City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 7:30 PM, Memorial City Hall
Present: Frank Reginelli, Allen Zentner, John Breanick, Anne McCarthy, Christopher DeProspero
Absent: Sam Giangreco
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Sr. Planner; Andy Fusco, Corporation Counsel
Absent: Tom Weed, APD; Brian Hicks, Code Enforcement
Acting Chair: John Breanick
Agenda Items: 355-357 Clark St. & 63-65 Belmont Ave; 352 Genesee St.; 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 Court St.
Items Passed: 352 Genesee St.; 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 Court St.
Items Tabled: 355-357 Clark St. & 63-65 Belmont Ave
The Chair calls the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance is recited and roll is called.
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of June 2, 2009
Chair asks for a motion to accept the minutes of June 2, 2009. Christopher DeProspero stated an issue about the curbing on Lexington Ave needed to be added. Motion to approve made by Allen Zentner, seconded by Christopher DeProspero. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair revises the agenda to hear Agenda Item 4 first.
Agenda Item 4: Application for Minor Site Plan Review for the construction of a rear parking area for 13 vehicles adjacent to an existing parking lot located at 1,3,5,7, and 9 Court Street. Applicant: Sam Giacona
Chair invites the applicant or agent to speak.
Sam Giacona – has arranged with the County to move a row of cars adjacent to the site and give access to the rear lot for parking areas behind each building. There will be 2 – 3 spots added for each building. Main County concern is with any increase in drainage. An engineering study has been done by American Group I. The one condition is that there will be no increase in subsequent drainage over what is current.
Chair asks the public for comments. (none) Closes this portion of the public hearing.
Chair asks the Board for comments.
John Breanick – questions who the parking will be for – tenants, visitors, owners, etc.
Sam Giacona – it will depend on what each owner desires.
John Breanick – will it be designated or first come first served?
Sam Giacona – again, it will be up to each individual owner.
Chair asks staff for comments.
Stephen Selvek – this is an unlisted action under SEQR. The short form is there for your review. The applicant has prepared part 1 and a part 2 draft is included. (see attached) Staff recommendation is for a negative declaration on SEQR. Drainage analysis - sumps appear to be adequate and if not drainage will be directed to a catch basin. Be aware of language satisfactory for City approval. Any approval cannot over ride tighter restrictions made by the county. The applicant will need to follow up with the County if the plan is not sufficient for them. Staff recommends approval of the site plan as presented.
Chair asks for a motion for SEQR, negative declaration. So moved by Anthony Bartolotta, seconded by Anne McCarthy. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Application for Major Site Plan Review for the construction of a Tops Market Gas Station, including four fueling pumps, pump canopy, and attendant building along with associated site improvements at 352 Genesee Street. Applicant: Tops Market
Chair invites the owner, applicant or agent to speak.
David Tehan, attorney, introduces other involved members. Here for final approval of a gas service facility. Tops has added 28 facilities throughout NYS. There were some additional action items from the last meeting.
James Trasher – based on comments received the plans were revised to include a photometric plan, granite curbing on Lexington Ave, 8 inch sidewalk around the driveway on Lexington, a sign package. A drainage report has been submitted. Proposed conditions will be an improvement over what is currently there.
Chair invites the public to comment. (none) Closes this portion of the public hearing.
Chair asks the Board for comments. (none)
Chair asks for Staff comments.
Stephen Selvek – the plan has been previously reviewed. Outstanding issue is with signage and the limitation for use and area. In discussion with Mr. Terragnoli he’s decided the most important sighs at this time are the three canopy signs and one sign on the kiosk. Staff recommends approval of the site plan as currently submitted with these four signs. ZBA approval is required if any further signs are desired.
Chair asks for a motion to approve site plan. So moved by Christopher DeProspero, seconded by Allen Zentner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Application for Major Site Plan Review and associated lot merger for the construction of 30 semidetached homes (15 individual structures) and a community building on parcels located at 355-357 Clark Street and 63-65 Belmont Avenue. Applicant: Two Plus Four Construction, Co. Inc.
Chair invites the owner, applicant or agent to speak.
Sue Kimmel – president of 2+4 construction – the project has been previously presented. We are currently in front of the ZBA for a use variance. Due to conflicting information we have an outline of what we are doing (attached). There are no plans at this time to develop the rear 10 acres of this parcel and it is, in fact, for sale. We have discussed concerns with the neighbors and have alleviated these as best as possible.
Chair invites the public to speak.
Karen Brown, Auburn Heights – works and lives at Auburn Heights which is managed my 2+4. Any problems noted in this area have been from outside sources and not the site itself. There have been no internal problems. There is a need for further similar housing. The current waiting list is over 2 years.
John Breanick – questions trash pick up.
Karen Brown – there are 2 dumpster on-site that are emptied weekly by a private collector.
Peter Tortorici, Union St., Legislative representative for District 10 – thinks the issue to be concerned with is the families that have purchased homes in the area because they like the setting & development as it is. There are other issues as we’ve heard. There is a petition against the project with over 130 signatures. Research has been done on the affordable living projects we have in the City that are still not filled, there are vacant apartments throughout the City. My concern is that we are just moving individuals from one complex to another. I don’t think we should be emptying more apartments. We have to listen to the people who are down there. There’s a reason, in the study on here, in the back of the study the developer mentioned ‘Not in my backyard’. That’s why it’s hard to develop these projects. I don’t think we should shut our ears to the people who are living in the area who don’t want the development. There are other places they could go. I have a question
concerning the funding, is it just for inside the City or can it be used outside the City? We have about 11 affordable living housing projects through out the City. If they were filled it would be a different story. We know what not only that the City population is decreasing but so is the County population and I don’t see the need for this project at this time.
Thomas Gregory, Mullen Dr. – looking at this chart, the plan, it looks so condensed for the area it is in in relation to the surrounding area. Concerned about noise levels generated from the area. As it is now I can hear across to Belmont Ave. There will also be a traffic increase. The new street going into the development is too close to Belmont. There are no sidewalks in the area. Big concern is what will happen to the property values with that type of housing development in there. I’m familiar with they clients of Unity House & Homsite and it’s not a criticism but there’s going to be a lot of problems that comes with that when the people are actually living there regardless of what’s been stated already. There may not necessarily be crime but there will be
‘instances’. It will detract from the area.
Dylan Adams, Clark St. – works in Sr. Citizen housing, we have to scramble for every senior that we have. The need for low-income housing, I’ve spoken with several other projects in the City, their average occupancy rate is about 88%. Past meetings it’s been brought up that the owners have the right to sell their property, we are currently trying to put together a package to give them, a counter offer so there would be something there, they would not be left hanging. We, the neighborhood, we are trying to come up with counter ideas and other possibilities for that land. It was also mentioned that Chief Giannotta stated it would have a huge impact on traffic. There is already a huge volume of traffic there. This project will have a huge impact on the quality of life there. I’ve spoken
with several area realtors and there advice is to sell if the project goes through.
Dorothy Kopp, Mullen Dr. – questions if 2+4 is a partnership or full owners of the other sites they manage. I think once they partnership with Homsite it changes the project. It can’t be compared to Auburn Housing; it’s apples & oranges unless they are partners with someone else there. Also has questions concerning SEQR – 57 vehicle trips per hour seems significant. #11 states no impact on aesthetic resources; I have a problem with that. #19 it states no change in growth and character of community or neighborhood, only a change in density and an additional demand for services. Maybe the aesthetic resources cannot be measured but I think our petition is the measurement of aesthetic impact. We don’t want the project, we don’t want to lose the green space, we don’t want to
lose the nature and animals and everything we enjoy in our back yards. I am concerned about the variances and what they entail if someone could explain that. Why are they getting PILOT if this is a development that is supposed to add to the City? There are issues on SEQR concerning services it says there will be no impact on services…
John Breanick – ma’am, this is the Planning Board and SEQR is not under the purview of this Board this time. It is under review by the ZBA.
Dorothy Kopp – we were not allowed to speak at the last ZBA meeting and I wanted to comment on this and get some answers.
Tony Siracusa, Belmont Ave – property is next to the site property. Getting ready to sell home but afraid that with this project the property value will go down. I know in my mind this company has plans for the rest of that lot. And the rest of the lot, next to me, they’re going to make an access road there. Everything is going to change around there. I can hear people across from Canoga Rd., it travels through the woods, there’s going to be a lot of noise, there’s going to be problems. We have nice places down there with many retirees. We’d like to have a nice retirement community in our own homes without all these outside concerns, different homes, different kind of people coming in. Eventually there will be trouble. There are problems already with the low-income families on Belmont Ave.
Nothing against them but they’re hard to control. Traffic is going to be really bad, the Chief of Police said he was very concerned about the traffic at the ZBA meeting. Many people use Clark St. road for their access. These are genuine concerns. I ask for some provision that there will be no access road from/onto Belmont Ave.
Linda Cotter, Belmont Ave – there are many disabled people in the neighborhood, it’s not a young neighborhood, it’s an aging neighborhood with many elderly, elderly people. Many of these people were even unable to attend and they are totally against this. Please take that into consideration.
Kelly Moose, Clark St. – I have the same concerns as everyone else. I question who will be verifying the tenants income and how often will it be done so. Let’s face it, people will try to cheat the system.
Tom Fallichio, Homsite Director – feels compelled to speak tonight. We have a 30+ year history in the City & we’ve done many good projects in the City. We’ve put up new homes and done many rehabs. One of the most successful agencies in bringing in State and Federal money into the City. It’s helped the City tremendously along with many residents, some who may even be here tonight or their relatives. We don’t do it in isolation. We look at the studies the City has commissioned, we have architects, we have engineers, we looked at the site, we use strategic plans. We take a lot of consideration, our agency’s reputation is on the line. When we did the Westlake project we heard a lot of people ask why we were doing that, it’s not going to work. It has turned out to be a very
successful project. The same arguments against single family, income eligible homes was made on the N. Fulton St. project. These people were able to better themselves and add to their homes. In all the history of Homsite there has not been a failure. We’ve partnered with 2+4 on many projects. It’s locally managed, there is a manager there on site, there is a maintenance person there, and there is a double check in Homsite being a partner. If I didn’t believe it would be successful I wouldn’t be behind it. This project will have green initiative, have handicapped accessibility and provisions for special population. The difference in this site is that the project has been funded. The previous applicant was not funded by the State. The State saw merit in this project. To give back a project of 7 million dollars would not only be a blemish for Homsite and the developer but also for the City of Auburn and I don’t think we want
to turn back money in these economic times where someone else can take it and jeopardize our future.
David Kopp, Mullen Dr. – Homsite does a great job but one of the points is that if you drive around Auburn, how many houses are vacant? Why couldn’t this money be spent on existing housing to do something to improve Auburn, not add something new to it because that’s just going to take people from other places creating more vacancies? I guess my key thing is to fix up what we have right now, why do we have to build something new. The other thing is, no one is really in favor of it. So take these funds and fix up Auburn, not build something new.
Carol Brown speaking for Richard Moon, Belmont Ave – concern is that APD is already stretched thin and will have more concerns having to patrol that area. Also, they are using 9.7 acres and no one can say with certainty that the other 7 – 8 will not see another project in there in five years. The reason this property was purchased was for the peace and quiet without vehicles and foot traffic. If this project is allowed to proceed we all lose. Our property values will be diminished greatly and our lifestyles will suffer causing a more stressful atmosphere to live under.
Tom Baran, Belmont Ave – I remember years ago when other projects were stopped because it would overload the sewer systems. At that time I think the parcel still belonged in Aurelius.
John Breanick – I understand they closed the public hearing at the ZBA but you have other avenues like City Council, the Mayor or your representatives and I’ve already gone over the time I said people could speak.
Tom Baran – I’ve said my piece. I’m not for the project.
Marissa Adams, Clark St. – concerned that the project will take away the wildlife and I won’t feel safe when I go out to play.
Barbara Lamphere, Easterly Ave, Vice President of 2+4 - was founder and one time director of Homsite. Most concerned about the reputation of the agency so when I looked to do development I looked for partner that would create and manage a product that would allow me to walk down the street and be proud of the work done in the City. I have found that with 2+4. If you look around the various projects throughout the County you will see they’ve all been well managed and maintained. One comment also, concern about property values. A number of years ago we did a study on the area around the areas of Austin Dr., Standart Woods, Murray Hill Apartments, Auburn Heights and Northbrook Courts and the study was redone years later & we found that the property values went up, permits were taken out for additional
improvements on the properties in that area. The housing developments had no negative impacts on the property values in that area.
Dick Stark, Mullen Dr. – speaking on behalf of an elderly aunt – most of my concerns have previously been mentioned and they are strongly legitimate. I would like to see some potential statistics regarding other developments similar to this that have history of things like criminal trespass, housing evaluation is a big issue we have and things of this nature. I’m not sure they can provide anything like this but it seems to be a reasonable request that - we have these concerns and there should be some history as to other developments of this nature that can provide that kind of information. Speaking on behalf of the community it’s certainly a big concern, it’s a quiet community of mostly elderly folks and we’d like to keep it that way. There are other locations in the City, such
as the old BOCES site.
Chair – asks Board for comments.
Andy Fusco – shall we close the public hearing?
Chair – I have a full page here & I think there will be more questions and in the interest of public clarity I think that we need to keep it open until we vote on it. I feel strongly about that. We have people coming here tonight saying they were closed out at the ZBA and weren’t able to speak there and I don’t know why they were. They had no forum to speak. We should allow the public to be heard.
Andy Fusco – just for the benefit of the record the public was permitted to be heard before the ZBA at the April and May meetings without any restriction whatsoever.
Chair – I feel that since I have a full page of notes I thing the public deserves to be heard – we don’t even have ZBA action and if something comes up between now & then – nothing can get going on this until it’s passed by the ZBA and comes again before this body. I wouldn’t want to see it go any further than that point. I feel we should have kept it under one body instead of splitting it up between us and the ZBA.
Stephen Selvek – unfortunately in regards to the use variance this body has no authority over dealing with a use variance, it has to go before the ZBA. So regardless there would have been at least two boards involved in the review of this project. The ZBA has their purview, this Board has theirs. The purview of this Board is to look specifically at the site plan itself and determine whether or not vehicle traffic, access and circulation, off street parking, storm water run off, water supply, sewage – some of those particular issues were brought up – are adequate, that is the purview of this Board. A lot of the comments from the public tonight were specific to the population which this particular project is served, this Board has no review jurisdiction over the population this project is serving and
therefore those comments should not be addressed by this Board. There were other comments that were brought up specific to noise, traffic, police capacity, potential for future development and sewer issues which are comments that this Board has within their purview to review and comment on. In regards to the public hearing, that, as chair, up to you to decide if you wish to close that but the public has been given ample opportunity at the ZBA on two separate occasions and they have been provided with opportunity tonight. If you wish to maintain it open until the next meeting that’s your choice.
Chair – I do feel that because of the turn out we’ve had we should keep it open at least until the next meeting. I understand there are certain requirements the State has that would affect the developer but I think we should be looking to have more information. I have no plans in front of me or any other changes that may have been made. I don’t know if anyone else brought their stuff but I did not so I don’t feel prepared for this and as the Chair I’m going to leave it open. Asks the Board for comments.
Sue Kimmel – if the Board so chooses I can answer some of these questions as quickly as I can.
Stephen Selvek – reviews some of the concerns from the public.
Sue Kimmel – the funds for this project are given specifically for this project. They cannot be used elsewhere in the City. It was based upon the need, the families being served and the experience of the development team. This is a very competitive process with 30 to 40 projects funded out of 150 applications. If this project does not go forward the funds are returned to the State, they would not stay in the City.
2+4 management if not an owner in any of the current projects in the City, it is strictly a managing agent. They are a partnership of individuals that own those. 2+4 management has no partnership interest. I will say that David Bacon, my partner, is one of the individuals that is a member of that partnership but 2+4 as a company does not have any interest.
Verification of income – it is done annually and upon moving in. It’s verified by the management staff, reviewed by the State of NY and the investment partner. Do we have change in households? Yes we do, a change in household is any new person added, that also constitutes reclassification of the income, there is no grandfathering. If the household changes and the new household exceeds the income limit they must vacate the property, they are no longer qualified to live there.
How is it checked and how often? - it’s a certification that’s filled out on the application to listen all their income and assets then we verify these. Other questions asked for example if someone says they have no income but has a car we ask how they pay for their insurance, gas, etc.
Andy Fusco – I understand that but the suggestion was how do update that and how often, what do you do to keep people from trying to take advantage?
Sue Kimmel – it’s done annually at a minimum or a change in household. Honestly, do people cheat the system? I’d like to say that they don’t but they do. That’s why the other questions I referred to are ways we try to uncover the possibility that perhaps they aren’t reporting it. The only recourse we do have is that is we discover they’ve not been honest they immediately lose their housing and they get black listed to other affordable housing and they lose their ability to go someplace else.
PILOT – at this time there is not a PILOT. There has been some discussion with the City. One thing I will point out is that under NYS law 581A, a real property law, we do not get assessed the same way as a single-family homeowner would. The State recognizes that because of the financial restraints on us we are assessed on an income basis. From that income we get to deduct our required deposits for our capital reserve account and operating reserve account. I’m not sure if we will be asking for a PILOT, however if we do we pay tax on the land just as the City is receiving now. Then the payment would be a fixed amount that would increase over 5 years on top of the property tax.
John Breanick – is the property tax exempt is there is no PILOT?
Sue Kimmel – no, the property will be taxed under 581A. It means the value of the property will be based on the operating income.
Purpose of variance and what is it for.
Stephen Selvek – that variance is specific to the proposed use of the site. While this use would be allowed if the site had been subdivided into 30 separate lots that’s unpractical for the style of development that’s occurring. They’ve instead decided to seek a variance that would allow the 30 units on one lot but they still must maintain the proper set backs, landscaping requirements, etc.
SEQR answers:
Stephen Selvek – with regards to some of the questions asked about the SEQR form. SEQR will be considered by the ZBA, not by this Board. SEQR is very specific and it asks questions that may be misinterpreted or misconstrued. Anything from removal of natural material, which concerns specifically soil, rocks, things of that nature, the grading. This site will be graded and soil moved around but it will not be taken from the site. Re: removing vegetation –it’s clearly stated this will be done – SEQR is looking for the before and after. In this case it’s fully vegetated, ultimately you will have permanently lost vegetation due to streets, sidewalks, driveways. Re: improvements of public utilities – yes they need to provide public utilities on site however there are no improvements required
from the City’s standpoint to allow them to connect into our utilities so that question was properly answered no. Re: traffic, whether or not traffic generated will be significantly above present levels. So yes there’s an increase generated but no it will not be significantly above present levels. Again, Staff has reviewed this and believes it to be correct.
Andy Fusco – is it safe to say that yes answers on the SEQR form are triggered by a significant impact and not just some impact.
Stephen Selvek – both large and significant. The only other issue I have is plans for the remainder of the site.
Sue Kimmel – at this time Lakeland Development will own the back half and we have to plans or thoughts in the works and we definitely would entertain offers for anyone who would be interested in purchasing it. We have to interest in developing or holding it.
Stephen Selvek – re: access from 63-65 Belmont Ave. Currently it shows that lot will be used for sewer and water connection. Are there any plans for a vehicular road at this time?
Sue Kimmel – no. As far as the chair’s question about the dumpsters at the other sites it will be the same situation here, 2 dumpsters picked up weekly at our expense.
John Breanick – questions if sidewalks will be installed.
Sue Kimmel – yes, they will go from Clark St. around the project and back out.
Anthony Bartolotta – questions maintenance.
Sue Kimmel – lawns will be maintained by 2+4. Snow removal for drives and sidewalks will be the responsibility of the tenant and 2+4 will maintain the roadway. Maintenance staff is on call 24/7. One of NY’s requirements is that we have to make monthly deposits into a capital replacement reserve and those deposits sit in a controlled account that can only be accessed with NY’s permission that is meant for new roofs, windows, a/c sleeves, etc. so the money is there when those needs come up. In addition we must also make a deposit to an operating reserve account that is also controlled by the State and it is there for any operating short falls.
John Breanick – questions changes in property lines.
Sue Kimmel – at this point we only have an option so obviously until that option is exercised we have to right to change any lines. Our intention is that once we close and the surveyor is out there marking the boundaries at the same time we would mark the lot lines of Mr. Brooks and Mr. Adams so they can physically see where the lines would be. They will have to cover their own attorney’s fees for the land change but that will be land actually deeded to them and not just a right-of-way.
Frank Reginelli – what would happen in a change of household where the new member had no income?
Sue Kimmel – any addition has to go through the same background checks anyone else would. We are fully aware of when someone new has moved in and we check with that household to have the new person fill out the proper paperwork or eviction proceedings will begin.
Frank Reginelli – will there be room for additional occupancies.
Sue Kimmel – there are 2 and 3 bedroom units. The restriction is 2 people per bedroom so they cannon exceed those limits.
Anne McCarthy – questions occupancy rates at other low-income housing units.
Sue Kimmel – these are different types of housing. It could be different rent structures, different management style, there are so many variables I hate to compare, not knowing if it’s the same comparison. Are these places with vacancies held to the same standards that we hold? Yes, we have had people vacate other premises to move into our units but that just forces these landlords to make improvements their housing conditions to stay competitive with us.
Anne McCarthy – questions the units reserved for homeless families.
Sue Kimmel – the developmentally disabled and the homeless families must still go through the same background and credit checks as everyone else, there are no exceptions. The homeless families are entering into a contract with us for one year. So the intention is that is their home and the reason we have our partnership is that these people may not know how to reach out to the proper service entities they need to help them. Homelessness has so many different faces it’s hard to give a firm definition.
John Breanick – encourages the public to speak with the developers and staff about any concerns they still have. Asks Tom Weed concerning comments allegedly made by Chief Giannotta.
Tom Weed, APD – my discussions with the Chief this morning, he did not bring up any of this points nor has he ever brought them up with me. I will meet with him tomorrow and discuss this with him but this is the first I’ve heard of it.
Andy Fusco – for the benefit of the record the Chief’s comments have been paraphrased tonight by the members of the public. Instead of the members of this Board guessing at what he said they are in the minutes from the meeting and are available on-line.
Allen Zentner – questions if the market studies are available.
Stephen Selvek – they are not available on-line but OPED has copies of the Nova-Grad market study as well as excerpts from the Waverly Group Housing Research Market Study. Also, asks Tom Weed as a member of the DRC, we rely heavily on you in regards to traffic issues so do you have any concerns regarding the vehicular circulation of this project?
Tom Weed – I have no concerns. Certainly there will be an impact but I don’t think it will be a major impact.
John Breanick – asks for any other matters to discuss.
Stephen Selvek – need to table the matter.
Chair asks for a motion to table the matter until next month. Motion made by Allen Zentner, seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Next meeting August 4, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. Motion for adjournment made by Anthony Bartolotta, seconded by Anne McCarthy. All members vote approval. Meeting adjourned.
Recorded by Alicia McKeen
| 
