Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON April 2, 2007 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Clarence Badgley Mr. Mark DeFruscio Ms. Sharon Gariepy Mr. Joseph Moloughney Mr. Edward Carboni MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Joseph Koval ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Erin Thomas, City Planner Ms. Amy Ryan, Recording Secretary Vice Chairman Badgley called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 1.) Sketch Plan Conference for a Residential Care Facility at 116 Saratoga Street, submitted by Firetree Limited LLC. Mr. Henry C. Collins, attorney for Copper, Evans & Savage, represented Firetree Limited, LLC. He stated that the issue would be the use of the facility as defined by the Zoning code in the CI area. Application before the board is for site plan approval for proposed residential reentry center. Mr. Ray Darling, site engineer, from Techtronic, and Mr. Ed Kotz, Firetree LLC, also present to speak on the application. Mr. Collins stated that their concern is that their application is not a permitted use, nor a special permitted use; therefore the applicant will need a use variance for 116 Saratoga Street. Applicant feels that the site is ideal and could quickly be adapt it to desired use pursuant to the proposal in the contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The issue that is going to present quickly, and put forth to the Zoning Board whether or not under a customary application for use variance standards can they get approval for the proposal because quite candidly the City , through it’s Planner, has given good accurate advice. Regrettably, the issues will be a use variance before the applicant can do what they want. The applicant would like to take the opportunity to have a sketch plan conference to get a sense of the Board as to what the chances are for the issuance of a use variance. Vice Chairman Badgley asked the Board if anyone had any questions. Member Gariepy stated that she was concerned about the Planning Boards purview pertaining to the issue of a use variance when it is the purview of the Zoning Boards. She also wanted some clarity regarding the definition of a residential facility or half way house. Mr. Kotz, Louisburg PA, Firetree LLC, stated that the facility is a residential re- entry center designed to care for people coming from the prison system, who are on their way home. They are local people. The facility also provides for people who are in the community under federal supervision who have relapsed and probation and judge want these individuals to have some supervision. These facilities are strictly run. They are not considered tight security with bars on window, etc. People are able to leave. Schedule of residents are planned a week in advance. They are taught life skills to help them reintegrate into the community. Member Gariepy asked about the residents restrictions. Mr. Kotz stated that as a provider of services, they are given strict regulations by the federal government of what Firetree can and cannot due regarding the residents staying at the facility. The first week of stay for a resident, they are not allowed to leave the facility while a plan is made for them. When a resident leaves the facility for work or treatment, they are tested upon re-entry for alcohol or drug use. They eventually are allowed weekend visits home. The people released from prison are still in the custody of the Attorney General; Firetree is an extension of the Federal Prison system via contract. The people placed by way of probation are considered technical parole violators. Member Moloughney asked a question regarding traffic volume, what will be the volume on a day to day basis. Ray Darling, Engineer, Techtronic Engineering, stated that the sketch plan is purely conceptual. No traffic studies or drainage calculations have been performed. Hope to get an idea of how project will go forward before they address the issues. Member DeFruscio asked about the number of employees coming and going. How will traffic be impacted? Mr., Kotz stated that there will be very little traffic created by the residents due to the fact that very few residents are approved to have a vehicle. There will be approximately 18 employees staffed around the clock. Monitoring staff 10-11 and rest professional. Mr. Collins stated that they are aware that Firetree will need a use variance. Are there any other issues the Board has. Member Moloughney stated that there were a few issues that he had. 1. What extent of modifications are necessary or will be visible. Will it look the same? 2. Landscaping issues Mr. Darling state that the building is on the national historic register and any modifications would have to go to SHPO for approval. F eels that SHPO will want to keep historic look and feel of building. Member Moloughney asked if there would be any significant security related modification to the building. Mr. Kotz passed out a flyer of an existing facility in Syracuse, NY which was a furniture store previously. The company has to be alerted when some one leaves the facility and if they leave without permission, an alarm will be activated. Do not man handle the clientele. Member Moloughney stated that there would not be barbed wire in the windows and around the facility. Mr. Darling stated that the majority of the work will be done on the interior of the building. Vice Chairman Badgley asked if Pine Street will be the only entrance. Mr. Darling stated that Pine would be it due to the other entrance on Saratoga was not part of the property. Member DeFruscio stated that as per the drawings submitted the stairs on the back extend over the property line. Mr. Darling stated that the drawings are conceptual. Member DeFruscio stated that he was familiar with the site in Syracuse and it is primarily in a commercial location with small restaurants and businesses. Residential area is away from the site. There was some further discussion by the Board regarding some of the issues. Majority of the discussion was inaudible. Vice Chairman Badgley asked if anyone from the audience would like to comment on the proposal. Fred Turcotte, business and property owner, 113-115 Remsen Street, stated that he was not in favor of the proposal. Bill Ricard, resident, 23 Trull Street, stated that he was not in favor of the proposal. Jesse Matulus, Business and property owners, 119 Remsen Street, stated that he was not in favor of proposal. Diane Conroy-LaCivita, business owner, 184-190 Remsen Street, stated that she was not in favor of the proposal. Ms. Thomas, City Planner, stated the Planning Board is strictly reviewing this proposal for site plan review and not for a variance and the use variance would be considered by the Zoning Board. Vice Chairman Badgley called a motion to adjourn. Member DeFruscio seconded. All in favor.