City of Auburn, NY - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 2/13/2007

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 2/13/2007


	ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Members Present: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta (came in late) Mr. Rejman Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Attorney for City Mr. Selvek Mr. Hicks Officer Weed APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 115 Austin Drive 70 N. Fulton Street 114 Clark Street 355-357 Clark Street Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have: 115 Austin Drive 70 N. Fulton Street 114 Clark Street 355-357 Clark Street First of all, any additions or corrections to the minutes of the last meeting. If not, they will stand and typed. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to speak about the proposed Walgreen’s? That item was pulled did not want anyone sitting waiting for that. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 115 Austin Drive, R-1 zoning district. Sue and Rich Valentino, applicants. 2’1” side yard area variance to erect a 568.8 square foot addition to the rear of the house. ___________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 115 Austin Drive, are you here? Please approach the podium, use the mike and tell us your name. Mr. Elice: Anthony Elice, I am going to be the contractor on this project. We submitted the application with the drawings. Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there. Mr. Elice: This is a ranch home and the house is just a little too small for the family and they want to put an addition of 12 x 47 across the back of the house and which would enlarge the kitchen, the entry way off the garage, a bigger dining room, right now they can’t entertain their family when they have family get togethers, master bedroom is small, bathroom is small, they would also be enlarged, it will 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 across the back, the addition. Mr. Rejman: I saw you carry up some additional information, do you want to pass that out? Mr. Elice: Yes, I do (passes out to the board). Mr. Rejman: This is very helpful. This is one of our infamous small Auburn lots. Mr. Darrow: Odd shaped, wedged shaped. Mr. Elice: The side of the house that is encroaching, if you look at the aerial photograph, it shows the property belongs to the Auburn School District, it is undeveloped that goes to the back of the Quarry I believe. Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the Board? This really cleared it up. Is there any one wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Final call for questions from the board. None, close the public portion, have a seat and we will discuss this. Mr. Darrow: This is self-explanatory. The packet was very well put together, the blue prints and drawings give an exact picture of what is going to be created and like I mentioned earlier it is an odd shaped lot, being somewhat of a wedged pie shaped and they are trying to stay true to the left side of the house without jogging in and creating an irregularity which would sacrifice some of the master bedroom space. It is not a huge variance that they are looking for 2 feet 1 inch. Mr. Rejman: And we are dealing with a neighbor, the Auburn School District, I am sure they are a pretty good neighbor. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Sue and Rich Valentino, of 115 Austin Drive, a 2 foot 1 inch side yard variance for the purpose of erecting an addition on the rear of the house as submitted in plot plan, to be 47 feet 4 inches x 12 feet 0 inches. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Mrs. Valentino: Thank you very much. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 70 N. Fulton Street. R1A zoning district. Christopher Pedley, applicant. Area variance for front yard parking. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 70 N. Fulton Street, are you here? Hi, state your name for the record. Mr. Pedley: My name is Chris Pedley, owner of 70 N. Fulton Street. Mr. Rejman: OK, Chris, tell us what you want to do there. Mr. Pedley: Trying to apply for a new driveway on the north side of the house. I have made a lot of improvements to the property and I am looking for a safe way to park my vehicle. If anyone knows that neighborhood that is a very, very busy intersection. There have been a lot of accidents there and it is very unsafe to park my vehicle, I have a full size truck. I brought a picture, if you would like to see it, of my truck parked in the road and I also have a letter from my neighbor who adjoins my property stating he has no objection. I have brought the actual survey map, made a copy and I did measurements and some pictures. Ms. Marteney: Very nice, very helpful. Mr. Rejman: Yes, we would like to see the pictures, pass them around. What we have here for the audience is 70 N. Fulton Street is an application for a front yard parking, due to the fact that the width of the lot is 33 feet and had some questions about the set backs from the sidewalk. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, we will come back to the board. Mr. Darrow: I have had time to review this and he did give us additional information, which was requested, the plot plan and the photos are very helpful. When you look at it you can honestly see the head on photo where it really doesn’t appear that that much of his vehicle is parking in front of the house as submitted. My major concern would that any of the truck at some time is not backed into this exact same position blocking the sidewalk, being so close to the sidewalk and one of our members had observed on several occasions the sidewalk being blocked. That is my only concern at this time only. Mr. Westlake: What he is saying is that truck has to be backed in all the time; the sidewalk can’t be blocked at any time. Mr. Pedley: Once I get the concrete in it should be no problem. There is a snow bank there and I will make sure it is cleared out. Mr. Baroody: I have been by there several times, I say that 75% of the time I have been by, your truck or the little Honda have been into the sidewalk 2 or 3 feet, I don’t mean just the bumper. You have 19 feet between the sidewalk and the house, it is tight. It is a safety concern. I live on Franklin Street. Mr. Pedley: Yes, I think you know the neighborhood. What happened was the truck it is a large truck and if I can get it off the road, people there are always running the stop sign, there is a lot of traffic. My grandparents lived there for years, cars side swiped. The house on the corner is a drug house and there are cars in and out of there 24 hours a day. I am looking to prevent hit and runs. I have a small child that lives with me, I care about the neighborhood. My neighbor wrote a letter in support of this. I think it would add value to the house and the neighborhood, I have done a lot of work on the house and the neighborhood has turned around. Mr. Rejman: Ok, any further questions from the board? No, close the public portion any discussion? Mr. Westlake: I just want to make it plain that neither vehicle should be across the sidewalk, that also is a safety issue. We are not giving you a variance to block the sidewalk. Mr. Pedley: You have my word that it will not block the sidewalk. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Christopher Pedley of 70 N. Fulton Street, an area variance for the purpose of creating a driveway on the north side of his property as submitted in plot plan not to encroach upon the front of the house any more than what is submitted. Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Mr. Pedley: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 114 Clark Street. C zoning district. Mark Butarro/Taro Manufacturing, applicant. Area variances for 26’ rear yard setback required 30’ and 46’ rear buffer of the required 50’. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 114 Clark Street, are you here? Please state your name for the record. Mr. Butarro: Mark Butarro, 407 N. Seward Avenue. Mr. Rejman: You are looking for an area variance of 26 feet on the rear and 46 feet of the buffer. Mr. Butarro: This involves 114 Clark Street, I am Vice President of the company and we are looking for a variance on the back line basically for a 70 foot x 58 foot expansion to the building. We recently acquired a mold from Mexico City, moved it up here. Most of the equipment that we will have will go in the front section and this is more for the section in back. We are probably going to have 38% more product line than we have now. Probably put 3 or 4 more people on. Right now we are cramped, we need the space. Ms. Marteney: What do you make? Mr. Butarro: We make distributors and rotors for the automotive market. Back in 1999 we had added a small addition in the back there probably 56 feet x 50 or 60 feet, something like that. The way the line is in the back it is angled coming off that corner. So basically we are following that line of the building go out and bring it closer to that back line. We are probably 10 or 11 feet from the existing building now and by the time we get the project built it will be about 4 feet to the line. Mr. Darrow: That is straight out the back, is that right? Mr. Butarro: Right, the existing building on that part is 56 feet, we are going to add on. Mr. Darrow: So off the back the addition is gong to run off towards the east? Mr. Butarro: Right. Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Come back to the board. Any questions from the board? Every body feel comfortable? OK, we will close the public portion and discuss this and make a decision. Mr. Butarro: Thank you. Mr. Rejman; Comments? Mr. Darrow: It is a smaller lot over all when you look at it in the large scale. There have been several additions; I can understand why he would want it in the back, further from the road, not taking up a lot of his parking. The property when you look at it for this large of an addition probably is the best-suited area. Also we have no neighbors Mr. Rejman: Neighborhood impact. Mr. Darrow: Exactly. It has been there. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Taro Manufacturing Inc., of 114 Clark Street, the applicant is requesting two area variances of 3,920 square foot addition to the rear of the structure: 1. A 26 square foot rear yard set back of the required 30 feet; and 2. A 46-foot rear buffer of the required 50-foot buffer. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: The application has been approved. Mr. Butarro: Thank you very much. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 355-357 Clark Street and 63-65 Belmont Avenue. R1 zoning district. Berry First Family Limited Trust, applicant. Use variance for an adult care facility/commercial use. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: The next application we are going to start right from scratch again. Mr. Lane: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the board, my name is Greg Lane, I am representing DePaul, who is the applicant here for a use variance to use up to 10 acres or less than 10 acres of the site which is the subject of the application as a 60 bed adult care facility. I believe the City Zoning Code talks about a congregate care facility in an R1 district which is a use not permitted in an R-1 district. In addition to my appearance here on behalf of the applicant, I just want to introduce some of the other folks who are here, I am joined by Rick Galbatto from the Karpinski, Stapleton and Galbatto Law Firm here in Auburn, Lori Didio, who is the Executive Director of the Evergreen facility in Weedsport, which will actually be replaced by this project when it is built. Gary Smith from Parrone Engineering who are the site engineers for the project. I also do want to thank the members of the board for coming out for a special meeting tonight, I know it is going to be one of our most challenging weather nights of the year and thank you again for spending one of your evenings here with us for this. The way I want to present this application because obviously we have some interested neighbors here, etc.; I would like to describe a little about the project first just to set up the way to prove the hardship and justification for the variance we are seeking. Then I am going to also address in a little more specificity some of things that we are doing with the project to hopefully address some concerns I am sure we will hear from the members of the public, so they can hear me on the record saying what we are planning on doing and what we are willing to do. Then I am going to ask Lori Didio to speak a bit about what the actual use under the variance will be of this property when the project is built and lastly if necessary Gary Smith can talk about some of the engineering, I know we are not in front of the Planning Board here, but Gary will be available to discuss any other site issues. Like I said this will be a 60-bed adult care facility which is intended to replace DePaul’s existing facility in Weedsport. It is located currently as planned on the extreme or the southerly end of the parcel that DePaul has under contract which is the subject of the application and it is occupying as planned right now 8.5 acres and the use we are asking for is only for the area that would accommodate the project. We have an application currently with the City to subdivide the property or re-subdivide the property to split up as a separate parcel and leave the remainder of the site undisturbed with an R1 designation zoning. As our application for the use variance points out this land as it exits in its current state has remained that way I believe since at least the early 1980’s when the Berry Family attempted to develop it as a subdivision. It was actually formerly in the Town of Aurelius and was annexed by the City of Auburn in 1986 by Local Law, and in fact when it was in the Town of Aurelius it was zoned Commercial and was used in a commercial manner as a greenhouse operation which is consistent with many of the other commercial uses in the area here. When the City enacted the Local Law to annex the property the law was passed and it is in the application material, said that the zoning of the property will be consist with the adjacent property in the City and it just so happened that those properties are R1, a lot of pre-existing uses which non-conforming or pre-existing, but the zoning right now is primarily of a R1 nature. The City was very interested in seeing the development of single-family homes here. There were high hopes for the property; unfortunately the mid to late 80’s saw a significant deflation in the value of residential projects. A lot of projects went unfinished, this one actually never even got off the ground despite significant investment by the owners in planning, in plotting out the property. Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s there were repeated attempts to sell the property to single family home developers to develop joint ventures with single family home developers, numerous letters in our application materials of a thanks but no thanks nature from developers in the area. They just could not make the site development costs match up with what the return on the lot value would be. Thus we have a purchase contract with DePaul to buy this property and to develop it in the manner that we are seeking a variance for. Also it should be noted that the use that we are seeking to put here is of a residential nature, the use if forbidden in a R5 district in the City. I point that out by means of illustrating what we are seeking the minimal relief available not only in terms of what the project area would be but in terms of what the use of the property would be. I don’t want to turn this into a planning session, but I do want to point out as I am telling you about the 8.5 acre development, right now we have shown on the southern portion of this property, please understand that the reason why we have more property in the contract is that the seller does not want to sell this off piece meal, they want to sell everything in one kit and caboodle. We want to build this facility, we want to build it here, I will say it again on the record, this section of the City makes this project available for grant programs sponsored by the Department of Housing and Community Renewal and makes this project feasible. It is not a blanket project area throughout the City so it fits that purpose for it. If there was 8.5-acre parcel and that was all we needed that is all that we would buy, however we have to buy more. We plan to keep the rest of the property R1 undisturbed and to sell it, that is why we are going with a re-subdivision. Long winded way of letting the board know that I know that there are many neighbors here that enjoy the undisturbed nature, this is a very densely grown with various trees and shrubbery, etc. There are some neighbors that I have spoken to who from time to time have actually were interested in buying some of the land, if they are interested in buying some of our land, we are happy to sell it to them. It is going to be them or somebody else. I think the City, I am assuming the City will be cooperative during the re-subdivision process to however we can develop this so that everybody is satisfied in terms of buffering of where we are locating this project. We will locate it assuming it doesn’t significantly impact what our project costs would be and I don’t think it would. We are open minded and willing to do and discuss and obviously that is through the planning process. How this will be situated, what kind of screening we would be using, etc. There are some concerns that I have heard about, drainage on site, it is very wet for many months of the year on the over all topographical plan here is that the high ground in the south eastern corner of the property and runs up towards the outlet in a north easterly fashion, right now our sanitary and storm, we have a retention pond factored into the project, a lift station actually moves liquid up the hill to Clark Street. We intend to seek an easement or may be even buy some land from one of the neighbors on Belmont Street to put a gravity system in there which I think will significantly improve the engineering of the project and we may not need a lift station, the money we save by not putting in a lift station we can give a nice deal on either getting an easement or buying some land and hopefully that will alleviate some of the issues that some of the neighbors have had with wet property. I am going to turn the podium over to Lori Didio and have her explain what will go on once the project is built. One last thing I want to address that I know is a concern is the traffic and again if you build houses it will create an increase in the traffic. Clark Street is already a busy street and I can appreciate that, I have seen the buses going back and forth to the Mall, I know there is a lot of commercial uses on Clark Street and a lot of traffic. This 60-bed care facility will have approximately and Lori can correct me, approximately 20 employees with cars. If this property were to be developed into single-family homes, with the latest statistics are 3.3 drivers per household in the United States, think what a 70-lot subdivision would do how that would increase the traffic. Yes, there will be cars coming in and out of there that aren’t going in there now because it is vacant land. However, this is probably from a traffic standpoint one of the least intrusive in terms of increased traffic that you could find for something to be developed here. Again, I just wanted to point that out. We know that Clark Street has a mix of residential and commercial uses. This is a residential type use, I think it is more in keeping with the neighborhood and the residential character of R1 district and many of the pre-existing non-conforming uses that are there now and it will be well conceived, well developed and designed project and will be a good neighbor. I will turn it over to Lori. Ms. Didio: Lori Didio. Evergreen Heights is a 60-bed adult care facility and with those unfamiliar with the level of care, adult care facilities are highly restricted. There is the adult care facility, assisted living program and then your skilled nursing facility. So within the adult care facility we provide housing, laundry services, limited assistance with bathing, dressing residents, things like that. We provide all 3 of their meals, escorts to and from appointments if that is required, majority of our residents can go independently for medical appointments and any appointments that they may have. What we do is provide 24-hour supervision of care and residents are independent. Gary did talk touch upon the traffic. I just want to say that the 20 cars are not all at one time. Presently there are 12 employees during the day, the evening shift 3 to 11 are 2 staffing individuals and the same with 11 to 7 and that may increase by 1 on each 3 to 11 and on 11 to 7 shifts. At this point, I only have one resident that has a car. Thank you. Mr. Rejman: All right, I think the best thing to do here is to offer the public questions, so is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Yes, come forward. State your name for the record. Ms. Surtin: Hi, my name is Nancy Surtin, I live at 29 Belmont Avenue. I am in favor of this for this area. I was born and raised in Auburn, I attended St. Alphonsus, Mt. Carmel, Auburn High and CCC. I have resided in Florida, North Carolina and Colorado for approximately 18 years. I returned to Auburn about 5 years ago to the family home and for the past 3 years on Belmont Avenue. In my experience in living in different states when people do locate to other areas they look for a well rounded community, Churches, schools, hospitals, shopping, recreational activities and if necessary facilities for special needs for family members. How a community cares for its elderly or infirmed or those with special needs is a reflection on the community. Belmont Avenue is a mixed neighborhood consisting of single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, and commercial businesses. This would be an ideal area for this facility, it is on the bus line and near shopping. We are born, live and died and sometimes we need assistance along the way. A good facility is an important of the community. This facility will be an asset to the community and an important part of the development of Auburn. Mr. Rejman: Good, thank you very much. Mr. Darrow: I have a question, are you employed by or related to either of the parties selling the property or the applicant? Ms. Surtin: No. Mr. Darrow: Great, thank you. Mr. Rejman: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against the application? Mr. Weir: My name is John Weir, I live at 361 Clark Street, the property right on the corner. I have lived there for 22 years, I bought the house in 1985-86 era. When I bought the house from Martin Berry, we had spoke of the property behind and what was suppose to go in there were one or two family homes. Several times I approached him in reference to purchasing property behind my home, one or two acres and I got the negative from him and all that he wanted to do was sell the property for $250,000 or nothing at all. He did not want to piece meal it. I explained to him that I would be willing to hire anyone to go in and survey or re-stake the land at no cost to him and he didn’t want anything to do with it. I spoke to my neighbor Dillon Adams and he had also expressed buying property and he got the same expression from Martin Berry that he didn’t want to sell but for the full price of $250,000. Now I spoke to a few other people and they had expressed buying the property back there but he would not budge from the $250,000. The gentleman that had just spoken in reference to the hardship he couldn’t put residential properties but no body wanted to buy the property, if he lowered the price the price that they are purchasing the property for he may have a lot more buyers interested in to it because it is much more affordable. You can see the house right on the corner here do you know what the traffic is going to be like sitting there, I have a pool in my back yard, my deck faces that. The traffic in and out of that road is going to be horrendous. There is suppose to be 41 parking spaces that they are suppose to be putting in, so there will be 10 or 12 cars when the shift changes in and out. How about the garbage pickup, food deliveries, and the other people that come in to pick up people, the transportation in and out of there. Has any one stopped and watch the traffic on Clark Street to see how much traffic goes by at any given time? It took me almost 12 minutes to get out of my driveway tonight to come down to the meeting, that is how much traffic was back and forth and it is even worse than that during certain times of the day. Putting this here with other traffic that will be going in and out of here, you have three streets that are combined, when you put this road in here, you have a road directly across from it and then you have Belmont Avenue, they are fairly close in proximity. You are going to have either an accident something coming in and out of there is going to be problematic. This is a residential zone, and R1. You put this in here it is going to change the whole mix of the neighborhood. It is going to depreciate the value of the property around, that is why people buy homes. They want something to either retire from or have some money making that is their house. Mr. Rejman: The point was brought up that if that was turned in to a 70 lot residential project, and “x” number of cars per house, which is legal, that impact would be 2 or 3 times than what the proposed project is. Mr. Weir: Now when you look at it does everyone leave their homes at the same time on the same lot? Mr. Rejman: Most people that work during the day sure. Mr. Weir: Well you need to watch your traffic on your block, I know the gentleman across the street he and his wife leave about 15 minutes apart. Mr. Rejman: I guess I am asking this, what would you like to see back there? Mr. Weir: I don’t have a problem with residential home what so ever. Mr. Rejman: That is going to triple the traffic flow. Mr. Weir: You are not going to put 70 house back there all at once. You are putting that 60 bed adult care facility in over night. The traffic flow is going to be horrendous. Mr. Darrow: Mr. Weir, I just have one question to clarify for me. Could you point to your house on there, is it next to the drive or past it? Mr. Weir: This one here (points to sketch). Mr. Darrow: Ok, thank you. How many acres? Mr. Rejman: 17 acres. Mr. Darrow: Pretty small lots if it is 17 acres. Mr. Weir: Mr. Berry had planned 48 houses to go on all those 17 acres. Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against the application? Come forward and state your name. Mr. Adams: Good evening everyone, my name is Dillon Adams, I live at 363 Clark Street, and I am John’s neighbor. He did raise a lot of good points. The traffic going in and out truly is, it is very difficult to get out of our driveways sometimes. I am very concerned about the character of the neighborhood. I purchased my home from HUD 5 years ago and I have since invested over $40,000 turning it into something that is nice and livable and in character with the rest of the neighborhood. If I had known they were contemplating putting something like this back there, I would never had bought the property to begin with. It is just not in character with the rest of the neighborhood. I have spoken with my neighbors and from my understanding most of them are against this simply because we like have the quiet. John brings up the other points with the traffic, we are going to have emergency personnel going in and out of there. I am very familiar with senior citizens as I am the building superintendent at Stryker Homes. I know how often these things happen. There are going to be ambulances, fire trucks in and out of there all hours of the day and night. My property like I said is right next to John’s the very next house. There is going to be all sorts of personnel involved with running the place. I am concerned that there is going to be a certain amount of lighting for this property 24 hours a day, it is going to be like a Christmas tree back there, very bright, there is not going to be any you know darkness back there any more. I am concerned with the habitat that is back there now, I see deer, wild turkeys, and all sorts of wild life back there now. Also I have some concerns about the preliminary survey, I was told that there is a possibility that my barn as showing on their survey, is on their property. My survey doesn’t show that, that is a concern that I have that I may lose my barn because it is so close to their property line. I don’t think this facility is the proper place for it. Thank you. Mr. Rejman: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Mr. Hickey: Hi, I am Andy Hickey, and I live on Mullen Drive. One of my basic concerns as I am sure other people have touched it is the decrease of property values. You say this facility is residential, maybe only in the definition of the word, it is a commercial facility there is no way around it. My concern also is, I guess I am a little confused, maybe Lori can answer this, do any of the residents have mental health issues? Is that true? Ms. Didio: I do have a population of mental health. Mr. Hickey: I just find it a little interesting that in the description of the facility it was never brought up, this is going to be right in the middle of a residential area. The residents are free to come and go as they please and I think by nature it has got to decrease property values. Who is going to want to buy a house and have that right in their back yard and you wouldn’t want that in your back yard, no body would. Touch on the possibility of the property being developed for residential, I think Mr. Darrow touched on it is approximately 17 acres, a lot of new housing lot are less than a ½ acre sometime an acre a piece, so I don’t see how you could fit 70 houses back there, that is a stretch. Probably lucky to fit 30 to 35 houses back there total. New houses being built in your back yard, houses today are probably going to go for $200,000 - $250,000, will increase the property values of the neighboring properties. I don’t think the facility belongs in the middle of a residential area. Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Mr. Buschman: I am Rob Buschman, I am the President of the Board at Evergreen Heights. One thing I have to say, I have been on that board for 5 or 6 years and I find it very disturbing that someone would bring up something about people with mental illness, that they don’t belong in a community, I find that very, very disturbing. End of my discussion. Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Yes. Mr. Fricano: Good evening, my name is Lon Fricano, I am in charge of Auburn City Ambulance and also a volunteer member on the Evergreen Heights Board of Directors as well as a number of other non-for-profit organizations here in the community. Certainly any body who doesn’t understand what we do I can understand why they have some trepidation but generally speaking whenever these projects occur it all becomes much ado about nothing. This facility currently exists, there are no problems in the neighborhood, it is just people who need a place to live. The woman who spoke earlier tonight about all of us needing a little help, our residents if they have higher needs, don’t stay with us, there is a certain level at which these folks have to be functional, they are just people, just ordinary people who are at a time in their life which you may find yourself some day and the lady that brought up the point about a well rounded community, is really hitting the nail on the head. One of the biggest problems that we face today in our community that any one that has special needs many times they are being shipped to distant facilities separated from their families looking at the context of a family and community alike and that is kind of what Evergreen Heights is trying to do with DePaul is trying to achieve a better life style for these ordinary people and I hope that some day having seen the work that these folks do if I ever find myself needing a little bit of help, I would not be at all sad about being in the care of someone like Lori Didio or Evergreen Heights facility, it is a wonderful place and they do good work. Mr. Rejman: Can you help me understand something. I agree to a point that as we get older sooner or later we are all going to need some help, this project, is this like entry level? Ms. Didio: As I mentioned earlier, adult care, the level is overseen by the Department of Health, the supervised setting that we provide that is the definition of adult care. Our facility is no different than the other adult care facilities in the community such as The Home, Westminster Manor, Mr. Rejman: Bluefield Manor? Ms. Didio: No Bluefield Manor is independent housing. We are saying the other adult care facilities in this community. Mr. Rejman: OK. Mr. Darrow: I have a question, would you say that you cater to local residents at entry level. Ms. Dido: If they are not ambulatory they have to be independent with their walker or be able to independently utilize a wheel chair and transfer independently. Mr. Marteney: What percentage are from either Auburn or Cayuga County? Ms. Didio: I haven’t done that in a while, the last time I did it was over 50% and that is what I was going to touch upon, if we have 2 referrals, 1 bed is available, one individual is from Cayuga County and the other is from Syracuse. They are both appropriate we take from this county first. When somebody needs a higher level of care such as assisted living or skilled nursing in one of the nursing homes, we refer first to the community unless the resident chooses to go elsewhere because of family members. Mr. Rejman: Thank you. That was very helpful. Mr. Fricano: I want to conclude by saying that this is similar to when a group home goes into a neighborhood and there are people that are mentally challenged, people become nervous that it is going to have an impact on their community and I would say that my experience over a 30 years in dealing with these kinds of situations you almost forget that they are there. They are very sensitive to the community, they take good care of the people and it turns out to be something not what people think it is. This is a very good organization. The gentleman who had a concern about his barn, I am sure our organization would not want him to lose his barn, they will work together and do the right thing. Thank you. Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Mr. Carnicelli: I am Mark Carnicelli, I live at 6546 Mullen Drive. I have a petition here signed by several of our neighbors who oppose the building of this. Mr. Rejman: Could you hand that in. Mr. Carnicelli: The main concern is the open lot on the corner of the streets, it is going to be around 3 different streets, lot of pools in the back yards and now you are going to have this project. Mr. Rejman: You understand that there is a buffer zone there, they are going to leave a buffer zone, the trees there. Mr. Carnicelli: It is not going to be that thick that you aren’t going to see it. I don’t know if you are familiar with the area. Mr. Rejman: Ok, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Ms. Rigby: My name is Dorothy Rigby. I have lived down there for over 50 years, and I have enjoyed the privacy very much. That is one of my questions, the buffer zone, how long does it take this buffer to grow to protect the neighbors from what they don’t want to see. It is not going to grow over night. Right now we have dense woods back there, they probably will be coming out. Mr. Rejman: No, that is my understanding, we will ask those questions at the end. Ms. Rigby: If they bring in any fill it will be very hard to fill around the trees unless they do it manually, you are not going to do it with heavy equipment so that can be a problem. I am wondering how long it will take for this buffer to grow to protect the neighbors. I am very interested in the drainage system in the back, we certainly don’t want any ponds back there. Mr. Rejman: OK. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Mr. Gregory: My name is Tom Gregory, I have been a resident of Mullen Drive since 1978. My main concern is the noise level. I sit in my back yard in the summer months on the deck and I can hear the traffic all the way from the arterial let alone the cars 150 feet down the street from my house. This is adding to the problem as I see it. I am concerned about the lighting at night. I do enjoy the wild life in the back 17 acres behind my house. It is just adding more and more to the over all neighborhood. There are 3 used car lots on Clark Street, pool store, funeral home, King’s Auto Supply, machine shop, a defunct gas station and this is going to be one more thing added to the quality of the neighborhood, just adding to it. We have the Mall, which I appreciate down there, Home Depot and all that but it just keeps on crowding in. Where do we stop? I am not opposed to a nursing home, my wife has been working at one for nearly 20 years, but I don’t want to have it in my backyard. Mr. Rejman: Anyone else? Mr. Colella: My name is David Colella, I live at 1772 Clark Street. This is a residential area and putting more commercial building in a residential area. There will be 12 employees coming in and out, garbage trucks. Bottom-lined it is not zoned for this and should not be allowed to come in. Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you. Anyone else? Officer Weed: Tom Weed, Traffic Officer for the City of Auburn. We are not prepared to give anything in writing to the board tonight, but if this goes ahead to the next stage to the Planning Board, we will go ahead for a traffic study to be done. Mr. Rejman: The problem with a traffic study is would the additions down there, the Home Depot and all, there is probably more traffic. How do we separate that from this project? Officer Weed: That all will be taken into consideration. Mr. Darrow: Add even more to it. Mr. Rejman: What percent would this have versus what is there now? Officer Weed: You have the bun factory, the tractor trailers Mr. Rejman: How does your study, what numbers are you using, using numbers from 2 – 3 years ago? How do you factor in the new improvements down there? Officer Weed: That will be done by the traffic study. Mr. Rejman: OK. Steve you do you want to speak to that? Mr. Selvek: With regards to traffic study what happens is an outside engineer is hired to come in and do a traffic study. They set up right at this location, they take traffic counts, peak volume during the morning rush hours, during the evening rush hours, Saturdays what would be determined to be the peak volume and they will in essence incorporate the additional traffic that is being generated already by Home Depot. They will take numbers at that point they will determine based upon national statistics what the average generation for single family homes would be or if the area was developed as it is proposed right now for an adult care facility and basically they determine whether or not the roads have the capacity to support that additional traffic. Mr. Rejman: Good, thanks Steve. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Ms. Passerello: Hi, Denise Passerello, and I live at 6550 Mullen Drive. I just wanted to say I don’t want to turn this into what kind of people are coming into the neighborhood or whatever, that is not even my concern. I have worked in the past with nursing homes and that is not my concern. My husband and I bought our house on Mullen Drive 6 – 8 months ago, with the idea of living in a country like setting, just outside the City with the closeness and access to the City but having the idea of a privacy around us. We paid a substantial amount of money for the house that we bought with the idea of a quiet and residential neighborhood. I don’t think it would be as much of a concern to everybody if you were putting in a couple of group homes in or some other housing development, but you are talking about putting a 60 bed facility in people’s backyards. I think that is the biggest concern. It is a quiet neighborhood, privacy, that was our reason for buying we wanted a nice place to raise our family. Now you are talking about not only additional traffic, noise, this building in our backyards, the drainage and they are talking about having another access road from Belmont and possible traffic in our backyards. That is our concern with it. Mr. Rejman: OK. Thank you. If it is something new. Mr. Weir: I just wanted to read something that I got off the State’s website regarding zoning Mr. Rejman: Sir, sit down. We don’t need to be lectured. We have counsel, we have been here 15 – 20 years, we are going to cross all the “T’s” and dot all the “I’s”, I don’t appreciate your lecturing us. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? All right, rebuttal. Any rebuttal to some of these questions here? We are getting a traffic count. A lot of concern about buffer zone. Mr. Lane: I would like to address that. I want to show everyone here, we have an aerial photograph, this lot is densely, densely wooded, extremely dense wood. Our intention as this shows, is to leave as much of the existing vegetation and trees, etc as possible. It is already there, it is not like we have to plant it, it has to take root and survive over a summer season, it is there, it is not going anywhere. In addition to what is there, very nice situation to have, we will provide the additional buffering and screening required of the City Code through the planning process through the Planning Board and I am sure the Planning Board will be very sensitive to neighbor’s concerns of the size of the building, lighting, etc., and we will address that in the planning process. I said it before and I will say it again, in addition to what the Planning Board will for lack of a better term, will make us do, we want to be good neighbors and we want to put in a project and to the extent that we can work with folks whether it is to sell some of the land to them, or to reconfigure the way this is situated on the lot. I can appreciate and sympathize with folks who have enjoyed this vacant land, wooded, serene situation that wasn’t their land for years. However, something will get built there. Our intention is to make this as easy and well planned and least intrusive a development as you can imagine being in our backyard. Mr. Rejman: Would the project considering offering to those homeowners that abound there, the option of buying “X” number of feet of property just so they can keep the buffer Mr. Lane: Yes Mr. Chairman. After the Planning Board meeting I gave out a stack of business cards to the neighbors that were there to give me a call, send me an email, I didn’t hear from anybody, but to the folks tonight, I reiterate the offer, if they are interested, we don’t want to make any money of it, we will sell it for what we are paying for it. Mr. Rejman: So if someone is concerned about the visual problem, they can rectify that themselves by simply contacting you and purchasing 20, 30 or 50 feet. Mr. Lane: I spoke to my client again I have authorization to offer that again, on the record here tonight. We are going to the re-subdivision process, those costs will be our costs doing the mapping and the survey, etc., etc. Mr. Darrow: It came up at the Planning Board meeting and once again tonight, if you located an area would you like to make that gravel the emergency exist off Belmont or are you still looking for a lot to make that. Mr. Lane: Do you mean the drainage? Mr. Darrow: No, it was brought up that another means of egress in ingress for emergency vehicles, I believe you are going to do a gravel driveway off of Belmont. Mr. Lane: I think what you are referring to if you look at the plans just around the back of the facility one of the lots that we are contracting to buy is the last lot on the end on Belmont on the left, when we sell what is remaining of the land buy it for single family homes that is where the curb cut would be. Mr. Darrow: This “U” shaped loop is for emergency vehicles? Mr. Lane: Correct. We are more than willing and happy to sit down and talk with any body about the design or if they are interested in buying some of the land, we can move this back further away from Clark Street, we have the land to do that. Mr. Darrow: How much of the buffer or forest area that is there now would you be able to make available to any of the residents and still keep all your set backs? Mr. Smith: Gary Smith, Parrone Engineers. Right now this area here as not being disturbed is approximately 25 feet. Mr. Darrow: How far is it from that property line to the driveway there? Mr. Smith: About 45 feet. Mr. Lane: We can move it back. Mr. Baroody: What you have is a 17-acre land locked piece, you have 1 entrance existing on Clark Street. The property which you have for another egress comes on Belmont. You are willing to put your development a little further back to Mr. Lane: If it helps the neighbors we are willing to do it. Mr. Darrow: Move it back 100 feet? Ms. Marteney: Then you won’t have two parcels that are exactly appealing. You have to make a decision if you are changing for 3 to 2 parcels, where you are going to partition that on your property. Mr. Lane: We went to get our use variance and then we are willing to take some more time to do a planning process to do the necessary subdivision and re-subdividing. Mr. Rejman: Any further questions from the board? Mr. Westlake: If this was turned down tonight, Mr. Chairman, the Berry Family or who ever owns this property could 2 or 3 years from now put anything in there and say listen we have a hardship here, we have this land we are paying taxes on and we can’t do anything with it. It could be a factory, it could be anything. Mr. Rejman: We will close the public portion and go to discussion. Touch all the points we need to touch. Mr. Darrow: Character of the neighborhood, how much is it going to change the character of the neighborhood, that is one of the things you have to look at. Mr. Rejman: I guess it depends on Mr. Darrow: Vast majority of the neighbors feel it is going to change it in a great way. Mr. Rejman: Touching on traffic and visual aspects, the buffer zones are there. Mr. Baroody: I live at 140 Franklin Street, 4 or 5 blocks from the college. In 1998 we made a decision that we were going to stay in Auburn. After we bought the home turned a double into a single, put some substantial sums into the house around the corner on Elm Street they were building a home for the developmental disabled. To be honest that was a concern to me. It is not a concern, they are great people, you don’t know they are there. Once in 21 years an alarm has gone off at night and we all went over to see if we could help. It is not an issue in my opinion that you have to be concerned about. It is not changing the neighborhood. My backyard, I don’t have a backyard, I am on a corner, I have two front yards, it doesn’t change the neighborhood. We are talking about a 60-bed facility for adult human beings, it is not a porno shop. I am trying to understand how that affects your thinking. Mr. Westlake: If you go right up South Street, there is a nursing home or facility right up there, that I have never seen any problems with what so ever. It is a residential neighborhood. Mr. Rejman: Is the property unique? Absolutely. If not this, than what? Ms. Marteney: One of the things that people have brought up is it is wonderful to have wild life in their backyard, but it is not a public space, it is not a park, it is not the prerogative of the neighborhood to have a park there when it belongs the property belongs to someone else. The fact that it has not been developed they are lucky, I would like to have that in my backyard. Mr. Rejman: That speaks to the hardship that it hasn’t been developed since 1986. Ms. Marteney: At the last meeting they had tried to sell it and for a variety of reasons, they sent out letters to other developers, so yes I think there is a hardship. It is a very strange piece of property. Mr. Darrow: My biggest other concern is the fact of the financial hardship and documentation. Yes it has been spoke of and one of the residents or neighbors brought up the point that its always been for sale for $250,000 for all 17 acres and has it ever been put at it current going price as a R1 use. Now there is a big difference and we have no dollar and cents documentation of the financial hardship, we just have some copies of real estate contracts that it has been listed. We don’t have a black and white financial hardship on this. Mr. Baroody: It is the owner’s prerogative to sell 1 or 100 acres. The owner does not have to piece meal it out. Mr. Darrow: You are absolutely right, my point that I am making and I hope you are not misunderstanding is maybe there is R1 interest in there at the current market price that it is being sold for. Where they are trying to put something that requires a R5, I am Mr. Baroody: Speculation Mr. Darrow: Exactly, we don’t really know if there is a financial hardship exists because we haven’t seen it tried to be sold for R1 at that price that it is going for. Mr. Rejman: We have, at the last meeting. Ms. Marteney: No, they did not indicate what the price was and none of the letters indicated it. Mr. Darrow: Lacking hard financial evidence. It is the owner’s prerogative to sell as much or as little as he wants, but I still maintain probably if there is a chance, maybe – maybe not, but it might have sold at the current price for a subdivision. Ms. Marteney: I agree with Ed. We don’t have any documentation as what price they offered it for and the price now is half of what is the market value. Mr. Westlake: They made a bona fide offer, the price was $250,000 for it and they made a bona fide offer, if I was going to buy a house that is $150,000, I say I give you $70,000, if they accept it, I get it for $70,000, if not, I say I still want it, they made a bona fide offer, the other people did not make a bona fide offer. Mr. Darrow: We don’t know if there was a offer, a counter offer or a price reduction. We don’t know where it started and ended up at $149,000. Mr. Westlake: We can’t get into that. Mr. Darrow: It goes with the hardship, it helps, because if it was on the market for 2 – 3 years let’s say at $175,000 and no body purchased it for an R1 it is helping their argument because it shows that it was on the market they tried to sell it at a reduced price. The point I am making is we have no proof that they tried to sell for R1 uses at a reduced price, we don’t’ see the financial hardship Mr. Rejman: Wait, why does it have to be reduced? That is like saying you are going to sell your house and because you didn’t reduce the price it didn’t sell, you were wrong for asking the price that you wanted for your house. Can’t do that. The value of any property exists in the owner’s mind, he owned it since 1986, paid taxes since 1986, probably if we added up all the taxes they have paid for the last 20 years Mr. Darrow: My point exactly Mr. Chair, we don’t have his cost, we don’t have the financial hardship of what it cost to maintain that property Mr. Westlake: But we do have you know the asking price and you know that these gentlemen made a bond fide offer. It was accepted. I don’t know what you are looking for. Mr. Darrow: For our decision to hold up we need a dollar and cents proof of the financial hardship. We have done it with other use variances, we have to have dollar and cents. We don’t allow them to just speak about the financial hardship or scribbled figures on a piece of paper, we require a financial hardship of receipts and records of what it cost to maintain that property. Mr. Baroody: There were 4 or 5 documents from different realtors and developers that wouldn’t touch it for any reason. That in itself tells me of the hardship. You can have the best wicket in the world but if no body wants to buy it – it doesn’t do any good. Mr. Darrow: I don’t see it in writing. Mr. Rejman: All right, other concerns. Touched on all the concerns. Traffic is going to be addressed, set back and aesthetics are going to be addressed. Ms. Marteney: Water and drainage are going to be addressed. Mr. Rejman: I will ask the question again if not this than what? The owner tomorrow could drag a couple of bulldozers down there and bulldoze that thing flat and have one big flat field. Mr. Darrow: You are absolutely right. We also had this problem with a piece of property on Grant Avenue, I believe P&C was looking to do with a large amount of land locked land Mr. Rejman: Behind Flummerfelt. Mr. Darrow: Yes, and there was huge neighborhood opposition saying it didn’t belong there and that is in the middle of a commercial district and it ended up, I forget which reason it was, we ended up not allowing it. Mr. Baroody: Shopping mall, 24 hours, 17,000 cars a day. You are looking at apples and grapefruit. Mr. Westlake: Now that could be the next thing they want to put in here, right down the road from Bass Pro, so they possibly may want to develop all this land Mr. Darrow: It is commercial and it is R1 up to Wheeler and then R2 from Wheeler up to where JF Computers then it turns into commercial at JF Computers, commercial all the other side of the street and behind the south side of Clark Street it is industrial where Scott & David use to be. Mr. Rejman: Comments, concerns? Something just dawned on me here. Let’s remember something. The City annexed this property in 1986, the City assumed that that could be used for residential purpose, the City was wrong or it would have sold by now. They tried to sell it. Getting back to the hardship is the test, the City was the one that annexed this and they wanted residential property in there. Mr. Darrow: I am not disputing Mr. Rejman: That is the financial hardship. Mr. Darrow: The hardship by that property just by the ingress and egress on Clark Street. Then I look at how much by approving this are we putting hardship onto immediate neighbors, I am not taking about the ones losing green space or wooded area, I am talking about immediate neighbors who right in the path of in out, lights and we know what trouble lights can be. Mr. Rejman: Again you have the buffer zones. Mr. Westlake: I live behind BJ’s on they have terrific lights there, go down Grant Avenue by the car places it is lit up like daylight 24 hours a day. I live right behind there, there is a buffer zone there, trees. These people that are proposing this project are willing to work with any of the neighbors to make this fit. Mr. Bartolotta: Right now we are focused on the hardship criteria that we need to have proof in order to show that there is a hardship and issue the use variance, I think we are focusing on a lot of things that the Planning Board will be focusing on. Mr. Darrow: You are right. Mr. Bartolotta: We need to look at the SEQRA review. Mr. Darrow: But some of those features do tend to change the characteristic of the neighborhood and it being part of our job to focus on whether it will change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Rejman: Going back to my point, if he bulldozes that tomorrow morning that changes the characteristics of the neighborhood. I feel that the impact on the neighborhood will be less than you think. That is my feeling. Ms. Brower: I agree. Mr. Darrow: They are willing to move it back 50 – 100 feet for the fact of the Clark Street neighbors who are really under buffered for any green space, I mean that they are willing to work with the neighbors and hopefully it doesn’t change. Mr. Rejman: Just for the record, Planning is taking lead agency on the SEQRA. Mr. Bartolotta: It is coordinated review then? Mr. Fusco: Coordinated review yes. It would behoove us to have a resolution that we have no objection to Planning being lead agency. Mr. Darrow: I put forth a motion that we endorse Planning as lead agency for SEQRA review. Mr. Westlake: I second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Darrow: I would like to put forth a motion that we approve 355-357 Clark Street and 63-65 Belmont Avenue a use variance for the purpose of erecting a 60 bed adult care facility on s aid space as submitted in plot plan and pending Planning approval and traffic study approval. I would like to amend the motion so that use variance will be restricted to the least amount of acreage needed to complete said project. Mr. Westlake: I second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Darrow – due to the fact that I feel there hasn’t been significant financial documentation of hardship shown. Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.