February 16, 2010
Planning Board Minutes Amended
Oswego Town Hall
Chair: Jeffrey Boyer
Town Board Members: Francis Dellamano, Lee Phillips,
Barry Pritchard, Richard Tesoriero, Judy Sabin-Watson, Vacant
Attorney To The Board: Stephen Greene, Jr.
Secretary: Noreen Ruttan
Meeting called to order by Chairman, Jeff Boyer at 7:00PM

Jeff presented the Agenda

Present – Dr. Richard Tesoriero, Francis Dellamano, Lee Phillips, Judy Watson, Barry Pritchard, Jeff Boyer and Kevin Caraccioli for Steve Greene, Jr.

Absent – none

Motion to approve the January 18, 2010 minutes by Barry Pritchard
2nd – Lee Phillips. Carried. Minutes amended as per discussion.

New Business – Dan Dorsey

Mr. Dorsey presented a detailed diagram for the purpose of creating a subdivision (Gardenier Road property). He was told that as long as the parcels were 5 acres or more he did not need permission from the Planning Board. He has approximately 30 acres that will be subdivided into 2 parcels.

Francis Dellamano told him he needs a negative declaration, and he does not need approval since he plans to subdivide into greater than 5 acre parcels.

Kevin – Confirmed that sometime the banks or the seller’s attorney requires a negative declaration. There is a form that the State and the County requires a RP5217 if you are transferring property or part of a parcel or looking to subdivide, there is a question, “Does the municipality have subdivision regulations?” Yes or no. “Have you received, or do you need permission for subdivision?” Yes or no. Mr. Dorsey needs proof that he can present to the sellers attorney that he went before the Board and they are saying he doesn’t need to go any further.

Francis Dellamano – motion – Mr. Dorsey has presented a survey plan to us and since each lot is more than 5 acres, a subdivision plan is not needed.

2nd – Dr. Tesoriero

Vote: Jeff Boyer – yes
Francis Dellamano – yes
Lee Phillips – yes
Barry Pritchard – yes
Richard Tesoriero – yes
Judy Watson – yes


Kevin – Agreed to put together a letter from the Planning Board that this project was presented to the Board and part of the Meeting Minutes. Kevin will send the letter to Mr. Dorsey.

United Group – Stated that the company had previously sent a packet stating they would like to come back to the Planning Board for a Site Plan adjustment.

Jeff – Asked if United Group aware of the new zoning regulations that have been filed with the State?

Craig Zogby – yes

Craig presented a site diagram of a single building. United Group decided to use a building that previously has worked well for them. More efficient, operating well, environmentally sound as well. Tree line will stay, parking lot and roadways (impervious material) has been substantially reduced. More direct access. The overall footprint of the building is the same, approximately 150k square feet within a few hundred feet of original plan. Prior plan shows a sewer line coming through the wetland, this is no longer utilized. Now everything is contained on site with the Waste Water Treatment plant. Buffer protects against erosion control and any kind of impacts that may have been occurring to the wetlands. The entrance is greatly improved. Now 5% grade. Draws the overall entrance south. Sidewalk will be installed along the side of the road where the Centro Bus comes through and stops and also connecting them to Laker Hall.

Francis Dellamano – Asked if the sidewalk will extend all the way to the sidewalk that is already there?

Craig – Answered no that the side walk only comes down to where students can safely cross the road into the parking lot at Laker Hall to access the bus.

FD – Asked again if it will connect to the sidewalk that is already there?

Craig –No, it is coming down to specific spot where they can cross the road over to Laker Hall.

FD – Responded that there is no place to walk next to that road and thinks it is something that has to be seriously looked at.

Jeff – Asked if United Group was eliminating the bus service into the residential area.

Craig – Commented that United Group is talking to Centro. They are concerned about bringing their bus service onto our site, tearing up the parking lot, consistently running on a day to day basis.

Craig – Also stated that not all students will be utilizing bus service, some will drive. No other similar student housing properties are required to provide bus service but we will look at it.

FD – Asked why did you change your plans about having a bus pickup at the dormitory?

Craig – Earlier Centro was on board now they are concerned and would much rather pick up a Laker Hall.

FD- Stated that safety was major concern of the Planning Board.

Kevin – Asked Mr. Zogby to state again what he was are looking for?

Craig – Responded to reaffirm the negative declaration on the SEQR and seek approval of the Site Plan adjustment as it has been re-submitted.

Lee Phillips – Asked again what protection are you offering when they are crossing the street?

Craig – Stated that cross walk markings or a cross walk light could be installed with County approval.

United Group (Unknown person) – County will have to approve that. County may come back with cross walk on other side of the road. Will make it as safe as possible.

Judy Watson – Commented that this crossing was not any worse than their crossing from the lot on 104. Do you think it would help if the Planning Board sends a letter to Centro with our recommendation?

Craig – Responded, yes it could help.

Jeff – Asked if the new building design was still within the variance?

Craig – Answered yes, the size of the building itself is actually a little bit less. Site Plan, finished floor elevation is sunk a little bit down in the dirt. Ridge line is a little bit less than previously approved. Building facade that you’re actually looking at down to 8500 square feet.

Jeff – Asked if the sewage system was located at northeast corner?

Craig – Responded yes, the new plan is a one straight shot to system with gravity feed from the residence hall to the treatment plant. The settlings ponds have also been reduced to one.

They will be install early in construction with drainage tiles. They are design for 100 year rainfall. The new parking lot design makes it easier for snow removal. Salt will be used and runoff will go into pond as was approved in the original SEQR.

Kevin – Asked if Craig was referring to the SPDES Discharge Permit? Do you have a separate one for the retention pond?

Craig – Answered yes, we have to revise it.

John Candino (Barton and Loguidice) – Commented that the plans are preliminary in nature. Looking for a complete submission.

FD – Asked if chlorine was used in the sewage treatment?

Craig – Responded that it’s a bio membrane.

UG (Unknown person) – Added that water that is let out will meet the DEC requirements for runoff but did not know if chlorine is used.

Craig – Followed with the discharge has already been approved by the DEC. The treatment plant will be designed to meet their requirements.

Jeff – Summarized what had been discussed to this point: (1) United Group is looking to reaffirm the negative declaration, and (2) seek approval of the resubmitted Site Plan contingent on approval from the County 239 review. With the resubmission of the Site Plan adjustment, a Public Hearing is required as was confirmed referencing the New Zoning regulations, page 21, 22. The Site Plan has to be submitted in parallel with getting notice out for next meeting. The board needs something from United Group pertaining to Determination of Impact. We are back into the SEQR process and whether we will need a full SEQR or whether we can reaffirm the existing SEQR, since there are elements of this plan that have less impact than what we reviewed. We need something from UG saying how those impacts have been minimized.

Kevin – Reminded the board that this is part of the submission that UG has provided in their January 6, 2010 packet that was submitted, to the extent that any of this has changed or the Site Plan itself has changed, asked that UG reaffirm, at the present time, this submission, whether it has changed or not just so we are timely with the new zoning, the amendments to the zoning and any other changes that have occurred. For instance mention that the retention pond being reduced from 2 to 1. To be consistent with the action the Town Board took in adopting the amendments to the zoning regulations the Company reaffirm by way of a resubmission. A letter, from the Company stating that the information that was submitted January 6th remains the same and we are asking the Board to proceed with a Site Plan review.

Kevin – Also stated this submission can be used by the board for a SEQR determination.

Craig – Mentioned that the differences were submitted as a Site Plan adjustment. If I have to submit a full Site Plan application, our SEQR negative declaration is acknowledged because all of the impacts that are mentioned in the SEQR negative declaration is outlined in the packet and shown how this Site Plan reduced the impact.

FD- Asked if we need another SEQR?

John Candino – Commented that there is a provision within the SEQR to amend the negative declaration, it applies to cases such as this. I believe, that the Board can do a formal amendment to the negative declaration which is then subject to a 30 day comment period.

Craig – Agreed that the United Group will redate and send a new packet along with a new Site Plan.

Jeff – Stated that this submission will be sent to County for a 239 review. Will be getting an updated letter from United Group that reflects the changes from the old to the new Site Plan. We will look at amending the negative declaration in accordance with the SEQR process at the next meeting.

Craig – Confirmed that the company will present a design that is safe and well detailed.

Jeff – Reiterated that a re-submission was needed for the County to perform a 239 review, and to B & L for their review as well as to the Board for our review before the next meeting. Public Hearing can be held at the next Board meeting.

Jeff – Asked the Board if they are in agreement to resubmit the Site Plan, get it to the County for a 239 review, B&L for review? I am looking for United Group to provide backup explaining the differences in the old and new to justify the amended negative declaration to the SEQR and will communicate to us that they will be ready for a Public Hearing at the next meeting.

Craig – UG will do both of these things in the document.

Judy – Made a motion to have Planning Board send a letter to Centro encouraging them to support United Group in providing bus service to the project.

Kevin – Asked how long is the construction time frame if approval were granted?

Craig – Responded May and that it was a 10 month project, hoping for an opening of August 2011.

Kevin – Suggested that Centro be made an interested party to the SEQR as oppose to us taking a proactive position since we haven’t approved anything. If this is being scrutinized legally this will remove an argument. Within this timeframe, we have enough time to advocate their service.

Judy – Stated that she would withdraw motion.

Kevin – The Planning Board can send them (Centro) a summary document that would include them as an interested party.

Public Comment

Doug Waterbury – Addressed the Board. He stated he was representing businessmen from City of Oswego. He directed a question at Craig Zogby questioning availability of access for disabled residents. He stated that the parking, environmental issues, septic system, discharge were significant enough to warrant a new SEQR review. If this is approved without properly addressing these issues they will seek legal action.

Open Board Discussion

Jeff – Stated that we need to tire up some loose ends. (1) Todd Streeter, was in last month and sent to the Zoning Board who concluded that they will not support spot zoning.

FD – Interjected that the Board told him to apply to the County to have property changed to an Agriculture District.

Richard Tesoriero – Stated that he spoke with Mr. Streeter. He was only looking for direction and is moving forward with project and will come back when he is ready.

Jeff – 2) Referencing the Bertsch Site Plan, Wind Energy Conversion System. Motion at last meeting to send letter concerning Bond issue to Town Board. Jeff will go to the Town Board to talk to them about the bonding issue.

(3) Received a letter concerning the 104 expansion. DOT met with the community, Project on schedule, survey is almost complete, preliminary designs being developed. March-April timeframe.

(4) Training – April 1st, Lowville, for anyone interested.

FD – letter should be sent to the County to request training be held more than once per year, before October. We should show leadership. Jeff agreed to put a letter together.

(5) Wanted to draft a template for Site Plan requirements that the Town could use as part of the application process. Noreen stared that the Town Clerk’s office is already working on it.

Motion to adjourn – Lee Phillips
2nd – Richard Tesoriero. Carried.

Meeting adjourned 8:15PM

Respectfully submitted by:

Noreen Ruttan, Secretary
Back to Planning Board Web Page
Top of Page