Regular Meeting
Town of Watertown Planning Board
January 19, 2021
Members Present: Tom Boxberger, Co-Chair (via Zoom)
Pam Desormo, Co-Chair
Terry MacAdam
Jim Smith
Randy Vaas
Joseph Russell – Town Attorney
Mr. Vaas called the regular meeting of the Town of Watertown Planning Board to order at 3:00 p.m.
Motion 03-21: Motion by Mrs. Desormo, seconded by Mr. Smith to accept the minutes from the December 7, 2020 meeting as written and distributed.
Ayes All: Motion Carried.
Motion 04-21: Motion by Mrs. Desormo, seconded by Mr. Smith to accept the minutes from the January 4, 2021 meeting as written and distributed.
Ayes All: Motion Carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – SUBDIVISION
Lundy Development & Property Management – Jefferson County Industrial Park – Lot 2 – Tax Map #73.20-1-26 – 2 Lot Subdivision.
Legal notice was posted in the newspaper and evidence that adjacent property owners were notified was provided. A second notice was mailed by the Town with the rescheduled date and time.
The public hearing was opened at 3:03 p.m.
! Charles Grieco, Esq., from Bond Schoeneck & King (via Zoom), on behalf of Opal Development, LLC and Car-Freshner Corporation, addressed the main concerns of his clients, as stated in a letter with exhibits dated 1/4/21 (Attachment #1 – 39 PAGES).
If the subdivision is granted, he requested a condition be put on, that the use be specifically limited to the use of the property as a warehouse and/or fabrication facility, as proposed, and not some other use down the road. The subdivision should also be accompanied by a recording and proof that there is enforceable parking plans in place to solve a long-standing parking problem on what will now be Lot 2A, the Penske Lot.
The public hearing was closed at 3:05 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING – SITE PLAN
Lundy Development & Property Management – Jefferson County Industrial Park – Lot #2B – Part of Tax Map #73.20-1-26 – Site Plan.
Legal notice was posted in the newspaper.
The public hearing was opened at 3:07 p.m.
-2-
! Charles Grieco, Esq., from Bond Schoeneck & King (via Zoom), on behalf of Opal Development, LLC and Car-Freshner Corporation, again addressed the main concerns of his clients, as stated in a letter with exhibits dated 1/4/21 (See Attachment #1).
Mr. Grieco again wants to reiterate the concerns of his clients and that their position is that they are not opposed to use of the property as a warehouse and/or fabrication facility so long as it complies with the applicable requirements of the Neighborhood Commercial District. He also asked that the use be specified as a condition of the site plan approval and that the parking situation be addressed in the site plan approval so it does not exacerbate the current parking situation on the Penske property as is citing in his letter.
He believes the Planning Board has the power to impose those conditions as cited in his letter.
The public hearing was closed at 3:09 p.m.
SIGN PERMIT
CKWP Development, LLC – 21297 County Route 202 – Tax Map #82.11-1-41.2 – Sign Permit.
The Board reviewed proposed signage for CKWP Development, LLC for Core Life Eatery located at 21297 County Route 202, Tax Map #82.11-1-41.2. Discussion followed.
The Board asked that a decorative base be put at base of the existing double pole sign.
Motion 05-21: Motion by Mrs. Desormo, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve signage for CKWP Development, LLC for CoreLife Eatery located at 21297 County Route 202, Tax Map #82.11-1-41.2 as show on Page 1, 2 & 3, dated 1/19/21, condition that a decorative base be added to the bottom of the existing double pole sign.
Ayes All: Motion Carried.
A zoning permit will be required.
SUBDIVISION
Lundy Development & Property Management – Jefferson County Industrial Park – Lot 2 – Tax Map #73.20-1-26 – 2 Lot Subdivision.
Mrs. Desormo questioned the request during the public hearing from Attorney Charles Grieco to impose a condition on use with subdivision approval.
Town Attorney, Joe Russell, advised that subdivision is the division of property only and that the Board should not address use.
Mrs. Desormo entered into record a letter from Michael Lundy dated 1/18/21 (Attachment #2- 3 Pages) which addressed Charles Grieco’s letter of 1/4/21 regarding subdivision and site plan of Lot 2 in the Jefferson County Industrial Park and the current month-to-month parking lease with Penske.
Mr. Lundy explained that currently Penske has a month-to-month lease to utilize a portion of Lot 2 for additional parking. Upon completion of the subdivision of Lot 2B, Penske will have a new lease to utilize part of Lot 2B for additional parking. Upon completion of the new building on Lot 2B, a portion of the parking area behind the building shall be dedicated to Penske for parking.
-3-
Mr. Boxberger asked if there are any deed restrictions on the leasing contract on Lot 2A to Penski and if there has been any discussion with Penski on the length of the lease agreement.
Mr. Lundy stated that it is an automatic-annual lease agreement which any party can terminate at any time.
Mrs. Desormo entered into record a letter dated 1/11/21 from Northern Developers, LLC authorizing Lundy Development & Property Management to continue as the applicant on the subdivision/site plan and SEQR of Lot 2B (Attachment #3 – 1 Page).
Mr. Vaas stated that a Short Environmental Assessment Form dated 12/1/20 was received by Mr. Lundy for the Subdivision of Lot 2 in the Jefferson County Industrial Park (Attachment #4 – 5 Pages).
Mr. Vaas reviewed Part 2 of the Impact Assessment of the Short Environment Assessment Form with the Board.
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?
Mr. Vaas checked No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Ares (CEA)?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
-4-
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure to mass transit, biking or walkway?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
7. Will the proposed action impact existing:
a. public/private water supplies
b. public/private wastewater treatment utilities?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or esthetic resources?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
-5-
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
Motion 06-21: Motion by Mr. Vaas, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve a Negative Declaration.
Ayes All: Motion Carried.
Motion 07-21: Motion by Mrs. Desormo, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve a 2 lot subdivision for Lundy Development & Property Management owned by Northern Developers, LLC for Lot 2 – Tax Map #73.20-1-26 in the Jefferson County Industrial Park as shown on plans prepared by LaFave, White & McGivern, L.S., P.C., signed by Robert J. Busler, dated 2/26/20, File #2020L-01, Sheet 1 of 1. Lot 2A will consist of 1.43 acres and Lot 2B will consist of 3.64 acres.
Tom Boxberger – Yes
Pam Desormo – Yes
Jim Smith – Yes
Terry MacAdam – Yes
Randy Vaas – Yes
SITE PLAN
Stephanie Davis – 22040 Sunset Ridge – Tax Map #82.20-2-42.4 – In Home Occupation – Site Plan.
No one was present.
Grindstone Group – NYS Route 12F – Tax Map #73.20-1-7.2 – Construction of a 120′ x 40′ Storage Unit – Site Plan.
-6-
Scott Weston, on behalf of Grindstone Group, reviewed proposed plans for the construction of a 120′ x 40′ storage unit on NYS Route 12F, Tax Map #73.20-1-7.2. The Grindstone Group received approval for two buildings on February 3, 2020 but only constructed one and site plan has expired for the second unit.
A new application has been submitted. The building will meet all zoning requirements and match the existing buildings. Discussion followed.
Motion 08-21: Motion by Mrs. Desormo, seconded by Mr. MacAdam to schedule a public hearing for Grindstone Group, NYS Route 12F, Tax Map #73.20-1-7.2 for Site Plan for the construction of a 120′ x 40′ storage barn on Monday, February 1, 2021 at 3:00 p.m.
Ayes All: Motion Carried.
This project will be referred to the Jefferson County Department of Planning for their review.
BJA Watertown Real Estate, LLC – 18712 Route 11 (Bob Johnson – Chrysler, Dodge, Ram & Jeep) – 18712 & 18730 US Route 11 – Tax Map #91.09-1-2. Demolish two (2) Buildings and Replace with a New 28,000 Square Foot Chrysler Building – Site Plan
Neil Zinsmeyer, Project Manager, on behalf of, BJA Watertown Real Estate, Tax Map # 91.09-1-2, reviewed updated plans for the construction of a 28,000 square foot dealership located at 18712 US Route 11.
They are still working with DOT regarding highway cuts. Discussion followed.
Mr. Zinsmeyer will submit signage at a later date.
Motion 09-21: Motion by Mrs. Desormo, seconded by Mr. Vaas to scheduled a public hearing for BJA Watertown Real Estate, LLC (Bob Johnson), for site plan review for a 28,000 square foot building at 18712 US Route 11 on Monday, February 1, 2021 at 3:00 p.m.
Ayes All: Motion Carried.
This matter has been forwarded to the Jefferson County Department of Planning for their review.
Lundy Development & Property Management – Jefferson County Industrial Park – Site Plan – Lot 2B – Part of Tax Map #73.20-1-26.
Mrs. Desormo entered into record comments from the Jefferson County Department of Planning dated 12/30/20 (Attachment #5 – 2 Pages).
Mr. Lundy reviewed the proposed plans for a 8,000 square foot building. The property has been sold to Northern Developers with an agreement that Mr. Lundy will be hired as the Developer to build the building. Additionally, Mr. Lundy will have a short-term lease with Northern Developers and lease the building for himself
Mr. Lundy will submit an updated SWPPP.
Mr. Vaas stated that a Short Environmental Assessment Form was submitted by Mr. Lundy dated 12/1/2020 for Site Plan on a Warehouse and Fabrication Building on Lot 2B in the Jefferson County Industrial Park (Attachment #6 – 5 Pages).
-7-
Mr. Vaas reviewed Part 2 of the Impact Assessment of the Short Environment Assessment Form with the Board.
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?
Mr. Vaas checked No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Ares (CEA)?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure to mass transit, biking or walkway?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
-8-
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
7. Will the proposed action impact existing:
a. public/private water supplies
b. public/private wastewater treatment utilities?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or esthetic resources?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
-9-
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?
Mr. Vaas checked – No, or small impact may occur.
Tom Boxberger – Agree
Pam Desormo – Agree
Jim Smith – Agree
Terry MacAdam – Agree
Randy Vaas – Agree
Motion 10-21: Motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. MacAdam to approve a Negative Declaration.
Ayes All: Motion Carried.
Mrs. Desormo questioned the request from Attorney Charles Grieco during the public hearing that a condition be attached to site plan approval on this proposed project regarding use (See Attachment #1, #2, & #3).
The Town Attorney, Joe Russell, stated that the issue before the Board is the application as it is presented to comply with zoning.
Motion 11-21: Motion by Mrs. Desormo, seconded by Mr. Smith to grant site plan approval to Lundy Development & Property Management owned by Northern Developers for Lot 2B on County Route 200 in the Jefferson County Industrial Park, Part of Tax Map #73.20-1-26 for a 9,590 square foot warehouse building as shown on plans prepared by Harrington & Mosher Architects originally dated 5/17/18, with 7 revisions the latest being 12/4/20, Project #L 17-60, Sheet L0, L1, L2, L3, PH1, SK2, conditional upon submission of an updated SWPPP.
Tom Boxberger – Yes
Pam Desormo – Yes
Jim Smith – Yes
Terry MacAdam – Yes
Randy Vaas – Yes
For the record, if the use changes, the future applicant will need to return to the Planning Board to ensure compliance of zoning regulations.
Christopher Morse and David Walton were in attendance at tonight’s meeting. They expressed their concerns with proposed changes to the zoning regulations for solar panels.
Mrs. Desormo stated that the Planning Board has submitted their recommendations to the Town Council who make the final decision on zoning regulations.
The Town Council will re-open the public hearing on this matter at the February 11, 2021 meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Motion 12-21: Motion by Mr. Vaas, seconded by Mr. Boxberger to adjourn this meeting at 3:25 p.m.
Ayes All: Motion Carried.
____________________
Susan Burdick, Secretary