Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Should we film Jim? Do you feel lonely down there? Got space for the men. It's been a little while since I did this. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. And then I should be able to just share my screen. Okay, good. Yeah. Okay, let's uh call the meeting to order for Monday, April 28th, 2025 uh planning board meeting. Uh we can all rise for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Alicia, can you handle a roll call? Um, yes. Jim Abdullah, yes. Perry, yes. Tom Cosgro, yes. Carly Liry, yes. Emily Reinhardt, yes. Thank you. And uh we do have one application tonight. Land board application 25-01. It's for a proposed subdivision. Uh Trade Road Properties LLC is the applicant. Okay, great. And I have a presentation I put together. Um in premeating we went over the board's packet and answered some minor questions about proposal. Um and so here um agenda item number 125-01 for a subdivision of Trade Road Properties LLC 2025. The request is to subdivide a 2.59 acre unimproved parcel to tax map number 221.20. 20-04 into two parcels, creating a new 0.16 acre parcel plus or minus to be merged with tax map parcel 221.20, sorry, got a typo in there. Um, that's 221 221.20-1-12.1 20-1-12.1 and retaining 2.33 acres plus or minus along Route 9. Um the respective physical addresses are 4761 Route 9 and 4775 USF. The locations

again are those two tax map partial numbers. Both properties are zone B2. There's two different owner sets. The own the parcel to the south, which is 221.20-1-14, is owned by Peter Whipach, John Murphy, and Trade Roads Properties LLC. And parcel 221.20-1-12.1 is owned by Randy M. and Jennifer Dame. The plan preparer is here. And um the plan preparer and representative is here with us this evening and that's Jeffrey Burns of RMS engineering and surveying. Here is an overview of the two parcels in the um counting tax map. This sorry my full screen so we can't we go okay so here's an overview again of the county tax pl tax map parcels um with the aerial photos um the boundary line showing up are not true to real life. So, just keep that in mind. Um, and then here are the two parcels again, subject properties showing the zoning and then property photos of the two parcels. The parcel, the northern parcel is on the right hand side and the southern parcel on the left hand side.

And as a reminder, the s the southern parcel is also the had received a site plan approval last planning board meeting for a Dollar General store. And here digital photos looking up US A to the right and and down Route 9 as it goes into the town on the left. And then I've got a copy of the proposed subdivision plan on screen which is a little hard to make out on screen. I can zoom into different areas as um the board may need but you have full full 24x 36 copies of this in front of you and 11 by7 copies as well. Um and essentially um what this plan shows is that um is a minor um a subdivision of less than four lots which by def definition could be qualified as a minor subdivision. And essentially the basics is um an adjustment of the shared lot line to um correct a nonconforming a nonconformity which is um the mobile home um from the northerly parcel um infringing on the southern southern parcel.

And then here is a zoomed in photo or zoomed in screenshot of the proposed subdivision to show the proposed new um 0.16 acre parcel that will be merged with the northern parcel. proposed lot two and create a new shared lot line between lot two and proposed lot one which would be the retained 2.33 acres for the dollar general store and then um there are existing pre-existing ing non-conforming attributes to proposed lot two that won't be further exacerbated by this proposal if the board decides to approve it. And overall um the minimum um lot area or excuse me, that the conformance will be improved um as the minimum um open space will be increased for proposed lot too. Um and the the mobile home the existing home will be fully within its individual parcel and meeting it the required set southerntherly setback.

So, and then um just for further clarification, um here's a copy of the approved site plan with conditions showing that same proposed boundary line to the north and showing that the proposed uh site plan will meet the proposed northerly um setbacks. It looks like the I guess the west property line of the new is in a slightly different spot in there. It looks like it runs almost parallel to that existing ash vault. And in this map that we're looking at, it's about five feet over or doesn't run as close. Oh, I don't know if that has any It looks like it's maybe been updated from that one and then to this actual one. I don't know. I supplied uh the uh Associates map. I'm not sure how they associated that plan. Right. Yeah. If we zoom in on that one, is there a dimension or anything that's important at based on where that corner is closest to the new building. Um, hold on. No, it looks like that's an elevation mark or something. You're saying that the other but I understand your question. Scale it off with another ad there. Can you scroll it

down some? So we can see the northeast corner of the proposed building. Yeah, the north is Yeah, I don't think that's a dimension. So that's 20. Yeah, it's greater than 20. Yeah. 12 minutes. Yeah. Okay. So, um, I received no response and no concerns from any of the third internal departments. Um, and no issues of concern or response from the 9 county 911 office or Platsburg. And um for the planning staff review um as an excerpt from the staff report the proposal appears to improve the existing conditions imposed by the mobile home in northern parallel and that's typo for the parcel number I apologize 221.20-1-12.1 20-1-12.1 is the correct parcel number currently constructed across the car battery onto the southern pass 221.20-1-14 20-1-14 into greater form by providing portion of the southern parcel to the northern parcel essentially adjusting the shared property boundary. So all improvements are located on the northern parcel may be fully contained within the property boundary and yeah both sides are within that both sides have that requirements. Um staff's recommendation

is to classify the subdivision as the minor subdivision and a type two action a type two seeker action and um staff did not have any further um recommendations. Can I look at that site plan again real quick? pretty blurry. [Music] I've been converting to JPEGs and all of my conversions have been coming out a little extra grainy lately. I'm not sure why my screenshots have been better. Okay. Okay. I can bring um the the land use table up if you would like for the site plan if that would help. I mean dimensionally it looks like it's close to what Jeff provided. Uh any other comments from staff? Okay. If not, Jeff Burns, you have the floor. That's it. At least you did a great job explaining it. This is uh not only uh

uh benefiting deficiencies relative to nomine but it's also limiting a civil issue uh with the encroachment. So um this is a win-win for both property owners and for the city as far as how they assess each of those properties. The questions from the board. [Music] Okay. In the premeating, we didn't, you know, recognize that you have a complete application, all the affidavits, application material. You presented a final flat plan or sketch plat combination. Um, we have advertised for a public hearing. So does appear that all criteria would satisfy the board being able to make a decision on a one meeting review. Board have any comments, questions about that? Are we in agreement? Move this application forward? I'm in agreement. Yeah. Okay. Then um might switch up the I the uh end a little bit. We have the we have the public hearing in the middle. Yes. And but our resolution states that public hearing has been held on 25-01A. You go down to the second to last whereas this is whereas a public hearing for said subdivision was held on April 28th. So either we change the language on that or just hold our public hearing first. You could hold your public hearing first. I I apologize. I accept the order of that. That's okay. So then I'll move to open the public hearing.

I didn't hear a door. Okay. Anybody on online? Just me. Yep. We're good. platform. Okay. Not hearing any uh public comment. I'll move to close the public hearing. And we do have again a proposed resolution 25-01A in regards to the application completeness and the uh seeker designation and classification and classification as a as a type two action seeker classification and the subdivision as a minor subdivision. Okay, I have a motion to move forward resolution 25-01A. Make your first motion chot. Okay, you have a second. Second roll call. Jim McDella. Yes. Uh Abby Miser, yes. Tom Cosgro, yes. Harley Liry, yes. Emily Wright, yes. Thank you. And then we do have a proposed resolution 25-01B that was the minor subdivision. I didn't hear any additions or comments from the board. So, it's should be Does anyone as resolved.

I'll make a motion. [Music] I'll second. I'll second it. Okay, you did both. Okay, this one second. Okay. Jim Abdulla. Yes. Abby News. Yes. Tom Cosgrove. Yes. Carly Liry. Yes. Emily Reinhardt. Yes. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. pulling down tonight, huh? Yeah. I It's a good night to do it. Yeah. Right. Feel feel a little busty tonight for some reason. I don't know why. You're doing great. I was gonna say this is this is great. So, Alicia, thank you. Thank you. Absolutely. It's the preparation that lets you just Yeah, it's true. Yeah. Done. Good. Well, I'm glad that you all like it. So I guess I just need a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. No second. Second all. Thank you. Wow. Sometimes forunately I don't have something on this. pretty straightforward. I mean, talk to them meetings about it, you know.