Washington County Planning Agency Meeting - 4.28.26

Washington County, NY · · More Washington County, NY meetings · More New York meetings

Transcript

Download: Text · SRT
SOURCE TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is downloaded from the source you provided but we haven't reviewed it for accuracy. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record. You can also request an AI-transcription of the audio file with the button to the left.

These are YouTube's auto-generated captions, not a human transcript — expect occasional errors, especially with names and technical terms.
[0:00] The list is actually the same project from the town of Kingsbury, Del Cath
[0:04] Systems, but one is a area variance and one was a
[0:11] site plan review. So, um
[0:16] I think so we'll do the variance first.
[0:21] Um So,
[0:24] one of the things This is where I actually looked at the
[0:27] write-up. It's basically they're requiring a setback relief.
[0:30] The um they're going to build an addition to the building to house
[0:35] additional manufacturing, storage space, etc.
[0:39] Because [clears throat] of setback requirements, they only need a 1 ft 11
[0:42] in relief request. So, um
[0:47] I So, Pamela did this buffer map before
[0:50] she left. The first thing that I noticed on the buffer map is
[0:54] Del Cath is shown on our property records as owning the parcel behind it.
[0:59] And it looks My first thought was, "Well, why don't they just merge the two
[1:02] lots?" Well, it turns out at some point, based
[1:06] on the records that were submitted by the applicant, Rozell probably purchased
[1:10] all of the Del Cath lots owned by that. So, our property systems are probably
[1:16] not updated yet, which means they would definitely need this variance because
[1:20] they don't own that lot.
[1:23] » [clears throat]
[1:31] » Other than that, I mean, I didn't see anything that wasn't very
[1:35] straightforward. It's an addition in a commercial building in a commercially
[1:39] developed area. It's just a 1 ft 11 in variance.
[1:44] And everything stays on their own property. Yep. It's just that the buffer
[1:48] will go down to 23 and 1/2 ft instead of 25 ft in their parking lot.
[1:52] Understood. I was just asking for clarification.
[1:56] Matter of local interest? Tim?
[2:00] You did that? Uh I would make a motion that we send it back as a matter of
[2:05] local concern. Okay. Second? I'll second that.
[2:10] I always just get one vote. >> [laughter]
[2:14] » All in favor? Aye. Aye.
[2:18] Aye. Okay. All right then. So, the next one
[2:22] is the site plan review. Again, same project. There are
[2:28] drawings I'm going to give you tiny drawings
[2:31] at the back of the meeting. Um the back of the packet.
[2:44] And it appears that they're adding their house offices
[2:49] and the factory space.
[2:56] That's the same lot? It's the same lot, yep.
[2:59] That's what this shows on
[3:08] Isn't that gray area is the new one? Shaded area?
[3:13] Building is pink. Um the at the very back of the packet is
[3:19] all of the drawing.
[3:25] I guess you can find the drawing. Yeah, the shaded in area.
[3:31] But my eyes aren't as good as they used to be.
[3:35] I was going to say I'm jet simply because Yeah, it says shaded
[3:39] shaded area of the proposed building expansion. There's I'm going to take
[3:44] that with me. I'm going to take a few tests right now.
[3:47] » [laughter] >> Yeah, look at the second second map.
[3:50] Yep. Yep.
[3:59] I'm wondering I'm also
[4:03] Are there anything you saw as relative concerns Laura?
[4:09] Not that I saw.
[4:12] Okay.
[4:18] And what's the judgment on this one? Local concern again?
[4:21] Well, Mr. Chairman, do you want to make that motion?
[4:25] Well, put me on the spot. Well, I'll make the motion make it a matter of
[4:29] local concern. I'll second that. All in favor?
[4:34] Aye. Aye. Aye.
[4:37] Opposed? Carried.
[4:41] Um Okay, next project that is
[4:46] Granville. Um
[4:49] So, this is a site plan approval for a fairly small It's a 2.44 MW solar
[4:57] farm on 9 acres. The um
[5:01] the full plans, the large scale ones are there if anybody wants to take a look at
[5:05] them. Also in the black binder is Granville's solar law.
[5:10] Um what I what we put in the package for you is the application. Um this did come
[5:17] to Granville once. It went back because the Granville planning board asked for a
[5:22] few changes. The changes are at the very back of your
[5:28] um at the very back of your packet um from Lamont Engineers. Um
[5:35] This is basically changes that were made to this project as a result of requests
[5:41] from um Granville's planning board.
[5:48] But there is a a lot of the changes related to the decommissioning plan.
[5:53] Mhm.
[5:55] So, there is a full decommissioning plan. Um
[6:02] This is a 9 acre solar farm on a 20 3 acre plus or minus acre parcel.
[6:13] And the and the site is fairly flat. On the river.
[6:19] This is the new river news. Yeah, so here's the buffer The buffer map is in
[6:23] here. It should be in the back so you can see
[6:25] where it is.
[6:32] And it is also um in agricultural one.
[6:37] Laura, on the agricultural data statement that's in there. Mhm. The
[6:43] question where it asked, is the parcel actively farmed? Both boxes are checked.
[6:48] There's a question mark next to yes. That's what I was looking for. So, no.
[6:56] I'm not familiar with that area. Could be.
[7:10] So, according to the Ag data statement, it's actively farmed.
[7:15] Um Walkers
[7:17] by three different farms. Oh oh no, this is the adjacent farms.
[7:23] Walkers, Harry Wilbur, and Kenneth Thomas would have active farming on
[7:28] their own parcels. I don't see the question mark that
[7:32] you're looking at in the system. Uh it's on this one that looks like yes.
[7:43] Well, that Okay, so those were So, that the
[7:45] question mark that I'm seeing is under Henry Wilbur.
[7:49] So, again, that would be an adjacent land owner.
[7:52] Okay, I see what you mean then. That's farms within 500 ft of the
[7:56] parcel. >> Got you.
[8:10] Recommendation on this one? So, they made the appropriate changes that the
[8:14] town of Granville has requested? Yes, this originally came to us in February
[8:20] and then Granville contacted us and asked us to pull it subject to further
[8:24] review by their planning boards, attorneys,
[8:29] whoever else they wanted to have a look at with. And then they brought it back
[8:32] to us for this one. Did they have a decommissioning plan at that time? I
[8:36] believe most a lot of the changes were related to the decommissioning.
[8:41] And again, you will see um that plan is at the at the back and
[8:46] um
[8:51] I guess I didn't make color copies for everybody, but the changes on my copy
[8:55] are colored, so I don't know if you can tell the difference.
[8:57] I know it. I think
[9:00] in the past, at least the most recent past, that have been on the only
[9:04] recommendation that we've sent back or notification that we've sent back on the
[9:08] town of Granville was to make sure that they coordinate with emergency services
[9:13] for site development plans. Not site plan review, but understanding
[9:17] of the site and operations prior to emergency occurrence. Okay.
[9:22] But other than that, I'll make a motion it's a matter of local concern.
[9:26] I'll second that. I'll second.
[9:30] We're getting you going now. I'll second. We're getting you going now. I'm
[9:32] saying take a breath. Any further discussion?
[9:36] All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.
[9:40] Opposed? Carried. Next, Richard Palmer Permont.
[9:44] Okay, this is another Kingsbury project. Um
[9:50] This one um
[9:53] the applicant has purchased
[9:57] an existing home. He over a home on a um
[10:03] 1 and 1/2 acre parcel. He owns a non-emergency medical
[10:08] transportation company and is looking for additional space to park it park his
[10:14] uh transportation vans. So, what was provided
[10:20] was uh basically the uh the parcel map that doesn't actually
[10:26] even show where the existing structures are.
[10:29] So, I went and pulled as you will see a Google Earth map and also a parcel map
[10:35] that shows where the existing structures are.
[10:37] So, my concern on this is you have a house here and then what looks like
[10:44] barns or sheds in the back. What he is proposing based on his
[10:49] drawing is to put a driveway here to access the house and a driveway here to
[10:55] access what is grass and area. He has stated that he's looking to park
[11:00] up to eight vehicles there. So, given that this is grass and area
[11:05] given the proximity to house, my concern would be
[11:09] eight vehicles parked end-to-end would get you to the back of the lot.
[11:15] Without turnaround space, you're risking people backing out onto this 6th Avenue,
[11:20] which I would see as something that should be addressed.
[11:37] Other than that, it's pretty straightforward. He basically intends to
[11:40] to rent the house, use it as a rental property and then
[11:44] park and his statement was up to eight
[11:47] vehicles on the site.
[11:52] It doesn't say whether he's planning on putting in a gravel area, a road.
[11:57] There's no information on that. Is it just storage of the vans or is it
[12:03] that's where they go at the end of the day, that type of thing or
[12:06] It's said for some of his drivers to be able to collect the vehicles. So, I
[12:11] would guess that if he has a network of drivers that
[12:16] he's trying to park some vehicles closer to where his drivers are. Okay.
[12:21] It also could be that he's simply out of space where he is. It doesn't say that.
[12:25] I'm just curious. So, you have to park you don't have to park
[12:29] the drivers out there park their cars there unless they get transported from
[12:33] the other facilities here. That's actually another point. If if
[12:38] drivers are driving their own cars to this space, they would you know, I I
[12:42] don't I don't know whether the eight cars that he's stating includes drivers
[12:46] bringing their own cars in or if it's actually eight medical transportation
[12:50] vans in there.
[12:54] Your recommendation on this?
[13:02] What's my recommendation? >> Yes.
[13:05] I would um make a note to the Kingsburg Planning
[13:09] Board to review the possible traffic implications and if there's sufficient
[13:16] room to make sure that they're not backing
[13:19] vehicles out 6th Avenue.
[13:22] Hey, thank you, Ted. The driver Well, somebody got it.
[13:27] An illusion.
[13:32] So, this is just about where where it's cut off here, just about the end of the
[13:37] parcel. So, I don't know how much room there would
[13:42] be. And it's obviously fairly treed but the new shape of the road would be no.
[13:47] I think you can assume that it is. They point out
[13:52] if you're driving there, they got to respond to it.
[13:55] With their own vehicles, I guess. So, you don't need room for at least
[13:58] eight vehicles, you need room for at least nine vehicles.
[14:02] I would like a replacement. I would say more than that.
[14:05] » say 16 but actually They have one driver for each
[14:08] » Right, cuz they have to pull the van in, park it.
[14:12] What? Again, he may only be planning on parking two or three medical vans there
[14:17] and the rest of them his drivers' cars. That's unclear. The application said up
[14:21] to eight. It says in his little description of
[14:24] project two to three drivers per day.
[14:29] So, maybe he was figuring in with the eight of
[14:32] having extra cars there, too. But I
[14:35] I would concur, Laura, we should send it back with a notation that they can
[14:39] consider where parking is and traffic implications.
[14:48] Any other comments?
[14:52] You have a motion to send it back with those comments?
[14:57] As in another local business. I make that a motion.
[15:05] Do I hear a second? Okay.
[15:08] If that's all the motion, could we have one vote today?
[15:13] All in favor? Aye. I say vote.
[15:17] Carried. Um that's all we have. I I um I did not
[15:22] see any A E notices or reports of final action comments.
[15:29] So, that's all we have for today.
[15:32] Good.