Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2016-10-18Approved By the Planning Board on January 24, 2017 Special Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes October 18, 2016 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott; Robert Aaron Lewis; Matthew Johnston; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: McKenzie Jones-Rounds Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Paul Sylvestri, Harter Seacrest & Emery LLP; David Lubin, Unchained Properties Others Attending: Kim Nason, Phillips Lytle, LLP Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Nicholas said Consideration of Project Changes for Holiday Inn Express has been removed from the agenda because no new materials have yet been received. Blalock asked for the addition to the agenda of a discussion reviewing last evening’s Board of Zoning Appeals meeting regarding the Planning Board’s appeal of the Zoning Determination regarding 201 College Avenue. There were no objections to either change. 2. Site Plan Review A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, 620 S. Aurora Street. Review Draft Responses to Comments Made on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement — Today’s Topic Area: Public Health. Review Next Steps & Future Special Meeting Schedule. Sylvestri reviewed each comment and response for the Public Health section. Board members made the following comments.  In every major section of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS), each acronym should be fully written out, with the respective acronym then following in parenthesis, at its first appearance. This will help create a much more reader-friendly document.  Throughout the FGEIS, each proposed mitigation should be clearly and readily identifiable through some special typographic style (for example, a consistent “Mitigation” heading with bold italic text) so that each one stands out and is easy to collect for the eventual Findings Statement.  Is it possible / beneficial to require clean-up standards that exceed those of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation?  Is it possible / feasible to offer the public real time data as public health investigations are being completed and the clean-up work is underway? Or could there at least be periodic reports or updates? (The latter will be added to response #7).  Capped Areas will be identified in the Site Management Plan (SMP).  The process for the Record of Decision (ROD) Amendments was discussed –including public participation elements.  At six different places, the current response text states, “The Lead Agency is evaluating a number of mitigation measures to ensure impacts from environmental contamination are avoided and / or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.” Desired results are then stated, but not the explicit, specific thresholds or mitigation measures that would be required to achieve such results. These explicit, specific thresholds or mitigation measures should be clearly and individually stated. Kim Nason of Phillips Lytle, LLP clarified that the environmental review would potentially be reopened if any remedies not identified in the FGEIS are proposed in the future. It was agreed that the Public Health comments / responses would be reviewed again at an upcoming Joint City / Town Planning Board meeting. They will also be reviewed prior to issuance of a Notice of Completion for the FGEIS. The next Chain Works special meeting was scheduled for November 29 at 6 p.m. to review the Transportation topic. (This meeting would subsequently be rescheduled for a later date.) 3. Discussion, October 17 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on Planning Board Appeal Of Zoning Determination Regarding Maximum Facade Length Requirements For the MU-1 Zone as Applied to the Construction Proposal for 201 College Avenue Along Bool Street The Board discussed the BZA’s 3-1 vote the previous evening against the Planning Board’s appeal. Blalock and Schroeder had presented the Planning Board’s case, and Johnston had attended as an observer. Schroeder noted that — of the four BZA members deciding the matter, three said during the meeting that they found the Planning Board’s appeal persuasive. However, he said, the BZA did not rule on the merits of the Planning Board’s arguments, but rather on timeliness issues and a belief that the mere fact that the Director of Zoning Administration expressed a contrary argument itself created ambiguity that, in turn, required a ruling that was least restrictive to the 201 College Avenue project applicant. Blalock said that the latter situation was a “tautology,” effectively making it impossible to successfully appeal any determination made by the Director of Zoning Administration, no matter what that determination might be. He added that, per the Zoning Determination affirmed last evening, it would be theoretically possible to construct a building of infinite length, by simply providing an indentation (of unspecified depth) after each “Facade length, max” unit, with each such successive indentation “resetting” the facade length calculation. Schroeder said that, shortly after he began the Planning Board’s permitted five-minute rebuttal — in which he was arguing that a ruling against the Planning Board’s appeal would create a precedent regarding “Facade length, max” requirements not only in the MU-1 zone, but also in the CR-3 and CR-4 zones — he was sharply cut off by a BZA member who maintained that no BZA decision creates a precedent. He said this interruption was immediately followed by a several minute internal discussion among BZA members, whereupon the City Attorney stated that the Planning Board’s rebuttal period had expired. Schroeder said he was never permitted to complete the rebuttal he had prepared. Later in the BZA meeting, Schroeder said, the City Attorney affirmed that, actually, a decision on a Zoning Determination (as opposed to a decision on an Area or Use Variance) would set a precedent. Johnston agreed that the interruption referenced by Schroeder seriously undermined the momentum of the Planning Board’s presentation. 4. Adjournment On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Lewis, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.