Malta Planning Board Meeting

Agenda for

October 20, 2009

Town Hall Meeting Room

#09-08 Charbonneau – Extension of Special Use Permit.
#09-23 Bette Subdivision Public Hearing - The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 32.77 acre parcel into 4 conforming residential lots. One lot will have an existing residence and three new lots will be created. This project is located at 686 East Line Road. Zoned R-5, tax ID#216.-1-57. The applicant is Christopher Bette.

#09-25 Lyons Subdivision Public Hearing - Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels so that each lot is equal in size of approximately 5,575 sf. This project is located at 108/110 Second Street. Zoned R-4, tax ID#218.18-1-21. Applicants are Michael & Kevin Lyons.
#09-22 Croc-A-Gator Child Care Special Use Permit Adjourned Public Hearing – The applicant wishes to convert existing wholesale/retail storage building into childrens day care center for 80 to 100 children including a fenced outdoor play yard. This project is located at 2381 Route 9. Zoned C-2, tax ID#240.-2-7. The applicant is Melissa Brennan.

#09-03 Malta Crossings Planning Review - This is a Special Use Permit for mixed use development. The uses proposed includes hotel, apartments, professional offices, retail businesses, a day care center and 30 residential dwelling units.This project is located at 2621 Route 9. Zoned C-1 Downtown, tax ID#229-3-7. The applicant is Malta Crossing

#09-24 Just for Trucks PDDA - The applicant wishes to rebuild their 4,224 sq.ft. building and add office rental space into the PDD legislation. This project is located at 2299 Route 9. Zoned PDD#33, tax ID$240.-2-14. The applicant is Everything Just 4 Trucks.

#09-26 2452 Route 9 Site Plan Amendment - The applicant would like to change from the original wood frame construction to a steel frame and to modify the roofline in order to display more roof shingles from vantage points along Route 9 while maintaining the various gables specifically requested by the Planning Board. Project located at 2452 Route 9, C-1 Downtown zone, ID#229.4-2-23. Applicant is Bluth Company, LLC.

#06-23 Ellsworth Commons Renewal – The applicant would like to request a formal renewal of the approved site plan pursuant to Section 167-24 of the Zoning Code. Project located at 2545 Route 9, C-1 Downtown, ID#229.02-1-48, Applicant is Albany Partners.

Agenda subject to change. Please contact the Building Department for up to date status

http://www.malta-town.org/Cit-....cfm?TID=44&DID=1036

quote:

#06-23 Ellsworth Commons Renewal – The applicant would like to request a formal renewal of the approved site plan pursuant to Section 167-24 of the Zoning Code. Project located at 2545 Route 9, C-1 Downtown, ID#229.02-1-48, Applicant is Albany Partners.

I did not get any notice of this. My property is within 500 feet of this project. This request will have to be postponed until all residents or property owners within 500 feet have been properly notified of this request for renewal.

quote:

Originally posted by km:

quote:

#06-23 Ellsworth Commons Renewal – The applicant would like to request a formal renewal of the approved site plan pursuant to Section 167-24 of the Zoning Code. Project located at 2545 Route 9, C-1 Downtown, ID#229.02-1-48, Applicant is Albany Partners.

I did not get any notice of this. My property is within 500 feet of this project. This request will have to be postponed until all residents or property owners within 500 feet have been properly notified of this request for renewal.

Can you show me where in the Malta Town Code it says that property owners within 500 feet are required to be notified for a site plan amendment, because I can't find it........ I also couldn't find anything in the NYS General Municipal Law (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS).... not sure if this requirement actually exists km..... Actually, it doesn't. Section 167-40 of the Malta Town Code states that "The Board by resolution adopted at a stated meeting shall fix the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed amendments and cause to be given at least 10 days' notice of the time and place of such hearing in a paper of general circulation in the Town." So no, it appears that it is not required for you to be notified, and the public hearing will go on as scheduled tomorrow....

D. The Planning Board shall set a reasonable time for the public hearing of a request for a special use permit and shall give notice in the Town's official newspaper of such hearing at least five days prior to the date of such hearing, and with respect to any applications as herein set forth, notice shall be given at least 10 days prior to such hearing by certified or registered mail to certain officials, persons and owners of properties involved in accordance with requirements of § 267 of the Town Law as follows:

(1) Notification requirements. All owners of property which is contiguous, abutting or adjacent to or which is situated across an established road from the actual or proposed boundary lines of the property which is the subject of the application and to such other property owners as the Planning Board may direct. The applicant shall be required to determine the names and addresses of such owners, and the applicant shall thereupon advise the Building and Planning Department who shall notify such persons of the application by certified or registered mail.
(2) Adjournment of hearing. The Planning Board may in its discretion, adjourn the hearing for a reasonable period for the purpose of causing such further notice as it deems proper to be served upon such other property owners as determined by the Planning Board.

quote:

Originally posted by km:
D. The Planning Board shall set a reasonable time for the public hearing of a request for a special use permit and shall give notice in the Town's official newspaper of such hearing at least five days prior to the date of such hearing, and with respect to any applications as herein set forth, notice shall be given at least 10 days prior to such hearing by certified or registered mail to certain officials, persons and owners of properties involved in accordance with requirements of § 267 of the Town Law as follows:

(1) Notification requirements. All owners of property which is contiguous, abutting or adjacent to or which is situated across an established road from the actual or proposed boundary lines of the property which is the subject of the application and to such other property owners as the Planning Board may direct. The applicant shall be required to determine the names and addresses of such owners, and the applicant shall thereupon advise the Building and Planning Department who shall notify such persons of the application by certified or registered mail.
(2) Adjournment of hearing. The Planning Board may in its discretion, adjourn the hearing for a reasonable period for the purpose of causing such further notice as it deems proper to be served upon such other property owners as determined by the Planning Board.

Yes km, but as you can clearly read above, this adjacent property owner notification is for a public hearing related to the approval of a SPECIAL USE PERMIT. Ellsworth Commons is coming before the board for a site plan approval renewal, not a special use permit. Two separate approvals with two separate sets of requirements.

I'm still going to complain.

quote:

Originally posted by km:
I'm still going to complain.

haha, as is your right under the constitution. As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to keep your right to say it." or something like that...

no public hearing. hey planning board, here's a question you might have asked. "so, let me get this straight, over 7 million in so far and noone is keeping a watch on the expiration date? why weren't you here back in July?"

quote:

Originally posted by km:
no public hearing. hey planning board, here's a question you might have asked. "so, let me get this straight, over 7 million in so far and noone is keeping a watch on the expiration date? why weren't you here back in July?"

The planning board had no choice but to grant the extension... of the four tests that are applied in reviewing whether or not the renewal is one to be considered, the applicant met all four. If the planning board had not granted the renewal, the planning board (i.e., taxpayers) would have sued.

David/Planner, why would one vote for a candidate who doesn't have the sense at minimum to give lip service to a resident's (i.e. constiuent's)right to notice of a major change in his/her home's surroundings?

quote:

Originally posted by merry:
David/Planner, why would one vote for a candidate who doesn't have the sense at minimum to give lip service to a resident's (i.e. constiuent's)right to notice of a major change in his/her home's surroundings?

Because the weakness in our society is that we have chosen to be polite in spite of its ineffectiveness.

quote:

Originally posted by Irish Law Girl:

quote:

Originally posted by km:
no public hearing. hey planning board, here's a question you might have asked. "so, let me get this straight, over 7 million in so far and noone is keeping a watch on the expiration date? why weren't you here back in July?"

The planning board had no choice but to grant the extension... of the four tests that are applied in reviewing whether or not the renewal is one to be considered, the applicant met all four. If the planning board had not granted the renewal, the planning board (i.e., taxpayers) would have sued.

Merry - I believe, personally, that it is a politicians responsibility to tell the truth and, in this case, use the Town Code Book to support an argument. The fact in this case was that the resident did not in fact have the right to be noticed for this project. Further, it was not even a public hearing, so even if the resident was noticed, they couldn't have said their piece to begin with. The people of this Town were given the right to comment on this project, both at public hearings and in writing, several times in the past. What went before the planning board last night was an approval extension. No changes occurred to the design of the project so I fail to see what new information the detractors or proponents of the project could have brought to light, if in fact it were a public hearing. In my opinion, I believe km posted inaccurate information about being noticed for a meeting, and I felt a moral obligation to report to you and the rest of the public the truth of the matter.

Merry, you bring up a valid point, but I don't think that you took what Planner said in the correct manner. Planner (and Dave, correct me if I'm wrong) was merely reciting the requirements of the ordinance. He was not advocating an opinion one way or the other. Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't mean you shouldn't follow it.

quote:

Originally posted by Irish Law Girl:
Merry, you bring up a valid point, but I don't think that you took what Planner said in the correct manner. Planner (and Dave, correct me if I'm wrong) was merely reciting the requirements of the ordinance. He was not advocating an opinion one way or the other. Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't mean you shouldn't follow it.

Yes indeed, you are correct Irishlawgirl. Simply reiterating the language of the Town Code.

quote:

Originally posted by Irish Law Girl:
Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't mean you shouldn't follow it.

Fascist.

Facsist? No, I'm a Democrat the definition of which is "one who adheres to democracy."

This country would run a lot smoother with a fascist gov't at the helm. Democracy is dying and outdated.

quote:

Originally posted by Planner29:

quote:

Originally posted by Irish Law Girl:
Merry, you bring up a valid point, but I don't think that you took what Planner said in the correct manner. Planner (and Dave, correct me if I'm wrong) was merely reciting the requirements of the ordinance. He was not advocating an opinion one way or the other. Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't mean you shouldn't follow it.

Yes indeed, you are correct Irishlawgirl. Simply reiterating the language of the Town Code.

Irish Law Girl...I think Planner has a crush on you...

quote:

Originally posted by km:

quote:

Originally posted by Planner29:

quote:

Originally posted by Irish Law Girl:
Merry, you bring up a valid point, but I don't think that you took what Planner said in the correct manner. Planner (and Dave, correct me if I'm wrong) was merely reciting the requirements of the ordinance. He was not advocating an opinion one way or the other. Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't mean you shouldn't follow it.

Yes indeed, you are correct Irishlawgirl. Simply reiterating the language of the Town Code.

Irish Law Girl...I think Planner has a crush on you...

Oy veh........you figured us out km......

Both Irishlawgirl and I are happily married to other people.

quote:

Originally posted by Planner29:

quote:

Originally posted by km:

quote:

Originally posted by Planner29:

quote:

Originally posted by Irish Law Girl:
Merry, you bring up a valid point, but I don't think that you took what Planner said in the correct manner. Planner (and Dave, correct me if I'm wrong) was merely reciting the requirements of the ordinance. He was not advocating an opinion one way or the other. Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't mean you shouldn't follow it.

Yes indeed, you are correct Irishlawgirl. Simply reiterating the language of the Town Code.

Irish Law Girl...I think Planner has a crush on you...

Oy veh........you figured us out km......

Both Irishlawgirl and I are happily married to other people.

okay...but I still think you're smitten