City of Auburn Planning Board
Wednesday, December 2, 2008, 6:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: John Breanick, Brian Halladay, Allen Zentner, Mark DiVietro, Sam Giangreco, Anthony Bartolotta
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Planner; Andy Fusco, Corporation Counsel; Brian Hicks, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer; Tom Weed, APD (left early)
Absent: Christopher DeProspero,
Agenda Items: 252R North St. SEQR review
The Chair calls the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance is recited and roll is called.
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of November 5, 2008
Chair asks if there are any changes, corrections to be made then asks for a motion to approve the minutes. Motion made by Brian Halladay, seconded by Mark DiVietro,. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and Determination of a major subdivision to subdivide a 7-acre portion of a parcel located at 252R North St., with accesses via Rochester and N. Fulton Streets, into 31 lots for the purpose of creating 30 semi-detached single-family rental units and a community building.
Chair asks staff for an explanation of SEQR process.
Stephen Selvek – we have a couple things. Before you you have draft resolutions for both a positive and negative declaration depending on the Board’s determination. You’ve also received a completed draft of the full environmental assess form complete by City staff as well as a correspondence from the applicant that addressed various concerns the Board, Staff and neighbors have raised at other meetings. Tonight you also have a copy of a fax that is the response from the applicant to the EAF as well as a hard copy. We will go through the full EAF one question at a time. I will provide Staff background and the applicant’s response and then the Chair will ask the applicant if there is any additional information. Following that will be a discussion between the Board members in regard to whether
or not that particular impact is both large and significant then we will poll the Board on each question. Then we will move on to the recommendation for SEQR resolution.
There is a list here of the various impacts.
Chair – I wanted to discuss the traffic impact while Officer Weed is still here.
Stephen Selvek – he seems to have already left.
Chair – then we can just go through them in order. The first is the impact on the land.
Stephen Selvek – Impact on Land (see attached SEQR Full EAF Part 3-Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts: Impact on Land Question 1).
The response as provided by the applicant (see attached letter from Wendy Marsh of Hancock and Estabrook).
Note: as a follow up with the City Engineer he indicated that the proposed construction for the road could be altered so it provides more of a slope from N. Fulton into the site which would lower the need for the retaining walls the need for which could then be accomplished with embankments on the side of the road. That would address some of the Staff concerns. Furthermore the applicant has indicated that the road will be constructed to satisfy the City Engineer.
Chair asks is the applicant wishes to speak.
Wendy Marsh, Attorney, Hancock and Estabrook – specific to this issue, as we are going through parts 2 and 3 of the EAF with regards to Staff recommendations on the road, in particular this one if it is going to be constructed in accordance with City Engineer specs, which it is, we’ve been awaiting details from the City Engineer as far as comments to the plan, we would suggest that, to the extent that this is to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, that that issue would become a small to moderate impact as opposed to being checked as a potential large impact. As a point of clarification in light of the fact that this is a (inaudible) we need to be careful as far as any mitigation that would be required on the project because as a Type I action we can’t have a condition negative declaration. I
know I’m jumping a number of steps ahead of time but I just wanted to raise that early in the process so that to the extent that the Board is satisfied with the City Engineer’s statement that the road could be modified to the satisfaction of the City we would request that be a small to moderate impact as opposed to large impact. Thank you.
Chair – asks members of the Board for comments.
John Breanick – should probably listen to what the public has to say before we comment on it.
Chair – public hearing has already been held so there will be no public heard tonight. Any concerns from the Board? Myself, I am concerned with the elevation, talking about 8 or 9 feet then a drop off, etc. If there was consideration on this would that be a possible change down the road?
Wendy Marsh – the road would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Engineer’s specifications and if there was the request to design it differently we would be happy to do that. Again, we’ve been waiting for the comments on those plans. We’re here tonight to talk about the environmental impact. It really isn’t a point where every fine detail on the project is put together but certainly we would accommodate any request by the City Engineer to construct it in a better fashion because the intent is that the road would be dedicated so of course it has to be constructed to the City’s satisfaction.
Chair – to further my concern I’m aware that we have nothing like this in the City right now as far the elevation that’s been put out. I’m concerned about safety of, for example, our plows when they clear the streets the potential that they may fall off the side of the road. We don’t have anything in the City right now that actually portrays what we are trying to do here so that’s a major concern for myself.
Wendy Marsh – and to clarify again looking at the environmental impact stage that we are in at this stage it doesn’t mean that all of the details are stamped approved by this Board, it’s a determination of a category of concerns and if this Board is satisfied the City Engineer will be able to set forth the specifications that would make the risk of any of those issues eliminated we certainly would construct it that way. Again, what you’re deciding tonight is whether or not these issues require an Environmental Impact Study and my position in regard to the road construction, certainly it’s a concern, it’s subject to discussion, it has to be approved before a building permit will be issued but does it require the 6 month process to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to talk
about how the road is going to be constructed. Certainly we understand the concern and we would design it to the City Engineer’s specifications.
Andy Fusco – my concern on this particular issue. First, I’m not certain my clients, the Board members, have a picture in their mind’s eye of exactly what this roadway looks like. Certainly I didn’t have an idea of what it looked like by looking at the maps until I really got into them. What we’re talking about is off of N. Fulton St. extension is a street that is grade level as it begins going westward and because the topography falls off the roadway becomes something of a ramp going uphill westward with drop offs on both sides and concrete barriers on both sides. Literally, if you can picture a narrow ramp uphill with concrete drop offs on either side to the extent that at the point it reaches Rochester St. it’s about 9 feet high. Now, until I really got my hands around that and
developed that picture in my mind, I wasn’t really concerned as it really looks like a straight road until you go up there, you begin to understand what we’re talking about because I happened to go visit this area. There are not any other streets, not only in Auburn like it, I don’t know of any other street in upstate New York that’s like it. So it raises the potential, if in fact the street is dedicated to the City, it raises the question of not only speaking of snow plows or vehicles falling off the sides, but just simpler things such as what happens when the dirt between the two concrete sides settles down and it needs to be rebuilt. What about water, wires, sewers, etc. underneath this ramp, if you will. Now I don’t know what the answers to these questions are but I know that this is something that’s unlike anything else we have and I think the purpose of the SEQR process is to identify potential issues and then put it on the developer to say
that we have these concerns, how are these things maintained, how will it be rebuilt if needed, how long do these last, potential pitfalls of accepting a dedicated road, sidewalks, etc. These are things that concern me. Again, there may be earthen ramps/bridges elsewhere in upstate New York and perhaps it’s not a problem at all for the cities that have them to take care of them but I’d like to know that before I accept the dedication. I think it’s a valid environmental concern. To address what you’ve said, ‘We’ll do whatever the City Engineer wants us to do’, that’s well and good except from what I’m hearing of the conversation the City Engineer had with Steve Selvek, you can’t do because you don’t own the land surrounding the access road so that the solution or the mitigation that the City Engineer talked about, tapering off the sides so you didn’t have straight drop offs, is not going to be
available to you if the two people who live on either side refuse to sell their land or give an easement for the purpose. You may well be able to get an easement or buy the land but those are the kinds of things that I think an Environmental Impact Statement could or might explore to give me greater comfort in accepting a roadway that’s unlike any other roadway in upstate New York that the City will have to maintain.
Wendy Marsh – frankly, I’ve never seen the construction of a 175 foot road justify the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement but on the other side you’re raising very valid concerns and had the City Engineer responded to any of our plans to have that discussion we would be in a better position tonight to be able to respond to those. Those are valid concerns and issues, issues that we want to resolve if this project is going to move forward but from my perspective it doesn’t justify an Environmental Impact Statement because as we know an EIS is a discussion between the Planning Board and the Developer. We prepared the draft EIS, again, we still don’t have the City Engineer talking to us, we want to get into those discussions about what is the best design for this road, how can we
best put this together then it comes back to this Board for a decision on the project. Maybe you don’t want the project, maybe the road is unacceptable to you but again, from my perspective it doesn’t justify an EIS to discuss the details of construction a road to the City’s specs. But again, absolutely valid points and we would look forward to having that direct discussion with the City Engineer.
Chair – any more comments?
Stephen Selvek – to clarify, I might not have been cleared on how the Engineer had explained to me the possibility of reworking that road to provide access. It wasn’t a matter of maintaining that road at the proposed grade it was a matter of sloping that road from N. Fulton toward Rochester so it does follow the contour of the land. That would thus minimize the need for the retaining walls. There still may be some type of retaining wall, there may be a different proposal for addressing hat site so that it wasn’t a matter of grading into the adjoining property it was a matter of allowing that road to slope from N. Fulton to follow the contours of the land more closely. I hope that clarifies that matter.
John Breanick – on the impact on the historical and archaeological resources here, one of the members of the public passed out a map of the archaeologically sensitive zones and also submitted some pictures, I was wondering if Staff could comment on that information or give whoever handed this out opportunity to speak.
Chair – we will get into that, we are going item by item at this time. Are there any more comments concerning impact on the land?
Stephen Selvek – now we will poll the Board to determine whether or not they believe the potential impact is both large and significant. As Wendy has indicated she feels that yes, there is an impact however the impact is actually small or moderate, something that can be worked through as we move forward. Our Council indicated specifically that these are things that we need answers to and we can work through them via the EIS process. For the Board’s understanding, four yes votes from the Board with regards to whether or not the potential impact is both large and significant will ultimately require a positive declaration in the end. If the Board feels that, yes this is an impact however we don’t believe it’s both large and significant then a no vote will pretty much dismiss this particular
impact at this time and we’ll move on to the next one.
Chair asks if everyone understands. So we’ll take a roll call vote on this particular item.
Andy Fusco – for the purpose of the record exactly which of the 20 or so questions in part 2 are we addressing at this time?
Stephen Selvek – we will be addressing
Andy Fusco – with this particular vote.
Stephen Selvek – we’ll be addressing question 1: Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
Chair – all right. Secretary call the roll.
Anthony Bartolotta – we’re addressing the question in general and not the specific roadway, correct?
Andy Fusco – what you’re doing is making a determination in question 1 regarding the various land issues that we’ve just discussed. We are deciding on question 1 whether the various items just discussed are small to moderate impact or potentially large impacts. We’ll get to that third choice later on if you choose to answer that question as potentially large.
Brian Halladay - so the yes or no is number 1, small or moderate or yes or not that it’s potentially large?
Sam Giangreco – yes or no that it’s potentially large.
Stephen Selvek – we’re looking for an answer to potentially large based on the information provided to you you feel that the proposed construction of the roadway is potentially a large impact you vote yes, if you feel it’s small to moderate impact then vote no.
Mark DiVietro – yes
Brian Halladay – yes
Anthony Bartolotta – no based on their willingness to work with the City Engineer
Allen Zentner – yes
John Breanick – no, need more information from the City Engineer
Sam Giangreco – yes
Chair – the second item is the impact on aesthetic resources
Stephen Selvek – with regards to the impact on aesthetic resources (see attached SEQR Full EAF Part 3-Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts: Impact on Aesthetic Resources Question 11)
The response as provided by the applicant (see attached letter from Wendy Marsh of Hancock and Estabrook).
Chair asks for any additional comments from the applicant.
Wendy Marsh – I think that I pretty much said it forth in the letter. What you’re being asked on part 2 of the EAF is that the proposed uses or project component obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns whether man made or natural. This project, while controversial, is in accordancw tiwth the zoning code. It is a residential subdivision adjacent to a residential subdivision, these are residential homes and I must say I object mostly vehemently to this point as well as the last as far as the justification to do an EIS to justify the design of the single family dwelling units that are in full compliance with the zoingin code.
Chair asks the Board for comments.
John Breanick – questions discussion of garages.
Stephen Selvek – what was in the packets was a letter from the funding source that stated that the applicant was not allowed to construct garages by the funder. They had applied to the funder for the ability to construct garages but were denied.
Wendy Marsh – the buildings have been designed so that any potential owner can add one on in the future if they so desire.
Chair – polls the Board. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
Mark DiVietro – yes
Brian Halladay – yes
Anthony Bartolotta – yes
Allen Zentner – yes
John Breanick – yes
Sam Giangreco – yes
Sam Giangreco – the next item is the impact on historic and archaeological resources.
Andy Fusco – before we move on just for the benefit of the record which of the questions on part 2 of the 20 have we just determined as a potentially large environmental concern?
Stephen Selvek – that is question 11 – Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
Chair – asks Staff for comments.
Stephen Selvek – re: with regards to the impact on historic and archaeological resources question 12: Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? With regards to this the answer that I had drafted for the Board has since been clarified by the enclosure in your letters this evening. The concern was that the previous determination by SHPO included a reference to national register of historic places however did not go through and specifically call out archaeological resources. They have since clarified to indicate that there is no potential impact to archaeological resources in that area. I will also note that before you…what was provided you tonight was a copy of the archaeologically sensitive areas within Cayuga County. These particular
areas are basically governed by the NYS SHPO who make any determinations on the importance of the area. So staff’s response given that additional information is that it is reasonable to include that there will not be a potential impact.
Andy Fusco – just to flush out the record this issue was originally framed for us by the Dept. of Environmental Conservation. We coordinated our review by not only circulating the documents you have before you but also giving them to the other involved agencies. It was the DEC in responding to your coordinated review process who stated they believed this was an archaeologically sensitive area and recommending we contact SHPO so that’s how this issue was raised. It was not raised by Staff our Counsel. What I’m hearing now is that Staff is recommending answering question 12 as the impact being moderate or small?
Stephen Selvek – correct.
Chair – asks for comments from the Board
John Breanick – one of the handouts passed out here tonight was a map of and archaeologically sensitive zone and pictures of artifacts found in that area. Was any research done by the public or staff regarding this?
Andy Fusco – this is unusual how this issue was framed in this particular case. It is usually framed in the way is that when DEC is put on notice they will come back with almost a form response that is SHPO is satisfied then they are satisfied. SHPO usually requires some type of archaeological study be done of the area to determine its significance. That did not happen here so that the answer to your question is that it wouldn’t be staff’s responsibility to fund the study if you felt that the potential for archaeological impact is something other than small to moderate, it would be the developer’s duty to do that either as part of the EIS or by some type of resolution of this issue.
John Breanick – how would this be handled then, the information handed to us tonight then?
Andy Fusco – in this particular case, what Steve has augmented our packets with, SHPO is satisfied then I don’t think you can be criticized for answering question 12 that the impact is small to moderate and does not trigger potential mitigation or looking at ways to mitigate the problem.
John Breanick – how long ago did SHPO look at this area?
Andy Fusco – it’s hard to say. As the area is developed SHPO attempts to get updated archaeological data by using the SEQR process. When the DOT or DEC are involved agencies they will tip their hat, as it were, at SHPO and try to get developers to do some type of archaeological study of an impacted area so that SHPO has far more updated data than the old maps provide and it’s done with private funding as opposed to State funding. Obviously that did not happen here. Here DEC just made the comment in response to our coordinated review letter.
Chair – asks developer for any comments
Wendy Marsh – inaudible (not by microphone)
Brian Halladay – could this information be used to ask for further study?
Andy Fusco – you can use everything that is presented. If people have come forward with evidence that you feel shows the potential in this area is something other than small to moderate and you have evidence that supports then I’d have no problem with you voting yes instead of no. Again, the purpose of SEQR is not to solve problems, many problems that SEQR identifies don’t get solved, we can try mitigating them sometimes but not always, the purpose of SEQR is to identify the potential problems and then have the developer come back with what they can or can’t do to address the problems. We are trying to identify issues, not resolve them at this stage.
John Breanick – asks if the developer is aware of any of the handouts from the audience.
Wendy Marsh – will follow the direction of SHPO and rely on their opinion. It is up to the Board to make the decision if the impact has any significance.
Map and book handed out by community member Kenneth Maywalt as copies of a private collection. Discusses the items submitted. States he is not certain if there is an Indian site within the proposed development.
Copies of items submitted provided to the developer.
Brian Halladay – are we having separate votes for small to moderate and large or is it one vote?
Wendy Marsh – on this one it’s flipped so a yes vote would be small to moderate and no would be large.
Chair polls the Board.
Mark DiVietro – no
Brian Halladay – no
Anthony Bartolotta – yes
Allen Zentner – no
John Breanick – no
Sam Giangreco – yes
Chair – next item is impact on transportation. Asks for Staff comments.
Stephen Selvek – with regards to the Impact on Transportation (see attached SEQR Full EAF Part 3-Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts: Impact on Transportation, Question 15: Will there be an effect to the existing transportation systems?)
You have further information in your packets with regards to the potential for traffic issues. Mr. Napoleon did some follow up studies of the traffic concerns that have been raised on numerous occasions. They looked at comparable intersections to determine the different levels of service and as noted, the level of service for the Dayton/North St. intersection will change from a B to a C. There are other comparable intersections that are at a C level service such as Perrine/North St. This will answer whether the potential increase of traffic will be very different from other areas in the City. They did look at a variety of different intersections throughout the City similar to the one proposed here.
The response as provided by the applicant (see attached letter from Wendy Marsh of Hancock and Estabrook).
The draft that I drew up was done before the additional information by the traffic engineer and response by the applicant. There still does remain a concern that the size of the connecting streets is not sufficient. They do not in the traffic study that even on the most minimal road you can still have one vehicle parked on one side of the road and provide emergency vehicle access.
Chair invites applicant to comment.
Wendy Marsh – briefly, the traffic issue, there is certainly going to be a small to moderate impact. There has been an extensive investigation from the traffic engineer. All of that work would be part of the EIS. I don’t know what else could be prepared or further investigated. If this Board determines that in light of the fact that because the connecting street is only 20 foot wide then that suggests justification to deny the project not to require a further analysis of the traffic impact as that connector street is not something we can change as part of the project. I would recommend that this is a small to moderate impact to acknowledge that there is an impact but it doesn’t require an EIS.
Andy Fusco – there is a potential solution if the Board finds that the traffic and pedestrian issues something other than small to moderate. The r-o-w on both Rochester and N. Fulton St. is wider than just the paved street and sidewalk portions so that, in circumstances developers have said that they are will to widen the road and install sidewalks on the streets that lead to the development in order to interconnect. So it’s not that you can’t do it. It may be that you don’t want to…
Wendy Marsh – the neighbors are not going to want to do that.
Andy Fusco – they don’t really have any say. The City owns the r-o-w and if it’s appropriate to widen the streets or finish/install sidewalks and the City thinks that’s a good idea then it would be possible.
Chair asks the Board for comments.
John Breanick – questions progress of the connector road.
Stephen Selvek – presently it ends at the sewage waste water treatment plant and it will stay that way for another 4 – 5 years.
John Breanick – is there any way for what’s presently there that this be mitigated by access to the connector road as opposed to Standart Ave
Stephen Selvek – future connection is possible however given the layout of this site and lack of connector road reaching it there is no potential to currently connect to the road. Maybe at some point in the future. The City would like to see an interconnection at some point in the future.
Chair – there will be an increase of traffic from North St. crossing over Dayton St. There will be more potential for traffic as there will be more people living there. There will be more potential school age children overloading the schools and needing to be bussed. The connector road will bring in even more traffic.
Wendy Marsh – states the children living in the area would be children already in the area and already attending the schools.
Stephen Selvek – we are not just talking elementary school children but the other grades as well so it would be unfair to say there would be 60 new children for one elementary school. There are other things to take into consideration. That was why staff did not feel it was a large impact, there are a lot of factors that play for that particular issue.
Chair polls the Board.
Stephen Selvek – yes if it’s a small to moderate impact, no if it’s a large impact.
Mark DiVietro – yes
Brian Halladay – yes
Anthony Bartolotta – yes
Allen Zentner – yes
John Breanick – yes
Sam Giangreco – yes
Chair – next item is the impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood. Asks for Staff comments.
Stephen Selvek - with regards to the Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood (see attached SEQR Full EAF Part 3-Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts: Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood, Question 19: Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?)
The response as provided by the applicant (see attached letter from Wendy Marsh of Hancock and Estabrook).
Chair asks the developer for any further comments.
Wendy Marsh – I’ll briefly add to this one. There’s a continued discussion about what is the master plan for the rest of the property which, as we’ve already heard, we don’t even know if there will be any other road accessible to this property. This is a residential subdivision, there is no intent to have any other structures or houses on the other property. The project stands on its own. We don’t know what’s happening with the connector road or what impact that may have on the property I don’t see how we can continue to discuss something that may never occur as part of an EIS process. This project is in conformance with the Zoning Code and I completely disagree with the assessment it is in conflict with it.
Andy Fusco – there are 2 issues that Steve did not talk about that are potentially relevant which counter your statement that this is fully permitted under the current code. One, you will need to get some relief for more houses than currently allowed.
Wendy Marsh – questions this. There are no variances required.
Andy Fusco – the street is too long.
Wendy Marsh – that is at the discretion of this Board.
Andy Fusco – the length of the street and the number of houses are specified and this does exceed both of those. To say that the project is fully in compliance is not quite correct. If the Board allows you to have this once they reach the merits of the project it will be in compliance but it is not at this time.
Wendy Marsh – did not understand that was the intent after reading Steve’s conclusions that it was not in compliance. The length of the street is within the Board’s purview to allow.
John Breanick – questions the comprehensive plan.
Stephen Selvek – the current comprehensive plan is from 1991 and we are currently in the process of revisiting and updating it.
Brian Halladay – questions the master plan for the City or the site?
Stephen Selvek – specific to the site. The code indicates that regardless of the type of development the R3 district was created so that these sites could be comprehensively developed. Based on that they are trying to create a viable and sustainable neighborhood requires that a master plan be completed.
Wendy Marsh – inaudible (not at microphone)
Andy Fusco – one other consideration consistent with what Wendy has said. It’s clear when you read the code that the R3 planned development is to be a community unto itself, that’s the theory, which does have an effect on the purpose of the R3 planned unit development and it’s compliance or interfacing with what’s on Dayton, Rochester and N. Fulton St. maybe somewhat buffered by that fact but it’s clear that the City Council in creating the R3 idea contemplated a community unto itself.
Chair – asks for any further comments from the Board. Polls the Board (Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?)
Mark DiVietro – yes
Brian Halladay – yes
Anthony Bartolotta – no
Allen Zentner – no
John Breanick – yes
Sam Giangreco – yes
Chairs asks for Staff recommendation on SEQR.
Stephen Selvek – based on the information we looked at tonight and the Board’s review of each of the potential impacts they have indicated that they believe all five impacts have the potential to be large and significant. As such the Staff recommends that a positive declaration be declared. There is a draft resolution within your packets for consideration.
Andy Fusco – I recommend that the resolutions be amplified with the votes on the five questions that have been reviewed.
Stephen Selvek – we will revise the resolution to include the discussion on the votes that were done here tonight.
Chair asks for a motion to adopt a positive declaration resolution. So moved by John Breanick, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Other Matters:
Stephen Selvek – comprehensive plan update. We have had two community meetings that were well attended. Information will be summarized and placed on the web-site.
Chair wishes everyone Happy Holidays.
Next meeting is January 6, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. Chair asks for a motion to adjourn. So moved by John Breanick, seconded by Allen Zentner. All members vote approval. Meeting adjourned.
Recorded by Alicia McKeen
| 
