotiations with the Town of Ellicott and the Board of Public Utilities
to bring a water line from Merlin Ave. to Gifford Ave. to serve the park and
for fire protection - the applicant
already stated they would not be using the 40 foot of property and now there
will be a waterline across it
6)
the
buffers will stay the same
7)
there
is an existing wooden fence that is not the owners and Tanglewood would be
using white vinyl fencing
8)
the
lighting plan and landscaping on the original plan will remain the same.
Attorney Wright said to have a complete package they
need this plan along with the data from the original site plan so the Board
could somehow incorporate them. The
plan Mr. Lawson presented was not a stamped engineering plan.
Attorney Stapleton told the Board the only thing
that has changed is the 10-foot setback and the porch. Everything else was on
the previous plans and could be incorporated.
He did not feel that everything needed to be duplicated since it was
available to the Board and had been previously provided by the applicant. Brad Lawson said that everything moves over
10 feet and the plan adheres to all of the Town code.
Chairman Evans stated he had concerns because of the
last addition for Tanglewood Manor. Memory Garden was not built to the
specifications of the approved plan.
Mr. Lawson said that was a contractor’s mistake. Randy Woodbury said that was a mathematical
error and was discovered by the surveyor and not a fault of the applicant.
Motion made by Gary Swanson, seconded by Dave
Carlberg to convene to executive session for the purpose of advise from
Council. 8:05 PM – 8:22 PM
Carried. Ayes – 6 Noes – 0 Absent –1
When the Board reconvened Chairman Evans stated the
Board would need a set of plans that showed all 28 points of the site plan
review because:
1) there were discrepancies in the plans
2)
the
revised plan was not stamped by a licensed engineer
3)
there
were differences on the landscaping and planting schedule
4)
the
plans would have to be resubmitted to the County Planning Board
Attorney Stapleton asked if that had been discussed
in executive session without a record.
Attorney Wright stated that what was discussed in executive session was
the Attorney’s advise to the Board.
If the applicant could get the plans to Randy so he
could refer them to the County their approval could be received before the next
Planning Board meeting.
Attorney Stapleton stated for purposes of the record
“I’m objecting to the executive session because you discussed things that
should have been discussed in public”. He said the Board can tell the applicant
they have to go out and get these plans and resubmit them again if that is the
Board’s decision, but he is objecting to the executive session and objecting to
this Board not being able to use the materials that were previously presented
and look at a 10 foot setback. Nothing else on these plans has changed. They will be delaying this project 60 days
when it was suppose to start in July.
Attorney Stapleton asked if the Board needed a new
SEQR or a storm water prevention plan.
Attorney Wright said they would need a new storm water prevention plan
or a certification by an engineer that it hasn’t changed.
Attorney Stapleton asked exactly what they needed
when they come back. Attorney Wright stated the Board needs:
1)
one
drawing or combination of drawings with all 28 points of the site plan
checklist stamped by an engineer
2)
certification
by an engineer that the storm water management plan will not changed
Mr. Lawson asked why the Board could not rely on the
Code Enforcement Officer to make sure that the building would be built to the
plans they have in front of them since they did not change except for the
building being moved over 10 feet. Gary Swanson stated they are also moving the
driveway and lighting. Attorney Stapleton said they are taking the position
that the Code Enforcement Officer is certainly intelligent enough to look at a
new site plan that moves things back 10 feet. He can rely on drawings that were
previously presented to the Board so there is no ambiguity in the way it has to
be built when he issues the building permit.
Attorney Stapleton asked if the application could be
approved subjected to a letter from the engineer stating the storm water
management plan would not change.
Attorney Wright said there is no plan to approve that has the 28 points
of the site plan and the revised plan has to be referred to the County
Planning.
Chairman Evans opened the Public Hearing for Site
Plan Review for Wegmans Food Market Inc., 945 Fairmount Ave., W.E.,
Jamestown, NY to install a patio at the exterior man door area between Wegmans
and K-Mart.
Randy Woodbury said he received e-mail from Wegmans
stating that Kingsview is authorized to represent them for this
project.
Mr. John Rauh, owner of Kingsview Paving, said the patio is 19’ by
50’. Randy provided pictures of the
patio, which is already built. John Rauh, Jr. called Randy a few weeks ago and
asked the requirements to build the patio and was told he would need a revised
site plan. Chairman Evans also looked
at it and told him it needed to come for a revised site plan. Dan said they
should look at the original approved site plan to see if there was a reason for
the green space between the two buildings. Randy stated the property line is
about half way between the two properties.
Mr. Rauh submitted a drawing dated April 1, 2006
from Wegmans (Option #1). They did not receive a building permit for the patio
and it has been built for a couple of weeks.
Attorney Wright asked Randy if there was a porch or
eating area on the original site plans. Randy said he had asked for a master
drawing and the revisions and thought they would be provided for this
meeting.
Attorney Wright said he would give them the same
advise he gave Hanson Aggregates and Tanglewood Manor, which is that they need
to present a proper revised site plan. He asked Mr. Rauh to contact Wegmans and
let them know they need a stamped engineering drawing that would now be an “as
built” drawing of the patio.
Mr. Woodbury entered into the record (see file
“Planning Board Site Plan for Wegmans) a FAX he sent to Mr. Coddington,
Wegman’s facilities manager for the Western division, last week that asked for
all the requirements.
When Paul Shanahan asked why no one from Wegmans was
at this meeting, Mr. Rauh said it was a convenience factor and they felt this
was pretty straightforward. Mr. Rauh apologized to the Board, that because of
the simplification of the project, they overlooked some of the technical
requirements. Mr. Rauh said there would be no problem getting any requirements
from Wegmans.
Attorney Wright said that Wegmans is in violation of
their original site plan and Randy could shut down the patio or the store. That would be Randy’s decision but the Town
cannot take the violation lightly. Randy said because they built this without a
building permit and it is a structure that people will occupy, it could be a
safety issue. Randy asked Mr. Rauh for details on the cross section, how much
gravel they used, how much rebar is there and what kind of finish the concrete
has. There are requirements in the code
for the building permit.
Mr. Rauh asked if he could submit the information to
Randy and not at the next meeting. Attorney Wright said he could submit it to
Randy but it would have to be reviewed and approved at a meeting. There is no
requirement that anyone actually appear. Mr. Rauh thought if Wegmans contacted
Randy directly they would know if what they submit is appropriate and the Board
will have exactly what they need for the next meeting. Randy said he would deal directly with
Wegmans but would need a building permit with the required information from Mr.
Rauh.
Randy
Woodbury presented a survey by Steve Carlson for a four-lot sub-division for
Sherwood C. and Beverly Carlson for property located on Howard Avenue and Royal
Oaks Blvd., W.E., Jamestown, NY.
Mr. and Mrs. Carlson did not appear. Randy said they wanted to fine out the
process for sub-division. By making larger lots the Carlson’s are addressing
part of the County and State sub-division requirements in an easier way then if
the lots were smaller. Attorney Wright
stated the five-acre lots requirement has to do with the NYS law and what
constitutes sub-division for public health purposes and has to do with water
and sewage on a lot. A sub-divided lot
under County law is a lot that is below five acres. Some people sub-divide into lots that are larger to avoid any
County requirements but this applicant has water and sewer so the five acres
thing with the County is completely irrelevant. Under the Town code this
sub-division would be a minor sub-division as opposed to a major sub-division. A minor sub-division does have lesser
process and is defined in Section 130-2 D of the Town of Ellicott code as a
sub-division with not more than four lots.
Attorney Wright said the Carlson’s have to make application and come in
with the survey and the Board would need to hold a Public Hearing. Randy said Section 130-4 A states the
Planning Board, at a sketch plan conference, has to determine if the sketch is
a minor or major sub-division and the applicant has six months after the
determination to complete the process.
Attorney Wright said if Royal Oaks Boulevard is not
a dedicated Town road there would be requirements for the street to be built
according to Town specifications.
There was a brief discussion on the project and Randy told the Board there were a lot if issues and this would require the County Planning Board’s comments.
Chairman Evans signed the referral form to send to the
County Planning Board.
Roger Penhollow, Real Estate
Advantage Broker, presented a sketch plan for Mr. Anthony Payne to convert the
Amvets Post 1996 building at 3334 Fluvanna Avenue Ext., Jamestown, NY from a
bar/restaurant to a trucking place of business.
Mr. Penhollow told the Board that Mr. Payne has four trucks and three employees. He will be parking the empty trucks there only on the weekends because he is out of town during the week. Mr. Payne will modify the building to make an office. The house in the back of the property is rented and will continue to be rental property.
Randy stated the property is in a “Shopping Center District” and the purpose and permitted uses and excluded uses are in Section 146-25 of the Town code. Randy said he had determined that the buyer needed to come in for site plan review because it would be a change of use.
Attorney Wright said it does trigger the requirements for site plan but the real issue is if the zoning code would permit this use in the “Shopping Center District”. The Code Enforcement Officer can make that determination and if that determination is negative then the applicant has an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their determination.
Randy stated he is not convinced this is an allowed use in this district. It cannot be used as a warehouse.
Mr. Penhollow said this building has been for sale since May 2002. This is the first offer he has had and with the interstate right there this seems to be a realistic use. Johnson Real Estate had the property before Real Estate Advantage.
Attorney Wright explained to Mr. Penhollow what was needed for site plan. If Randy determines it needs Zoning Board approval they need to apply to the Zoning Board by tomorrow (6/15/06). Randy said he would write a letter stating it is his determination that this in not a use “by right” and Mr. Penhollow can apply for the appeal by tomorrow.
Motion made by Gary Swanson,
seconded by Phyllis Belin to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 PM.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent –1
________________________________
Valerie Pierce, Secretary