Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWritten statement by Ted Crane - March 16, 2017Written Statement Provided By Ted Crane Public Hearing March 16, 2017 Re: Blue Sky Center for Learning 1) Arguments in favor of the Special Permit application fall into two general categories: "every man's home is his castle" and "convenience for the applicant." I support the former argument, but not the extent that an individual's needs automatically trump the quality of life of the neighbors and neighborhood. The Planning Board has to be very sure that a project is compatible with the neighborhood (and opinions by neighbors are a very important part of that) before approving a request. Activities at the site in question has a long history of incompatibility with the neighborhood, and there has been a strong, one-sided turnout of opinion about the proposed future project, too. The facility in question could be located anywhere; the applicant has numerous other properties in Danby, including commercial facilities located on major transportation routes. There's no good reason to locate the facility in a low- density residential and agricultural area, but the applicant has indicated that this is a long-term goal for him and his family, to be able to cross his front yard for daily therapy. I respect long-term goals, but it is inadvisable to promote one family's convenient against the health, welfare, and quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. 2) Other speakers have, or will, address the issues of traffic and water in more detail. I'd like to remind the Planning Board about the Water Resources presentation by Steve Winkley of the NYS Rural Water Association. Winkley presented a map of well yields in Danby, and that map identified the Gunderman Road location being considered as the northern portion of one of the most limited yield regions in Danby. Also, I'd like to remind the Planning Board that Upper Gunderman Road is a low-density zone, where commercial activity was not intended to take place, and it lies miles from transportation trunks. Worse, Lower Gunderman Road, the main path from the proposed Blue Sky project to NYS Route 96B, passes through what may be the densest residential neighborhood in Danby. Any traffic will simultaneously affect the quality of life on traffic-free Upper Gunderman, pass through one of the most dangerous intersections in Danby (at Comfort Road), and then impact pedestrian safety on Lower Gunderman Road. Blue Sky could not be located in a worse place, traffic-wise. 3) Historically, it seems universally accepted that the location of PDZ #10 was a mistake, as was the use of a PDZ itself instead of a Special Permit. Since the applicant is reserving space within the PDZ for uses outside of the special permit, the Planning Board must take the full cumulative impact of both uses into consideration. The best course of action is to remove the PDZ, and then to consider this application on its own. The applicant claims compatibility with Danby's Comprehensive plan but, when you compare the instances given with known fact, it is clear that the claimed compatibility doesn't exist. It is clearly not in the best location, and is not compatible with the neighborhood. It is clearly not a small business as described by the cited sections of Danby's Comprehensive Plan, and it is a not-for- profit, not a non-profit. There's a big difference, but either status does not prevent the business from making money. In the site plan/proposal, the applicant describes a relationship with the Carbone Institute and the Carbone Center in Dubai, UAE. I visited the web page for that business and learned that it charges 400 UAE dirhams per hour for therapy, approximately $110/hour in US dollars; this seems to be a reasonable estimate for fees in this region, too. The proposal cites a recommendation of 25 hours per week for every client. The applicant has told the Planning Board that there will be 25 clients. Simple math yields a gross weekly income of $68,750. This is not a small business. 4) Historically, the neighborhood has learned that, if it isn't specifically limited or prohibited by the terms of a permit...it will happen. Angelheart made verbal promises but broke them to take advantage of everything not explicitly prohibited by its permission. The current application is vague and non-specific in many places. It has been supplemented by verbal statements and promises by the applicant. All of these promises and descriptions must be incorporated into any permit that is considered or granted. 5) In at least two instances, the applicant has already contradicted his own statements and promises. A careful examination of every written and stated verbally will surely uncover additional discrepancies. The application states that no renovations are required and the applicant has said that absolutely no changes will be made to existing building, which is already ideal for his project. Yet, at the February, 2017 Planning Board meeting, we heard that a room is being (or will be) remodeled as a waiting room for client's families. The applicant stated, also at the February meeting, that if this permit is not approved, he could sell the property for $3,500,000 (excuse me if I have the number wrong, but its close). This is more than ten times the assessed value of the property: $250,000, according to the assessment department. The applicant paid only $715,000 for the original property (according to assessment), and has since split off two separate chunks valued at $150 and $200,000. The applicant has implied that the property will had considerable value to Danby's tax rolls, therefore reducing everyone's taxes. I suggest that the applicant could achieve this merely by giving the $3,500,000 valuation to the assessment department or, alternately, if the true value is $250,000, I am willing to coordinate an effort by neighbors to raise that value and take this turkey off his hands. 6) The applicant has not responded to requests for info about the business or its principals. From verbal statements made to the Planning Board, it seems that the applicant is, incidentally, is the landowner, landlord, only identified principal of the not-for-profit (not, non-profit) corporation renting the location, and one of its potential customers, To supplement this information, I did some quick research about Blue Sky Center for Learning on the web. It isn't wise to believe everything you read on the web, but several "data aggregator" web sites state that Blue Sky has been in business at 303 Gunderman Road since 2015, and has one employee. If this is true, and if services have been provided to anyone in the absence of a permit, then the Planning Board must refuse this permit. That's in Danby's Zoning Ordinance, Section 900, paragraph 6. 7) I mentioned the assessed value of the property earlier. All of us --it's practically a global pastime-- do our best to minimize the amount of taxes we are required to pay. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you follow the rules. On the other hand, when we're asking the government for a favor, a privilege, or a permit, it's a really good idea to be as forthcoming and as helpful as possible, by providing all the information requested, in both a timely and accurate way. This applicant has established a record of missing deadlines, incomplete submissions, and even claiming not to have received vital communications. The Planning Board should take this into account in its considerations, particularly as a harbinger of how tightly any permissions should be specified. 8) In April, 2016, when presented with a very similar request by the applicant, the Danby Town Board made a Positive Declaration of environmental significance for up to seven impacts: land water, transport/traffic, noise, odor, light, and compatibility with the community planning. This project is substantially the same as that previous project. While all the window-dressing has been removed, leaving only the central focus on the Learning Center, the applicant has stated that the site plan/proposal borrows heavily from the original. The Planning Board should consider very carefully before changing any of those impacts to a negative declaration.