Video recording

captions Language: en no okay we're all set okay I guess we're all set we've got a whole new system in here this evening and uh hopefully everything goes well with the recording and uh sound and so on uh anyways April 9th welcome to the planning board meeting we have a few items on our agenda this evening not very not a very big agenda but uh would you join in a pledge of allegiance Al to the United States of America to the rep for it stands one nation under God indivisible and Justice thank you okay um cther want to call R Please Mr Anderson here Mr kashani here Mr Jarina present Mr kosel here Mr malter here Mr Mixel present Mr ruso here Mr Taylor here okay uh we have the well actually we should start with the the lochner subdivision which was on the agenda but they have asked they're tabled again uh they're still working out their drainage issues over there so moving out with that one go to bellary you want to go ahead Mark and read it belera section 2 located near the southwest corner of salt and schel Roads the applicant Tom Thomas of 800 Phillips Road LLC is requesting final site plan and subdivision approval associated with the construction of 60 town homes on a 26.8 acre parcel located in a medium high residential district under Section 29-9 and 2 96-99 of the code of the town of Webster Mike good evening my name is Mike Richie from costage engineering representing the owner and developer uh Tom Thomas from tramac development uh we were last before this board a few months ago uh presenting the project um and basically the the biggest issue the biggest takeaway from that meeting was dedication or ownership of the road right away uh utilities and storm Waters uh infrastructure and the like uh since that meeting the owner has met with Town staff and to my knowledge they've come to an agreement that um the the road the utilities the storm water management facilities will remain private um they will be designed and constructed per Town standard so in the future there could be a possibility the town could consider dedication although that is not what the town is is willing to do at this point in time um we did receive comments uh PRC comments um from that time those have been addressed and subsequently we did receive additional comments um from town staff the the first um was that all references to town easements be removed from the plans which they have uh the town Highway superintendent uh upon review of the neighboring development The Meadows 2 subdivision um requested that the storm water management from this development not tie into that dedicated storm Water Management Facility so so we revised the storm water design for the Western portion of the site the portion in red uh shown on the uh bulletin board um and we've redesigned that to have the storm water management wholly contained on site and discharge uh into the existing ditch everything else from the site plans is almost exactly as it was approved during the preliminary approval um we did receive some additional comments from the town engineer uh believe it was Friday um um and we've reviewed those we don't consider those comments to be um difficult to address or or to provide the town engineer with those uh uh calculations that it requested but I understand if if the board would like to give the town engineer time to review that before uh making any decisions on the project I understand so w with that being said I think you know we wanted to come back show you the changes that have been made and and ask if the board members had any questions or comments um with the project as it as it currently stands okay U Mike you know at the PRC meeting and you're right thank you for acknowledging that they did say it was a short notice to really do calculations and so on and so forth on the drainage I guess Josh is bringing it up there that design where goes in the back of lots two 20 20 208 no what's that 20 that remember 203 204 5 6 seven and 8 m it goes in the back of them there there's really no backyard to those things and then on the side of lot 203 mhm it's only like 20 ft away from the uh the Ed from the from the house from the from the structure and we've looked at that and it's a little misleading the way the grading is done um because the actual static of the pond is much farther in um we can look to adjust those grades it's realistically about 60 ft from waterers Edge to the nearest structure which I went back and looked at what section one was and to the pond of the nearest house was 67 ft and the next closest was 74 so it's not uh a drastic change from what was previously approved but we are going to take another look at this and see if we can kind of tweak some of this grading uh to give some of those units uh more usable area in their backyard if you can figure something out with it but anyways again I just sketched that we're lat 2011 and 202 are there mhm I just drew a block out of that and just said look those two are really crimped in there along with the others you know 203 and 204 can those two I know you don't want to remove Lots I understand that 100% but eliminate in back of the houses and back of 03 four 5 six and then incorporate that into one square clean Pond yeah so the issue with the drainage in this area is basically I'm trying to see um excuse me uh yeah so lots 2011 and 202 are on the north side of a ditch a tributary to M Creek right um so that that all drains to the north to The Ponds along Schlagel that ditch to just to the south of those or to the right on this drawing there's a ditch that kind of bisects it there's a culvert that crosses that's the whole reason there's a storm water Pond here is because there's actually that tributary to M Creek bisects the whole project originally it was going to go to the pond on Meadows too because we can't cross over the creek to send it to the storm water pond so I think we are going to kind of sharpen our pencil a little bit here see what we can do to um if we have to kind of elongate that um you know there is more area going to the South maybe we could have a couple smaller basins instead of one large one um and accomplish the same goals uh yeah I just I see what you're saying I just felt that that was kind of the r the rim of the pine was you know just roughly scaling it out looked like it was about 20 ft away from the nearest yeah and and that's from kind of where the embankment slope starts the actual Waters Edge is is way further down and you know we'll we understand you know uh we want to make sure this is done right so we're going to take another look at it and you know in response to the town engineer comments um look to address this that was the only concern I had as far as the new new layout and I'm not really in all honesty too familiar with what transpired with uh with Tom and the attorneys and so on right unfortunately I wasn't able to attend that meeting Tom I don't know if you'd want to kind of summarize but from what was told to me um you know I think the town's in support of this project but with uh it being for rent uh development uh the town doesn't see being a good use of resources to take dedication of it at this point in time but if the situation with Tom were to change and it were to be sold in the future um and it was not to be for rent in the future that the town would consider taking dedication at that time so understanding that understanding that you know section one was built all per you know dedicated infrastructure standards we want to stay consistent with that and continue section two that way so all the roads gutters storm water all the storm infrastructure is all going to be per Town spec um it'll look no different from any other subdivision in the area now I know back then there was an issue with the tax structure was that been resolved I I have no idea what's what they've discussed or do you want to come up Tom yeah go ahead Tom sh please um not nothing was um discussed except that um if it's considered rentals uh there it usually has a uh and it's all privately owned then uh it's usually a cheaper tax structure than if it was all dedicated roads so that's why I think they're they want the roads and everything to stay private okay anybody any any concerns or questions on it wasn't there an issue brought up at the last time the applicant was here about homeowners association HOA yeah I believe if if one got sold that's when you planned you would create an HOA yes yes if and when um any of them got sold in the future yeah uh it would there would have to be an HOA or or dedicated on dedicated roads all right so at the time that the resolution is done I think we need to recall that and make sure that's entered in there um anything else Jos were there any other issues you know of that um the one other issue I can think of is um the connection between The Meadows 2 and bellara um where it's going from public to private yeah um is there going to be any plan for a turn around for the town trucks for the public portion and I just discussed this with Tom this is one of the Town engineer comments that came up um so um this area right here is the end of its Arrow raail or Meadows 2 um originally everything was proposed to be dedicated but at this point the end of the dedicated Road will end at that property line so what we've looked into and we're going to provide responses to is is providing essentially a turnaround um back into awood Trail to allow uh snow plows uh to adequately maneuver and turn back around and exit through Arrowwood Trail and we'll work with that with the town engineer and the highway superintendent okay now these Lots uh in your first section they're all individual Lots individual tax numbers is that the same situation yes they'll all be they be a filed subdivision map with a private road there'll be all individual Lots with individual addresses and tax account numbers all right um anybody any any other were just a alls we had were just a couple of comments the last time um anyways the at the PRC um Sur Department Highway Department uh they just wanted to be able Engineering in general wanted to have a chance to review the calculations on the drainage the water and so on and so forth to make sure it met the standards that they need to to have that's basically that all right so you want to you want to ask to table it then yeah we'd request bring it to the next meeting that'd be great by then they should have all that stuff and then we yeah we're working on the responses now and I'll work with Josh and and we'll get revised material back over to the town with enough time to review them okay so what do you want to table it to the next meeting yep I think that's enough time for us May the 7th what is it May the 7th May 7th so want to make a motion to I'll make a motion table the application for batera Section 2 to the May 7th planning board meeting second have a second all in favor I okay we're good all right I guess we're good then thank you okay thanks for coming in okay okay go ahead Mar do the next one yes uh first schedule matter tonight is 1044 Sunset Trail dock extension located at 1044 sunset Trail the applicant Douglas western doll is requesting Waterfront consistency review and dock approval associated with the addition of a 4T wide by 30t long dock extension on a56 acre parcel located in a medium high residential district under sections yes sir hi good evening uh my existing dock is 4 4ot wide by 56t long uh at the end of the season last year the water was less than 2 ft deep at the end of my dock which is where my boat hoist is the water was so low I could not get my P ponon boat off without four people pushing it off my hoist that we could not get the Hoist low enough in the water in doing so we tore all the El elect lines out from underneath my ponon boat uh so that that uh helps explain the need for this uh extension where that should eliminate uh in in the end of the season when the water uh gets very shallow at the end of the existing dock mhm okay and you're so you're putting on 30 feet right 30 ft correct so additional 30 ft to it and that would have been a question is why 30 ft you just explained that so that's good um the dock comes right straight off so it doesn't infringe on you know at an angle into a neighbor in front of a neighbor's house or anything like that you guys can you guys oh you got it he's got it there you see the dock he's referring to right there yeah I don't recall if the my neighbor's uh docks are shown in that drawing yeah each of their docks are considerably uh farther out in the water than my dock is right now yes they are yeah actually have you have you got a copy of this you know what I forgot to bring with here take this yeah there there you go yeah you want this one no I I have a copy okay all right he got the shortest knock in the neighborhood yeah he does he got the shortest now there was there was a response my neighbor who's I guess a little bit away from you who was concerned about boats in general and uh so on and so forth and boat traffic and adding onto the dock and was going to be in front of house and so on and so forth anyways long story short after going through it all we've looked at this thing it really doesn't hold a whole lot of credence and I see no issue with this at all no you've got your permit already from DEC correct I have a DEC uh Army Corps of Engineers and uh New York State uh NYS ogs uh I don't remember what that stands for but they said uh uh uh permit was not required from them okay you're good all right um after we have to do a Seeker on this Derek you want to do a Seeker on this here interesting enough DEC in their approval they said it was I'm sorry in their approval for the permit DEC actually made a determination oh they did already yeah oh really we'll we'll do the we'll do ours yeah sure town of Wester planning board considered a request by Douglas was thr all to construct a 4ft wide by 30ft long dock extension on a 0.56 AC acre parcel having SPL number 0781 18-1 69.1 located at 1044 Sunset Trail the planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under Section 67.5 C9 of the State Environmental Quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review okay that be a motion need a second second have a second all in favor I I good with that somebody want to make a motion for an extension of the dock make a motion for the extension of the dock at 30 ft some uh 1044 Sun Trail Webster New York um I would you say is presented yeah this that the applicant has received all uh approvals from DEC Army Court of Engineers office of General Services he's received all his permits and everything um so what's required is permit from the town and your motion isn't is for that correct correct okay second I have a motion we have a second all in favor I I okay you're are all set thank you where do I obtain the permit from the town I'm sorry with where do I obtain you can just see J right there yep all right thank you you're all set thank you all right okay you want to Mark okay last item on tonight's agenda is County Line Road accessory structure located at 743 County Line Road the applicant Aaron fenti is requesting preliminary final site plan approval along with a public hearing associated with the Demolition of an existing detached garage and the construction of an 848 ft accessory structure on a 2.5 acre parcel located in a large lot residential district under sections 35013 and 35036 of the code of the town of Webster yes sir good evening my name is Brian White from the command the r Associates I'm here tonight with the property owner Kirk Willis um we're here tonight presenting a proposed pole barn structure uh as mentioned previous it's uh proposed to be 848 Square F feet uh we did appear before The Zo board of appeals on March 14th and received a side setback variance for the accessory structure at 5.1 ft uh we're here tonight seeking uh approval for this structure uh unique characteristics this part the majority of this property is within the 100-year flood plane and and uh the northwest corner of the structure is shown to be mapped within that area we have made a revision since our zoning board application the footprint and uh overall size has remained the same but we did Elevate the finished floor the structure by 1 foot to be above our um flood plate requirements we previously had flood vents shown on the building um now we've elevated it you know 12 in so we don't need those flood vents any longer um outside of that the structur is not to exceed 19 ft the existing structure is 22 6 in um available to answer any questions you may have now the hash when that's existing 431 right that's correct so your actual addition is the um the balance so we're proposing to uh demolish the existing structure and then rebuild a new pole barn uh to include a portion of the previous footprint okay so basically that's the footprint or the new building that's correct right there right yep and that's currently where the existing was obviously that's what you got there yeah all right all right anybody any issues no I got I'm pretty familiar with that property uh especially the property next to it uh I don't see any issues with putting that accessory building there it's surrounded what used to be the union Hell Fire Department's uh Fairgrounds mhm U it's probably going to wind up going into some kind of commercial or industrial use before it's all done m u so it doesn't doesn't bother any of the residents anywhere and it's a good fit for the area completely surrounded by industrial provs Four Mile Creek floodway that's designated then then You' got the other one limited of the 100-year flood plane does that have any impact on the building uh yes so the there's they're both regulated the flood way and the flood plan are both regulated areas the flood way is more regulated yeah uh so we're not going to encroach within that area but uh we are going to encroach on the 100-year flood plane and that'll require a flood plane development permit from the town and as well as a notation of uh the twoot free board requirement for New York state so we have accommodated for the design to work within the flood plane so that's taken care of inh house then Josh by you guys yes we would review nothing that we have to deal with correct as far as that flood plane okay um is deing on this going to match the house yes I do have a few colors if you'd like to see them uh but the the end goal is to have the The Sting of the the pole bar match the color scheme of the house okay all right anybody any any questions on this is there electricity or uh heat out there water or anything uh I don't believe there's going to be a water service but there will be electricity run bu I think I think somewhere I read you can to use it for a workshop or something in there yeah all right all right um I guess that's it anybody any other questions this public hearing public [Music] hearing yeah it is a public hearing so I don't know if there is anyone here wishing to speak either for or against I don't see anybody but just for the record and I guess then we'll close it bring it back up to the board anybody any other concerns no okay have to do a Seeker R it DK you want to do that y the town of Webster planning board considered a request by Aaron fante to to demolish an existing detached garage construct an 848 ft accessory structure on a 2.5 acre parcel having SPL number 066.0 31-46 located at 743 County Line Road the planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under Section 67.5 C12 of the State Environmental Quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review second okay we have a motion for second all in favor and a motion for uh preliminary well actually it's a approval preliminary preliminary yeah you got to do both so you got to do a preliminary um you can you want to make it D yeah go ahead you want to put in there that you know he has received just for the record that he's received variance for the side set AC I make a motion for the county l Road accessory structure at 743 County Lane Road uh the lot is restricted to one accessory building the building is to conform to the size and location presented on the plan the placement of the building shall conform to all setback requirements and they did receive a variance for a site setback the building sh will not be placed nearer to the front property line than the rear line of the footprint of the main building or residence upon the lot no point in the building will be hired in the existing structure no commercial use shall occur on the parcel the accessory building shall be used for personal use only as defined by the town code significant construction shall occur within one year is deemed by the planning board to expire on April 9th comply with all requirements of any state county and town agency all site work to be in compliance with the standards of the town of Webster subject to all engineering and governmental approvals subject to all appropriate governmental fees subject to the resolution of final approved minutes that's a motion all right that's a motion need a second second have a second all in favor I I we're good with that final any motion for final approval Lan Road accessory structure 743 County Lane Road uh subject to U all of the preliminary approval uh uh statements okay all right have a motion second second motion to Second all in favor I I we're good okay you're all set thank you good luck thanks all right is there anything else you need to bring up anything uh approval of the meeting minutes for March the all right I'll make a motion to approve the is there amended minutes from our March 5th meeting 2024 okay need a second second it and all in favor all we're good that's it we're done okay I guess we're all set well thank you for coming in