Full Text
TOWN OF STERLING PLANNING BOARD MEETING October 5, 2015 A meeting of the Town of Sterling Planning Board was held on Monday October 5, 2015 at the Sterling Town Hall at 7:00 pm with the following members present: June Ouellette ~ Chairman Sue Allen ~ Member Vernon Bishop ~ Member Susan Lemon ~ Member Absent: Member Grover Horn Also Present : Christopher Ferlito and Attorney Kimberly Steele, Virginia Fichera, Steve Keeling, Brian Soper , Robin Allinger, Mireille Watts, Andy Smith, Delores Welsh and Jim Magnogna. Chairman Ouellette called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. BUSINESS Ronald Goodsell - owner and Andy Smith - applicant – Preliminary Meeting – Minor Subdivision – 14088 State Route 38 (#13.00-1-51) Mr. Smith presented a survey map of the proposed subdivision and creation of a flag lot on property belonging to Ronald Goodsell. He also supplied a letter for the file verifying that the landowner is in agreement with the proposed subdivision and sale of property as shown on map. The flag section is 2 acres in size and the pole is 50’ wide and extends more than 900’ to connect to State Route 38, the total size will be just over 3 acres. The Board reviewed the map against the required elements checklist and found the only change necessary would be adding ‘final’ to the map. The short form EAF for SEQR was supplied which will be reviewed at the Hearing. Mr. Smith stated that he would be unable to attend the November meeting and that his wife would be attending in his place. A Public Hearing was scheduled for November 2nd at 7:00 pm. Mr. Smith was told to bring 1 mylar map and 5 paper copies to the Hearing for approval. Slobe Farms Real Estate –Preliminary Meeting –Minor Subdivision – 1389 Curtis Co- Op Road (#13.00-1-10.11) Attorney Richard Reilly was not present for meeting and the status of subdivision is unknown. Clerk, Lisa Somers, stated that she had contacted Mr. Reilly after the previous meeting to inform him of the tower height (300’) which the Board had explained that the new property line would need to be the same distance from the base of the tower per the LUR. Christopher Ferlito – Special Use Permit – 13181 Sanford Road, Martville (#20.00-1- 68.1) Christopher Ferlito and his attorney, Kimberly Steele, approached the Board and stated that they had received approval from the ZBA and the original variance was modified to specify a single access road. In light of the rehearing decision by the ZBA, the Planning Board members continued the special use permit application review. The effects of the mine on the traffic flow has been a concern for residents and Board members, the DOT has recommended traffic analyses studies be performed which the Town attorney has similarly recommended. For these reasons the Planning Board entertained a motion ---PAGE BREAK--- moved by Member Bishop to pursue obtaining traffic study proposals from three engineering firms (supplied by the Town attorney), involving 4 intersections as presented in the draft letter dated October 6, 2015. The motion was seconded by Chairman Ouellette, all were in favor and the motion carried. Some discussion ensued regarding the process which attorney Kimberly Steel explained they literally count traffic for 8 or 10 hours to determine flow rates, linear measurements to determine sight distances, and they obtain data from the State DOT records for accidents – analyses derived from the data collected. Member Lemon stated that the methodology the engineers plan to utilize should be included in the request letter. Member Bishop had several questions regarding the site plan such as the depth and elevation of the well Mr. Ferlito intends to use for dust control. The site plan map had elevational contours and the current well location is being determined. Former owner Steve Keeling said that the well is approximately 9’ deep currently and was approximately 39’ before the 30’ of material was moved over the past few decades. Member Lemon commented that she would like to see the neighbor well depths catalogued somewhere. Attorney Steele replied that the DEC permit covers the concerns over water supplies with an extensive monitoring schedule which is not a normal provision added to mining permits. Member Allen questioned what that schedule was and how the Town would receive the results. Attorney Steele replied that the Town could FOIL the information or Mr. Ferlito could provide the reports as a courtesy if the Board so wished. Member Bishop wanted to know the reason for the numerous test bores which was answered that the testing insures that the mining remains 5’ above the water table. CJ Ferlito added that the boring in the spring would determine the high water table mark which would establish the mining depth for the season which would be retested with boring holes periodically to maintain a distance of 5’ above the elevation predetermined. Chairman Ouellette asked if these were normal provisions of mining permits. Mr. Ferlito replied no, that the DEC monitors many elements of the mine operation but the test bores are extensive for this permit. Member Bishop read aloud a line from page 5 of the DEC permit stating that there was no evidence to support that the proposed mining activity would impact the quantity or quality of water in neighboring wells. He would like the DEC to supply the methodology used to determine the response with support of a collective record of past permitting of gravel mines. Member Lemon questioned the ‘noise’ associated with the mining. She wanted to know the methodology of the tests and in particular what equipment was tested simultaneously – delivery trucks coming and going with internal equipment. Was normal neighborhood traffic monitored at different peak times to establish a range of ambient noise levels. Member Lemon was going to review the information supplied thus far for collective information. Member Bishop commented that he had followed up on statements made at meetings regarding the value of CJ Ferlito’s property. He had spoken with Town assessor, Lezli Parsons, and confirmed that the current assessed value wouldn’t change if the permit to operate the mine were granted because without the addition of structures there isn’t any improvement to assess. ---PAGE BREAK--- Member Allen asked the Sterling Highway Supervisor, Brian Soper, many questions regarding the roadways and traffic details as follows: Are posted speed limits being lowered in the vicinity of the proposed mine. Brian Soper replied that Sterling and Victory have started the process by the Town Boards petitioning County Highway to petition the State DOT, who has the authority to establish speed limits. All of Sanford Road and Pople Road from Sand Hill Road to Route 38 has requests for speed reductions. What do you think the resulting speed will be? Initially 45 MPH was the target but Mr. George Wething from County Highway has stated it could be as low as 40 or 35 MPH. Mr. Soper also stated that the neighbors have asked for a reduction for years but there was never enough push to get it started, the controversy surrounding the mine has created enough interest for the paperwork to move. What is the width of Sanford Road? The width is 20 feet and is compliant with Federal guidelines that dictate 400 vehicles or less average per day usage requires 9 feet wide lanes or 18 feet total road width. If the average vehicle usage increased significantly then the next category’s requirement would be 10 foot lanes or 20 feet road width which is the current dimension of Sanford Road. What is the width of vehicles that use Sanford Road? Dump trucks and hauling trucks including tractor trailers are 8 feet wide. School buses are eight feet wide. Snow plows are the widest at ten feet and have experienced no problems passing school buses during the winters or any other vehicles traveling the local roads. Who is responsible for stone spills on the roadways? CJ Ferlito is responsible for any and all spills from the mine to the delivery project site. Brian Soper elaborated that he would also be responsible to correct the problem because he would probably be the first called for a road spill and the Town becomes liable once notification is received. If the Town corrected the problem a bill would be forwarded to Mr. Ferlito to cover expenses. Chairman Ouellette asked Mr. Ferlito if he planned be on site to which he replied yes. Member Allen asked what happens when he’s completed mining Phase 1A. Mr. Ferlito replied that he would reclaim the area, and then file a renewal of the 20 year permit to start mining Phase 1B with a new bond secured for reclamation of this phase. Member Allen asked if the Town or the Planning Board could have copies of all bonds for the project file. The applicant was willing to provide paperwork for the following: Town of Victory Highway Bond, Cayuga County Highway Bond, Reclamation Bond from the DEC permit and the Sterling Road Preservation Law Bond. Member Lemon stated to her fellow Board members that they needed to compile a list of oversights needed for the project as well as identifying who would be responsible for reviewing conditions set. It was agreed that the Sterling CEO would be responsible for upholding compliance standards for any Special Use Permit issued in the Town. Most Codes offices are complaint driven therefore if Mr. Ferlito isn’t complying with the approved plan the neighbors would be able to file a complaint which would be acted upon by the CEO. Member Lemon stated that she had been reviewing the LUR and the Comprehensive Plan while applying the proposed mining use and would like to know what benefit there is to the Town if granted. For example if a developer wanted to build on smaller than required building lots, which is typical in waterfront areas, then a compromise would be made to supply an area of green space to offset the denser usage. ---PAGE BREAK--- Attorney Kim Steele replied that she and Mr. Ferlito could supply a written response of benefits as well as addressing and providing responses to concerns. Member Lemon also voiced concern regarding the effect on property values surrounding the mine. Residents had supplied documentation where the values decrease substantially for a distance of 1 ½ miles away – is there documentation that contradicts? Member Bishop also stated that the material supplied was for a 240 acre mining operation whereas this project is only 35 acres, and the area population was much larger at 35,000 so a direct comparison is difficult to ascertain. He also stated that on page 43 of the LUR it is stated that the proposed use be a substantial improvement to property in the immediate vicinity – he wondered what use would answer that requirement. Member Allen agreed. Attorney Kim Steele again offered to supply written arguments describing effects on property values. The members discussed the possibility of a work session to hammer out the details collectively regarding which requirements have been met and postulate conditions to be attached if approved. Some members felt that a work session would be more helpful after the Hearing is closed and a time clock of 62 days begins but others felt that would be problematic if more information was needed. The attorney would be consulted for details of the process. The Cayuga County Planning 239 review report is another document that needs to be reviewed and any recommendations the Sterling Planning Board disagrees with must have a supermajority vote to overturn. In conclusion, the Board listed the information still outstanding was the traffic studies recommended by the DOT and some follow up questions for methodology used for noise and establishment of depth limits, monitoring and effects on area wells. The next meeting is scheduled for November 2nd , the Board hopes to have the traffic studies completed by the next meeting. PRIVILEDGE OF THE FLOOR Several residents had comments regarding the proposed sand and gravel mine, they are as follows: 1. Steve Keeling – Stated that gravel mines are necessary and located everywhere. Building anything needs gravel to begin. A mine that is permitted has oversights unlike the small operations under 1,000 cubic yards a year which do whatever they want – lacking protections to protect contamination of Sterling Creek and limits on mining depths. 2. Robin Allinger – Asked questions regarding the water being used for dust control. She had concerns of the amount of water being used and how it would affect her shallow well across the road. She quoted the DEC application of a projected use of 2,000 gallons per day. Mr. Ferlito explained that he would be using the well located on the property, only when needed therefore sporadic usage, really only to be applied to the access road and chemicals (calcium) are an option because water eventually creates mud which is not the intended result. He also stated that the Onondaga Lake project ends in May which is essentially a lost opportunity. 3. Delores Welsh – Would like to see more concern from the Town regarding the neighbors concerns and welfare. 4. Jeffrey Couperus – Read aloud a letter previously supplied to both ZBA and Planning Board. Interested in the results of the traffic study because of negligible sight distances along Sanford Road. Stated that the Saturday operation hours for residential deliveries only seemed to be excessive because the weekend is when a majority of people are home in the neighborhood and there’s an increase in families ---PAGE BREAK--- utilizing the roadway. He also wanted to know if Special Use Permits can be renewed yearly – in case complaints are numerous then the operations could be halted until compliance. 5. Brian Soper – In response to claims that the Sanford Road paving was scheduled to accommodate the development of the mine. The repaving was originally scheduled for 2013 but there was no funding available. The same situation in 2014 which pushed it ahead to 2015. A coordinated effort with Victory who was also paving in the area made the project economically feasible. 6. Jim Magnogna – Member of the Victory Planning Board and additionally a resident concerned about the traffic. Why would a Town divert traffic into other Towns where the roads will be adversely affected without remedy to repair. Stated that if this permit is approved it will ruin the lives of the many neighbors. He also commented on the recent hauling truck accident in Cato that crested a hill and couldn’t stop. 7. Mirielle Watts – Curious how many mines are located near creeks and how it affects the properties – should be some data available from surrounding towns. The speed reduction should be closer to 15 or 20 MPH instead of the quoted 40 0r 30 mph. Stated that she felt good that an approved permit would have numerous conditions, restrictions and oversights by the Town and the DEC. MINUTES Review of meeting minutes for September 14, 2015 waived until next meeting on November 2, 2015. ADJOURN On a motion by Member Bishop and seconded by Member Allen, the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 PM. Approved Minutes, Respectfully submitted, Lisa Somers, Planning Board Clerk