Village of Bloomfield Planning Board meeting of May 9, 2013
The regular monthly meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Dan Morley.
Present were: Dan Morley, Bob Dobberstein, Nancy Witt, Ken Martin, and Nikki Every. CEO Andy Hall was also present.
Excused: Tom Kugris
Guests: Edmund Martin, Charles and Jody Barscheski, Mark Falsone, Nancy Long, Jack and Joan Herrington, Glenn Cooke, Vicki and Nick Bober.
Nikki Every motioned, Nancy Witt seconded and it was unanimously carried to accept the minutes of the April meeting as amended.
Nikki Every motioned, Ken Martin seconded and it was unanimously carried to accept the minutes of the joint Village/EB town planning board meeting of April 11.
Area variance 20 Maple Ave.
Charles and Jody Barscheski were present to discuss their area variance application for relief of 2 ft. in height to allow construction of a fence along a portion of the southeast boundary of their corner lot, located at 20 Maple Ave. (tax map #68.17-1-22.000). The following was discussed:
1. Would like the fence for privacy and it would also provide privacy for the adjacent neighbors from the boat and camper.
2. Proposed fence is similar to fence across the street.
3. Still must decide whether to use wood posts or wood-covered steel posts for construction.
The Planning Board discussed the following:
1. It was suggested that the fence be approximately 12 inches inside the lot line to allow for maintenance on both sides of the fence.
2. The finish and features of the fence were discussed.
Dan Morley motioned, Ken Martin seconded and it was unanimously carried to recommend to the ZBA that the area variance of 2 ft. in height be granted to allow construction of a fence along a portion of the southeast boundary of the property located at 20 Maple Ave., tax map #68.17-1-22.000, with the consideration of allowing enough distance from the fence to the lot line to maintain the fence on both sides.
Privilege of the Floor
Ed Martin of Land Tech Development was present, representing Peter Bruckel, to discuss future plans to develop the property located at 3 Main St. He presented a draft layout of the property with proposed locations for a gas station/retail use with parking and gas pumps. He was looking for feed-back on this suggested plan. Highlights of his discussion are:
1. This layout has been presented to NYS DOT and the Village DPW Supervisor with a favorable response from the DPW and a reportedly favorable response from the DOT.
a. Several orientations were considered and this layout was deemed the safest with allowance for a drive-thru.
b. The access depicted is adequate for emergency/fire vehicles
2. Currently there are 3 separate parcels but the intention is to combine them all into one parcel.
3. The desire of the property owner is to construct a new gas station with leased space for retail and a drive-thru.
4. The plan will involve a new curb cut onto Rte. 444 and all currently existing curb cuts will be removed.
5. The apartments depicted on the draft plan are only a preliminary concept to determine potential need for adequate access onto Rte. 444. (for DOT approval)
a. The apartments will not be depicted on the concept plan to be submitted to the Planning Board.
b. The apartments could be a mix of commercial and residential uses on a portion of the parcel that could be subdivided out in the future, if desired.
6. The stream will not be re-located.
7. Drainage improvement will be on-site and easements will be sought with the DOT. The island to the north will be green space to be used for rainwater infiltration with a backup second phase consisting of a traditional pond discharge adjacent to the creek.
8. Mr. Bruckel wishes to work cooperatively with the restaurant adjacent to the west to address parking and access.
9. Mr. Bruckel is firm on his need to locate the gas station as close to the corner of Main And Elm Streets as possible.
10. Parking spaces are proposed at 9X18 with approximately 18% of the parcel covered with impervious surface. It is understood that a variance would be needed for the parking in front of the building.
11. There is concern for the zero front yard setback required as the road is owned by NYS and often the State will widen a road when they deem it appropriate.
12. Architectural features and planning board feedback of the building will be handled by the architects.
Members of the Planning Board stated that development on this parcel is welcomed. This corner is a vital part of the Village’s identity. The Village Center District regulations were developed to maintain and protect that identity. Highlights of the planning board and CEO comments are:
1. The CEO mentioned that more handicapped parking spaces may be needed
2. The CEO suggested that re-locating the gas station further to the north of the property (away from the corner) would cause the gas tanks to be closer to the DEC regulated stream, which may be a problem with the DEC.
3. Buffering and screening would be needed in the area adjacent to the residential parcel.
4. Before the Planning Board can render any decisions, a formal concept plan should be submitted
a. A site location map depicting the properties within 500 ft. of the project is required
b. An explanation of how the project does/does not address the requirements in the Village Center District regulations is needed.
c. A special use permit will be needed for the construction of a new gas station.
d. Address the hours of operation for the drive-thru
Training: All members received an updated summary of training hours to date and those required for re-appointment.
Zoning Law review: Article VIII review will be tabled for future meetings as time permits
Sign regulations: Concern was raised for the sign permit granted in April for the free-standing sign.
1. The sign permit review process was not followed according to the letter of the law in the new sign regulations.
2. The sign regulations need to meet the needs of the community and will be reviewed again.
3. A request to the Village Board may be appropriate to amend their fee schedule to differentiate between a sign variance and other area variances such that the sign variance fee should cost less.
Adjournment: Dan Morley motioned, Nikki Every seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Conradt, Clerk