City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 6:30 PM, Memorial City Hall
Present: John Breanick, Brian Halladay, Mark DiVietro, Christopher DeProspero, Anthony Bartolotta
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Planner; Andy Fusco, Corporation Counsel; Brian Hicks, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer
Absent: Allen Zentner, Sam Giangreco
Agenda Items: Preliminary Presentation of Plans for Renovations at 146 North St., SEQR Lead Agency Concurrence for 146 North St., SEQR Lead Agency Concurrence for 38 York St.
Items Approved: 146 North St. with Auburn Planning Board as Lead Agency; 38 York St. with Auburn Zoning Board as Lead Agency
The Chair calls the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance is recited and roll is called.
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of December 2, 2008
Chair asks if there are any changes, corrections to be made then asks for a motion to approve the minutes. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Brian Halladay. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Presentation of plans for the proposed renovation and rehabilitation of the Cayuga County Mental Health Facility located at 146 North Street.
*Note: This is a preliminary presentation only. No public hearing has been held at this time and no votes taken.
Chair asks the owner or agent to speak.
Jeff Spenard, C & S Construction – gives overview of the plans for the building at 146 North St.
Mike Gridley, C& S Construction Landscape Architect - gives overview of the plans for the building at 146 North St.
Andy Fusco – questions the current entrance.
Mike Gridley – a new entrance will be made off of Park Ave.
John Breanick – questions staffing
Jeff Spenard – does not have that information
John Breanick – questions if there is adequate parking for staff
Jeff Spenard – proposed plan exceeds what is required and AMH has donated 20 spaces for use.
John Breanick – questions snow removal.
Jeff Spenard – adequate space available.
Mike Gridley – also North St. is not optimal for drop offs.
Jeff Spenard - This will alleviate any traffic problems previously caused on North St. A bus route is already there.
Stephen Selvek – Tom Weed concurs with this new entrance
John Breanick – questions emergency services access
Jeff Spenard – has been considered and developed into the plan
Andy Fusco – the City is being asked to defer SEQR to another agency, which is foreign to this entity. Is the County the best agency to consider various aspects of this project?
Agenda Item 3: State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Lead Agency Concurrence: The Cayuga County Legislature requests that the Legislature be designated as Lead Agency for the State Environment Quality Review (SEQR) of the proposed renovation and rehabilitation of the Cayuga County Mental Health Facility located at 146 North Street.
Stephen Selvek – in your packets is a letter date December 2, 2008 from former County Chair Roger Mills requesting that the Legislature be lead agency. Also enclosed is the short form EAF Part I. A note on the EAF, where it indicates yes, that it does require permit approval of another local agency, as Planning Board site plan approval specific to this Board and I will note that in any letter that goes to the County Legislature for revising Part I of their EAF to clearly indicate that the City Planning Board is an involved agency. Also included is a SEQR resolution for concurrence with the County’s request. The County requests that they be lead agency primarily because they are the funding entity for this project as well as they will be responsible for the implementation of the overall project. Corporation
Counsel made a point earlier more or less to who is more appropriate to take on lead agency. The County Legislature does have representatives within the City that does represent the City as well as the constituents in the districts so I feel there is representation for neighbors within any given district. Furthermore I’ve had ongoing discussions with Steve Lynch at the County Planning Office who is working with the Legislature and advising them as to the SEQR process and moving forward with that as well at the County Attorney, Fred Westfall, has been part of these discussions to move forward with this. Staff recommendation is that the County Legislature be designate lead agency as they will be the ones funding and implement the project. I will include any concerns or comments the Board has including the concern with the regard to the potential traffic impacts in relocating the bus stop or drop off to Park Ave and making sure the County does take a diligent
look at what potential impact this could have if that is something the Board feels should be included and any other comments or questions the Board has. Again, staff recommendation is for the County Legislature to be lead agency.
John Breanick – why is it the Legislature as opposed to the County Planning Department?
Stephen Selvek – it’s ultimately the Legislature because the Legislature is the one approving the project. The county Planning does not have any authority for approval.
John Breanick – do they have to go before there board for and LMN 239?
Stephen Selvek – I don’t believe they’ll have to go before their own Board for that particular issue.
Andy Fusco – a referral under 239 to the County Planning Board does not make the County Planning Board by law an involved agency. As Steve has advised us only involved agencies can assume the lead agency role under SEQR. In this case it would appear that the potential involved agencies are the legislature because they fund it or us because we approve the site plan, etc. 239 referral does not make the County Planning Board an involved agency under the law.
Mark DiVietro – if the Legislature is the lead agency who makes the final site plan approval.
Andy Fusco – that’s the question that I was trying to …
Mark DiVietro – is it the Legislature or is it…
Andy Fusco – as far as the environmental concerns it will be the Legislators so we do have one Legislator in Auburn who happens to represent this district but the pragmatic…
Mark DiVietro – my point is, is that person involved in planning before he knows…
Andy Fusco – whether that person is or isn’t, I don’t know, but the fact of the matter is that there will be enough votes out of other districts to decide however, whether it’s a positive or negative declaration so that the difficult question here is do we wish to defer a hard question to people to tend not to live in that neighborhood or this City as opposed to this Board who do live here. It would seem to me that the greatest potential environmental impact would be to the people who have residences on the north side of Park Ave who face the proposed site who are City residents and to the house immediately east of the new proposed parking lot that used to be next to another house & now will be next to something not a house. Now, will the County legislature give those concerns the hard
look that SEQR requires? If you think they will then defer to them, if you think you want to take something on that may be unpopular…that’s the flip side to this, someone may get mad in that neighborhood, do you want them mad at the County or at us? That’s the pragmatics of this deal.
Stephen Selvek – the final approval for the site plan itself rests with this Board.
Mark DiVietro - so we will see the final site plan so if we make the Legislature lead agency this isn’t going to go away and we won’t see it again so as far as what we typically will vote on in a site plan to be sure everything is up to par if they are lead agency we won’t have the ability to do that anymore?
Andy Fusco – not necessarily. They can neg dec it and we can say that we don’t like how it is set up, we’d like some changes made. I’m hearing that the topography may thwart the ability to combine these 2 parking lots or this entrance. Someone is going to have to take a hard look at these possibilities. For the environmental concerns and addressing the environmental impacts of what is otherwise sounding like a good project, do we trust the County to do it or do we want to do it? That’s the choice.
Brian Halladay – have the neighbors been made aware of this?
Stephen Selvek – I do not believe the neighbors are aware of this project yet. This is a very preliminary look at some of the early conceptual designs.
Mark DiVietro – my concern is that they are the funding entity but that doesn’t mean you give the developer the lead agency on the project. They shouldn’t be lead, the developer and the funding entity on their own project especially in the middle of the City with its own Planning Department to make those decisions.
Christopher DeProspero – aggress with Mark DiVietro.
John Breanick – recommends polling the Board before taking a vote.
Brian Halladay – asks is Peter Tortorici has made any comments on this.
Stephen Selvek – has not spoken with him.
Anthony Bartolotta – and what is there primary reason to be lead agency?
Stephen Selvek – because they are the funders and have the right to be an involved agency and also request to be lead agency.
John Breanick – states he may have to abstain due to being a county employee. Asks about getting a majority vote.
Andy Fusco – the fact you are a County employee and have recognized that on record is enough under Article 8 of the General Municipal Law. It is up to you if you choose to abstain.
John Breanick – asks Staff for opinion on voting.
Jenny Haines – was thinking about times that the City of Auburn itself has declared itself lead agency versus the Planning Board and I’m thinking of a couple large projects that have been done previously. Asks Andy Fusco for reasoning on why a City or County government would want to do that.
Andy Fusco – No projects come to mind at this time but I’m sure there have been some. If this Board is to decide tonight that they wish to “challenge” the County Legislature for Lead Agency status it is not really that adverse a proceeding. It’s kind of a gentlemanly act. What happens is that we would write a letter to the County that the City should be the Lead Agency in this matter as it is the City’s residents most immediately impacted. One of two things will happen, the County will either defer to us or the DEC region 7 will break the tie so this won’t be tug of war or turf war, these things happen where two people have an interest and one thinks it should address the situation, it doesn’t mean we don’t think they are capable or competent ,
doesn’t mean we are challenging their Chair, it’s just that it’s in our City and it involves our residents, most of the traffic is being diverted from a highway (North St.) onto Park Ave, a residential street. Can that impact be mitigated, what’s the result of that, how do the residents feel, will it necessitate a light at that intersection? Who is better able to address and answer these questions, this Board or a Board mostly made up of people who do not live within the City. These are our people and we need to be able to tell them we’ve done the best we can do to mitigate the impact on their neighborhood.
John Breanick – has heard compelling information on both sides. The City and County need to work cooperatively on this. The facility will be in the City but the City is part of the County. I know the County is under a mandate by the State where they are being penalized for non-compliance of resolving situations in the past. Questions if this should be tabled to next month.
Andy Fusco – that can’t be done. We have 30 days from Mr. Mills’ letter to decide whether you will do this or not. If the 30 days passes and you don’t make a decision they become Lead by default.
Stephen Selvek – I would ask the Board to put forth the motion on the resolution before you and vote on that and in the event that’s voted down then put forth a motion to act as Lead and vote on that. Doing one or the other of those gives staff the ability to contact and discuss with the County as to what our feelings are.
John Breanick – can this Board and the County be co-leads?
Stephen Selvek – no, the SEQR regulations are that one involved agency acts as Lead. In the event that both want to be Lead the decision goes to DEC for a tie-breaker.
Mark DiVietro – we need to treat the County as any developer, they present it here and the neighbors are here for a public hearing and have the ability to speak and the County will hear what their concerns are. I’m in favor of the project but it’s backing up to a residential area and I don’t know that the Legislature is dealing with that. I feel more comfortable with us making the decision with them and the neighbors here as with any other project. I would even feel more comfortable if the County Planning Department was Lead Agency, but that’s not what’s here, it isn’t a Planning Department we’re thinking of putting as Lead on a project in the middle of our City.
John Breanick – asks for a motion for the Cayuga County Legislature to take Lead Agency for SEQR review of 146 North St. So moved by Brian Halladay, seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. All members vote no. Motion fails.
Brian Halladay – as long as it’s on the record that we had a vote for making the County Lead and it failed, I would vote for the City to be Lead.
John Breanick – asks for a motion for the City of Auburn Planning Department to take Lead Agency for SEQR review of 146 North St. So move by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Christopher DeProspero. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Stephen Selvek – will draft the appropriate letter.
Agenda Item 4: State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Lead Agency Concurrence: The City of Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals requests that the ZBA be designated as Lead Agency for the State Environment Quality Review (SEQR) of a proposed Minor Subdivision and required area variances for the subdivision of the real property parcel located at 38 York Street.
Stephen Selvek – the ZBA met in December and voted to act as Lead Agency for the project. The project is a minor subdivision of an existing real estate parcel located at 38 – 40 York St. directly behind the recent application for the used car lot and next to Pet’s Auto Repair. The ZBA has requested they be Lead Agency at the recommendation of staff as their particular need to grant variances is more critical than subdivision approval. Without the variances the Board cannot move forward. The other issue is the timing of the ZBA and Planning Board meetings in terms of trying to move things forward as expedient as possible.
There is no public to hear from so the Chair closes the public hearing.
Chair asks the Board for comments.
Anthony Bartolotta – do we know the reason for the subdivision?
Stephen Selvek – they are subdividing where the storage building is from the main property to sell the building. The individual interested in purchasing this is intending to open a small wood working business. Something light industrial that will meet with the allowed usage of the area.
Chair asks for a motion on to allow the Auburn ZBA to act as Lead Agency for the project at 38-40 York St. Motion made by Anthony Bartolotta, seconded by Brian Halladay. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Other Matters:
Stephen Selvek – there will be a community focus workshop as part of the Comprehensive Plan on January 28, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. in the West Middle cafeteria.
Next meeting is February 3, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. Chair asks for a motion to adjourn. So moved by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Brian Halladay. All members vote approval. Meeting adjourned.
Recorded by Alicia McKeen
| 
