Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I just wanted to the last I checked. I wasn't sure what we going to escape. Welcome. We're going to call the meeting to order. We have Dave Smith, Eric Gonzalez, and Britney Fumalora. We have Who's missing? Mark Espazito is absent today. Um, let's see here. Review and approval of the Let's see here. May 6th meeting minutes. Can I get a motion? Make a motion to approve meeting minutes. Second. All those in favor? I. I. Okay. Motion carries. Are you going to Why don't you take care cuz he's gone. All right. So, who uh motioned? Eric. Eric made the motion. Dave seconding.

Okay. So, we have a tabled site plan review for uh request for Chibani LLC to construct approximately 1.8 million square foot dairy processor plant on Perimeter Road. Um, could I get a motion to remove that from the table? I make a motion to remove from the table. Eric removed it from the table. Can I get a second? Second. Britney second. All those in favor? I Okay. Uh folks from Chabbani, if you could come down, state your name for the record. And my name is Kevin McC. How about now? Okay, I am short, but this is nice. This is perfect. Usually I We knew you were coming. Thank you. Kevin McAuliffe, Barkley Damon in Syracuse here on behalf of Chbani. Uh we've resubmitted to you uh a site plan since the last meeting. What that includes are responses and inclusions, corrections as the case may be from your May 2nd communication, your May 8th, and then finally there was an email with regard to the planting of trees along the shared use path. Um I know you got a full agenda tonight, so unless you want me to, I won't go through each requested item. Um, but all of those have now been shown on the plan, including the trees along the shared use path and we're here tonight with a full cast. We're happy to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Would you guys like to have run down it so you know what the changes are? Are you clear? We're clear. Okay. All right. Sounds good. So, next. Did you Yeah, we'll do public comment, but do you want to add anything else or No, I I think that's it. We just wanted to tell you we've resubmitted the plan. We responded to all your comments. We had no issues and and obviously uh as we discussed at the last meeting, we'll come back once we know signage. Yeah. I mean, you know, we're not at that stage

yet. So, we'll just come back to you. That's the least of our concerns at the moment. Perfect. Okay. All right. So, if we do give you an approval, there'll be like um there'll be a um stipulation in there. Understood. That's fine. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. U public comment. I think you just got ready to do the next item. Uh no. Uh Jeff Moore uh public comment. Just curiosity. This has gotten FA approval for um building height clearances. Um yes, they Well, I'm not sure if it's all the way there yet, but they were working with um the the county attorney. Is she here? No, the county attorney was working with um the FFA and I think does anybody have that answer here in Yeah. Yeah, if you could just touch on that. I I knew that was a big point, but I think they're real close. Yeah, we we don't have final approval of the FAA yet, but we do have the complete site limitation map, if I want to call it that, for heights, setbacks, and everything else. Um coordinated through CNS and all their years of work at the airport. The structures as shown have no issues. Um we have what we refer to as the rainbow map which shows your various heights as you move away from the runway. That's where the main limitations are and the total highest point here is under the limitations for this site. Yeah, it was one we're at. You're at 160, correct? The the maximum limitations 160 height is 130, I believe. Okay. Yeah, I remember it was below what it was. Yeah, but the the the other holdup was um turning the property over from airport use to correct. That has not happened yet. Yeah, we're waiting for the release as it's called from the FAA for the use of the triangle parcel for a non-avviation purpose is the categorization of it. Okay, appreciate

it. Thank you. Hope that answers your question. And that that hold up and I'll get into my comments in just a sec, but that hold up was partially because it had to be reszoned, which has now been completed by the common council. Okay, thank you. You going to Yeah. So, yeah. How about the proposed project is in alignment with long-standing efforts by both the county and the city to leverage the site for industrial activity. Uh, secret negative declaration was already issued for this project by the United Legislature. We've reviewed the submitted application materials for compliance with the city code. The applicant has satisfied all requirements except for signage information as signage design has not yet been completed for the project. We therefore recommend conditional approval of the proposed site plan subject to return before the board with signage information once available. Thank you. Um board comments. Okay. Um make a motion somebody. I make a motion to approve with the condition that they return with a sign signage package. Second. All those in favor? I I Okay. Motion carried. That All right. Thank you guys. Okay. New business. We have a public hearing for Steven Chase for three lot minor subdivision link road. Okay. Public hearing. We have to announce it three times. Um public hearing request for Steven Chase for three lot minor subdivision 8083 Link Road. Third time Steven Chase to for a three lot minor subdivision 8083 Link Road. Okay, that's closed. Um let's see. Environmental seeker request by Can we take them both off here? Uh if they're not on yet, you don't need to. Okay. So, you're going to present for Okay. So, we have a seeker review request for Steve uh Chase for a three lot minor subdivision 883 uh Link Road. Tell us about your problem. State your name. Good afternoon, board. My name is Jeff

Moore with more land surveying. I'm here to represent the Chases on a three lot subdivision on Chase Road or excuse me on Link Road on the outer district of Rome. Currently the property is, it's been a while. It's about 40 plus or minus acres of land. Um there's currently an old farm on it. Um farm house, farm building, farm farm fields. It butts up to the old uh Canada Creek and we're currently looking to do a three lot subdivision. Um, as shown, a 16 acre parcel, a 4 acre parcel, and a 39 acre parcel. You can see there's actually a fourth lot there, but there's another tax parcel, which is not part of a subdivision. So, okay. Thank you. All right. Uh staff comment. The proposed partial dimensions are compliant with zoning code minimums. Uh both wetlands and making sure I'm looking at the right one. Uh wetlands and flood planes are present on the project parcels. These do not impact the ability of the parcels to be subdivided, but the applicant should be aware this may impact the possibility of future development on the land. Uh our department recommends issuing a secretive seeker negative declaration via uncoordinated review and approving the proposed subdivision plat as presented. Thank you. Okay. Can I get a recommendation from the board? I make a motion uh to issue a negative deck in regards to item number five. I get a second. Dave Smith second. All in favor? I. Okay. Motion carries. So we have a subdivision re request for Steven Chase for three lot minor subdivision 883 link road. So we need a Did you already comment on that also? So that you bundled it. Now it's ready for the Okay. So, I need a um recommendation for that as well. I make a motion to

approve as presented on item number five, six or six, excuse me. I second the motion. Okay. All those in favor? Okay. Motion carries and you are all set with that. And you're up for So, we have a public hearing request for this is number seven of the agenda. Public hearing request for GGC Properties LLC for a three lot minor subdivision at 245 Avery Lane once. Public hearing request for GGC Properties LLC for a three lot minor subdivision at 245 Avery Lane twice. Public hearing request for GGC for a uh GGC Properties LLC for a three lot minor subdivision at 245 Avery Lane. Okay, that portion's closed. Um, we got an environmental review seeker for the GGC Properties LLC for a three lot uh minor subdivision 245 Avery Lane. Um, and you're going to present for that also? Yes, sir. Okay. Same person's presenting. Go ahead, sir. Good afternoon, board. My name is Jeff Moore with More Lane Survey. Uh we are here to represent the uh SDGC EGC Properties LLC over on Avery Lane and the um route to 825 old Hill Road on the base. This the Castella Medical um complex and there's currently three commercial properties on one property and all owned by the same uh group. Currently they all have their own parking lots, utilities, access and whatnot. Um, our proposal is to do a three-lot subdivision. Each lot would have its own conforming road frontage and would use a common ingress egress driveway which we have terms and restrictions for uh moving forward as shown. Um, it meets your requirements as far as setback and um zoning requirements. And if there's any other questions, feel free to ask. Yeah. Can

you just walk me through that the road that's going to be what is there going to be a permanent easement or is it just Okay. Correct. And that would be the in the red. Correct. Correct. Yep. So it comes from Avery Lane. Correct. Down through catches each parking lot. Correct. Each access point. Correct. So So the flow of traffic wouldn't change to each individual parking lot as currently used today. Okay. And then there in the deed when the deeds get transferred out along with the map would be filed at the county. And on the map it shows the restrictions and the easement notes. In the right side you can see the easement notes which then would clarify and the deeds would reflect that as well. So So does it so is that that's not a city road currently. Correct. Avery Lane is a city road. That red outline would be a private ement. And who's main who's like is it going to be a shared services or correct and that's what those ements know. Oh okay. The notes in the ements cover that those. All right. Thank you. Thank you. uh board. The proposed subdivision action will split the existing parcel into three commercial office structures that each so that each office building will be on its own parcel. A 35 ft by 300 foot perpetual access easement will ensure all parcels maintain access to the public right ofway. We recommend issuing a seeker negative declaration beyorded review and approval of the proposed subdivision plat as presented. Okay. Thank you, Garrett. Um, can I get a recommendation for item eight for the seeker? I make a motion to issue a negative declaration for EGC Properties LLC. All those in favor? Okay, motion carries. And we need a recommendation for item nine for the seeker review request. I make a motion to approve as presented. Second the motion. All those in favor? Okay, motion carries. And we have that one's closed then, right?

Yeah. All right. We have a public hearing request for 7937 Ridgemills Road LLC for a twolot minor subdivision. It's at it's located at 7937 Ridgemills Road once. Public hearing request for by 7937 Ridgemills Road LLC for two lot minor subdivision at 7937 Ridgemills Road twice. Public hearing request for 7937 Ridge Mills Road LLC for a two lot minor subdivision located at 7937 Ridgemills Road. Okay, the public portion is closed. So that would be 10 number 11. So, we have a environmental seeker review request by 7937 Ridge Mills Road, LLC for a for a two lot minor subdivision located at 7937 Ridge Mills Road. You again. Good afternoon, board. My name is Jeff Moore with More Land Surveying representing 7937 Ridgemills Road, LLC. They currently are looking to cut out a 7.1 acre parcel uh which would be north of the Jones Nursery currently. If you could all picture where that is. And the parcel would go just to the north side of the existing hedro that's out there. And it' be approximately 7 acres with approximately 200 feet of road frontage. It's currently vacant farm field and it's coming off of the nursery. Uh no, it's coming off 7937 Bridge. So it's part of the main farm that goes all the way over to Nentia. Okay, any questions? So any comments? Okay. Uh, the proposed partial dimension dimensions are compliant with zoning code minimums. Both wetlands and Oh, nope. I'm looking at 80 83. This is what I get for shuffling my

papers. This is what happens when there's 16 items on the agenda. Proposed parcels are compliant with zoning code minimums and on a review of online mapping available for county. No federal or New York state wetlands are known to be present. Uh the proposed subdivision was referred to the United Department of Planning for review under GML 239 as it is within 500 ft of the county or state rightway. They returned a response of no recommendation. Uh we therefore issue recommend issuing a seeker negative declaration and approving the proposed subdivision plat as presented. Thank you. Okay. Can I get a motion for item 11, the seeker? I make a motion to issue a negative deck on item 11. Second. All those in favor? I. Okay. Motion carries. And the subdivision review request request. Can I get a recommendation for that one? Item 12. I'd like to uh recommend issue negative declaration approved as presented. I second the motion to approve as presented. Hang on one second. Number 12. Number 12. Yep. Could you just make a recommendation to approve as presented? Okay. Can I get a second? Second the motion. All those in favor. Okay. Motion carries and you are all set. So we have a site plan review request for first student. We got a revision. Um the revision of the approved plan for 6700 Martin Street. Um if you can come down and present, tell us what you uh what your changes are, please. Good evening. Julian Clark with Plumbley Engineering here representing First

Student. Um we were here plus or minus six months ago and obtained site plan approval for First Student to upgrade their facility on Martin Road. Um after we got our approvals and finished all their design, first student did some uh review with their bus drivers and other people associated with the property and they identified some concerns with the uh couple the islands we had in the parking lot and they asked if we could come back to you guys and uh remove four of the landscaped islands from the project, make it one bigger area. Uh, a lot of the bus drivers were concerned about their abilities to uh, access some of the spots by the islands without scratching their buses on tree limbs, etc. or hitting a light pole. So, we've updated the site plan. We removed four islands, pushed the light poles back, um, adjusted the pavement, so there's actually a a reduction in impervious area with the new layout. Um, we've had the same same number of plantings as before. We've actually moved more trees up to the front along Martin Street as opposed to the one some that were back further. So the end we have same number of plantings more up front less impervious area and a layout that's more amendable to the bus drivers. Okay. Anything else? That's it. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. So public comment Oh, public comment. Okay. Nobody's there. Um staff comments. So the applicant is requesting an alternative landscape plan approval from the planning board to remove the normally required landscape islands and plantings. In exchange, the applicants are proposing to add additional plantings along the front fence line along the public right ofway. Given the use of the project property and the Empire the fact that the Empire State Trail runs directly across the other side of the street from that uh right ofway, our department feels this would provide a net improvement to the public right ofway and therefore recommends

conditional approval of the proposed uh site plan revision with the condition that the final site plan should include the species and height of planting uh for the proposed uh plantings. Okay. Thank you. Um I I've traveled through that park a lot and I tried to wrap my head around the islands with the buses and I didn't see it working either. So removing it would definitely improve visibility of people being you know coming around you know big bus coming out and somebody coming around that way. It just wouldn't I don't think it would be beneficial to uh the buses. So um we need a motion for let's see here where are we? Item 13. Need a recommendation for item 13. Uh, I make a recommendation to approve with the condition of providing the heights of the new plantings. Can I get a second? Second. All those in favor? I. Okay, you're all set there. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with your project. All right. We have an environmental seeker, I'm sorry, review seeker for the Humane Society of Rome LLC to construct approximately a 19,817 square foot animal shelter at 6247 Lampere Road. And we also have a site plan review. Um, you're presenting for Yes. Okay. [Music] Okay. Julian Clark with Engineering here with Humane Society. Uh, currently the Humane Society owns and operates a facility at 6247 Landfair Road. Uh the main site is a registered animal shelter with New York State Department of A and Markets

and is a classified municipal dog shelter. Currently 22 surrounding municipalities contract with HCR for sheltering dogs. Um a lot of you may be new to the board or don't know, but we've been here three or four times before obtaining maybe site plan approval for different sites throughout the city that the Humane Society has looked at. Um for one reason or another, those opportunities have all fell apart. Um, one of the driving forces in the human style selection of property was to obtain or was to have public sewer as the current facilities on a septic system. However, new regulations by agon markets uh new standards is requiring facilities to meet these standards by end of year or risk fines and closure and the current facility that community main society operates out of isn't large enough to upgrade to meet all those standards. So that being said, main side is proposing new facility approximately 20,000 square feet behind their existing facility on land only about 18 acres. The plan is to build their facility in LD all that stuff get up and running and tear down their existing system as I indicated on system there. It will be public water will design a storm water management system complying with the DC storm water permit. Uh one item currently the property is zone RR and rural residential and shelters are not allowed use in our R zone. Um the facility itself is positive but the any expansion would not be compliant. However, we did receive a use grant from the ZBA last month allowing us to move forward with the animal shelter on the whole property. Another improvement will be access to the property. Currently, a lot

of people have to pull in on offer road, park on the side of the road, which isn't the greatest for maneuvering and safety. This way, we're going to have a long driveway taking people off Lamprey Road and taking them to the parking lot. Um we did receive some comments from the city we are good with and we're working through those at this time. Uh just to my know or to my understanding there wasn't any major concerns and by the city everything we kind of and we do have yeah building plans full of plans if you want to look those. Now you said that you're going to design a septic system. Yes. Because there's no sanitary sewer that far down. Okay. And did you get the pulse of the neighbors? They're all Everybody feels I mean obviously nobody's here. We didn't get no letters. So that's a good sign. And we we had a another like I said we got the land use the use variant. They had a public hearing for that also. Well, you're also pushing it back. Yes. I mean how far behind the existing structure would you be? We're like 300 feet from the existing. So that's better for sound and all that stuff. Okay. And there'll be a a pretty comprehensive landscape and buffer along the property line. Plus 300 feet. Right now you're what 20 ft off the road? Yeah. Yep. Okay. I have a question. Is this bigger than the current facility? It is bigger, but the number of they can handle is the same. Is going to stay the same. Okay. Yeah. It's just they have more room. Yeah. More compliant, but they just have more room to run around. Okay. This is Lynn. If you could just put your name for the record, Lyn. Lynn Rosen, president of the Humane Society of Rome. So, with the existing shelter, um, we won't be able to stay open past December, but as long as we're in the middle of building, um, they're going to allow us to continue to

build into 26 and be compliant. Um, we kept it very, it's basic but functional. You can only adopt so many animals out. So what it will do is actually give our animals more quality of life um and be more sufficient with the plans right now. Um this is basically the um the shelter where you drive in. These are the cat colonies in the front. The middle of the building will support to clean and feed and take care of the animals. The kennels are in the back near 365 and they're all enclosed and this is just outdoor runs. So any of the dog area will be towards the back of the shelter. Neighbors will never hear the dogs bark. In the front is a community room. So what we're doing is allowing the public we're going to do chip and clip clinics. We're going to do um just fundraising a lot of children's programs on weekends. Uh dog training. So excuse me. So this will be a huge room for the community families can come for the day. On the other end are basically garages and um night drops for DCO officers because right now dog control is not going to be able to keep dogs overnight. They're going to have to bring them to our shelter under the new guidelines. So there'll be a night drop so the dogs will be safe and we'll put them in our inventory during the day. Um, we'll have a retail shop so that you come in, we're a one-stop shop. Come in, adopt an animal, take everything you need, and go home. And every room will help us generate revenue to keep this building going. Oh, and most importantly, a spayneuter clinic. So, we are going to be able to do lowcost spay and neuters.

we'll be able to do our own spay and neuters as well as maybe help the other shelters that were able to stay open. So, surgery center, community room, and basically just very efficient building to uh house the animals. Thank you. It sounds it sounds like a great project. Um I have a question. How the kennels I know that there's some acorage. How far are the kennels from 365? 134. Okay. Should we tell them about the house? I got another question for you. Is this you building this so that you can expand at some point? Are you, you know, setting it up so like say you want to throw another 10,000 square feet. Is it is it going to be able to add on or this is the build? We can, but this is it, you know, because you have to maintain it. Yeah. Right. So, this is um what we can handle because you can only adopt out so many animals, right? And then the whole point of a shelter is length of stay to get them in and get them out. And we are a no kill shelter. So, the whole point is not to be able to house any more. Right now we can we have 120 cats and we have about 30 dogs. Um but what it'll do is with the new rags um you have to socialize them, you have to spend time, you have to document every time you walk a dog and his behavior. So the uh egg and market laws are really strict and so we have to be able to maintain to do that for them. So, um, could we expand in the future? But right now, I think this is 20,000 square feet is plenty. So, right now, we have the old shelter. We have the house next

door. The house next door has all our offices. So, this will just combine our whole organization under one roof. What we did was we purchased the house next door and that's being tore down and that'll be our construction entrance into the back of our shelter because we won't be able to relocate because there isn't any place for us to go. So the plan is to tear down the house, build the shelter when we're moved into the new facility. Then we will tear down the existing shelter and that'll be our grand entrance. Thank you. You said that you'll be tearing down the old property after you after you've completed construction. Yes. Is that because of the new regulations that it can't remain there anymore or is it just the property dilapidated and doesn't isn't worth facilities facilities built in compant market which isn't I'm not sure how much it will stand you know I mean it's 1958 and so there's really been no major construction with the existing kennels so um yeah it needs to come Now, anything else? Thank you guys. Appreciate it. All right, Garrett. Public comment. Oh, public comment. Sir, looks like public comment. Okay, next clos. So, uh, as Julian said, we didn't have any substantial concerns when we sent our our review memo. There was a couple of of housekeeping items. Um, the only thing is that the 30-day secure window for this project is still open for coordinated review. Um, we sent everything off the day we got it um for comments, but unfortunately we didn't get anything back from DOT or DEC um in time for this meeting. So, you guys will be on the agenda for the July 1st meeting, but I I don't see any major roadblocks at this time.

Okay. And you said that was submitted when to them. I'm trying to think of it's wasn't quite 30 days but it was almost went to county. Yes, went to county. Okay. Can we get a recommendation for the seeker review? I make a motion to table pending the seeker window. Second motion. All those in favor? I. Okay. Motion carries. And so the site plan review, we need a recommendation for that also. I make a motion to table uh the site plan review pending seeker window. Second. Okay. All those in favor? Okay. So, we hashed it out and we don't have no comments. So, when that stuff comes back, as long as there's nothing substantial, you know, should be fairly quick. Okay. Thank you guys. So, we have a um Thank you. We are going to do a let's see, what are we going to call this? A recommendation to the common council for ordinance number 9788 amending the Rome code ordinance chapter 80 article section 809.4 site plan review. Okay. So public comment on that or no? Should we uh So you could you can offer public comment. Public comment sir. Would you like to have any public comment on that? No. Okay. We'll close that. I can speak to the proposed changes just real quick. Um, sure. Okay. Um, essentially this uh amendment is to address an issue that we've run into a few times where small changes um arise during the course of construction that weren't originally anticipated but are not really substantial in nature. Uh, previously there the previous language in our code or the current language says any change has to come back to the planning board. There's no black and it's purely black and white. there's no

no room for interpretation. As a result, uh basically the building inspector has to kind of make a snap judge from the field and either say, you know, it's not big enough, don't worry about it, or send it back to the board. This will create a set of clear criteria, who's approving what, create a paper trail so everyone knows when thing modifications are approved for for changes. Um, and I I think it'll be helpful to help keep things rolling along, but also make sure everyone's staying on the same page and clear on what is supposed to be constructed, what has been approved, so we don't end up with surprises at the end of projects. Okay. Thank you, Garrett. So, I'm going to clean that up a little bit. So basically people get a plan approved they want to make a minor change like move a shrub then they have to come back before the planning board cost them 30 days cost construction you know increases and so on and so forth and the reason why I'm talking about it I would thinking there was going to be some people here but there might be some people listening so I told um the chair uh the common council president that when they when I'm listening on and he says, you know, ordinance number blah blah blah blah blah, approve or disapprove and then it's gone. Like, I don't know what that is and I got to research and try to figure out. So, I I think it's nicer to talk about if there's somebody listening, they know what we're talking about. So, I I did talk to John Nash about that like, you know, maybe just touch with ordinance number whatever it is because it's hard to find it. So, at least people listening could know what we're talking about. So, can we get a recommendation for that? I make a recommendation to send the ordinance to the common council. Recommend approve as presented. Recommend to approve as presented. Correct. As presented. So which means

the um as far as I understand it is is the chairman and the city. Who would that be? Correct. So planning director. Planning director. Planning director is the the term used in the code. In this case, they it would be the uh deputy director of community and economic development uh is the effective planning chair for the city. Okay. So, it' be the it'd be the deputy. So, somebody from the city and somebody from this board, correct? Okay. I approve as presented. As presented. Oh. Oh, I didn't mean to interrupt. Don't interrupt your vote. Can I get a second? Yeah, I second that motion. All in favor? I I Okay, Jim. Um, oh, I just wanted to add, again, not to hold anything up, just for purpose of the record. Um, uh, I did review the ordinance as well. Uh, I do I do believe it, um, it implements, um, some checks and balances. I mean, there could be a host of legitimate reasons why a developer um, whether it's maybe a supply chain issue with with whether it's materials. Um, and again, this essentially deals with m just minor changes. Um I don't think uh anyone uh wants to give any indication that this is some you know backdoor process being approved because there are checks and balances. If the planning board's uncomfortable with any change then it goes back to the full board for review and uh and that's why it needs approval a sign off from the from the chair or the acting chair whoever is available. um you know if they if they have a sense from the board that that they want to hear something or a change it might be a little too substantial then then it goes back to the board. So so I do think it's a good process um and it's something um that uh I don't think I'd like to think would not be abused and um if there isn't any indication that there might be some sense of abuse by a developer then that's where it goes back to the full board for review. That's all. And I I can give a sort of an example of one

area where this would have been used if it was available with with um the there was a project for a credit union um previously that they had put everything out. They were almost done with the project they were putting in their landscaping and they finally realized that they they hadn't realized when they're looking in two dimensions, but when you look in three dimensions, they were putting a shrub directly in front of their security camera. And it technically under the existing code that constitutes a change that would have to go back to the planning board which obviously didn't make any sense. Okay. Thank you. All right. Can we get a motion for German? I make a motion to adjurnn. Second the motion. All those in favor. It was a EGC. Enough.