Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairperson, Nadine D. Carney.
PRESENT:
David O’Halloran, Alternate
Frank Striano, Sr
Nadine Carney, Chairperson
Melvyn Tapper
William De Graw-7:05Pm
ABSENT:
Shane Ricks, Vice Chair
Anthony Kawalchuck
Robert Gaydos
Also present at the meeting was Town Planner, Nancy Vlahos, from The Chazen Companies.
Pledge to the Flag.
Because there was not a full Board at this meeting, Alternate Mr. O’Halloran sat as a regular member.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW TLB MANANGEMENT CORP:
c/o Leonard & Terry Bernardo, Site Plan Approval for 36,000 sf roller rink, NYS Rote 209, Tax Map #76.2-2-20.200, ‘B’ District
Mr. Bernardo was not present as he had a family emergency, but his representative, Barry Medenbach, PE was present on his behalf.
The Chairperson reminded the Board of the parking issue that they had discussed at the last meeting in regards to the number of parking spaces required. There was a question if the number of spaces was based on the primary use, being the roller skating, or if there were accessory uses to the rink that needed to be taken into calculating the number of required spaces. The Chairperson had consulted Ms. Vlahos on this issue. Ms. Vlahos felt that the parking should be based on the primary use and that anything construed as accessory use (the party rooms and snack shop) are part of the primary use and the square footage submitted by the Applicant was correct. She questioned if the Board members were comfortable with that. If they weren’t it could be sent to the ZBA for their interpretation.
Mr. O’Halloran’s only concern was that more than 1/3 of the building was other uses than skating. His second issue was that it was possible that the other uses had a greater capacity demand than the actual skating. For example the birthday party rooms seem to have a greater concentration of individuals than the skating on a square foot basis. Usually one would think auxiliary uses as the small things on the side of what the main facility activity is.
Mr. Medenbach noted that the party rooms are part of the attraction, this is how they make their money because you get groups of kids that come to skate. Its part of the skating rink—these people are coming to skate they are only being enticed to come as a group and have their party at the rink. Mr. Bernardo did a lot of research into this and this is the norm for this type of business.
Mr. De Graw arrived and the Chairperson recapped what had been discussed thus far.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned how many party rooms there actually were.
Mr. Medenbach showed him the map and noted that there were 4 party rooms.
The Chairperson knew that this was already brought up by Mr. O’Halloran, and maybe this was part of his concern—what was the maximum occupancy to be?
Mr. Medenbach noted that they weren’t willing to accept a condition imposed by the Planning Board in regards to the maximum occupancy. Under the Site Plan Approval, the Board did not have the right to make that condition—if it were a Special Use Permit that would be allowable. Mr. Bernardo has indicated to the Board that 200 people was what he had in mind.
Ms. Vlahos agreed with Mr. Medenbach that this was a use permitted by right. She thought that the maximum number of people was determined by the fire department.
Mr. Medenbach believed that the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Dymond would set the maximum occupancy when it came time to apply for a building permit. Mr. Medenbach noted once again that the Zoning Ordinance states that the parking for a roller skating rink is based on the floor area of the actual rink itself.
After looking further at the site plan, Mr. O’Halloran didn’t disagree that the party rooms and the snack bar should be considered a part of the primary use, but he still had concerns over the maximum occupancy for the general safety and welfare of the community.
Mr. Medenbach noted that the building permit will require a maximum occupancy.
Ms. Vlahos noted that she would research whether or not maximum occupancy could be considered for a condition of site plan approval. She believed the other issue was to come to a consensus in regards to the parking. She noted that if the calculations were added in for the accessory uses (if the Board deemed them as separate uses) 144 parking spaces would be needed compared to the existing 108 spaces. This was assuming that the snack bar and party rooms were secondary uses to the skating rink.
The Chairperson stated that they weren’t reaching any conclusions concerning the parking and since this was a workshop and they couldn’t vote on it, she suggested sending it to the ZBA and getting their interpretation.
Mr. Medenbach noted that there were other ways to research this, the Board could look into how other rinks operate.
The Chairperson didn’t see any controversy with the parking. She believed the snack bar and party rooms went along with the skating. She could see how anyone in their right mind would go and sit at that snack bar and have lunch if they didn’t have a child skating or if they weren’t at a birthday party. . . These places are loud—she couldn’t see how anyone would just go there if their intent was not to skate or watch their child skate.
The Planner believed that the main purpose for the party rooms was a place for the kids to meet, drop off presents, and have cake—but the majority of the time they are out skating.
Mr. Medenbach agreed. He also noted that at the last meeting he had submitted correspondence from the Sheriff’s office stating that they would respond to emergency calls, Wayne Kelder, Highway Superintendent has issued an entrance permit off of Mettacahonts, the NYS DEC has noted that there are no known endangered species on the site.
The Chairperson felt that the Board was ready to go over Part 2 of the EAF at this point. Ms. Vlahos had prepared a draft of Part 2 for the Board to go over and consider and make any changes they saw fit.
Mr. Tapper noted that he had spoken to Mr. Medenbach on Friday and asked if it would be possible for him to flag the site so the Board could get an even better idea of where the building will be and how much of the site it will take up.
Mr. Medenbach would try and have this done by the next meeting. He would call the Secretary and let her know when it was complete.
The Board continued with Part 2 of the EAF.
#1 Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? Ms. Vlahos checked this off as yes, but she didn’t believe that the form offered any examples that applied. Under ‘Other Impacts’ she listed that there would be development of 2.8 acres with a 36,000 sf building, parking lot for 108 cars and landscaping. She checked this off as ‘Small to Moderate Impact’. The Board questioned why this item wouldn’t be marked as ‘Potential Large Impact’? The reason Ms. Vlahos checked of ‘Small to Moderate’ was because she looked at it relative to the other examples given. The kind of impact they are looking at was if there were slopes on the site greater than 15% or if there was parking for more than 1,000 or more cars and this project is nothing even near this scale.
#2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? No there would not be. There was no discussion.
#3 Will proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? This was checked off as No. There was no discussion.
#4 Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? This item was checked off as No. There was no discussion.
#5 Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? This item was checked off as Yes under the Example ‘Proposed Action will require a discharge Permit’ It was checked off as ‘Small to Moderate’. A SPEDES Permit will be required from the DEC. Another example was checked off as Yes, ‘Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. This item was checked off as ‘Small to Moderate’. This site would require new septic systems. The Board questioned example, ‘Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. They noted that this would cause the need for a permit from the NYS DEC. They questioned how Mr. Bernardo was intending on heating the building and if it were heated by fuel, how much would be stored on the site. Mr. Medenbach was uncertain, but he would find out and get back to the Board.
#6 Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? This item was checked off as Yes under ‘Other Impacts’ being ‘Small to Moderate’ as 71, 660 sq. ft. of impervious surface. Off site drainage patterns shouldn’t be affected.
#7 Will Proposed Action affect air quality? This item was checked off as No. There was no discussion.
#8 Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? This item was checked off as No. The Board noted that there was a letter from the NYS DEC confirming this.
#9 Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? This item was checked off as No. There was no discussion.
#10 Will Proposed Action Affect agricultural land resources? This item was checked off as No. There was no discussion.
#11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) This item was checked off as Yes as a ‘Small to Moderate Impact’ under ‘Other Impacts’—Proposed Action will locate a 36,000 sf, 2-story structure and 71,660 sf of pavement on a currently vacant lot. Ms. Vlahos didn’t believe it was a ‘Large Impact’. Mr. De Graw questioned why the building needed to be so high? Mr. Medenbach noted that they needed light spread—20’ ceiling is pretty standard for any large building like this. There needs to be a correct volume of air in the building for air exchange. This isn’t uncommon. This is a pre-fab building. If the ceiling height were changed it would be a problem. He felt the building would look better if it were taller. It’s a matter of proportion. After further discussion, the Board felt this item should be checked as ‘Potential Large’. Ms. Vlahos suggested having the applicant superimposing the building into an existing photograph to give the Board a better idea of how it will look when completed on that site with the existing vegetation. Mr. Medenbach would also fill out a Visual EAF Addendum.
#12 Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or palentological importance?
This item was checked off as No. There was discussion pertaining to the site having an historical landmark on the site. The Secretary would check with Mrs. Cross at the Town’s Historic Commission to see what her comments are.
#13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? This item was checked as Yes as a ‘Small to Moderate Impact’ under Other Examples as The Proposed project will have a positive impact on recreation, as it will provide additional recreational opportunities for roller skating an skate boarding in the Town. There was no discussion on this item.
#14 Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? This item was checked as No. There was no discussion.
#15 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? This item was checked as Yes as a ‘Small to Moderate Impact’ under Other Examples as Proposed Project will generate a maximum of 65 vehicular trips per hour. There was no discussion on this item.
#16 Will Proposed Action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? This item was checked Yes as a ‘Small to Moderate Impact’ under Other Impacts as Proposed project will use energy from local suppliers for heating and lighting. There was no discussion on this item.
#17 Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? This item was checked No. There was no discussion.
#18 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? This item was checked as No. There was no discussion.
#19 Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? This item was checked off as Yes as ‘Small to Moderate’ under examples ‘Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use’. And, ‘Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police, and fire, etc.)’ And, ‘Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.’ The Chairperson didn’t understand the ‘Change in Density’. Ms. Vlahos explained it’s the density of land use—because now it is vacant and they are going to change that. Mr. De Graw felt that ‘Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals’. He felt that protecting rural areas in the Zoning applied. Mr. Medenbach noted that the Master Plan for the Town encourages recreation facilities being created. The Chairperson noted that this was an allowed use per the Zoning in this area. Mr. De Graw felt that this was just massive. Mr. Medenbach stated that this was the typical size of this type of facility. After further argument from Mr. De Graw on protecting the rural character of the Town and the size of the building, the Chairperson pointed out that this section had nothing to do with visual. Mr. Striano also felt that it was a little pointless to talk about because the Town doesn’t have any architectural standards to go by. The Chairperson also felt that a project like this belonged on Route 209, not in the woods on back roads near someone’s backyard. After further discussion the Board came to a consensus that this item was to remain at ‘Small to Moderate’.
#20 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? This item was checked as No. There was no discussion.
The Chairperson noted that the only issues the Board had was to find out about the bulk petroleum storage—how the building will be heated. Then there is the visual issue and hopefully that will be cleared up a bit when the building gets staked out.
The Board discussed the suggestion from Ms. Vlahos to request a superimposed image of the building on the existing site.
Mr. Medenbach would have to first check with his client and then see if he could find someone with the capabilities to generate this request. It’s a lot of work and requires a lot of geometry to get these things to scale.
The Board agreed upon a North-South view and then a straight on view if it is possible.
This application was scheduled for Continued Application Review for the next meeting.
OTHER MATTERS
The Chairperson noted that the Town Board had a meeting where they discussed application review by the Planner and it was voted that the Planner would review all applications that come in and not to use the thresholds as recommended by the Planning Board. They also discussed fees and they had questions on the recommendations on the fees.
The Secretary explained that the Town Board was confused and wanted clarification on the .10 cents per square foot. They were confused about the subdivision fees.
Councilman Hornbeck was present and noted that they were confused about the subdivision. He clarified that it is $50.00 Per lot presently and the Planning Board wanted to change it to have an application fee of $150.00 and a per lot fee of $100.00. There were no proposed changes to the recreation fees.
Ms. Vlahos clarified that the Planning Board’s application fees cannot be used to offset the cost of the planner.
The Chairperson noted that this was just the recommendation of the Planning Board, the Town Board had the right to do their own research and contact other Towns and see how their fee schedules are set if they weren’t comfortable with this.
The Chairperson would work with the secretary in writing a letter of explanation for the Town Board.
Mr. Striano motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. De Graw.
At 9:00PM the Chairperson adjourned the meeting as there was no further business to discuss.
Respectfully submitted by Rebecca Paddock Stange.