City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, January 2, 2008, 6:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Allen Zentner, Christopher DeProspero, Anthony Bartolotta, Brian Halladay, Mark DiVietro, Sam Giangreco.
Absent: John Breanick
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Planner; Brian Hicks, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer; Andy Fusco, Corporation Counsel; Tom Week, APD
The Chair called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of December 4, 2007.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Allen Zentner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Site Plan Review for the construction of a medical/dental office, approximately 3600 SF, and associated site improvements located at 200 McIntosh Drive.
Chair invites the owner or agent to speak.
David Nangle – this is a 3600 SF office building with parking. It is the same project previously reviewed with minor adjustments.
Chair asks the public for comments. There being none closed the public hearing and asks for Board for comments. There being none asks staff for comments.
Stephen Selvek – submitted is a complete site plan with layout, grading, planting, etc. At the last meeting we were waiting to hear from the DEC concerning SEQR. DEC has returned no comments at this time. There is a storm water pollution prevention plan and discharge permit. Plans have indicated snow storage, trash screening, lighting and landscape screening between the uses. The Board previously declared a negative declaration on SEQR which still stands. Staff recommends approval of the site plan as submitted.
Chair asks for a motion approval the submitted site plan. So moved by Allen Zentner, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair at this time recognizes and welcomes former Mayor Tim Lattimore and current Mayor Mike Quill.
Agenda Item 3: Subdivision Review for the subdivision of an approximately 6-acre portion of a 22-acre parcel located at 252-rear North Street into 31 lots for the purpose of constructing 30 semi-detached single-family homes and a community building.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Barb Lanphere – this is a development of 30 single-family semi-detached homes, 20 two-bedroom units and 10 three-bedroom units. After the last meeting we had an informal meeting with the neighborhood to discuss issues. We have worked closely with Engineering to lay out the street and sewer issues. Due to neighborhood concern of privacy we have increased the screening area along Dayton St. from 10 feet to 25 feet with berms. Concerning the traffic on Rochester St. we have two accesses, one from Rochester and one from N. Fulton.
Robert Vollmer, architect – outlines the project and points out sites on maps.
Chair invites public to speak.
Gaspare Amodei, owner of neighboring property at 246 North St. – expresses concern with storm sewer and where water will be dumped.
Robert Vollmer – required by State that we cannot release any more water than what is currently released from the site. We believe the area is gravel and will migrate toward the gravel pits. Nowhere is it allowed to collect on the streets.
Tony Amodei – concern with the storm water, berm, swale, detention ponds, culvert under the road.
Robert Vollmer – describes how the water currently runs and how the water will be collected.
Tony Amodei – but now the flow will be increased and the impervious area will be increased. Nowhere is it shown the requirements to obtain a SPDS permit.
Robert Vollmer – the flow will be increased but at this stage of the development a SPDS permit is not required.
Tony Amodei – but you don’t show how the increase will be remedied.
Robert Vollmer – it may not be.
Tony Amodei – the DEC will require it. We need to know the effects and how they will be remedied.
Robert Vollmer – we will ultimately be required to comply with the DEC requirements
Stephen Selvek – for preliminary approval those calculations are not required. These concerns must be addressed prior to final approval.
Carl Festa, N. Fulton St. – is against the project. Now a great neighborhood with no problems and nice houses. Low-income project will increase crime in the area and is not needed. All sounds great on paper but not in reality. Also expresses concern over drainage issues.
Don Fenek, N. Fulton St. – the area at the end of N. Fulton has a deep dip and water will end up flooding the neighboring houses & yards. Also, this project will probably include children and will increase the population of the schools. Buses will not be able to access the development due to the narrowness of the street and people parking. This will increase class sizes. Just another low-income housing project.
Stan Barski, Dayton St. – Expresses great concern over drainage issues and the increase of traffic on Standart Ave. Drains are at capacity now. Emergency vehicles and buses will not be able to get through. Low-income development will devalue the neighboring properties.
Joe Mucedola, Dayton St. – expresses agreement with all that has been said before. Has spoken with neighbors and none of them are in favor of the project.
Kim Campanola, N. Fulton St. – against project. Expresses concern with drainage issues.
Ella Barski, Dayton St. – expresses great concern with drainage issues.
Ed Gallagher – asks what is the intention for the rest of the property.
Barb Lanphere – no immediate intentions.
Robert Vollmer – we are concerned with these seven acres owned and operated by 2 + 4.
Ed Gallagher – is there any concern, or has anyone considered, the noise that comes from the factories on North St.?
Audience expresses agreement
Steven Barski, Dayton St. – expresses same concerns as previously stated. This is going to be rental property and we know how that goes. They don’t care.
Sue Kimmel, president of 2+4 – can guarantee that if the project is not done the drainage problems will remain.
Audience states they’d rather have the drainage problems.
Sue Kimmel – the project would help alleviate the drainage issues. Water is not held on the site. It will go toward the undeveloped area. Also, the owner’s management company will do the up-keep and maintenance. It will be ensured to be kept up to standards. We have regulatory oversight and have yearly state inspections. When the storm water prevention plan is done any inkling that it will not work will result in it not being approved.
Gaspare Amodei – everyone has spoken of drainage problem. Plans do not show anything. If there was a better drawing people may respond differently.
Sue Kimmel – shows picture of aerial view of site.
Robert Vollmer – point out where detention pond will be as required by the DEC. Problems on N. Fulton and Dayton are away from the project and is not a responsibility of this project to alleviate.
Amanda Mucedola, Dayton St. – wonders if anyone has investigated installing an access off North St. Apparently not. Also, this is a large parcel of land. Why is the development being squeezed against existing homes instead of being pushed back where it wouldn’t be as much of an intrusion?
Barb Lanphere – we have no access to North St.
Amanda Mucedola – but there is land there that can be purchased for that purpose.
Question concerning installation of sidewalks.
Barb Lanphere – we will have sidewalks within the development.
Dennis McNabb, N. Fulton St. – questions how much money the developers will make. This is not being done for the neighborhood.
Chair closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments.
Anthony Bartolotta – asks if 2 + 4 will be retaining the homes.
Barb Lanphere – the project is owned by Pearce Tract Development, Lakewood Development and Homsite. It is an LLC not a not-for-profit. Will be paying maximum taxes. In regards to the new 581A law taxes will be assessed on the net operating income.
Sam Giangreco – is there a point in time when the developers will relinquish responsibility in caring for the project?
Barb Lanphere – we are entering a regulatory agreement with the State for a commitment of 50 years.
Sam Giangreco – can it be sold before then?
Barb Lanphere – after 15 years it is possible to sell the individual parcels.
Sam Giangreco – asks Tom Weed if he has any major concerns with the traffic.
Tom Weed – we are working on it.
Barb Lanphere – we have a traffic engineer and a traffic report has been submitted.
Stephen Selvek – prior to preliminary motion SEQR is required. Part 1 of a full EAF has been prepared. Part 2 has been drafted. Reviews points address within SEQR in regards to construction time, drainage, traffic and density. The plans submitted are conceptual in nature. It is up to the Board to decide if there is enough information to go on. The current area is mainly single-family detached housing with 75% owner occupation. Rental managed by a management group decreases the likely impacts associated with rentals under no discernible management but it still may be an adverse impact. There is a resolution for SEQR in your packets. Based on comments there may not be enough information at this time. Staff recommendation at this time is for a positive declaration for SEQR.
Andy Fusco – before voting on SEQR be advised that to vote for a positive declaration would require you to completely go through part 2 of the EAF question by question for which impact would be concerned. It is up to the Board if they want to do this to find where the impact is significant. One other issue that has not been raised is that in the application the applicant if looking for a tax break via PILOT. They have not yet approached the City so this could be a deal killer here and certainly a problem. PILOT is listed as a necessary element to the project and can’t be guaranteed to be given. Coordinate SEQR review with Council to find out. Also, a note in the traffic plan, while in the EAF it states no impact occasioned by the project in the raw data it states otherwise.
Dayton St. will degrade from a grade B to a grade C which is not reflected in the EAF. Also, the study does not discuss accessibility of emergency vehicles or buses. The aerial view is enlightening as it shows that a more central location of the project would help. But most important is to wait for approval/disapproval on PILOT before proceeding.
Stephen Selvek – at this point if PILOT is required it would be within the best interest of the Board to follow up with Council and the Manager.
Andy Fusco – if a positive declaration is found an environmental impact statement would be required which could be very expensive and not needed if PILOT is not approved. Would seem to be a logical order to have results on PILOT first.
Sue Kimmel – suggest tabling since there is not enough acceptable information for the drainage and now the PILOT issue.
Motion to table made by Anthony Bartolotta, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Tim Lattimore – thanks the Board and Staff for their work. Welcomes new member Christopher DeProspero to the Board.
Agenda Item 4: Special Permit to conduct a home occupation at 12 Lake Avenue. Applicant is seeking Planning Board approval to operate a moving business from the residence.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Jennifer Gasparro, 12 Lake Ave – the mortgage on the property is held by parents. Building a garage at the back of the lot to house the moving trucks. Currently has storage in the plaza. Will not be changing the outward appearance of the residence. The parking lot for the Cayuga Home for Children is right next door. There has been a problem of increased vandalism to the trucks left outside. There is also a civil issue concerning the complaints. We do not have customers at the residence. We have 1 – 2 employees that check in, get the truck then leave and are usually finished by 3 p.m. I personally deliver for Home Depot and keep my truck on the premises also. The office is in the house but encompasses only a very small area. The garage will back to the CC4C basketball
court. The visitors at the house are friends and the vehicles belong to them plus the many pov’s we have. We have a signed petition from the neighbors but I forgot it. We will not change the residential look and we have no problems with the neighbors. The garage will be built to City standards. Chris Yantch construction is right around the corner and the CC4C has deliver vehicles coming to them.
Chair invites the public to comment.
Susan Gasparro, Lake Ave – opposes the project. This area is a thoroughfare to Emerson Park and a residential area. The adverse effects outweigh any benefits. The vehicles are in excess weight. There are children in the area. Questions lighting and dumpsters. Commercial business will decrease property values. The business has been illegally operating for years. They have cut City trees. There is a large parking area in the yard. There have been numerous complaints to Code Enforcement.
Jennifer Gasparro – would like to address these items.
· There are multi-residential areas.
· There are other commercial businesses on the street and in the area.
· There is no garbage at the site.
· The mortgage is held by my parents to whom I pay a monthly mortgage payment. The upkeep of the residence is up to me.
· We have 2 24’ moving trucks at another site. The trucks at the premises are within legal weight limits even when loaded.
· We may expand in the next 5 years at which time we will look at alternate sites.
· The complainant lives ½ mile away from the premises but spends her day spying at this site.
· The garage will be at the rear of the parcel and not visible from the street.
Anthony Gasparro, Jennifer’s father – is proud of how his daughter has built up the business. All the complaints have, unfortunately, come from his estranged wife due to personal issues. This is a vendetta against my daughter.
Chair closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments.
Brian Halladay – on the aerial photo it shows a shed on the premises. Will that remain?
Jennifer Gasparro – the shed will be removed and the drive way will run to the rear of the property.
Anthony Bartolotta – how large is the garage?
Jennifer Gasparro – 12X19 with a larger overhead door – the maximum allowed.
Anthony Bartolotta – are there any zoning issues?
Stephen Selvek – home occupations and special permits are the purview of this Board. The Code outlines the specifics needed. In the past the Board may have overstepped its bounds at times. Of concern in a home occupation is that they may not employ more than one person. Since the employees in this instance are not full time it would be up to the interpretation of the ZBA. The space utilized for the business cannot be over 20% or 500 SF and confined to the actual dwelling unit. This would also be up to the ZBA to interpret or allow. There are two options for the applicant: table the application until an area variance is obtained from the ZBA or go to the ZBA for a use variance in which case Planning Board review would not be required.
Andy Fusco – whether or not the business owner actually owns the premises they are allowed to have a home occupation. Discourse over this is immaterial. Have to wonder if this fits the definition of a home occupation as defined in the Charter. All aspects of the business are to be contained within the home with no visibility from without. Also, only one non-residential employee is allowed. Defines usual businesses associated with a home occupation. Sounds like the interest is best served by seeking a use variance.
Richard Paulino – Thanks Codes and Planning staff for their help. Had considered ZBA but did not think there was a valid reason. Which way should we be going now?
Stephen Selvek – this particular item does not fall into a neat category. ZBA appeals decisions of Code or Planning Board matters. Now the Board can determine what the issues are and refer to the ZBA.
Andy Fusco – another avenue to consider, is no decision can be made, it that this is something the ZBA can decide through interpretive powers. I am unsure myself if this is actually a home occupation. It does have some elements of one but also elements extending beyond it. Another alternative is to refer to the ZBA for an opinion if this is actually a home oc. If they decide it is return here for the special permit.
Sam Giangreco – questions the size of the garage.
Brian Hicks – 12X19 is the size of the office. The garage is 30X30.
Jennifer Gasparro – I am allowed to have one vehicle there. The change would be that the vehicle would be gone from the street and enclosed in the garage.
Andy Fusco – we are not arguing against the use. It may improve the situation. We are just telling you the legal points that need to be followed.
Sam Giangreco – questions if someone just puts up a garage that would be ok. Asks the Board for opinion.
Mark DiVietro – can the Board somehow control the size?
Brian Hicks – there is no machine shop involved.
Jennifer Gasparro – all maintenance is off-site.
Anthony Bartolotta – tend to agree. Sound like a large structure but understands the need. In the EAF under ‘Board approval needed’ ZBA is listed.
Allen Zentner – if the ZBA is needed then we should table until that is done.
Christopher DeProspero – agrees
Brian Hicks – the size of the proposed garage itself needs ZBA approval. That is why that intent is there. The max allowed is 750 SF but at this time it is only a proposal.
Sam Giangreco – any motions? Motion to table pending ZBA outcome made by Allen Zentner, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 5: Site Plan Review for the construction of a 70-bed adult care facility, approximately 48,000 SF, and associated site improvements located at 355-357 Clark Street.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Gary Smith, Perrone Engineering – received preliminary approval for a 60-bed project last year. Would now like to increase to 70 beds. The footprint has not changed. Plans have been submitted. Parking is included as well as detention facility, grading as needed, storm sewer system, etc. DePaul purchased property on Belmont Ave for access to utilities. Site accesses remain the same. Additional landscaping between site and residential properties included. Lighting is dark-sky compliant. ZBA approval received 12/26.
Chair invites the public to speak. There being none closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments. There being none asks staff for comments.
Stephen Selvek – full submission of the revised plans have been made. In the full set in addition to they typical layout is a lighting plan of near zero spillage and detailed drawings for all storm water related issues. Complete plans submitted with engineering report. Under SEQR the Board declared lead agency prior to preliminary approval. We do have to look at the full EAF to make a declaration. Parts 1 & 2 provided and looked at in detail. Reviews results of SEQR review. Only other issue is a storm water discharge permit is needed. APD does not have any traffic concerns.
Motion for a negative declaration on SEQR made by Allen Zentner, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Stephen Selvek – plans are substantially complete. All necessary departments have reviewed without problems. Staff recommends final approval contingent on City Engineer review of the Engineering report including water plan.
Christopher DeProspero – asks if Aurelius had any involvement.
Stephen Selvek – no but they were originally notified. The only concerns expressed at the time were of water issues and those have been rectified.
Motion to approve the site plan as submitted contingent on City Engineer review of the Engineering report made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Brian Halladay. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 6: Site Plan Review for the construction of a Rite Aid Pharmacy, approximately 15,000 SF, and associated site improvements located at 304-318 Genesee Street.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Corey Stewart – the proposal is for a Rite Aid store on the southwest corner of Dunning and Genesee St. The site exists now as a gas station, vacant lot, lighting store and a portion of the party rental site. It is 2 acres and zoned for the use. The plan is slightly different to avoid having to go to ZBA. Point out details on the plan.
Chair asks the public for comments. There being none closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments. There being none asks staff for comments.
Stephen Selvek – intent tonight is to introduce the project. The DEC is an involved agency. A sign variance is needed from the ZBA. There is a resolution for lead agency for SEQR. Final approval may be sought at the next regular meeting.
Motion for lead agency status made by Brian Halladay, seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Other Matters
Mike Quill, Mayor – thanks the Board and staff for their services.
Sam Giangreco – welcomes the mayor and thanks him for his words.
Next meeting is Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.
Motion for adjournment made by Anthony Bartolotta, seconded by Brian Halladay. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Recorded by Alicia McKeen
| 
