City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, May 6, 2003, 7:30 p.m. Memorial City Hall
Present: John Breanick, John Rogalski, Sam Giangreco, Nicki Wright, Mark DiVietro, Laurie Michelman. Absent: Donna Bruno
Staff: Steve Lynch, Director, OPED; Tom Weed, APD; Jim Galvin, CD Program Manager, OPED; Brian Hicks, Code Enforcement Officer
The Chair called the meeting to order, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: Approval of minutes from April 1, 2003
Chair asks if there are any questions or comments about the minutes. John Rogalski makes a motion for approval, seconded by Sam Giangreco. Chair points out typos that need to be corrected. All members vote approval for acceptance of minutes. Motion passed.
Agenda Item 2: Site Plan Review for 345 Clark St. used car sales lot
Chair invites the owner or representative to speak.
Paul Diffin – Anderson Circle – has a signed purchase agreement for 345 Clark St. pending approval of the Planning Board for proposed work. Proposing approximate 750 square foot office as well as an attached building of 30’ x 60’. Property would be used for auto sales as well as auto detailing.
Chair asks for any members of the public that may wish to be heard. There being none reads into the record two letters from neighbors of the property concerning the proposed action. Closes the Public Hearing. Asks for comments from the Board.
Sam Giangreco – will there be any mechanical work done? Any air wrenches, etc. being used?
Paul Diffin – no – there would be no mechanical work or mechanics working in the building. There would possibly be use of some type of an air tool on occasion but it would not be a mechanic’s shop.
John Rogalski – does Mr. Diffin have a copy of both these letters.
Paul Diffin – yes I do.
John Rogalski – do you abide by what they ask.
Paul Diffin – yes I do.
John Rogalski – you’re proposing this landscaping?
Paul Diffin – the landscaping that is on there, yes. There is some existing from the current owner. She had applied for site plan approval before and this site plan is actually a take off of that with some changes made to include the building and some additional landscaping around the building.
Nicki Wright – what is the capacity of the number of cars you can comfortably have on that lot without it looking cluttered?
Paul Diffin – I don’t have an exact number. The site plan does show a line of cars across the front. I don’t even know how many that is.
Nicki Wright – I counted 11 going across there.
Paul Diffin – I would think that no more than twice that many would be sufficient, I think there would be plenty of room for that many.
Nicki Wright – when you talk about doing detailing is it just for the cars that are here or will it be for the general public to use?
Paul Diffin – it would be a combination of both. Definitely for my own cars and for client cars also.
John Breanick – I want it be known to the Board and Corporation Counsel that I do know Mr. Diffin and I will be voting on this tonight as I feel I have no personal gain regarding this. I also feel that this will rectify a situation that erroneously came about in 1991 when massive rezoning was done in the City and inappropriately as we’ve found over the course of the last year or so.
Chair – asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – on the parking lot it states gravel and phase II asphalt. Tell us what phase II is and when it will start.
Paul Diffin – my intentions are to originally put down the gravel and let it settle for whatever time it would require to do that and eventually put down asphalt and a binder at a future date.
Steve Lynch – I think the engineering office would require asphalt be down. We don’t mind your putting in the gravel and letting it settle but if we do vote on a resolution tonight we would put a certain time on that so we know there’s a time when we expect it to happen and you can expect it to happen in time for it to be done. Are you prepared to do that?
Paul Diffin – yes
Jim Galvin – part I of the short form assessment is in your packets. It talks about the description of the project that Mr. Diffin has provided to us. It’s pretty self-explanatory and it talks about the building he described earlier, the size of the building and the limits on the other elements of the site. As always we have to take into account potential impact of the action on various elements of the environment so please make any comments as we go through this. Reads through SEQR. No comments made.
Chair – we don’t have this in our packets so if anyone has any comments…
Jim Galvin – we’ve been through this part of the form before – we’ll make sure you receive future forms. Continues with review. Since the Board has no comments on the environmental review it’s up to a motion to be made.
Chair – before we make a motion I would like to ask APD is they have any concerns.
Tom Weed – none
Chair – asks for a motion on SEQR. Motion for negative declaration made by John Breanick, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval with Laurie Michelman abstaining. Motion carried.
Chair – next we’ll move to site plan resolution. Is there a motion?
John Rogalski – inaudible
Steve Lynch – Mr. Diffin, as I’ve said we would like to set a date for doing the pavement but we’d like something that works with your plans so can you give us an idea?
Mr. Diffin – 18 months to 2 years. I’m anticipating at least 2 to 3 months before the deal will actually close and then a couple months of construction time before any of this would be down so we’re looking at 6 months before any time frame would start so 1 to 1 ½ years beyond that would be sufficient.
Jim Galvin – in any construction project the end of the permit process is the Certificate of Occupancy and that certificate says that all requirements are met. With the paving on the property that is a component of the C of O. So your CO would actually be held up for a while until the paving is done. Typically we don’t prohibit occupancy of a property that’s being built like this based on not having the pavement done, essentially they do a Temporary CO, but the pavement does have to be installed to get the permanent CO.
John Breanick – I would say based on past practice as with T & K Lumber it would be appropriate to go with that 18 months to 2 years. He’ll be tearing up new ground there, and it would be appropriate for that stone to be put down there and compacted as opposed to what happened with KFC where they put down stone then pavement and now it’s all garbage up there.
Chair – asks for any other comments.
Comment inaudible.
Jim Galvin – pavement can be done immediately or it can settle out awhile. Typically in larger developments it’s done immediately.
John Breanick – we gave T & K 1 ½ years. He said he wanted to get through at least one full season then.
Chair – Mr. Diffin - 18 months is satisfactory
Mr. Diffin – that would be fine
John Rogalski – I think with the type of business he has he couldn’t afford to do everything at once. He would have to have a graduated time to finish it. We should allow the time.
Chair – the motion is for a site plan resolution with an 18-month period in which to pave the property. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval with Laurie Michelman abstaining. Motion carried.
John Rogalski – was that a motion just for the amendment or for the site plan.
Chair – for the amended site plan.
Chair – next agenda item is to discuss other matters that might have come previously before the Board.
Steve Lynch – there is one follow up item I would like to talk about. In the detailed agenda we would like to talk about Hart, Meath & Primo and Kubareck. John Breanick had questioned an existing use right now on the southwest corner of Dunning and Genesee St. We asked Corporation Counsel and Codes to look into it. There’s a used car business there and the determination has been made that for some time there has been a used car business going on there that precedes the zoning ordinance. So it’s a continuation of a use.
John Breanick – who was the previous dealer.
Brian Hicks – Tarby’s was the original gas station owner at that location and at that time we believe he sold used cars as a side business. And when the service station was discontinued Steve Tarby continued the used car sales and at then Mike Luksa continued that use again. We’ve researched it back as far as any of us can remember and we all came up with same determination.
John Breanick – have you spoken with Mr. Angelera from the State? I believe if you check with him you’ll find out differently. They were both sited.
Brian Hicks – if they were sited that’s something we aren’t aware and it doesn’t fall into the realm of how far back we would check. We don’t check if they are licensed to sell, that isn’t something we deal with, we deal with the zoning and creation of the use only.
John Breanick – your statement is there was no lapse of 6 months or more between the time Mr. Tarby was there and the next owner?
Brian Hicks – to our knowledge, no. It isn’t something we would check on a daily basis.
John Breanick – I would respectively have to disagree with you on that.
Brian Hicks – you may have better knowledge and better tracking of that than my department.
John Breanick – it’s what I do for a business.
Brian Hicks - understood
Chair – do you have any information you want to provide to the City?
John Breanick – I will be contacting the State DMV and getting what information I need for that. Also, another one that has come up is the one on Grant Ave, it used to be the old Century Auto and it’s bloomed into another car lot between Fleet Bank and Lums. It started out with just a couple cars now there’s a couple dozen. I know that was vacant for more than 6 months. It was for a while a snowmobile place. Speaking with Mr. Angela, inspector to this area, the place on Dunning was sited as not being a licensed motor vehicle place. Typically one is not allowed to do off premises sales. Mr. Luksa does have a permit to sell cars at North Side Beverage but nowhere else.
Steve Lynch – we deal with the use only, not if it’s properly licensed.
John Breanick – is it zoned for cars sales on Dunning?
Brian Hicks – it’s a pre-existing non-conforming use.
Steve Lynch – with regard to the application for rezoning on Grant Ave we said we would meet with the applicant and go over what other options they would like to present to us and any alternatives the City might have. We sat down with Corporation Counsel and looked at the zoning ordinance. We talked about the possibility of doing a planned development district or a planned unit district, which is kind of a floating zone. We don’t have one right now. It’s the kind of district that’s allowed to created under State legislation and essentially what it means is it’s a set of flexible zoning criteria that floats in the abstract until you decide to place it somewhere. It is typically used for projects that, for one reason or another, remain undeveloped. We let
Mr. Primo know that we could do that but it would be with the Planning Board’s time frame. We also looked at doing a zoning amendment. In the course of discussion Hart, Meath and Primo decided they would like to take some time to look at their options.
Jim Galvin – there’s an item on the published agenda related to K & S car wash – we had looked at the site plan in DRC and it was a pretty tight site for what they want to do which is put two brushless car washes in and 4 manually car washes in on the lots to the east of their current property on Seymour St. They had received a zoning use variance to be allowed to do this. The site plan does not meet the buffer requirements. We had originally thought to bring it to you with their request and see what the Board thought. However in that discussion a question was raised and after that discussion the question was answered. The Planning Board doesn’t have discretion to change the buffers. So Mr. Kubareck had to take back the site plan he was working with and we
discussed some alternatives. We as a DRC gave him some alternatives that would’ve allowed him to go forward with site plan review this evening but he determined that they weren’t viable for the site he wanted to have and he took them back to his architect to rework. It seems like the bottom line is he’s trying to maintain the buffers he had on the original site plan presented which are out of conformance by between 35 – 42 feet from the ordinance. His option is to go to ZBA to have those buffers changed which he will be submitting a request for to the next ZBA meeting.
John Breanick – has he acquired the 3rd piece of property yet?
Jim Galvin – we believe that property is in the hands of bank that is going bankrupt. It’s kind of in limbo now as to the disposition so he hasn’t been able to acquire that house yet. It would obviously help him out with buffers although he would have to go back to ZBA for a use variance on that property. Mr. Kubareck will likely be back on the agenda for next meeting after additional zoning board action.
John Rogalski – what’s the objection to developing this area?
Jim Galvin - there are certainly issues related to the character of the neighborhood and as you remember, these parcels are actually zoned as residential, and that was done for a purpose. It wasn’t a mistake as characterized in the past. It was to protect the residential areas on both sides of the street from any further encroachment of commercial uses. The Zoning Board has allowed a use variance contingent on the Planning Board conducting SEQR. The Planning Board is going to have to consider some of those issues including the preservation of the character of the neighborhood when it comes to the Planning Board for site plan approval. Unless the Zoning Board determines to make its own SEQR designation this next time around.
John Breanick – is that a dually zoned area?
Jim Galvin – the corner on North St. is zoned commercial but that particular commercial zoning does not allow car washes either but the car wash has been there awhile. The properties to the east of that parcel are zoned residential.
John Breanick – R1 or R2
Steve Lynch – R2. It becomes R1A further down the street on the other side. Just to clarify, the old zoning, before the ’92 amendment, they called it C1 commercial, which is different than the current C1, different sets of uses. At that time, even before the ’91 zoning, car washes were not allowed in that zone.
John Breanick – where is car wash allowed?
Steve Lynch – car wash is allowed in highway commercial area, C3 zones and general commercial areas, the more business, manufacturing type areas. This is there as a legally existing non-conforming use and he expanded as he was allowed to expand for the purpose of providing additional parking. Now he has a variance for the other parcels, they are R2 but he does have a variance. We’re simply looking at his program and asking him to provide the buffer called for in the zoning ordinance between the different uses because it is an encroachment into a residential neighborhood. Unlike some of the other uses we’ve had that haven’t had a zoning variance involved where something is encroaching into an existing zoning area, this is so we’re trying to be a little more
conservative.
John Rogalski – I’m wondering if he’s not allowed to do this, who would be interested in buying that land and put up a residence.
Jim Galvin – there are already 3 residences there one of which has a variance for office space in the downstairs. One has been lived in for years. The 3rd house is in pretty bad shape but the other 2 are in good shape. They have been viable residences in the near past or currently are.
John Breanick – isn’t one condemned, the one near Willard Chapel?
Jim Galvin – yes it is.
Jim Galvin – so you do know, with the Hart, Meath and Primo proposal, we did get hold of a couple people that were organizing folks down in that area to let them know it wouldn’t be on the agenda tonight.
Steve Lynch – concerning a PDD, regardless of what happens on Grant Ave we think there are a number places in the City where this might be an effective tool for the Planning Board to use.
Chair – Can we have Corporation Counsel’s office start preparing some draft amendments?
Steve Lynch – we will work as a team for the proper language, etc. and will provide more background info.
Chair asks if there are any zoning amendment issues anyone wishes to raise. This is tabled from the last meeting. Steve Lynch brought up the issue of PDD’s.
Sam Giangreco – wants to go on record to say he took more time thinking about the issue on Grant Ave and urges the Board to take a hard look at this. Traffic issue is unavoidable; looking at is any way the traffic is a nightmare waiting to happen.
Chair – next meeting is June 3, 2003. Asks for motion to adjourn. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Nicki Wright.
| 
