Minutes of the Town of Perinton Conservation Board Meeting of. January 15, 2008

Transcription

1 Minutes of the Town of Perinton Conservation Board Meeting of January 15, 2008 Present: Absent: Others Present: John Minichiello, Acting Chairman Chris Fredette Paul Bogart Dave Belaskas Mike Doser Jerry Leone Gary Moore Joan Cannon, Secretary Ken Rainis Barb Wagner Bob Cantwell, Zack Steele, Todd Longwell, for East Jefferson Road Subdivision Scott Copp, Tom Beck East Jefferson Road Longwell Subdivision Property located at Route 96/East Jefferson Road (approximately 400 west of Thornell Road), requesting Concept Subdivision approval under Section 278 of Town Law to develop 9.7 acres of property for a 20 lot residential subdivision. Mr. Cantwell stated they were present tonight to discuss the most exhaustive historical perspective of LDD he has ever been involved with. The size of the parcel is just under ten acres on East Jefferson Road with a flag portion that fronts on Thornell Road. Chris stated that this application was before the last Planning Board meeting and as a result of being deferred at that meeting they are present tonight to discuss LDD lines. Chris noted that Greg Munier was not present tonight but he was asked to appear tonight with some of his documentation. Mr. Cantwell stated that the site was the former Russo homestead. However, the gravel pit is in the Town of Pittsford. Todd and Al Longwell purchased the property a couple years ago at a foreclosure action. In the past, the Fire Department has actually used the house that used to be there as a training facility. The site was walked between Christmas and New Years with three Planning Board members, Chris Fredette and an adjacent property owner on Thornell Road. As a result of the Conceptual Planning Board meeting, we took a look at the LDD. He also stated that even though this is a conceptual plan, we have done the field topography in an attempt to identify the LDD. Mr. Cantwell presented several exhibits. The first one was the existing conditions plan which served as the base map for not only the conventional concept plan but also the cluster concept plan. The only difference to the base map conditions from the time that we did make the PCB

2 submittal is that we updated the area along Mr. Munier s property line. We identified some of the features together with aerial photos. We also completed the boundary survey so that we were able to specifically identify the location of the property lines around the site. Mr. Muniers home and barn are the closest structures to our property. There is some lawn property with a swing set that encroaches on our property. Exhibit 2 is the blow up of the Town s LDD map. It shows the two areas on the site; the one further to the west and the area that encompasses the existing house. Those areas show up as steep slope LDD areas on the LDD map. Exhibit 3 is the LDD map and we actually highlighted the topo on it. Often times the topo shows that even though something is designated as LDD conceptually on the drawing, it does not actually comply with the 15% slope parameters. Exhibit 4 shows the topo features as of May, 1961 and is probably the basis for the Town s LDD map. Exhibit 5 is the County Planning map from 1986 which shows the wetland and steep slopes. What is curious is that it does not reflect any LDD on the site. It shows the haul road through the property as well as the access to Thornell Road. Exhibit 6 is the soils map and it shows the gravel pit. It also shows the activity in the southwest corner and the northwest corner. The soils are sandy loam (AnB) on the higher elevation where the house used to be. That area is flat with 3%-8% slopes. The other area is gravelly loam (AoC) with 8%-15% slopes which is primarily the rest of the site. Those are the only two soil types on the site which basically is sand. Exhibit 7 is an old 1930 aerial photo of the property. It shows disturbance approximately 250 into the site from the mining activity and the haul road. We suspect that from the Russo Gravel Pit, they were actually clearing the overburden from the Russo site and pushing it over onto another site. That way they could mine the gravel and the sand. Mr. Cantwell felt that is why things are the way they are on the site. Exhibit 8 is the Cluster Concept plan showing just the 15% slopes which are based on our survey of the actual field conditions. Exhibit 9 shows the Conventional Concept Plan which shows the LDD that was identified and submitted with the original concept plan and cluster concept plan. We feel that Exhibit 9A shows the LDD which consists of two pieces with the majority of the site actually being created from mining activity even before There was no evidence found in our research that showed the rest of the site being disturbed other than the home and the surrounding land. During the site walk, it was noted that there was a tree line that hasn t been disturbed. It is not fill and we do not believe it s disturbed from any mining activity. It is very interesting as to how the nob was created as it could have been done by overburden. The site sits up above East Jefferson Road and when the road was constructed, the slope was cut back and that material could have even been placed on the PCB

3 site. The bottom line is that we feel that the western half of that nob that shows up on the original LDD map, the aerial photos and the soils map was created by the man-made activity. John asked if there was any correlation between the vegetation in the area that is supposedly disturbed and the rest of the site. Bob replied that there are evergreens and fairly large oaks in one location and would suspect that in certain areas there wasn t any disturbance. The vegetation on the rest of the site was primarily black locusts. Our intent is to keep the ROW in tact and use the existing access point and not disturb it in order to use it as a buffer from Route 96. We did test pits on the site. There is a plateau on the western side of the site and from all of the aerial photos over the years, you can see the evolution of the mining activity. The plateau is about 10 higher than some of the topo from the County. The test pit in that location shows construction debris in it. Some of the other test pits had a consistent depth of material that wasn t as valuable as the high grade sand and gravel. We believe that was a logical use of that part of the site. Also, the haul road leads us to believe it was there to remove the overburden of materials. There was no activity taking place to the east of that. John wondered if they looked at any of the older USGS maps and indicated they could get a lot of information from the University of New Hampshire by going on line. He thought that some of the old topo maps from this area go back to the early 1900 s. John stated that they want written documentation of what was presented tonight. Describe any evidence that you have and describe the rationale and then document it including but not limited to soil types, vegetation, topography changes, aerial photos etc. That will give the Town Boards a firm basis to make a decision. Tom Beck had a copy of the pictures that Mr. Munier sent him and was supposed to bring tonight. Tom passed them around for the Board to review. Chris asked if any disturbance has occurred on the land and Todd Longwell replied definitely. Our intent was to simply clean up the site but we have altered the contour lines when we graded it. There was a lot of damage to the locust trees etc., from the storms that have occurred over the years. Jerry asked if it was done under a SWPPP and Todd indicated no. Todd stated that the good news is that erosion wise, the soil is so poor there is no issue at all. Zack indicated that the site appears to have been disturbed in the past as the trees are all new growth as compared to the southern border. There were many fallen trees and scruffy materials so our idea was to just clean it up. We did alter the grade, particularly of the top area and also where the homestead used to be located. The idea being that there is a foundation there and a walk out on the northern side. Mr. Cantwell reiterated that the current survey for the concept plan is based on what the existing conditions are there now. It is not based on the LDD topo. Mr. Longwell indicated that they purchased the property about three years ago. The amount of LDD has been reduced on the site. Chris noted that according to Town law, the PCB has to deal with disturbance after the LDD was created and before the application was made or we refer back to the LDD map which would prevail. PCB

4 John asked if any of the recent aerial photos of the Town show the disturbed area that was recently graded. Bob indicated that the latest photo he has is from Tom Beck suggested using pictometry to find out. John would like to see the area that was disturbed in the past couple of years and overlay that on top of the older one. We would like to see what changes may have occurred with the grading limits or any alterations. We need to know what impact that may have had on the topography. Under the law we need to know where the disturbance occurred and see how that matches up with the LDD map. If it is in the area of the LDD map, then it would fall under the LDD law. In order to make a determination, Scott said they would have to go back to the premise of LDD as a naturally occurring feature. We have had that discussion previously with road construction that occurred prior to the law. If the area to the left was man-made LDD prior to 1974 or even after, it is not a naturally occurring feature. Created steep slopes are not LDD. If an LDD map shows that it is LDD and now it isn t and it was disturbed in the past couple of years, and the LDD was based on a naturally occurring feature that is different. Scott stated that the Woodcliff area was a mining area and we found similar occurrences in that they were not naturally occurring slopes. But, they showed up on an LDD map because they measured the slope. John reiterated that the PCB needs to know whether the disturbed area was mapped LDD. Scott stated that historically, if it was disturbed land and it was a steep slope in 1972, it was still disturbed land. Mr. Longwell didn t think that there is a lot of contamination on the site. We have been working with the DEC to review any dumping when we were working in Pittsford. Dave asked for some formal documentation. Dave also questioned the conventional plan regarding the road at the top of the slope and the fact that he did not think it could be constructed. Bob said they have talked to Bob Dunbock at the DOT about it and he said there is no problem with using a common access but they would not allow it to connect twice onto East Jefferson Road. Therefore, we need to do a turn around and go parallel to East Jefferson Road and then go back out. That would probably eliminate the frontage lots and they need to come back with a modified conventional plan. Dave still questioned building a road geotechnically that is 1:1. Bob stated they are about 20 from the top of the slope horizontally and it does gradually climb parallel with Route 96. Chris acknowledged that they don t intend to build the conventional, but they still need to show it is possible. Bob agreed but felt that it could be engineered but expensive. As to benefits to the Town, there will be no frontage lots on Jefferson Road; greater depth of the lots; not disturbing the slopes to the south and honoring the tree limit. When asked about timing, Bob thought that they would like to submit everything in the fall. Discussions: Abandoned Highway Property Scott Copp informed the PCB that the State has abandoned some highway to the Town. The property is along Route 96, east of Fishers Road. This was the property where Christa just built the office building on Route 96. The 4.86 acre piece is owned by Mr. Babcock and there is a 3.18 acre piece owned by Mr. Madelena. Many years ago in the 1930 s, Route 96 coming out of Bushnells Basin actually swung down through the Babcock piece and back out onto Route 96. As it crossed Fishers Road, it was approximately just to the northeast of the culvert pipe where PCB

5 the stream runs down through a fairly deep ravine. The old road bed is right along the top of bank. When the State re-routed Route 96 along the current orientation, it appears as though there is a berm that runs along Route 96. The LDD mapping in this area shows the ravine and the drainage course but out in the field there is a very steep slope off of Route 96 that goes up about ten feet, drops back down again and then it s a gentle slope down to top of bank where the ravine is. In mapping it, it is linear enough so that it meets the criteria for LDD for steep slope but it doesn t meet the exclusion based on the diameter of a circle. It is our belief that this is all created spoil from the re-routing. It s a linear berm with a pile at the south end of where Christa built. It all looks as if it was pushed up there. When the State abandoned this piece of highway, they abandoned it to the Town of Perinton. Scott said that Mike O Neill has marked some corners and set some pins in the field and suggested that the Board look at it. Mr. Babcock and Mr. Madelena have a letter of intent from another person to buy the property. This is actually between the old road bed and the current Route 96. It s above the plain of Route 96 and it definitely looks like spoil. This was done in when they abandoned the small piece of property. John asked if the topo matches what is being seen in the field. Scott replied that with 5 contours it doesn t show up. The owners would like the Board to make a determination as to whether it is pushed up spoil. Most of the growth is about 50 years old. Scott s opinion is that it was all pushed up when they did the highway. There is not a lot of documentation back to that period. The Board agreed to do a site walk. The Conservation Board minutes of were approved as corrected. Planning Board Meeting Report John Minichiello and Dave Belaskas attended. Dixon,Schwabl Advertising Lot 2 Phase 1 Parking Improvements Requesting preliminary and final site plan approval to develop the first phase of a two-phase project. The Planning Board had issues with the number of proposed parking lots and the fact that the lots encroached onto the area where building #2 was originally proposed. Several members wanted to make sure there was enough information on the plans to indicate that building #2 was not being approved as part of the parking lot improvements. The PCB had issues with the fact that the underground stormwater detention system had not been inspected regularly and that there was no adequate information documenting that the American/Chestnut trees had been planted as agreed to as part of the LDD mitigation plan. DPW was concerned that a good portion of the stormwater drainage was not entering the catch basins that drain to the underground system, but instead was by passing the catch basins and draining onto Rt PCB recommended a negative SEQR declaration, based on the proposed underground stormwater detention system and the performance of the existing underground stormwater detention system. PB accepted the recommendation 6-0. PCB

6 PB granted preliminary site plan approval 6-0 including the following conditions: Incorporating annual inspection of stormwater system and landscaping into the drawings; Modify Note #3 to indicate what town code requires for parking and how many spaces are being provided for Lot #1; Easement for lot #2 needs to be modified. Additional letter of credit for chestnut trees; Plan to have arborist observe condition of chestnut trees; and A note on the plan describing the landscaping. The PB also granted a waiver on the set back of Lot #2 from Rt. 250 from 85 ft. to 51.8 ft. by a vote of 6-0. The PB deferred final action and stopped the clock by a vote of 6-0. Planning Board Meeting of January 2, 2008 Report - Dave Belaskas, Jerry Leone and Chris Fredette attended. East Jefferson Road Longwell Subdivision Requesting concept subdivision approval under Section 278 to develop 9.7 acres of property for a 20 lot residential subdivision. Bob Cantwell presented and there were many neighbors there. The PCB was not convinced that the LDD lines are correct. When one neighbor (Greg Munier) stated that much grading took place last summer, before the application was submitted, and others agreed, Chris read Town Code E, If an area has been disturbed by human activity into the minutes. Concept approval for a 278 was deferred pending the PCB being satisfied with the LDD lines, plan to be submitted at scale of 1 = 50, fewer houses on the Conventional Plan and benefits to the Town sufficient to justify a 278, being demonstrated. Also, the dumping on the Russo property is identified and discussed, size of the stormwater pond be better determined and access on Route 96 be discussed with the NYSDOT. Both Bob Cantwell and Greg Munier wish to come to the next PCB meeting. Whitney Road East Aristo Subdivision Peter Vars presented. The Planning Board was generally in favor of this proposal. There is flooding on the Mantell property that could be alleviated with this development. Sight distance is a problem, probably will need a warning sign. The pond should be dedicated to the Town or an easement granted. No approvals needed. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Joan Cannon, Secretary PCB