City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, April 20, 2004 7:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Mark DiVietro, John Breanick, Sandra Craner, Laurie Michelman. Absent: John Rogalski, Sam Giangreco, Nicki Wright
Staff: Steve Lynch, OPED Director; Brian Hicks, Codes; Nancy Hussey, Assistant Corporation Counsel
The Chair called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of 4/6/04
Due to the lack of a quorum of members at the meeting of 4/6/04 the vote was tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Agenda Item 2: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review at 47 Wall St. auto repair
Chair – invites the owner or agent to speak.
John Camardo – Tubman Lane – objects to being required to submit for site plan review. Feels property is in compliance and has been since 1960. Application has been made. Property is in a C1 zone and the use is allowed. The property is 50’ x 209’. Also owns property next door at #49. A proposed option is to install more screening along front and side of property line.
Chair – invites members of the public to speak.
David Warrick – owns 51 Wall St. – has no problems with business but does have problem with potential creation of noise and fumes bothering tenants. Has had problems with past businesses located at site. Doesn’t see justification if these problems are not going to be eliminated and continue bothering tenants and neighbors.
David Verdi – Van Anden St. – has letter from neighbor Rom Summerville – whose home is located behind 47 Wall St. Letter read into record and attached. Mr. Verdi agrees with statements made by neighbor in letter. Has been reluctant about property since taxi stand had been there. Doesn’t think property is grand-fathered in. Has put up with all problems concerned with taxi service and garage. Still hears and sees work even with hedge between properties. Property has only recently been cleaned up by tenant. Doesn’t feel owner cares about property, just getting tenant in. Doesn’t care about neighborhood, environment, etc. Wants publicly known that he disagrees with the project and will be watching for any violations. Wants to see proof that
garage is up to code. Questions what will be done about fumes if painting will be done there. Also about disposal of hazardous waste. Feels it would bring down property values and opposes proposal.
Chair closes public hearing and asks Steve Lynch to explain procedures.
Steve Lynch – as stated in memo a landscape buffer is normally required between differing uses, but according to the interpretation of the ordinance by Assistant Corporation Counsel, this use has been grand-fathered in with regard to this type of required buffer. The use itself is a permitted use under the current C-1 Zoning Ordinance subject to site plan review and approval by the City of Auburn Planning Board. The purpose of meeting tonight is to address the site issues associated with this particular use. Asks John Camardo to elaborate on work to be done there.
John Camardo – There will be state regulations to go through, especially concerning any painting to be done. Right now it will be mechanical repairs only.
Steve Lynch – In a C1 zone auto service is allowed, minor and major with possible bodywork being done. A concern is the storing of autos awaiting repair – these need to be screened. The standard front parking area buffer of a 10-foot wide landscape area and shade trees and shrubs, etc. that would normally be required in front
may not screen the proposed use as effectively as a solid wood fence. Incompatible uses need to be screened. The plan provided this evening does not show adequate screening in staffs opinion and needs to be worked on. No resolutions have been included but this may be addressed if desired. It is an allowed use but does need site plan review, as it is a different use from the taxi stand and has an increased intensity.
Chair asks for Board comments.
Mark DiVietro – asks is auto painting is an allowed use.
Steve Lynch – yes
John Breanick – asks John Camardo if he anticipates a change in the intensity.
John Camardo – doesn’t see any at this time any more than the taxi stands. There were 12 cabs at any given time being worked on.
John Breanick – asks if business will be leased (yes). Asks for number of employees.
John Camardo – undetermined until a business actually gets in there.
John Breanick – asks about vehicle storage.
John Camardo – there is plenty of parking area, the property (repair building) sits back over 50 feet, doesn’t foresee any problems there but will work with whatever the Board recommends.
John Breanick – questions the location of a paint booth.
John Camardo – understands this is an allowable use but it does need to be licensed by the State. He is here tonight just as the owner; it will be the operator’s responsibility to do whatever necessary to install paint booth.
Laurie Michelman – is a business leased at this time?
John Camardo – does not have a tenant at this time.
Nancy Hussey – the site was a collision service at one time. John Camardo came before the ZBA for an interpretation of the ordinance.
John Camardo – at that time there were no codes governing taxi stands although the ZBA did recognize the use as a garage.
Laurie Michelman – how long since it was operational?
John Camardo – 12 – 18 months. It was used as a truck repair prior.
Sandy Craner – asks if he also owns the house next door (#49)
John Camardo – yes
Laurie Michelman – asks for staff comments and if there have been any previous complaints on the property.
Brian Hicks – would need to check files for any complaints.
Steve Lynch – looks as though the garage abuts the fence
David Verdi – 4 feet from 112 & 114 Van Anden
Steve Lynch – when looking at the plan provided, please note that there are 2 properties. There is a property line that would run approximately from the edge of garage to street; a 2-unit house & residential garage are on one parcel, commercial garage by itself on the other parcel. We are only reviewing a site plan for the commercial garage on #47, not the other property. How does Board feel about proximity of neighbors’ houses (45 Wall St) with only a single line of trees there (along the eastern boundary of the property)?
Laurie Michelman – any concerns raised by the owners of 45? They aren’t here tonight.
John Camardo – hasn’t’ heard anything from them
Laurie Michelman – would personally like a solid fence with shrubbery, given nature of use.
Steve Lynch – other options to consider, anything dividing house at #49 and cars to be parked at #47.
John Camardo – that is a consideration but it would be difficult to put in a fence as it would block access to the rear residential garage and I don’t want the properties “split”.
John Breanick – are there any current right of way issues with the properties.
John Camardo – I consider the properties together even though they are separate addresses & tax maps. A barrier between them would make things difficult.
John Breanick – would you consider a fence at the east side as part of the buffer?
John Camardo – would do so
Laurie Michelman – wants to see buffers maximized as much as possible. Questions that #49 will not be used for parking.
John Camardo – correct – it is for the tenants of that building only.
Laurie Michelman – questions staff – as there is one owner of both properties now, if it’s sold and the buffer is not done, can some type of long term contingency be implemented if not owned by one person
Nancy Hussey – it would not be feasible and couldn’t enforce.
Laurie Michelman – asks board if action is desired tonight or table for more info.
John Breanick – from what has been said shown recommends vote for provisional until tenant came before board with more info as to intensity.
Laurie Michelman – can a generic determination be done.
Nancy Hussey –
Steve Lynch – this is the use, major/minor mechanical. It could possibly be maximum intensity (e.g. auto body repair). Anticipate cars parked in front with some storage. Will a dumpster be used?
John Camardo – can’t imagine so.
John Breanick – Mr. Camardo agrees with the buffering, NYS also has to approve the business
Steve Lynch – the question is, given the intensity, etc. are trees along the east side of the property enough? Should a fence be required? None are being shown on the site plan. Mr. Camardo would be taking care of these things, not the tenant. (Mr. Camardo agrees)
Laurie Michelman – Comparing to the property on Columbus St. (a previous site plan for auto body and repair) and a fence was required there.
Sandy Craner – since it’s an allowed use, if the buffer is done then it should be o.k. to go ahead.
Mark DiVietro – definitely needs a buffer but wants more definitive plan of what’s going there.
Laurie Michelman – not comfortable with this unless in “L” shape and along east side or property.
John Camardo – there is a chain link fence behind the building then evergreens (points out on site plan).
Laurie Michelman – fully fenced from building back between properties. Understood that no tanks, etc. will be stored behind or at the side of the garage.
Steve Lynch – leave a certain driveway width that works and use the rest as buffer.
Brian Hicks – whatever happens will be left up to Codes to enforce so we want it all in black and white, no gray areas, fully understood on a site plan with everything denoted.
Laurie Michelman – is this a shared drive on the deeds? (yes)
Steve Lynch – this is two separate properties with two separate tax maps but we don’t want to create problems for the tenants getting to the residential garage at the rear of #49. Applicant will need to submit a final, revised site plan, in order for plan to be enforce, a very clear, concise plan with all talked about provisions included. It is not the City’s position to do this but we will work with the applicant. What has been submitted is not what has been talked about tonight. In order to finalize these things this needs to be done. The Board has to be clear on what they will be approving.
Laurie Michelman – concern is that while we would like to see this proceed I think more info is needed first. If a provisional is decided it would have to include all matters discussed tonight.
Steve Lynch – questions lighting.
John Camardo – no new lighting will be added, there is one flood light on the front.
John Breanick – any windows on the garage?
John Camardo – there is 1 small window in the rear and skylights. They are mostly sealed off at this time.
Laurie Michelman – any other comments at this time?
Mark DiVietro – make motion to table application for more info until next meeting
Laurie Michelman – any other concerns?
Brian Hicks – the concerns of the neighbors at the rear of the property.
Laurie Michelman – any suggestions?
Brian Hicks – there are no pictures available of that area at this time
Sandra Craner – could you have the records of any complaints available for the next meeting? (yes)
Laurie Michelman – doesn’t like to delay the process but concerns need to be addressed and more info obtained. Issue to come to best resolution possible.
John Breanick – asks Brian Hicks if there are any limitations to the hours of operation.
Brian Hicks – the noise ordinance, it’s a commercial zone with residential uses.
John Breanick – so if restrictions are placed concerning time?
Brian Hicks – restrictions are already there, just difficult to enforce.
Laurie Michelman – but time of operations has been part of previous approvals.
John Breanick – asks John Camardo is this is something he could do.
John Camardo – yes, also has residential tenants. Has not received any violations on property.
Laurie Michelman – still concerned about properties and trying to separate out between commercial and residential uses.
John Camardo – would be restrictive to put separation between properties especially in winter.
John Breanick – thinks need to find if R-O-W granted at 47.
Laurie Michelman – is there a way to give preliminary that would allow changes?
Nancy Hussey – getting into legal gray area that would allow appeals.
Laurie Michelman – is comfortable with the proposal but not with making a firm decision. Rather than denying the application would like more time and info to get everything in order. Seconds Mark DiVietro’s motion.
Steve Lynch- (to Mr. Camardo) though you may want to approve you know you don’t have the required votes this evening, so instead of being voted down consider tabling.
Laurie Michelman – asks for vote. All members vote to table the application until the next meeting. Motion carried.
Steve Lynch – clarifies for the public what has happened.
Laurie Michelman – next meeting is May 4, 2004.
Other Matters
John Breanick – questions the proposed zoning change.
Steve Lynch – with regard to the Seminary St. area, the zoning and redevelopment pressures in the area will be on the table until resolved. One possibility is to notify the Board, property owners, neighbors and residents and bring them in to discuss. This is a solid residential neighborhood with mixed commercial businesses that movie up the street and there are a few blighted areas. Would need more than one meeting to get any of the neighborhood land use and zoning issues resolved. An option had been looked at that would change the existing C2 to C1 and R2 to C1. The problem with changing to C1 is that some existing uses, i.e. shopping center or mall, are not allowed in C1. These do not happen in any other C1 area either . To accommodate change to C1 would make
non-conforming uses of two major properties. Would also start to approach spot zoning.
Nancy Hussey – on other side, zoning district in downtown area which could be turned into a shopping mall is next to an R3 area (Genesee Gardens)
Steve Lynch - in all other aspects this area acts like a C1 surrounded by residential uses. Other option is to just change C2 area to C1, which would make K & S a legal use –but we still run into making non-conforming uses of two major properties.
Nancy Hussey – more appropriate to look at the uses in the district to see cause & effect.
Steve Lynch – looking at a) doesn’t make sense to change to all C2, b) vacant, blighting parcels need to be addressed, c) there are uses existing since early ‘60’s that are still not permitted by right – which is a burden on a good area business person. If allowed to exist by right would be easier to operate - not speaking of expanding into three vacant properties here – but addressing the immediate needs of this business. There are other neighborhood issues to consider as well, such as it may not be a good idea to have commercial continue up the street.
John Breanick – thinks (commercial) area should be squared off to include Parsons St.
Steve Lynch – blighted housing in and of itself is not a sufficient reason to expand commercial zones.
Brian Hicks – Parsons is a very dense residential area that dead-ends to nowhere.
Steve Lynch – if the C-2 area was changed to a C1 zone, we could also consider changing definition of C1 to include medical uses. There are pros and cons for changing the R2 as I mentioned.
John Breanick – isn’t it a good idea to rid the blighted area by changing it to commercial (speaking of Parson St.)?
Steve Lynch – what would you do with the people there? It alone is not a valid reason to change zoning.
Brian Hicks – there are 3 owner occupied buildings out of the 8 there.
Steve Lynch – we have been trying to work on this area for some time, the street, sidewalks and curbs have been done. Still the issue of differing land uses assembled in one neighborhood area, combined with development pressure, isn’t going away. There are consequences to expanding commercial use that needs to be looked at.
Laurie Michelman – this affects existing and future businesses.
Nancy Hussey – agrees. Number of uses allowed there, C1 is more restrictive than C2, must be careful no to look like spot zoning.
Laurie Michelman – if it is made C1 then the C2 would be grand-fathered in? Is the business or the property grand-fathered in?
Nancy Hussey – the property is grand-fathered, will run with the land.
Steve Lynch – but they (properties that could be “grandfathered in” with a zone change to C1) couldn’t expand, etc. as K & S is having problems with now. Could potentially handicap existing businesses.
Nancy Hussey – the old P & C could be opened to neighborhood commercial.
Steve Lynch – uses in each zone need to be closely looked at
Laurie Michelman – questions is do we need to review C1 and C2 definitions. Should included businesses be zoned in same way? What is proposed at this point?
Steve Lynch – really need to look at spot zone implications and see if it can be done. We don’t know if we can do it as worded to not sound like spot zoning.
Nancy Hussey – we need to be able to support any decision made in case of appeal. It would be appropriate to have preliminary discussion.
Steve Lynch – Prior to any changes or decisions to be made, we will need to have definitive plan. We should include the opportunity to hear from the residents and property owners in the area and discuss further.
Laurie Michelman – need to be clear on what will be asked of the public to comment on
Nancy Hussey – it probably will not be ready by next meeting in May.
John Breanick – not just changing boundaries, also changing verbiage?
Steve Lynch – any changes will be looked at and who impacted.
Laurie Michelman – if no further discussion asks for motion to adjourn. Motion made by Sandy Craner, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval.
Meeting adjourned.
| 
