Planning Board - Regular Meeting

. . . .

Sir. Okay.

all right ladies and gentlemen good evening and welcome to the august 11th uh city of rome planning board meeting i'd like to call the meeting to order The meeting is called to order. I'm your chair, Mark Esposito. This evening, Vice Chair Joe Calandra and Eric Gonzalez are not in attendance. We have David Smith and Brittany Fumarola members, board members in attendance. Any of our decisions would have to be unanimous. We require three votes. So if we don't come to consensus on something, we would table them for a future meeting. Just want to make that announcement clear. Review and approval the 14th of July meeting minutes, the City of Rome Planning Board.

Make a motion to approve the minutes.

I second.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Public service announcement. Upcoming meetings September 1st and October 6th. Those are our next two regularly scheduled meetings. Generally the first Tuesday of the month. Those are set in December of the previous year. Sometimes like this month's we pushed it out because what was earlier this month that we... Tax grievance. Tax grievance day. So tax grievance day was on the first Tuesday of the month. So we decided to de-conflict and not have our planning board meeting. Items 9 and 10. We have new business. We have an environmental seeker review and a subdivision request, both by First Source Federal Credit Union.

You skipped old business.

I'm just making a general announcement.

Oh, okay.

When we when we come to those items I skipped forward quite a bit, but I just wanted to make an announcement here is calling the meeting to order opening the meeting. One of the board members needs to recuse so for items nine and 10 the environmental secret review and the subdivision review we're going to table those for. the next meeting, which is going to be September 1st. I just made that announcement as well. We can still do the public hearing request, but unfortunately, because we're only going to have two votes because of a recusal, we're going to have to, thank you. Appreciate your understanding in that. Okay, so that was items one and two and an additional comment. So now old business, we have an environmental seeker review and a site plan review request by Tarpon Towers, LLC and Verizon to construct 190 foot telecommunication tower associated equipment 6507 Lowell Road State Route 26. Can I get a motion to remove items 3 and 4 from the table?

I make a motion to remove items 3 and 4 from the table.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Second. Smitty? Smitty second for the record. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Petitioner? Do we have a petitioner? Tarpon Towers? Yeah, please come. Come forward. There's a mic. Turn it on. Tap it. Make sure it's working. Kind of like that.

Yes.

You can take it off and walk around. I think you're probably going to need to turn it. Yeah, you need to turn it on. Danielle, can you? No, it's not. Oh, boy. Try the back. There's a microphone in the back. You're going to get your exercise. Sorry about that, but. I don't know. It usually works. That's a first.

I think this one, yeah, this one works.

Check.

Well, hello, members of the board from all the way in the back of the room. My name is Drew Curran. I am here on behalf of Verizon. We're looking today for a negative CEQA declaration and site plan approval. I believe everybody here is familiar with the project, but just for quick procedural background, we submitted the initial application on May 11th. We attended the June planning board meeting. And since that meeting, we have submitted three items as requested by the board. One, a letter from the fire department. Two, a sound study for the project. And three, a study for the FAA. We believe the board has received all those items. Subsequently, we received engineering comments, and we are happy to incorporate those in our final plan.

OK. Any questions? All right, I think we're good. Members of the community. Anyone?

Oh, I believe.

Oh, colliers. Yes, please. Our third party engineering. Yes, thank you. Drew from Verizon. Yes, colliers, please. Thank you, Garrett.

Yep, no worries.

uh diana corio collier's engineering um we reviewed the plans and most of the comments can be addressed prior to issuance of the building permit um i don't know if typically in these meetings you have the engineer go through the comments or what's your preference um we have looked through them you could kind of maybe hit highlights quick sure yeah okay so I'll skip over the some that are just purely administrative. Okay. Some of them can possibly be addressed by like a point to point response letter probably from the applicant. For example, one of our comments is the site selection analysis notes one city owned parcel located within the search ring, where solar arrays take up the majority of the property. We asked that the applicant just provide clarification on whether there is additional room on that property for the cell tower, or if there's no room for it. And that's why they chose this, uh, the proposed property. Um, also that report per the code needs to be signed by a professional engineer license in New York. Uh, the, long form EAF, there are a couple comments for that form that need to be addressed before we can move forward with the secret process. One is they need to provide an estimated annual electricity demand. And the other is that they should be reviewing the site for solid waste generation related to construction, not just operations of the site. Okay. The lease agreement didn't include a meets and bounds description. Typically that's what we would see in a lease agreement for the actual area of the property that'll be used by the applicant. The structural report or structural design analysis was not submitted. It was just a letter stating that they will provide one. So that needs to be submitted prior to building permit issuance as well. The tower removal letter, It was just missing one note that's required by the code that pretty much says that if the tower needs to be removed by the city, the city can charge the client for that or the applicant for that plus an additional 50%. So we recommended that that letter be revised to include that. And then also that the actual agreement be provided obviously prior to issuance of the building permit. The plans currently don't indicate where the two parking spaces that are required are located. So those should be added to the plans. Um, colors of the antenna supporting electrical equipment and the actual tower should be added to the plans as well. And the finishes and any signage needs to be added to the plans as well. And it can't exceed five square feet. and the signs on the tower can only display contact information and safety instructions. Any wires, any guy wires or guy anchors should also be indicated on the plans. There is a floodlight shown on the rear elevation equipment detail that the location of which should be indicated on the site plan as well. And per the code, um, landscaping or fencing should be provided to, to screen the site from residential properties. Um, the site is pretty well screened as is, but I noted in here that if the board requested a screening from the front, um, the applicant would need to provide a landscaping plan showing that, and that is pretty much the gist of our letter. Is there anything else you wanted me to go over or questions on any of that?

No, thank you.

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you, Deanna. And I think we're and then so you said that you received all that and you'll comply with all that and submitting your permits and all. I think we're just going to make that a condition. Perfect. Yeah. Okay. Public comment? Any members of the public like to comment for or against the proposed effort, community and economic development?

The 30-day seeker comment window for this project has closed. No comments were received raising substantial concerns about the project from any involved agency. Per planning board standard practice, the third-party engineering review of the applicant's submitted materials was performed by Collier's Engineering and Design. As we just heard, the results of their review are outlined in a memo dated August 4th, which you guys have a copy of in your binder. The review didn't turn up any fundamental issues with the proposal, but there were a handful of corrections, revisions, and additions noted. We therefore recommend the planning board issue a secret negative declaration for the project and issue conditional approval on the site plan with the condition that corrections and adjustments as per the memo submitted by Collier's be completed prior to either submission of the final site plan or the building permit as applicable or appropriate.

All right. Can I get a motion on the seeker?

I make a motion to issue a seeker negative deck.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Item four, site plan review, request Tarpon Towers.

I make a motion to remove from the table and issue a conditional approval.

Conditional on incorporating the engineering from Collier's, okay.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Item five is environmental review, Demeter Land Holdings LLC construction, 4.97 megawatt battery energy storage system at 600 Canal Street. Item six is site plan review request by Demeter Land Holdings at 600 Canal Street for that same battery energy storage. Good luck with your project, thank you. And those items five and six are going to remain on the table. And item seven is our recommendation to the common council regarding ordinance 9884, amending Rome's board chapter 80 to prohibit the establishment and installation and construction of a battery energy storage system within the city of Rome. I have a statement I wanted to read into the record. Bottom line up front here, my recommendation is that we reject the proposal of putting a ban and instead the city should create a comprehensive code to address battery energy storage systems. So before we vote on a recommendation, we'll be making common council regarding battery energy storage systems. I'd like to put my position on the record. After considering the issue, I believe the planning board should recommend that the city not adopt an outright prohibition on battery energy storage systems, BESS. Instead, I believe the city should establish reasonable, comprehensive, enforceable regulations that address the legitimate concerns associated with these facilities. I want to be clear, I'm not suggesting BESS facilities are without risk or that every proposed facility should be approved. There are legitimate concerns that deserve serious consideration, including fire safety, emergency response, setbacks, noise, security, visual impacts, and the compatibility of these facilities with surrounding land uses. My position is simply that those concerns should be addressed through regulation rather than an outright ban. I believe that approach is consistent with the way the city has addressed other land uses that have generated community concern. Specifically, our code contains provisions governing adult entertainment establishments, meat processing facilities, and solar projects. Each of these uses can create legitimate concerns for neighboring property owners and the community. The city's response to those concerns was not to prohibit those uses altogether. Instead, the city established realistic requirements intended to regulate and mitigate their potential impacts. I believe battery energy storage systems should be approached in the same manner. City has the ability to establish standards for battery energy storage systems. Those standards could address appropriate zoning districts and locations, minimum setbacks, site access, fencing and security, noise, landscaping and visual screening fire protection emergency response planning inspection and maintenance monitoring and decommissioning the code could also require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with applicable fire and electrical codes and provide local emergency responders with the information necessary to understand and respond to an incident at the facility those are practical tools that allow the city to address the risks and impacts associated with a particular project An outright prohibition, however, treats every potential battery energy storage system project exactly the same. It does not distinguish between a facility located adjacent to residential properties and one located in an appropriate industrial area with substantial setbacks. It does not distinguish between different size facilities, technologies, designs, or safety systems. A well-written code gives the city the ability to make those distinctions. I also believe this is an important consideration as we look forward to future development. Technology continues to change. Battery storage is only one example, but it will not be the last. Data centers are another emerging land use that is not currently addressed in our code. Data centers can present their own legitimate concerns, including substantial electricity demand, cooling system noise, water usage, backup generation, traffic and demands on electrical and other infrastructure. If the city's response to every new unfamiliar technology is to prohibit it because our existing code does not adequately address it, we will continually find ourselves in the same position. I believe a better approach is to establish a regulatory framework that allows the city to say, this use may be permitted, but if you want to operate here, you must meet these standards and mitigate these impacts. This also provides greater predictability. Residents understand the standards a proposed project must meet. Property owners understand what use may be permitted on their property. Developers understand the city's requirements before making substantial investments. And the city has objective criteria by which to evaluate proposals. It also provides the city with the opportunity to address extraordinary impacts created by particular developments. For example, future data center creates an unusually large demand for electricity or other infrastructure. The city could consider legally permissible mechanisms to ensure that the extraordinary costs associated with serving that development are appropriately addressed or offset rather than simply being passed down to the existing residents and taxpayers. I want to emphasize, I'm not advocating an unrestricted development. There may be locations where battery energy storage system is simply incompatible with surrounding land uses. There may be proposed facilities that cannot satisfy reasonable safety or performance standards. There may be projects whose impacts cannot be adequately mitigated. Properly written code gives the city the ability to say no to those projects based on objective standards and demonstrated impacts. Very different from saying no to an entire category of development. For those reasons, I support a recommendation of the common council to regulate battery energy storage systems rather than prohibit them outright. So you consider establishing appropriate regulations for land use, including data centers that are not currently addressed in our code. Our fundamental principles should be straightforward, regulate the impacts and address the concerns. Don't ban the existence of a class of projects. If a proposed development can meet reasonable standards, predicting protecting neighborhood properties, address legitimate safety concerns and appropriately mitigate the impacts it creates. I believe the city should have a regulatory framework that allows a project to be considered on its merits. Wanted to place that on the record before we make our recommendation to the Common Council. That was a lot. Any thoughts or other discussion? I think, I don't know. Yeah, I recommend we, you know, recommend, you know, reject the ban and create an appropriate code.

Mr. Chair, I would just ask, would you want to forward that, what you just read to the council? Absolutely. As part of it? Okay.

I just wanted to put that on record as far as, okay. Yes, your care has copy. Before we vote, would any members of the community like to talk or give an opportunity? We had a public hearing on this last month, but again, I wanted to offer the opportunity for community comment. Looks like none heard. Motion.

I make a motion to reject the prohibition and create a code.

I second.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Garrett, here's a paper copy and I'll send you an electronic copy as well. All right, our next item, new business public hearing request of first source federal credit union for a two lot minor subdivision. Typically on these, there's no petitioner to come forward. We just call public hearing to order and make three calls, right? Sure. Okay. All right. So we're calling to order. Uh, this is item eight, um, new business, um, public hearing requests by first source federal credit union for two lot minor subdivision called the public hearing to order first call any members of the community like to speak for or against the subdivision. Second call, public hearing, request first source federal credit union for a two lot minor subdivision, 5781 Rome-Taburg Road. Third and final call, public hearing, request first source federal credit union, two lot minor subdivision, 5781 Rome-Taburg Road. Public hearing is closed. I did indicate the next items 9 and 10 are the environmental seeker review and subdivision review. We do have a recusal, so we're going to table these, but I would like to offer the petitioner the opportunity to discuss the project, tell us about it, and kind of get things teed up for the next meeting.

Chairman Esposito and board members, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity. First Source, just to give you an overview, I know you're not voting tonight, but just to give you an overview, First Source currently has a branch on Black River Boulevard. They'd like to put a second one on. on this Rome Tabor piece. And, um, it's a two lot subdivision. It'll have about 265 feet of frontage. It's a 1.698 acre lot. And, uh, we would certainly come back to the planning board when we get to the next level, but today it's just the, the subdivision.

Okay.

That's my story. Yeah. Also for Garrett, we did get hit with, we did get asked for an additional $10,000 payable to a wire deposit for our, which we didn't do. I did call the Rome police though, to let them know that it happened. And I got a valuable lesson on how these things work from the Rome PD and why you don't forward anything. You ruin the address, I guess, once you forward it. It was quite interesting though.

So you got a request, someone was trying to fraudulently?

Both of us, yeah. Pam got one on Friday and I think I got one on Saturday.

Hey, if you want this thing to be successful, send us $10,000.

I was thinking we'd get a refund, we'd cancel it. But that's it.

Yeah, I mean, it looks, oh, did you state your name?

Byron Elias, yes, I think I did in the beginning.

And you are?

With Foresight Realty Advisors and I'm acting on behalf of the applicant.

It's in the application also. Here with the, right, okay. Yeah. Thank you, Byron. Yeah, I mean, it's, that parking lot out there is always, you know, there's a lot of room out there to put a business. It's permitted use and, so you're, this is just for the subdivision, environmental seeker and subdivision, is this a minor subdivision? Yeah, those are generally straightforward. You know, that's the eyes cross the T's the drawings and all that. And then you would come back. The seeker review is for the subdivision. Correct.

And we got other secret review with site plan. Correct. If they had, if you're looking to do construction, if they had submitted the same time, we could do a combined one. But there's no problem with us doing seeker for subdivision, and then any future construction having its own seeker.

the construction portion isn't planned for this time there's still quite a bit before we come back to you with that so we'll expect to put a second eaf in okay and then the approval is good for 12 months correct so once once we they get the stamped plats they have 12 months to file it with the county and then the same so you want to get your um

site plan review after you submit this subdivision request within 12 months, you want to file that with the county.

I think you're thinking of the preliminary final plots in major subdivision for minor subdivision. Once they file the subdivision with the county, they're good. They can divide that at any point. That's a parallel process to anything for construction.

Okay, so they can come back two, three years later, their subdivision was approved.

Absolutely.

Yep. Okay.

Yep. The subdivision just is drawing the lines on the map for transferring properties. It doesn't have anything to do with construction.

Okay.

And you are, yeah, you're subdividing. So then you're going to then buy that property or lease that property.

Yes. That's the intent.

Okay. So, yeah, I mean, normally you'd want to include like, Hey, we're going to lease, we have a lease agreement or we're going to buy it. We have a purchase agreement, you know, kind of for next month. All right, so thank you so much.

Gotcha. Well, the public hearing is closed, so we've gotten that part. Next month, we'll just come back to finish the rest of it.

Yes, sir, that is correct. We opened and closed the public hearing, so that's done. Thank you. Mark that done. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Yes, you're welcome. Thank you so much. We're going to table. Can I get a motion to table items 9 and 10? Yes. Am I able to make the motion? Yeah, you can.

I make a motion to table items 9 and 10.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We'll see you in a few weeks. Thank you for coming out.

And I'll just jump in on his comment about the scam. the scam document that you guys got. We've had several applicants that have reached out to me afterwards to indicate that they've they've gotten these Rome PD is aware of it, we've updated our application forms on the website to include a sheet at the top that warns people not to do wire transfers. Any official communications coming digitally from the city will come from our at Rome ny.gov address, it will never be anything that doesn't end in that. We're just trying to make sure that we hammer that home as much as possible so that nobody gets caught unawares. Yeah.

You actually did a great job. It's posted everywhere. And so I knew it was, if you came, we were already for one.

Awesome.

It's the first time I've ever had it.

All right, request by the Department of Community and Economic Development for historic district opinion for project at 1004 North George Street. Petitioner, please head to the back. Tell us about your project. This is the chimney project.

1004 North George.

1004-1004, North George.

Dale Ackerman. So I reside there. So I'm requesting approval to remove an exterior chimney that's located behind, if you can see the photos, it's located behind the... north side of the front gable. Okay. And but, you know, only from this particular angle can you see that chimney. Otherwise, if you move, actually, if you're standing directly in front of the house, it's difficult to even see that. So it doesn't really contribute to anything of the front facade or the architecture of the house. That's the house right there, and that's just slightly south, and you can't even see the chimney from there. The chimney's no longer in use. It's deteriorated to the point where it requires immediate repair or dismantling. The chimney is non-functional. Yes, and as you can see, it needs immediate attention. And so basically removing the chimney will not alter the roof line, change the front facade, not affect any visual historical character of the property. And for those reasons, I request the board's approval to remove that particular chimney.

How far are you going to take her all the way down to the roof line?

You're going right down into the basement? Well, below the roof line. Just below the roof line and seal that up.

So then you're going to have a roof with shingles.

Correct.

And that's your chimney to the left, that little... No.

So actually, okay. So they would take it below that roof line right there, the bricks. Right. And just... put a regular shingles over top of that. That second one to the left is actually an attic gas chimney. Okay. That is in use and you know, that's going to remain, but I'm talking about the brick chimney.

What's the main heating source for the buildings that rent out the basement wall or something? How do you heat the whole building?

So that, Oh, Um, well, I have a gas fed, um, electric for, or, uh, you know, gas furnace forced air matches.

Does that vent out the foundation? Yeah. Okay. So you don't need that chimney?

No, no. Okay.

Um, yeah, simple. Thank you.

All right. I think we're good. Thank you.

Any members of the community care to comment? on Mr. Ackerman's proposal for 1004 North George Street. Any discussion, motion?

I make a motion to issue a recommendation to move forward with the project.

Okay.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Good luck with your project, sir.

All right, our final item. I'll have an email for you probably tomorrow with the approval so you can go straight to codes.

Yep. Request Department of Community Economic Development for historic district opinion 502 North George Street petitioner please.

to the members of the planning board good evening my name is john gannon and i am the one of the applicants my my co-applicant is also in the audience tonight and b gannon uh we res i have resided at that address since 1957. wow uh the house has been in our the gannon family for about 70 years Anne and I came back to the house due to illness of my parents. And so Anne and I have been back in that house since 1996. The house itself, the front half of the roof is slate. The back half of the house is asphalt shingles. during those during those years that ann and i've been in uh since 1996 we have made repairs to the roof but the roof needs to be totally replaced um and because the roof needs to be totally replaced much like that gentleman who just spoke to you that that rear chimney that i've circled on the drawing that's a non-functional non-use chimney so i in in getting roofers to come to the house um they they have agreed that that to take down the uh the slate shingles remove the asphalt shingles but because of the age of the structure which is about 1890 the entire roof will need to be covered with boards in order to apply so on top of the boards will then go a rain guard or a some sort of guard in any event then the entire roof will be covered with a black asphalt architectural shingle and uh we're gonna go with the corning manufacturer the duration big because it has a wind velocity resistance of 130 miles per hour and since rome new york seems to all of a sudden become windstorm crazy i figured best for my lifetime not to have to remove another roof The chimney itself, again, is non-functional. We have two chimneys. If you look at the rear picture, well, actually, if you look at that picture that you have right now, there you go, perfect. Go up one, if you can, please. Yeah, up. Or down, I guess, I'm sorry. If you'll look... at the side porch there you'll see that's the primary chimney okay that services are uh we have a gas forced air furnace and we also have a gas hot water heater both of those items are in the basement and they vent into that chimney so the second chimney that's in back of the house that i want to remove doesn't serve any function yeah um And that's what we're here for, to get approval. And if you have any questions, I'd love to answer them.

Do you know, are the slate shingles original from 1890?

Well, that I can't, you know what, there may be one or two that's from 1890, but... In fact, since Ann and I have been at the house, we've had slate shingles replaced. Yeah. You've replaced a lot of them. We have. And ideally, I would love, you know, if I had unlimited funds, I would probably just cover the entire roof with slate. But A, the slate's really, really heavy. And B, it's just cost prohibitive. Yeah, yeah.

All right. Any questions? I think we're good.

Thank you very much for entertaining our application. I appreciate it.

Of course. You're very welcome. Thank you for coming out. I know we request and require petitioners to be here. Appreciate you coming out. Any members of the community like to speak for or against the proposed effort? Okay. I always say I'm guessing that any community comment would be supporting but it's just the hunch. And we're making a recommendation to use and can we get a yeah, make a motion to issue a recommendation in favor of the project. All those in favor, aye. All those opposed. Motions approved. Good luck with your project.

Of course.

Yes. Yeah, correct. Yep. It'll come every so our we make our recommendation is the community and economic development.

And then they they could take recommendation or not, but they generally will issue a certificate of approval. You'll probably have in your email tomorrow.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Good luck. Thank you. Can we get a motion to adjourn?

I make a motion to adjourn.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We are adjourned.