|
|
May
21, 2007
Planning Board Minutes
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 7:10, Chairman Jeffrey Boyer called the meeting
to order
Attendance:
Those
in attendance were:
Chair
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Attorney
Secretary |
Jeffrey
Boyer
Judy Sabin-Watson
Francis Dellamano
Lee Phillips
Barry Pritchard
James Finn
Stephen Greene, Jr.
Marjorie Best |
Old
Business:
Approval of April 16, 2007 Minutes:
Jeff Boyer asked if there were any comments or corrections to
the April 16, 2007 minutes. There being none, Barry Pritchard
made a motion that we approve them. Judy Watson seconded the
motion. All ayes. Motion carried.
Application #2007-03 - United Development Group - Oswego College
Suites - Site Plan Review:
Jeff noted that the Board has been legally designated as the
Lead Agency for overseeing the process for the development of
the Oswego College Suites. As part of that, we have a SEQRA
Long Form that we need to review tonight. Marge is going to
read us some questions and we need to answer them. It is up
to our Board to answer the questions on Pages 11 through 21.
This form is called "Full Environmental Assessment Form".
The purpose of this form: The full EAF is designed to help applicants
and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project
or action may be significant. The questions of whether an action
may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently,
there are aspects of a project that are subjective or immeasurable.
It is also understood that those who determine significance
may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or
may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition,
many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware
of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants
and agencies can be assured that the determination process has
been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow
introduction of information to fit a project or action. As lead
agency, we are required to complete Part 2 of this EAF form.
Jeff then explained the categories - Small to Moderate Impact;
Potential Large Impact; and Can Impact Be mitigated by Project
Change. We will have discussion on each item, and then the members
will agree to fill in the correct answer. Jeff then turned it
over to Marge to read the questions:-
Impact on Land
1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the
project site? Answer - 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 - Yes.
Can Impact Be mitigated by Project Change - Yes.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less
that 3 feet. - It was agreed that Barton and Loguidice, the
Engineers would determine this.
Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles
- N/A
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within
3 feet of existing ground surface - N/A
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 - Yes.
Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year - N/A
Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill - N/A
Construction in a designated floodway - Potential Large Impact
- Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change - Yes
2, Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms
found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations,
etc.) - Yes
Impact on Water:
3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as
protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation
Law - Yes
Developable area of site contains a protected water body - Barton
& Loguidice
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel
of a protected stream - Barton & Loguidice.
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected
water body - Barton & Loguidice.
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland - Barton
& Loguidice.
Other impacts - Barton & Loguidice.
4. Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or
new body of water? - Barton & Loguidice.
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of
water or more than a 10 acre increase of decrease - Barton &
Loguidice
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface
area - Barton & Loguidice
Other impacts - Barton & Loguidice
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality
or quantity? - Yes
Proposed Action will require a discharge permit - Small to Moderate
Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change - Yes
Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does
not have approval to serve proposed (project) action - Potential
Large Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change - Yes
Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater
than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity - N/A
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water
supply system - N/A
Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. - Barton
& Loguidice
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities
which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity - Barton
& Loguidice.
Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons
per day - N/A
Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge
into an existing body of water to the extent that there will
be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions - Potential
Large Impact - Can impact Be Mitigated by Project Change - Yes
Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater that 1,100 gallons - N/A
Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without
water and/or sewer services - Potential Large Impact - Can Impact
Be Mitigated by Project Change.
Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which
may require new or expansion of existing waster treatment and/or
storage facilities - Barton & Loguidice.
6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or
surface water runoff? - Yes
Proposed Action would change flood water flows - Small to Moderate
Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change - Yes
Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion - Potential Large
Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change - Yes
Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
- Small to Moderate Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project
Change - Yes
Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway
- N/A
Impact On Air:
Will Proposed Action affect air quality? - No
Impact on Plants and Animals:
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species - DEC
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened
or non-endangered species - No
Impact on Agricultural Land Resources:
Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources - No.
Impact on Aesthetic Resources:
There is a Visual EAF Addendum, 617.20, put together by the
Zoning Board that goes along with Question 11. It will assist
us in answering the next series of questions.
11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources (If necessary,
use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.)
- Yes
Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different
from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns,
whether man-made or natural. - Potential Large Impact - Can
Impact Be mitigated by Project Change - No
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce
their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource
- Small to Moderate Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project
Change - Yes
Project components that will result in the elimination or significant
screening of scenic views known to be important to the area
- N/A
Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources:
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic,
prehistoric or pale- ontological importance? - Yes
Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National
Register of historic places? - N/A
Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within
the project site? - N/A
Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive
for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory - N/A
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 (CEA) established pursuant
to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? - Yes
Impact on Transportation:-
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
- Yes
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods - Potential Large Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by
Project Change - Yes
Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems - Potential
Large Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change - Yes
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 Proposed Action? - No.
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
The permanent population of the city, town or village in which
the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% - N/A
The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services
will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
- N/A
Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans
or goals - N/A
Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use
- Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change - No
Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures or areas of historic importance to the community.
-N/A
Development will create a demand for additional community services
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc) - Can Impact Be Mitigated
by Project Change - No
Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
- Potential Large
Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change - No.
Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment - Small
to Moderate Impact - Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change
- No
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related
to potential adverse environmental impacts? - Yes
Jeff said when we receive the answers from Barton and Loguidice,
we will send the long SEQRA Form to the various interested and
involved agencies.
Jeff said the 62 day period is prior to our next meeting, we
have requested a written extension from the applicant to extend
the decision. We have received that written approval for an
additional 30 days, which would be July 6th. Based on that,
there are a couple of things we need. We have put out a letter
to United Group requesting some information. I have received
a vehicular and pedestrian plan. There are still some items
outstanding, and he asked Jeff Smetana for a time frame when
we could expect these items. Jeff said we also need to complete
a 239 Referral to the County Planning Board. We will need that
by June 6th if we are going to make the July 6th deadline. If
not, we would have to ask for another extension. The County
needs a month to go over the referral. We have to get together
and discuss it, so maybe June 6th is too late as well. Jeff
says he sees at least 2 more meetings to make sure we have everything
to make a decision.
Jeff Smetana asked if the July 6th date could be changed to
July 20th. Attorney Michael Stanley changed the extension data
on the letter to July 20, 2007. Jeff quoted the letter from
Mike Stanley:
"As you know, this office represents United Development
Corp. in connection with matters pending before the Planning
Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Town of Oswego.
It is our understanding that the Board is required to make a
decision on the application within sixty-two (62) days of the
public hearing, as required by Town Law Section 274-a.
Our client has authorized delivery of this letter as evidence
of the consent of the applicant to extend the time within which
the Board must render its decision by forty-four (44) days,
with the understanding that a decision will be issued on or
before July 20, 2007.
As you know, the Planning Board has, appropriately, requested
a number of reports and or studies, and those items are being
aggressively developed and will be submitted to the Board for
its consideration as soon as they are available.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions on the foregoing.
Very truly yours, Michael J. Stanley"
That letter was dated May 18, 2007. Jeff asked if there were
any more questions. Jim Finn said we have a traffic information
document. He asked if that we are considering, the traffic study.
This is from United Group. Jeff said that is not the traffic
study. He understands that an independent firm is looking into
the traffic study. Fran asked if this is vehicular, pedestrian
and bicycles?
Fran stated this is a big problem. We need some real answers.
Back in the 60ís when the zoning was put into effect,
he held a public hearing. The biggest complaint at the public
hearing was the residential area rules are not strict enough.
We as a Board have to think about this, as it is a residential
area. He said he needs a wealth of information before he can
vote for it. He thinks the person who is doing the traffic study
should come here and talk to us, and see if he or she can come
up with an answer to these problems. If we don't do this, there
are going to be negative votes.
Jeff Smetana said the consultant we will use will give us a
study. We have been through a number of hearings with both the
Planning Board and Zoning Board, and have heard the issues on
traffic.
Fran said the person should come in and interact with the Planning
Board. This would be helping United Group. We will have to meet
with them this week of next week. Jeff Smetana again said he
would get a professional consultant to do a study, and see if
it answers your questions. Fran said is asking for United Groups
help, so we can help them. He said he would even take the consultant
for a ride in the area.
Jeff Smetana pointed to the maps and drawings, and said he appreciated
Fran's input, but given where the site is and the proximity
to the college, and the potential of vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle
and bus routes, and then this area here of the Ontario Heights
neighborhood, there have been specific comments on how traffic
will come through their neighborhood - we had talked about the
likely destinations, the means of getting there might be. He
said a professional would be in a very good position to look
at the road network, the intersections, the level of transportation.
If we had several meetings, there would be similar comments
on the similar issues. Fran again insisted that we need a consultant
to come here personally and go over the issues.
Lee Phillips said he has to agree with Fran. When a traffic
expert is coming in, and you, you are only talking about going
from your place to the college. You are talking about
522 cars. They aren't going to stay in the parking lot. You
also have the highest rate of accidents, according to insurance
companies with these kids. Anytime anyone travels that way there
is the possibility of getting into an accident. He told Jeff
Smetana that he hadn't mentioned that. That is why we want to
talk to someone who is going to make the survey. We don't want
to know just from your place to the college.
Fran said this is not going to be a simple process. There will
have to be some research which will take some time. Jeff Smetana
said he would find out the availability of a traffic consultant.
Jeff Boyer said we need to do this before June 12th.
Fran asked if we are going to write a letter to the State Highway
Department to have the engineers come and talk with us to see
about the problem on 104, and how we are going to address that
part? Or is this traffic person going to do it? Steve said when
we make the referral to the County Planning Board, we will also
put DOT on notice, and they will look into it.
Fran made a motion that we write a letter. Jim Finn seconded
the motion. All ayes. Motion carried.
Jeff Boyer said we are now open to the public.
Jack Tyrie:
First, he thanked the Board for taking the serious approach
to the problems. If you look at the instructions for the Environment
Assessment Form, in the places where you weren't sure, it clearly
says in the instructions maybe the answers should be considered
as Yes answers. When you go to the energy question, if you look
at the instructions, that the examples are provided to assist
reviewer by showing the types of impacts and wherever possible
the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in
column 2. And if you look at the impact on energy "Proposed
Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission
or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
residences", the answer to that is Yes. The fact that it
is an impact, doesn't mean that it is a negative impact. Then
No. 19, the population, I understand why you said it would not
be a permanent population, but according to the Zoning Board,
this is not a dormitory, it is apartments, so those people count
as permanent residents of the town, even if they are there for
one year. Finally, when it comes to the change in transportation,
you said the developer can mitigate the problem. The developer
can't mitigate the problem. Problems will have to be dealt with
by the State and County. The only way the developer could mitigate
the problem would be reducing the number of people at the site.
Patty Tyrie:
She said she is glad she has a copy of the petition, as I assumed
everyone was aware that there is a petition, because I had submitted
it to the Town Supervisor way back in April. It was submitted
with this letter. There have been many phone calls, many letters
opposing this project. I think a lot of the people who are not
here tonight feel that this is a done deal. I will read again,
I will read the statement read to the Town of Oswego Zoning
Board, and I did give a copy to the Town Supervisor:
We the residents of Oswego Town are writing to request a denial
of the apartment complex proposed by United Development Group
(UGC).The decision to build a complex that will house anywhere
from 700-900 students will forever change the nature and character
of the neighborhood. We site the following reasons for this
request:
1. Population Density: The addition of 400-900 prospective tenants
will more than quadruple the amount of residents in the quiet
rural residential community. A development intended to house
400+ students is not in compliance with the nature of the residential
and rural one & two family dwellings surrounding it.
2 Increase in Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic: This area is
of particular concern to those residents on Baylis, Franklin,
Draper, Swifts Sts. And Johnson Rd. For years the residents
of the homes neighboring the college have endured students walking
past their homes and occasionally destroying mailboxes, sports
equipment, cars, flowers and numerous other personal property.
This vandalism will increase more than 100% with a structure
intended to house this many students.
3. Safety: The supervision of 400+ young adults cannot be adequately
administered with one or two security guards. Nor can the drinking
be controlled.
4. Noise: The noise level increase incurred by this many new
residents is not consistent with the quiet residential/rural
neighborhood.
5. Property Value Depreciation: The worth of the homes in this
neighborhood will be devalued.
6. Water and Sewage Intake and Removal: Ontario Heights residents
are particularly concerned about the burden this may impose
upon the small community.
7. Environmental Concerns: This includes pollution (noise, air
and garbage), trash removal and water drainage. Also of concern
is the impact that disturbing a potential 21 acre of land will
have on the wildlife in habitation.
The developers stated they do not want to intrude into a neighborhoods
lifestyle. We the residents of Oswego Town feel this proposed
project will dramatically change the nature and character of
the surrounding neighborhood. We ask that you reject the proposal
by United Group of Companies, Inc. (United Development Corporation)
and Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architect & Engineering
Respectfully Submitted,
The Residents and Taxpayers of the Town of Oswego"
Speaking of the traffic problems, I may have to change my pattern
of how I drive to and from places. She said when she went around
with the petition, every one had a story to tell her. She is
concerned about Friday nights with the partying. We had a young
lady here last week, who was in an accident, and it took 2 hours
for the Sheriff's Department to come to the scene. There was
a man who spoke about a party on Johnson Road, at a house where
18 students were housed. The cars were parked more than a half
mile on either side of the road. As to wildlife, Ann Kirk spoke
that when they built the United Methodist Church, and they took
the woods out, that she couldn't even sit on her porch because
a fox was out on it. The majority of the people who signed this
petition are from Johnson Road, Ontario Heights and Thompson
Road.
Amy DíAngelo:
As to the Archaeological Resources, I agree with the first two
examples probably don't apply. If the site is an archaeological
area, it may require an archaeological study before it can be
approved. It is on the web site 24 hours a day. The other thing
she wanted to mention was the economic impact for the town.
A lot of people don't realize in construction, for every dollar
of tax money paid, $1.30 in service is used, and is a net decrease
in the amount of money you get from residential development.
That's because of the increase in cost of maintaining highways,
the increase in services that need to be provided for fire,
and other services - maintenance of water mains, and sewer mains.
So there will be an economic cost to the town.
Greg Herrmann:
In reference to the improvements to 104 - there is a big project
in the works to widen 104. It was supposed to be scheduled for
this year - it is now scheduled for 2010. It will start at the
city line - County Route 7, and 104 and going out to Ontario
Orchards - 104 and 104A. They are going to work on the Scriba
end of it this summer. It has been a year and a half to get
them to do the patching of 104.
Robert Dexter:
He pointed to the drawings, and said as far as traffic in this
area, it has probably been an ongoing problem for the past 40
years, whether we do this project or not.
Jack Tyrie:
When the college opened up the entrance to Snigg Hall, to Washington
Blvd., that is when the problems on Baylis Street began. The
problems didn't exist until the college opened up that parking
lot.
Janet Dexter:
When they put the 4 lanes down to 2 lanes, That's where that
problem started.
Don Fitch:
He said he measured from their property down some 200 feet.
The four lanes of highway going to Baylis is 82 feet. There
will be 400 students walking, driving or riding a bicycle, and
going across 82 feet across the highway. There are trucks going
through there 24-7. There are no sidewalks on the East side.
Some of the students will be drunk. And in the winter when there
is 10 feet of snow, it doesn't work. Someone will get killed
crossing that road.
Tom Dunsmoor:
He said he is a life long resident of the Town of Oswego, and
he has a prepared statement:
"It is the intent of the legislature that all agencies
conduct their affairs with an awareness that they are stewards
of the air, water, land and living resources, and that they
have an obligation to protect the environment for the use and
enjoyment of this and all future generations."
With these noble words and this solemn command the State Legislature
described the responsibility that this Board must exercise toward
the environment that we all must live in.
The State Environmental Quality Review regulations that you
must deal with provide a framework within which you must exercise
that solemn responsibility. That framework is designed to compel
appropriate consideration of the many factors that must be analyzed
prior to consenting to allow a project to proceed.
The environmental issues that a particular project creates must
be analyzed in light of the setting in which they will occur.
The project before you tonight would be analyzed quite differently
if it were being proposed in the middle of Manhattan. In the
middle of Manhattan a project of this magnitude would be barely
noticed. In the Town of Oswego however, it is quite another
thing. To our Town, this project is huge.
The SEQR regulations describe a Type 1 Action as a project which
carries a presumption that is likely to have a significant adverse
environmental impact. 6NYCRR, part 617.4(b)(10) says that building
more than 62 residential units substantially contiguous to any
publicly owned recreation area is a Type 1 Action. This project
proposes 177 unites directly across Route 7 from the athletic
fields. This project is almost three times greater than the
Type I threshold.
As lead agency you are faced with a preliminary determination.
Do you issue a Negative Declaration and tell he world that this
project will not have an adverse environmental impact even though
it is a Type I Action, or do you issue a Positive Declaration
and tell he world that before you allow this project to proceed
you ant to thoroughly analyze its potential efforts on the environment.
The regulations demand a Positive Declaration. The facts demand
a Positive Declaration. But most importantly, your obligation
"As stewards of the air, water, land and living resources"
demands that you issue a Positive Declaration.
As a community we ask that you do the right thing. Require the
preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement so that
this and future generations will look back on your decision
tonight and be able to say that the Oswego Planning Board did
what was bet for everyone.
Thank you".
Flip Purvis:
There are a lot of people here that are concerned about the
traffic, but there are other issues here as well. He has businesses
in Oswego, and also has rental units in Oswego Town. You had
brought up the impact of employment, as to how it would affect
people. If this project is built, there will probably be about
400 rental houses that are taken off the market. He is concerned
how it will affect businesses in Oswego. The money that this
project will generate, isn't going to stay here. The money that
these rental houses generate will stay right here. How will
this change Oswego and Oswego Town. At the first meeting, he
asked the gentleman over there if he is applying for a PILOT,
and he said no, and actually he has. It hasn't been determined
yet.
Patty Tyrie:
She asked who is doing the traffic study, and Jeff said United
Group. She was thinking, is this person a friend of United Group.
We just want legitimacy. Jeff said if they are a qualified licensed
firm, we have to accept their credentials. But we still have
to listen to it and understand what they have to say.
Bill Dunsmoor:
He thanks the Board for being considerate and has an open mind.
He also said he does not see a demand for the project.
Adjournment:
At approximately 9:45 PM, Lee Phillips made a motion to adjourn
the meeting. Judy Watson seconded the motion. All ayes. Motion
carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Marjorie Best,
Secretary to Planning Board |
|
|
|
|
