ERIC VANALSTYNE, CHAIRMAN
RICHARD GOEBEL, VICE CHAIRMAN
TONY AMBROSINO, ALTERNATE
TODD UNISLAWSKI, CODEENFORCEMENT OFFICER
SEAN M. GERAGHTY, SR. PLANNER
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Themeeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
II. APPROVE MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING:
DISCUSSION: Planning Board Member Dick Goebel asked if the decommissioningcost estimates
discussed on page 6 of the November 13, 2018 meeting were everfinalized?
Mr. Geraghty indicated that both heand Town Code Enforcement Officer Todd Unislawski have received
those finalcost estimates. He indicated that theapplicants are now working with Town Attorney
Leah Everhart to provide therequired financial surety for that decommissioning estimate.
MOTION: Toapprove the minutes to the November 13, 2018
MADE BY: Tony Ambrosino
SECONDED: Eric VanAlstyne
VOTE: 4in favor, 0 opposed
III. JEFFREYAND LAURA LEHNER – SITE PLAN FOR AUTO PARTS STORE ALONG VAN ROAD:
Jeffreyand Laura Lehner would like to purchase a piece of property at 104 Van Road
inthe Town of Johnstown (Tax Map Parcel No. 149.-1-44). The property is currently owned
by Van RoadCorporation and is approximately 2+/- acres in size with an existing 12,000 sq.ft. building.
The Lehners would like torelocate their two (2) NAPA Auto Parts store locations to this newlocation.
Approximately 2,500 sq. ft. ofthe building will be used for retail space, while the remaining 9,500 sq. ft.
is used for stock and inventory.
Fulton County Planning Department Review:
TheFulton County Planning Department reviewed the Site Plan drawings for Laura andJeffrey Lehner’s
proposal in accordance with Article 11 of the Town ofJohnstown Zoning Regulations
and would like to offer the following comments:
1. Will the driveways and parkingareas shown on the Site Plan drawings be paved?
DISCUSSION: Planning Board Member Dick Lynaugh askedif the parking area in front
of the building was paved?
Mr.Ackerbauer indicated that the area in front of the building is paved.
Mr.Geraghty asked Board members if they were comfortable with the driveways
andparking areas being left with a gravel base?
Afterseveral minutes of discussion, the Planning Board agreed that the parkingspaces f
or retail customers will need to be paved.
2. The width of the access points,as well as the internal driveways, should be identified
on the Site Plandrawings.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Lynaugh asked if tractor trailerscould get to the loading dock
on the back side of the building?
CharlieAckerbauer, P.E., representing the applicants, indicated that the back side ofthe property
has a significant amount of space which affords plenty of room fortractor trailers to back
into the loading dock on the rear of thebuilding.
Mr.Geraghty asked Board members if they would like to see some type ofspecification and dimensions
for the access driveways in order to make surethat there is sufficient space and a strong enough base
on the driveways tosupport tractor trailer and vehicular traffic?
Therewas a general consensus amongst Planning Board members that the generaldriveway
and parking area specifications should be noted on the drawings.
PlanningBoard Chairman Eric VanAlstyne asked how many fleet vehicles will be parking onthe site?
BothJeff and Laura Lehner indicated that they will have somewhere between 12 and 15delivery vans.
Therewas then several minutes of discussion concerning the parking area on the rearof the building.
Eventually, thePlanning Board felt that the dimensions of the parking area should be clearlyshown
so that the Board can ascertain how many vehicles will be able to parkbehind the building.
3. Will any improvements be madeto the loading dock area?
DISCUSSION:The Lehners indicated that there will beno improvements necessary for the loading dock area.
4. Will a pedestrian accessway beprovided between the parking spaces on the front of the building
and thebuilding itself?
DISCUSSION: Mr. Ackerbauer indicated that there is asmall planter in front of the building.
He indicated that there will be no other pedestrian improvements made infront of the building.
5. The location and proposedscreening of any outdoor storage areas must be identified.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Lehner indicated that he would haveto identify a dumpster location.
Mr.Geraghty indicated that the dumpster will need to be screened with either a fenceor landscaping.
6. The general area where theexisting onsite septic system is located has been identified.
This is a very small area with no room forexpansion.
Are there any plans to tieinto municipal sewer infrastructure?
DISCUSSION: The Lehners indicated that they wouldlike to tie into municipal infrastructure.
Mr.Geraghty stated that there is a district that has been created along HalesMills Road
that includes the Van Road property. He indicated that the potential location
of a sewer line tap for thebuilding must be noted.
(NOTE: Following the meeting, it was verified thatthe Water District has been created
around the applicant’s property, somunicipal water service will be available to the building.
However, the Sewer District has yet to becreated. The County is still negotiating
with New York State to have the sewer lines serving the Drug Treatment Center
turned over to the County so that a district can be created. Based on this additional information,
theapplicants’ engineer will need to verify that the existing septic system can beused
in the short term to service the business.)
7. The location of the gas lineservicing the building must be identified.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Ackerbauer indicated that he wouldcheck with National Grid
to find out where the gas line is located.
8. The location of an existingsign has been shown. Does the applicantintend to install
new signage on the property? If so, the location, size and design of that signage must be identified.
DISCUSSION: The Lehners indicated that they wouldlike both a freestanding
and a wall-mounted sign.
Mr.Geraghty indicated that the location, dimensions and design of those signs mustbe shown
on the final drawing.
9. Will any additional landscapingbe proposed as part of the project?
DISCUSSION: The Lehners indicated that they wouldneed to discuss where additional landscaping
will be proposed.
10. Willonly one (1) additional wall-mounted area light be installed as part of theproject?
DISCUSSION: The Lehners indicated that severaladditional exterior lights will be provided.
Mr.Geraghty stated that the location and design of those lights will need to beshown
on the final drawings.
11. Accordingto the Town’s Parking Regulations, the applicant must provide ten (10)
off-street parking spaces for the 2,500 sq. ft. of retail space that isintended for the building.
There is nostandard identified for the remaining 9,500 sq. ft. of space that will be used
for stock and inventory. On the otherhand, the location, arrangement, appearance
and sufficiency of off-streetparking and loading areas is the Planning Board’s responsibility and,
consequently, the Planning Board must determine how many additional off-streetparking spaces
will be necessary to support the applicants’ proposal.
DISCUSSION: Mr. VanAlstyne pointed out that thespaces shown along the front of the building
extend into the publicright-of-way on Van Road.
Mr.Geraghty pointed out that any spaces extending into a public right-of-waycannot be used
in the calculation of the required spaces under the Town’sZoning Code.
Therewere several minutes of discussion concerning the number of spaces
that need tobe provided for the business.
TheLehners indicated that they would likely move spaces for retail customers
tothe north side of the building.
Mr.Geraghty suggested that, given the size of the property, the applicants beallowed
to rethink the arrangement of parking spaces for the business.
Mr.VanAlstyne asked that the distance between the hydrant and the light pole
nearthe access driveway on Van Road be identified.
12. TheSite Plan drawing shows nine (9) parking spaces on a separate parcel owned
byVan Road Corporation (Tax Map Parcel No. 149.-1-40). A written agreement
clearly outlining the applicants’right to use that property for off-street parking spaces
must be provided tothe Planning Board.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Geraghty pointed out that the nine(9) parking spaces on the separate parcel
that is owned by Van Road Corporationcannot be used to satisfy the required number
of parking spaces outlined in theZoning Ordinance unless the applicant is given permanent access to thosespaces.
Theapplicants indicated that they believed Van Road Corporation would like toeventually sell
the property on the opposite side of Van Road and, therefore,they would find spaces on the project site
that would satisfy the Town’s ZoningRegulations.
13. Anestimated Project Construction Schedule must be included with the revisedsubmittal.
DISCUSSION: The applicants indicated that they wouldprovide a tentative Project Construction
Schedule with their next submittal.
State Environmental Quality Review:
A. State Environmental QualityReview:
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. To accomplishthis goal, SEQR requires that all agencies
determine whether the actions theydirectly undertake, fund or approve may have
a significant effect on theenvironment, and if it is determined that the actions may have
a significanteffect, prepare or request an environmental impact statement.
Under these terms, the review of a Site Planapplication 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 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: Mr. Geraghty noted that a Phase 2Environmental Site Assessment for the building
was provided with the ShortEnvironmental Assessment Form. Hepointed out
to the applicant’s engineer, Charlie Ackerbauer, that in AppendixA, Figure 2, it is suppose to show
the test boring locations but does not. Mr. Geraghty asked if there was anyadditional information
the Planning Board wished to have with the SEQRdocumentation?
There was ageneral consensus that no additional information would be needed on theproperty.
3. Section 617.6(b) of 6 NYCRR states that, when a single agency is involved,
the agency willbe the lead agency when it proposes to undertake, fund or approve
a Type 1 orUnlisted 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: To authorize the filing of anegative declaration under SEQR
for this proposed action since:
1. The applicantsare simply reusing a building for a use
that is compatible with theneighborhood.
2. Publicutilities are readily available to service the building.
3. There ismunicipal water infrastructure available to the building
and an existingon-site septic system that services the building.
In the future, municipal sewer service mayalso be available to the building.
4. Therewill be limited traffic implications resulting from this proposed action.
MADEBY: Dick Lynaugh
SECONDED: Eric VanAlstyne
VOTE: 4 in favor, 0 opposed
Planning Board Action:
Inaccordance with Article 11 of the Town of Johnstown Zoning Regulations,
thePlanning Board has the discretion to hold a public hearing on a Site Planapplication.
If the Planning Boarddetermines that a public hearing is necessary, it shall be held
withinsixty-two (62) days of the Planning Board’s receipt of a completeapplication.
MOTION: Toschedule a public hearing on Laura and Jeffrey Lehner’s Site Plan
for an autoparts store at 104 Van Road for 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 12, 2019.
MADEBY: Tony Ambrosino
SECONDED: Dick Goebel
VOTE: 4 in favor, 0 opposed
A. County Planning DepartmentUpdate:
1. Planning Department Staffing:
Mr.Geraghty explained that he expected to be introducing his replacement
to Boardmembers this evening. However, hepointed out that the woman
who was going to succeed him as Senior Planner inthe County Planning Department
has decided not to accept the position. Mr. Geraghty indicated that, for the nearfuture,
he will continue to provide the staff support for the Town PlanningBoard.
Mr.Geraghty indicated that final arrangements are completed for this year’s
planning and zoning training sessions at FMCC. He indicated that this year’s session
will be held on Wednesday,February 27th, from 5 to 8 p.m., in the Theater at FMCC.
He indicated that the topics for this year’straining will be “Downtown Revitalization”
and “Aging in Place.”
3. Louis Fagant – Subdivision inthe City of Gloversville along NYS Route 29):
Mr.Geraghty explained that Louis Fagant owns a piece of property in the City ofGloversville
along NYS Route 29 and the adjacent parcel on the corner ofHarrison Street and NYS Route 29
in the Town of Johnstown. Mr. Geraghty stated that Mr. Fagant hassomeone interested
in purchasing his property and dealership and is in theprocess of subdividing his property
in the City of Gloversville so that he cancombine it with the acreage he has on his parcel
in the Town of Johnstown. Mr. Geraghty explained that, at some futuredate,
Mr. Fagant will likely have a Site Plan application that needs to bereviewed by both
the City of Gloversville Planning Board and the Town ofJohnstown Planning Board since the project
will span both communities. Mr. Geraghty stated that the initial plan forthat future project
calls for a small building to be constructed within theCity of Gloversville’s borders,
while the parking area is located in the Townof Johnstown.
4. Town Supervisor Jack Wilson:
SupervisorWilson asked Planning Board Member Dick Goebel if he would like
to bereappointed on the Planning Board?
Mr.Goebel indicated that he would accept the new appointment to the PlanningBoard.
Mr.Wilson handed out a Sexual Harassment Policy to Planning Board members
andasked them to review and sign the document and get it back to him.
He indicated that all Town employees andmembers of Town Boards are required
to read and understand this SexualHarassment Policy.
V. CLOSE OF THEMEETING:
MOTION: Toclose the meeting at 6:49 p.m.
MADEBY: Eric VanAlstyne
SECONDED: Dick Goebel
VOTE: 4 in favor, 0 opposed