/2021

Village of Baldwinsville Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, April 27,2021 7:08 P.M.
                                                                  Approved 8/24/2021
PRESENT:    Nate Collins, Chairman
Nicole Schlater
John Tonello
Mike Mazoway
Gary Peterson
Bob Scherfling
Mark Jenkins
Ms. Terrie King was unable to attend this evening's meeting.
ALSO PRESENT: Jamie Sutphen, Attorney
 Gregg Humphrey, CEO
 Mary Augustus, Board Secretary
Guests: Joseph Hucko, Washington Street Partners
                Pat Scutari, Washington Street Partners
Carl Pelcher-16 Elizabeth Street
Mark & Melinda Shimer-8 Elizabeth Street
Dave Weaver-9 Virginia Street 
Pledge of Allegiance
Motion by Mr. Mazoway to approve Minutes from March 23, 2021, Planning Board Meeting, with the correction on page three (3) the spaces are relatively small, not “restively” as written, second by Mr. Scherfling. 
                                 Carried 7:0                                                                                                 
19-21 E. Genesee Street-Baldwinsville Village Commons/site plan 
Mr. Joseph Hucko and Patrick Scutari from Washington Street Partners owners of Baldwinsville Village Commons located at 19-21 East Genesee Street were present this evening to address the Board.
A third revised site plan was submitted by Washington Street Partners to develop an open carport in the rear of the plaza located at 19-21 E. Genesee St. to retail space.  Mr. Hucko believes all concerns and issues were addressed with the new revision. Mr. Humphrey explained the third revision of the site plan was again revised late this afternoon.  The fence was accidently omitted from the plans, which now has been added back on as originally shown.  
Ms. Schlater asked about the gate/crash bar and sidewalk along the back of the gym that is now not present on the current site plan.  Mr. Scherfling stated that had been eliminated.  Mr. Humphrey confirmed that the decision was made to keep that area open without a sidewalk or gate. 
Mr. Scherfling read section 345-41 of our Code specifically section B.  He has concerns about the Code as written and the interpretation of the Code.  Mr. Scherfling explained his concern is with the “use” of this existing building being transformed into a completely different use, it is going from an open carport to retail spaces.  Ms. Schlater has the same concern.  Ms. Sutphen explained that the “use” of this building is changing, there is a use to which it’s being put, that is conforming. Change the “use” of the building does not come into play here. It is a conforming use. This is a non-conforming structure, with a conforming use.  
Mr. Mazoway wanted to make sure that there would not be any intrusion on the neighbor’s properties.  Mr. Hucko stated they would ask for permission, but unlikely granted, would respect all neighboring properties. He’s confident that the work can be constructed from proposed site.   
Ms. Schlater review the wording in the Resolution with Ms. Sutphen for clarification.  
Mr. Pelcher, resident of 16 Elizabeth Street for the past 30 years.  Mr. Pelcher’s property backs-up to the proposed site.  He and neighbors have voiced their concerns regarding this project.  Mr. Pelcher stated he has the upmost respect for the Village attorney and the Code Enforcement Officer, but he believes there has been errors procedurally and substantially.  Procedurally, Mr. Pelcher noted that there was not a survey done by a licensed surveyor in conjunction with the submittal of the site plan.  Nor does Mr. Pelcher see any water/sewer connections on the revised site plan.  He continued, that the test well on the property is shown on the site plan.  The neighbor’s names should be noted on the site plan but are not present.  Landscaping or lighting is not on the site plan either as Mr. Pelcher explained, landscaping was on March’s site plan submittal but did not give details on types of trees or shrubs.
Mr. Pelcher continued, substantially this is an accessory building, incidental is the key word, accessory, or incidental to a primary building. It is defined in our Code book as an accessory use building not intended to be its own building or its own business.  Mr. Pelcher is not sure how this building was used when it was Morris Pump’s but assuming it was a carport for vehicles used for VP parking during business hours.   
Mr. Pelcher read the section found in the Village Code book, the    description of an accessory building and the fact it cannot become independent of that venture. Mr. Pelcher feels that it is important to follow the Code as written. Mr. Pelcher questioned the section that states a building cannot be re-built to more than 50 percent of its value. Mr. Pelcher asked if anyone could even guess the current value of this building and how much it will cost to bring it up to code.    
Mr. Pelcher thanked the Board for the time and opportunity to speak at the meeting this evening and hopes his concerns and comments will be reviewed before moving forward with this proposed project.     
Ms. Sutphen stated after reviewing the Code concluded that the remodeled of this carport is not going off on its own venture.  The building is in a mall setting and the project is for more retail spaces, the building will still be considered the same use as the existing buildings.    
After some further discussion and review of the site plan by Planning Board members, Ms. Sutphen and Mr. Hucko a motion was made by: 

Motion by Mr. Tonello that reads as follows:  
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 
Resolution Planning Board Village of Baldwinsville - April 27, 2021
19-21 E. Genesee Street- Baldwinsville Village Commons 

This Board approves the plans as presented by MacKnight Architects being 4 pages and detail page last revised 4/8/2021 (Site Plan) with the following findings and conditions:

This Board has reviewed the Site Plan herein in the context of the findings of the Codes Enforcement Officer review. The Codes Enforcement Officer found that no variances are required for this use where the building structure exists in its current footprint.  Also, Codes Enforcement Officer found that the structure may be used for allowed uses in the district, so long as the structure is not altered in a way that increases the non-conformity. For example:  the non-conformity is that the rear yard setback is at the lot line. 
   
The applicant presents a proposed site plan modification for a structure within its plaza site where the building does not conform to current set-back standards of the Code in the East Genesee Business Overlay District.  The code deviation is that the structure is permanently situate at a zero lot-line.  A new structure would require a 40-foot set-back for the use proposed.

The applicant has now proposed to utilize the non-conforming structure on a plaza lot for a Code-allowed use. Regulations concerning the use are required to be met, except however, to the extent that the building itself is an existing, non-conforming structure for any use, the structure does not need to be modified and there is no prohibition to converting the building to another conforming and allowed use. 

This Board has reviewed the Code provision which provides for the standard where a structure is non-conforming as set forth in Section 345-41 of the Code and specifically:

greater area of land than was occupied on the effective date of this chapter.

This Board confirms that applicant has not proposed to expand the structure in any way.  Such an expansion, would, in fact, be prohibited. Allowing the continuation of the non-conforming structure within the context of the Code provision above is, this Board is advised, supported by legal precedent and this Board is bound to follow same.  

This Board is not unsympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors relative to this property which is in close proximity of a residential neighborhood. This situation of a commercial use close to residential has been existence for a very long time. This Board is required to and has looked at all reasonable manners in which negative impact to neighbors may be alleviated.  It has listened to neighbors and had the applicant make several modifications to the plans in response to such concerns and requests.  However, the Board may not deny the use of the structure, where the Code provides the use is allowed and the Code allows the non-conforming structure to remain. It is expected that, rather than a tired and worn-down structure remaining in its current condition, the modifications required to be made to this remodel per this site plan approval will be an improvement to the site and the overall aesthetic in the Village.  Further, this Board has followed the dictates of the East Genesee Overlay District to the extent feasible. This includes that the request for a lighting adjustment to the pre-existing ATM machines and the owner of same has agreed to do so.  

Condition:   No lighting is approved as part of this approval. The applicant must return to the Planning board’s next meeting for review of the lighting plan which must be submitted in advance.  

Second by Mr. Peterson.

Roll Call
Mr. Collins	Yes
Mr. Tonello	Yes
Mr. Mazoway	Yes
Mr. Scherfling	Yes
Mr. Peterson 	Yes
Mr. Jenkins       Yes
Ms. Schlater	 No 
                                             Carried 6-1
Motion by Mr. Peterson to adjourn the meeting at 8:29 p.m. second by Mr. Mazoway 
                                            Carried 7:0
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary E. Augustus
Mary Augustus, Planning Board secretary