|
|
June
16, 2008
Planning Board Minutes
Oswego Town Hall |
Chair:
Jeffrey Boyer
Town Board Members: Francis Dellamano,
Lee Phillips, Barry Pritchard, Judy Sabin-Watson
Attorney To The Board: Stephen Greene, Jr. |
Call
to Order: The meeting of the Oswego Town Planning Board
was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman Jeffrey Boyer.
Attendance: Those in attendance were:
Jeffrey
Boyer
Francis Dellamano
Lee Phillips
Barry Pritchard
Judy Sabin-Watson
Stephen C. Greene, Jr.
Allison Nelson
Joyce Molinari |
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Attorney to the board
Representing Kevin Caraccioli
Secretary |
Approval
of May 19, 2008, Meeting Minutes: Judy Watson made
the motion to accept the May 19, 2008, minutes as written. Lee
Phillips seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Old Business: Discussion of Site Plan Review
for The United Group Oswego Apartment Complex on Johnson Road.
Jeff Boyer explained that we did send the appropriate material
to the County and to the City, which is part of the 239 Review.
Subsequently, a letter to Kevin Caraccioli, dated May 28, 2008,
was received from the County, which stated in one paragraph,
“The County Department has reviewed this application,
based on materials submitted with this referral, the Department
recommends approval for height variance and
site plan.” The letter was from David Turner, Director,
and Martin Weiss, Associate Planner.
Jeff went on to state in summary, and for the record, that the
County has reviewed the material and concurs that the items
supplied by The United Group to address potential impacts with
the project have been adequately addressed.
Fred Dellamano made a statement, for the record, that it was
his impression that the County Planning response was a very
short comment for such a serious project – i.e. the height
variance and site plan. Discussion followed, and Jeff Boyer
summarized that the County is in agreement with what was submitted
and that the potential impacts have been addressed by the developer.
Jeff moved on to discussion of the SEQR and asked if there were
any comments or questions that Jeff Smetana could address. There
were no further questions with the input to the SEQR.
Next, the Board moved to the review of the Proposed Part II
of the Environmental Assessment Form. Allison Nelson stated
that most of the sections had been reviewed and noted whether
there would be a small-to-moderate impact or a potential-large-impact
and that the Board should now go through, on the record, each
section to make sure everyone is satisfied with the answers
that have been provided. She also stated that once that process
is completed, the Board can finalize Part II and make a final
determination on SEQR.
Allison went through each section, indicating the impact, if
any, and whether the impact can be mitigated by a project change.
The information given follows.
Impact on Land
1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the
project site?
Yes.
•Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater or where
the general slopes in the project exceed 10%
Potential-Large-Impact that cannot be mitigated by a
Project Change
• Construction on land where the depth to the water table
is less than 3 feet
Small-to-Moderate Impact
2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms
found on the site?
No.
Impact on Water
3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as
protected?
No.
4. Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or
new body
of water?
Yes. Small-to-Moderate Impact. Project will require
installation of sewer lines through an unnamed tributary to
Ontario Lake.
5. Will Proposed Action affect source or groundwater quality
or quantity?
Yes. The Proposed Action would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day, a Small-to-Moderate Impact
6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or
surface water
runoff?
Yes. Small-to-Moderate Impact. Runoff patterns and volumes
are expected to change.
Impact
on Air
7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality?
Yes. Small-to-Moderate Impact. Construction machinery
are expected to increase air emissions during construction.
Tenant vehicles will introduce vehicular emissions into the
development site.
Impact on Plants and Animals
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species?
No.
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened
or non-
endangered species?
No.
Impact on Agricultural Land Resources
10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?
No.
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources?
Yes. Small-to-Moderate Impact. The Lodge building will
be visible from some areas.
Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic,
prehistoric
or paleontological importance?
No.
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing
or future
open spaces or recreational opportunities?
No.
Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics
of a critical environmental area?
No.
Impact on Transportation
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
Yes. Potential-Large-Impact. The alteration of present
patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
Impact on Energy
16. Will Proposed Action affect the community’s sources
of fuel or
energy supply?
No.
Noise and Odor Impact
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as
a result of the
Proposed Action?
Yes. Small-to-Moderate Impact. Proposed Action will
produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels
outside of structures.
Impact on Public Health
18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?
No.
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing
community?
Yes. Small-to-Moderate Impact. Proposed Action will
cause a change in the density of land use. Development will
create a demand for additional community services.
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related
to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
Yes.
Following the review of Part 2, Allison stated that if the Board
was in agreement, the Board could adopt a Resolution determining
that this Action is an Unlisted Action under SEQR and issuing
a Conditioned Negative Declaration in accordance with Part 2
and
Part 3 of the Long Environmental Assessment Form
Barry Pritchard asked if the sewage issue would have any impact
on the above-mentioned resolution, as in the last meeting it
was a condition. Allison clarified by saying that it would probably
be a condition of the Board’s approval of the Site Plan.
Jeff Boyer summarized the wording of the Resolution to say that
the Planning Board declares that the proposed United Group application
is an Unlisted Action and issues a Conditioned Negative Declaration
of Non-Significant or Insignificant Impact on the Environment.
Francis Dellamano made the motion to accept the Resolution.
The motion was seconded by Barry Pritchard. The vote was called
as follows:
Jeff
Boyer
Francis Dellamano
Lee Phillips
Barry Pritchard
Judy Watson |
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes |
The Resolution
passed.
Allison explained that the next step is the Site Plan. She
pointed out that even though the documents were delivered
to the City on May 26, 2008, under the 239 Process the City
has 30 days to provide their response, which they have not
done yet, and since the 30 days have not yet expired, the
Board may want to wait until that time period has passed before
issuing their decision on the Site Plan.
Discussion followed concerning what impact the City could
have on the Board’s decision. It was pointed out that
they could come back with recommendations, but that the Board
has the right to override their recommendations. It was further
clarified that the Board can discuss the Site Plan, but no
decision should be made until the 30 days have passed for
the City to respond.
Jeff opened up discussion on the most recent modification
to the Site Plan, Phase 1 only, with some changes in drainage
and retention basins, change of location of the parking, fire
lanes, etc. Also, it was explained that there is no Phase
2 at this point.
New Business: None
Public Comment: Greg Hermann suggested holding
a Special Meeting after the 30 day waiting period would be up
for the City’s response, but before the next regular Planning
Board Meeting. The purpose of the meeting would be to discuss
the Site Plan, so that the Board could proceed at the July Planning
Board Meeting.
Open Board Discussion: The Board discussed
the possibility of a Special Meeting. Following the discussion,
the decision was made to hold the Special Meeting on Monday,
June 30, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. A Legal Notice, concerning the time,
date, location, and purpose of the meeting is to be placed in
The Palladium-Times as soon as possible.
In response to a request from Francis Dellamano, Jeff Smetana
has agreed to provide copies of the final Site Plan to the
Board members.
As a matter of clarification, it was stated by Allison Nelson
that the Zoning Board’s Height Variance is based on
the Planning Board’s approval of the SEQR, and the Planning
Board’s Site Plan is conditioned on the approval of
the Zoning Board’s Height Variance.
Adjournment: Lee Phillips made the motion to
adjourn. It was seconded by Barry Pritchard. The meeting was
adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Molinari,
Secretary to the Planning Board
On the following pages you will find an attachment to the above
minutes, which is a copy of the Resolution as was approved by
the Planning Board.
At a Regular Meeting of the Planning Board held in and for the
Town of Oswego on the 16th day of June, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. at
the Town Hall.
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF OSWEGO
TOWN OF OSWEGO PLANNING BOARD
In the Matter of an Application by
United Group Development Corp.
For Site Plan Approval
County Route 7
Town of Oswego, New York
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, United Group Development Corp. (United Group)
has applied for a site plan approval for the construction of
a multi-unit student housing complex to be located off of County
Route 7 (Johnson Road) in the Town of Oswego’s Residential
R-3 District; and
WHEREAS, United Group has submitted a site
plan to the Town of Oswego Planning Board that calls for the
construction of 5 separate buildings that will house a total
of approximately 400 students attending Oswego State University,
which is located in and around the proposed development; and
WHEREAS, there have been a number of public
meetings concerning the applicant’s site plan and variance
requests, including no less than 2 separate well attended public
hearings at which the public expressed support for, and opposition
to, the project; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Oswego Planning Board
and Zoning Board of Appeals submitted the site plan and variance
requests to the County of Oswego Department of Community Development,
Tourism and Planning, pursuant to NYS General Municipal Law
Section 239 (l&m), and further complied with the provisions
of Section 239-oo of the same law by submitting a full application
to the City of Oswego, given the close proximity of the proposed
site to the City’s municipal boundary; the County of Oswego
recommended approval of the height variance and site plan; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Oswego ZBA coordinated
an environmental review of the proposed site with the Town Planning
Board, together with the Town’s engineers, Barton &
Loguidice; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the SEQRA requirements,
the ZBA conducted a Visual EAF Addendum as part of the Long
EAF completed by the Town Planning Board with the assistance
of the Town’s engineers; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has again reviewed
environmental impact the application may have on the Town as
well as the requirements of the for site plan approval for the
Town of Oswego, and
NOW, THEREFORE, upon motion made by board member
Francis Dellamano seconded by board member Barry Pritchard is
and shall hereby be,
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby
affirm that the proposed application of United Group requesting
site plan approval to construction 5 separate buildings that
will house a total of approximately 400 students attending Oswego
State University to be an Unlisted action pursuant to the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act hereinafter SEQRA;
and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board affirms its
desire to act as lead agency for said action and after no objection
from any interested or involved agencies, declares itself the
lead agency for said action; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board, as lead
agency, has reviewed Part 1 of a Long Environmental Assessment
Form, answered Part 2 questions on the record and reviewed Part
3; and it is further
RESOLVED, that after full review of Part 2
and Part 3 of the environmental assessment form, the Planning
Board declares that the proposed action could have a significant
effect on the environment, however there will not be significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures
described in Part 3 are being required and therefore a conditioned
negative declaration will be prepared; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board authorizes
Chairman Boyer to sign the Long Environmental Assessment Form
declaring a conditioned negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA
and submitting the Conditioned Negative Declaration to the Environmental
Notice Bulletin in accordance with the provisions of SEQRA.
The motion having been placed before the Planning Board for
a vote was adopted by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed and 0
absent in accordance with the following roll call vote.
JEFFREY
BOYER, CHAIRMAN
FRANCIS DELLAMANO
LEE PHILLPS
BARRY PRITCHARD
JUDY SABIN-WATSON |
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES |
I
HEREBY CERTIFY the above to be a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Planning Board of the
Town of Oswego, on the date first mentioned.
JEFFREY BOYER, CHAIRMAN
PLANNING BOARD |
|
|
|
|
