March 23, 2005                                   Planning Board Worksession

Chairman Larry Ruth called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.  Members present were Gene Bavis, Elaine Leasure, Larry Ruth, Pat Stark and Peter Schillaci.  Also present were Paul Russell, Norm Druschel, Dick Morris and Phil Williamson.

Gene Bavis made a motion, seconded by Pat Stark to approve the minutes from the March 14, 2005 meeting, as presented.  Motion carried.

1.      Conceptual Plan for Gananda Partnership for 82-lot subdivision to be known as Hillside Development, located at the southwest corner of Gananda Parkway and Hance Road intersection.  Property is zoned PD.

Matt Wing from Parrone Engineering and Rich Struzzi from Gananda Partnership were present.  Matt Wing stated the proposed subdivision is located at the southwest corner of Gananda Parkway and Hance Road intersection.  There is 38-acres of land and the conceptual layout includes 82 single-family parcels. 

Matt Wing stated that he was in receipt of a letter from J.R. Engineering dated November 8, 2004, which outlines concerns for the subdivision.  Matt Wing acknowledged that the majority of the items would be addressed on the Preliminary plan. 

Gene Bavis questioned the average square footage of each lot.  Matt Wing stated that the smallest is approximately 15,000 square feet, and are above the minimum requirement. 

Gene Bavis stated that after review of the plan, the contour lines of lot 52-55 seem to indicate it would be difficult to locate a driveway due to steepness.  Matt Wing explained that the contours on the map are the current contours prior to any earth movement.  There have been preliminary centerline profiles conducted for finished pads for houses and the lots are doable.  Matt stated that there would be some substantial cuts made, but would maintain some 1 on 3 slopes to make up the difference.  Gene Bavis questioned if the development would entail significant earth worth.  Matt Wing stated that it was the intent to save the trees along the Parkway. 

Rich Struzzi stated that when the Heather Brook Subdivision was developed they actually removed the trees and then planted a berm.  In this subdivision the developer has shifted the road along the Parkway to preserve the existing 150’ tree line. 

Chairman Ruth questioned the depth and width of the lots.  Matt Wing responded that the depth of lot 81 is 200’ with the width being approximately 80’.

Peter Schillaci questioned if the pond located near lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be owned by the homeowner.  Matt Wing stated that, at this point the pond would be a detention pond.  The plan would be revised to provide an easement to the Town of Walworth for maintenance of the pond; therefore, the homeowners would not be responsible for the maintenance of the pond.  Gene Bavis questioned if it was a Blue Line Stream.  Matt Wing stated that he had not checked the stream, but was aware of wetlands in the area. 

Gene Bavis questioned if the paved area of roadway is the eastern road shown on the plan.  Matt Wing stated that it is the eastern road of the Pheasant Run subdivision, which is an approved subdivision in the Town of Macedon.  The connecting streets are outlined.

Gene Bavis questioned the average sale price of homes in this subdivision.  Rich Struzzi stated, based on the market, the homes would be in the $150,000-$180,000 range.  The Autumn Wood subdivision, across the parkway from the proposed subdivision, is in the $150,000-$200,000. 

Paul Russell stated that the subdivision is extremely dense and the developer should give consideration to reducing the density. 

Chairman Ruth questioned if the issues with erosion were similar to that of Rolford Heights subdivision.  Paul Russell stated the proposed subdivision is similar in topography and soils. 

Peter Schillaci questioned how big the cut would be at lots 33 and 34 in between the two cul-de-sacs.  Matt Wing stated that they would be walkouts, with the worst cut being approximately 10’.

Gene Bavis questioned the “strip” around lots 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7.  Rich Struzzi stated that it’s an eyebrow where you come in off the main road.  It will be maintained by the Highway Department with the green space being maintained by the homeowner. 

Dick Morris, Attorney for the Town, stated that the Planning Board, Highway Superintendent and Town Board could meet and get the cul-de-sac issues worked out. 

Chairman Ruth stated that it is on record that the Highway Superintendent is opposed to cul-de-sacs due to the difficulty of plowing.  The Board is sympathetic to the concern; however, some harmony between the Planning Board and the Highway Department has to be maintained. 

Gene Bavis stated that “good planning”, in many cases, includes a cul-de-sac and are desirable by homeowners.  Each case has to be considered individually and decide if they are appropriate or not.

Paul Russell stated that years ago cul-de-sacs were limited to 20, however the Town Board has since increased the number of houses to 40.  The function of the Planning Board is to determine what is necessary in good planning.

Chairman Ruth questioned if the use of a cul-de-sac would compound the drainage and road cut issues.  Paul Russell stated that the cul-de-sacs would not compound the issues. 

Chairman Ruth further stated that the privacy and safety issues outweighed the fact that it’s not convenient to plow.  Peter Schillaci agreed with Chairman Ruth in that the 3 proposed cul-de-sacs show good planning for this piece of property. 

Rich Struzzi stated that the cul-de-sacs are positioned for the homeowners to be able to look away from Gananda Parkway.  To loop the subdivision would be stupid.

Pat Stark stated that the cul-de-sacs enhance the design and makes it attractive.  However, there are too many lots for the acreage.

Elaine Leasure stated that she likes the eyebrow and the subdivision is attractive.  Elaine further questioned if it was harder to plow an eyebrow then a cul-de-sac.  Phil Williamson stated that the difficulty with plowing the eyebrow is when you would have to back out into traffic on an active street.  Being that this is off of a cul-de-sac, there should not be as much difficulty.  Phil Williamson stated he suggested that the Highway Superintendent be contacted to see what his objections would be before the eyebrow was removed from the plan.

Peter Schillaci questioned what the radius of a cul-de-sac would be.  Paul Russell stated the right of way is 70’ and the radius would be 60’.

Chairman Ruth stated that the Board would like some lots removed, and input from the Highway Superintendent.  Other then the two issues outlined, the Board was supportive of the concept plan.

2.      Conceptual plan for Dan Keyes Farm for 16-lot subdivision located on Ontario Center Road located between Atlantic Avenue and Plank Road intersections.  Property is zoned RR-2.

This application has been withdrawn.

3.      Request for site plan modification – driveway relocation – for Lot #3 of the previously approved Sherburne Meadows Subdivision, 1982 Sherburne Road.  Property is zoned R.

Dave Matthews from Matthews Consulting was present and explained that the original site plan was designed prior to the parcel being sold.  The current owners have a house design, which includes an end-load garage on the west side, creating a need for the driveway to be relocated.

Dave Matthews stated that site distance was actually better then before once the driveway is relocated to the west. 

Paul Russell stated that the modification is acceptable, from an engineering standpoint.

Gene Bavis questioned if there would be any effect on drainage by relocating the driveway.  Dave Matthews stated the relocation would not be effected.

Dick Morris stated that due to a change in Town Code, the application could be approved Administratively.

4.      Discussion of Darryl Cera & Martha Hansen – 2-lot subdivision located at 4221 Boynton Road.  Property is zoned RR-2.

Mr. Cera was present and stated that he has had a preliminary survey of the property completed.  The current 23-acre parcel will be subdivided into two lots.  One parcel will include the residence, metal barn, metal shed, pond and vineyard.  The second parcel will be acreage with evergreen trees. 

The site distance to the south is 610’ and 1400’+/- to the north.  The minimum requirement is 400’. 

Elaine Leasure questioned the total acreage of the parcel.  Mr. Cera stated the parcel is 23 acres and he plans to subdivide 8.8 acres off. 

Gene Bavis questioned the topography of the parcel.  Mr. Cera stated that the parcel is rolling hills and is the highest point on Boynton Road. 

Mr. Cera stated that the existing driveway goes across the parcel, therefore, the subdivision line is not a straight line but follows the driveway.

Gene Bavis stated the subdivision is not a straight-line subdivision, however, the applicant describes it as following topography and vegetation.  Chairman Ruth stated the subdividing line did not make any sense, in that there are so many different angles.  The line can go straight through the woods, sharing the pond.  Mr. Cera stated that the lot, as presented, is an ideal spot because it has the room to build a decent property site and is located in the woods. 

Mr. Cera stated that he has a vineyard on the maintained property.

Peter Schillaci questioned if the subdivision line could be placed higher and share the pond with both parcels.  Mr. Cera stated that by taking away the mowed hillside would be taking away from the value of the property.  Chairman Ruth stated the applicant had to decide if he was trying to make money and retain as much of the land as possible or sell the parcel.  Mr. Cera stated he is trying to retain the attributes of the entire 23-acre parcel. 

Elaine Leasure stated that she would like to look at the property.  Elaine Leasure further stated that it sounds like one of the reasons the parcel is divided this way is because of the vineyard. Elaine Leasure further stated that she saw some value in the topography, but can’t necessarily see the value in saying that when he steps out on his deck he wants everything surveyed to be his.  Elaine Leasure also stated if Mr. Cera wanted everything surveyed to be his, he should reconsider subdividing the parcel.

Gene Bavis questioned the opinion of the Board if the lot line at the “v” continued to the side lot line.  Would this be a better solution?  Chairman Ruth stated it did not change his opinion; it’s a terrible layout.  Mr. Cera stated he didn’t see any benefit in continuing the lot line at the “v” either.

Chairman Ruth stated that the applicant has a right to develop his property as he wishes.  However, the Planning Board has a responsibility too

5.      Bob Carr for subdivision discussion for property owned by Mr. Phil Farley located at 5185 Lincoln Road.  Property is zoned RR-1.

Bob Carr, Realtor for the applicant, stated his client wishes to subdivide the parcel.  The subdivision will begin approximately 25’ from the existing barn, a 100’ piece will be sold to the neighbor to square off his lot, and the remaining 16-acre parcel will be retained.

Peter Schillaci questioned if there would be livestock in the barn, as the setback is only 25’.  Mr. Carr stated the barn is used for storage and does not house livestock.

Gene Bavis stated with 10-acres the Planning Board can waive the width to depth ratio requirement.  Gene Bavis further questioned the site distance.  Mr. Carr stated the site distance

would have to be determined in a 50 mph zone.  If the land parcel is to be developed, there may be a need for preliminary perk tests.

Paul Russell stated he did not see any major problems with the subdivision.

6.      Tom Keenan – Discussion for garden store for property located at 647 Wal-Penfield Road.  Property is zoned Hamlet.

Mr. Keenan stated he currently owns Edgewood Nursery located at 620 Wal-Penfield Road.  Mr. Keenan stated he was considering purchasing the property at 647 Wal-Penfield Road.  Mr. Keenan stated the property is zoned Hamlet and an acceptable use is a garden supply business issued under a Special Use Permit.  Mr. Keenan would like some input from the Board before purchasing the property, whether or not the business would be allowed at this location. 

Peter Schillaci questioned the site distance at the location. 

Gene Bavis questioned if the existing building would be renovated?  Mr. Keenan stated he is considering renovating the building.  Gene Bavis stated if the building is torn down and built from ground up; there could be different requirements that would have to be met.

Mr. Keenan stated he had not yet determined if he would do both wholesale and retail.  Mr. Keenan’s current business is Wholesale only.

Chairman Ruth questioned parking issues.  There is a formula to determine the required number of parking spaces.  Phil Williamson stated that the requirement for parking spaces is one space for every 100’ square feet of gross floor area that is used for sales.  After calculating the amount of square feet that will be used for sales, you would be able to figure how many parking spaces are required.  However, if the building is used for other then retail, the parking space requirement changes.

Pat Stark questioned the distance from West Walworth Road to the building.  Mr. Keenan stated the building in on Wal-Penfield Road, not West Walworth Road.  The building is located approximately 40-50’ from the edge of the pavement, not including the right of way. 

Mr. Keenan asked if he purchased the parcel and did off sight sales, such are wholesale or mail order, how the parking spaces would be determined.  Dick Morris stated that the parking space requirement is for people going to the place of business.  If there were no customers coming to the business, the parking space requirement would be more like an office, instead of a commercial retail business.

Gene Bavis stated since the business will be adjacent to the existing Edgewood Nursery, could the existing Special Use Permit be modified to include the new business.  Phil Williamson stated if you have one purchase area, and the loading area at the new location, the parking space requirements would change.  Discussion continued relative to different uses of the building and the parking space requirements.

Dick Morris stated the applicant should determine what type of operation he would operate and come back to the Board at that time.

Mr. Keenan stated that when he purchased the Edgewood Nursery property the zoning was R2.  Since that time, the zoning has been changed to B-2.  Would the special use permit still be required in the B-2 District.  Dick Morris stated that the special use permit would not be required in the B-2 District.

Dick Morris stated that the purchase of the property could be contingent with the Planning Board approving the Special use Permit.  Mr. Keenan would like to be able to purchase the building without any contingencies. 

There is a possibility of putting a driveway in on the east side of the property and making a parking area in the rear of the building.

Mr. Keenan questioned if he were to use the property primarily for storage of inventory and a pick up area for wholesale customers, would that usage be allowed in the Hamlet zoning?  Would it be an acceptable use?  Dick Morris stated it is a permitted use.

Peter Schillaci asked if site distance would be a problem.  Gene Bavis stated since it is an existing property with an existing access, there has to be a way to access the property.  If Mr. Keenan did not tear the building down and start over, there should not be a requirement for site distance.  The property owner would have to have an access in and out of the property.

Chairman Ruth suggested the applicant meet with Phil Williamson.

Peter Schillaci made a motion, seconded by Elaine Leasure to adjourn.

Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.

                                                                        Karen Ambroz, Clerk