TOWNOF JOHNSTOWN PLANNING BOARD

DECEMBER12, 2017
6:00P.M.

TOWNHALL

MEETINGNOTES

PRESENT:

RICHARD GOEBEL, CHAIRMAN

ERIC VANALSTYNE, VICE CHAIRMAN

RICHARD LYNAUGH,

ERNEST NIFOROS

GARTH BRUCE

TONY AMBROSINO, ALTERNATE

SEAN M. GERAGHTY, SR. PLANNER

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER:

Themeeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m.

II. APPROVE MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING:

MOTION: Toapprove the minutes to the November 14, 2017 meeting.

MADE BY: Garth Bruce

SECONDED: Eric VanAlstyne

VOTE: 6in favor, 0 opposed

III. AMBERNELLIS – PUBLIC HEARING ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR HOME OCCUPATION (DOGGROOMING BUSINESS) AT 115 SOUTH PINE STREET:

Background:

AmberNellis is proposing to use an existing structure at 115 South Pine Street for aHome Occupation (Tax Map Parcel No. 149.8-24-25). Ms. Nellis’ Home Occupation is a dog groomingbusiness that will be conducted entirely within her garage. Some minor remodeling of the interior of thegarage is required before the business can be opened.

November 14, 2017 Meeting:

Duringits November 14, 2017 meeting, the Planning Board continued its review of AmberNellis’ Special Permit application for a dog grooming business along South PineStreet. At that time, the Planning Boardasked that the following information be provided prior to the public hearing:

1. The sign advertising the HomeOccupation should be affixed to something other than the mailbox. It was suggested that a separate sign post beused to display the business sign.

STATUS:?

DISCUSSION: Mr. Geraghty explained that he spoke withTown Code Enforcement Officer Ryan Fagan concerning the signage for Ms. Nellis’business. Mr. Geraghty explained thatMr. Fagan felt that he could have Ms. Nellis move the sign before he issues apermit to her.

2. The maximum number of dogs tobe seen during any given day should be identified.

STATUS: ?

DISCUSSION: Mr. Geraghty indicated that he also spokewith Mr. Fagan concerning the maximum number of dogs that will be seen in thebusiness on any given day. Again, heexplained that Mr. Fagan told him he would make sure that Ms. Nellis commits toa maximum number of dogs before a permit is issued.

Therewere no further questions regarding Ms. Nellis’ application.

3. A Short EnvironmentalAssessment Form must be completed.

STATUS: ?

DISCUSSION: Mr. Geraghty handed Board members a completedShort Environmental Assessment Form for the project. Board members took a few minutes to examinethe form.

Public Hearing:

1. The public hearing was openedat 6:05 P.M.

2. Speakers:

PlanningBoard Alternate Tony Ambrosino asked if dogs would be left outside at any time?

Mr.Geraghty pointed out that Ms. Nellis is on the Planning Board record indicatingthat her entire business will be conducted inside of the garage. He indicated that he has been given theimpression that there will be no dogs left outside while waiting for theirowners to pick them up.

3. The public hearing was closedat 6:07 P.M.

State Environmental Quality Review:

Section 617.1 of6 NYCRR states that, the basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate theconsideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review anddecision making processes of State, regional and local government agencies atthe earliest possible time. Toaccomplish this goal, SEQR requires that all agencies determine whether theactions they directly undertake, fund or approve may have a significant effecton the environment, and if it is determined that the actions may have asignificant effect, prepare or request an environmental impact statement. Under these terms, the review of a SpecialPermit application is subject to SEQR. Therefore, the following issues must be addressed:

1. Does thePlanning Board feel that the Short Environmental Assessment Form, provided bythe applicant, has been completed adequately?

DISCUSSION: The Planning Board felt that the ShortEnvironmental Assessment Form had been completed adequately.

2. Does thePlanning Board feel that any additional information should be provided as partof the SEQR process?

DISCUSSION: The Planning Board did not ask for anyadditional information.

3. Section617.6 (b) of 6 NYCRR states that, when a single agency is involved, the agencywill be the lead agency when it proposes to undertake, fund or approve a Type 1or Unlisted Action that does not involve another agency. If the agency has received an application forfunding or approval of the action, it must determine the significance of theaction, within twenty (20) calendar days of its receipt of the application, anEnvironmental Assessment Form or any additional information reasonablynecessary to make that determination, whichever is later. Therefore, does thePlanning Board wish to issue a Determination of Significance under SEQR at thistime?

MOTION: Authorizing the filing of a negativedeclaration under SEQR for this proposed action since:

1. Thebusiness will be conducted entirely within an existing structure on theapplicant’s property.

2. No publicutilities need to be extended to the site.

3. Therewill be no traffic impacts resulting from the proposed project.

MADEBY: Richard Lynaugh

SECONDED: Tony Ambrosino

VOTE: 6 in favor, 0 opposed

Planning Board Action:

Inaccordance with Section 84-54(D)(9)(a) of the Town of Johnstown ZoningRegulations, the Planning Board shall grant, deny or grant subject toconditions the application for Special Use Permit within sixty-two (62) days afterthe hearing.

MOTION: Toapprove Amber Nellis’ Special Permit application for a dog grooming business at115 South Pine Street.

MADEBY: Ernest Niforos

SECONDED: Richard Goebel

VOTE: 6 in favor, 0 opposed

IV.THE ESTATEOF RICHARD AND SONDRA FRASIER – SUBDIVISION ALONG NYS ROUTE 67:

Background:

TheEstate of Richard and Sondra Frasier owns a piece of property along the eastside of NYS Route 67 in the Town of Johnstown. The existing property is approximately 56+/- acres in size. The applicants would like to subdivide theproperty into three (3) parcels. Lot #1will be approximately 20.03 acres in size and will include the existing house,garage and barn. Lot #2 will beapproximately 33.891 acres in size and may become a future building site. Lot #3 will be 2.909 acres in size and willbe leased to a cell tower developer.

Planning Department Review:

Section63-7 of the Town of Johnstown Subdivision Regulations identifies theinformation an applicant is required to submit to the Planning Board for aproposed subdivision. Upon review of theproposed preliminary plat by the Fulton County Planning Department, thefollowing issues have been raised:

1. Anactual field survey of the boundary lines of the tract giving completedescriptive data by bearings and distances showing the location of that portionwhich is to be subdivided in relation to the entire tract and the distance tothe nearest existing street intersection.

STATUS: Provided.

2. Theproposed subdivision name and the name of the Town and County in which it islocated must be identified along with the date, north arrow, map scale, nameand address of record owner and subdivider.

STATUS: Provided.

3. Allexisting structures, wooded areas, streams and other significant physicalfeatures within the portion to be subdivided and within 200 feet thereof. If topographic conditions are significant,contours shall also be indicated at intervals of not more than five (5) feet.

STATUS: There are no topographic features shown on thesubdivision plat.

DISCUSSION: Mr.Geraghty noted that there are likely to be future applications that come beforethe Board for projects on the subdivided parcels, at which time, topographicfeatures will need to be shown.

Planning BoardMember Eric VanAlstyne asked if there are any streams running through theproperty?

Chris Fossindicated that there are no streams running directly through the property. However, he pointed out that there are somewetland areas on the site that will need to be addressed before any developmentoccurs on the properties.

4. Thename of the owner(s) and all adjoining property owners as disclosed by the mostrecent municipal tax records.

STATUS: Provided.

5. Thetax map sheet, block and lot number, if available.

STATUS: Provided.

6. Allavailable utilities on all existing streets.

STATUS: Provided.

7. Theproposed pattern of lots including lot width and depth, street layout,recreation areas, systems of drainage, sewer and water supply within thesubdivided area.

STATUS: There are no percolation or pit testsprovided for Lot #’s 2 or 3. Given thenature of this proposal, those test results are probably immaterial.

DISCUSSION: Mr.Foss noted that he included a home, well and septic field location on Lot #2just to show that the property is a buildable lot. He indicated that there may never be a single-familyhome actually constructed on the property.

Mr. Geraghtyreminded Board members that there was some previous interest in a Solar Farmproject at that particular location.

8. Allexisting restrictions on the use of land including easements, covenants, andzoning lines. A copy of such covenantsor deed restrictions that are intended to cover all or part of the tract shallbe included.

STATUS: There are three (3) easements noted on thesubdivision plat:

1) A12’ access easement is shown across proposed Lot #3 giving access to theadjacent St. Patrick’s Church cemetery property.

DISCUSSION: Mr. VanAlstyne pointed out that the 12’ wideaccess easement for the cemetery will now be part of Lot #3.

Mr. Geraghtyagreed and noted that the deed for the property will have to note the accesseasement to the cemetery property.

2) Anaccess and utility easement for the future cell tower site is shown throughproposed Lot #3.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Geraghty questioned whether or not theaccess and utility easements for the future cell tower site were needed sinceLot #3 has direct access on Route 67?

Mr. Fosspointed out that, originally, the cell tower company was only looking to leasea 1-acre parcel that did not have direct access to NYS Route 67. He agreed that the access and utility easementsare probably not necessary any longer.

3) Anaccess easement to a spring water source is shown through Lots #1 and #2 to theadjacent lands of Walker and Duesler.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Foss pointed out that the adjacent landsof Walker and Duesler were once part of the lands of Richard and SondraFrasier. He indicated that the Walkerand Duesler property now has its own well so it is not likely that they willneed to use the access easement to the spring water source that is located onLot #2 in the proposed subdivision.

9. AShort Environmental Assessment Form with Part I completed by theapplicant. The Planning Board mayrequire a Full Environmental Assessment Form if circumstances are warranted.

STATUS: Provided.

State Environmental Quality Review:

Section 617.1 of6 NYCRR states that, the basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate theconsideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review anddecision making processes of State, regional and local government agencies atthe earliest possible time. Toaccomplish this goal, SEQR requires that all agencies determine whether theactions they directly undertake, fund or approve may have a significant effecton the environment, and if it is determined that the actions may have asignificant effect, prepare or request an environmental impact statement. Under these terms, the review of aSubdivision application is subject to SEQR. Therefore, the following issues must be addressed:

1. Does thePlanning Board feel that the Short Environmental Assessment Form, provided bythe applicant, has been completed adequately?

DISCUSSION: The Planning Board felt that the ShortEnvironmental Assessment Form had been completed adequately.

2. Does thePlanning Board feel that any additional information should be provided as partof the SEQR process?

DISCUSSION: The Planning Board did not ask for anyadditional information.

3. Section617.6 (b) of 6 NYCRR states that, when a single agency is involved, the agencywill be the lead agency when it proposes to undertake, fund or approve a Type 1or Unlisted Action that does not involve another agency. If the agency has received an application forfunding or approval of the action, it must determine the significance of the action,within twenty (20) calendar days of its receipt of the application, anEnvironmental Assessment Form or any additional information reasonablynecessary to make that determination, whichever is later. Therefore, does thePlanning Board wish to issue a Determination of Significance under SEQR at thistime?

MOTION: To file a negative declaration underSEQR for this proposed action since:

1. There issufficient acreage available to create three (3) separate parcels.

2. Therewill be no traffic implications resulting from the proposed action.

3. Publicutilities are readily available to serve the undeveloped lots being created aspart of this action.

MADEBY: Garth Bruce

SECONDED: Eric VanAlstyne

VOTE: 6 in favor, 0 opposed

Planning Board Action:

Inaccordance with Section 63-10 of the Town of Johnstown Subdivision Regulations,the Planning Board shall schedule and hold a public hearing on the preliminaryplat within sixty-two (62) days after the plat is determined to be complete bythe Planning Board.

MOTION: Toschedule a public hearing on the Estate of Richard and Sondra Frasier’ssubdivision application for a piece of property along NYS Route 67 at 6:00p.m., Tuesday, January 9, 2018.

MADEBY: Richard Lynaugh

SECONDED: Richard Goebel

VOTE: 6 in favor, 0 opposed

V. OTHERBUSINESS:

A. Chairman’s Update:

PlanningBoard Chairman Richard Goebel briefly talked about the potential for developmentoccurring along Hales Mills Road. Heexpressed some skepticism with the potential success of the Hales MillsDevelopment Area.

BothMr. Ambrosino and Mr. Lynaugh also expressed some level of skepticism thatdevelopment would ever occur as proposed in the plan for the Hales MillsDevelopment Area.

Mr.Geraghty pointed out that the County has put forth a significant effort indeveloping a plan for the Hales Mills Development Area and has set asidefunding for ongoing marketing efforts. He indicated that, in the absence of these efforts, the Town wouldlikely have no prospects for future development along Hales Mills Road. He indicated that the County has committed tothis effort and will continue to do so in the near future. He also noted that he believed the FultonCounty Industrial Development Agency is in discussions with property owners onHales Mills Road to purchase options on the larger parcels in the DevelopmentArea.

B. Training:

Mr.Geraghty explained that next year’s training sessions at Fulton-MontgomeryCommunity College (FMCC) will take place from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. onFebruary 7, 2018. He indicated that the topicswill include “Hot Button Land Uses” and “Walkable Communities”. He indicated that, as soon as the contractsfor using FMCC are signed, registration flyers will be sent out to localPlanning and Zoning Board of Appeals members.

VI.CLOSE OF THEMEETING:

MOTION: Toclose the meeting at 6:35 p.m.

MADEBY: Tony Ambrosino

SECONDED: Eric VanAlstyne

VOTE: 6 in favor, 0 opposed