TOWN OF ONONDAGA. Planning Board. TOWN HALL 5020 Ball Road Syracuse, NY MARC A. MALFITANO, Chairman 5155 Jupiter Inlet Way. Syracuse, NY 13215

Transcription

1 ALFRED J. FULLER 4564 Cole Road DAVID C. BAKER 5577 Bull Hill Road LaFayette, NY TOWN OF ONONDAGA Planning Board TOWN HALL 5020 Ball Road MARC A. MALFITANO, Chairman 5155 Jupiter Inlet Way Meeting Conducted at 7:30 p.m. August 13, 2018 Present: Marc Malfitano, Chairman David Baker Linda Campbell Alfred Fuller Nadine Bell, Attorney Bill Perrine, Engineer LINDA M. CAMPBELL 4929 MacGregor Lane JAMES MAHANEY 4934 Horizon Terrace Chairman Malfitano called the Planning Board to order at 7:34 p.m. noting that Mr. Mahaney was excused. McLusky Orchard Subdivision Jeff Schultz, surveyor for McLusky Orchards, appeared before the Planning Board with a proposed plan for a 2 lot subdivision of a 79 acre parcel. The main facility buildings are located on the south side of McLusky Road which road ends past the buildings location. He explained that it is a gravel farm road and they wish to extend the road center line over to create a 62 acre parcel on the north and a 16 acre parcel to the south. Chairman Malfitano clarified that currently there is no public right-of-way and the road was abandoned. Mr. Schultz explained that McLusky Road is a dead end and the Town has the right to use it. Ms. Campbell asked who owns the part that is gravel. Mr. Schultz responded that it is owned by McLusky Orchards and the Town has the right to use the paved road which is 9.5 feet wide as a user road. The applicant wants to extend the center line to the west and create 2 parcels. Parcel B is being sold to the Volles Farm. Ms. Campbell asked if it will be combined with the land behind and Mr. Schultz responded that it doesn t have to be because it is all farmed. Chairman Malfitano clarified that a lot has to have frontage on a public road to its full width. A landlocked parcel cannot be created except with the condition that it becomes part of, and a recombined deed is filed, another property with frontage on a public road. Chairman Malfitano asked if the Volles property adjacent to the McLusky property has frontage on a public road. Mr. Schultz responded that he was unsure and added that McLusky Road is a public road and the Town does maintain it. Mr. Schultz noted there would be road frontage of about 500 feet in front of the house. He questioned if the town would want to establish an easement there for a turnaround since they are currently turning around on private property. Chairman Malfitano responded that the question should be posed, however the initial technical problem is the code pertaining to road frontage. Mr. Schultz referred to the plan pointing out an area of the Volles property that has road frontage. Ms. Campbell added that the question becomes the intent to sell the property or not. Mr. Schultz indicted that Volles is currently farming the property and the applicant intends to sell it to them. Ms. Campbell

2 explained that McLusky s interest is tied to Volles. Mr. Schultz agreed they would need to contact Volles but believes it is not going to be an issue. Mr. Perrine provided the zoning map which was reviewed. Chairman Malfitano noted if it is presented this way a variance may be required because there isn t enough road frontage or alternatively if the applicant subdivides on the condition that Lot B will be recombined with the Volles lot with a recombined deed including a perimeter description being filed a variance would not be required. Chairman Malfitano stated he will speak with the Town as to if a hammerhead or easement will be required and he advised Mr. Schultz to speak with the Volles Farm regarding their property. Continued discussion and review of this sketch plan is scheduled for the August 27 th Planning Board meeting and will be referenced as McLusky Orchard Subdivision. Re-Subdivision of Lot 647 of Broadview Heights Section 6B Craig Billinson, attorney for the applicants, George and Toni Terpening, appeared before the Planning Board seeking feedback regarding a proposal for the applicants who reside at 125 Lynmar Lane to purchase a portion of the property from 121 Lynmar Lane. Mr. Billinson presented the current survey for the applicant s property which currently has feet of road frontage. He explained that an opportunity has come up for the Terpenings to purchase a portion of the neighbor s property as depicted on an aerial photo presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Billinson stated that he has discussed this matter with Ben Vincent and was advised that the property at 121 Lynmar Lane has approximately 133 feet of road frontage. If the Terpenings were to purchase 20 feet of the road frontage of that property, it would still have over 100 feet of road frontage and the Terpening property would then have feet of road frontage. Mr. Billinson noted that they do not currently have a contract to purchase the property from the owner of 121 Lynmar Lane but they are seeking feedback as to feasibility and requirements of the process such as surveying. He stated that Mr. Vincent indicated if this were to be approved it may require an amendment to the Broadview tract map. Chairman Malfitano explained that this is really a subdivision of 121 Lynmar Lane. He noted that the subdivision file was not available because it has been placed in the archive files. He noted that the critical question is, if this was done would the resulting frontage at 121 Lynmar be equal to or greater than minimum code. If it meets the requirements a subdivision application for 121 Lynmar Lane with Lot 1 being the main house lot and the portion to be sold being Lot 2 could be considered. Because Lot 2 is not a legally conforming lot, approval would be on the condition that Lot 2 is conveyed to the owner of 125 Lynmar Lane and a recombined metes and bounds deed be filed. Chairman Malfitano stated that conceptually the proposal can work. He will speak with Mr. Vincent about getting the Broadview Tract file out of archives. Chairman Malfitano suggested that if the applicant decides to proceed they will need to retain a surveyor to begin preparing a map of both properties. He noted that they will not be filing a new tract map but amending 121 of the Broadview Heights Section 6B tract. Mr. Billinson noted that according to the tax map the Terpening s property is designated as Lot 648 of Broadview Heights Section 6B and 125 Lynmar is Lot

3 Ms. Campbell, referencing the survey, noted that Lot 648 is located wholly within the City of Syracuse. Mr. Terpening responded that it used to be but in the 70 s three properties were annexed to the Town. Chairman Malfitano advised he will review the file with Mr. Vincent when it is available from archives. He suggested hiring a surveyor to prepare a survey showing both lots however it is designated as a survey of Lot 647 of the Broadview Heights Tract Section 6B. The surveyor will be certifying to Lot 647. There will be a note on the plan as to the conveyance of Lot 2 to the owner of Lot 648 and within 30 days of the approval a recombined deed must be filed. After an application is filed and fees are paid there will need to be a public hearing. Chairman Malfitano also noted a Short Environmental Assessment Form should be prepared and submitted and we need something in writing from the owner of Lot 647 consenting to this being done in their name. Mr. Billinson will contact the Codes Office to be placed on a Planning Board agenda when they are prepared to appear again. Apple Acres, LLC (4633 US Route 20) John Reddington, Project Manager, of Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and Nancy Jendryaszek, architect, of Pathfinder Engineers appeared before the Planning Board on behalf of Apple Acres for site plan review of a proposed plan for a 56,000 square foot secondary structure for their packing facility. He noted that the application was initially submitted in March 2018 and was resubmitted in July with modifications from a 2 story structure to a single story structure. They have received comments from Mr. Perrine and Mr. Vincent and have addressed or are working to address all comments. Mr. Reddington explained that there are currently 26 employees at the packaging facility and they will be adding 15 jobs with the expansion. All positions will be moved to the new facility and the existing facility will become a storage facility. Currently during peak season in the fall there are approximately 10 trips per day by tractor trailer for 5 to 6 weeks. With the proposed facility, that would increase to approximately 25 trips per day maximum. Mr. Reddington commented that the proposal meets all zoning standards such as set back, parking and lot coverage and would not require any variance. They are required to have 28 spots for parking. With the number of employees they are proposing 45 spaces with 2 being handicap spaces that will be asphalt. The majority of the road surface will be of gravel pavement to stay in character with the rural surroundings. Ms. Campbell asked how many spaces will be gravel. Mr. Reddington responded that 25 spaces will be gravel. Ms. Campbell confirmed that 28 spaces are required by code. Mr. Reddington noted that currently the plan includes 20 asphalt spaces. Chairman Malfitano asked why part of the driveway is part asphalt and part gravel. Ms. Jendryaszek responded that in the current operation it is almost all gravel so asphalt was minimized on the plan for the new operation. Ms. Campbell stated that if code requires 28 spaces then 28 spaces should be asphalt. Chairman Malfitano agreed with that requirement. He asked if the remaining gravel spaces and driveways were considered as impervious surface for the purpose of the SWPPP. Mr. Reddington responded that effectively they did. Mr. Fuller asked if there would still be parking at the existing facility and Ms. Jendryaszek confirmed that the parking spaces that are currently there will remain. Referring to the plan there was discussion regarding storm water drainage. It was noted that there are downspouts but they are not shown on the plan. Chairman Malfitano noted that the Town Engineer will have to calculate for drainage runs and in some areas there is 600 feet or 3

4 more before it reaches a catch basin. Ms. Jendryeszek stated there are a number of downspouts. Chairman Malfitano asked that there be a section showing the gutters and the downspouts connecting to underground storm pipe. He noted that the storm pipe run in some cases exceeds 600 feet before it connects to a catch basin. Mr. Reddington referred to ST-04 and ST-05 and there was discussion regarding those pages. Chairman Malfitano stated that Mr. Perrine will need to review and determine if the drainage plan will meet standards. Chairman Malfitano asked Mr. Perrine if when reviewing the SWPPP he could determine if the soils work for an infiltration basin. Mr. Perrine responded that the applicant has hired CME Associates to do several perc tests for the septic design and the basin. They have done soil borings and have found very good infiltration rates for the basin. Mr. Perrine noted that he pointed out in his comments that it needs to be maintained for longevity so it continues to work well. Chairman Malfitano asked if there is anything in writing regarding maintaining the storm water basin. Mr. Perrine responded that there is not currently but the SWPPP states that the owner will maintain it. He suggested that a private storm water maintenance agreement be created. Chairman Malfitano noted that there cannot be trees and other scrub vegetation growing in the storm water basin that would choke out the effectiveness of the basin. Additionally the slopes should be gradual enough so they can be maintained and there should be a low flow channel at the lowest point to collect excess water during heavy rains. Mr. Perrine noted that currently the bottom of the basin does not have a slope to it and there is not a composite outlet structure so in the event of a storm there could be water in the basin. Chairman Malfitano requested that it be sloped so the excess can collect in one area until it evaporates or infiltrates and the rest of the basin can be maintained. He also noted that the Town will require a private storm water maintenance agreement. Mr. Reddington stated that the storm water basin has been discussed and he feels that they have addressed all concerns. Ms. Campbell asked if the current drainage calculations are for the new facility and do they take into consideration the existing facility. Mr. Reddington responded that they take into consideration the entire site. Mr. Walter Blakler, owner of Apple Acres, advised the Planning Board that he currently mows 300 acres and adding the additional 5 acres will not be a problem. Chairman Malfitano thanked Mr. Blakler and asked that Ms. Bell draft the agreement so it is ready and will be part of the final documents. Chairman Malfitano asked if the applicant has approval from the DOT for the curb cut. Mr. Reddington responded that the application was sent in last week and the initial driveway is staked. Chairman Malfitano inquired if any area of the site needs to be screened from adjoining properties with vegetation. He suggested that the only area they would like to see screening is towards the adjacent house and he noted the species is open to suggestion. Mr. Fuller commented that it was stated that the main driveway will be gravel but questions if doubling the number of trucks driving on it daily will cause dust or mud. Mr. Reddington responded that as part of the SWPPP process there will be a tracking pad and maybe at the exit there can be something permanent to prevent such problems. Chairman Malfitano asked if they have septic approval from the County. Mr. Reddington stated they have verbal approval and will submit written approval when it is received. Chairman Malfitano then noted the following issues for revision or follow up; septic approval and a copy of the plan, final review and signoff of the SWPPP from the engineer, we will have the storm water management agreement drafted and provided to the applicant s attorney, minor plan revisions for the plan for the roof drains, the town engineer needs to verify the inverts, the minimum number of parking spaces need to be paved, copy of County DOT curb cut permit, plan for area 4

5 screening and the proposed species, and any further detail that Mr. Perrine feels should be shown on the drainage plan to help facilitate the ease of maintenance. Mr. Perrine noted that with the applicant s second submission there is a plan for photometrics. Lighting on site is minimal and the plan is dark sky compliant. He did not see any parking lot lights or lamp posts of any kind. Ms. Jendryeszek referred to ST-08 for parking lot lighting and noted that everything is building mounted and will be on time clock controls as well as photometrics. Mr. Perrine then explained that there was a County Planning Board referral of July 25 th resulting in three advisory comments. The first two have been addressed and the third referring to trip generation results will be addressed with the Town Board for their response. Chairman Malfitano asked if this is a refrigerated building. Ms. Jendryeszek responded that there are parts of the building that are coolers. She pointed out equipment pads on the plan. It was noted that they will be fenced for security. Chairman Malfitano asked that the detail be added to the plan. He asked what the operating hours will be with this expanded operation. Mr. Reddington responded that the hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Continued site plan review was scheduled for the August 27, 2018, Planning Board meeting. Chairman Malfitano noted that if the DOT permit and septic approval are not received the applicant should contact the Zoning Office to reschedule for the next meeting. Faith Chapel as Owner & Cassandra F. Newell as Lessee - ZBA Referral A Special Permit review for approval to operate a daycare at 4113 W. Seneca Turnpike was referred to the Planning Board by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Leo Doody appeared before the Planning Board on behalf of Faith Chapel. Chairman Malfitano stated that the property is zoned RC and daycare facility is a permitted use in RC districts subject to a special permit. He asked if the daycare will be all inside. Mr. Doody responded that they plan to use the playground. A plan from 2006 was referenced but Mr. Doody indicated they are in the process of obtaining an updated site plan with other expansions noted as well. Chairman Malfitano noted that the use is permitted but when it goes back to the Zoning Board it should be more definitive as to where it is being operated. All areas planned to be used for the daycare should be indicated including areas to be added to constitute the approval. The applicant referred to a highlighted area on the plan that will be used for the daycare and also noted that the playground area would be used and a fence will be constructed around it as required by the state. Chairman Malfitano asked if this will be leased space by the daycare. The applicant responded that he is not certain of the agreement but Faith Chapel will be the lessor and Cassandra Newell will be the lessee. Chairman Malfitano asked if the daycare will be licensed in the lessee s name or her company s name. The applicant responded that he does not know. Mr. Fuller asked if there is signage proposed and the applicant does not know. Ms. Campbell noted that this seems to be a work in progress and he may need additional information. Mr. Doody responded that he was there for the facility part of the discussion and is not knowledgeable about the daycare part. Chairman Malfitano stated that the main concern of the Planning Board is if this will be part of an existing facility and if so where will it be located. The plan needs to be updated and areas being utilized need to be noted including any proposed additional improvements. With that information the Planning board can continue the review of the special permit and respond to the 5

6 Zoning Board of Appeals. Any proposed signage should also be indicated on the plan which should be a formal plan with enough detail of the outdoor area and fence that will be part of the daycare. Mr. Doody asked if this needs to be an official engineered stamped drawing or can he modify the plan he has. Chairman Malfitano responded that is should be a formal plan with limits to scale of the outdoor area that will be utilized and/or fenced and will be part of the daycare operation. Continuation of the referral was then scheduled for the August 27, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Marc Seaward - ZBA Referral A referral from the ZBA was received for a special permit for 4456 Cole Road for a proposed addition to the back side of an existing barn. Chairman Malfitano noted that the existing barn is nonconforming because it does not meet the setback requirements. The applicant, Marc Seaward, presented a drawing of the plan. Chairman Malfitano advised the applicant that he will need a detailed plan for the building permit and suggested he speak with Mr. Vincent regarding what will be needed for the building permit. Chairman Malfitano reviewed that this is a 24 x 24 addition to the back side of the existing barn which is pre-existing and nonconforming. Chairman Malfitano then dictated a response to the Zoning Board of Appeals. A copy is attached hereto. Planning Board Minutes A motion was made by Chairman Malfitano, seconded by Mr. Baker, that after minor changes, the Board approve and accept the meeting minutes of the July 23, 2018, meeting. The motion passed unanimously. A motion was made by Mr. Fuller, seconded by Ms. Campbell, that there being no further business to come before the Board the meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melinda L. Mayer Secretary 6

7 ALFRED J. FULLER 4564 Cole Road DAVID C. BAKER 5577 Bull Hill Road Lafayette, NY TOWN OF ONONDAGA Planning Board TOWN HALL 5020 Ball Road MARC A. MALFITANO, Chairman 5155 Jupiter Inlet Way LINDA M. CAMPBELL 4929 MacGregor Lane JAMES MAHANEY 4934 Horizon Terrace August 14, 2018 Mr. John B. Elleman, Chairman Town of Onondaga Zoning Board of Appeals 5020 Ball Road Syracuse, NY 1325 Re: Marc Seaward, 4456 Cole Road Dear Chairman Elleman: We reviewed the referral for the application for a 24 X 24 addition on the back side of the existing barn. It is our understanding that the reason this is a nonconforming use is that the existing barn structure predates zoning and does not comply with the current setback requirements. Since the proposed addition is on the back side and does not impact the existing nonconforming nature of the proposed structure, we have no objection. Very truly yours, Marc A. Malfitano Marc A. Malfitano, Chairman Town Planning Board cc: Cheryl Hammond 7