City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 7:30 PM, Memorial City Hall
Present: Frank Reginelli, Sam Giangreco, John Breanick, Anne McCarthy, Christopher DeProspero
Absent: Allen Zentner
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Sr. Planner; Andy Fusco, Corporation Counsel; Tom Weed, APD; Brian Hicks, Code Enforcement
Acting Chair: John Breanick
Agenda Items: 355-357 Clark St. & 63-65 Belmont Ave; 26 Aurelius Ave; 188 Grant Ave
Items Passed: 355-357 Clark St. & 63-65 Belmont Ave; 26 Aurelius Ave
Items Tabled: 188 Grant Ave
The Chair calls the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance is recited and roll is called.
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of July 7, 2009
Chair asks for a motion to accept the minutes of July 7, 2009. So moved by Anthony Bartolotta, seconded by Christopher DeProspero. 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 moves into the public hearing as it was not closed from the last meeting inviting only those who have not spoken before.
Evelyn Kushaney, Clark St. – concerned about what will be done with about 80 children and where they will stand to wait for the school bus and the streets they will be walking on. I have talked with the school district and they will not come down into that development. I would also like to mention that the property line cuts directly across the end of my driveway where I have my wheelchair ramp. It’s going to put extreme danger on me. I’m also interested in knowing how I’m going to get out of my driveway. If there’s 140 people there & two adults in each building that’s going to put 70 cars there. We have 50 people in the surrounding neighborhood. That’s going to double the traffic that they say has no impact. I’m anxious to know how I’m going to get
out of my driveway. It’s not going to happen, it’s not safe. What’s going to safeguard my driveway. This moves closer to my piece of property every time we hear something about it. I’m interested in these, as yet I’ve heard a lot of talk about what might happen but we have nothing in writing, nothing to secure my safety and I feel my safety is an issue in this.
Dylan Adams, Clark St. – thanks the Board for listening to neighborhood concerns over the past several months.First and foremost I am still adamantly against this project. I don’t believe it is a good fit for our neighborhood both in its size and proximity to our properties. Therefore if this project does come to pass I have some requests for the developers. The first is the entryway and how it is going to directly impact the Kushaneys, I would hope the developer would find a way to alleviate their concerns and give them a little more room, safety and privacy. Secondly I would like to see a vinyl fence around this project to ensure people are not trespassing on our properties, our private individual properties, I would like to continue to have my privacy. I say a vinyl fence because it is low
maintenance and would stand up to some years of use. I would also like to see this fence on a raised berm so that when cars are coming around this project the lights will not be shining into our bedrooms. This project butts up to the backs of most of our houses, the backs of our houses are facing what’s going to be the front of this place. Also, the developers, when we first started this, they said they wanted to be good neighbors and honor and listen to the concerns of the homeowners in terms of if we wanted to buy a little more property to square off or at least give us some more green space, I ask that they honor Steve Brooks’ and my requests to give us a little bit more property in addition to what they already offered, I realize this is going to cost you guys more money but it will help to buffer our properties because we are right on the front of this development. It’s going to affect us more than people in the back. I would like to have a bit more
land to help buffer out properties and give us more control over what’s going to be in our back yards. I installed a pool this year, it’s about 30 feet from their property line, I would like to see that property line extended a little bit more to give us some privacy and allow us the enjoyment of our properties. With that being said thank you for listening.
Terry DeFelice, executive director of Cayuga/Seneca Community Action Agency – I’m here today in support of the project and to talk about the low income families in our community that have few options for affordable housing. The homeless vulnerable population is a population our agency serves and they are increasing every month. They’re at risk because they can no longer afford their rent or they’ve been downsized at work, some have moved in with other family members who then become target for eviction because they have too many people living there. Many of the affordable apartments are owned by landlords who do not take care of the premises and families are living there because they have no choice and they don’t call housing because they don’t know where else they would go. They
aren’t going to turn in the landlord who isn’t taking care of the property. I know often low income people have a bad rep that they aren’t good neighbors or they don’t take care of their properties but that isn’t true. In any section of the population there are people who don’t take care of their things whether they’re rich, poor or in the middle. This housing project is urgently needed, the developers have a history of taking care of properties and being good neighbors and I think you should support this project.
Linda Kottler, Belmont Ave.
Sam Giangreco – I would like to have people who have not spoken before.
Linda Kottler – I am turning in a petition of 147 names. I have a letter from Steve Tardibone who is in real estate who has, as we all know, property values will drop so… (turns in petition and letter).
Mike Jackal, Belmont Ave – a couple questions – has any actually walked the land? There are 15 semi-detached houses plus another building, I live just across the street, there are already 6 semi-detached houses in the area and another apartment building down the street, now this is, there’s barely enough room there, it takes up half the street. You’re talking about doubling or tripling the amount of housing in an area, where I can see, just isn’t adequate enough. If you’re talking about half that amount I can understand but the amount of buildings you’re talking about putting in there I don’t see fitting. I see people on Mullen Dr. have put in a lot of complaints and I’ve read things in the paper and such and I don’t know if anyone has actually walked Belmont
Ave and seen the housing development already there and if you’re talking about doubling that amount into that area which is abutting that directly I just don’t see how they’re going to fit in there and be, as far as adequate roads, adequate, especially in the winter time, we have enough problems on our street cuz our street is a little avenue and if people park on there you can’t even pull out in the streets. If you’re going to have the same similar situation on this area then you’re just asking for a lot of trouble.
Sam Giangreco – David, you’ve spoken before.
David Kopp – yes I’ve spoken before but not since the zoning has been approved. The problem is there’s not that many of us here that can speak now because everyone has spoken. We’ve written letters to everyone and now we’re maxed out – there’s only 20 of us people involved in the whole thing vs. 140 people moving into the neighborhood. You’ve got to look at the plan and realize the size of the plan vs. how many people, it’s way too big. This is too many people in too small an area and you’ve go to look at it that way.
Steven Brooks, Mullen Dr. – people who live in this area are against this development. However since it’s been approved by the Zoning Board people in the neighborhood need to know how it’s going to affect their property lines. A few meetings ago Sue Kimmel stated she was working with my wife and myself about the property lines. This isn’t entirely true. I found out about the new property lines when Dylan Adams brought me a new map showing the new boundaries that were proposed by Susan. At the first meeting between Susan and myself she stated someone would stake out the new lines as soon as possible and if I was not happy with these she would meet with me to discuss them further. That’s not happened. You all see the map. The new property lines being offered are an additional 50x32x77. I’ve taken care of this property for nine years and the owners before me for twelve years. I know this property is not mine however I’ve planted shrubs, maintained it, mowed it and put flowers in that
area. What Susan proposes and I would like are two different things. The new property line is going from the end of my fence diagonally to the back of my shed. This proposed area is 58x32x77. This land, this cuts the land I’ve been maintaining for nine years in half. If at all possible I would like to square up this parcel of land. I’m asking for another 65 feet from the end of my fence straight across up to 58 feet to the end of my shed. Susan has told us that she would do whatever possible to accommodate the neighborhood and make this project an easy transition for everyone. I hope that still stands true.
Grace Siracuse, Belmont Ave – if we are going to have to live with project I’d like a 10 foot fence around the whole project so none of us have to either look at it, it’ll stop some of the noise, it’ll stop a lot of the stuff I don’t want to see.
Chair – closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments.
Stephen Selvek – read letter from Steve Tardibone into the record.
John Breanick – I don’t know when the rules changed concerning the public to be heard but I think anyone out there that wanted to speak should have been able. We have a county legislator here who represents that whole district who’s not allowed to speak as he had previously spoken. I think that is a bad precedence to be setting for this Board. And I put that on you and Steve both.
Sam Giangreco – I understand John but I also know we’ve gone over this for 3 or 4 months now and everyone has had ample opportunity to speak and I’m not detracting that from anybody but I think we’ve given it ample chance and everyone has had a chance to speak.
John Breanick – the change and revision to site plan has been given to us and they may or not be aware of. And seeing as there’s been changes they should be able to address those issues. If not as individuals you should at least allow the legislator and one or two other individuals to address those things. And the developer too. 2+4 didn’t speak at all tonight on this and they should have been able to speak about changes they’re proposing.
Sam Giangreco – what changes are you speaking of specifically?
John Breanick – Steve gave us a number of things on the list tonight that he’s proposed. These are probably confidential items so I probably shouldn’t be reading them out loud, different things that Steve said he had asked the developer to address.
Stephen Selvek – there’s nothing controversial about the changes. Those changes are the result of comments made by the public including the inclusion of sidewalks along Clark St. so there’s a connection from this particular property along the Clark St. r-o-w, the addition of curbing along their section of Clark St. to better define the driveway approach, also included in that was a request for revising some of the plant material, the plans show a buffer on the west side of the driveway and I asked that be repeated on the east side of the driveway as well to help buffer the property to the east. The final changes with regards to the planting materials I’ve requested that the applicant increase the number of types of planting materials. One of the issues we have in the City is an over abundance of
maple trees and in the event there is some type of disease that moves in that affects maple trees probably 75% of the tree stock in the City will be wiped out. As such I asked that the applicant vary the tree species. All those particular things were changed and included in the revised site plan submitted to you for approval.
John Breanick – if when City Council meets they’re proposing a moratorium on sidewalks, if that comes about where does that put this?
Stephen Selvek – that does not change this. This is an agreed upon site plan and the developer is willing and able to put in sidewalks as part of the site plan approval.
John Breanick – and if they choose to balk at it?
Stephen Selvek – if they choose to balk at it they aren’t honoring the site plan at that point and they don’t get their Certificate of Occupancy. I don’t believe by any means that the developer would balk at putting 120 feet of sidewalks in along Clark St. to finish off the area.
John Breanick – they do not, there’s no dimensions on the last page of the map we were given as to the distance that they own there. I don’t believe there’s 120 feet there.
Stephen Selvek – there’s a scale on each of the drawings and that distance is approximately 120 feet give or take a few feet.
John Breanick – I’d like have the developer speak about some of the items that have come up tonight.
Christopher DeProspero – was there any formal traffic study done?
Stephen Selvek – there was not a formal traffic study prepared for this project and the precedent of this Board has been to rely on APD with regards to whether or not there are concerns for significant traffic impacts. In the event APD does indeed feel there is potential for significant traffic impact this Board has often requested the developer then perform a traffic study to alleviate any of those impacts.
Christopher DeProspero – anything with infrastructure either? For public infrastructure, for water and sewer, are we capable of, has there been any study that we’re capable to handle this?
Stephen Selvek – the City Engineer has reviewed these plans and has indicated there is significant capacity in that area. When the sewer and water was done however many years ago and they added the inceptors and things of that nature they had developed significant capacity in that particular area actually for accommodating additional development in Aurelius. This area would also be included as part of that and thereforehas significant capacity. Or adequate, sufficient capacity I should say.
One additional note regarding the water line. The water line does loop into both Clark St. and the end of Belmont. This was requested by the City Engineer to ensure that water pressure for this development was maintained.
Frank Reginelli – have all the answers to the questions that these people proposed to the Board, have they been answered fully so that they may be able to walk out of here at least having some sense of what is really happening?
Sam Giangreco – we’ve had numerous discussions and had opportunities for questions to be answered. I think, there’s opportunities tonight for us to ask the applicant if everything has been met. I’m seeing a list here of things that have some discussion with Steve.
Frank Reginelli – I have no disagreement with what’s been presented by the commissions of the City. It just seems you said these people have had opportunity it seems like every time we have a meeting here there always seems to be additional questions that seem to come up and I’m kind of questioning, in my mind, have they been answered. One, for example, is where one gentleman said that he would like to buy some land, which is fine and dandy, but the question I have is if they want to buy some land how much is it going to cost him? Would the sale of this land be fair to the individual who wants to buy it plus there may be a few others. One of the other things I observed concerning Mrs. Kushaney it seems she’s now saying that property line is much closer to her house than what’s on
the plot plan. I’d like clarification on that.
Stephen Selvek – with regards to that particular property line, that property line does pass within about 4 – 5 feet of that handicapped ramp. With regards to that, that particular area is approximately 120 feet wide. If we were to go ahead and put in a new street in that area, a City street, we would require a 60-foot r-o-w. There’s more than sufficient capacity in that 120 feet to handle that addition r-o-w and provide buffer beyond what is typically associated within many of our City neighborhoods. The issues with regards to the property line I would have to defer to the developer to comment on that. The requirement for this particular project in front of you does not require them to acquire additional land nor to give additional land simply to meet any of the City requirements.
They may indeed, and I have heard that they’ve had discussions with regards to property lines, with providing neighboring properties that were interested in some additional property. What they could, that would not necessarily affect them trying to accomplish their project but I would have to defer to the developer on that particular question.
Frank Reginelli – I have one more questions. The remaining property, in case they decide to sell it or whatever, is there any opportunity for egress to and from?
Stephen Selvek – there are 2 opportunities for egress for that rear portion of the property which I should note will remain zoned single family residential. The use variance does not apply to that additional property. The first egress that does exist right now is off Belmont Ave. The second egress that has potential depending on the type of development that went in there is to go through and connect to the loop that you see on the plans. They’ve left adequate space to allow that if in the future there is a desire to develop that. But as has been stated a number of times there is no intent by this developer for the development of that rear property.
Sue Kimmel, president of 2+4 – Mr. Brooks is correct in that early on in the project we did meet, we did talk to the neighbors about their concerns and in addition with the Kushaney’s with their concern about backing out onto Clark St. If you look at the site plan as it is presented this evening you will see some proposed boundary line changes for Mr. and Mrs. Brooks’ property, Mr. Adams’ property and the Kushaneys’. Right now I believe the Kushaney driveway is encroaching on this parcel. It’s our intention to move their property line and, in addition, to construct a large hammerhead turn around for them to give them the ability to back, turn around and pull out onto Clark St. as opposed to backing completely out. When we originally met we talked about the lot lines, at
that point we did not have ZBA approval, we certainly don’t own the land at this point. It is our intention, should the Board approve the site plan this evening, we do have to have the land staked for the houses, at that time we would stake out where we thought we could give them property without impeding on our grading plan and our storm water. We have no intention to disturb the area they are talking about it’s just that at this point it’s a question of how much. It was our intention to give it to them and not charge them for it. At the same time we have to do subdivision for this particular lot.
John Breanick – on several occasions the people here tonight have brought up that they are looking for fencing or a berm and fencing to sort of make this into a gated community type situation. Would you be willing to do that?
Sue Kimmel – I think we’d be looking to look at some type of fencing. I’m not in favor of a 10 foot fence but it would be something we’d consider doing. Certainly along the back sides of Mullen and Belmont to give them some sense of security along the back side of their properties.
John Breanick – if we were to make this part of the terms and conditions of the site plan would you be willing to do it.
Sue Kimmel – yes
Chair asks for Staff comments.
Stephen Selvek – the petition handed in tonight with 147 names on it states (reads into record). With regards to SEQR the ZBA did conclude the SEQR process by issuing a negative declaration at last Monday’s meeting. Following that the ZBA passed a use variance to allow the proposed project that you have before you tonight. With regards to the request for a fence along the length of the property line I would ask that the Chair first poll the Board to find out if that is actually a request the Board would like to make prior to revising the site plan resolution. The site plan you have before you does meet the criteria set forth in the zoning code. The intent of the site plan review for the Planning Board is really to look at the plans and decide whether or not the following are adequate:
- Locations, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs;
- Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation;
- Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking;
- Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation;
- Adequacy of storm water and drainage facilities;
- Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities;
- Adequacy, type and arrangement of landscaping;
- Adequacy of emergency access and the provision of fire hydrants;
- Adequacy of and impact on structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding or erosion.
There were a couple questions asked by the Board tonight with regard to the water supply as well as I had addressed the vegetation issues before. We discussed vehicular circulation. With regards to storm water management the applicant has prepared a grading and drainage plan as well as a storm water pollution prevention plan as required by NYS DEC. The City Engineer has reviewed the SWPPP and finds it acceptable. The other issues with regards lighting, the site plan does include lighting, they are utilizing dark sky standards which this Board has required in the past which provides minimum lighting amounts and also the use of cut off fixtures to prevent light bleed from one site onto another. It’s staff’s feelings as part of the review, the Design Review Committee including various City departments I’ve
mentioned in the past; Engineering, Code Enforcement, Police and Fire, Corporation Counsel and Planning; that the proposed plan does adequately meet the requirements for site plan approval. It is the recommendation of Staff that the Planning Board approve this site plan as submitted. If there’s any questions by the Board I’ll address those.
Anthony Bartolotta – regarding lighting, will there be back porch lights on the houses?
Bob Vollmer – yes, there will be a small porch light but it won’t be a security/flood type light.
Stephen Selvek – will there be any flood lights used?
Bob Vollmer – just cut off lights at the front of the house, there will be motion detector lights that meet the dark sky requirements. It’s not a blinding light that goes out.
Anthony Bartolotta – what about the baseball field? No lights there?
Bob Vollmer – no
Anthony Bartolotta – question on the garden area. If the even no tenants plant a garden what will become of this space?
Sue Kimmel – that space, when we’re done developing will be grassed over and will be there if the tenants should want to start a garden then we’ll till it at that point. It will be natural lawn until requested to be used.
John Breanick – as far as the children, is there going to be a central pick up area for the children where the school bus will stop, how is that going to be addressed?
Stephen Selvek – the pick up for this particular site will likely be at the corner of Clark St. and this driveway, the driveway is a private road into a residential area.
John Breanick – has the developer proposed any type of a PILOT? How is this property going to be taxed?
Stephen Selvek – as of right now there is no proposal for PILOT. This particular property is assessed and taxed based on NYS regulations which require that the taxation be based on the income approach meaning that we need to document on a yearly basis what their income is and tax accordingly. It’s a common valuation used for commercial properties. There have been discussions about the potential for a PILOT, in the event that a PILOT did move forward the applicant has indicated they would be proposing the PILOT at or above what their typical yearly taxing requirements would be and although this may sound odd it’s simply because it does make their book keeping a lot easier.
John Breanick – how about the police and fire protection, are they going to have private fire and police protection?
Stephen Selvek – the City of Auburn will be going through and taking care of fire and police protection much as it does for many of the apartment complexes we have within the City.
Chair – let’s poll the members concerning a fence
John Breanick – there’s talk of a berm being under that also. I believe the limit in the City is for a 6 foot fence. With a berm it could possibly get a little higher so it wouldn’t intrude on people’s privacy.
Stephen Selvek – I would ask John what it is he would like to see and we can poll the Board based on that.
John Breanick – a 3 foot berm with a 6 foot fence, type to be determined.
Anne McCarthy – around the whole development?
John Breanick – yes, wherever there would be neighborhood houses.
Frank Reginelli – as long as there is a fence in everyone’s back yard.
Stephen Selvek – so the proposal would be for a 3 foot berm with a fence along the property line, a fence that is 6 foot tall and type to be determined. I would as the Chair poll the Board and decide whether that is a request they want to include in the site plan resolution.
Frank Reginelli – agrees
John Breanick – agrees
Christopher DeProspero – agrees
Frank Reginelli – one question, speaking of the fence and the property lines, I’ve been through there many times and that piece of property lines, they are very close to the Kushaneys’, it’s only about 10 feet away, is there anything that can be done so they can have a little relief from having that fence so close?
Sue Kimmel – I guess, maybe Steve can help me, my only concern is that we all walk away with something we can all live with and agree to and not something that has to keep being talked about. My only caution would be the grading plan. The fact that the SWPPP has been completed and approved by the City Engineer and as long as I can work within the grades, if I can bring it 3 feet my way I will but those are my limitations. At this point I hesitate to commit to anything if that’s going to impede the storm water plan.
Frank Reginelli – that’s understandable and acceptable.
Stephen Selvek – with regards to the fence and berm
Frank Reginelli – excuse me, we talked about what type of fence, could you make it let it be know right now what type of fence would be put in there?
Greg Lane, represents the developer – I just want to raise a couple issues the Board should consider on behalf of the neighbors regarding the fence. If the fence is going to be on the property line and it’s at the height I’m hearing discussed, we’re going from trying to provide for the neighbors a forever wild, as vegetative as much as possible back drop to the property lines to them looking at a fence. I don’t know that they want that, I could be wrong. On the other hand if the fence is moved on the other side of where the forever wild, buffer area would be, now we’re cutting off the owner’s access to that portion of their property to maintain it. We’re in a situation know where the owner cannot go in and maintain their property and keep it clean and that won’t make the neighbors happy either. They may go in and clean it themselves but it’s not their property and it would create a liability issue also. I think the Board should consider and with the neighbors in mind what exactly
kind of situation will be created by this fence condition.
Anne McCarthy – what exactly is the purpose of the fence?
John Breanick – to provide for privacy, lighting, noise, distractions.
Anne McCarthy – what type of fence will decrease the noise?
Frank Reginelli – this is something I’ve been trying to find out. A solid fence would be acceptable. 6 feet adequate.
Stephen Selvek – cautions the Board in asking for a fence to buffer something such as noise as well as lighting for a residential to residential development. The proposed development is in keeping with the development in that area. These are duplex style homes, it’s not a large single multi story apartment complex nor is it a commercial property that would produce noise above and beyond what’s acceptable within a residential district. With regards to the lighting, as was stated the lighting is minimized to meet dark sky standards such that the lighting will not bleed onto the neighboring properties.
John Breanick – regarding the amount of foot traffic that already goes through the property there is one more reason I tend to agree that there should be some type of fencing to protect the neighbors from outside foot traffic.
Stephen Selvek – so there is existing foot traffic there that’s occurring now.
John Breanick – Mrs. Rigby said that at the very first public meeting we had on this.
Frank Reginelli – if I’m not mistaken a fence was discussed before, that they would be happy to put in a fence, so therefore I think there should be some questioning as to why type of fence will go there.
Stephen Selvek – I have no issues with the Board discussing a fence, my concern primarily from a community development standpoint is to go through and start requiring we fence in residential developments is a poor planning decision. The development that is there does go through and is similar to what’s existing there right now. The vast majority of us, when we have our own homes if we wish for privacy or to prevent people from cutting through, we fence our lots. To me it’s a question the Board should be asking themselves as to the appropriateness of requiring a fence along this entire development.
Greg Lane – Mr. Chairman, one aspect that my client and I spoke about that would help with this situation with the neighbors concern about trespassing would be to include in the standard lease form that tenants should use the dedicated ingress and egress ways on and off the property and that it would be an event of default under the lease and subject the tenant to eviction if found to be in violation.
Anthony Bartolotta – how much of a buffer are we talking about? With the existing trees.
John Breanick – they said 50 feet.
Greg Lane – explains areas on the map, inaudible on recording.
Stephen Selvek – that particular drop on the west side of the property based on the grading is approximately 10 feet from the existing property lines on Mullen Dr. It would have to be graded in such a way that it slopes off approximately 10 feet so the properties, this particular development would be 10 feet lower than most of the back yards in that section of the development.
Anne McCarthy – questions the berm and fence.
Stephen Selvek – from the stand point of this development a fence along the property line on the City boundary would effectively start 10 foot above the grade on a berm 3 feet above that with a fence 6 feet above that so if you’re standing next to one of these houses along that western loop then you are looking at a 13 foot hill with 6 feet of fence on top of that.
John Breanick – refers to Kinney Drugs on State St. The neighbor had a concern with lights flashing into his house.
Andy Fusco – and Steve spoke to that, trying to create separations and buffers from a commercial use to a residential use or from and industrial area to a residential area is good planning. Buffering different types of uses from other types of uses, whether it be for light or trespassing or whatever, that’s consistent with good planning. What you’re asking, John, is to fence people from other people, residences from residences. Do we require a fence around Melone Village or Standart Woods. You probably know the City better than I but I’m trying to think of other areas in the City where we’ve fenced humans from other humans as opposed to stores from houses, or industry from houses, I think that’s what Steve was trying to say when he talked about the propriety of using fencing for
various reasons and whether it makes for good planning or not. We’ve heard tonight from the residents we’ve heard in the past, there are some other duplexes in this area, there are other apartments and there are a lot of single-family homes, the essence of what’s being proposed here is a residence so I think we have to ask ourselves philosophically and legally, if you impose to build a wall around this place now the City, if they say we’re not going to do that, then we’re going to get involved in litigation and the court is going to be asked to determine if that was reasonable or was it arbitrary and capricious as a response to try to placate people who might not be happy. Some of the residents here will walk out unhappy no matter what happens. Some may be satisfied by certain trade offs, others may not, I don’t know but when a Board is making difficult decisions like this and this is the toughest one we’ve had to make that I know of, you
can’t look at that side of the room and try to please them, you can’t look at that side of the room and try to please them, you have to look to yourself and do what is reasonable. That is the standard of law. If whatever you decide tonight has a reasonable basis and you can reasonably defend it then it will probably stand in a court of law. If what we’re doing though is an attempt to curry favor or try to bring people together why may never be together then that’s not what you should do. Look to yourselves in making your decision. Look to what you think is reasonable based on the neighborhoods you live in, based on the neighborhoods you see around the community and as to why people away from other people.
John Breanick – if you look to have the berm and the fence in that area it provides privacy and security for both people. The people that are outside the area and people inside it. If I choose to sunbathe outside and not have my neighbors look at me I can do it. If I choose to not want to have the neighbors’ dog coming over in my yard it does it. It provides privacy…
Andy Fusco – and that’s a good point. But as the homeowner you have the right to erect your own fence. What’s happening here though is a different question. Now we’re asking government to impose upon you the obligation to put up a fence. You may not want to put up a fence for whatever reason. And the difference is as a private landowner if you want to put up a fence, you’ve got a right. But you are doing that as a private property owner. The difference here is government imposing conditions on private property owners so there’s not quite an analogous situation to your own house.
Sue Kimmel – if I could just point something out the 3 foot berm is not possible on the Mullen side of the property, there isn’t enough area to be able to grade it up enough to create a 3 foot berm. So that’s another concern that I have that a condition you place on the entire parcel may not physically be achievable.
Anthony Bartolotta – as a trade off maybe, I’d rather see more existing trees left. Maybe some more plantings on the Mullen side if that’s a compromise. I don’t know how else you would try to put a fence without getting rid of the trees.
John Breanick – what are the depths in the back there at Mullen Dr. from there to the property line.
Sue Kimmel – description of drop off and grading - inaudible on recording.
Stephen Selvek – in regards to the east side of the porpty along Belmont there is a proposed drainge swale along that section to go through and intercept runoff and bring it to the storm water management area. What that will also do is interecept additional storm water run off that may be presently running from the Belmont properties onto this site. Ultimately a berm in that area would a) probably complicate the storm water drainage, additionally it would actually probably no longer allow any of the storm water to run from Belmont onto this property. That in and of itself could worsen or complicate the storm water drainage situation.
John Breanick – since we’re dealing with residents of Auburn and Aurelius what is their fence height requirement, if we could come to a compromise as to seeing a berm and a 6 foot fence.
Stephen Selvek – I don’t know what the fence requirements are for Aurelius. (answer from crowd) 8 foot.
John Breanick – we can compromise by saying sections in the adjacent township would go to the allowable height.
Andy Fusco – will any of this land buying be in Aurelius? (No) So all of the fence is going to be in Auburn.
Frank Reginelli – point of clarification. When we got talking about the fence the reasoning is – as far as that I would accept a 6-foot. The thing I question is what can you do for these people? Can you put in a fence for privacy for them. That question hasn’t been answered.
Sue Kimmel – we would be willing to put in a 6 foot vinyl fence around the perimeter of the entire property.
Frank Reginelli – and if any person has a hardship with this would you consult with them to see what would be best for both parties.
Sue Kimmel – we certainly want to be good neighbors, we’ve tried from the very beginning. My counsel has brought up some good issues, there’s some maintenance issues, we certainly don’t want to put up a fence then have the neighbors calling and complaining that the one foot strip on the other side is overgrown, has got weeds, it will create – the further we come off our property line it will create a larger hardship for maintaining it.
Frank Reginelli – in the City of Auburn people who put up a fence can it go right on the property line?
Stephen Selvek – if I’m not mistaken it can go right up to the property line.
Brian Hicks – clarifies
John Breanick – Brian, isn’t it also a fact that in the City and if you have to go over and clear debris or whatever on the other side that may be on the other person’s property by rights, by common-law rights you are allowed to do that so the developer can go over and clear anything that may be on the neighbor’s property. But there’s going to be a berm on that so that will automatically be there property anyway right?
Andy Fusco – you don’t have the right to go on anyone else’s land unless the allow you to.
John Breanick – unfortunately APD has informed me differently.
Andy Fusco – if your neighbor is willing to let you then it’s not a problem. But the question I believe was posed is do you have the absolute right to go over on someone else’s land when they may not want you and the answer to that is no.
Stephen Selvek – I do want to clarify for the Board that the applicant has indicated they are willing to put up a fence along the property line. It’s my concern as a planner for the City that that is a bad precedent to start setting along residential developments. The other residential developments we have approved along Prospect St. in both instances we did not require the developer install fencing along those.
John Breanick – where Prospect Pointe development is there is a fence.
Andy Fusco – yes, on the Grant Ave side, but that is consistent to what Steve said earlier where there is being created a buffer between a commercial and a residential area. The sides of Prospect Pointe that faces other residential houses don’t have fences.
Stephen Selvek – this isn’t a matter of trying to convince the developer to try to do something this is a matter of me as a planner for the city trying to convince the Board that a fence is a poor idea so you can get mad at me and not the developer.
John Breanick – there are places in Florida that literally build a brick fence around residential areas there, very large developments at that, much larger than this. And that provides privacy for the people inside as well as for the neighbors and they’ve gone to a push cart thing to get in and out of the gated community.
Stephen Selvek – and there are a number of places outside of Auburn and generally outside of upstate NY that use gated communities as common practice. This is not a common practice in Auburn nor in upstate NY.
Peter Tortorici – inaudible
Sam Giangreco – the public to be heard has been closed but I do understand your concerns, let me make a comment here. This has gone on for months and months, it’s very difficult for both sides, I think we can all agree to that but I get a direct sense here of cooperation that seems to loom over the entire proceedings the entire time and I need to reiterate on what Counsel and Steve said earlier it’s our job as the Planning Board to tweak the process here and we cannot let our own feelings in the middle of this. And I understand that we are all homeowners and the consequences of developments are however I’ve heard positive comments for the most part. I just wanted to say that. We’ve got to bring this to some sort of closure and hopefully that will occur tonight.
Frank Reginelli – asks Stephen Selvek to describe the Article 78 process.
Stephen Selvek – defers to Counsel.
Andy Fusco - Article 78 is the lawsuit action that can result from either party who walks out of this meeting tonight and thinks that we acted capriciously or arbitrarily. Anybody who is aggrieved by the decision of a municipal board has the right to have that decision heard by a court of law, it’s a form of appeal. It’s the article 78 writ of certiorari where a judge has to decided, based upon the minutes, the comments, the give and take, the impositions of the Board, what various condition imposed, if you turn it down or approve it outright perhaps to the detriment of the neighbors. Anybody aggrieved by any aspect of whatever this Board decides tonight has the right to have that reviewed in a court of law by a judge and the mechanism for it, it’s a law suit, it’s called Article 78 as it’s section 7800 under the NY Civil Procedure Laws and Rules. It would have to be brought within 30 days.
Stephen Selvek – the question would be for clarification based on what the developer has said, the indication that putting a berm in would be difficult. As to whether or not the Board would like to see a 6-foot vinyl fence up to the property line erected around the property in accordance with City codes. I guess that’s a pretty quick yes or no to that.
John Breanick – we’re looking at up to the part of the distances of the part they’re going to leave forever wild is going to be on their side
Stephen Selvek – the potential that I see with that is complication to not only the installation of a fence as was stated given a 10-foot grade differential on the west side but also potential for property maintenance issues. I would begin by polling the board for that specific request and is that request does not go through we can negotiate again. Again that was a 6-foot vinyl privacy fence up to the property line along the property as allowed by the City code. And if the board finds it acceptable to include that we will include that in the resolution but I think that it’s a fair compromise between the request for berming an additional height above grade for a fence and the erection of a fence as allowed by City code.
Frank Reginelli – can we put the term vinyl fence in there?
Stephen Selvek – yes
Sam Giangreco – polls Board
Anthony Bartolotta – if the developer is willing then yes but I would also, I don’t know how you’d be able to get both the natural existing trees in there to buffer and the fence, I don’t know if that’s a possibility, I don’t know. I’d rather see the buffer.
Stephen Selvek – one of the things is going to do is require the removal of trees for the installation. So, in places wehere there is natural buffering
Andy Fusco – on the Belmont side, to fence it, if the rendering in the photographs are accurate, it’s going to require the removal of some natural trees, etc. It looks to me. On the Mullen side the erection of a fence seems to be rather easy. It’s far more sparce between Mullen and the subject property than it is between Belmont and the site. One of the things though, there was a question if any one had been down there, yes, I went down there twice. The type of brush in there is not really what you’d think of as a forest. It’s low depending where you’re looking. Some of the tree growth is more mature and greener and other of it is…I went all the way down.
John Breanick – I thought it called for a 25 foot set back here.
Stephen Selvek – there’s a required 25 foot set back for the buildings themselves
John Breanick – 25 foot set back is demarcated for the buffer here so if they put it the other side of the 25 foot, look at the last pages of the drawings, clearly states 25 foot set back
Stephen Selvek – again that 25 foot set back does not indicate a buffer line but indicates the required set back for that particular zoning jurisdiction.
Frank Reginelli – from the property line?
Stephen Selvek – from the property line. The buildings can’t be built within that 25 feet. And again, staff recommendation is against the erection of a fence.
Anne – no
Chris – no
Frank Reginelli – how would the proposal read
Stephen Selvek – the proposal was for a 6 foot fence to be erected up to the property line. Again, that would be a vinyl fence to comply with city code.
Frank Reginelli – yes
John Breanick – yes
Sam Giangreco – would like to comment before casting vote. I understand the privacy idea. I do agree with Steve that establishing a precedent on this is not the correct thing to do. I wouldn’t want to give the project the persona of a prison yard. That’s my take on it. I believe that more vegetation could be accomplished, I think that the proposal of vegetation is pretty good but maybe we could tweak that up a bit more, that would be more acceptable to everyone in the long distance when you’re going to be looking at it. Personally I wouldn’t want to be looking at a fence all the time so therefore I vote no.
Andy Fusco – so therefore we’re deadlocked at 3 – 3. May I suggest the following. What Planning Boards have the ability to do is to ask the developer to be very specific right down to what tree goes where, what type of bush goes where, it’s difficult for me looking at the developer’s rendering here to see exactly what kind of brush they’re going to put, what kind of site buffers, are they going to be evergreens, those kinds of things. Since it appears we’re deadlocked on the issue of a fence, sensitivity to satisfy the visual and privacy concerns of the residents seem to have impressed nearly half of this Board. I suggest to asking the developer to agree to an adjournment and come back with a drawing that shows exactly what they are going to put where and when and that if
we have to do that on less than a one month basis to satisfy a schedule then we’ll do that. One other suggestion, I think I heard Mr. Bartolotta say before, noting the vegetation of the Mullen Dr. side is rather sparce, what we’d be willing to do in lieu of a fence as I really don’t think you need a fence, is to additional plantings in along Mullen. If you were to agree to that instead of a fence would that be something the Board would want to consider? I think it’s all a kind of thing where we’re on the fence, but they all fell about the same way, all of these people, all 6 members, want you to address the concerns of screening and privacy that the people have. Come back to us with a plan that says what you are going to do, it may be a fence along Mullen because of topography with a combination of some plantings, and it might be more mature plantings or evergreens along Belmont because there’s more room and there are woods already there.
Those are design questions that you’re asked to contemplate often in your job. Come back to us with a plan where we can look at something where we can all agree.
Greg Lane – if we were to do something like that what I think would be productive and helpful for us and the Board is if we could caucus with one of the Board members on the ZBA, the Planning Board and with Steve to really look it over and come up with a plan to make it workable from all angles.
Andy Fusco – as long as you don’t have a quorum I’m happy.
Greg Lane – that’s something we would request instead rather than us taking a shot in the dark maybe it would be a lot more productive.
Stephen Selvek – a discussion was brought up about plantings along the property line to serve as the buffering. An approval can be made contingent upon the submittal of a revised landscape plan that shows sufficient buffering along both the Mullen Dr. property line and the Belmont side property line. This can be accomplished through plantings of dense evergreens, they can go through and provide a series of evergreen trees whether they be pines, spruces, etc. planted in accordance with the requirements for those plants typically spaced anywhere from 25 to 30 feet apart and to require something of that nature. My big concern, I knew that the developer is running up against time frames from the stand point the State has imposed and I’m not sure adjourning this particular plan, which is a good plan, is
necessarily going to make a world of difference if we can have this discussion open here and come to an agerement so I ask for comments from the Board for the potential of approving the site plan with the contingency of submitting a revised landscape plan showing sufficient screening along both property lines.
Frank Reginelli – once the developer gives you a plan and it’s acceptable and they are not in compliance then the Zoning inspector won’t issue a Certificate of Occupancy.
Stephen Selvek – a CO will only be issued once they’ve met all the requirements of the site plan. The decision is up to the Board to move forward contingent on submittal of a revised planting plan or to ask the developer to resubmit the planting plan and come before this Board in a timely manner.
Frank Reginelli – reasons why I asked Mr. Fusco about the Article 78 is because either party can walk out unhappy and submit an Article 78. Regardless of what’s going to happen, chances are the developer would win on this because the City of Auburn has gone through the entire process and made everything as legitimists and code compliance as possible. And it’s up to us and what’s happening here we’re arbitrating back and forth because of shrubbery. Now is this reasonable to argue back and forth on shrubbery for another month? I don’t think so.
Andy Fusco – I’m never going to disagree with your opinion, you have a right to it. I agree with the aspect that anybody who’s disappointed at the outcome tonight can leave here and sue us, that’s true. I don’t want to diminish the importance of arguing things like shrubbery, because that’s what we do. That’s what the Design Review Committee looks at all the time. Trying to screen uses to protect the concerns of the neighbors, that’s important stuff. So it’s not like we’re getting hung up on minutia, we’re getting hung up on something I think is important.
Frank Reginelli – what I’m suggesting is the developer bring in a plan that would be acceptable and if it’s not acceptable we can make an addendum to the permit that they do not get their CO.
Andy Fusco – and I think that’s consistent with what Steve just recommended, that the approval be conditioned accordingly.
John Breanick – still thinks fence is the best idea, it’s straight forward, clean, to a give height. I’ve got some neighbors that have evergreens that the previous 2 owners of the house were kept at an appropriate level. Some of these evergreens can grow 25 feet and they don’t take care of them. 6 foot fence is a 6 foot fence.
Frank Reginelli – but that’s a dead issue as the Board could not decide one way or the other.
Stephen Selvek – the fence did not have support, a majority support for this Board
Frank Reginelli – yes, so it’s dead.
Anthony Bartolotta – could there be a compromise, maybe a fence on the Mullen Dr. side and additional greenery to the other side?
Sam Giangreco – the fence issue is a dead issue since we came to a 3-3 deadlock so that’s out of the question. What we’re faced with here is are we going to potentially have a motion to adopt the site plan with the modification of greenage and that’s what it comes down to. In other words if we decide to approve or disapprove, if it’s approved it’s contingent on their modification with the greenery.
Stephen Selvek – let me clarify, when I talk about greenery which is sufficient I will be referring back to the code with regards to buffering, which is something this Board has the ability to adjust, requiring that, the way the code sets it up, 40 plant units be provided per every 100 feet of property line. 40 plant units mean 4 shade trees, which would not be sufficient for screening, 8 evergreen trees which would be sufficient for screening, or a whole series of shrubs which would just be impractical at that point. So that’s what I will be comparing that plan to to make sure, based on our code, they have met our code feels is sufficient screening between a duplex style building and a single family residential property. And this will be along the entire length regardless if it backs up to single family,
duplex or a multi-unit building.
Frank Reginelli – can the issue of the fencing be reopened and revoted upon?
Stephen Selvek – it could be, I don’t see why not.
John Breanick – I’ll make a motion
Andy Fusco – if you act tonight the answer would be no, if you don’t act then yes.
Anne McCarthy – are you saying years down the road can a fence be put on?
Frank Reginelli – no, because here we can’t come to an agreement of what’s going on. There are parties that like the fencing, fencing has been offered by the developers and here we’ve got, I don’t mean to be intrusive but I say put in the vinyl fence. But here’s the whole thing if we vote on tonight we can’t. This means we have to go one month further down the road so therefore we’re locked in discussing how we want to do the shrubbery.
Sam Giangreco – I believe it comes down to this, is there a motion to adopt the site plan resolution for approval with the modification to greenage?
Frank Reginelli – just one other question. Suppose we do vote and accept the greenery could the developers to have the opportunity to come in and request the vinyl in place of the greenery?
Andy Fusco – if at the end of the day something occurs where, for unseeable or undesirable reasons, they don’t want to develp something on the paper we’re approving tonight they have the ability to come in on notice to ask for amendments. As long as the change is substantial. Insubstantial changes generally we don’t micromanage, the don’t come back to us.
Frank Reginelli – we make that proposal
Sam Giangreco – making the motion?
Frank Reginelli – yeah, making the motion for greenery with the abilities for the land developer to come back in and apply for a variance for a fence if they wish.
Sam Giangreco – all right, motion made by Frank Reginelli, is there a second?
Stephen Selvek – what that motion is right now is approval of the site plan contingent upon the applicant submitting an acceptable planting plan that meets with the requirements of the type A buffering along their side property lines which requires they install 40 plant units for every 100 linear feet of frontage. 8 evergreens or a mixture of evergreens and shrubs. To be reviewed by Staff.
John Breanick – can any type of a barber be put in there to prevent foot traffic? Barber plant, with thorns, a briar patch.
Frank Reginelli – I wouldn’t
Stephen Selvek – the code does allow them to, it gives them flexibility of what they install, there’s the potential to install something with thorns, I don’t know that we’ve required that generally in the past
Frank Reginelli – I don’t think I’d propose that just for the reason there’s a liability factor involved.
Christopher DeProspero – if we vote yes are we moving the project forward?
Stephen Selvek – yes
Anne McCarthy – seconds the motion.
John Breanick – questions the comment of ‘standing water’ on the Belmont St. side portrayed on the plans.
Stephen Selvek – that’s an existing condition in that area,
John Breanick – they’re making a pond there?
Stephen Selvek – no, it’s an existing condition that needs to be rectified by the storm water management. It’s my understanding that right now water gathers in the low area, the grading plan will go ahead and address that and allow the additional water to flow towards the storm water retention pond.
Vote is called. Christopher DeProspero and John Breanick vote no. All other members vote yes. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: PUBLIC HEARING: Application for Minor Subdivision Review for the subdivision of a parcel of land located at 26 Aurelius Avenue into two commercial lots. Applicant: Robert Barry for RPM Properties, LLC.
Chair asks the applicant or agent to speak.
Robert Barry – this is an industrial complex with three buildings. The building on the west side is newer, the other two buildings have been there about 100 years. The complex houses a number of different businesses. The owner desires to divide the property to sell to those businesses. The set back needs to be 20 feet rather than 12 feet and we’ve agreed to relocate the line to the west to give the required 20 feet set back along that area.
Chair asks for comments from the public. No comments. Closes the public hearing.
Chair asks for comments from the Board. No comments.
Chair asks for comments from Staff.
Stephen Selvek – unlisted action under SEQR. Subdivision plat will be revised with the result of this Board’s approval. The current property line is 12 feet off in some places and the requirement is 20 feet. Instead of going to the ZBA the applicant decided to move that property line to meet the minimal requirements. The draft resolution indicates the approval is contingent upon submittal of a revised subdivision plat reflecting the required 20 foot set back. This Board is the only agency involved in the review of this project and therefore can move forward on SEQR review. It is an unlisted action, the applicant has prepared the short form EAF, I have drafted answers for the Board’s consideration to part 2 of the EAF. I noted under C1 this is a minor subdivision not requiring infrastructure
or physical alterations of any kind therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. That particular line of logic applies to C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5. Staff recommendation is for a negative declaration under SEQR and then approval of the subdivision plot plan contingent on submission of the revised plot plan showing the property line located to meet that 20 foot set back.
Chair asks for a motion on SEQR, negative declaration. So moved by John Breanick, seconded by Anne McCarthy. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion for approval of the subdivision with the aforementioned contingencies. So moved by John Breanick, seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Presentation and sketch plan review for the construction of two new buildings, additions to the existing Fox Toyota building, and associated site improvements at 188 Grant Avenue. Applicant: Raymond Scruton of Zausmer, Frisch, Scruton Architectural.
Chair asks for the applicant or agent to speak.
Raymond Scruton – planning to modify the existing sales building modifying the front and erecting an addition to the side, remove and replace the wash building in the back and adding a new maintenance building off to the side. The existing building is not conforming. We want to square off the front of the building and add a new wash building on current cleared land. We will apply for the required variances.
Andy Fusco – questions access to the school for functions and emergency access.
Raymond Scruton – the easement is still there
Stephen Selvek – the issue needs to be addressed. The school does own an L-shaped property that bisects Fox Toyota. We’ll need clarification of this. We have two conflicting maps showing ownership.
Raymond Scruton – new to me also. The survey was just done last month.
Andy Fusco – we needed to alert you to this issue.
Stephen Selvek – for this project both buildings are main buildings and do not meet the required setbacks and will need ZBA action. SEQR is coordinated with ZBA. Resolution requests that the Planning Board declare itself as lead agency to begin SEQR review. We will ask the applicant to begin revising their plans. Some addition info is required such as landscaping, drainage, grading, lighting. Concerns with vehicular circulation patters especially at the east side where ownership is in contention. I have 2 surveys with conflicting information and it will take some to resolve this particular issue that we will just need to work through. Recommends the Planning Board act as lead.
Motion for the Planning Board to act as lead agency for SEQR made by John Breanick, seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Next meeting September 1, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. Motion for adjournment made by John Breanick, seconded by Anne McCarthy. All members vote approval. Meeting adjourned.
Clark St. petition 8 4 09.pdf
SteveTardibone letter 8 4 09.pdf
Recorded by Alicia McKeen
| 
