11/3/2016 planning board meeting minutes

Village of Webster Planning Board Meeting MinutesMeeting Minutes of November 3, 2016

Community Meeting Hall29 South AvenueWebster, NY 14580

Present: Peter Adams, Kathy Bills, Peter Bowers, Judy Gurnett, Chris Krawiec, Building Insp./Code Enforcement Officer Will Barham, Atty: David Mayer, Deputy Clerk Jo O’Neill

Meeting came to order at 7:30pm.

Reviewed minutes from the October 6, 2016 meeting.

Motion: Chris Krawiec made a motion to accept the minutes from October 6, 2016 as written. Seconded by Kathy Bills. All were in favor. Motion passed.

Peter Adams asked for a motion to go into Executive session.

Motion: Kathy Bills made a motion to go into Executive Session for legal advice. Seconded by Chris Krawiec. All were in favor. Motion passed. Entered into Executive Session at 7:33pm.

Motion: Chris Krawiec made a motion to resume the meeting. Seconded by Peter Bowers. All were in favor. Motion passed. Meeting resumed at 7:45pm.

P. Adams noted that the order of the agenda items will be rearranged. Brittany Woods will be first, followed by Maplewood Nursing Home, and then Scenic Village Townhomes.

1) Application: T.Y.LIN International, representing BWTH, LLC., is requesting an initial sketch/site plan review and discussion regarding the proposed Brittany Woods townhome development to be located on the southeast corner of Phillips Rd. and Ridge Rd., Webster, New York. Tax ID# 080.15-1-49.1 and ID# 080.11-1-2. The property is currently zoned P.U.D., however they will request that the parcel be rezoned to R2-9.6. Applicable zoning: 175-30.

Presentation: Jack Buholtz, Mark VanEpps and Brad Jameson represented Brittany Woods. J. Buholtz provided a preliminary site plan for the property on Phillips Rd. between Foster Dr. and Ridge Rd., which is currently wooded. The property is zoned P.U.D., but they would like to have it rezoned to R2-9.6, and combine the two parcels into one. They may also need a variance to build more than one building per acre. There are approximately 13 acres, and they may want to build 14 – 15 buildings. They are proposing up to 80 townhome units, private roads and utilities, to include two story units along Phillips Rd. and at the north end of the development, and one story units for most of the remaining development. It will have an urban neighborhood look. There will be access from Foster Dr. and Phillips Rd. Each unit will have a two-car garage, and there will be additional parking for two more cars per unit. There will be street lighting and extensive sidewalks throughout the site. There is public

of 8Planning Board Meeting, November 3, 2016

water and sanitary sewers already available. As for storm water, the soil is quick draining, so they will take advantage of an infiltration system. What looks like a pond on the plan is actually a basin for infiltration purposes. Everything will be done according to NYS DEC’s specifications. They will be doing a complete traffic study, but preliminary numbers show that there is a fairly low impact from traffic. They will need to go through the SEQR process for the rezoning and site plan. We are hoping for a positive recommendation from the Planning Board for the re-zoning.

P. Adams reiterated that the site is currently zoned P.U.D., and they would have to go before the Village Board to get it rezoned to R2-9.6, and go through the SEQR process for the rezoning. The Planning Board would be the lead agency for the SEQR process on the site plan. We may be able to do a coordinated review for both boards for the SEQR process. The area was marked for Green Space in the Comprehensive Plan in 2011, but nothing has been done so it’s not enforceable. Wegmans still owns the property. There are 13 acres, some of which is wetlands. You would be allowed to build 117 units, but are only planning on building 80 units which will allow for more green space. There are a couple long groups of units, which we would suggest breaking up into shorter groups.

J. Buholtz replied that splitting up the long groups would create a variance issue. There are some wetlands that have to be worked around. The units that are separated some from the rest, on the southeast corner, will be ranch style. We will work on adding sidewalks to connect the separated area to the rest of the development.

Kathy Bills inquired about the demographics for the development. Are you marketing it to a particular age group?

Mark VanEpps responded that they are not marketing to any specific age group. The two- story units will have three bedrooms. They all have garages, and sidewalks, porches and alleyways that give them an Urban look.

Chris Krawiec mentioned that the board will want to see the plans for street lighting, site lighting, trash, dumpster pads, etc.

M. VanEpps said everyone will have their own toter, and the trash will be billed through the management company.

C. Krawiec added that the roadways will have to be built to standard widths to allow for Fire Dept, access.

J. Buholtz indicated that they have already spoken with the Fire Marshall regarding the roads. They have not tied the roads into Foster Dr. farther east from Phillips Rd. because of the wetlands. After speaking with Matt Chatfield, they have included lots of sidewalks. They will also need space for utilities, AC condensers, gas meters, etc.

Open to Public Comments:Eric Reynolds inquired about the clearing of trees.

M. VanEpps replied that trees will be cleared out where needed for building. Then additional trees and landscaping will be put in.


Public: How will you minimize the impact on the surrounding properties, in relation to removing the trees and vegetation?

M. VanEpps indicated that the current wetland area will not be touched, and will remain as a buffer between the surrounding properties. Other areas will have tree plantings as a buffer.

Rick Walter asked about the east property line behind the wooded and wetland area.

M. VanEpps responded that it is all wetland there and will not be touched.

Judy Gurnett inquired about the basements.

M. VanEpps said there will be full basements for all units, in addition to two car garages.

Lori Reynolds, Judson St., questioned whether there is any endangered wildlife that will be disturbed there.

J. Buholtz indicated that they had hired people to go in there to do a study and wetland mapping, and it was negative for any rare or endangered species.

P. Adams added that they would need to do the long form for SEQR, which will include a wetlands, vegetation and endangered species environmental review.

L. Reynolds commented that there may be more deer in their yards across the street in the Schantz track, and possibly raccoons and fox.

Peter Elder, Dunning Ave., asked if there would be access to the Band Shell from the development, especially for the summer concerts.

M. VanEpps replied that there would not be access there, as they do not want any through traffic. They may have a barrier there for a fire truck entrance only.

Closed to the Public:P. Adams asked if the design presented was the final design.

M. VanEpps indicated that the ranch buildings will be slightly different.

C. Krawiec requested that the garage doors be “spruced up”, as they appear to be just a wall of doors. In addition, the units along Phillips Rd. are one very long building. Would be better to split it up.

M. VanEpps agreed that it would look nicer to split up that building, if they can get a variance for it.


Will Barham referenced the verbiage in zoning section 175-41c(1). Townhouses fall under special purposes subject to approval of the Planning Board, which states that, “The layout of units shall not form long unbroken lines of exterior walls.” The units should be split or staggered. He also inquired as to whether there would be a clubhouse, playground, or any other amenity there, and when they will be requesting the zoning change from the Village Board.

M. VanEpps indicated that there will not be any special amenities in the development, and they plan on applying to the Village Board right away for the zoning request.

P. Adams added that we can’t approve a concept plan, especially since the purchase of the property is still under contract, but we could take a general pole of the Planning Board members. All members agreed some adjustments may need to be made, but there is a “positive feel” for the project going forward to the Village Board.

P. Adams also expressed that we should do a coordinated SEQR review with the Village Board, but their next step is to go to the Village Board with their rezoning application. They should have the traffic study and the wetland report done before they go to the Village Board.

C. Krawiec asked about the sewer drainage.

M. VanEpps replied that they are working on gravity drainage vs. a pump station.

2) Application:Greg Chambery, owner of Maplewood Nursing Home, 100 Daniel Drive, Tax ID # 080.09-1-19. The Maplewood is proposing a building addition in conjunction with a reconfiguration of the existing units and common space; no new units will be added. The project includes a building addition of 15,000+/- square feet with an outdoor courtyard, a new access drive, a new main entrance with a porte-cochere, 11 additional parking spaces, as well as walking trail and a gazebo near the new storm water management facility. One variance will be required: the rear building setback is proposed at 15 feet versus the required 20 feet. Property zoned: Neighborhood Business. Applicable zoning section: 175-20 A. (3)(b).

Presentation: Greg Chambery presented a packet to the board, and gave a brief history of Maplewood Nursing Home. They are presenting a concept for the expansion and renovation of their building, to include 14 new large patient rooms, a coffee shop and café, and reconfiguring the entrance as well. They will not be increasing the number of patients they care for, but merely renovating the current smaller rooms into larger ones, and moving some of the patients into the new rooms being built.

Bob Bringly, from Marathon Engineering, described the layout of the plans. What was the back of the building, will now be the main entrance off of Dean Springs Dr. Landscaped courtyard areas will be created, so that the new units will look out onto green space. The old maintenance facility will be removed, and a new one will be built further south. A concrete pond will be put in, with sidewalks and a gazebo near it. The drainage naturally runs south to north, but we will be adding a new storm water management area to tie into the Village’s system to the north. The parking areas will be reconfigured, adding 11 more spaces.


P. Adams commented about the new maintenance building being built closer to Main St., along with the parking area, and suggested that some type of a “buffer” will be needed for the view from Main St. He also noted that the plan shows trails and a gazebo around the pond. They will need a variance for a 15ft. rear setback.

G. Chambery indicated that they have sent out notices to the neighbors regarding the addition, but have not heard back from anyone.

C. Krawiec inquired about the current driveway along the NW area of the property.

B. Bringly replied that it will be used as a service road, and not for ingress and egress. He also added that they are currently locating the existing sanitary sewer line, as the old map is not very accurate.

G. Chambery mentioned that they have spoken with the Fire Marshall regarding access to the back and west side of the building for the first responders. He indicated that it would not be an issue. The building also has a full sprinkler system.

Kathy Bills asked about the heart shaped pond and trees.

B. Bringly indicated the design made it more interesting and “park like”. The walking trails and trees all around help to create a buffer on the north side. He also indicated that the parcels will remain the same. They are not planning to have them rezoned into one parcel.

Open to the Public:No comments noted.

Closed to the Public:P. Adams inquired as to when they are planning on submitting their final application.

B. Bringly responded that they would like to have the preliminary/final application ready for December; December 5th for the Planning Board, and December 19th for the Zoning Board.

P. Adams reiterated that some of the concerns are the location of the maintenance building, parking near Main St. and saving as many trees as possible. There is currently a positive feel from this board.

3) Scheduled Matter:Scenic Village Townhomes. The Planning Board will consider whether the Townhome portion of the Scenic Village site plan will be deemed abandoned due to failure to install necessary improvements as required by Village Code Section 137-8. (Continued from October 6, 2016 meeting)

Discussion: P. Adams first indicated that this is not an open public hearing. We will not be taking any comments or questions from the public. This is a review of what was discussed last month, and the Planning Board will make a determination on the Scenic Village site plan.


Peter Lutz, with Bond, Schoeneck and King, representing Louis Fico and SVTLLC, indicated that Mr. Fico had previously agreed to complete the road based on the concerns of the Planning Board. He has obtained estimates and met with the Village Building Inspector, and is still willing to complete the road in accordance with the original specifications that were approved. It is Mr. Lutz’ understanding that this was the major concern of the Planning Board.

P. Adams replied that the major concern is the site plan. The project has been lingering for many years, and the infrastructure is still not complete. We want a resolution. The plan was approved in 2005. It’s been 11 years and there are still vacant lots, the road has deteriorated, sidewalks aren’t finished, street lights were just put in; we need to determine if the site plan has been abandoned. Is there a timeline for completing the rest?

P. Lutz stated that the last units were completed and sold in June 2015. It’s only been a year and a half since then. Mr. Fico’s intention is to start new construction within a couple months. The sidewalks are only in front of the finished units. If they are put in before the units are constructed, they will be destroyed. The Village can withhold the C of O’s for new units if the sidewalks aren’t in.

Atty. David Mayer reiterated that the issue is whether the owner intends to complete the infrastructure in accordance with the site plan; including the roadway, sidewalks, and additional parking.

Louis Fico responded that he does intend to complete the infrastructure. He has gotten four bids to complete the road, and gave the selected one to the Village’s Building Inspector, Will Barham, with a list of their references. He wants Will to be there when the road is done to ensure it is done to the Village’s specifications.

P. Adams then inquired about the rest of the infrastructure.

L. Fico replied that the sidewalks shouldn’t be put in until the units are done. The Village could put in writing that no C of O’s will be issued until the sidewalks are in.

D. Mayer asked Mr. Fico, “Do you have a date certain when you intend to complete the subdivision roads, parking areas and sidewalks?”

L. Fico responded that he did not.

P. Lutz said Mr. Fico plans on completing the roads this month. The sidewalks won’t be done until the buildings are complete. As for the parking, there are four spaces, which he pointed out on the plans. Two of them he will put in when the road is done. The other two will be put in when the other buildings are done.

L. Fico inquired about a solution for the sidewalks, and asked the board if they wanted a bond for them.


D. Mayer went back to the original question, as to whether the owner has abandoned the original site plan, and whether they have affirmatively decided not to complete the project as it was approved in 2005. Is there an intent to abandon the project? To determine that, we can take into account the owner’s actions and projections for the future. Has the owner shown sufficient evidence that he intends to complete the improvements as shown on the site plan, including streets, parking and sidewalks? If the board finds that there is no plan or credible promise to complete the infrastructure, you could find the site plan abandoned. Otherwise, the site plan has not been abandoned. The board has the option of postponing their decision. They are not under the 64 day guideline, as there is no pending application. They can postpone the decision pending further developments.

Discussion continued regarding the length of time the project has taken, and the residents currently living there who are suffering.

P. Lutz stated that Mr. Fico would be willing to put up a letter of credit to ensure the sidewalks are completed.

L. Fico agreed to put in two of the parking spaces when the road is done. The other two will be put in when the buildings are done across the street.

P. Adams explained that the Planning Board must request from the Village Board to require a letter of credit, with the amount to be determined by engineers based on the construction cost.

D. Mayer indicated that the board could make a motion that if the road is done and a letter of credit is issued as promised, that would be sufficient evidence that the site plan is not abandoned.

C. Krawiec inquired whether sidewalks had been put in front of the units that are completed. The sidewalks were not a requirement of the original site plan, but Mr. Lutz indicate on the map where sidewalks have been installed. The concern is that the sidewalks along the south side of the private drive have not been put in.

Based on several comments, the board would give Mr. Fico 60 days to post the letter of credit for the sidewalks. If the engineer indicates that the road can’t be done now, Mr. Fico will post a letter of credit for the road also. Will Barham agreed that he would take the engineer’s advice regarding the road.

P. Adams commented that we want to act in good faith, get a letter of credit and move forward on this issue. We have several options to consider: 1) declare the site plan abandoned, which would mean there was an intent to abandon the project, 2) we could request a letter of credit issued within 60 days to the Village Board for the sidewalks, and 3) the road and extra parking spaces must be done with engineer’s approval. If what we’re asking is done, the site plan would be considered not abandoned.


C. Krawiec stated that in looking at this project, he doesn’t believe M. Fico intends to abandon the site, but the lack of activity is leading us down that path. We understand that you don’t want to finish everything while construction is still going on, but we don’t see construction going on in the short term or long term future. If you look at what’s going on in Webster, there are developers currently building and others wanting to build here. Why isn’t anything happening with Scenic Village? There’s obviously a need and desire to live here.

Mr. Fico responded that he could build all of the units if he wanted to rent them. People buying townhomes don’t want to live in the middle of rental property. It’s a nice area, but he found out it is not easy to sell townhomes there. He will continue to build the units, and just paid $4200. for permits to build four more, but realizes they will not sell quickly. He is not walking away, and is taking care of issues as they come up. He is going to build the rest, but not all at once.

P. Adams then asked for a motion to go into Executive Session.

Motion: Kathy Bills made a motion to go into Executive Session for legal advice. Seconded by Chris Krawiec. All were in favor. Motion passed. Entered into Executive Session at 9:50pm.

Motion: Peter Bowers made a motion to resume the meeting. Seconded by Kathy Bills. All were in favor. Motion passed. Meeting resumed at 10:00pm.

P. Adams then asked for a motion regarding the Scenic Village site plan.

Motion: Chris Krawiec made a motion to consider Scenic Village Townhomes’ site plan not abandoned with the following conditions: 1) The roadway is completed prior to the end of asphalt season 2016, 2) a Letter of Credit will be issued to the Village of Webster within 90 days, with the Village Board’s approval for the value determined by engineering estimates of the remaining infrastructure, and 3) if the roadway is not completed by the end of the asphalt season 2016, completion shall commence prior to the end of asphalt season 2017 upon commencement of substantial construction of the four units that have been permitted. Seconded by Peter Bowers.All were in favor. Motion passed.

Meeting adjourned at 10:15pm.

The next Planning Board Meeting is scheduled for 7:30pm on December 1, 2016.Respectfully submitted,Jo O’Neill, Deputy Clerk


11/3/2016 planning board meeting minutes

Documents