City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, May 16, 2011, 6:30 pm, Memorial City Hall
Present: Frank Reginelli, Anne McCarthy, Sam Giangreco, Christopher DeProspero, Anthony Bartolotta
Absent: Crystal Cosentino
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Planning and Community Development Program Manager; John Rossi, Corporation Counsel; Brian Hicks, Code Enforcement
Agenda Items: 174 York St.
The Chair calls the meeting to order. The Pledge of allegiance is recited. Roll is called.
Agenda Item 1: 174 York Street . Application for Major Site Plan Review for the construction of a 16,000 SF commercial facility, to house offices and a truck maintenance garage, and associated site improvements. Applicant: PBMM Enterprise, LLC.
Chair opens the public hearing and asks for comments from the public.
Matt Gumeris, Sugarman Law Firm – since last meeting TDK overlayed the map showing the underground antennae with their site plan. There are 2 major concerns, the first is there has already been a substantial amount of fill added to the site which has changed the drainage of the site. This fill is also over some of the underground antennae. The 2nd is the plan for the future of this site. It looks as though there used to be a ridge on the site that is now tilted back toward the radio station now causing the entire property to drain toward the radio station. There is some drainage construction in the lower left of the site that directly interfere with the antennae. Similarly there is a road proposed over the antennae which is also a problem. We are unclear what the applicant plans to do, if anything, to rectify these problems.
They have indicated they would work with us and we are willing to discuss any proposals that will work.
Larry Saladay – has maintained property last 8 – 10 years. Property has become steadily wetter over the last few years especially in the spring and fall, always in the upper left corner of the site. Water has backed up past the tower. Unable to properly maintain property due to water. Water used to drain toward the front of the building in the lower left corner and then toward the east into the City drainage system. The fill that has been added is pushing the water toward the west and not allowing it to get to the drainage system. The City did put in a drainage pipe but it is too high to work properly. Sluiceway to the north needs to be cleaned out to allow drainage also.
Craig Fox – station owner since 1998, station has been there since 1933. *Explains working of AM radio system.* For best performance the ground radials should not be covered any more than necessary. Increased fill on top decreases performance of the signals and upsets the balance of these signals. Over time these do become deteriorated and/or break. In the past we have been able to access the site for maintenance. Lately we have been unable to get to the tower to perform maintenance. This station sends out the emergency broadcast system so it is important that we are able to maintain the signal coverage we are supposed to and be able to access the tower. We are concerned about the radials and the drainage. *Distributes pictures or areas concerned.* Has spoken with City Sewer/Water and Engineering.
Rudy Zona, RZ engineering, consulting on storm water drainage – most comments have already been stated by others. Has not seen the SWPPP yet and would like to see that. Sketch plan does not indicate matters of concern. Fill has been pushed over to where the tower is and this matter needs to be resolved. We need to come up with a mutually beneficial solution.
John Rossi – questions Matt Gumeris – has looked over some of the presented material and it’s obvious there is an easement between your client and the subject property. It appears the issues are directly related to the easement itself which is a civil matter between the involved parties as opposed to a municipal matter here.
Matt Gumeris – it could become a civil matter should the project progress. Hoping to head that off.
John Rossi – my next question is whether or not you’ve spoken with the owners of the Vitale property to try to alleviate this situation.
Matt Gumeris – we have spoken a bit. They provided their map and our engineers have given their report on it. They have just received that report so have been unable to respond.
John Rossi – so it is not adversarial at this point. There may be some accommodation you could both reach. I am viewing this as an enforcement of your easement which has existed for a number of years.
Matt Gumeris – yes, the municipal side would be dealing with the fill issue. They did put a lot of fill on the property before moving through this process which has caused a problem.
Chair – closes the public hearing and asks for project update from the applicant.
Jasan Kantak, TDK Engineers – there are 2 main issues of the radial antennae and the drainage. I will address the drainage issues. We have Rudy’s report and we don’t disagree with about everything there. In all our defenses, Rudy has not had access to the more intense design drawings showing more detail than the currently available site/sketch plans. Regarding the drainage on site, the proposed parking lot will be an inverted crown which means that from property line to property line all that drainage is forced inward through the on-site storm water management system through a system of four bays into the storm water detention area to be released at a pre-development rate. The contours Rudy looked at are very difficult to read until getting in the actual design drawings where the true grade points are. This site is
very flat without a lot of relief especially in the northwest corner. The storm water management report and the design drawings will reflect the inwards draining. We are detaining it, treating it, filtering it and discharging it at pre-developed rates. The 2nd thing is that we did some research and went west on York St. There is a series of headwalls and culverts along the area which are all choked off blocking drainage of the entire area. We have proposed a pipe and swale to go from the mutual property corner to the east to drain the area. We have also co-ordinated this with McFarland-Johnson who is doing the York St. redevelopment. *Distributes and explains map GD-1*. We think we have the drainage issues corrected at this time on the proposed design plans.
John Rossi – questions the fill and how it affects the drainage
Jason Kantak – the topol we have is 1.5 years old. It is currently not graded the way we propose. Now that our design is finished that all needs to be regarded. I don’t know that it has changed it significantly. This property has always drained from the southeast to the northwest. The fill is continuing to do that. The fill will be regarded to drain in the direction we need it to go in accordance with our storm water report.
Frank Reginelli – there isn’t going to be complete drainage?
Jason Kantak – we will be collecting nearly all of our drainage. We believe our proposal will alleviate most if not all problems.
Steve Selvek – SWPPP has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. He agrees with the methodologies for handling the storm water management at the site itself. That’s not to say there isn’t a pre-existing condition on the radio tower property. As stated there were two culverts to drain water from the south side to the north side of the road. Those culverts have been rendered unusable by overgrowth. The City has installed a temporary culvert to help alleviate that problem but unfortunately it has been installed improperly and the water is unable to drain. The City Engineer has been made aware and is looking into it. This proposal, in regards to collection of the storm water run-off on the Vitale site will reduce the amount of water flowing from their site onto the neighboring property. Again that doesn’t
necessarily address the existing issue there with the standing water at the radio tower itself and the fact that has become worse over the past few years. I’m not entirely convinced it’s a direct result of the fill on the Vitale site but it’s clearly has become an issue. I think a lot of it has to do with the reduced efficiency of the existing culverts and that is a City maintenance issue under City code.
General discussion.
Steve Selvek – drainage plan calculations are based on the pre-fill conditions and will be mitigated to pre-fill conditions.
General discussion continues.
Anne McCarthy – questions estimated time to complete work
Jason Kantak – about one month
Thomas Baroody, works with Ben Vitale – even though there’s a pre-existing condition the drainage in inadequate and we will continue to work to appease everyone and do improvements on a property that really has nothing to do with what we are doing. The property in question is 99% handling its own water. The only water that will flow off is what’s on the slopes. As far as the radials the FCC requires yearly proofing and we would like to view the last 3 years of proofing. We’ve also found that the average covering over radials is 1 – 4 feet. We don’t want a problem with the radials but we also don’t want to be held responsible for a problems with a system that is over 80 years old and is already deteriorated through normal wear and tear. Explains possible addition of mesh system.
Craig Fox – annual proofing is only required of direction stations and this is a non-directional station. We are required to not interfere with other stations. We routinely spot measure the signal strength and that has not changed much. The radials really cannot be cover by over 1 foot of fill. The deeper the radials are buried the more loss of signal transfer there is. This facility is federally regulated and must be maintained as licensed. The concern is that any adjustments would change what we are licensed as and we cannot just change it at will.
Anthony Bartolotta – questions if easement can be developed.
John Rossi – it can be developed to the point that it does not interfere with the rights of the holder of said easement.
Sam Giangreco – appreciates views but we are here tonight to adopt the site plan. It seems more communication is needed between both sides and issues seem to be very fixable if communication does take place.
Anthony Bartolotta – questions exactly what will be voted on
Steve Selvek – the site plan. The easement is an issue between the individuals involved. The Board looks only at the site plan to be sure it conforms to City ordinance. Recommendation of staff is to approve the site plan as submitted as it satisfies the requirements of the City.
Craig Fox – understands that the easement is separate from the drainage. Drainage must be addressed no matter what.
Steve Selvek – correct and the plans submitted denote that. The applicant has done due diligence regarding the drainage. There are contingencies in the resolution per the City Engineer. He want to ensure drainage and grading are done according to plan.
John Rossi – if the Board has reservations as the situation currently exists then table until the differences are resolved.
Matt Gumeris – the plan was put together when the radials were an unknown quantity.
General discussion.
John Rossi – this comes back to the easement which is not under purview of the City.
Chair suggests a recess while both parties discuss resolutions.
Chair resumes meeting.
Sam Giangreco – we are entertaining the site plan only, not the easement
Steve Selvek – questions if resolution has be reached
Ben Vitale – the parties have agreed to a few alterations and will write up an agreement
John Rossi – we can add some verbiage to the resolution that everyone will agree with such as the resolution being subject to site modification agreed upon by both parties.
Steve Selvek – and to be reviewed by the City. Motion as set forth in the resolution here noting that this is a contingency that was there last time with regards to the wall-pak lighting shielded as necessary to prevent light spillage, there photometric plan does not show any light spillage however in response to a concern to a neighbor I want to be sure that is clear in the resolution then there’s the site verification that post development elevations are as shown in the ? and the grading plan and finally the submission of an agreed upon resolution and modification to the site plan by both parties for review by the City Engineer.
Chair asks for a motion with current two contingencies plus additional as just stated. So moved by Frank Reginelli, seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair – next meeting is June 7, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Motion for adjournment. So moved by Frank Reginelli, seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. Meeting adjourned.
| 
