City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: John Breanick, Mark DiVietro, Nicki Wright, Laurie Michelman, Anthony Bartolotta, Jill Fudo, John Rogalski.
Staff: Steve Lynch, OPED Director; Stephen Selvek, Planner; Brian Hicks, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer; Nancy Hussey, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Tom Weed, APD
The Chair called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: Approval of minutes for October 12 and 18, 2005 and November 1, 2005.
The Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes of October 12, 2005. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
The Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes of October 18, 2005. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
The Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes of November 1, 2005. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Public Hearing for Final Subdivision Review 30R Prospect St.
Chair invites the owner or agent to speak.
Tom Holbrook, Popli Engineering. The portion of the subdivision that we are asking the Board to consider for phased approval tonight is completely within the City of Auburn (points to map). All roads and utilities are in the City. Out of the ten (10) lots here, one lot will hold a detention pond and there will be nine (9) development lots. At the request of the City, a water pressure test to determine the residual pressure during fire flow events for the entire subdivision was completed, reviewed and found satisfactory.
Laurie Michelman- before moving to public comments welcomes new staff members Anthony Bartolotta and Jill Fudo. Thanks Mark DiVietro for renewing his appointment. Opens the Public Hearing.
Simon Moody – The Prospect St. situation has changed since the last meeting. I have spoken with the Sennett supervisor and reviewed records. The applicant has withdrawn his application from Sennett. This was originally a 21-lot subdivision. Now there is no application to go before Sennett and we now have a truncated version which is essentially a new plan listed as Phase I with no guarantee for a Phase II. There have been problems in Sennett with Mr. Vitale before concerning drainage issues. We are now confronted for the first time with a new plan.
Chair – this is not a court of law and should not be presented to this Board in that fashion. Focus on the plan as presented.
Simon Moody – this is a new plan presented tonight. We were presented with a new plan 2 months ago also that should not now proceed as it has been withdrawn from Sennett. This was presented in the agenda as 21-lot subdivision and is now being presented as 9 lots. There are many concerns with the validity of this project. It is ludicrous to submit final proposal for what is a new plan.
Rusty Tierney, Prospect St. – the entire plan has changed since the original proposal was reviewed. This ties into an original system that now does not exist. Is the drainage on the map now going in if Phase II does not happen? Is the other exit road for 1 or 2-way traffic? Still concerned with runoff. If developed, I would like to see the developer put in all drainage, curbing and sidewalks prior to development of the lots. That’s all part of the drainage and should be done before lots are sold and developed. Now this is a completely different set of plans than what we’d looked at.
Chair closes the Public Hearing. Normally asks for Board comments at this time but will ask for Staff and Counsel comments first.
Nancy Hussey – this Planning Board’s role and jurisdiction is for the ten lots within the City and can only act on those, we are not concerned with any proposed developments in Sennett (to which Mr. Moody was referring to). Sennett was given an opportunity to comment. There are 21 lots with respect to the SEQR review, and the entire plan has to be reviewed. Also, Mr. Vitale must submit a performance bond.
Steve Lynch –Acknowledged receipt of the recommendations and concerns requested through SEQR from the Town of Sennett as an Involved Agency. The project will be in considered by the Board in phases, but is essentially the same plan that has been extensively reviewed by the Board and presented at a number of public hearings. As we explained at the last Public Hearing, there is a minor change in the contour of the road and the detention pond has been move to a different lot. At the last Public Hearing Tom Weed stated the road would not make much impact if configured as a two-way street vs. a one-way street. Specific Sennett concerns can be addressed along the way as we review this evening. We are asking the Board to act on the 9 lots within the City of Auburn this evening. The
draft Resolution we have presented to the Board does require a performance bond. We have agreed that gutter swales will be used in place of curbs as was previously discussed, allowing for the entire drainage plan to be constructed prior to the development of housing.
John Breanick – other than the detention pond what other drainage is there?
Tom Holbrook – points on the map the direction of drainage and explains the functioning of the drainage plan.
Steve Lynch – the drainage plan was reviewed extensively by BDA, as a third-party objective review under contract with the City. BDA has determined that the plan is well designed and well thought out. The City engineer also reviewed the drainage plan and recommends approval.
Mark DiVietro – asks about a time frame for the sidewalks.
Steve Lynch – the bond will cover payment for the infrastructure – they will be installed before the houses are built.
Chair – reads memo from Tom Weed into record concerning traffic. Reads memo from Bill Lupien into record concerning drainage plan. Reads letter from neighbor Michelle McNabb into record in opposition to the project if the drainage plan cannot be designed to prevent storm water impacts.
Steve Lynch – Reviews memos and letters concerning the project. Refers to Fire Flow Analysis. Specific concerns are the detention basin; DEC now requires these to be designed as wet features. Questions if this will be an attractive nuisance and should be fenced.
Brian Hicks – fencing required only if holding more than 24 inches of water.
Steve Lynch – recommends considering a fence a part of the plan – may be prudent to include.
John Breanick – concerning the memo from Buhl (Town of Sennett Engineer) it was stated the property was possibly located in an Agricultural zone?
Steve Lynch – that has been addressed. There are no agricultural zones within the City.
Chair – clarify concern of 2-way road.
Steve Lynch – at one time the access closest to Franklin St. was considered to be used for one-way traffic only with no left turn from Prospect St. After further review, it is felt by APD that it is appropriate to open up to 2-way traffic as anyone making a left from Prospect would do so at the other access point and there is adequate stacking room within the development for vehicles to wait to exit the development.
Chair – asks for clarification of the Board’s role in final approval, if there is a change in plans, proper notices, etc.
Nancy Hussey – the naming of Phase I is the only change. The City only has pervue over the lots in the City.
John Breanick- questions type of fence considered for the detention pond.
Steve Lynch – at least 4 feet high and designed to not be climbed.
John Breanick – speaks in favor of fencing.
Sam Giangreco – also in favor of fencing.
Chair – in favor of fencing provided by advise of Codes. Asks Brian Hicks for any comments.
(Sam Giangreco leaves meeting. Chair welcomes John Rogalski back)
Brian Hicks – the fence may be superceded by State requirements (DEC requirements for best practices in building and siting retention ponds).
Stephen Selvek – there are conflicting views on the fence regulation. NYS code requires for any standing water over 24 inches. DEC recommends against it – they instruct the design of the pond be sloped and not a drop off. We need to clarify which one has jurisdiction.
Nancy Hussey – requires a professional opinion through the State & the DEC
Chair – how do you recommend we proceed?
Nancy Hussey – proceed per Board preference conditional on the acceptability by law.
Chair – moves on to SEQR action.
Steve Lynch – With regard to SEQRA, staff recommends the entire 21-lot subdivision be looked at. Reviews primary issues of concern for SEQR: storm water drainage and traffic. (proceeds with question by question review of the long form EAF, noting staff recommended answers to each impact area question)
Chair – asks for a clarification of wildlife.
Steve Lynch – wildlife in the project area is that which is typical to the area – there are no know rare, threatened or endangered species that we can identify.
Stephen Selvek – SEQR specifically asks if there is any wildlife that is threatened or endangered – they are not referring to the wildlife that is typical to the site.
Steve Lynch – continues review.
Stephen Selvek – Regarding the potential traffic impacts: We have looked to National Data Stats on traffic generated by single-family housing developments. These estimates project a maximum of 16-20 vehicle trips within the daily peak hour for traffic volumes. This volume would not substantially impact traffic.
Steve Lynch – Clarifies the function of Prospect St. as a collector road. Notes that there are other subdivisions off Prospect, which also add to the traffic but only produce a low volume of daily vehicle trips. Notes that the APD has stated numerous times that there is not likely to be any significant impact from traffic volumes related to the development. Continues SEQR review.
Chair asks for any further questions. None from the Board. Recognizes Simon Moody.
Simon Moody – when SEQR was made it was based on 21-lot development. Now that only 9 lots are being done the change will make an impact.
Steve Lynch – I believe we have shown that the review we have conducted addresses impacts to the entire subdivision as well as only the 9 lots being considered in the first phase. We will require that the full infrastructure be in place prior to the construction of homes.
Chair asks for a motion for negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Steve Lynch – points out and reviews exhibit B of the draft approval resolution.
Motion for subdivision approval made by Mark DiVietro including the fence requirement if required by regulation.
Jill Fudo – questions the maintenance of the detention pond lot.
Steve Lynch – earlier in this review process, it was determined that the City will maintain it.
Jill Fudo – and also the fence?
Steve Lynch – yes, the entire property associated with the drainage pond.
Nancy Hussey – The City will have an easement.
John Breanick – seconds the motion for subdivision approval.
Steve Lynch – reads exhibit B into the record.
John Breanick – questions if the transfer of the detention pond should be in the resolution.
Steve Lynch – there is documentation from the City Manger that the City will take over the maintenance. With regard to permanent transfer of any infrastructure to the City, Corporation Counsel can address this.
Nancy Hussey- this is a Council item, which will need discussion on how the City will take control. This Board does not have the authority to require the City to take ownership or maintain a property.
All members vote approval of the subdivision. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Public Hearing for Minor Subdivision and Site Plan Review for 53 Columbus St.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Carmen Lupine – proposing a 70’x80’ building. Since the last meeting we have completed grading and drainage plans, a storm water pollution prevention plan and landscape and buffering plans. We met at the site with Steve Selvek and looked at a couple of areas for buffering and screening. Points out on the map to existing wooded area, and indicates the proposed relocation of storage tanks. Decided to put in a row of evergreens. Drainage plan is complete, including a retention pond. Water run off to Columbus St. will be less post construction.
Chair invites the public to speak. There being none asks the Board for comments.
John Breanick – thinks it is a good project and will help the area.
Chair – questions the drainage pond and fence requirements per previous issue.
Steve Lynch – will it be a wet pond?
Carmen Lupine – it will be in accordance with DEC regulations. Water gradually released over 27 hours. It is a settling pond, which will contain 1 foot of water at the most.
Steve Lynch – it is not designed for 2 feet of standing water then?
Carmen Lupine – no
Steve Lynch – but there is a fence surrounding the property anyway?
Carmen Lupine – yes. It is private property and is fenced.
Chair – referencing an e-mail concerning hours of operation. Questions if open 7 days/week
Peter Vail – it will be open 6 days per week with the occasional Sunday if warranted.
Chair – there has been some conversation with the neighbors concerning the hours. 5:00 a.m. is early and a cause for some concern.
Mark DiVietro – has spoken with people at other (Carovail) locations that have trains going 24 hours & there are no complaints.
John Breanick – questions whether the Board can limit the days the business is operational.
Chair – no, but hours of operation are a concern.
Peter Vail – working on Sunday is frowned upon and rarely happens.
Steve Lynch – Reminds Board that most recent plans are in the packets. Engineering has reviewed and approved the drainage plans. This is actually 5 parcels, all owned by Caro-Vail that will be combined into one parcel through a minor subdivision. Staff recommends waiving preliminary approval of minor subdivision. We have assessed the impacts of other Caro-Vail plants and memos summarizing these assessments are included in your packets. There are no significant impacts identified in the review of other facilities. All other localities surveyed stated that Peter Vail has made every effort to allay concerns when they identified. The DRC has reviewed the site plan and SEQRA in detail and recommends a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the minor subdivision and final site
plan as presented.
Motion for a negative declaration on SEQR made by John Breanick, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Motion for approval of the minor subdivision made by John Breanick, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Steve Selvek – NYS pond requires a fence for water 24 inches or deeper. Water here will not exceed 18 inches so a fence is not required by NYS.
Chair – but it is in the pervue of this Board to require one if we choose to.
Motion to approve the site plan, as presented, made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by John Rogalski. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Public Hearing for Special Permit for Home Occupation at 132 Osborne St. for a delivery business.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Harold Brownell, Osborne St. – would like to operate a home-based delivery business to include 2 delivery vans.
Chair – invites the public to comment. There are none. Closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments.
Mark DiVietro – the vans will be stored at the house? (yes)
Jill Fudo – questions the frequency of client visits and how many clients there will be.
Harold Brownell – most of the work will be done via computer or telephone
Steve Lynch – to clarify, a home occupation allows a business to operate out of a residence but does not permit vehicles attached to that business to be operated out of and stored on the premises. Outside storage or display of any materials associated with the home occupation is not allowed. This statutory requirement of the Home Occupation / Special Permit regulations cannot be over-ruled by this Board. A variance would have to be sought from the ZBA.
Harold Brownell – the vehicles are registered to me.
Chair – The Planning Board can vote on the business but we cannot approve the storage of the vehicles on the site. A variance would be required from the ZBA.
Harold Brownell – thought that’s what this was.
Steve Lynch – no, the Planning Board can only approve application that are in accordance with the City Ordinance.
Chair- the ZBA meets before the Planning Board. You can apply to the ZBA then return here if you want to move forward with your project.
Steve Lynch – or you may apply for the business only – asking the Board to approve the establishment of your business office within the home without the plan to operate and store business vans out of the residence.
Harold Brownell – does not understand why he can’t do as he wants in his own house.
Steve Lynch – this is a residentially zoned area and the home occupation special permit ordinance has been designed to protect residential uses surrounding home occupations from any impacts related to the home occupation, such as the parking and operation of delivery vans on an ongoing business schedule.
Brian Hicks – the special permit is required to conduct a home occupation, even a computer run business, but now you have outside storage connected to the business.
Steve Lynch – we have to look at what authority this Board has. You are bringing up a good point, the enforcement issue related to various contractors parking their work trucks outside their homes and working out of their homes. Although this would be similar to what you are proposing, it is not the same issue.
Jill Fudo – is concerned with the vehicles there. One would be o.k. but not more.
Steve Lynch – all home occupations are to be conducted within the building. The ordinance only permits a small sign on the exterior as the only evidence of the home occupation in order to protect the neighborhood.
Chair – we can have a motion for just the home occupation and then Mr. Brownell can proceed to the ZBA for the vehicles or delay any action until a variance is received.
Harold Brownell – will go to the ZBA first.
John Breanick – make an appointment with staff for further explanation if you would like and table the application until you decide how you want to proceed.
Harold Brownell – I will withdraw application and have attorney handle it.
Chair – withdraw or table? Withdrawal would require resubmittance of the application and fee.
Harold Brownell – table then.
Chair – tables the item until ZBA action and notification from the applicant that he wishes to proceed.
Other Matters
Steve Lynch – points out the draft schedule for 2006.
Mark DiVietro – brings up the limos parked at 3 Fort St.
Steve Lynch – even though it is a commercial area a special permit is needed to conduct a home occupation within the residential use at 3 Fort St.
Chair – next scheduled meeting is January 3, 2006.
Steve Lynch – Informs the Board that there are no applications pending review or action by the Board for the January 3 meeting. Asks the Chair to poll the Board to determine if there is consensus for canceling the January 3 meeting.
Chair – asks the Board about canceling the January 3 meeting (consensus to cancel). Asks for a motion to adjourn. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by John Rogalski. All members vote approval. Motion Carried.
| 
