June 18, 2007
Planning Board Minutes Committee Meeting
Oswego Town Hall
Chair: Jeffrey Boyer
Town Board Members: Judy Sabin-Watson, Francis Dellamano,
Lee Phillips, Barry Pritchard, James Finn
Attorney To The Board: Stephen Greene, Jr.
Call to Order:

At approximately 7:00 PM, Barry Pritchard called the Committee Meeting to order.

Attendance of Committee Members:

Barry Pritchard
James Finn
Marjorie Best
Committee Member
Committee Member
Planning Board Secretary

Others in attendance:


John Condino Sr, Project Manager - Barton & Loguidice
James Saxton Sr. Environmental Scientist - Barton & Loguidice
Kevin Caraccioli Legal Advisor for Zoning Board
Greg Herrmann Member of Town Board - Observing
Victoria Mullen Town Supervisor - Observing
Robert Sharkey Observing

Application #2007-03 - United Development Group -Oswego College Suites -
Site Plan Review - Part 2 and 3 of the SEQRA Form.

John Condino said we would like to review the Board's process to date. He then asked Jim Saxton to run through Part 2 of the review.

Jim said the purpose of their review is to see what needs to be done. They took a look at the things that had been done to see if things should be done differently. They had gone through and prepared a draft of Part 2:

You will note that in a lot of instances, in column 3, the "Yes" box is checked on the original - "Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change". If you say that, you must do that. If there is a project change that can make that impact go away, you must do it. As to Part 3, you will see where we take it the other way where you can identify Potential Large Impact and then explain how the project can mitigate that impact.

1. Impact on Land.- Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? - Stays Yes.

Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater. (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. - Potential Large Impact stays - Can Impact Be mitigated by Project Change - Changed to No.

Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. - Small moderate Impact.

Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage - Potential Large Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change - Changed to No.

2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on this site? - Changed to No.

Barry Pritchard asked if there was a difference between a flood zone and a flood way. Flood ways are passages to transmit flood waters to flood zones or areas that get flooded.

Impact on Water - 3 and 4 - Yes; and No. 5 -Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? - Yes.

Jim Finn asked how the stream is designated. Jim Saxton said it is identified as Ontario 66B - a main tributary to Lake Ontario. It is a class B water with C standards. Under the DEC rules, regarding permits to disturb bed and banks of the stream, it would be a C with CT standards or better. The T designation being trout. A BB stream would require a permit, and an AA stream would require a permit, but a CC stream does not.

Jim Saxton said it will require a construction SPDES. It is a residential apartment building. The way an Industrial SPDES goes, there is what is known as an SIC Code - Standard Industrial Classification. A Stand Industrial Classification for apartment buildings does not require an industrial SPDES.

Jim Finn asked if it will or will not require a SPDES permit. Jim Saxton said only during construction. What they will do is submit an NOI - Notice of Intent. At the completion of the project, they will submit a Notice of Intent to terminate.

The items under No. 6, they have deleted the check marks that the Board has done.

John Condino said one of the things they talked about internally in terms of water and sewer, in order to answer the whole SEQRA process effectively. Where the connections are, where the lines are. He said they went to the City Engineer after reviewing the town's agreement. There are 2 options. One is to connect to the Ontario Heights pump station, and the other is to connect to Sheldon Ave. If that is the case, it would require a new agreement. If the connections is made to the existing pump station at Ontario Heights, it would have to be sized enough to handle development up Johnson Road to Byer Road. There will some negotiations on this matter.

Jeff stated that returning to Part 2, No. 5, there was one thing that we had checked, and the draft you do not have checked - Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. They've indicated in Part 1 that they would use somewhere around 54,000 gallons per day. I indicated that was a Potential Large Impact. Jim Saxton said the Board was looking at this project separate from the sewer and water that needs to service it, because we are combining the things you had done previously.

Kevin asked if their recommended Part 2 include any type of narrative. Jim said he has done what is known is a Part 3. It is verbal reasons for the responses and justification regarding significance.

6. Will proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? Stays Yes. Examples are N/A. Jim Saxton said they checked it Yes, but got rid of Small to Moderate Impact checkmark.

7. Impact on Air: Changed to Yes. Jim Saxton said that just because we checked Yes, it doesn't mean that any of the boxes below have to be checked.

8. Impact on Plants and Animals. Jim said they left that empty for right now. That is still an open issue.

9. The answer is no to non-threatened or non-endangered species,

10. Impact on Agricultural Land Resources. That remains no.

11. Impact on Aesthetic Resources: Is Yes, but have removed the check marks the Board had. When they are talking about aesthetic resources, there is a little more to it. We drove around through there before we came here tonight.

12. Impact on Historic And Archaeological Resources: That is still an open issue. It involves the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation - OPRHP. Jim thinks the applicant should write a letter to OPRHP requesting concurrent that they are not going to impact.

13. Impact on Open Space and Recreation: No change

14. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas: No change.

15. Impact on Transportation: That stays Yes. They checked the box No for "Can Impact Be mitigated by Project Change". As to traffic studies, we have what Clough Harbour and Saratoga has done.

16. Impact on Energy: No change.

17. Noise And Odor Impact: This has been changed to Yes. There will be noise from construction, and also have noise from 4:00 and 6:00 with 700 kids.

18. Impact on Public Health: No change

19. Impact on Growth And Character of Community or Neighborhood: Yes remains checked, but made some changes in the examples - Proposed Action will cause change in the density of land use. Checked box for Potential Large Impact, and Can Impact Be mitigated by Project Change remains No. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) They checked Small to Moderate Impact. Can impact be mitigated by project change remains No.

20. Jim Saxton said we all know the answer to that one - Yes.

Jim said he would like the Board to look through Part 3, so we can see where were are headed in trying to address the issues in Part 2. This will take the form of a small bound document, as an EID - Environmental Information Document.

Kevin said he thinks he understands that based on the preliminary review subject to additional information from the developer, this is likely not to trigger a positive declaration. Jim Saxton said to keep in mind that the determination of a positive declaration is extremely subjective.

Jim said before we get into the additional documents the applicant needs to provide, we should talk about what processes we've done up to this date. John Condino said we need to know what letters have been sent out, and they would like copies of them. (Marge made a copy of the letter that was sent to the various agencies back in March). He said the City of Oswego should be included as an involved agency. Kevin said there is one other agency who is put on notice, and it does not show up on that letter, and that is the IDA. Kevin said a lot of these issues will show up when we submit the Form 239 to the County Planning Board. Vicky asked about what if the agencies don't respond, and Jim said it would be by default.

Jim says there are some things that the applicant needs to supply in addition to what we have. He started with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan - SWPPP. The one they provided is on Phase I. That needs to be redone, so it includes Phase I and II. They haven't showed us how they are going to get water out of the storm water basin to the drain. They will likely need a Federal Permit for wetlands.

We need documentation endangered species. In Oswego Town, we have 3 - bog turtle, the Indiana bat, and piping clover, which is a bird. Fish and Wildlife may require that a study be done.

Jim said we are also going to look at the traffic plan to see if there is anything else we need. It was brought up as to the traffic pattern when college is in session, and when it isn't. In the study they talk about levels of service. The levels of service were are looking at is Johnson Road and Rte 104. Barry stated the people in Ontario Heights is concerned with the traffic going through there.

Jim Saxton said the Visual Assessment looks fine.

Kevin asked in further terms of coordination, particularly the #239, what has been your experience in terms of timing? Kevin said his previous experience has been that the entire packet - the Site Plan, the mapping, the details including at least Part 1 and 2 of the SEQRA. This will all be sent to the County for review. Kevin said he has a transmission to the County - the #239 by June 29th.

Kevin said he talked to Mike Stanley about the time frame, and he understood. Kevin said with what we went over tonight, the Zoning Board may not be able to make a decision until August. Barry said according to some of the Planning Board members the other night, they don't want to make a decision until the Zoning Board does, because if the Zoning Board doesn't grant them the variance. Kevin said that is logical.

John Condino said we can do a negative declaration with open issues, but he wouldn't recommend it in this circumstance.

The Committee Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Marjorie Best,
Planning Board Secretary
Back to 2007 Planning Board Agendas & Minutes
Back to Planning Board Web Page
Top of Page