|
|
April
19, 2007
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
Oswego Town Hall |
Chairman:
Greg Auleta
Board Members: Robert Baker, Timothy Anderson,
Debra Jaskula, Robert Dexter
Attorney to the Board: Kevin Caraccioli
Secretary: Marjorie Best |
Call
To Order:
At approximately 7:15 PM, Greg Auleta, Chairman of the Zoning
Board of Appeals called the meeting to order.
Attendance:
Those in attendance were:
Greg Auleta, Chairman
Robert Baker, Member
Debra Jaskula, Member
Robert Dexter, Member
Kevin Caraccioli, Legal Advisor
Marjorie Best, Secretary
Absent was:
Timothy Anderson, Member
Acceptance of Agenda:
Greg said as to the agenda, we will have to go through some
ritual. He made a change to the agenda which he assumes his
colleagues will agree. Through an oversight of his, when he
was coordinating the publication of our agenda, he miscommunicated
with the secretary. He proposes the following change. It lists
an Area Variance request by Wesley Mauer, and that the public
hearing was scheduled to start at 7:15 PM, which is under New
Business, which would start first, and under Old Business, we
have the continued discussion of the Application of United Group
Development. This is scheduled for 7:10 PM. Of course, 7:10
comes before 7:15, yet they have the reverse order. He asked
that the agenda be amended so the application by Wesley Maurer
be first.
Approval of March 15, 2007 Minutes:
Deb Jaskula made a motion that the March 15, 2007 Minutes be
approved. Bob Dexter seconded the motion. All ayes. Motion carried:
Application #200704 - Wesley Mauer - Area Variance - Public
Hearing:
Greg asked the representative for Mr. Mauer to please step forward
and state his name and tell us what he wants to do.
Jeff Cuyler stepped forward, stated his name, and that he is
with Powerhouse Construction. He stated he is applying for an
Area Variance on the two side yard set backs of the proposed
house of Wesley Maurer at 170 County Rte 89. Wes is still in
Arizona, and Jeff is representing him. What he proposes to do
is tear down the existing building, and build a new one. To
do that, he wants to rotate the building so that it will be
in line with the other cottages along the water front. Wes owns
the property to the East of him also. Greg asked if he is going
to straddle the property line, and Jeff said no. It meets the
set backs from the front and back, but it is just the two side
lines. The new home will be on a separate deed. Greg said it
looks like he is looking for an 8 foot variance on the West
side, and a 6.4 foot variance on the East side.
Jeff said the house he is replacing is an old dilapidated building,
and nobody can even live in it, and it will be torn down, as
well as the foundation taken out.
Greg said that the application is not in conflict with the existing
map of the coastal erosion area, so that is not an issue in
terms of consideration.
Greg said for the record that he has a letter from the Oswego
County Department of Planning, regarding the request, and they
conclude with the statement "Based on the information submitted
with this referral, it was determined that no significant county
impact is involved; therefore this should be decided as a local
issue".
Greg asked if there was anyone who would like to speak regarding
the application. Francis Castaldo said he is representing Mrs.
Dominic Castaldo. He said the legal notice requested a 12 foot
variance, so would like that clarified. Greg said the distance
is 12 feet, but the variance would be 8 feet. Mr. Castaldo asked
what other documents would be required. Kevin said a Building
Permit would be required, and a requirement by the County Planning
Board, Section 239 review. That was presented to the County,
and their response was read into the record that there was no
county impact. There will be a determination with respect to
SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act). A variance of
this nature would be determined to be an unlisted action, so
that would require a short form SEQRA. The coastal erosion was
mentioned. It is also called the red line established by the
DEC. In looking at the map, parts of the town are included in
the red line area. This property is not included within the
red line. Mr. Castaldo Mr. Castaldo said another concern is
the septic system. Kevin said this would go though the Building
Permit Process and the County Deparatment of Health. Francis
Castaldo said it certainly would be an improvement to the property,
as long as everything is done correctly. Deb asked Jeff if there
is a concrete slab there now, and Jeff said there is and it
would be removed.
Bill Naun came to the table, and also wanted clarification of
the variance measurements. He also agreed with Francis Castaldo,
that if everything is complied with, it will improve the area.
Greg asked for a motion. Deb Jaskula made a motion that we allow
an Area Variance of 8 feet on the West side, and 6.4 feet on
the East side, contingent on the SEQRA being approved, and the
criteria being met "Whereby such strict application would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that
would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of the land or
buildings involved, but in no other case; that the granting
of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of this Ordinance, and will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare"
Bob Dexter seconded the motion. All ayes. Motion carried.
Old Business:
Greg said there is the continuation of consideration of the
application of United Development Corporation regarding the
proposed student housing development on which Mr. Smetana will
be speaking. Since this is not without some controversy, he
advised the people of how he would like the meeting to be run.
A presentation will be made by United Group, then he would ask
the people to address the issues that came out of our last meeting.
However, we have 3 particular items that relate to this Board;
one being the issue of front set back variance based upon the
initial projection of the Southeastern most building; the height,
and the issue of the definition of a dormitory. We will entertain
other concerns, but these are the items this Board is authorized
to consider.
Jeff Smetana took the floor and stated he is the Executive Vice
President of United Group Development, and introduced David
Clemenzi of Einborn Yaffee Prescott, who is the Architect and
Engineer of the project. Jeff said he would like to summarize
some of the issues so the Zoning Board could understand them.
He feels there is a significant need and demand in the community
for college students; that being apartments that would create
an environment where there are a number of amenities; a high
level of supervision and security. Critical to any real estate
transaction is location. We need a site that creates a prone
connection to the college, physically and also visually. Jeff
showed maps, concept plan and topography maps. He pointed to
a yellow area on the topography map, and have drawn a half mile
circle around the area so as to give a sense of perspective
of distances. It is close to the main entrance to the college
and other parts of the campus. Immediately to the East are facilities
such as Laker Hall. He pointed to the college campus, and said
there is limited parking there for employees, and residents.
He indicated that students in the apartments would use other
means of transportation to get to the campus, primarily the
bus. It is highlighted where the bus would go. The bus would
travel very regularly, between 7:30 AM and 4:30 PM about every
10 minutes. The early shuttle would be at 6:30 AM at 30 minute
intervals until 11:30. We do understand that there are some
residents in the section of the town that have some concerns.
We are hoping to adequately address those concerns. Specifically,
a lot of these issues would be addressed through the Planning
Board. Some of the things we have talked about would be to discourage
vehicular traffic, as to the logical route they would be taking.
One of the aspects they are looking at would be reducing the
speed limit along Johnson Road from 40 to 30 miles per hour.
We will be looking into traffic analysis with professional engineers.
We will be going through the SEQRA Process.
Jeff said there are a number of issues that bring them to the
Zoning Board, and they have identified several of them. At this
point he asked David Clemenzi to speak.
David Clemenzi said he would like to back up to the overall
ideas of the project impact. Some of the history of EYP are
specializing the design as an aspect of what they do for colleges
and universities. The reasons for this is primarily to minimize
the impact of the site, and that it would support the financial
cost of the overall project. Some of the other items are highlighted
in the drawings. The area in blue is a designation of the wetlands.
The area is not fully running water, so we are trying to back
off from that area to build in such a way working with the topography.
The areas on the opposite side of the wetlands, closest to the
road is really unsuitable for building. If you look at the overall
parcel, the area to build is up more in the area of the existing
residents, and to the South. There are less concerns about erosion.
These are things they are trying to incorporate in this designed.
When they met the first time, they talked a bit about the aesthetics.
Pointing to the plan, he said this is a rendering depicting
the 4 story lodge in the upper most portion of the site. They
are trying to make a feature almost like an icon building. There
will be public spaces in the entry level that allow for gatherings,
as well as a fireplace. This building will be seen from afar,
a welcoming building.
Dave again pointed to the map and said the wetland elevations
are down here, and they are rising up across the site 60 feet
as the rise or fall; from high to low across tht section. In
terms of site lines, they are nestled into this high point of
the site; they are slightly excavating down, on the high side
approximately 13 or 14 feet; and slightly on the front side
in order to maintain a more level site. Greg asked how much
rise to the cupola, and Dave said it is 40 feet. Dave again
pointed to the drawing, and said there is an existing grade
line that is up here and then down here. They would cut up here
and fill down here to make it a more buildable site. As to the
height, what they are asking for is - the local Zoning Code
limits the height 2-Ω stories - 35 feet. There is a question
of the definition in terms of height and where it is measured.
They have looked at more standard zoning guidelines as to what
the height is, where it is measured, and a sloped structure
is measured to the midpoint of the sloped surface. What they
are proposing here is a 4 story structure, which is the lodge
building, and when measured to the average grade of the front
of the building to that midpoint, we have approximately 44 feet
in height. The typical building, they have a 3 story structure,
and when measured to the average grade, the front of the building
to the midpoint in height, it is approximately 35 feet.
Greg said the issue of height is related to concerns regarding
fire. He asked if anyone was here from the Fire Department.
Scott Pritchard, who is Chief of the Fire Department said they
have addressed that concern with United Group, and have come
to the determination that this building is not out of compliance
anymore than some of the other structures, such as the college
buildings that they protect.
Greg quoted part of a letter sent to United Group from the Fire
Department: "After careful consideration of the plan submitted
by The United Group to construct student housing on County Route
7 and review of present multi-story structures in the Town of
Oswego, the members of the Board of Fire Commissioners of the
Town of Oswego Fire District have determined that there is a
clear need to add an aerial truck to the current fleet of apparatus".
Dave Clemenzi brought up the concern as to whether it is a dormitory
or apartment building - it is as they interpret zoning and building
codes, and any state and federal regulations out there, looking
into the New York State Dormitory Authority, any of the guidelines
that any of these agencies put forth, this project is an apartment
complex, a multiple housing structure. Dormitory structures
have single sleeping quarters along the corridor. At the end
of the corridor, you may have a bathing facility, common showers,
bathrooms, and a floor for cooking accommodations. These unites
as defined by the building code are approximately 1,100 square
feet - about 1,050 feet of living space. When they look at their
unit, they have a 4 bedroom apartment. They have a large living
space in the center. They have a full bath on each side; one
is an ADA, or adaptable bathing facility, so that if someone
is physically impaired, and in the center area. They have a
full kitchen. So by all definitions, this is an apartment.
Dave said there is one other point they wanted to make is safety.
They are in compliance of all State and Federal Regulations.
In addition to that, they are providing a full sprinkler system
throughout the entire facility. It is a safe and secure facility.
Jeff brought up the issue of parking. This will be specifically
for the Planning Board, but there are some issues that need
to be discussed. They will have 3 parking spaces per apartment.
Most codes require 1 space to 2 spaces per apartment. They will
be working with the Planning Board on that issue. 3 spaces per
apartment will give them a ratio of. .75 per resident. The college
has 1,680 residential parking spaces for 3,500 residents on
campus. They have found that .75 works well. He explained that
the Concept Plan shows 2 phases. They will build Phase 1 first,
and if the demand is sufficient somewhere down the road, they
will build a second phase. So they have this extra space to
deal with in this initial phase if need be, they could use that
area for parking.
Kevin said he wants to put a clarification on the record. On
the previous Mauer application, he indicated that the Area Variance
would require the short form SEQRA. That is incorrect. The Use
Variance requires a SEQRA Review. An Area Variance is determined
to be a Type II Action under the SEQRA regulations. As such,
it is exempt from environmental review. With respect to Mr.
Mauer's application, a SEQRA is not required. As it relates
to the Zoning Board, determination on United Group's application
for an Area Variance for height and set back issues, that would
also be determined exempt. Or a Type II Action. Not that United
Group is off the hook from SEQRA, as the Planning Board has
a site plan process, and in respect to the height issues, he
would imagine they will get into and coordinate a visual impact,
as well as the storm water runoff and some of the other issues.
But for our purposes, an Area Variance is an exempt application.
Kevin said the latest Concept Plan addresses the set back requirements
and maybe he missed this early on, but in the R-3 District,
the side yard set backs are 20 feet. The only Area Variance
that the Zoning Board is considering is the height. The other
issue we want to hear is the dormitory versus the apartment
house argument which may or may not trigger further review.
He also wants to clarify this is an R-3 District and as such,
apartment houses, apartment complexes is a permitted use, dormitories
are not permitted.
Dave Clemenzi went though the design and code considerations.
Some of them are general use elements and might change someone's
idea of the difference, and talk about leasing or licensing.
We talked how we often use a residential license for the students
for resid4ence here, because it provides a certain element of
control, and it would work very well. A rental agreement could
be a lease agreement, and we certainly could do that. I wouldn't
want that to be an issue that will cloud the definition. We
have been communicating with the Planning Board about the SEQRA
process, and what their expectations are. We have consultants
who will address some of those concerns, and do independent
special data for the Planning Board.
Greg asked if there were any questions He said he has a notice
from the State Department of Transportation. It addresses the
issue of whether or not the Planning Board would be the lead
agency for SEQRA purposes, and they indicate they have no trouble
with that action. We have a letter sent from the Town of Oswego
to the City of Oswego, regarding an appropriate hearing on the
application. The City has been put on notice of the Procedure.
We are in receipt of a letter part of which I read earlier from
the Fire District. They indicated they have no problem, as they
worked out a number of concerns. For the record, we are in receipt
of an e-mail directed specifically to Greg, from Mario Rabozzi.
Basically, he addresses a number of issues regarding traffic,
and occupancy, and is opposed to the project. He also received
a letter from Samuel Sugar, addressed to the Board, and he approves
the project 100%.
Greg then opened the floor to the audience. He said he would
call the people up in order of those who signed the sheets,
as residents of the town. He said to be advised that the members
of the Board can interrupt.
Scott Pritchard:
He separated himself from Fire Chief, and talked as a town resident.
He thinks this project is positive for the Town. No one has
been interested in large industry here. Here is a chance for
the Town to grow. There is no cost involving the town. He worked
with United Group through the Fire Department, and they are
very supportive, He hopes both the Planning Board and Zoning
Board will look at all these issues, and make a decision in
favor of this project.
Ann Kirk:
Ann stated her name, and that she is a resident of Thompson
Trailer Park. As she understands it, the new facility is going
to be located behind the park. Greg didn't think that is quite
accurate. Jeff pointed to the topography map to show Ann where
the project is, and where the trailer park is. Her concern is
wildlife that is back in the woods. The animals have to go someplace,
and they will came right into the park. When they took the woods
down on Thompson Road to put in the Alliance Church, they upset
a population of fox. At one point, she couldn't even go out
her door in the summertime, because there were foxes on he porch.
There are a lot of residents in the park.
Bernie France:
Bernie said he has lived in the town for 3 years. He said he
spent 41 years in the military. He was a volunteer fireman with
Alcan. His concern is he doesn't feel United Group has done
their homework on the traffic coming off Johnson Road. You have
18 wheelers coming through there hour after hour, and all these
kids are going to cross 104. It's not going to happen. They
are going to get someone killed there. 104 comes from two lanes
to one lane. He lives on Thompson Road, and he said he has a
hard time getting of that road at times. So they better go back
and do some homework on the traffic.
Janet Dexter:
She said from a business prospective, it is a nice project.
She likes the way it looks, and she things it would be good
for us.
Matt Spagnoli:
He said if the town grants the variance for the height, if before
the Fire Departments gets the equipment, perhaps there could
be a tragedy there. Would the town be liable?
Kevin said that is a very loaded questions. It depends on a
number of factors. The Planning Board and Zoning Board are changed
with the following procedures. Any time there is a question
of liability on a Town's part as it relates to injuries, from
something a town approved, the Court looks at whether the town
followed the procedures correctly. Accidents happen regardless
of whether it is the town, or private residents. The key to
any liability is whether the process was followed. It I not
a yes or no answer. Any person who gets injured on their property,
is more likely going to get sued. Landlords know that more than
any of us here.
Don Neels:
He said he owns a couple of parcels in Oswego Town - one of
them is within a half mile radius of the project. The issues
were are talking about is the height, and whether it is an apartment
or dormitory, and the set back. Greg said the Zoning Board of
Appeals is directed to address the issues which the Code Enforcement
Officer denies. Don asked about traffic. Greg said the issue
of traffic at this point is not something that we are in a position
to address. Don asked about the wetland setbacks. Kevin said
it is a SEQRA issue. The Site Plan Review encompasses the entire
project, and it relates to the environmental issues, traffic,
noise, the aesthetics of the project - all of these items that
many of you care about. The Zoning Board is very specific -
we are a Board that interprets the Zoning Ordinance and the
determinations made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. In this
particular case, determinations have been made that the set
back did not meet the Town's Ordinance. The height exceeded
the height restrictions, and that the use constituted a dormitory.
Don asked Dave to show him the 4 story lodge again. He said
they determined the height of that building, you did an average
of the back side and front side basically. Dave said he took
the mid-point of the slope which is right there (pointing to
the drawing). It is under the New York State Bui8lding Code,
and typical zoning guidelines to these points we measured to.
Don asked about the cupola. Dave said cupolas, chimneys and
lanterns, all those types of things are all exempt from height
restrictions. Don said the floor plans show 4 bedrooms, 2 different
bathrooms, kitchen and dining area. Don said "And you say
they are apartments - not dormitories" Don asked if anybody
can rent one of these? Dave said he is not involved in management,
so turned it over to Jeff. Don asked if they are going to charge
so much per month. Jeff said they rent apartments several different
ways. Sometimes they rent by the month, and sometimes by the
year. Don said "So anybody could come in, say 4 people
and rent an apartment".
Jeff said they are going to cater primarily to students at the
college. We need to go along with the legal restrictions Don
said "If someone wants to rent as a family, you couldn't
stop them". Jeff said that would be a legal issue. Don
said if it is just for students, that would be a dormitory.
Greg asked that the audience try to keep their remarks down
to 5 minutes. He waned everyone to get their chance to speak,
but we would like to leave here sometime tonight.
Tom Dunsmoor:
Tom said he has been a life resident of Oswego Town. He had
a copy of the District Regulations of the Town of Oswego. He
stated out by going to Page 2, Section C in Definitions. "Apartment
House - A building or portion thereof used as a residence for
three (3) or more families living in separate, complete housekeeping
units" "Dormitory - A building or part thereof, used
as group quarters for unrelated individuals sharing common cooking,
social and hygienic facilities. Includes fraternity and sorority
houses."
He said the last meeting that he attended, several questions
were asked whether this was an apartment complex or dormitory.
Someone had said they thought it said "dormitory"
n one of the drawings. He said he did not see it, but several
people did. When questions about the actions of the students
living in what he considers a dormitory, it was stated if there
was a problem amongst the 4 living in the apartment; if one
was having a problem or creating a problem, he would be removed,
but the other 3 would be left in the apartment, and they would
be renting the rooms individually.
Now as to the parking issue. In the District Regulations Ordinance,
on Page w, Section C, No. 4 - "There is adequate permitted
off-street parking to accommodate automobiles for all of the
adult members of such group". That would mean 4 parking
spots per unit. He went further to the set back variance. On
Page 7 of the Regulations, Section B, "Exceptions and Modifications"
down to No. 2, letter c - "Public, semipublic, or public
service buildings, hospitals, institutions, or schools, where
permitted, may be erected to a height not exceeding 60 feet,
and churches and temples may be erected to a height not exceeding
70 feet when the required side and rear yards are each increased
by one foot for each foot o additional building height above
the height regulations for the district in which the building
is located." This building is exceeding by 10 feet, which
means that the building should be set back an additional 10
feet.
The last thing he asked, if he could see that picture of the
2 buildings that are located down by the river. He asked "Is
there a road that goes down to those buildings, or a walkway?"
Jeff said it is a pedestrian walkway that doubles as a fire
lane. Don said "So in the winter when it is full of snow,
they will be able to get a ladder truck in there?" Jeff
said "Absolutely, and it will be maintained".
Patricia Tyrie:
She submitted a Petition from100 residents who are against the
project. She has a list of concerns to speak about. She knows
he Board wants to stick to those 3 points. By allowing a complex
of that size and height will make a huge impact. It will no
longer be a quiet area. Mr. Clemenzi understood we were concerned
about the increase in population. We are concerned about the
traffic increase, safety and noise. The traffic pattern need
to be changed in a residential area. Her second point is United
Group is saying this is a less disturbing use. Last week, Russ
Johnson said in the paper that April 21s through the 29th was
Earth Week in Oswego County. Here's his quote - "Oswego
County residents are fortunate to live in a county rich in natural
resources and scenic beauty". Pat said "You say over
and over again how beautiful this project is, but to me, when
I walk and where I walk, the trees are what's beautiful to me.
I don't want to come out of my house and see an apartment complex,
and all the noise, traffic and congestion." She brought
up the issue of a dormitory. When you get into the concerns
of the concern of the neighborhood's safety - the students are
20 or 21 years old. It is going to invite drinking. She said
she saw "dormitory" written on the maps and drawings.
So where is the map or drawing with the word "dormitory"
on it? It is a dormitory, there is no question about it. She
said "Last week you said there would be no drinking - what
about in the bedrooms. If I am a 21 year old student who gets
some beer and brings some friends to the apartments, can you
legally not allow me to go in there and drink". Then on
the way home, they will pass her house, and that is when her
flowers will bet stepped on. Mr. Pritchard had said it would
improve the town. The residents in our area are concerned about
the noise, traffic pollution, and the environmental impact.
She had a letter that goes along with the Petition, which she
quoted a portion of "We the residents of Oswego Town are
writing to request a denial of the apartment complex proposed
by United Development Group (UGC). The decision to build a complex
that will house anywhere from 700-900 students will forever
change the nature and character of the neighborhood".
Greg said "For now, I am just trying to follow the rules
that have been set up".
Sam Cernaro:
He said he lives on Johnson Road. Down the road is a fraternity
house. There are 6 people there. They have parties. "I'll
show you on the map where it is". There are motorcycles,
cars and trucks going 80 miles an hour. People live in that
house. 600 students are going to be a mile away from his house.
He is talking about a lot of people going by his house. He moved
out there 4 years ago to get away from the city, harbor fest
and the college students. There should be 1 parking spot per
person, not .75. He said to Jeff "You are a great salesman,
and you seem like a nice person, but you are sugar coating a
lot of stuff, and you got kicked out of the city. You committed
it to out here. I am totally opposed to it".
Jack Tyrie:
Jack said he lives on Baylis Street. He would like to address
the Board with procedures and other things which have come up.
We are about what Zoning has in height requirements. He said
to United Group - "You aren't here to tell about what zoning
does in other areas. You are here to tell us what our zoning
says. He said he disagrees with Mr. Caraccioli's comments on
SEQRA from the way he has read the law - properties up to 3
family homes. A project of this magnitude, he believes a Court
would say it requires the SEQRA. When you talk about environmental
impact, the DEC says there's no wetlands, and no endangered
species, but if you look at the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, it says that localities are to interpret the terms
of the environmental impact in a broad way. Also, he has heard
a number of people say the traffic and parking are not your
concerns. "You can't say you can do this with the road,
and that with the road". He said you are permitted to consider
those things. He is not sure about the Area Variance and the
Use Variance. Every time we drive down out street, instead of
seeing trees, we are going to see this huge 4 story structure.
No where in the Town Zoning are 4 story buildings permitted.
We are not talking about an old Zoning Law. We're not talking
about a town that has not been engaged in active comprehensive
planning. When he first became involved with the Town in January
of 1994, all the way to December of 2001, the Town of Oswego
has done a tremendous amount of work and money, holding repeated
work shops, combined joint meetings of the Zoning Board, the
Planning Board, and Town Board. We contracted for several years
with the County Planning Department, where they came in, and
we paid them a good chunk of money over the years to make certain
that we came up with land use planning that was both rational,
and arbitrary. There were specific reasons for all of those
things being in there. A major part of this was that people
of the Town, did not want tall buildings located in the town.
It is the Zoning Board's job to prove that their project will
not go against the Town's comprehensive planning. According
to the Use Variance, there are 4 positions that must be met.
He said "Kevin, you aid there was an audience full of landlords".
There are a lot of landlords here, and I object to the claim
that there is an audience full of landlords. There are a lot
of people here who are concerned about other issues. The second
standard they have to establish is the hardship unique to their
property. They are not allowed to building above 2-Ω stories,
is not unique to their property. This applies to the entire
town. The third one they have to meet is granting the variance
will not alter the character of the neighborhood. That is where
the traffic and the noise come into play.
Bob Baker said "Mr. Chairman, I am getting tired of being
lectured to" Jack said "I'm sorry, I am not lecturing".
Bob said "What do you think you are doing?" Kevin
said the Board is aware of the obligations. Greg said in the
beginning of the audience session, he had asked that each speaker
take 5 minutes to air their concerns.
Doug Waterbury hollered from the back of the room "Let
the man speak". Greg stated "This is my meeting as
Chairman, and I will run it the way I see fit. I know Mr. Tyrie
has reasonable comments, I am just asking that he speed it up".
Jack said the 4th thing is that the hardship is not self created.
He said "I am sorry that you feel that my views was lecturing
you. That was not my intent. I guess you don't want to hear
it".
Kevin wished to state a few points that he didn't want to let
go. He never said this project was not subject to SEQRA. This
particular application - an Area Variance is subject to SEQRA
for at least two reasons. Mr. Tyrie sited one. But the property
being 10 acres or more also triggers the Type I review. The
overall review is going being fore Planning Board. There are
3 types of actions - Type I, II and an unlisted action. Specifically,
the State Environmental Quality Review Act indicates that an
Area Variance is a Type II Action, which is exempt from the
SEQRA review process, where you file either a long form or short
form. A Use Variance is subject to SEQRA requirements, but a
fundamental question before this Board. Whether this is a dormitory
or apartment complex. If it is a dormitory, and a dormitory
is not allowed in an R-3 zone, their application would be for
an Area Variance. This is what this board determines. There
are a number of landlords here, and I made the point that they,
probably more than anyone understand the issues of liability,
where multiple people are living in one building. He said "Jack,
you stick to your point, and I am comfortable with my explanation".
Greg told Jeff Smetana that he may respond to some of the issues
the audience had.
Jeff Smetana:
In terms if wildlife and trees, the trees are cleared almost
to the West boundary. In regard to apartments and living arrangements
- what we are proposing is different from what a lot of landlords
are doing - we want to put up an appropriately managed rental
housing facility. We are doing all we can to make a better managed,
better quality living environment. We will have a central point
of entrance, and a corridor where residents would come down
the corridor to their apartments. Our apartments are designed
to be a very high level.
Mary Fitch:
As to traffic in Ontario Heights, whether it be vehicular or
walking, she questions the partying. Baylis Street is the most
logical street where the walkers would be coming from Johnson
Road. She mentioned Jeff's comments on the aesthetics of the
building will catch the eye of people coming East and West.
She doesn't agree with that. The way it is designed with the
roads, nobody is going to be looking at the building. They will
be looking to take care of themselves so they won't get clobbered.
Jeff said the scale of the buildings would certainly be in line
with the other buildings, like Laker Hall. We will have a beautifully
landscaped project.
Mary said "You are missing my point. I don't look at Laker,
I don't look at Romney. I am looking at traffic coming this
way and that way. I would really like to invite you to come
and live on our street, so you could see what goes on. You are
coming into a quiet neighborhood with addition of all these
students. I don't question our Fire Department. I think they
are great. I am concerned with all the other things that you
can't possibly control."
Jeff said he has a good means of addressing those kinds of issues
- Good management, and good engineering are a good way of address
these concerns. Mary said we don't wan any more that what we
have. Mary repeated that they are asking the Planning Board
and Zoning Board to take into consideration all the issues,
and we would like you to put it on paper.
Greg said he would like to allow some of the people who live
outside the town to speak.
Bill Dunsmoor:
He said he is a landlord, and does own property in the Town
of Oswego. He had a couple of issues. First of all, these men
have been complete gentlemen, and that is nice to see with a
heated issue. He said he doesn't see how the complex is anything
but a dorm. The definition in the Ordinance is quite clear.
It is unrelated people living in an area with a common and shared
kitchen and bathroom facilities. They said they were going to
have RA's on the floors. That is the style of a dormitory The
way the buildings are set up, there is a common hallway where
you go into the apartments. In regard to the drinking that they
were going to prevent, if it wasn't a dorm, you wouldn't be
able to control it. If it is an apartment, you wouldn't be able
to control it, as you can't go into people's apartments. It
is somebody's home. The liability issue with the fire truck
- it is a big issue - The Fire Chief has mentioned a couple
of times with reference to other buildings in the town being
highrises. The Town had no options as to whether they were built
or whether they weren't. There is nothing the Town can control
what the State built. For liability for the town, you could
get sued for somebody getting hurt. If you allow the complex
to be built, and if there is a child in that building, and if
you don't have the fire apparatus to save that child from a
fire, the town will be sued. He things that is something we
should have before allowing it to be built. The economic impact,
as talked about earlier, he is sure they will get an IDA, and
a pilot agreement. There has always been discussions with Mike
Treadwell and the IDA Program. So what the taxes are going to
be in the Town of Oswego, it is going to be a lot less that
you believe you are going to get. The jobs that are going to
be created - are maybe going to be the building aspect, but
on site jobs, I don't see many. The economic impact as landlords,
is that the money that he and the other landlords here will
be spent in Oswego. There is Vona's, Canales - we buy our groceries
and get gas here. He doesn't think the developers are going
to spend the money here. Their investment is going to be in
those buildings, but their money is going to go elsewhere with
their investors. We have had problems in the city with students
as they do in every city. If there are problems in the city,
the cops respond within a couple of minutes. What about the
students in this project? It will take a lot more than a couple
of minutes for the Sheriff's Department to get there. The only
thing else he had to say is "Too bad we couldn't have a
longer time to speak. When these gentlemen have had an hour
and a half to present their case - I think everyone should speak
until they are done".
Barbara Cummings:
She said her family has owned property in the town for 100 years.
She feels the changes. When the college came it changed from
farmland to college land. She said "Do I want more college
kids in that area. After 100 years of what happened in her area
- No!"The college is going to building more dormitories,
and we have to deal with that. You have to make a decision and
look to see what you are doing. She was speaking from her heart.
They are life residents. And her family still wants to live
there. But if they decide it is not a dormitory, and you put
in apartments, that's not putting development in Oswego Town.
Let's not bring in any more problems. She wanted United Group
to know - 100 years in this community, and what are they doing
to her family. When they are living off campus, there will be
the problem with parties. Her family sill wants to stay in the
community.
Bill Dunsmoor:
He said the law here applies - It says that "the applicant
shall send, by registered mail, or shall personally deliver,
to each owner shown on said list, not less that five(5), nor
more than ten (10) days before the date set for a hearing upon
this application" He said he received his on the 29th of
March. This was sent way beyond the requirements of the law.
So he would think because all the residents that live within
the 1,500 feet, the meeting is sort of null and void in his
opinion.
Gentleman who did not sign in. Didn't catch his name)
He said his wife owns property in the town. Two words that he
has heard - the one word Mr. Dunsmoor mentioned - pilot. We
went through pilot in the city. Now are all in trouble. The
other thing was, he went to the other board - Planning Board,
and they plan on using their own sewer, and connecting to the
city. For 32 years, he was a fireman in the City of Oswego.
The building plans are great. The sprinklers are great. But
you are going to guy an aerial ladder that is going to cost
$350,000 for one building, and then it is going to sit there,
or go out for show. It doesn't make sense to him. They are very
good speakers, and they did a good job. He said he'd hire them
himself to do speaking for him. He said "It is in your
hands, and remember you represent the people, so represent them
well".
Greg asked Jeff Smetana to address the sewer issue, as a matter
of information. Jeff said Barton and Loguidice would be contracted
with the town to design and engineer the sewer, but they will
pay for it, and they are looking at the alternative. They have
looked at some options at this point. Everyone knows where the
sewer runs. We are here (pointing to the map) and we have get
there. That will be determined on an engineering basis. There
are some legal matters in determining the organization of adding
to an existing sewer district.
Kevin Kehoe:
He is a resident of the City of Oswego. He has been to all the
meetings so far, and has listened to everything that United
Group has had to say. One is the definition of a dormitory.
Basically they are saying they are going to do the same thing
that we do. He is a landlord in the City of Oswego. The one
thing they do to protect themselves is when they sign a lease
with a group, they make them all liable. That means that if
one of them leaves, the other 3 people are going to pay his
rent. He just had the occasion to visit some of their properties
last weekend, and that's not the case of their properties in
the Albany area. Basically, each one is renting a room and sharing
the kitchen. That would be a dormitory. At the last meeting
they were questioned as to what the rents would be, and they
said they didn't know. The figures I got were from the Albany
project, which is similar to this one. In Albany, they charge
for one year approximately $7,000 per kid. That's $28,000 a
year. His guess is that they are never going to get anyone to
pay $28,000 in Oswego. These kids won't do it. Previously when
they were talking about what the cost of these unites were,
some in the audients suggested it was approximately $45,000
to $50,000 per unit. If it is not that much, and they are charging
$28,000 per year, per apartment, they are not spending $25,000
to build them. They certainly don't need a variance, to make
it economically viable. They could go one story and be economically
viable. He doesn't see any logic to giving them a variance for
height. The final thing is whether or not they are going to
pay taxes. The response constantly was they are going to pay
their fair share, based on their history of other projects.
What their fair share is - is not what we pay, which is based
on the value of the property. He would say the very least, if
you grant variances to this group, based upon if they agree
to pay the full assessed value of the property. At least that
way, they can compete with them. We will have a level playing
ground. We are already using 30 - 40 percent of our rents to
pay taxes on these properties. I you give it to them, make it
contingent upon paying full property taxes, just like the rest
of us.
Greg then asked if the Board had any questions. Bob Baker said
the one issue that Tom Dunsmoor brought up, the set backs and
the height. Greg said he is going to exercise his prerogative
as chair, and not coming to any conclusions at this time on
the matters before us. The exchanges have been good. He had
been advised by counsel that the issue raised by Mr. Dunsmoor
regarding Araticle III, Part B, Section 2-c, may in fact be
an issue. If we are going to continue the application without
creating subsequent legal problems
Regarding setbacks, that they would have to be addressed.
Kevin stated one of the questions he had with Article III, Sec.
B, 2-c; the question becomes whether you consider this facility
would fit the term public, semi-public - he was not sure about
service building, and it is not a hospital, institution or school,
but public or semi-public seems to be an issue. He wondered
if Mr. Smetana could comment on that - if it is designed as
public or semi-public building.
Jeff said it is not designed as being a public building at all.
It is a secure entry, that all the residents can enter. He thinks
Phase 2 is close to the set back line. He thinks he could go
a little bit taller with the 3 story - 35 foot building - that
they could set it back further from the property line (pointing
to the drawings). He thinks it also applies to the front set
back. Kevin said it would the side and rear. Jeff said if the
requirements would be to move this building further away from
the set back line, that would be an acceptable contingency to
them. Kevin said it would be his recommendation that the Board
absorb the information not only of tonight, but previous hearings,
and not rush to a decision. He is certainly willing to advise
the Board of his opinion and directions on the legal issues,
but he will advise the Board to make the decision - not the
Town Attorney. Kevin also said he wants to clarify for the record
"Are you in any way associated or affiliated with finance
with the SUNY of Oswego," and Jeff said no. This is entirely
a private project - private ownership, and they are committed
to pay their fair share. They will still need to work that out.
Mary Fitch:
She stated, that in Oswego, they are thinking of closing 2 elementary
schools due to the lack of enrollment, and people are moving
from the area. She asked if United Group is aware of this study,
and could they comment on that?
Jeff said that every seminar he goes to, there is a projection
for increased enrollment for colleges. It becomes a better opportunity
for more and more people as a requirement for the job market.
We wouldn't be investing in this, if we didn't feel strongly
about that.
Tom Dunsmoor:
In the definition of dormitory, there are other parts of that
definition. He said "If you would like, I will read them
for you". Greg she he would consult with counsel to attempt
to reach a conclusion that is consistent on how we interpret
the law. This would apply to New York State Law also. Kevin
said we have been asked to interpret the Zoning Enforcement
Officer's Declaration if this is a dormitory.
Jeff said he is sure we can resolve all the issued that people
have concerns about.
Greg said he is going to adjourn the meeting. We are missing
a member tonight. He thinks this vote is something that should
include all members. When we discuss and vote, he wants us all
to have clear minds, and not at 10:00 o'clock at night. The
Public Hearing is closed. We will come to a decision in a month.
Adjournment:
At approximately 10:15 PM, Deb Jaskula made a motion to adjourn
the meeting. Bob Dexter seconded the motion. All ayes. Motion
carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Marjorie
Best
ZBA Secretary |
|
|
|
|
