City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, September 1, 2009 6:30 PM, Memorial City Hall
Present: Frank Reginelli, Allen Zentner, Anne McCarthy, Sam Giangreco
Absent: John Breanick, Anthony Bartolotta, Christopher DeProspero
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Sr. Planner; Andy Fusco, Corporation Counsel
Absent: Ed LaDouce, Code Enforcement (late)
Agenda Items: 34 Gaylord St., 13 Arterial East, 188 Grant Ave SEQR review
Items Passed: 188 Grant Ave SEQR
Items Tabled: 34 Gaylord St., 13 Arterial East
The Chair calls the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance is recited and roll is called.
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of August 4, 2009
Steve Selvek - as I understand it one or more Board members had an issue with receiving the minutes and didn't have a chance to review them in their entirety so I ask that we table that until next month and give the Board members an ample opportunity to review the minutes and bring them back for approval next month.
Agenda Item 2: PUBLIC HEARING: Application for a special use permit for home occupation for a tattoo studio to be located at 34 Gaylord Street. Applicant: Katherine Taylor.
Chair invites the applicant or agent to speak.
Katherine Taylor, 34 Gaylord St. - I've been doing this as a hobby since the beginning of June. I tattoo, I started with my friends, just as a hobby out of the back office of my home on the first floor. I found I need a home occupancy permit as it's not one of the listed items that don't require one. So I need a special permit so I can charge for my services instead of doing it for free. It's by appointment only, maybe 10 clients per week, that's about what I do now.
Chair opens the Public Hearing.
Bob Hunter, 33 Gaylord St. - distributes petition to Board and staff. We received the letter from OPED last week and since that time there has been considerable opposition voiced from the neighborhood. These petitions state the negativity towards it brought here tonight so you'd have an idea of what's going on in the neighborhood. For the most part they are the residents/owners living within the 400 foot radius of her property. The other packet is, when I received the letter I checked with Codes and it was suggested I contact the County Health Dept. concerning licensing, permits or certificates needed to run a tattoo establishment. The City does not have any registration structure for this. The County Health Dept. does not have any regulations in place for this either. I was put in contact with
the State Office and spoke with Rosemary Oswald. Hands out regulations sent by State office. The State also does not have consistent regulations in place, NYC has regulations and several other counties have regulations but Cayuga County does not have any process for this. Once the applicant applied for this permission stated she said she had 2 off street parking places but if you look at the maps on the last page of the hand out it shows there isn’t. This applicant was also before the Board to annex property at the rear to enlarge her parcel. The lot is 28.23 feet wide and the driveway next to her house is not hers, it belongs to the property to the rear of her site. I think she is possibly disqualified by not having off-street parking available which is apparently required by Code.
Chad Marsh, 25 Gaylord St. – voices opposition to project. Does not discourage anyone trying to do a sole proprietorship out of their home but with this and the occurrences going on in this neighborhood, especially this residence, there have been multiple parties here. We are all there within 1 or 2 houses of the property. There was a problem about a month ago where there was a party there and one of the party goers tried to steal a motorcycle next door. There have been other occurrences there that discourage me from accepting this as one of the neighbors because there have been other problems, numerous parties, loud noises at night. This has created issues around the area and I feel that opening a tattoo parlor there will only make it worse. I own 2 small businesses myself and she mentioned only doing possibly 10
clients a week, the issue that comes up with that is that over time if she decides to advertise, once she gets granted that permission, that business can expand and expand. Anyone going into business and starting to make money will want to expand and my issue is that as it grows, not having the parking and being in such a local community like that, I feel that will hinder a lot of the neighbors in the area. Parking gets tight as it is now. It’s all on street parking so adding anything will affect everyone.
Katherine Taylor – as for parking, I can only tattoo one person at a time so it will only be one parking spot. The parties, I’d not heard about a motor vehicle being stolen, I did have a room-mate who is now gone due to problems with him. My sister is now my room-mate. I’ve not had any parties in over a month and that has nothing to do with my business anyway, they aren’t my tattoo clients so I don’t think that’s relevant. My tattoo business is not going to have anything to do with my social life. As far as parking it is one person at a time. Off street parking, honestly, I thought the application meant off-street parking and there are 2 places directly in front of my house. So, I misread that. I know I don’t have a drive way I didn’t mean to – that was my
mistake. It’s public parking, people can park wherever they want, I always have 2 spots open in front of my house. Again, this is something I’ve been doing as a hobby anyway, nothing is going to change except now I can start charging. And I can only see about ten people a week, it’s a matter of my time. Traffic in and out of my house is not going to change, it’s during the day time hours so partying isn’t going to be a concern. As far as health regulations I spoke with everyone I thought was necessary, I realize there are health code violations to consider, I’m doing everything by the book. I consulted with other tattoo artists for advice. There are no code regulations for shops either. And this isn’t a parlor really, it’s by appointment only at certain hours of the day. I had no idea there was a petition going around. I wish I’d been able to go door to door and try to explain. I’m not opening a parlor, I’m not opening a store front, it’s the same thing I’ve been doing but I can
charge for it now.
Andy Fusco – is not the sale of a tattoo a sales taxable event?
Katherine Taylor – yes, I would be paying taxes.
Andy Fusco – did you not read the application that said there would be no retail sales on the premises?
Katherine Taylor – it’s not retail sales. I looked that up, there’s no merchandise.
Andy Fusco – well it’s a good.
Katherine Taylor – it’s a service.
Andy Fusco – is it sales taxable?
Katherine Taylor – I’m not sure if it is, if so I’d be required to pay obviously.
Andy Fusco – I think it’s sales taxable. I’d direct the members of the Board that it’s the intention of the home occupation section of the law to not have retail sales take place at the home occupation. And that seems to be, when you look on your list of examples in the Code, what distinguishes those they recommend as allowable and those which are not. I can research that particular question, whether the sale of a tattoo is a sales taxable event.
Katherine Taylor – I spoke with many people and no one was quite sure what to tell me.
Chair – asks for any further questions.
Frank Reginelli – asks applicant if she owns the property (yes).
Chair – closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments.
Frank Reginelli – do you consider this to be a hardship case?
Katherine Taylor – yes, would like to charge for the service.
Frank Reginelli – asks projection of growth
Katherine Taylor – cannot do any more than I am doing now.
Frank Reginelli – asks if she does anything other than tattooing.
Katherine Taylor – Lia Sophia parties in the evenings.
Anne McCarthy – evening hours are listed on the application
Katherine Taylor – I wasn’t sure what you were looking for but will go with what you say.
Anne McCarthy – questions parking
Katherine Taylor – does not have a driveway, parking is on the street.
Frank Reginelli – drove by property, both sides seem congested with parking
Anne McCarthy – also drove by property. Was actually a tractor trailer cab parked there today, other days there has been many cars parked along the street. Asks if there will be signs, extra lights (no).
Chair asks for staff comments.
Stephen Selvek – when looking at a home occupation there are a couple things we need to go through. First, this is an action that requires SEQR. The part 1 on the SEQR form is enclosed. Before that I’ll go through some of the concerns. First the parking issue and second the expansion of the business. Our primary concern is making sure that home occupation is in keeping with the residential character of that neighborhood. There’s a series of requirements that have to be met for a home occupation. One, that it’s conducted in the home by a resident of that home. That is satisfied. That the space utilized for that home occupation is not greater than 500 square feet. The application states the space used will be 150 square feet so that is satisfied. The home occupation will not alter the exterior
appearance of the home. She is not seeking to put a store front in so that particular requirement is satisfied as well. We go from there into a couple other things, one being an identification sign and she has indicated that there will not be a sign installed. There are no outside storage or displays. One of the requirements is to provide off street parking, this will have to be dealt with probably by the ZBA. With that said, this Board would have to refer this matter to the ZBA to determine whether or not they would be willing to grant a variance for off street parking as this particular property does not have that. With regards to the expansion of the business this Board also has the ability to put additional regulations on a special use permit which may limit the hours of operation, days of operation, things of that nature, so that this does not become a tattoo parlor as is seen downtown. The Board does have a certain level of discretion when it comes to issuing a special
use permit. Before we get to that the primary concern is the parking and the way the Code is set up if off street parking is not provided this Board cannot issue a special use permit. The Board has two options, based on this deny the special use permit which doesn’t get anyone anywhere since once she goes to the ZBA she will be back here anyway if a variance is granted or to table the matter and refer to the ZBA to look at the parking regulations. This is the key thing that has to be satisfied before this Board can move forward. Going back to SEQR, because an area variance is required now we have to coordinate the environmental review with the ZBA. My recommendation is for this Board to declare themselves lead agency under SEQR. As Corporation Counsel mentioned earlier there is a concern with the idea of retail sales being done, what we will do over the next month is look at that for a better determination. In looking at some of these other things allowed I would
guess it’s a sales taxable service.
Andy Fusco – I think the inference of the local law is that the retail sale does not occur on premise. I don’t know how that came to be part of the application it’s very clear although it’s only best implied in law. You’re allowed to make the goods but not sell them on site. I will take the time to research it as desired. As a matter of law in this instance I think her plan precludes this from being a home occupation due to the nature of the business.
Stephen Selvek – I think with that the Board does need an additional month to have that particular question answered and to move this application forward to the ZBA if, indeed, it can be. I would still like to have this Board declare itself lead agency for SEQR while these questions are being answered. If it proves that tattoo studio does constitute retail sales there are other options the applicant can follow but we will deal with that if and when needed. Staff recommendation is approval of the resolution for lead agency for environmental review and to table this matter until it goes before the ZBA for the parking issue as well as pending determination concerning the issue of retail sales.
Motion to table made by Anne McCarthy, seconded by Allen Zentner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Application for Minor Site Plan Review for proposed parking lot reconstruction and improvements associated with the completed renovations to an existing building located at 13 Arterial East. Applicant: Joseph Calarco
Stephen Selvek – presents plan as Mr. Calarco could not be present. Some background, you will find three different copies of site plans. The first one is the original site plan approved in August 2005. That was approved in house for parking lot renovations although I do not know why it was approved in house vs. coming to this Board. What has happened is the applicant has had difficulty in working with NYS DOT for approval for this work as DOT approval is required for this section of roadway. The applicant is coming to this Board to have a revised plan approved by this Board. This is the proper channel this should go through. The revised plan was submitted and a letter sent to the applicant with concerns about the plan including the treatment of certain areas not identified, the paving, the landscaping, the
need to repair sidewalks, the need to repair/replace the driveway approach and relocation of parking in one area. The issue the applicant is having is that the old site plan shows the existing curb cut is not located where it is shown on the plan. The applicant never had any intention to move the curb cut. The new site plan clearly identifies the existing curb cut & the other thing this new plan does is eliminate the required landscaping to the northeast corner. The applicant had intended to use the required landscaping but for some reason was left out. The Board does have the ability to compromise on that landscaping. I’ve shown a 6 ft landscaping buffer where he had eliminated it and he is going to ask that it be eliminated completely. I can provide the Board with some direction but what I’m asking is what does the Board feel comfortable compromising and what improvements you’d like to see at this site. If the Board is happy with what I’ve provided so
far I will continue to move forward with that. That corner is a main concern at this time. His concern is parking spot one and area for snow storage. Tonight I am looking for comments from the Board.
General discussion on the site plan.
Stephen Selvek – is there support from the Board to continue to push him to include some portion of the required green space? (yes) I will bring that up with the applicant and let him know if he seeks otherwise he risks being denied. This is a new plan and he continues to bring forth new changes and this is before the Board so that he will know what he will be held accountable for on that site.
My direction to the applicant based on what I’m hearing tonight is that the Board does want to see the required landscaping and buffers along the street frontage and if he would like differently it will be up to him to convince the Board otherwise.
I ask the Board to table this until next month pending appearance by the applicant.
Chair asks for a motion table. So moved by Anne McCarthy, seconded by Allen Zentner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Other Matters
Item 1: SEQRA 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.
Stephen Selvek – last month this Board declared themselves lead agency for SEQR review of this applicant. ZBA has concurred with that so this Board will decide on SEQR for this project. Reviews plans for site. I have prepared answers to Part 2 of the EAF. We need to conclude SEQR review before the ZBA can consider the area variance. Reviews EAF. Recommendation is for a negative declaration on SEQR allowing us to move forward with review the merits of the project and to afford the ZBA to move forward with their review of the required rear set back requirements.
Motion for a negative declaration made by Anne McCarthy, seconded by Allen Zentner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Item 2: Presentation and sketch plan review for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a new office building located at 84 York Street. Applicant: Suburban Propane.
Chair invites the applicant or agent to speak.
Matt Vredenburgh with EDR – proposing removing 1 story office building and building a 1 story office building adjacent. Will use old building while new one is being built then demolish the old building. Will install vegetative buffer between existing residents to the west and site property. Currently asphalt along front. Spoken with Bill Lupien and discussed widening of York St. project & how it will effect this project which will be minimal. The right of way will not be expanded. Sidewalk will be installed. 3 curb cuts proposed but will be working with design engineer to reduce to 2. 1 cut will be in the area of the existing office building to be demolished and the other to the west adjacent to the vegetative buffer. Reviews circulation pattern.
Stephen Selvek – this is a sketch plan review and am seeking any concerns or comments from the Board. There is ongoing work to define the treatment of the front of this property.
General discussion of site plan.
Stephen Selvek – once a formal application is in hand the applicant will return to update the Board with any changes and begin to move through the review process. In regards to SEQR no other agencies are foreseen at this time that will be involved in the review but that may change in the future but this Board will be taking on the environmental review for this project.
Item 3: City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan update
Stephen Selvek – process is beginning to draw to an end. To finalize within the next couple weeks, the consultants will be releasing a draft comprehensive plan open for review, comment, editing, etc. The plan is based on input from the Comprehensive Planning Committee, an ad-hoc committee of 14 members representing various entities of the City and residents and businesses, etc. There have been at least 4 public meetings to gather public input. This Board has the authority to review, comment and ultimately to recommend approval of the plan to the City Council. Over the next couple meetings copies of the draft will be given to the Board for review. Comments will be returned to the consultant for a final draft that will be presented to the Council.
Next meeting October 6, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. Motion for adjournment made by Allen Zentner, seconded by Anne McCarthy. All members vote approval. Meeting adjourned.
Recorded by Alicia McKeen
| 
