Minutes Village Planning Board July 28, 2009 A meeting of the Village of Horseheads Planning Board was held on the above date at 5:30pm. Present were: Board Members and Village Staff: Chairman Ray Fortier Mayor Don Zeigler Manager=s Assistant Rachel Baer Bob Young - Code Enf. Ron Sherman, MRB Associates John Groff, Village Attorney Others: Glenn Harvey, Bergmann Assoc. Steve Boisvert, Bergmann Assoc. Justin Lattiere, Bergmann Assoc. Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers Jocelyn Box, Calamar Sam Reeder, Calamar Clay Ambrose Art Ambrose Tess Banfield, Catalpa Dr. Mike Swasta, Watkins Rd. Henry Sherwood, W. Broad St. Susan Multer, Watkins Rd. David Spencer, W. Broad St. Helen Slottje, Ithaca Motion by, seconded by, that the minutes of the June 23 rd and June 30 th, 2009 Planning Board Meetings be received and approved as submitted. Roll Call Vote: Chairman Fortier Schlumberger - Continued Site Plan Review The Planning Board continued their review of the SEQR documents and site plan for the Schlumberger project. Representatives of Bergmann Associates, on behalf of Schlumberger, participated in the discussion. Ron Sherman, from MRB Group, on behalf of the Village, also participated. Summary of discussion: 1
- Bergmann responded to draft comment letter from Ron Sherman with new documents which Planning Board members now have, plus copy of noise study, phase 1b report, and copy of EPA submittal. - Requirement of economic analysis - Bergmann reviewed with Schlumberger, a lot of that information is proprietary. Schlumberger submitted its 2008 annual report instead. Brought copies. Village Atty. Groff asked if they would please put in writing to the Village Schlumberger s refusal to release economic analysis. Glenn Harvey from Bergmann said they would. - Bergmann met with Village and County staff, and other members of The Center regarding additional signage on Ithaca Road for truckers. - Noise study - Bergmann went to Horseheads facility, took some background ambient noise readings. Then went to Bradford facility and got noise information there and compared the two readings. In the summary it notes no noise increases. - Berm - Bergmann reviewed the large map of the project. We maintained natural screen, but took trees out past fence line. Looked at putting vegetation buffer, but decided to put up stockade fence. All other vegetation will remain. - Stormwater - Bergmann said they rec d initial comments back from Soil and Water Conservation. Had a couple of minor comments, we are working on addressing those. - Ron Sherman, MRB, distributed a memo regarding the status of his review on behalf of the Village. I ve listed 9 new items we rec d. Those I haven t reviewed yet - will have comments out on those Monday morning. Soil and Water has issued their review comments relative to the SWPPP. County hydrologist will also be doing comments this week. Andy Avery, County Highway, he said that he did not think that the traffic study accurately reflected the conditions. He said he wanted Bergmann to reissue. Bergmann replied that they will issue a memo to explain the study instead of preparing another one. Will describe how numbers were generated. Ron Sherman stated his comments on all items rec d to date will be submitted in one week, as well as County comments on SWPPP and traffic. Helen Slottje - I have a question on the traffic study. On one hand the study allows for 7 vehicles per hour, but in some other info it says convoys of 23 vehicles. Wondering how the 23 vehicles at a time compares to 7 vehicles per hour. Steve Boisvert, Bergmann Assoc. - two separate independent reports. Traffic evaluation shows impact on road per DOT guidelines. We analyze peak hour, worst case scenario. That peak hour is 70-80 vehicle trips. Worst case is there would be one convoy going out the same time a shift of employees will be coming in. That is impact on roads. When we analyze noise, that is a separate analysis in which we want to analyze worst case scenario for noise. For that it should 2
be if a full convoy is exiting at any time. Worst case scenario for that is when ambient noise is lowest - at night. Analysis was based on that peak. Helen Slottje - other question on EAF. Confused on where we are in process for SEQR. Is this Planning Board determining the significant? Will there also be an EIS? Steve Boisvert - We have submitted all of the technical studies to this board and the Village Board as lead agency. They are currently in review process. As soon as they determine no significant impact then the process allows for a negative declaration to be issued. Helen Slottje - explosive storage is a large impact. So what your asking Village to do is say that the environmental impact will be negative so that an EIS is not required and you can proceed directly to approval. Steve Boisvert - we don t have explosives per se. We have 3 separate components. We addressed all those issues in documents we already submitted. A resident expressed concerns about truck routes. Using I86 is logical for servicing PA. But as soon as NY opens up, they will then be all over the county. Have you all addressed this. Steve Boisvert - for this facility to dispatch in 4 directions, for north they ll have to go on Route 14 north. Beyond that, they will have to travel on roads permitted for their vehicles. The Planning Board agreed to table this matter for a Special Meeting to be held on August 11 th at 5:30 p.m. Gardner Road Townhouses - Matt Cox Art Ambrose reported that Matt Cox was unable to secure financing for his project on the two townhouses. - our concern is your intent to parcel this out whole PUD area. Art Ambrose - had an original plan for 9 units total, next to that we had an office park for one acre. We still believe that this use is appropriate. Matt Cox s proposed use was appropriate. Don t see as piece meal. He wanted to do 4 units, we wanted to do 9. Clay ambrose - we were going to allow him to do his one acre, and we would still do the other plan for the remaining. - should have plan for whole parcel. Art Ambrose - yes, we are back to our original plan for that area. We don t have to be the developer though. 3
Calamar Senior Housing, Broad St. and Sing Sing Rd. Representative of Calamar, the developer for the senior housing project, came forward. The summary of discussion was: - Independent living for ages 60 and over. Not subsidized. 84 two bedroom, 36 one bedroom. Common area too. Two story structure. Two elevators. Entrances on all ends of the building so it not a far walk for anyone to the elevators. - Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers. Couple of recent revisions. Sing Sing Road is a County Road. Originally we had 2 entrances on Sing Sing. The one north of intersection with Colonial would be bad. Too much traffic. We focused on one south of Colonial. Originally we had it a little closer, but the County wanted it moved a little more south. Had to rotate the building slightly. At the Colonial intersection there are existing stop signs. Sing Sing southbound has no stop signs. Looking at making some changes there. Andy Avery reviewing that. There is a 25 ft difference in elevation. That is why we cant do an entrance on Broad St. Also interal road going around building won t work either. Now our main access will be on sing sing. Not a good idea to line up with Colonial Drive because this entrance is really a minor driveway compared to a major intersection. Similar to Elcor entrance on Broad St. - doesn t work too well there. Better to have them separated. - Lighting. Jamie Gensel said they are doing lighting analysis now. But with elevation you probably won t see light poles from Broad St. We will look at shielding to make sure lights won t shine up on residences. Try to keep all light onsite. We can control brightness. This isn t a shopping center. Will just be lit up enough for safety. We don t want to put more light out there than necessary. The people are living there don t want bright light bothering them either. - Landscaping. Definitely will do. Still adjusting grading, now we know where we can put landscaping. Will berm up as much as we can around existing residences. Then we can landscape the berm. - Stormwater. Did a draft SWPPP, runoff will flow south. We will be cutting into grade. Collecting all stormwater and put a swail down to stormwater basin. Existing pond in the south. Will be discharging to DOT swail. - Maintenance Structure. The garages are extra to rent, but can also store mechanical things in there. Not an open carport. - Remaining lands. 6 acres on east side. Have to maintain green space. Might put in a walking path. 4
- Security. Will be an electronic card and key. Closed ciruit TV on internet so we can access cameras. Residents can also look at camera in the vestibule. Visitors press button, resident can look at channel on TV and see who is at the door. We found that security patrols are genally not very effective. Residents can have alarm systems as long as we have access codes for emergencies. Jamie Gensel asked why the Village Plan. Bd. has to approve stormwater mgmt. plans. The County Stormwater Coalition was designed to do that. Discussion ensued on wording of our local law which states Planning Board must approve. Possible change may be necessary. The Planning Board agreed to table final recommendation on this project, while waiting for final SWPPP and landscaping plan. Tabled until Special Meeting on August 11 th. Referral from Town Plan. Bd.: Daycare Facility, 70 Old Ithaca Road This facility would be located in the former His Tabernacle Church building on Old Ithaca Road. No Village impacts. Motion by, seconded by, that this Board returns the referral for 70 Old Ithaca Road, Daycare Facility, to the Town Planning Board for Local Determination, as there are no Village impacts noted. Roll Call Vote: Chairman Fortier As there was nothing further to come before the Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. /rmb 5