approval of minutes - victor, ny

TOWN OF VICTOR PLANNING BOARD August 25, 2020 1 A regular meeting of the Town of Victor Planning Board was held virtually on August 25, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: PRESENT: Ernie Santoro, Chairman; Joseph Logan, Vice-Chairman; Scott Harter; Al

Gallina; Joe Limbeck ABSENT: OTHERS: Wes Pettee, Town Engineer; Councilman Ed Kahovec, Town Board Liaison; Lisa Boughton, Secretary The meeting was opened, the Flag was saluted and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion of Joe Limbeck, seconded by Al Gallina. RESOLVED that the minutes of August 11, 2020 be approved. Ernie Santoro Aye Joe Logan Aye Al Gallina Aye Scott Harter Aye Joe Limbeck Aye Approved 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, CORRESPONDENCE:

• Fran Murphy re: Scout Reserve Lot #2

Mr. Harter – I would like to make a comment about that. My comment would be this individual is pretty much speaking about what I was mentioning relative to the Access Management on that project with the clustering of so many homes on one small area on a highway that is posted for 50 mph speed limit. Really what this individual has identified is exactly the reason why I voted the way that I did. Which was a no on that application when it came thru the last time. I just wanted to mention that this individuals observations kind of underline what I was trying to present during those discussions. Mr. Limbeck – Who checks the speed limit on there Ernie? Is that something that the state determines what the speed limit is supposed to be? I don’t think the town has a say in what the speed limit is do we?

TOWN OF VICTOR PLANNING BOARD August 25, 2020 2 Chairman Santoro – Well, it is a town road but I think you still have to pass it by the state somehow. Councilman Kahovec – We usually have to petition DOT and unfortunately most of our petitions for lower speed limits have not been successful. Chairman Santoro – The state is reluctant to do that. We found out over the years. BOARDS AND COMMITTEE UPDATES: Councilman Kahovec reported from the Town Board.

• September 3rd and 4th is when we expect the next update from the Governor as far as the open meetings. I do not know if we will be on Zoom or live but we will know hopefully the beginning of September what the period time of going back to normal live meeting or some hybrid or still stay on Zoom. Hopefully we get an update from him soon.

• The roundabout that is being constructed. Hopefully somewhere around September 14th they will get in the lights that are needed. There has been a backorder due to Covid so they are having some problem getting some of the lighting and the fixtures that they need to properly light it. Also on a question about some engineering of the circle it dealing with some heavy equipment, low boy type trailers that would carry a bulldozer on it. They’re doing some adjustments to that but we are hoping mid-September that we will start seeing some stuff open up over there. I know that you may have seen they have done some paving already so that is a good sign that they are getting close.

• Last meeting had a really good discussion about the wording in regards to the mixed overlay for the area where Dick’s currently is and Kmart used to be. Based on our discussion and my input at the meeting yesterday the Town Board is holding open the public hearing for that Mixed Use Overlay and what they have asked is that since you had some suggestions can feed something thru as what you think the wording should be as related to that Light Industrial piece of the Mixed Use Overlay. You tell me what the best way to do that. You and to feed it back thru me, do you want together as a Board and send it to us. Hope would you like that to work?

Chairman Santoro - Comment from anybody? Mr. Limbeck - Is there a chance that we could see the proposed language so that we have something to react to and comment on? Councilman Kahovec – I would think so. Mr. Pettee – If that is something the Planning and Zoning Office does not have immediately handy, I think they might have it, I can certainly get that to Kim and Lisa to distribute to the Board members.

TOWN OF VICTOR PLANNING BOARD August 25, 2020 3 Councilman Kahovec – Thanks Wes. It I s pretty generic actually to be honest from what I have seen. That is where you guys have had the input that you wanted to put something a little more specific in the language and we are giving you the opportunity before it comes up again. We kept the public hearing open hopefully you can come up with some kind of suggestion of what you would like that wording to look like so that we can incorporate it in.

• Last but not least this is my last liaison meeting for the Planning Board. Mike Guinan will be rotating in. It is his turn just so you know.

Chairman Santoro – Lisa, on the last topic have you gotten anything. Ms. Boughton – I have not, I can check with Kim and we can get that to you guys. PUBLIC HEARING Speakers are requested to limit comments to 3 minutes and will be asked to conclude comments at 5 minutes. CANNING PRKY PAVEMENT & PARKING EXPANSION 18-SP-2020 820 Canning Parkway Zoned – Light Industrial Owner – Flexlan LLC Applicant is requesting approval to construct 6,560 sf of additional pavement that will include (7) additional parking spaces. Applicant is also proposing to relocate a dumpster enclosure. Applicant received approval for the 10,000 sf building addition on April 5, 1994. Chairman Santoro – Who is here for that? Rebecca Glitch with BME Associates Ms. Glitch – I will give a brief rundown of what we are proposing also on the call tonight is the applicant and owner Guy Murphy. I believe we have Max with LeFrois Builders and Linc Swedrock with BME Associates as well. We are requesting final site plan approval from the Planning Board to construct the additional pavement adjacent to the approved building expansion. This expansion the applicant is planning to begin the building permit process for and construct per the approved plans in the near future. The parcel we are talking about is about 2 ½ acres located at 820 Canning Parkway which is just north of Victor Mendon Road. The property is zoned Light Industrial. We are not proposing any changes to the existing building or use. The existing building is operated by Omni Services and made up of offices and manufacturing and warehouse uses. The new pavement that we are proposing includes parking spaces and be used for truck maneuvering with the proposed loading dock. There are no staffing or truck traffic increase expected after the construction of the expansion. The expansion is for warehouse storage space

TOWN OF VICTOR PLANNING BOARD August 25, 2020 4 only. As mentioned the 10,000 sq. ft. building expansion was previously approved as part of the overall site plan approval for the parcel including the disturbance of the grading and adjacent disturbance to the building. This proposal is just for the additional pavement added north to expansion and west of where the existing pavement ends today. Utilities will be expanded internally including sewer and water. The existing building has a sprinkler system and this will be expanded to the new warehouse expansion. That was one of the Fire Marshal comments that it will be sprinklered. The downspouts in the rear of the building addition will connect to the existing storm sewer collection system south of the existing building as originally approved. Downspouts in the front will be collected and discharged to a proposed single on site drywell with a stone overflow. The drainage is consistent out here with what was originally approved on those plans and the existing conditions for the site. We provided the town a stormwater narrative detailing this and includes the compilation for the drywell as well. We are talking about a total disturbance of around .6 acres and that includes the grading infrastructure of the approved expansion. This project will result in grading and disturbance of under an acre so the preparation of a SWPPP per the DEC stormwater general permit is not required. We have provided erosion control measures on our plans including stabilization and construction sequencing. We're not proposing any light poles for this application. The expansion will include approved building modern lighting and we can provide those cut sheets to the town. I know that was a comment on the on some comments we received. We're not proposing any new landscaping and no existing trees or shrubs are being removed. The tree line buffer to the west along the property line will remain. We've received comments so far from Labella and the Fire Marshal and the Town Code Enforcement and we've provided our responses to those in a letter this afternoon. The only changes out of that on our plan was we're actually going to reduce the parking or the pavement expansion to under 6,000 square feet so we're removing two of those spaces so it will be five parking spaces there that we'll get. We still meet the parking requirements out there. We were also in front of the Conservation Board with this application and answered any of their questions that they had. With that I think we can answer any questions that you guys have. Chairman Santoro - Suzy anybody called in on this one? Ms. Mandrino – No, no comments. Chairman Santoro - Okay thank you. Anyone from the board have a question or comment? Joe Logan - All right. I have no comments other to say that it's consistent with the rest of the site I don't see any architectural issues because they're just extending it so I’m certainly in favor of the expansion and I would approve this. Chairman Santoro – Thanks. The other Joe? Mr. Limbeck - I agree with Joe.

TOWN OF VICTOR PLANNING BOARD August 25, 2020 5 Chairman Santoro – Okay Mr. Harter - I guess I just have a couple of questions regarding drainage I assume that the parking lot's being reduced so you come under the 6,000 sq. ft. threshold. Is that right? Ms. Glitch – Correct. Mr. Harter – So in that way you do not have to do the stormwater report for the threshold identified in the Irondequoit Creek watershed. What is the overall drainage control for the project and the neighbors? Is there one central area in which the drainage is handled or where does the drainage go and how is it handled? Ms. Glitch - There's for the parkway there's an existing facility north east that's kind of where everything drains to from this point. There's also a pond or there's a facility I think its west or east off Ray Boulevard but our storm sewers all go north west. Mr. Harter - So that's been sized to accommodate expansions like this? Ms. Glitch – The expansion. Mr. Harter - Okay I have no more questions. Mr. Galina -No additional questions or comments I’m all set. Chairman Santoro - Okay thank you. Anything yet Suzy from the public? Ms. Mandrino – No there is not. Chairman Santoro – Okay. Being the case we had a resolution. Lisa you said some others around which one is the current one? Ms. Boughton - The one that I just sent in all the email it has all the updated resolutions. Mr. Logan - Ernie do you want a motion to close a public hearing? Chairman Santoro - Yeah I’d like to get this resolution thing straightened out. On motion of Joe Logan, seconded by Al Gallina, RESOLVED, that the public hearing was closed. Chairman Santoro – How do they differ from the one that we got on the dropbox? Ms. Boughton – They don’t. They are the same.

TOWN OF VICTOR PLANNING BOARD August 25, 2020 6 Chairman Santoro – Oh they are.

RESOLUTION

Motion made by Scott Harter, seconded by Joe Logan. WHEREAS, the Planning Board made the following findings of fact: 1. A site plan application was received on July 1, 2020 by the Secretary of the Planning

Board for a Site Plan entitled Canning Parkway Pavement & Parking Expansion.

2. It is the intent of the applicant to construct 6,560 sf of additional pavement that will include (7) additional parking spaces. Applicant is also proposing to relocate a dumpster enclosure. Applicant received approval for the 10,000 sf building addition on April 5, 1994.

3. A public hearing was duly called for and was published in “The Daily Messenger” and

whereby all property owners within a minimum of 500’ of the application were notified by U.S. Mail. An “Under Review” sign was posted on the subject parcel as required by Town Code.

4. The Planning Board held a virtual public hearing on August 25, 2020 at which time the public was permitted to speak on their application.

5. The Action is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to Section 8 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations, and the applicant provided Part I of the Short Environmental Assessment Form.

6. The Conservation Board reviewed the project on August 4, 2020 and stated they had no

concerns at this time. 7. The Town of Victor Code Enforcement Officer reviewed the application and provided

comments in a letter dated August 24, 2020.

8. The Town of Victor Fire Marshal reviewed the application and provided comments in a letter dated July 24, 2020.

9. LaBella Associates reviewed the application and provided comments in a letter dated

August 24, 2020. WHEREAS, the Town of Victor Planning Board reviewed the Unlisted Action on August 25, 2020 and identified no significant impacts; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the project, Canning Parkway Pavement & Parking Expansion will not have a significant impact on the environment and that a negative declaration be prepared.

TOWN OF VICTOR PLANNING BOARD August 25, 2020 7 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the application of Flexlan, LLC, Site Plan entitled Canning Parkway Pavement & Parking Expansion, drawn by BME Associates, dated July 2020, received by the Planning Board July 21, 2020, Planning Board Application No. 18-SP-2020, BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Conditions to be addressed prior to the chairman’s signature on the site plan: 1. That no final signatures will be given on the plans until all legal and engineering fees

have been paid as per Fee Reimbursement Local Law adopted November 25, 1996. 2. That the comments in a letter dated August 24, 2020 from LaBella Associates be

addressed.

3. That comments from the Fire Marshal dated July 24, 2020 be addressed.

4. That comments from Code Enforcement Officer, dated August 24, 2020 be addressed. Ongoing conditions: 1. That the site plan comply with Town of Victor Design and Construction Standards for

Land Development, including Section 4. AND, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Planning Board Secretary distribute the Planning Board’s approval letter.

This resolution was put to a vote with the following results: Ernie Santoro Aye Joe Logan Aye Al Gallina Aye Scott Harter Aye Joe Limbeck Aye Approved 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, ST. PATRICKS CEMETERY DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENT 19-SP-2020 990 High Street Zoned – Residential 2 Owner – St. Patrick’s Church of Victor Applicant is requesting approval to expand and improve 14,800 sf of current and new roadway within the cemetery.

TOWN OF VICTOR PLANNING BOARD August 25, 2020 8

Chairman Santoro - We have staff comments waiting for Labella, Code and County comments but I think we've got those know. Ms. Boughton - Yes you have all of them. They all came in Chairman Santoro - Who's here for that one? Mr. O’Donnell – Good evening this is Rich O’Donnell I’m the finance director of St. Patrick’s church. What we're requesting approval for is to expand and improve our driveway within the cemetery only. This is part of a couple years masterplan to do some different improvements within the cemetery but our glaring need right now is really to expand and improve the roadway system that we have. It's approximately 14,800 square feet of roadway about 12,000 of it is going to be new about 2,800 has improved the existing roadway that we have in there. We worked with a cemetery architect firm Grever and Ward out of Buffalo who created a master plan for us for the two to three years along with the grade and drainage plans. We're only looking for approval right now of the driveways. Next year we're going to be looking at a gardens and possible pavilion depending on funding and so forth for that. We have contracted with Victor excavating to do the site work and rust and paving to do the paving. We are requesting approval for just the roadways part of this project. Chairman Santoro - What's the status of the Village of Victor? Mr. O’Donnell - We've spoken with the village representatives they've seen all our plans but I think they wanted to see how what went through the town first. Chairman Santoro – Okay. Suzy, any comment from the public? Ms. Mandrino - No there are not. Chairman Santoro - Thank you. Okay, anybody from the board want to address this ask questions make comments? Mr. Limbeck -No at this at this point I don't think so. I noticed that in in future plans it looks like there's a lot of trees on the on the north side are going to be removed but for Phase 1 here I don't have any questions. Chairman Santoro – Okay. Mr. O’Donnell - Some of those trees that you reference to I don't think we're going to …those are the architect put those in there we have no plans on taking any trees out we're actually going to be adding a lot of trees in the coming future.


Mr. Limbeck - Well that's great news. Mr. O’Donnell - None of us on the Board here want to remove any of the trees. Mr. Limbeck - Thank you then. Ernie the Phase 1 plans look fine to me. Chairman Santoro - Very good thanks Joe. Mr. Gallina - I’m all set, thanks Ernie. Mr. Harter – I guess just one question I think Wes touched on it in his review letter will SWPPP be done for the site? It doesn't look like there's much in terms of drainage control out there. Mr. O’Donnell – Yes we did get the Labella's comments on Friday so we are going to consult with an engineer to help us with it with that immediately so we're working on that this week. Mr. Harter - Okay that was my only question. Mr. Logan - No comments thank you. Chairman Santoro - Wes you have anything? Mr. Pettee - Maybe just a question for clarification because I heard the applicant say that phase 1 or this what they're seeking is approval of just the driveway at this time so is there any are you is part of this project now are you proposing any new storm water management underground any piping underground anything like that? Mr. O’Donnell - There was a drainage plant some new I don't think there's any new drainage plans in this part of it no I think in phase 2 and phase 3 we will need it. We're talking about putting up a small structure some gardens um but nothing in phase 1. Mr. Pettee - Okay it looks like there was going to be maybe some existing catch basins are proposed to be removed and it looks like they might be in the area where you're installing where maybe some roadways are being proposed so I’m guessing those might come out as part of this project right? Mr. O’Donnell - I believe so yes. Mr. Pettee - Okay all right so yeah I think Labella we'd just be looking for responses to our comments it sounds like they are in the process of you know getting us a response and we'll await what that response is. Chairman Santoro - Okay so are you all set then?


Mr. Pettee - Yes we're all set for now. Chairman Santoro - Okay anybody else have anything? Mr. Logan – Just a quick question for the applicant. The grading plan…is that going to be regraded now and just putting in the road as part of that? Eventually it will be graded for the additional road network? Mr. O’Donnell – We will put all the grading in now for everything. Mr. Logan – It makes the most sense and just wanted to confirm that. Thank you. Chairman Santoro – Suzy, anyone yet call in? Ms. Mandrino – No comments. On motion of Joe Limbeck, seconded by Joe Logan, RESOLVED, that the public hearing was closed.

RESOLUTION

Motion made by Scott Harter, seconded by Joe Logan. WHEREAS, the Planning Board made the following findings of fact: 1. A site plan application was received on July 21, 2020 by the Secretary of the Planning Board for a Site Plan entitled St. Patrick’s Cemetery Driveway Improvement.

2. It is the intent of the applicant to expand and improve 14,800 sf of current and new roadway within the cemetery. 3. A public hearing was duly called for and was published in “The Daily Messenger” and whereby all property owners within a minimum of 500’ of the application were notified by U.S. Mail. An “Under Review” sign was posted on the subject parcel as required by Town Code.


5. The Action is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to Section 8 of the New York

State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations, and the applicant provided Part I of the Short Environmental Assessment Form.


6. The Conservation Board reviewed the project on August 4, 2020 and stated they had no concerns at this time.

7. The Town of Victor Code Enforcement Officer reviewed the application and provided

comments in a letter dated August 24, 2020. 8. LaBella Associates reviewed the application and provided comments in a letter dated

August 21, 2020.

9. The application was referred to the Ontario County Planning Board under Section 239 of the General Municipal Law. On August 12, 2020 Ontario County Planning Board referred the application back to the referring agency as a Class 1.

WHEREAS, the Town of Victor Planning Board reviewed the Unlisted Action on August 25, 2020 and identified no significant impacts; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the project, St. Patrick’s Cemetery Driveway Improvement will not have a significant impact on the environment and that a negative declaration be prepared. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the application of St. Patrick’s Church, Site Plan entitled St. Patrick’s Cemetery Driveway Improvement, drawn by Grever & Ward, Inc, dated February 20, 2020, received by the Planning Board July 21, 2020, Planning Board Application No. 19-SP-2020, BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Conditions to be addressed prior to the chairman’s signature on the site plan: 1. That no final signatures will be given on the plans until all legal and engineering fees have been paid as per Fee Reimbursement Local Law adopted November 25, 1996. 2. That the comments in a letter dated August 21, 2020 from LaBella Associates be addressed.

3. That comments from Code Enforcement Officer, dated August 24, 2020 be addressed. Ongoing conditions: 1. That the site plan comply with Town of Victor Design and Construction Standards for

Land Development, including Section 4. AND, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Planning Board Secretary distribute the Planning Board’s approval letter.


This resolution was put to a vote with the following results: Ernie Santoro Aye Joe Logan Aye Al Gallina Aye Scott Harter Aye Joe Limbeck Aye Approved 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Mr. O’Donnell – may I ask one procedural question maybe for Phase 2 and Phase 3? Since Phase 2 and Phase 3 will be in the village part of the cemetery do I need to come back to the town? Mr. Pettee – Anything that is in the village the town has no jurisdiction over. You will need deal strictly with the Village Planning Board on that. Mr. O’Donnell – Just to keep you guys apprised to what we are doing? Or do you not really. Mr. Pettee – Unless there is any improvements happening in the town I guess you wouldn’t be filing anything or application with the town. It might be wise for the village government themselves to maybe keep the town in the loop on a project since the inter municipal boundary is right there. Likely the village would clue us in to what improvements might be going on here. One of the things that I did as part of this project and this review is I copied the village clerk in on the Town Engineers comments so they had the opportunity to see that the town had received an application and they would be reviewing it and what are comments were. Hopefully they do the same with us. Mr. Logan – Wes, I think they are doing some additional road paving during phase 2 if I’m not mistaken. MR. O’Donnell – We decided not to do any. We are doing all the road in one. We are not going to do those sub roads or anything. It will only be on one. Mr. Logan – Alright, I was just looking at your Phase 1 plan and it didn’t have it all paved in. Mr. O’Donnell – Thank you all. VICTOR CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP PARKING AND SIGN 16-SP-2020 6484 State Route 96 Zoned – Commercial/Light Industrial Owner – Victor East Holding Co. LLC Applicant is requesting approval to temporarily park vehicles behind the 80 foot setback area at property 6484 State Route 96. Also, requesting approval for 4x8 foot sign at the property during


the detour of State Route 96 in relation to the Lynaugh Road roundabout. Matt Indiano of Victor East Holding Co. Mr. Indiano – As you said we are just looking for the ability to store vehicles, overflow vehicles, on the parcel we have and have the sign up during the detour. I wanted to touch on a few things. We had some comments from LaBella that I wanted to touch on real quick. As far as the project clearing and grubbing, we wouldn’t be doing much clearing grubbing with the exception of a few trees that are noticeably seen from the road that are dead that we would like to take down simply to clean up the area. The main tree that is right in the middle of the house that is there now would simply be cleaning that up. The reason we clean that up and take off some of the bottom branches so that the Fire Marshal in the event that he needed to get a truck down into there he would be able to get it in there and clear the vehicle. As far as potential demolition goes, we are not going to demolish any of the current structure that is there at this point. On the existing drive we would reinforce that with some crusher run or millings. The parking surface that we would use for storing the vehicles would be either be crusher run stone or millings. There would be no grading. Simply boxing out in order to get those crusher run or millings in there. The approximate capacity would be 100 spaces or less. Any lighting and we did not have any proposed for the project at this point. Any lighting we would be using would be current lighting that is already on the house which is motion lighting. That’s is all we have. Chairman Santoro – Anyone from the public Suzy? Ms. Mandrino – No there is not. Chairman Santoro – Thank you. Anyone from the Board have question or comment? Mr. Limbeck – I am curious about the sign that is currently there and the fact that it does not meet the Code requirements. I am curious that you decided that you needed the sign and stuck it up there and are asking for approval. I am curious what brought it up at this point and did our Code guy says the sign was not up to code at this point and that is why it is on the agenda? Mr. Indiano – We wanted to come before the Board to make sure that we had the sign done properly and that it would work with the town. The reason we have the sign up there is the way that the detour is setup is it essentially brings everyone completely away from our dealership. We have zero traffic. As you can see down at County Road 41 and 332 that is where the traffic is directed to go. It is then directed all the way up to 444 completely avoiding us. We wanted to have something up in the event someone comes down East Victor Road so that they might be able to see that we were there. Chairman Santoro – Your intention is once that project is done to change that sign?


Mr. Indiano – It will be to take the sign down. Chairman Santoro – You will take it down? Mr. Indiano – Once the detour is done we can take it down. Anyone from the Board have any questions? Mr. Limbeck – I do have one more question if you don’t mind. The County did inquire about the impact of the asphalt millings in term of runoff into the creek. I do not know if I heard you respond to that sir? Mr. Indiano – We had dealt with the Conservation Board and the town and we use millings in our previous project on 6560 Anthony Drive and it was okay to use the millings. We are fine with using crusher run if the town so says. Whichever you prefer we use, we will use. Mr. Limbeck – I think the crusher is better in the long run. It avoids any potential for runoff into the creek. I think it is the prudent more conservative solution than the millings. Chairman Santoro – Wes, do you have any comment on that? Mr. Pettee- - I guess I don’t. I think it is fine. Joe Limbecks suggestion is a fine suggestion. If there is any need for the Planning Board...if you’re looking for a different opinion you can let me know and I could talk with someone at LaBella to finds out what there comments would be. I do not have any insightful input in using one versus the other. Let me know if you want to hear anything further. Chairman Santoro – Push comes to shove, Matt has no problem with either one so you can do the crush and keep everyone happy. Mr. Harter – I just had a question how long will the temporary period to be? Mr. Indiano – Temporary period of parking vehicles there? (Yes) Until we hopefully get an approval on the project to build the new dealership there. Mr. Harter – It is not going to be removed after the road construction is done. It will still reside after the road construction complete. Mr. Indiano – Overflow parking yes. Mr. Harter – I guess I did not know that. I thought it was directly related to the highway construction. Mr. Indiano – The sign was.


Mr. Pettee – Do you have a potential time frame as to when you might submit an application for a site plan review on the larger project. Mr. Indiano – Most likely at the next available meeting. We just finished up with Zoning Board of Appeals at the town level. We then up to the County and came back and got our variances from the town. We are now in the process getting ready to present to the Town Board. Mr. Gallina – No I am all set. Thanks. Chairman Santoro – Any other comments from the Board? Anything from the public Suzy? Ms. Mandrino – No comments. On motion of Al Gallina, seconded by Joe Logan, RESOLVED, that the public hearing was closed.

RESOLUTION

Motion made by Joe Logan, seconded by Al Gallina. WHEREAS, the Planning Board made the following findings of fact: 1. A site plan application was received on July 13, 2020 by the Secretary of the Planning Board for a Site Plan entitled Victor Chrysler Dodge Jeep Temporary Parking and Sign.

2. It is the intent of the applicant to temporarily park vehicles behind the 80 foot setback area at property 6484 State Route 96. Also, requesting approval for 4x8 foot sign at the property during the detour of State Route 96 in relation to the Lynaugh Road roundabout. 3. A public hearing was duly called for and was published in “The Daily Messenger” and whereby all property owners within a minimum of 500’ of the application were notified by U.S. Mail. An “Under Review” sign was posted on the subject parcel as required by Town Code.


5. The application was deemed to be a Type II Action pursuant to Section 8 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations and classification as such concludes SEQR.

6. The Conservation Board reviewed the project on August 4, 2020 and stated they had no concerns at this time.


7. The Town of Victor Code Enforcement Officer reviewed the application and provided comments in a letter dated July 31, 2020.

8. The Town of Victor Fire Marshal reviewed the application and provided comments in a

letter dated July 20, 2020 and July 22, 2020.

9. LaBella Associates reviewed the application and provided comments in a letter dated August 25, 2020.

10. The Department of Transportation reviewed the application on July 21, 2020 and stated

they had no concerns at this time.

11. The application was referred to the Ontario County Planning Board under Section 239 of the General Municipal Law. On August 12, 2020 Ontario County Planning Board referred the application back to the referring agency as a Class 1.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the application of Matt Indiano of Victor East Holding, LLC, Site Plan entitled Victor Chrysler Dodge Jeep Temporary Parking and Sign, drawn by Passero Associates, dated September, 2018, received by the Planning Board July 21, 2020, Planning Board Application No. 16-SP-2020, BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Conditions to be addressed prior to the chairman’s signature on the site plan: 1. That no final signatures will be given on the plans until all legal and engineering fees have been paid as per Fee Reimbursement Local Law adopted November 25, 1996. 2. That comments from Code Enforcement Officer, dated July 31, 2020 be addressed. 3. That comments from the Fire Marshal, dated July 20, 2020 and July 22, 2020 be addressed.

4. That the comments in a letter dated August 25, 2020 from LaBella Associates be addressed. Ongoing conditions:

1. That the site plan comply with Town of Victor Design and Construction Standards for Land Development, including Section 4.

2. That a building permit be obtained for the temporary sign.


AND, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Planning Board Secretary distribute the Planning Board’s approval letter.

This resolution was put to a vote with the following results: Ernie Santoro Aye Joe Logan Aye Al Gallina Aye Scott Harter Aye Joe Limbeck Aye Approved 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, BELL ATLANTIC MICRO CELL ROW WANGUM RD 17-SP-2020, 4-SU-2020 7871 Lehigh Crossing Zoned – Light Industrial Owner – Rochester Gas and Electric Applicant is requesting approval to remove and replace the existing utility pole with a new 65 utility pole and install a telecommunications equipment shroud at 12’ above ground level with a 12” x 24” tall antennae. The pole is located in the street right-of-way in front of 7871 Lehigh Crossing. Robert Burgdorf of Nixon Peabody Mr. Burgdorf – With me tonight is Katie Tyler, Project Manager with Verizon Wireless, Lisa VanGellow, Site Acquisition Specialist, Josh Doolin, RF Engineer who may be able to answer questions for the Board should they have any. Application for Special Permit and Site Plan approval for the Wangum Road site to replace a 56 foot high RGE utility pole to remedy service deficiencies. The deficiencies are shown in exhibit B in some detail in the application and Josh is here to go into those in greater detail should the Board desire. Exhibit F shows the photo simulations and all that is going on is a small antennae and small equipment box mounted on the pole. Very similar to what we have already been thru with the Victor High School site. We have received comments from CEO, Town Engineer and have responded to all those. It is pretty easy one. Just a pole replacement. I would be happy to review those comments one by one if the Board would like or to save time just answer questions on those topics one by one. Whatever the Boards pleasure is. All that information is set forth in the application, the attached exhibits and the responses that the applicant provided. Perhaps we can answer any questions. Chairman Santoro – Suzy, anyone call in from the public?


Ms. Mandrino – No, no comments. Mr. Limbeck – I have a question Ernie, They had stated that the existing pole is 56 feet tall and looking to replace it with a 65 foot pole. Mr. Burgdorf – Yes, I can double check those heights. Yes. And the question? Mr. Limbeck – The question then would be instead of a 24” tall antennae on top go the new pole why not a 9 foot pole onto of the existing pole? Mr. Burgdorf – Josh, will you take that? It’s not a 9 foot antennae. How these things work and why we are replacing them and where we are replacing them on the pole. Mr. Doolin – Can you hear me all right? As this is an RGE owned pole we are restricted as to where we can put equipment on this based on their guidelines. In this case they’re allowing us to install our antennae at about 29 feet and the exact position we are allowed to put this equipment is dictated by where the existing power lines are. The increase in the overall height of the pole is basically to make room for us lower down on the pole. The powerlines will maintain their position at the top of the pole and we will be going in right above the comm lines, the cable lines. Mr. Limbeck – So they’re making you stay within the NEC communications based on the pole. Mr. Doolin – Correct. Mr. Limbeck – Thank you. That does it for me. Mr. Harter – No questions. Mr. Burgdorf – Were the comments satisfactory to the Town Engineer? We responded to each of those and to the CEO’s comments. Hopefully those were all self-explanatory and resolved the town’s issues. Mr. Gallina – I am all set Ernie. We have seen a couple of these now so I am pretty familiar with the technology and what the aesthetics of it look like so I am set. Mr. Logan – I guess I am struggling to understand why you need a taller pole. Because I know you just explained it but if you’re putting this equipment further down the pole are you raising the RGE lines to get them higher? Mr. Doolin – There is minimum separation that needs to be between our equipment and the power lines equipment and the comm lines. In order to make room on the pole they need to raise all the others.


Mr. Logan – So everything above it is going up. The image I am seeing on the Verizon drawing 2.2 or Z2, shows that the two poles when beside each other is the same height. Maybe I just need to zoom in and look at that and the numbers on it. My first impression was that you were not raising anything and just putting it on the side of the existing utility pole. It wouldn’t change on approval just trying to understand from your illustration what you are doing with it. Mr. Doolin – I am not mechanical engineering but if that is the case I would be surprised if there was a loading issue that would maybe necessitate it but I do not have that. Mr. Logan – Yes, I could say a loading issue but if you are raising it for clearance that is certainly understandable but the illustration does not show the two existing and proposed next to each other with one any taller that the other. Mr. Burgdorf – They may not be exactly the same scale. It is really just top show the detail on each of them. Mr. Logan – That is all I had Ernie. Mr. Burgdorf – The scale notes NTS which is Not to Scale. Chairman Santoro – Anyone else on the Board have any questions? Suzy, anyone call in yet? Ms. Mandrino – No comments. Chairman Santoro – Wes, do you have anything? Mr. Pettee – No, I am all set thank you. On motion of Al Gallina, seconded by Joe Logan, RESOLVED, that the public hearing was closed.

RESOLUTION

Motion made by Joe Logan, seconded by Scott Harter. WHEREAS, the Planning Board made the following findings of fact: 1. A Site Plan and Special Use application were received on July 21, 2020 by the Secretary

of the Planning Board entitled Bell Atlantic d/b/a Verizon Wireless. 2. Applicant is requesting approval to approval to remove and replace the existing utility

pole with a new 65’ utility pole and install a telecommunications equipment shroud at 12’


above ground level with a 12” x 24” tall antennae. The pole is located in the street right-of-way in front of 7871 Lehigh Crossing.

3. The Town of Victor Planning Board reviewed the Unlisted Action on August 25, 2020

and identified no significant impacts. 4. A public hearing was duly called for and was published in “The Daily Messenger” and

whereby all property owners within a minimum of 500’ of the application were notified by U.S. Mail and an Under Review sign was posted.

5. The Planning Board held a virtual public hearing on August 25, 2020 at which time the

public was invited to speak on their application.

6. The application was deemed to be an Unlisted Action pursuant to Section 8 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations.

7. The application was referred to the Ontario County Planning Board under Section 239 of the General Municipal Law. On August 12, 2020, Ontario County Planning Board referred the application back to the referring agency as a Class 1 with comments.

8. The use of neighboring property will not be substantially injured by the action.

9. The proposed use is a permitted special use.

10. The proposed use is designed and located to be operated such that the public health,

safety and welfare and convenience are protected.

11. The proposed use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood.

12. The proposed use conforms to all applicable regulations in the district which it is located.

13. There is no proposed landscaping or screening required for this use.

14. There is no off-street parking and loading required for this use.

15. The Town of Victor Code Enforcement Officer reviewed the site plan in a letter dated

July 28, 2020 and had comments.

16. §211-47D(1)(a) indicates that a telecommunications tower is required to be setback from property lines a distance of, the height of the tower plus 20 feet, for the purpose of public safety. The setback for this tower would be 76.5 feet. The proposed setback to property lines is approximately 10 feet. A municipality may declare immunity from its code after review of the 9 criteria for a Special Use Permit while keeping in mind the safety of the


general public, weighed against the benefit to the general public. Planning Board has reviewed the nine criteria for a Special Use permit, while considering the benefit and hazard to the general public and has declared immunity to this section of the Town Code.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the project, Bell Atlantic d/b/a Verizon Wireless, will not have a significant impact on the environment and that a negative declaration be prepared; and, be it further RESOLVED that the application of Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless Site Plan entitled Bell Atlantic d/b/a Verizon Wireless project located in ROW Wangum Road, in front of 7871 Lehigh Crossing, drawn by Costich Engineering, dated July 7, 2020, received by the Planning Board July 21, 2020, Planning Board Application No. 17-SP-2020 and Special Use Application No. 04-SU-2020 BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Conditions to be addressed prior to the chairman’s signature on the site plan: 1. That no final signatures will be given on the plans until all legal and engineering fees have been paid as per Fee Reimbursement Local Law adopted November 25, 1996. 2. That the comments in a letter dated August 24, 2020 from LaBella Associates be addressed. 3. That comments from Code Enforcement Officer, dated July 28, 2020 be addressed. Ongoing conditions: 1. That the site plan comply with Town of Victor Design and Construction Standards for

Land Development, including Section 4.

2. That a building permit be obtained before construction begins. 3. That an agreement or bond is required in the event that the antennae becomes obsolete or unused, that will ensure the removal of the antenna in a timely manner at the owner’s expense. Mr. Burgdorf – I am sorry the last condition? Mr. Logan – It was the ongoing condition 3 is what you just asked about Ernie? Chairman Santoro – An agreement or bond is required. You’re going to enter into an agreement to remove it if it becomes obsolete. Mr. Burgdorf – Right, one way to do that and sometimes town’s require bonds for towers here. It is not an issue. What we typically see is a condition from the Planning Board to say that


should it become obsolete for a period of 6 months that the equipment would be removed. That would be even easier than an agreement to put it right in the condition and that would be enforceable. Chairman Santoro – We will add to that then that it will be removed within 6 months of it being declared obsolescent. AND, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Planning Board Secretary distribute the Planning Board’s approval letter.

This resolution was put to a vote with the following results: Ernie Santoro Aye Joe Logan Aye Al Gallina Aye Scott Harter Aye Joe Limbeck Aye Approved 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, WILLOW RISE TOWNHOMES 01-PS-2020, 3-FS-2020 McMahon Road Zoned – Multiple Dwelling Owner – Bella Estates LLC

Applicant is requesting approval to create 45 residential townhomes on approximately 6.4 acres. Access drive known as Banjo Run is accessed from Erica Trail located in Ballerina Subdivision. This will be the second and third step in a 3 step process for a major subdivision. The Sketch Plan was acknowledged complete April 28, 2020.

Walt Baker of DSB Engineers Mr. Baker – With us tonight on the phone is Frank Affronti from Bella Estates and also Blago Gorevski with Ryan Homes, if you have any questions for him with the townhomes. If the Board recalls we were here two weeks ago regarding a couple questions. We did answer all the Fire Marshal comments in writing, the Code Enforcement Officer, Stormwater Management and one of the issues that came up was a neighbors comment regarding extending a fence along the property there. The property owned at the corner of Erica Trail and Banjo Run on the west side and were discussing the fact that they do have an existing fence. I have been out to the site and their fence does extend, it is a six foot high white vinyl fence, up to and stops. Same kind of fence that we are going to put up on the backside of Victoria Woods. Same design. With that


they have the fence installed and stopped at the conservation easement which crosses the back of their property and goes east to west. Also it continues on with the other properties further west and further east. It is a site specific conservation easement. If you recall when we did Ballerina Court that we had three different conservation easements. One being the site specific which was less restrictive form some of the other ones and it was supposed to be with the area staying as a fallow type field and my discussions with Al he recalls distinctly that we are supposed to provide a corridor from the conservation, where they specified at the Conservation Board, that it was a corridor for any wild life that could traverse from east to west. I did discuss this with Al and he has written a response that you should have received today regarding our discussion and what the intent of this site specific conservation easement was. We did get the comment that you mentioned last week about Ryan Homes agreeing to extend the fence for the people and that was the first time I had heard of it was last week or two weeks ago. Blago was unaware of it as a well and we actually had a conservation with Tom Delaney of Ryan Homes and apparently he did agree to put up this fence for the people. However with this conservation easement Al wrote and I believe you received it and had three items that he mentioned about the conservation easement the intent of the conservation easement and it does state here that the Board does have some latitude and or they want to solicit the Conservation Board for their opinion as well. I guess that was the issue that we were talking about cause we did have pine trees to be installed in the right-of-way area on both sides of the right-of-way and if you recall way back when Morgan had the property we started off with the trees lining Banjo Run were going to be deciduous trees and as time went on the Board came up with Norway Spruce Pines. We did also receive comments from the landscape consultant who stated that Norway Spruces are along the entrance road he assumed they are to provide a buffer and a screening for their homes on either side of the spacing and shown that it will not do this. Obviously we had 8 trees on either side of the road and he is suggesting if that is the intent was to have it for screening they should be spaced at 12 feet which is exactly what we have from their previous comment we got the apartment project approved Bruce mentioned about the trees along the north property line for screening from the major body of the project and we do have that at 12 foot spacing. With the fence I discussed it with Al with the fence being existing and the fat the conservation easement is supposed to be a corridor for wildlife in the area between the fence and the gutter is actually 17 ½ feet and we also have to have a 4 foot sidewalk in there. What we end up with is about 9 ½ feet between the fence and the concrete sidewalk so if in fact if the fence was existing that we were take those trees that I mentioned to Al as an option that we could relocate the trees that would have been on the outside of the fence area. There would not be enough room for the growth of the tree and relocate those further to the south where the conservation easement starts and extend that the distance to the neighbor’s south property line and do the 12 foot spacing. It would be a matter of changing it from the total of 8 trees there and end up with relocating four of them and having to install and extra one so we have 9 trees in the distance of a 12 foot spacing. That seems to be one of the big items that we had last week. The other ones we did receive comments from LaBella and obviously the beginning ones refer to the fencing, the native


plantings, which kind of what Bruce was talking about, the landscape consultant, which we can address his and LaBella comments talking about the clustering to the Planning Board, which I am sure you have seen and the technical one to the bottom are just manhole inverts and stuff like that we obviously we will change. Again if you have any comments for Frank or Blago they should be online and be able to come in on the telephone. Chairman Santoro – Are Norway Spruce’s deer resistant? Mr. Baker – I believe they are. Mr. Limbeck – I think the Norway spruce in the conservation easement is an acceptable solution. I am not sure if the property owners are on the YouTube but if they were happy with that I think it is a good solution based on the fact that the conservation easement etcetera. I think the Norway spruce’s in there would do the job. Chairman Santoro – I only ask that because we have had one of our Korean fir they ate this spring before we had the fence up. Our next door neighbor has a whole row of trees that have been chewed up as far as the deer can reach. Mr. Limbeck – They like my Arborvitae, they have been eaten them pretty much. I am not sure if the y go after the pines or not. Mr. Logan – For what it is worth Ernie, we have a whole row of Norway Spruce down our driveway and the deer just hang out underneath them and they do not eat them. Mr. Baker – I have a couple in my yard and I do not think they like those. They do like the mall plants. Mr. Logan – They do get pretty big and Walt I think I asked last time if you could make a section thru the road showing the fence, tree, sidewalk, road. I do not see that in here. Mr. Baker – No. Al as you well know was on vacation then he came back so I waited towards the end of the week and before you know it tuned into this week. Based on the fact that we only had 9 ½ feet between the sidewalk and the property line and there is an existing fence there, the Norway spruce isn’t going to fit. That is what I was thinking when I talked to Al if we were to take those trees and add extra trees and do the 12 foot spacing beyond that fence line into where the conservation which is probably about a 100 feet long. We would put the trees there and that would act as the buffer screen and obviously the Norway’s get pretty dense. Mr. Logan – They do grow quite tall.


Mr. Baker – That is what we have along our north property line. On the one side we had 15 and the other side we had 34 or something. Besides the hedge row that will remain and the rock wall that is there and the deciduous trees we will be putting a screen wall of Norway spruce. Mr. Limbeck – How big will the Norway spruce be when you put them in? Ten feet tall? Mr. Baker – Six to seven feet. 75 of them slated for that, actually 16 of the 75 would be along Banjo Run. They would start off six to seven feet tall. Chairman Santoro – Are they fast growing? Mr. Baker – Relatively speaking. Chairman Santoro –Wes, do you have anything? Mr. Pettee – As far as Norway spruce goes the Arbor Day Foundation website list the Norway spruce as a deer resistant tree. I think that helps solidify what Joe Logan was saying in terms of the deer hanging out underneath his trees. I did want to talk a little bit about the native plant requirements because I think that was a topic brought up at the last meeting that some of the plantings that were proposed might not have been identified as a native plant in the town’s native plant manual. Section 211-45 of the Victor Town Code does describe that 70% that each category of plants set forth below shall independently satisfy 70% requirement of the native plant species. The remaining 30% or less of planting shall be comprised of non-native plant species which are not invasive plant species and such species could include but not limited to those identified in Table 4 of the Native Plant Manual. I wanted to provide a little bit of perspective there that based on that section of code it looks like that 30% of the landscape planting would not necessarily need to be native plants but would need to be in that Table 4 of the Native Plant Manual. If there is a need to we can verify to meet those percentages. Mr. Limbeck – Does that need to go back to Bruce Zaretsky? Mr. Pettee – I suppose we could mention it to Bruce and see if he has any input on what portion of the plantings and where on site he would prefer to see the non-native plants. We could certainly consult with him. Mr. Baker – If you recall in the beginning when Morgan Management had the project we spent quite a bit of time and had Mendon Landscaping do the design. He is referring to not only the perimeter trees but also the foundation plantings around all the structures. Obviously we have that white vinyl fence on the other three sides of the property and have foundation plantings the full length of that too. There is quite a variety of different plants and as Wes mentioned I believe most of them meet the criteria of the 70%.


Mr. Pettee – Another thing that I wanted to talk a little bit about id the SEQR determination. The environmental review that would be required as part of this project. As you know the current proposal is very similar to what was proposed and approved back in 2017 when this was an apartment project. There is a need for the Planning Board to revisit SEQR. We do not have to start from square 1 however. I think what we can do is review the previous SEQR that was completed for this project and confirm that this project is substantially similar to what was previously reviewed and maybe somehow verify that previous negative declaration that was prepared if that is how you feel as a Board. I am not saying this is what you need to do but I think that is an avenue that we could look at and move forward with at an upcoming meeting. Much of the SEQR process has already been completed but wanted to reconfirm that with you guys as a Board. Other than that there are numerous technical items on our most recent letter that I do not think the applicant is going to have a problem resolving. A lot of the utilities, everything that is underground is very similar to what was proposed previously and I think that is all I have to share unless you guys have questions for me. Chairman Santoro – Speaking of the next meeting thou, Lisa, we do not meet on the 8th which is the second Tuesday of the month, we meet on Wednesday the 9th? Ms. Boughton –Yes, Wednesday the 9th. Mr. Logan –Ernie, I will be out of town that night so I will not be able to attend that meeting. Chairman Santoro – We had to move it because of Labor Day on a Monday and the Town Board is on the 8th. Mr. Baker – Okay, anything else from anyone? Chairman Santoro – Being nothing else will entertain motion to adjourn? Motion was made by Scott Harter seconded by Al Gallina RESOLVED the meeting was adjourned at 8:16 PM. Mr. Baker – I had a question about the spacing. How does the Board feel about it or are we going to get something in writing regarding along Banjo Run with the Norway spruce and the conservation area? Chairman Santoro – Wes, will you do that or Zaretsky do that? Mr. Pettee – Why don’t I reach out to Bruce Zaretsky and then we can confirm for Walt and Frank your proposal here that it would be okay. It seems reasonable to me what you are proposing.


Mr. Limbeck – They were looking for 12 feet for spacing to allow the trees to grow and that was going to prohibit them from putting between the sidewalk and the fence it seems well put is probably where we would start on the spacing, right? Mr. Pettee – Yes, I would probably go that route. Lisa Boughton, Secretary

approval of minutes - victor, ny

Documents