City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, January 6, 2004 7:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Laurie Michelman, Sam Giangreco, John Rogalski, Nicki Wright, Mark DiVietro, John Breanick, Sandra Craner
Staff: Nancy Hussey, Corporation Counsel; Steve Lynch, OPED Director; Brian Hicks, Codes; Tom Weed, APD
The Chair called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of September 8, 2003 and December 2, 2003
Chair – since there is a quorum tonight of those at the September meeting we can take a motion on the minutes. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Sandy Craner. All members vote approval. Motion carried. Chair asks for a motion on the December minutes. Motion made by Nicki Wright, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Site Plan Review for 90 North St., Schwartz Towers, Co-location of cellular antenna and related equipment on the roof.
Chair – invites the owner of agent to speak
Laurie Bowman, attorney for Nixon Peabody – explains that a co-location antenna is required to improve the quality and maintenance of service for Verizon customers. Understands that Engineering has reviewed and accepted the structural analysis required.
Chair – invites the public to speak. There being no one closes the Public Hearing and invites members of the Board to speak. There are no comments. Asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – passes out letter from BDA to Engineering approving the structural feasibility analysis. Staff is prepared to recommend a negative declaration on SEQR and a non-conditional site plan approval. Reads SEQR resolution for record.
Chair asks for a motion to accept a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion to accept the site plan without conditions. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Subdivision at 244 – 246 Franklin St.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Mike Lepak – owner – new maps have been presented – that is the only new material.
Chair asks the Board if they have any questions. There are none. States that a Public Hearing has already been held but invites the public to speak. There being none closes the Public Hearing and asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – as seen on the updated map the lot lines are clearly shown. The newly created flag lot shall not be re-subdivided for any future development.
Chair asks for a motion for a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion to waive the preliminary approval and give final approval to the subdivision as prepared. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by Sandy Craner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Preliminary Subdivision of 30R Prospect St.
Chair states that a Public Hearing was held December 2, 2003 but will allow the public to be heard tonight also. Invites the owner or agent to speak.
Dan Flanders – the subdivision has not changed. There will be 20 buildable lots. The storm water analysis has been completed using Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service program. It will divide what is presently a single water shed area into three areas. The single water shed area drains to this point (on the map) which is the low point of the site and apparently where water has collected in the past. With development of the road 3 drainage areas will be created. The 1st will be to the east of the road – drainage from the east side will run to the road and be collected in the road side drainage system and conveyed to the south detention pond to be held and released slowly. The balance of the site will be collected in rear yard swales and then piped
to the existing storm water collection system on Prospect St. Hopes, but does not guarantee, to eliminate many of the flooding problems currently present. For the undeveloped site we calculated the 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year storm events and we ended up with 3, 6, 12, 15 and 17 cu ft/sec run-off. This is peak run-off. After doing the development the east side of the road will be 4, 6, 9, 11 and 12 cu ft/sec run-off. The other side, we’re not getting much from them because of size, the peak 100 yr storm would be 4 cu ft/sec run-off. We propose the development of a detention pond and a release from the pond of 2 cu ft/sec. The end result of the site is 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 cu ft/sec of run-off. We will be reducing the total flow off the site. In case of the 25 yr storm it will be cut from 12 to 7 cu ft/sec run-off. We aren’t going to save it (the run-off) forever – we will be releasing it over a longer span of time so the
flooding should be reduced. Hopefully the City storm water system can accept that much water over a longer period of time without problem.
Chair invites the public to speak but wants only new thoughts and concerns not covered at previous meeting.
Simon Moody – the December meeting was the first notice the members of the public had to offer comment – at that time much of what was presented to the Board was not available to the public. Even review of the public file today did not reveal any of the (new) info submitted tonight. We hope, in the case of another meeting, we have the opportunity to review all information submitted for review along with the underlying documents on which the info is based. SEQR requires that an assessment be made, this Board has directed that there be a short form assessment, also any supporting documentation on which the documentation is based should be provided and available to the public. The plan I was provided with yesterday differs with the plan offered tonight. Certainly this table was not
presented nor does the file indicate any of the supporting documents. I don’t know if it’s the intention of the Board tonight to issue any declaration of significance, depending on that will depend on what I will comment on. We do have a number of lingering concerns. I have reviewed the EAF application and I would note that there seems to be either errors or issues that need to be clarified that would justify a full environmental impact statement.
Steve Lynch – states SEQR determination will not be made tonight. This is a coordinated review with the town of Sennett and we are still exchanging info with them and waiting for their comments on SEQR. We will not make any determinations until this Board has had an opportunity to make a full and reasoned determination with regard to SEQRA issues, but we are also waiting for comments from Sennett.
Chair – we are here for consideration of the preliminary subdivision only.
Simon Moody – then I will reserve those comments to such time as that meeting is held. Wants to be sure that all documents, including any underlying and supporting documentation, are made available to the public in a timely manner.
Steve Lynch – has mentioned before that the files are available for public review that have been available for some time. Mr. Moody did come in just today to review the file but he is the only one that has come in.
Ernie Jack – lives next door to the development. Wasn’t at previous meeting. More traffic has developed over the past few years. This new development will only add to the current problem. It will also displace the wildlife that is in the area.
Rusty Tierney – Prospect St. – neighbors have been talking among themselves and had Simon Moody go to the office for info – everyone is very interested. Questions the 5-year storm – it seems to get worse – so I wonder what that’s about. Questions the R-O-W – what is it there for? We’re saying 20 homes right now – we’re going to approve a development with a r-o-w going into an open field, which says to me the development will be made larger in the future, and we would like to know about that. The water retention – we have concern about mosquitoes, etc. If creating a pond in that area what is being addressed concerning any pests that may go along with that. The traffic issues are still of great concern. I know APD
says an access on Franklin St. doesn’t make sense but the golf course has one there.
Tom Genkos – Prospect St. – big concern is the drainage ditch at the rear of the properties. Familiar with other Vitale developments. Ditches work initially but eventually have to be re-excavated to keep working and have to be maintained – wants to know who will be responsible for doing this. Doesn’t understand where the water will go – if connecting to Gary Stott’s existing drainage ditch – that one doesn’t work and all that water seems to be focusing between Gary’s house and mine. A drainage ditch will only keep water between the houses creating a big problem. Expresses concern over stagnant water, pests and other related problems.
Lester and Jean Marvin – Prospect St. – understands the project calls for 20 building lots with 1 lot for drainage control. Thinks it’s a Franklin St. development, not a Prospect St. development. The way the access road is planned it is directly across from the back entrance of CCC where there is a horrendous flow of traffic in and out. Also about 20 – 30 students park at the church and are in and out all day. Development of 20 homes will bring 50 – 80 cars to the area. Wonders why access roads can’t be on Franklin St. This is a Franklin St. development. States there doesn’t seem to be a problem with the golf course access on Franklin. Steps need to be taken to slow down traffic on Franklin. Or have access directly across from the golf
course and put a light there. Access from Prospect in 2 places is illogical. The culvert on own property drains east of property into bushes into the stream. If that gets disturbed it will cause problems on our property.
Debra Moody – reads prepared statement concerning SEQR. Attached.
Ernie Jack – questions developer concerning access road onto Franklin St..
Dan Flanders – addressed at last meeting regarding access on Franklin St. APD is concerned with the sight distance not being adequate on Franklin St. Would be creating an intersection that will only create more accidents.
Ernie Jack – wants to know is properties will be assessed in Auburn or Sennett.
Steve Lynch – there will be a meeting with Sennett on the 15th. The applicant will be presenting to the Town Board and the Planning Board of Sennett. This is anticipated to be a project entirely within Auburn.
Ernie Jack – questions the crime aspect. Wants to know who will patrol the area, APD or Sennett.
Tom Weed – if the project is in Auburn, then APD will patrol, but with the 911 system neighboring enforcement will respond if needed.
Simon Moody – questions who will be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed drainage. Will it be the responsibility of the lot owner or the project developer? There needs to be some thought as to who will be responsible. That has not been addressed at all.
Tim Lattimore – Norman St. – states this is his 1st meeting as Mayor. Appreciates the volunteering spirit of the Board and thanks them. Will support any decisions the Board makes. Gives respect to the public for coming.
Carlton Wright – Franklin St. – worried about detention pond. Has 2 on own property that don’t seem to work properly. The Vitales put that in also. Traffic is always a problem – has problems getting out of own drive at any given time of the day. Many cars coming by from outlying businesses. Speed needs to be controlled.
Chair closes Public Hearing. Asks for comments from the Board.
John Breanick – questions the west swale area and the stream between the church and 1st house on Prospect.
Dan Flanders – swales have been described as ditches. They haven’t been designed yet but they will be about 1’ deep and 6 – 8’ wide. Will improve drainage in area especially if kept mowed.
John Breanick – wants to know if the stream empties into the pond at CCC.
Dan Flanders – it goes into a culvert under Prospect St. at the CCC entrance.
John Breanick – does it feed the pond?
Dan Flanders – doesn’t know, is only concerned with actual project land.
John Breanick – questions if any part is a protected wetlands (no)
John Rogalski – will storm and sanitary sewers be separate?
Dan Flanders – yes. All sewers and drainage will be on Prospect.
John Rogalski – questions sidewalk placement
Dan Flanders – the project is required to install sidewalks but would like to delay installation until homes are built to keep from destroying any sidewalks with construction equipment.
Laurie Michelman – questions depth of detention pond and if it will be enclosed.
Dan Flanders – size will be about 60’ x 60’ and 2’ deep with a sloped bank. No enclosure.
Laurie Michelman – is it located in a sellable lot?
Dan Flanders – the lot is reserved expressly for run off. It will be dedicated to the City although the City does have the right of refusal.
Laurie Michelman – wants the r-o-w addressed – possibility for future development
Vitale – mostly used as way to not box in neighbors.
Laurie Michelman – are you aware of any opportunity for further growth? (no) Asks Tom Weed to address traffic and accesses.
Tom Weed – APD is against any Franklin St. access – there are 200 – 400 cars thru there daily from the outlying businesses and there have already been traffic troubles there (Franklin Street), most of it is not local residential traffic. It would cost $100,000 dollars for a traffic signal there – it isn’t feasible. There are sight distance problems. Franklin St. access would only create more problems.
Laurie Michelman – asks for review of traffic situation on Prospect St. and how this subdivision would impact that.
Tom Weed – my suggestion is an exit only across from the College, not an entrance. Cars will be stopped there waiting to turn in or into the college and will bottle things up.
Laurie Michelman – and the other access will be 2-way? (yes)
Nicki Wright – currently then the access across from the college is 2-way entrance? (yes)
Dan Flanders – this hasn’t been resolved yet. Has proposed entrance from either direction with a right only exit.
Tom Weed – the original plan was 2-way in and out. Entrance only was discussed, then exit only. We prefer an exit only there with the other access as 2-way.
Simon Moody – now that ground has been broken on the Connector Rd. we anticipate even more traffic spilling onto Prospect. It is difficult to assess now but an increase seems certain. This opens a whole new traffic issue to a currently bad situation. Sidewalks are mandated in the new subdivision but there on none currently on Prospect.
Ernie Jack – expresses concern over environment, wildlife. Questions whether run off into pond will cause pollution and be detrimental to animals who use it.
Laurie Michelman – asks Steve Lynch if safety of pond water is regulated.
Steve Lynch – CC Health Dept. is charged with regulating mosquito populations and things of that nature. There are a few detention ponds in the City but there are no City agencies that regulate them. If the City takes title then it will be responsible for it. Also, the City has no jurisdiction on County land where the college is located (and there are some storm water detention ponds recently installed).
Laurie Michelman – asks APD if hunting and ATV’s are legal uses.
Tom Weed – not allowed in the City so once property is annexed it will not be legal.
John Rogalski – questions the creation of another stop ½ way along Prospect St.
Tom Weed – wouldn’t work – would only serve to cause people to speed between the signs, increase noise and be further detrimental to the environment (increased starting/stopping).
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – this is a preliminary review of the proposed subdivision. Nothing has changed as far as the layout of the project. We have received the long form EAF and provided a copy to Sennett along with fact that Auburn desires to be lead agency in SEQR. Sennett has no problems with this and has requested no action be taken until they have reviewed it themselves. A meeting with Sennett is planned for 1/15/04. Progress can be made any number of ways tonight. If the preliminary subdivision is accepted it informs the applicant that the general layout is acceptable and further detailed plans can be developed. It (preliminary approval) can also be made contingent on storm water review by Engineering (which staff would recommend if the Board is inclined to move to preliminary approval).
The Board options at this point is to either move forward and make a conditional preliminary approval contingent on City Engineers written approval of the drainage plans, or hold any official action until all required information is made available to the Board and the public for review and consideration. If more info is desired, it is the staff recommendation that the application not be brought back until all required info is available for review prior to placing it on a future meeting agenda.
John Breanick – unclear on access across from college.
Steve Lynch – it shows a right out only – this is proposed by the applicant. At staff level review with APD, the APD requested, and staff concurred, that this access be an exit-only. Staff typically follows the APD’s recommendations. The Board can consider it as an exit only if that is what the Board would like to see represented.
John Breanick – would still like to see an access onto Franklin St. Thinks CDBG funds should be made available to install sidewalks on Prospect St.
Steve Lynch – just wants to clarify that this area is not eligible for CDBG funds; they are only available to low/mod income areas. The City does have a sidewalk program that the homeowners can avail themselves of.
Laurie Michelman – wants to discuss the approach for this evening and will poll the Board to find out if they want proceed or adjourn. Expresses concern that Engineering has not completed their review yet and has questions concerning the drainage plan. Also concerned about all of the final info not being available to the public and wants all info available prior to consideration and action. Polls Board – all members agree that more info is needed before taking action.
John Breanick – asks when engineering review will be available.
Steve Lynch – unknown at this time, they, also, may require more info of the applicant. Staff has forwarded some additional comments to engineering as well.
John Breanick – states that Sennett may have concerns of their own also.
Chair asks for a motion to adjourn preliminary approval until all information is available for complete review. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by Nicki Wright . All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair – asks if there are any other matters. Confirms next meeting to be February 3, 2004.
Chair asks for motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval.
Meeting adjourned.
| 
