MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ELLICOTT PLANNING BOARD HELD AT THE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 215 SOUTH WORK ST., FALCONER, NY ON DECEMBER 14, 2005
AT 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Acting Chairman
Gary Swanson, Mike Mogenhan, Dave Carlberg, Phyllis Belin,
Paul Shanahan, Attorney William Wright, Code
Enforcement Officer Randy
Woodbury and Secretary Valerie Pierce
ABSENT: Dan Evans and Ron Calanni
Acting
Chairman Gary Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Motion made by
Phyllis Belin, seconded by Dave Carlberg to approve the minutes of the November 9, 2005 meeting.
Carried. Ayes-5 Noes-0 Absent-2
Mr. Gene Aversa presented
site plans for a sub-division on West Oak Hill Rd., Jamestown, NY. He had added
the topography on the plans and indicated the utilities on the plans. He presented a smaller map showing what is
there presently and a large map that shows what is present and proposed. There are footnotes that indicate the units
were constructed so they would accommodate the additional lots. The sewage will be handled by septic systems
on a per lot basis per the County Health Department guidelines. When the referral is made to the County
Planning they refer the plans to other agencies and the County Planning becomes
the liaison between the Town and the other agencies.
The other issue that the Board asked Mr. Aversa to
address was the water runoff issue. He
attached to the plans a previous plan that was developed and an addendum from
Jack Thompson, P.E., indicating how this would impact the present runoff. The
runoff will be improved.
Attorney Wright said one of the requirements of a
major sub-division is the construction of roads to Town standards so they can
be turned over. Mr. Aversa said it is
their intention to keep the roads private.
In their deed restrictions and in all the information in providing the
lots it is indicated that this will be a private road and that the lot owners
will share any expense of the road maintenance.
Mr. Swanson said the next step is to refer this
sub-division to the County Planning.
Motion made by Dave
Carlberg, seconded by Paul Shanahan to accept this plan as the preliminary plot
plan and to refer it to the County Planning Board and schedule a public hearing
for the sub-division concurrent with the next Planning Board which will be on
Wednesday January 11, 2006.
Carried. Ayes-5 Noes-0
Absent-2
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE TWO
Mr. Swanson asked if there were any neighbors in
regard to this sub-division and there were none present.
Mr. Richard Sedlack,
building chairman for Fluvanna Fire Department and Paul Potter, Engineer, for
Fluvanna Fire Department, presented site plans to construct a second fire
station at 3496 Stubb Rd., Jamestown, NY.
Mr. Potter presented the plans and provided an
environmental form for the Board. There
was discussion on:
1) the
preliminary elevations with a floor plan for the new fire hall – the highest
elevation is approximately 29’ 7” above grade – the elevation grade is 1728’ –
they have approval from the FAA for 1729’
2) the
County Planning will not give final approval until they have the FAA
approval which Mr. Sedlack has gotten
from the FAA and will be sent to the
County
3) the
distance from the road is where they told the FAA they wanted the building
4) there
are utilities poles higher than the proposed building
5) they
have City of Jamestown water and sewer
6) this
is a drive-thru building and there is ample parking on either side
Attorney Wright said that since the County has not
make their opinion this Board cannot make a final determination on this project
but they can go through the check list and identify anything that is deficient
in the plans.
Mr. Potter ran thru the plan with the Board members
noting:
1) the
building is approximately 60’ x 81’
2) there
are two bays in the bottom capable of holding four trucks – there will be a
couple of handicapped restrooms with showers
3) the
second floor will have a meeting room and a kitchen
4) the
building is being designed as a block structure with a shingled roof
5) this
project does not require storm water management plan because it is less than ½
acre
6) there
is an erosion sediment control plan
7) they
have applied for the setback variance and special use permit from the Zoning
Board
8) the
wooded area will be moved back only a couple of feet in order to get the
driveway parking in – they will not be disturbing any other woods behind
9) there
is already a lot of filling going on – Mr. Sedlack said about 2670 ton of bank
run gravel – the trucking was provided by the Town – the County did the grading
of the gravel
10) the
exterior lighting will be on the entrance doors – Mr. Sedlack said they might
consider some yards light
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE THREE
11) there
will be no lease space for parties or bingo – it will be for a training center
and
equipment storage – the FAA stipulated this could not be used
for public events – the
fire department might have a party but it will not for public
use
12) the
siren will be cut out altogether and they would use their radio communications
or they would like to keep the siren at the current location for the purpose of
a major catastrophe to notify the public
13) currently
they cannot use this new building as temporary emergency shelter because of the
FAA guidelines
14) the
FAA will have both required and prohibited lighting
Donald Pangborn,
North Main St., Ext., Jamestown, NY, stated this property adjoins his
property and he has concerns with the siren, his well water and the water run
off. He said most of his concerns had
been addressed.
Mr. Potter said they were talking about ¼ of an acre
of paved surface including the building. The whole area influences .37 acres so
there will not be a significant amount of water. They will put the water back into the property in its natural
state and slow it down over the vegetative cover. They will not disturb the
woods. The applicant is not required to
do storm water plan until it exceeds one acre for a commercial site and five
acres for a residential site.
The Board members reviewed the site plan checklist
noting:
1) the
storm water management plan is N/A
2) no
outdoor storage
3) City
of Jamestown will provide water and sewer
4) there
is a fire hydrant across the street but they will be adding one in front of the
building
5) they
will use the existing sign that is on station II now and will mount it on the face of the new building – they would
be able to have a sign at the entrance to the industrial park
6) most
of the trees will stay
7) the
FAA might require a light – they will come back to the Board if needed
8) they
will go out for bid after they get approval and have the complete plans – then
they will need to find funding – they need to notify the FAA by April 2006 –
they would need 4 months for the site work and construction of the building
9) they
need the County Planning approval
Mr. Woodbury will send the full set of plans to the
County Planning Board with a copy of the 7460 and than they will start the
process. Attorney asked him to sent the SEQR as well.
Motion made by Paul
Shanahan, seconded by Phyllis Belin to refer this project to the County
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE FOUR
Planning Board.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes - 0 Absent - 2
Eric Stawitzky,
Senior Forester for Forecon Inc., presented a site plan to perform
a modified selection harvest on property behind the Colony Motel owned by Dhan Laxmi, LLC at 620
Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY.
Mr. Stawitzky said since the last meeting when they
presented a sketch plan to the Planning Board, they have redone the survey and
have identified the watercourses and identified the proposed landing site which
is right behind the parking lot of the Colony Motel which connects with the
existing road that was never completed.
Attorney Wright asked Mr. Stawitsky to explain about
the property that is marked right-of-way agreement. Attorney Robert Van
Every, attorney for Mr. Patal, said that was a deeded private
right-of-way that was modified 20 years ago. They will be cleaning it up and
approving what is there.
They will utilize the Colony Motel as the main access
point for the removal of the trees with access onto Route 394. Mr. Stawitsky read into the record the
harvesting recommendations and guidelines for the Dhan Laxmi, LLC property (See
file “Site plan review Dhan Laxmi, LLC”).
Mr. Stawitzky noted:
1) on
the survey there were no watercourses found within the property
2) their
normal contract length is two years -there will be a dry or frozen contingency
to the sale and so they can utilize the parking lot -they will push to get it
done this winter but the purchaser will have the option in that time frame to
work on the project and complete it on a timely fashion when ground conditions
permit
3) they
will put up a mini type bid keying on small tractor operators – they cannot
dictate horse logging but there are a few people interested
4) this
is not a multi-stage harvest – weather permitting it could be completed in 2 to
3 weeks
5) they
are in there to do a commercial timber to remove commercial viable timber and
not just to do a clean-up operation but to make commercially viable timber for
the future
6) they
will remove top material up to four inches or anything that can be removed or
straight enough to be used for firewood – the remaining balance of the top wood
will be left
Bob Henshaw,
resident of Houston Ave., had concerns about how many trees
they plan to take down, if there would be any trucks on the roads, the water
run-off and property values.
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE FIVE
Mr. Stawitzky said they plan to remove 50% to 60% of
the tree volume on the property. They
will remove trees up to the Village of Celoron line. There will be some areas that will be undisturbed and overall the
harvest area will cover about 3 acres. The trucks will come through the Colony
Motel. Tractors will be the only thing
utilized within the property itself and nothing will be going down Houston
Avenue. The tractors will be no bigger
than farm size tractors. He told the neighbors they do not feel the run-off is
as issue because the terrain curves in toward the center of the property and
they did not fine any potential for run-off off the property and no erosion
consideration. All of the practices that have been discussed such as conditions
of harvest and hours of operation are specified in the contract with the
bidders.
Mike Danielson,
resident of Houston Court, asked they would have on site
management of the harvest. Mr.
Stawitzky said they would be monitoring the sale from start to finish. Mr.
Danielson asked if overall quality of the forest would be improved with selective
harvesting timber and Mr. Stawitzky
said that is the plan.
Pat Williams,
resident of Rowley Court, had concerns about the water
run-off. There is already a water
problem.
Mr. Stawitzky said they are working within the Laxmi
property on which all terrain heads into the parcel not away from the
parcel. They are not clear-cutting the
ground and producing eroded soils. They are removing trees to allow the
regeneration process or the renewal of the forest to continue. He said you get
more control through smaller material than bigger material and there is no
erosion potential with partial harvest of timberland. They are not stripping or
taking off the top layer. The lay of the land within the property does not
indicate erosion potential or flow of water off the property. There will not be
any removal of stumps. The road already
exists.
Paul Shanahan asked if leaving the tops, which is
beneficial to fertilize the area, would be beneficial to the run-off
issues. Mr. Stawitszky said it would
not have any affect.
Mike Mogenhan askws if they would consider leaving
material as buffers and lessen the aesthetics of the neighbor’s backyards. Mr.
Stawitzky said consideration will be given as far as leaving trees they do not
feel they can adequately fell within the ownership itself, so if there are
trees in question that are leaning heavily unto someone else’s area or
ownership those trees will be dictated for removal. There will be special
considerations given to that but if they feel a tree is overly mature or of
poor quality and can be easily felled within the ownership it will not be
considered for removal. They do feel that the owners of the Laxmi property has
rights to remove the trees that are on their property. That consideration is something they will
look at but it will not dictate how they mark the trees.
Mike Castiglione,
resident of Houston Ave., stated he had hoped that some of
the trees that have
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE SIX
fallen behind his house would be picked up because
they have been knocked down during lightening strikes. He wanted to know what would happen to the
trees that are already down.
Mr. Stawitsky said they will evaluate the trees
ability to be utilized within the commercial market and it they are not
commercially viable they will not be utilized.
Mr. Henshaw asked what the negatives are from this
harvest. Mr. Stawitzky said the
negative is that the park like look they have is not going to be there. They will have a healthy viable forest,
which includes a considerable amount of lower material. As far as forest
management that area is considered a stagnant poor quality woodlot. They understand the neighbors concerns about
the property but they also understand the dynamics of woodlot and its need for
tree removal.
Mr. Henshaw asked about the property values and the
water run-off. He asked what would help
the neighbors as far as their concerns and protect them.
Mrs. Williams asked if Forecon has cut somewhere
else in the area. Mr. Stawitzky said
they could go and see the Falconer Rod and Gun. He has been with Forecon for 10 years and Forecon has been in
business since 1954. They can give endless references.
Attorney Wright said the only reason they are before
this Board is because they are talking about commercial forestry management on
a residential property. If it were in
anything other than a residential zone they would not have to come before this
Board.
Tina Pullan,
resident of Houston Ave., asked what would be done if the
trees are removed and they do have water damage to their homes. She asked what
happens to the water that the cut trees would have absorbed. She also asked if the owner is planning
something else for this property.
Attorney Wright explained they would have private
causes if action if they get any water damage.
Mr. Stawitzky explained the dynamics of the woodlot after the harvest.
Attorney Wright said if they are planning to use the
land they will be required to have process but they cannot be prohibited from
building.
Mr. Henshaw stated that the neighbors appreciated
that the trees will be drawn up to Fairmount Ave. and not come down along the
side streets. He still does not know if
the number of trees are going to be taken away from one section or will be
evenly removed. Mr. Stawitzky said that he could only tell them where there
will be limited removal, which is the locust-dominated area. The Colony Motel
is interested in removing several trees behind the Motel as a hazard
removal.
Katherine Parsons,
resident from Houston Ave., asked if they have an approximate
number of
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE SEVEN
trees and asked if they could walk with someone and
have them tell which trees would be removed.
Mr. Stawitzky said he hesitates to say how many
trees because they do not really know but when they looked at the property
there were between 100 and 125 trees out of the 250 to 300 trees. He would have
no issue if they wanted to be around when they marked the trees but the
neighbors will have no problem knowing which trees that will be coming down
because they mark them with neon paint and have a tracer within the paint.
The normal harvest rotation will be 10 to 15 years.
They would be looking at a harvest in 10 or 15 years but because of the lack of
forest management there would be some time after that before any further harvests would be done.
Attorney Wright said at the sketch plan conference
the Board advised the applicant that they would waive the full requirements of
the site plan checklist and advised them to bring in: 1) the survey that was dated 2003 that was
provided when they were going to timber this
and note on there the sewer line that was not fully noted before
2) the
schedule of hours of cut and describe the method of cut
Mr. Swanson said that the integrity of the company
was questioned and said Forecon has been in business since 1954. The owner has
brought them in to address the issues of the runoff.
Attorney Van Every said he had two comments:
1) the
Board asked them to show any water courses that might exist on the property and
the surveyor reflects that he looked for water courses and found none
2) the
other thing is while Mr. Swawitzky kindly invited everyone onto the property he
would note that is not an open invitation (even though the owners have never
stopped anyone from going on the property) but they are not in the business of
inviting people on because if someone gets hurt he does not want that to be an
issue
Mr. Wright asked if the trees that will be left to
die in place would be marked. Mr.
Stawitzky said they would not be marked.
Attorney Wright stated this is exempt from SEQR as a
type II action under 617.5 C (14), best forest management practices involving
less than 10 acres.
Mr. Henshaw asked what happens to the
right-of-way. Attorney Wright said
nothing happens to that and Mr. Stawitzky stated it would be even more usable.
Ms. Williams asked if they they would consider
chopping up the tops to make them more
easily degradable.
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE EIGHT
Mr. Stawitzky said they do not because it is very
expensive and said within one growing year and one winter they will see a
drastic change to those tops and within three years they will have rotted so they would not be useable even for
firewood. Within three to five years
you would be able to see the forest floor and everything that is growing in it.
Attorney Wright said that the tops provide
protection for the seedlings and provide protection from the animals and will
allow the air and light to get through. They will actually grow up through the
tops and if you ground that material and left it there you would provide a
barrier that would prohibit anything from growing up through.
Kathy Danielson,
resident of Houston court, stated this is a residential
neighborhood and they bought their house because of the flavor of the
neighborhood and she said they are going to destroy it. It will take 20 years
to come back and they will cut again. She also had concerns about losing the
noise barrier to their quite neighborhood from Fairmount Avenue.
Mr. Swanson said it is perfectly within the owners
right to harvest the trees on his property.
It is not the owner’s responsibility to keep the trees so that the
neighbors have a good view. If they were going to put up a building or a
parking lot they could possibly require a fence. Attorney Wright said they have
a right to build on his property with a special use permit.
The Board has made sure that the applicant has
addressed the issues they thought the neighbors were concerned with such as:
1) trucks
going down Houston Avenue
2) noise
3) hours
of operation
4) water
runoff
Kim Henshaw,
resident of Houston Ave., asked if any of those things are
not followed such as the hours of operation do they call Mr. Woodbury. Attorney Wright said if any of the
provisions in any site plan are not followed Mr. Woodbury has enforcement
power. Ms. Henshaw asked why the two
year window.
Mr. Stawizky said what they try to do by the length
of the contract is to the have the right weather pattern and ground
conditions. The hope is the whole
project will be done in a short time frame but if they dictated it had to be
done over the next two to three months they would seriously limit the amount of
interested parties.
Mr. Swanson said the code enforcement officer would
enforce the provisions of the site plan.
There is a performance bond that is required from the bidders. Forecon has done everything the Board has
asked and the neighbors concerns are noted. If they do not do what they say
they will
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE NINE
it is enforceable through the Town.
Motion made by Paul
Shanahan, seconded by Phyllis Belin to approve the site plan for Forecon, Inc.,
to perform a modified selection harvest on the property behind the Colony Motel
owned by Dhan Laxmi, LLC at 620 Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY.
Paul stated that Forecon has complied fully with the
requirements that this Board is bound to hold them to. In anticipation with the
neighbors concerns the Board has promoted they do the best job they can and he
feel they are using integrity with this job.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent – 2
Acting Chairman
Swanson stamped and dated three sets of site plans.
The Board looked at a sketch plan for Brigiotta’s.
Bob Arnone and Rob
Black, Habiterra Associates, presented a sketch plan for
property on Hunt Road replacing
the preexisting and non-conforming retail operation that has been ongoing on
this property for years. The project is
a downsizing of the materials and greenhouses from 25,000 SF It has always been used for retail and has
had small operations there for the last few years. They are hoping to add a frontal to the existing building that remains
to be used as a florist shop.
They provided photos of the existing property and
said they are in the process of doing demolition. Mr. Arnone explained they are
in the process of evaluation. Once they
are done the entire site with the greenhouses, the existing space and the new
building will be somewhere just under 13,000 SF. The need at this point is the
parking for retail customers. The employees will park in the rear of the site
and the deliveries (vans and other smaller vehicles) would go into the existing
two overhead doors on the side of the building.
Mr. Tim Galbato told
the Board this was the original greenhouse operation. They had purchased this
property about 15-17 years ago and it will be in conjunction with the other
operations. They also intend to sell
product that the floral designers will design in the back room of this new
addition at the Livingston and Fairmount operations. This would be a retail outlet.
Mr. Woodbury said this is a residential zone and is
a pre-existing and non-conforming use.
Attorney Wright said that he thinks this is an issue
for the Zoning Board. They need to get a determination as to whether they are
allowed to do this under the prior non-conforming use statue or they need a use
variance. They are not allowed to
change the structure of the operation or change the building.
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE TEN
Mr. Woodbury said the applicant needs to look at
section 146-63D which is what the zoning Board will look at.
Mr. Galbato was told that he needed to apply to the
next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, which will be on January 9, 2006.
Motion made by Dave
Carlberg, seconded by Mike Mogenhan to adjourn the meeting at 9:22 PM.
Carried. Ayes-5 Noes-0 Absent-2
______________________________________
Valerie Pierce