City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, April 1, 2008, 6:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Christopher DeProspero, Anthony Bartolotta, John Breanick, Brian Halladay, Sam Giangreco
Absent: Allen Zentner, Mark DiVietro
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Planner; Brian Hicks, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer; Andy Fusco, Corporation Counsel;
Absent: 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 March 4, 2008.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes. Motion made by Brian Halladay, seconded by Christopher DeProspero. All members vote approval. Motion carried. John Breanick requested hard copy of minutes sent in the future as he does not have e-mail.
Agenda Item 2: Application for Minor Subdivision for the purpose of subdividing a vacant 6.654-acre residential lot from an existing parcel located at 102 N. Lewis Street. The remaining 0.698-acre portion
would consist of an existing residential home. Applicant: Lewis E. Springer II
Chair invites the applicant to speak.
Brian Halladay informs the Chair and Board that he will be abstaining from all discussion and votes as he is the real estate agent for the property.
Lewis Springer – has a purchase order in for part of the land, about 6 ½ acres out of the 7+ there, including a 60’ wide strip connecting to N. Lewis St. There are no development plans at this time.
Chair – gives the reminder that this is for a subdivision only, not any future development. Opens the public hearing and states that due to the large number in the audience speakers will be limited to two minutes.
Helen Brown, N. Lewis St. – just here to find out what is going on with the property. In the past interests have been to convert it to a commercial use. We would like it to remain a residential use. The concern is with the 60’ r-o-w next to the house and a possible street being built to the property.
Lori Dacy, Standart Ave – reiterates what the previous speaker stated. Interested in knowing what the plans are for the property . Want to protect the neighborhood and maintain the integrity as a residential area.
Charles R. Flanagan, N. Lewis St. – 61 year resident. Agrees with concerns about the 60’ strip access to the rear. Does not want his house to become a corner lot. The neighbors will be stuck with whatever is going to happen there. Is adamant that the area not be changed.
Debbie Smith, Catlin St. – grateful for the chance to speak. Is concerned that the neighborhood stays a tight knit group of close neighbors.
Charles D. Flanagan, N. Lewis St. – proposed access strip is close to own house and pool. Wants the property to remain as is.
Lewis Springer – appreciates the neighborhood concerns but at this time there is truly no plan to develop the property. Anyone is welcome to call to discuss this.
Mike Quill, Lansing St. – also a neighbor and asks the audience if the opposition is to any type of housing development or commercial development.
Audience – not opposed to a residential development but without the street access proposed.
James Dacy, Standart Ave – the property has been specced for commercial plans twice already and also for rezoning and has been defeated. The traffic as it stands now is ridiculous and anything proposed would only bring more problems. I do not think the neighbors would be opposed to single family homes. People are definitely against a commercial use being established as it would change the character of the neighborhood and create problems for the current residents.
John Breanick – there seems to be contention with the 60’ access. Is it required to be that wide?
Stephen Selvek – the road width would actually only be 30’ wide per City standards with the other 30’ used for tree lawn buffers on either side.
John Breanick – so any land locked property would require this?
Stephen Selvek – the width would depend on the size of the lot and what the intended use is. It may just require something as small as a driveway, for instance, if it were for a single family lot.
John Breanick – if developed for homes or senior housing such as Bluefield would it affect the setbacks?
Stephen Selvek – the only permitted use here would be single-family residential homes. Multi-family dwellings or places like Bluefield are not allowed.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Stephen Selvek – a short form EAF parts 1 & 2 are available in your packets. This proposal is a minor subdivision. It is basically a sale on paper, there is no development planned at this time. Therefore there are no environmental impacts. If in the future a development is planned there is sufficient land here for single-family residential homes with related infrastructure. This proposal meets all City requirements for a subdivision. Staff recommends a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the subdivision.
Chair asks for a motion on SEQR. Motion for a negative declaration made by John Breanick, seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. Brian Halladay abstains, Anthony Bartolotta and John Breanick vote approval, Christopher DeProspero and Sam Giangreco vote negative. Motion not carried.
Andy Fusco – at this point there are two options, have the applicant submit a full EAF or have a positive declaration on SEQR.
Stephen Selvek – I will leave it to the Board to discuss. You may wish to gather more information by the applicant in the form of a draft environmental impact statement.
Andy Fusco – so next thing to do is decide on a motion for a positive declaration or table until more members are available. It would behoove you to decide which answers on the EAF are considered adverse and need to be addressed.
John Breanick – I believe it is appropriate for us to table this at this time to give Counsel a chance to research and also to have other members present for discussion. I do not challenge the integrity of this applicant. I make a motion to table until next month. Seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. Brian Halladay abstains, Anthony Bartolotta and John Breanick vote approval, Christopher DeProspero and Sam Giangreco vote negative. Motion not carried.
Andy Fusco – if you wish to declare a positive declaration on SEQR the people who desire this should give the reasoning for doing so.
Chair asks for a motion for a positive declaration on SEQR. No motion made.
Andy Fusco – you are not allowed to do nothing. Either determine a negative declaration stating there is no environmental impact or a positive declaration stating there may be and environmental impact.
Lewis Springer – am not familiar with what is happening. Do I need to have an environmental impact statement done?
Stephen Selvek – if the Board votes for a positive declaration on SEQR.
Andy Fusco – if the vote is for a positive declaration then you would need to prepare a long form environmental statement that would be a more detailed analysis of the proposed use of the property. The Board would review the statement on a question by question basis and have 20 individual votes (one for each question). If one or more questions are determined to be potentially significant they will allow for mitigation with a Part 3 form which then would not require a need for an impact statement. If not, then the impact statement would be required.
John Breanick – can the Board go into the caucus room to discuss among ourselves.
Andy Fusco – no, all discussion must be done here.
John Breanick – thinks in fairness this needs to be tabled. The other Board members’ votes need to count and Counsel need to research protocol.
Andy Fusco – in essence that is what will happen. We will adjourn without action. The public hearing will be held in abeyance until the next meeting. That will be the practical effect.
John Breanick – we are deadlocked here and it makes no sense to just sit here continuing to look at each other.
Anthony Bartolotta – so we can discuss the situation?
Andy Fusco – there is no problem with that.
Anthony Bartolotta – there are no plans for development at this time so there is no reason not to vote. Any development would have to come back before this Board anyway.
Christopher DeProspero – this is a six acre lot. I have issues with traffic involved.
John Breanick – we need to judge this at face value. Mr. Springer is an honorable man. He knows this is an R1 residential area. We need this area for young people to build nice homes on decent land which would hopefully entice them to stay in this area. Things change with time. This property will be developed at some point.
Christopher DeProspero – and the width of the proposed r-o-w?
Stephen Selvek – 60’
Christopher DeProspero – how wide is N. Lewis?
Stephen Selvek – 50’. The proposed access would not be a wider street, the actual paved area would be 30’ wide. The tree lawns on either side would be wider.
Sam Giangreco – This has been brought up before. I am also a neighbor in the area and I don’t want to see this happening in the neighborhood. I have no objection to a residential development tho.
Lewis Springer – this is zone residential.
Sam Giangreco – but it could be changed.
Andy Fusco – that is not going to happen. This Board cannot even agree on SEQR. I am happy for the discussion but you are off track. The discussion should be concerning the subdivision only, not speculation on what may or may not happen in the future. There is no way to get a quorum of votes at this time so this is a non-action.
Anthony Bartolotta moves to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by John Breanick. Meeting adjourned.
Chair calls members back for one more item. Determined by Counsel that the public hearing should remain open. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Christopher DeProspero. All members vote approval with Brian Halladay abstaining. Motion carried.
Next meeting is Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 6:30.
Recorded by Alicia McKeen
| 
