PLANNING BOARD MEETING 3/23/2021

Village of Baldwinsville Planning Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 23, 2021 7:36 P.M.
Approved April 27, 2021
Via Zoom
PRESENT: Nate Collins, Chairman
Nicole Schlater
John Tonello
Mike Mazoway
Gary Peterson
Bob Scherfling
Mark Jenkins
Ms. Terrie King was unable to attends this evening's meeting.
ALSO PRESENT: Jamie Sutphen, Attorney
Gregg Humphrey, CEO
Mary Augustus, Board Secretary
Guests: Joseph Hucko, Washington Street Partners
Carl Pelcher-16 Elizabeth Street
Mark & Melinda Shimer-8 Elizabeth Street
Dave Weaver-9 Virginia Street Brian Monica-10 Virginia Street
Pledge of Allegiance
Motion by Mr. Tonello to approve Minutes from January 26, 2021 Planning Board Meeting, with the correction on page four (4) "Mr. Mr." was typed twice and the proposed project's address is, 19-21 E. Genesee Street not "31" second by Mr. Mazoway.
Carried 7:0
19-21 E. Genesee Street-Baldwinsville Village Commons/site plan 
Mr. Joseph Hucko from Washington Street Partners owner of Baldwinsville Village Commons located at 19-21 East Genesee Street was present this evening to address the Board.
There was an introduction of guests that has join the meeting via Zoom.
A new revised site plan was submitted by Washington Street Partners to develop open garage port in the rear of the plaza located at 19-21 E. Genesee St. to retail space.
Mr. Collins begins explaining that a carport along the back property of
19-21 E. Genesee Street has a proposed site plan to development the building into retail use. An original site plan was reviewed by the Board at the last Planning Board meeting on January 26, 2021. It was recommended by the Board at that time to come back with a revised site plan with the concerns and issues discussed at this meeting. The concerns are as follows.
•	Completed sidewalks plans from carport building to the rear of the fitness center to Virginia Street including grading and slope of the proposed sidewalk.
•	Detailed plans for retaining wall if needed
•	Outdoor seating area
•	Removal and/or salvage of existing trees and landscaping
•	Side and rear elevations of garage spaces
•	Removal or additional fencing
•	Mechanicals/screening
The neighbors in attendance at this evening's meeting are also concerned with:
•	Noise produced by the ATM that is heard from the speakers
•	Noise from cars using the ATM.
•	Early morning noise from tenants sometimes as early as 5:00am
•	Late night, early morning maintenance such as cleaning and snow removal
•	Lighting from existing business disturbing residential homes
New site plans were submitted by Washington Street Partners as requested.
Mr. Hucko stated that the site plan is classification as well as revisions. They addressed concerns and issues last discussed at January's meeting.
Mr. Mazoway stated he did not see any revisions regarding the outdoor seating, elevation or the mechanicals that were discussed. Mr. Mazoway asked if there was a test well to the Northeast of the property, Mr. Hucko stated, there was from way back when.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 3/23/2021

Mr. Humphrey, Code Enforcement Officer confirmed the carport is an existing structure on an existing developed lot. It is a non-conforming structure so it cannot be altered to increase its non-conformity. The non-conformity is the rear yard setback. As this building exists it is allowed to continue to exist per our code. Both the car port and the proposed retail/office space are allowed uses. Mr. Humphrey continued to explain the East Genesee Street Overlay District put in place for this part of the Village. With existing buildings in the Overlay District, this building is not being demolished or being moved to the curb-line. The owner is allowed to use this building in its current state prior to the Code. 8-foot fencing, screening mechanicals, trash enclosures etc. would have to apply to the Overlay District's guidelines but the re-use of this existing building for a use permitted under the Zoning Code is allowed. Mr. Humphrey explained that the proposed building goes along the property line, the existing fencing runs east along to the end of the building. Would the Board consider running the fence to screen along the property line or would the building be the barrier? The fence would have to be installed on top of the building.
Mr. Mazoway stated after visiting the site he noticed that you could step from roof the building to the property owners back yards. Also, I noticed that the rear structure of the building needs structural repair. Mr. Hucko stated that this building is a two (2) structured wall, if needed he will take care of anything and all issue the building during the renovation. He added that all necessary permits for plumbing etc. will be obtained.
Mr. Tonello asked about the plumbing for sewer as mentioned on the letter from Mr. Darcangelo. Mr. Humphrey stated the sewer layout is not on the new sight plan. But he assured the board the sewer installation is governed by permits and inspections by the county.
Mr. Humphrey informed the Board that a sprinkler system will not be required when the building is refurbished. Ventilation will be based on tenants needs; it can be a condition upon approval of the site plan by this Board at the time a permit is issued. The spaces are relatively small areas, the entire building is only 3,000 square feet. The system used would generally be found in residential. Mr. Hucko stated if units are installed on the roof, they will comply with the proper screening as requested by the Board.
The meeting was opened to the neighbors residing on Elizabeth Street. Mr. Shimer asked if the proposed building would remain one story and since the carport is right up to their property, would a fence be place on their property? Mr. Hucko replied that it will remain one story and a fence will most likely put on top of the structure.
Mr. Humphrey added that the carport can be changed, it cannot be enlarged or torn down, but it can be altered within its footprint.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 3/23/2021

To clarify, this project is not a "non-conforming" use, it is a "nonconforming" structure as explained by Ms. Jamie Sutphen, Village Attorney.
Mr. Pelcher addressed the Board. Mr. Pelcher is reading from the Code book section 345-41 and it reads as follows:
§ 345-41 Nonconforming uses.
A.	All structures and uses not conforming to the regulations of the district in which they are located at the time of adoption of this chapter shall be known and regarded as "nonconforming."
B.	A nonconforming structure or use may be continued subsequent to the effective date of this chapter unless otherwise provided herein, provided that no such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity, and no such use shall be enlarged or increased to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied on the effective date of this chapter.
C.	Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any parts of a structure which were manifestly arranged or designed for such use on the effective date of this chapter. A nonconforming use may not be changed to another nonconforming use disallowed by this chapter.
D.	To avoid undue hardship, nothing herein contained shall require any change of plans, construction, or designated use of a structure for which a building permit was issued more than 30 days prior to the enactment of this chapter and the construction of which is begun and diligently prosecuted within three months after the enactment hereof.
E.	On any structure devoted in whole or in part to any nonconforming use, work may be done in any period of 12 consecutive months on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing, to an extent not exceeding 10% of the current replacement value of the structure; provided that the cubical content of the structure, as it existed at the time of passage of this chapter, shall not be increased.
F.	Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any structure or part thereof
declared to be unsafe by any Village official charged with protecting the public safety, upon order of such official.
G.	Reversion of nonconforming structures and uses. A nonconforming structure or use may not be altered, rebuilt, or resumed except in conformity with the regulations for the district in which it is located if:
(1) Either a nonconforming structure or use has once been changed to a conforming use.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 3/23/2021

(2)	A nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of more than 30 days.
(3)	A nonconforming use of a structure has ceased for a consecutive period of six months or for 18 months during any three-year period.
(4)	A nonconforming structure is destroyed by any means to the extent of 50% or more of either its value or its bulk.
H. District changes. Whenever the boundaries of a district shall be changed so as to transfer an area from a district of one classification to a district of a different classification, the foregoing provisions shall apply to nonconforming uses created by such transfer.
Mr. Pelcher has a different view of the interpretation of the Code. He believes, by allowing the structure to be refurbished from a carport to retail spaces is changing the non-conforming conditions and not within the Code as written. As stated in paragraph "C": A nonconforming use may not be changed to another nonconforming use disallowed by this chapter. Mr. Pelcher stated if this proposed project is allowed the structure will not meet the rear set-back as the current requirement of the Code is written. Mr. Pelcher stated that lights from the current mall are shinning into his home, the noise from the beeping at the ATM can be heard inside his house and snow removal starts at 4:00am.
Ms. Sutphen assured Mr. Pelcher that she will review and take into consideration his interpretation of the Code.
Neighbors from Elizabeth Street spoke their concerns regarding the proposed project. There were concerns with a sidewalk running behind Wellness One and mechanical screening never being installed on the roof of the building when it was constructed. Lights from the existing businesses, beeping noise from the ATM and trash accumulating in the mall area. They are all upset regarding the noise and light pollution and feel it also effect the neighbors on Virginia Street.
Mr. Hucko stated that when the residences purchased their home the area adjacent to their property was a factory, it was zoned industrial. He believes the development that was made is an improvement and the issues they are concerned about could be rectified.
Mr. Tonello stated that the Planning Board has an obligation to allow a property owner to use their property in accordance with our Code and with advice from Village council. Ms. Jamie Sutphen added, this Board reviewed this proposed project at the last meeting and had some recommendations for the applicant. The developer has come back and has addressed these recommendations. We have heard and rightfully so concerns from the public and with that this Board can make modifications and conditions to move this project forward if desired.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 3/23/2021

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 3/23/2021

Ms. Schlater stated, after walking the site she believes the more direct route to the new proposed retail building is in front the gym building not behind as original shown on the site plan. Mr. Hucko explained that the sidewalk along the back of Wellness One was also design for emergency exit in the rear portion of the building and he hoped this sidewalk in the back would give better excess and encourage tenant interaction. Mr. Tonello did say that he can see a sidewalk behind the gym could be a nuisance because of its seclusion.
Mr. Scherfling suggested taking out one section of fencing next to the column where the cars entering the parking lot by Kinney Drugs and paved through that to the elevation as the sidewalk on Virginia Street and take a 180 to the sidewalk in front of the gym, it would be perfect. You would not need a sidewalk or lighting in the rear of the building. Mr. Scherfling continued, and for fire exit you could install a "crash bar". Mr. Humphrey and the Board members agreed they did not see a reason to have a sidewalk behind the gym. Mr. Hucko explained he would still like to install a sidewalk for the interconnection of the tenants, he suggested to place a gate for the restriction of pedestrian use. Mr. Scherfling suggested an emergency exit door being installed at each end of the building. Mr. Hucko stated he would look at that as a possibility. The discussion continued regarding the sidewalk issue.
The concerns regarding the ATM with the noise and lights bothering the neighbors was up for discussion. It was suggested that either Mr. Hucko or Mr. Humphrey approach Empower Federal Credit Union to correct these concerns.
The Board continued discussions regarding this proposed site, they have made recommendations and asked Mr. Hucko to come back before the Board at the April 27, 2021 Planning Board meeting.
Motion by Mr. Scherfling to schedule Planning Board meeting starting April 27, 2021 to begin at 7:00pm second by Mr. Mazoway
Carried 7:0
Motion  by Mr. Tonello to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 p.m. second by Mr. Mazoway Carried 7:0
Respectfully Submitted,
:-.97-trl 66: -:_:Y1;11teati,i Planning Board Secretary