Minutes of a regular meeting of the

Johnson City Planning Board held on

March 25, 2008 at 7:30pm at

243 Main St., Johnson City, NY

Present: Pamela Hysell, Vice Chairperson

Joanne Drimak

Gerald Putman

Jeff Jacobs, Village Attorney

Daria Golazeski, Planning Director

Absent: William Klish, Chairman

Leonard Sas

A brief work session was held at 7:00pm.

Vice Chairperson Hysell called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.

Vice Chairperson Hysell noted the emergency exits.

Minutes – A motion to accept the minutes of the February 28, 2008 regular meeting was made by Vice Chairperson Hysell. The motion carried with all those present voting.

Privilege of the Floor

Tom Kelleher, 72 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the Senior Living Center, 373 Harry L. Drive. He is upset that the Planning Board made a recommendation on the rezone application without more public comments. He is also upset that the public did not see the revised site plan before the last meeting and should be allowed to comment on it. Has serious concerns about the developer and thinks the project should be bonded to 120% of the value. Against rezoning of the property.

Dan Gorey, 65 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the Senior Living Center, 373 Harry L. Drive. Doesn’t trust the developer. Questions the labeling of the development as a senior community. Thinks people are confusing the project with the senior apartments at the former Harry L. School.

Tom Kelleher, 72 Richard St. - Spoke regarding the Senior Living Center, 373 Harry L. Drive. Concerned that the developer has hired a new out of town attorney. Finds it strange that the developer couldn’t find local representation.

Mr. Putman spoke about a letter that was presented by the Richard Street neighbors to the Village Board at one of their meetings. Mr. Putman stated that in all of his years on the Planning Board, the members have never been coerced in regards to their decisions. The board members goal is always what is in the best interests of the Village.

Communications – None

Contingencies – None

OLD BUSINESS – None

NEW BUSINESS

Area Variance – Hannah Enterprises, 71 & 75 Baldwin Street

The application is an area variance to reduce the number of off street parking spaces required.

Sarah Grace Campbell with Hinman, Howard & Kattell, attorney for the applicant and Brian Kradjian, principal with Hannah Enterprises were present to represent the applicant.

Ms. Campbell explained that there is very little on-site parking. There are two residential buildings on the site but they are vacant and will remain vacant. The only use will be the coffee shop. The 67-space parking lot on Faatz Alley, which is also owned by Hannah Enterprises, is being leased to the hospital which has taken pressure off of the metered spaces on the street. Per Planner Golazeski, spaces #5 & 6 on the site plan are not legal spaces per the Village Code. Three spaces are shown at the Faatz Alley lot, which are allowable under the Village Code because they are within 400 feet of the structure. There will be two employees at any one time and these employees will park in spaces #7 & 8, which are located in a garage. A special permit will be required as well for the spaces that are located in the Faatz Alley lot. There is a lot of on-street metered parking in the area.

Mr. Putman asked about the building next door.

Mr. Kradjian explained that they own four buildings on two properties which were purchased two years ago. All of the buildings are vacant. The buildings have become a financial drain. They tried for a reduced assessment, but were unsuccessful. Within 2 – 5 years the plan is for the buildings to be demolished and the property to be developed for a hospital project.

Mrs. Drimak asked about handicapped parking. A space is not provided on the plan. Also, can the building next door be demolished now to make room for parking.

Mr. Kradjian stated that all of the buildings would be demolished at the same time. They will not do it in stages.

Vice Chairperson Hysell asked if spaces 1, 2 & 3 would be designated with signs. Mr. Kradjian stated that yes they would be signed, but there is no way to really police that.

Vice Chairperson Hysell read the department head comments.

DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS

Code Enforcement: The area between the two buildings needs to be kept clear of any obstructions at all times. This area is a fire lane. Parking on the corner can be a traffic hazard due to visibility. An asbestos survey needs to be done and issued to this department before any work is to commence. If approved, said property must have a building permit before any work is to be started.

Fire Dept: Spaces #4, #5 and #6 cannot be used. This alley must be kept clear for Fire Dept. access to the building in the rear

Planning Dept.: Spaces 5 & 6 not permitted. How many apartments in use? Garage parking for employees only. Required spaces – 1 for every 50 sq. ft. or 1 for every 2 seats whichever is greater. Where will tenants park?

Police Dept.: None of the on-site parking spaces are legitimate. #4, 5 & 6 – this area is a strip of grass between #75 and #69 Baldwin St. If a vehicle were parked in space #4, vehicles parking in spaces #5 & #6 could not get out. Vehicles parked in spaces #7 & #8 would block the sidewalk. To get to space #9 the motorist must use the handicap accessible sidewalk – there is no driveway cut.

Public Works & Water: No compelling interest on the area variance. If this project moves forward, there will be utility requirements. A backflow device will be required on the water service. A grease/oil separator may be required.

Ms. Campbell stated that parking spaces #7 & 8, mentioned in the Police Department’s comments, are

located in a garage and would not be blocking the sidewalk.

A motion to recommend denial of the area variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals due to the fact that it is a self-created hardship and including the department head comments was made by Mrs. Drimak and seconded by Mr. Putman.

The board held a brief discussion regarding the reasons for the motion.

Mr. Putman stated that the Zoning Code was revised to require 17 parking spaces. Absent some way to obtain the required spaces this application does not meet the code. This is not 1 or 2 spaces. This is a significant number of spaces to be lacking.

Attorney Jacobs stated that the plan that was presented to the board had nine on-site parking spaces, but due to department head concerns, four of these spaces have been removed as they are not legal spaces.

Mrs. Drimak stated that the department head comments support the board’s concerns regarding ingress and egress issues.

Motion Carried - Vote: Yes – 3 (Drimak, Hysell, Putman) No – 0 Absent – 2 (Klish, Sas)

A motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20pm was made by Mr. Putman and seconded by Mrs. Drimak.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane Salva

Planning Board Clerk