 |
|
|
Village of Bergen,
New York 111 Buffalo Street P.O. Box 100 Bergen, NY 14416 Ph: (585)494-1513 ---- Fax: (585)494-1730 |
 |
|
Proudly located in
Northeastern
Genesee County |
|
|
Public Hearing Minutes Joint Hearing on Annexation by the Town of Bergen Town Council and Village of Bergen Board of Trustees Friday, January 10, 2003 Bergen Fire Hall The public hearing was called to order by presiding officer Town Supervisor
John Specht at 7:03 p.m. with the following members of the governing boards
present: The following members of the governing boards were absent: The following members of the public were present: In his preliminary comments, Town Supervisor Specht introduced the members of the governing boards, announced some procedural rules and stated that no decisions would be made by either governing board at or following the public hearing. Buddy Filowik of Budvale Construction, 7519 Chili Riga Center Road Churchville, New York, made a presentation concerning his concept plans and introduced principals in his corporation, representatives of his company, his architect/engineer and attorney. He described another project he recently completed in the neighboring municipality, Churchville. Churchville Park is a 40-unit subdivision in Churchville and would be representative of the quality of his company's development work. Marcia Havens, Esq., with offices at 760 Chili Avenue extension, Churchville, New York, made a presentation about annexation (legal) procedures and described the parcels that the petition sought to annex. Ms. Havens explained that "overall public interest" was defined in case law to include impact on tax revenues for the respective municipalities. The public interest was served where public utilities became available to the parcels subject to annexation. In the case at hand, public utilities such as sewer would become available to the parcels subject to annexation. Should the parcels be annexed, the Town would gain one extra penny in property tax revenues and the Village would gain an additional $286.00. The Town would not gain any special assessment revenues for these parcels if they were annexed, however, they would also be relieved of the burden of providing service to the land. The Village would pay for service under the current formula utilized to allocate the costs between Town and Village based on assessable property valuations. Ms. Havens continued by addressing the Town-Village Comprehensive Plan. The plan sets forth a general policy statement that new population growth and development should be focused where services could most economically be offered. Ms. Havens posited that this policy was furthered by encouraging growth adjacent to the current population center in the Village. On the Comprehensive Plan's future land use maps, this land is designated for "suburban residential use." Ms. Havens once again argues that the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in all respects. She also noted that this would make a nice transition from residential (Village) to industrial (interchange zone) and creates a buffer. Currently, the land at issue is zoned R-20 in the Town, carrying a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. If the land were annexed, the Village Board would have the responsibility of assigning it a zoning code. The developer would request a PUD (Planned Unit Development) designation. The rezoning petition would be accompanied by a full SEQRA study and engineering plans similar to those required for a subdivision plan. Avery Engineering, 3225 Chili Avenue, Rochester, New York, made a presentation detailing the concept plans. Robert Avery described other projects in Bergen including the Hart subdivision and the Hunter Road subdivision that his company had worked on and represented the quality of their work. He also cited the Churchville Park subdivision in Churchville as an example collaboration with this developer. Mr. Avery referred to the policy statement in the Comprehensive plan that Bergen's stated goal was to provide a variety of high quality dwellings for a variety of financial means. He posited that the proposed concept plans furthered that policy goal in every respect. Mr. Avery explained that the proposed development included 42 single-family
dwellings broken down as follows: The subdivision would have sidewalks, trees and lamp-style streetlights to give it a "Village" feel. At the south end, the last phase for development, 28 single-family lots are proposed with an alternative proposal for mixed commercial use such as offices or small retail business. Kipp Patterson and Rob Fitzgerald also addressed aspects of the concept plans. Rob Fitzgerald addressed utilities. He explained that electric would be supplied by the Village, gas by RG&E, water by MCWA and storm water would be provided by a closed system. Mr. Fitzgerald explained that there were existing water pressure problems in this vicinity caused by three dead-end mains. The proposed development would loop these systems and increase water pressure in this area of the Village for all residents. Mr. Fitzgerald also explained that there were exiting drainage problems around Munger Street in the Village. The developer recognizes these problems and will address them in his development proposals to the Planning Board. His drainage plan will likely improve drainage in that quadrant of the Village for all residents and address exiting problems while providing the drainage for the proposed development. The subdivision would be served by 2 detention ponds (wet ponds), catch basins and outlet structures in a closed system. The current sewer collection system in this area has 4" mains. The developer would likely replace and upgrade approximately 200-300 feet of the exiting main with 6" mains. The Village wastewater treatment plant has the capacity to accept the additional effluent load posed by the development plans. Mr. Fitzgerald posited that the proposed project would upgrade exiting infrastructure for the Town and Village in general and there would be no negative impact to current facilities. John Specht stated that, in his opinion, there would be a sales tax loss to the Town but that it would be more than compensated for in the increased property taxes. Dick Howard spoke in favor of the proposed annexation. His stated that the PUD was an essential designation for this type of project and that planned growth adjacent to exiting infrastructure was a benefit to the municipalities by preventing undue cost and burden for extension of infrastructure to distant and non-saturated populations. John Specht commented that the proposal was consistent with Genesee County's Smart Growth initiative as adopted by the Town. The goal is to prevent "sprawl" and encourage saturated population growth adjacent to exiting population centers. Robert Van Enwyk spoke against the proposed annexation. He believes the proposed development should happen as a Town property under its current zoning designation. He believes there would be increased congestion at the intersection of Parkview and Lake Street and whether there would be a negative impact on the electric rates. He sees no additional benefit to the Bergen community for it to "double its size" and finds that the only benefit is to the land subject to annexation and its owners. John Specht stated that the proposed borders, running down the centerline of the road, would be intolerable for the Town in the opinion of the Highway Superintendent Dave Roggow. Bob Avery briefly addressed this Town concern. John Specht also noted that a Town parcel would be landlocked after the annexation. Ms. Havens responded that the municipalities could annex this small parcel should it be desired. John Specht also commented that many businesses in the community have been unable to survive because of the lack of population base to support them. The proposed growth would make downtown storefronts more attractive and viable for new and existing businesses. It would also help businesses generally around the Bergen community. Jeanne Donnelly was concerned about the detention ponds. She fears a threat of West Nile virus if mosquitoes congregated at or near the wet ponds. She also likes the quaint look of the small Village and does not want to see it lost to development. Bob Avery responded that the planned growth would take place over 10-15 years and reaffirmed that the Village esthetics were an important part of the project. He cited the sidewalks, streetlamps and treescapes along the roadside as demonstrative of the "Village atmosphere." He also said that the multi-family dwellings that are proposed meet the existing needs of the community. There is a shortage of quality rental type property for families and seniors who are unable or do not want to own a home. The project also addresses exiting infrastructure and drainage problems and will not negatively impact the Village. Elizabeth Smith inquired about the park locations and Mr. Fitzgerald responded. Mrs. Smith also expressed concern over the tax and utility impacts. An inquiry was made about the impact to the school system. Mr. Filowik responded that the average household has 1.8 children. The student population has declined from over 1800 students to less than 1269 student over the past two decades. There has been significant infrastructure expansion to the buildings and facilities during this time. District taxpayers are burdened with that debtload. The school district should be able to handle 10-12 additional students per year with current facilities. Additionally, the additional tax base will help pay the debt load of the building renovations. Mr. Filowik also responded to the traffic concerns by describing a proposal to straighten the intersection of Parkview and Buffalo Roads. This might mitigate the expressed traffic concerns. John Specht reminded everyone that those issues were appropriate for the full environmental review, the next step of the development process. Tracy Miller spoke in favor of the proposed annexation. Mr. Filowik explained that the project would die if there is no annexation. Without Village sewers and the smaller lot sizes, the project would not be economically feasible. John Specht stated that the Town and Village would explore whether a sewer district could be extended to the Town for residential purposes. Mrs. Cooper spoke in favor of the proposed annexation. Gerry Sheridan stated that he had no opinion on the proposed annexation but inquired about the data the developer had on the school district. The school superintendent, Gregory Geer, stated that he had no opinion on the proposed project or annexation. Mayor Thomas LeSage responded to inquiries about sewer debt by Mrs. Donnelly and stated it would not be impacted by the proposals. There would be a $1250 tap fee per parcel and the Village system was capable of accepting the additional waste flows. He also responded to concerns by Mr. Calhoun about electric rates, stating that the proposals would not cause an increase in the electric rates. He did note that other factors would cause a rate increase that was unrelated to the proposed development and annexation. Mrs. Donnelly expressed concerns about mosquitoes and the engineering firm responded that the health department and DEC would review the proposed plans. Mr. Fitzgerald commented that wet ponds were preferred and prevented West Nile concerns by allowing airflow over the detention ponds and preventing the congregation of mosquitoes. Mr. Fitzgerald also explained that there were no islands in the detention ponds to prevent the congregation of geese. Mrs. Donnelly noted that this areas was in the geese-landing pattern and it was a potential problem. Councilman Cunningham inquired about the difference in acreage between the two maps. Ms. Havens responded that there was a difference between the survey total sand the tax map estimates. She also pointed out that part of the land in the concept plans was already Village land and not part of the annexation petition. There being no more public comment, Supervisor Specht closed the public
hearing at 8:16 p.m. Written comments and objections were submitted to
the Village Administrator, Tracy Jong as follows: · The proposed project will surely benefit the 57
odd acres to be annexed but it will not benefit the Village itself.
· Dear Town Councilmen and Village Trustees, The fate of Bergen is in your hands. Every so often a local
decision has rear, far reaching significance and this is one of them.
Please bear with me if you can while I make my plea for a small town.
This is a watershed for Bergen. If you vote to annex this land there will
be no precedent to turn down future annexations. Sincerely,
· To whom it may concern, I am in favor of Annexation because of the following: Richard A. Howard
1. Opposed to a wet pond (prefer dry area)
Dick Partridge
I am in favor of annexation of the proposed acreage. This will promote controlled growth as opposed to a selection of "farmettes" which would detract from the "Village" atmosphere. Sincerely, Lin Pascarella
· I am in favor of annexation, with Budvale Construction and the preliminary plans set forth I believe this Village project will be a continous improvement to our community. It makes sense to me that a known developer for quality work will continue to build a quality project which will not come to be if the annexation is not approved. Good luck, Thank you,
· My name is MaryAnne Cooper. I live at 58 S. Lake
Ave. in the village and I MaryAnne Copper
· Strong concerns about wet ponds (absolutely opposed
it would be behind my Concens of taxes/sewer/school Impact on schools with state and federal funding threatened would rather see less apartments (if any) and a bank or small grocery store develop concept of a small village- BALANCE Concerned about asthetics in line with look of village-might be a good time to give "downtown" a look at and decide on an image or "look" Jeanne M. Donely Respectfully Submitted,
|