ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2001
Members Present: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Staff Present: Mr. Moore, Mr. Tehan
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 10 Prospect Street, 73 Frances Street, 116 N. Division Street, 197 State Street
APPLICATION TABLED: 145 Woodlawn Avenue, 6 Lexington Avenue, 202-204 Genesee Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Counsel isn’t here yet, but I think we should move ahead anyway. Tonight we have: 77 E. Genesee Street has been withdrawn, 10 Prospect Street, 145 Woodlawn is withdrawn, 73 Frances Street, 116 N. Division Street, 6 Lexington Avenue, 202-204 Genesee Street, 197 State Street
_____________________________________________________________
10 Prospect Street, R-1, area variance for sign. Redeemer Lutheran Church.
Mr. Rejman: 10 Prospect Street, are you here. State your name for the record please.
Mr. Wagner: Good evening, my name is Matt Wagner.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Matt, what would you like to do at 10 Prospect Street?
Mr. Wagner: We would like to replace our existing sign. Here are some pictures. The sign we have now is deteriorated, the boards are rotten, doesn’t hold the letters in, I have to glue most of them on. We would like to replace it with a more modern sign designed by Gary Ryder of Baldwin & Ryder Signs. I have a list of a few neighbors who were willing to open their door after what is going on in the world today, they signed a petition saying they don’t have a problem with us replacing the sign.
Mr. Rejman: OK, would you pass that around please.
Mr. Wagner: We are going to replace the sign with a sign essentially the same size, we will use the existing sign posts on either side of the sign that is there now, will not add any more width to it and the height will be the same.
Mr. Rejman: We will pass this around. It looks like we have 8 neighbors that have signed this, I will pass that and pass it back and make it part of the record. OK, questions? No questions? Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Final call for questions.
Mr. Temple: The paper which has been circulating here, are these residents or owners of the properties?
Mr. Wagner: Both.
Mr. Temple: So they are owners
Mr. Wagner: I went door to door.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Hearing no questions and no one to speak, we will close the public portion, have a seat and we will discuss amongst ourselves.
Ms. Marteney: It certainly will be an improvement.
Mr. Rejman: The height and width are the same.
Mr. Darrow: Drawing showing what it will look like.
Mr. Rejman: Would someone wish to make a motion.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we approve variance of 10.64 square feet for the Redeemer Lutheran Church at 10 Prospect Street for the purpose of erecting a new sign on the property as per drawings submitted.
Mr. Hare: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved; see Mr. Moore in the morning.
Mr. Temple: What about 77 E. Genesee Street, was it tabled and 145 Woodlawn Avenue?
Mr. Rejman: Before we start, Counsel?
Mr. Tehan: The review for 77 E. Genesee Street is not necessary. Under the Municipal Code which we did not catch before when it first came before the Board, under Section 30.113(b)(2) a pre-existing non-conforming use can be expanded only when you are dealing with a parking issue or loading space. An application for merging the properties was submitted by the applicant and basically he is going to be merging the properties which would in essence expand the non-conforming use which not allowed with the exception of when you are going to be using that expansion solely for parking or loading space. Therefore, it does not need to be reviewed by this Board.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: And 145 Woodlawn Avenue?
Mr. Tehan: 145 Woodlawn Avenue should come before the Board, I submitted this memorandum just as some guidance to the Board related to that particular criteria.
Mr. Rejman: My error then.
145 Woodlawn Avenue, LR-2, area variance for a front yard driveway. Shane & Michelle Ely.
Mr. Rejman: 145 Woodlawn Avenue, come on down. OK, state your name for the record.
Mrs. Ely: Michelle Ely.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there Michelle.
Mrs. Ely: We moved in May and the people we bought the house from had laid gravel on the side of the yard and it gave us the impression we could park there as we had no off street parking. We have alternate side parking year round. My husband has gotten four tickets already and we have three small children and we need to keep it as a parking space.
Mr. Rejman: Did you give a copy of this yet?
Mr. Tehan: No, I just did that, that is basically for the Board, you can choose to follow it you can choose to ignore it. It is up to you and the Board members.
Mr. Rejman: OK, I will take my copy and pass it to the applicant so she may have it. It appears from the map that was attached to the application that there may be a shared driveway.
Mrs. Ely: Right, we have a shared garage. The driveway is their property and they can use it as a driveway. I spoke with Ed LaDouce and he said this would come up, he said that it could be an argument but we were given the impression that we can use the garage to park in, they don’t park in their half of the garage. When we moved here the people had left a shed, the garage and the basement full of construction debris, which we haven’t been able to get rid of. It is so full we couldn’t park in it right now if we wanted to.
Mr. Rejman: So you are under the impression that you share the garage but not the driveway?
Mrs. Ely: But not the driveway, the driveway is their property. I put a map of our property in with the variance and it shows that the property line was against our house and the driveway was on their property.
Ms. Marteney: Could also mean that their driveway is on your property.
Mrs. Ely: The driveway is very narrow between the houses and they have two vehicles. One is an elderly woman, I would hate to have her park on the street. We live on a street where just on our end there is like three other homes that have no off street parking. The house across from ours is a split, there are two homes there, two vehicles in that household, we have two vehicles, we compete for parking right now, and I am dreading winter.
Mr. Rejman: My recommendation would be this, whether the Board wishes, it will be up to them. I would like to see this tabled. I would like to see you provide a deed, a copy of the deed and in there you may be surprised to find that you have an easement to this driveway.
Mrs. Ely: We would have to park on the street or we both use the garage?
Mr. Rejman: Yes and if that is the case you could use the garage plus you could put a little “T” section in the back and you could actually park in the back of your house.
Mrs. Ely: Right now they both park in the driveway.
Mr. Darrow: They may have been doing it since she moved in.
Mr. Rejman: It may not be a shared driveway but she may have a deed easement that she can use it in which case
Mr. Darrow: I would refer this to Counsel but if something has been in use for “x” number of years, even if it is not in the deed, doesn’t it become that way?
Mr. Tehan: You have to get a judgment in that respect, also depending on what you are talking about it looks, if you look at the map, there is an easement recorded. Now whether or not that easement expired or that easement was transferred with the deed the Elys obtained it remains to be seen at this point. I guess that maybe is the question that this Board, again I submit to you, I am not telling you what to think or what have you, but I think it should be answered.
Mr. Darrow: That probably would be her bet to go to the County Clerk’s Office and check in Book 721 Page 57, get a copy of it and see if it is recorded as an easement.
Mr. Tehan: Also there may be a reference in your own deed in the title to your house, your property, which may refer to that easement and then the Board will be in a better position to pass on this application and you may consider other options.
Mrs. Ely: So I go to?
Mr. Tehan: Go to the County Clerk’s Office, which is on the first floor of the County Office Building
Mr. Moore: She can come and see me.
Mr. Tehan: Or go see Jim Moore in the Code Enforcement Office which is right down in the basement of this building now.
Mr. Rejman: Would you like to ask to have this tabled for a month?
Mrs. Ely: I would really hate to tell the neighbors they can’t use the driveway that they have been using.
Mr. Rejman: If it is in your deed
Mrs. Ely: I know but
Mr. Tehan: You have to understand as well that if the Board grants the variance it remains with the property whether or not you own the property or not. Sometimes it is a minor, sometimes down the road it is not the best thing which is why there is certain criteria that has to be followed. One of the criteria is are there other options available and that is what we are trying to figure out.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we table this until next meeting and find out if there is indeed a deed easement.
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second it.
VOTING TO TABLE: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been tabled until next month.
_____________________________________________________________
73 Frances Street, R-1, area variance for a front yard driveway. John Cool.
Mr. Rejman: 73 Frances Street. Sorry for the confusion. State your name for the record please.
Mr. Cool: My name is John Cool, I live at 73 Frances Street, for 7 years and I have owned the house for 5.
Mr. Rejman: What seems to be the issue here?
Mr. Cool: I have large house, it is a two family house, upstairs and downstairs. I have an existing driveway about 60 foot long, I put some pictures in there, that is an existing driveway and I want to provide off street parking, I have plenty of room.
It is my understanding I can have an 8 foot wide x 24 foot long driveway which is almost 200 square feet and it is kind of funny looking but mine is a triangle, I want the triangle to go along with the house and the square footage, I have figured it out is about 250 to 270 square feet and apparently I need an area variance. I think it is an improvement, it is a busy street, everyone who drives a car knows that Frances Street is a busy street and I may have had a lot of complaints by one person on that street, I am not sure exactly, but when I went to the Court room they said I complaints about what I want to do.
I have already improved the front of my house, I took out the old bushes and put concrete planter boxes in there. It is a modern driveway and I trying to improve the house, I am 35 years old and I will be living there for 21 years and it is an improvement to the neighborhood I believe.
Mr. Rejman: Why do you feel you need that extra bit of driveway in the front?
Mr. Cool: In the front right there?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Cool: I have an 11 foot wide driveway right there now and since it is along the side of my house and there is a garage way in the back, I noticed around town a lot of different places I go by and I have pictures, I did notice that that would be very convenient, I mean I have existing concrete pavement brick, the most expensive, it is not going to be asphalt. Not going to be black topped as I see all around town all around the City.
I sell paving brick, I do that, I did that existing paving brick and I got many compliments from my neighbors, people walking up and down the street. I put a brand new sidewalk in and that just seems logical to get that one extra parking spot off the street so I don’t have to park in front of my neighbors. It just seems like a logical approach. I am not blocking the front of my house. The front of my house is 60 feet off the road, it is 50 feet from the sidewalk and those two front doors, I have two front doors and neither one of them are blocked. I have plenty of room.
Mr. Rejman: OK, questions from the Board? None at this time. Is there any one wishing to speak for or against this application? None. Back to the Board.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Cool, do you currently rent the apartment in your house?
Mr. Cool: I live in the downstairs and I rent the upstairs, it is a two bedroom.
Mr. Darrow: You are providing off street parking for your tenant?
Mr. Cool: I am yes, one more spot would make all the difference in the world for everybody.
Mr. Gentile: How many vehicles are parked in the driveway?
Mr. Cool: Most of the time since I have upstairs bedrooms and three downstairs bedrooms, but I live there by myself, so most of the time there are only two cars but quite possibly there are a lot of times that you have three cars parking there because two could be upstairs, fit two because it is 60 feet long, you could have two to the upstairs and one downstairs and you can get the two lanes right there that you need especially in the winter.
Mr. Darrow: What your objective is then Mr. Cool is to make sure that your tenants have parking in the back, so that you are not blocking them in, you are getting the one in the front because you are in the downstairs apartment.
Mr. Cool: Absolutely.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Other questions? None, ok, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Hare: He doesn’t have the biggest one but it certainly doesn’t take up the whole space to put that extra little lane in there. Not like he is paving over his whole front lawn. I don’t see a problem with it.
Mr. Darrow: I noticed sizeable lawn front, plenty on the side and in the back, he has a lot of green. Any time we allow some encroachment into the front, you know, aesthetically if it is not done right it is taking away a little. If he is going to do it out of pavers so that it matches the rest of the driveway I can see at an angle, not like it is a full rectangle in front of the house where next thing you know somebody is parked in the driveway somebody is jumping the curb or something. It is basically because of that angle it just seems like it is going to flow properly.
Mr. Tehan: I just want to make sure the Board is aware under the Code 30.44 when you have a driveway that goes along the side of the house you are allowed to throw in an 8 foot wide by 24 foot deep driveway. The applicant is seeking a little more than that. I just wanted to make sure that was clear that it is not just a front yard parking space that he is looking for, it is just a little more additional space that he is asking for in his application.
Mr. Moore: You are allowed 8 foot, he is asking for 16. Front there is 16 foot.
Mr. Darrow: Just at that one point
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: By the time he get a quarter of the way down because of the angle, he is no longer going to be in need of the variance.
Mr. Moore: Only allowed 8 foot across, that is what the Zoning book states. And this same applicant, if you look at the pictures that he supplied to you, there is also parking on the other side. That is where he should put his driveway in to access his back yard.
Mr. Rejman: Any other comments?
Mr. Temple: Wouldn’t that result in the decrease of the green, I mean here we are taking out little and here putting another full driveway on the other side of the house, we would actually reduce the amount of green space.
Mr. Moore: They are using it now.
Ms. Marteney: We have a picture of a car parking there right now.
Mr. Cool: Two cars that I own, I have one for sale.
Ms. Marteney: It shows that you have space for a car to be parked there. It is not a space necessarily used for BBQ or something. There is a sidewalk up against the side of the house which barely doubled would be large enough for a car to go into. In terms of green space I am not sure how large that sidewalk is. Jim do you know?
Mr. Moore: I don’t know.
Mr. Temple: I see the picture here; I didn’t see any vehicle like that when I looked at the property.
Ms. Marteney: There is a sidewalk which if it were doubled that is larger than a driveway
Mr. Temple: I think my point is that we have to take up more grass, existing grass to put a driveway in that side. If you put it if next to the house you have double the distance of what the triangle would have called for plus the addition length, probably be 4 times more grass taken up doing it that way.
Ms. Marteney: The sidewalk is there now, not going to quadruple that sidewalk to put a driveway in.
Mr. Darrow: Driveway is 12 feet wide.
Ms. Marteney: How wide is the sidewalk?
Mr. Darrow: Probably 4 feet wide.
Mr. Westlake: Can you put parking behind the house?
Mr. Moore: I didn’t go down the driveway. People were complaining about the car in the front yard.
Mr. Darrow: Did anyone check with the applicant to see if he is opposed to putting the driveway on the side of the house as opposed to the small area in the front?
Mr. Rejman: The issue before us is that.
Mr. Darrow: If he is not opposed to doing that then we really have no issue before us because he is allowed 8 x 24 on the side.
Mr. Rejman: The application before us is for the small triangle portion.
Mr. Darrow: Right.
Mr. Tehan: He can have the small triangle portion of 8 x 24, what the dimensions are a little bit larger than that and I guess the main question that this Board has to decide is what is the need for that additional that space beyond the 8 x 24. You seem to be getting off track a little bit. He is allowed to have that triangle that goes off 8 x 24 depth, I guess what the application has to address and maybe the Board has to consider is what is the need for the additional 3 feet in depth and 8.7 feet in width.
Mr. Temple: First of all I missed something that Mr. Moore said and then I want to go back to something that Mr. Tehan just said. Mr. Moore what did you say just a minute ago I couldn’t hear you.
Mr. Moore: We were called up there the reason we were called the neighbors were complaining due to cars parked all over the yard.
Mr. Temple: Mr. Tehan?
Mr. Tehan: Yes.
Mr. Temple: What is the width of this triangle at its widest point?
Mr. Tehan: As I understand it, its widest point up at the house from measurements I believe from Ed LaDouce
Mr. Moore: 16.3
Mr. Tehan: OK, so it is 16.3
Mr. Temple: Is that 16.3 include the existing driveway or just the addition?
Mr. Moore: No, just the addition.
Mr. Temple: The addition.
Mr. Moore: Isn’t there a drawing there?
Mr. Temple: Yes, but no measurements.
Mr. Tehan: In depth the driveway is about 27 feet that is the measurement done by Code Enforcement.
Mr. Temple: Thank you Mr. Tehan.
Mr. Tehan: We have in the resolution that was prepared an area variance of 3 feet in depth and 8.17 feet in width.
Mr. Cool: Can I talk again or no?
Mr. Rejman: No, the public portion has been closed. Hold on I am doing some math here.
Mr. Temple: Looks like the variance in square feet to be assuming this is a right triangle half of 3 x 8.17, 12 square feet variance approximately.
Mr. Rejman: I am coming up with something different.
Mr. Temple: Talking about 12 _ 13 square feet.
Mr. Darrow: What were the figures?
Mr. Temple: 8.17 x 3
Mr. Rejman: If you are looking for 3 feet in depth
Mr. Darrow: It would be 12.45 square feet.
Mr. Temple: As is noted by the County Planning memos we have received, I remember the first time ones of these types of applications came before this Board on Capitol Street. It was for somebody who wanted to pave over the entire front lawn and we approved that. I am bringing it up at this point because I like to see uniformity as much as possible. I understand that every case is to be viewed on its own merits. I think whatever we do here has a way of resurfacing and perhaps even setting a trend.
Tonight we are looking at something approaching 12-½ square foot variance space whereas not so long ago within a year, we were looking at an entire front yard. If we see something that is going on in the City, a lot of need for off street parking, parking that is desirable is better for snow removal and a lot of other things, but the City has this rule such as it is to allow front yard parking. Still I like to look at what the person buys when they buy a property, what the property ownership rights are, I use this as a guide in a lot of cases that come before us and I think it is reasonable to expect that a person who buys a two family house with respect that they want to park cars on the property, so I find that this is a very minimal variance to be used in residential and I guess if
there is a problem with somebody parking excessive number of cars on the grass there are sections of the Code to deal with that as far as unlicensed cars.
Mr. Darrow: Did you call for or against?
Mr. Moore: There is a letter in the packet.
Mr. Rejman: I guess the question is did the applicant demonstrate a need for the additional 12 feet?
Ms. Marteney: Sufficient yard to be used in the front yard.
Mr. Hare: As far as the tenants maybe it doesn’t fit into his plans to put a driveway on the other side.
Mr. Rejman: But if that side is triangle
Mr. Hare: I can see where it is easier for him to extend that paving brick over to the left as opposed to starting a whole new driveway going down the other side.
Mr. Darrow: You are talking such a greater cost, now he has to come all the way from the curb, he will need a curb cut, hopefully the sidewalk isn’t damaged, otherwise he will have to replace the side, excavate it out.
Ms. Marteney: Still have front yard when you look at the house. You will get cars off the street.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, when you have been called up was that due to the fact that there has been parking on the grass on the side of the house?
Mr. Moore: Parking in the front yard.
Mr. Darrow: Parking in the front yard.
Mr. Moore: I have never been up there. I drove by once.
Mr. Darrow: OK.
Mr. Rejman: Does everyone feel comfortable enough to render a decision? We will move ahead. Does anyone wish to make a motion?
Mr. Hare: I would like to make a motion that John Cool owner of the property at 73 Frances Street be allowed a area variance for a size of 3 feet in depth and 8.17 feet in width for a total of 12.45 square feet.
Mr. Darrow: 8.13
Mr. Gentile: Just give the dimensions.
Mr. Rejman: Area variance to legalize the existing parking area
Mr. Hare: To legalize the existing parking area
Mr. Temple: We had a measurement of 16.3 feet
Mr. Darrow: It is a triangle right angle 12.45 square feet.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s do it over.
Mr. Hare: I make a motion that John Cool owner of the property at 73 Frances Street in the City of Auburn, be granted an area variance for an 8 foot extension to the existing driveway on a triangular angle.
Mr. Moore: 16 feet
Mr. Darrow: He is allowed 8 feet
Mr. Moore: It is 8 foot by 27 foot and half of that.
Mr. Rejman: Counsel?
Mr. Tehan: Let me put it this way you can craft the motion to allow an area variance of 3 feet in depth 8.3 feet to allow the existing front yard parking space
Mr. Moore: Additional front yard parking would be 108 square feet.
Mr. Darrow: Total of everything
Mr. Temple: Mr. Tehan has said it is already allowed
Mr. Tehan: An additional 8 feet in width required additional 3 feet, actually 8.3 feet in width and 3 feet in depth.
Mr. Moore: It is not, this is the 3-½ feet here, so this is 27 x 8 feet. This here is what he has (points to map).
Mr. Tehan: When you measured it before you told me it was16.3 feet across and 27 feet deep
Mr. Moore: Right.
Mr. Tehan: So that is what is allowed 8 x 24
Mr. Moore: Doesn’t allow for that 3 ½ feet.
Mr. Tehan: The Code doesn’t allow for that.
Mr. Rejman: He is allowed 8 x 24 correct? That is 192 square feet. He has 216 foot, looking at 34 square feet.
Mr. Hare: I would like to amend my motion to include the area variance to be determined at 34 square feet.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to second that amended motion.
Mr. Temple: Does this satisfy our Corporation Counsel’s understanding what we need for proper resolution of this matter?
Mr. Tehan: What is the
Mr. Rejman: 34 square feet.
Mr. Tehan: I don’t know if it does because when I was told the calculations before the 3 feet down below was not included when I drafted my resolution so I am a little confused at this point as to what we need.
Mr. Moore: Whole area is 310 feet, subtract the 8 x 24 off there, that leaves you 118 square feet.
Mr. Tehan: You are talking about 118 square feet, then you look at the possibility of a rectangle rather than what is allowed under Code, kind of an odd shape
Mr. Moore: I know. Should be on an angle just like he has it. The area in question right now is 16 feet at the house, 27 feet to the sidewalk and the front has a width of 3 ½ feet.
Mr. Tehan: How does that come into play _ is that the full width of the driveway?
Mr. Moore: Yes, he has a tree there.
Mr. Rejman: Here is what I would like to do, ok, Mr. Moore and Mr. Tehan, could you work this out while we do the next one.
Mr. Tehan: That is a good idea.
Mr. Rejman: What we will do is, we going recess on this one for 10 _ 15 minutes, they will go in there and do the math for us and we will bring the motion back if all are agreed on that. We will move ahead on the next application.
I think we have this worked out.
Mr. Tehan: Just as an explanation again what the Code allows for is 8 feet wide and 24 foot in depth. Apparently what is on the property is 16.3 wide 27 deep and then down by the driveway there is an additional 3.5 feet. Perhaps the model resolution should read an area variance of 8.3 feet in width at the house, 3 in depth, 3.5 feet at the driveway going west and that basically gives you mainly for guidance 14.5 square feet.
Mr. Rejman: Looking for 14.5 square feet.
Mr. Moore: 8 feet and 3 feet.
Mr. Hare: I would like to make a motion that John Cool owner of the property at 73 Francis Street, City of Auburn, be granted an area variance of 8.3 feet wide at the house, 3.5 feet wide at the driveway for a total variance of 14.5 square feet and 3 feet in depth.
Mr. Gentile: I second it.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
_____________________________________________________________
116 N. Division Street, R-1, use variance for a front yard driveway. Stewart & Beth Conway.
Mr. Rejman: 116 N. Division Street. Come up please. State your name for the record please.
Mr. Conway: Stewart Conway.
Mrs. Conway: Beth Conway.
Mr. Rejman: What would you like to do here?
Mr. Conway: We just purchased a house and we have no driveway.
Mrs. Conway: Problem is you can’t park in the front lawn. We are new to Auburn, we did not know that you can’t do that.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Conway: Also, I have a Police report where a tree limb fell on my van last weekend and now it is $245.00 worth of damage from parking on the street. If I was parking where I was, it wouldn’t have fallen on it.
Mrs. Conway: Other problem is Case Avenue is right across from us and your highway department know that in order to get around that corner you have to go over the curb.
Mr. Conway: She also parked off the street a little bit between the sidewalk and the road to stay off the road because it is so narrow and she got a ticket for it. I went to the Police Department and they said there is no parking there.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Conway: I have a picture of a tractor trailer trying to go around and it had to go way over into the other lane which blocked the traffic coming the other way.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board?
Mr. Darrow: I have a question, when you looked at the house before you purchased it, when the sellers informed you that you were able to park in the front yard, at that time, did you look in the front yard and noticed that there were no tire tracks, the lawn wasn’t messed up, no signs of cars being parked there.
Mr. Conway: No one has lived there in three years. We only talked to the sellers by phone, they didn’t even come to the closing.
Mr. Hare: This ramp that you have here
Mr. Conway: That is coming out.
Mr. Hare: Are you proposing to put the driveway in approximately where that ramp is now or do you plan on using this entire space in front of the house
Mr. Conway: From the right of that ramp there is four feet and on the other side of the house we are going four feet so what I wanted to do is go from the underneath the ramp to the sidewalk.
Mr. Darrow: Is your property line the center of that hedgerow or there abouts?
Mr. Conway: Right in the center.
Mr. Darrow: Right in the center.
Mr. Conway: Yes. I have a survey map.
Mrs. Conway: The lot is 29 x 178 feet.
Mr. Conway: The sidewalk is going to stay we are going to go from the sidewalk over.
Ms. Marteney: To the north like up to the ballpark
Mr. Conway: Right
Ms. Marteney: Right in front of the house.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application?
Mr. Swartz: I will speak for the application.
Mr. Rejman: Come forward please and state your name for the record.
Mr. Swartz: My name is Jim Swartz. I am on the agenda for later on. But it seems to me that the parking seems to be an issue and to deny these people, who come into town, who are new to the town, off street parking obviously there are dangers of tree limbs and other sort of things, just wait for the winter in Auburn. Seems to me we are not privy to where this was going but it seems to me that it would behoove the property itself in resale value and for their use to allow them the variance for parking.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Cool: My name is John C. Cool, I live at 73 Francis Street and I go by there all the time and I saw it today and I was interested in it, I drive all the time and he is absolutely correct there doesn’t seem to be a parking spot and it might not look very the best looking place in the whole wide world, but it is your place and off street parking is important, no question about it. I am like you I have a 120-foot tree standing, 120 foot high, the biggest tree in the City. You have an opportunity I hope you get it.
Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application?
Ms. Marteney: Parking for one car?
Mr. Conway: For two, we have two vehicles.
Mr. Darrow: Looking at the survey the scale is 1 inch equals 20 foot, it appears, for lack of a ruler, that there should be a good 15 feet between the dwelling and their southern most property line. Now I understand that you only have room for one vehicle and they are looking for two. I will pass the survey around if anyone else wants to look at it. The other issue, I can understand the point about the tractor trailer trying to get through, but that is also not the truck route and no tractor trailer is suppose to be on N. Division Street, unless it is making a local delivery perhaps to the Sunset, Villainous Landlubbers, that is not the truck route. If Red Star is using this to get over to Route 32 and out of town, it is illegal because they are suppose to go up the arterial and
down Route 34.
Mr. Rejman: Could have been local deliveries.
Mrs. Conway: The highway department and dump trucks use it every day to go down the street from us.
Mr. Conway: When a dump truck comes off Case Avenue it has to go over the sidewalk on the corner of Case and Division on the south side to make the turn.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board?
Mr. Darrow: They may be able to get to the back of the house from the side.
Mr. Conway: We just had it surveyed, there is 4 feet between the house and the sidewalk
Mr. Darrow: Perhaps as far as the bushes have grown
Mr. Conway: There is a property fence right there all the way up through that property line.
Mrs. Conway: The people next door just had their property surveyed too.
Mr. Rejman: Any other questions at this point for the applicant? We will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Have a seat.
Mr. Darrow: I would say after exhausting all other avenues it is quite clear that there is a hardship and no other remedy does exist.
Mr. Temple: He bought the house recently, he looked at it and could see that it has a very small yard with a ramp such as it is. But the hardship pertains to financial economic hardship. Because this particular application requests a use variance whereas the one on Frances Street requests an area variance, we have to look at this according to the law differently. I submit that there hasn’t been a scrap of financial evidence presented here tonight that indicates that there is any financial hardship whatsoever that would dictate that they don’t have reasonable rate of return on their property is what the law requires. Furthermore, they asked for two spots and not one spot so basically it is going to encroach on their entire front yard. It is going to eat up
their entire green area leaving them with almost nothing in the way of a front yard. The idea of this ordinance such as it is _ is to provide front yards as opposed to black-topped space all over the City. I am opposed to this particular one.
Mr. Darrow: I can appreciate keeping green area in front of the house, but when there is no alternative to it, they have already suffered damage to vehicles and I am also a firm believer that not all hardship on all properties has to be linked monetarily. There are other forms of hardship beside monetary hardship.
Mr. Temple: If you look at the model resolution item one on the model resolution which we are required to find a finding _ the applicant cannot realize a reasonable rate of return, that such lack of return is substantial, and has been demonstrated by competent financial evidence. All of us would have to agree that there hasn’t been any showing of that.
Mr. Darrow: I am well aware of what we are required to find on the perfect application under the perfect situations, but as you well know they are not all perfect applications, not perfect situations, they are not all cut and dried and that is what our common sense needs to dictate.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Any other comments?
Mr. Hare: I would like to say that it would be nice for them to have two parking spaces. It is a very small house with a very small lot. I think two parking spaces may be a little too much for that small a house and small a lot. I think a good compromise would be for them to where that sidewalk is right now on the right hand side, if they are taking that ramp out, I would suggest to them, putting a one lane small driveway on the right hand side. That would preserve the green space in the front. My concern is that you have neighbors all up and down that street that also are in very cramped spaces and to suddenly pave over your entire front lawn which it is a small lawn, not that big, I am afraid that they are all going to start coming in wanting to pave over their front lawns. I would suggest to the people it would take up the entire lawn and that would be up to the person if they wanted to continue with this or not. I think one little lane to the right I think would be
sufficient. I have a problem with taking over the whole front lawn. I really believe that if this is this man’s house and he has been showing a hardship he should have a driveway. I would feel more comfortable if it was just one instead of two.
Mr. Darrow: One stipulation where the telephone pole lies. I mean it looks clearly to be off the bushes to the north by a foot, now is that going to encroach upon the area that would probably make a good driveway. If it doesn’t encroach, I would tend to go with that, I agree with you there.
Mr. Hare: From this picture that pole doesn’t look in the way.
Mr. Temple: There is a orange painted stick on the street side of that telephone pole which indicates that it is probably a survey marker and it is right next to the pole.
Mr. Darrow: A lot would depend on that. Then again you have to consider backing out and backing around the pole or avoiding the pole.
Mr. Hare: I don’t know what else they could do. There are options that I would feel more comfortable with
Mr. Darrow: I hate to see the whole front yard black topped as well. I think the right hand side is ideal. Maybe just getting one car off the street, and as I look at the front property, if we take one car off the street, it looks like the one car parking on the street will be blocking the car in the driveway because they don’t have significant width.
Mr. Rejman: It is a 29-foot lot.
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Still thinking about crafting a resolution _ what size _ this is to install a driveway in the front yard.
Mr. Moore: 16 x 24, still have 13 feet of green space.
Mr. Darrow: No measurements on the survey.
Mr. Moore: 16 foot wide is enough for two cars.
Mr. Darrow: Perhaps we should let Mr. Moore and Mr. Tehan figure this
Mr. Rejman: Craft another one
Mr. Temple: We have the applicants_ words here what they are proposing. What Mr. Hare is talking about does partially compensate for some of the things that we are suppose to be considering. However, we don’t have I don’t think to act on something that we invent versus what the applicants apply for. So if this were to be tabled for a month so that we can revisit it another time when some more exact dimensions may be or change in their thrust of the application. The way it is now, the front yard is going to be a parking area.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore would you go into chambers and come up with a solution for this?
Mr. Tehan: We are talking about a use variance.
Mr. Rejman: We understand that.
Mr. Moore: There are no dimensions on that.
Mr. Tehan: 16 x 20.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chairman, point is because it is a use variance all we are giving is a variance to allow front yard parking. For a use variance, dimensions are needed. If it was an area variance, then no dimensions are needed.
Mr. Rejman: So if we grant the use variance they can black top the whole thing. I feel the Board is talking about here is putting some parameters on that.
Mr. Moore: 16 x 20.
Mr. Rejman: Does anyone want to make a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant a use variance to Stewart and Beth Conway of 116 N. Division Street for the purpose of creating a 16 foot wide 20 foot deep parking area in the front yard of their dwelling.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Temple
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Conway: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
6 Lexington Avenue, R-1, area variance for sign. Anthony Tardibone.
Mr. Rejman: 6 Lexington Avenue, please. State your name for the record.
Mr. Tardibone: Anthony Tardibone Jr.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there at 6 Lexington Avenue.
Mr. Tardibone: I already did it, I didn’t realize I needed a permit. I put a 4 x 5 sign on the peak of my building and took down the old Moose sign that was on the building.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board?
Mr. Hare: All these signs that you have all up and down the front, are they necessary?
Mr. Tardibone: They tell what is going on during the week.
Mr. Hare: How often do they change?
Mr. Tardibone: Every week.
Ms. Marteney: You also have signs on the hitching posts along the front.
Mr. Tardibone: They are banners.
Mr. Moore: He does have too many signs here. The marquee board cannot stay there. He has not yet applied for that one. The other temporary signs they are only suppose to be there until the event and then they are supposed to be taken down. These signs have been there since he opened.
Mr. Tardibone: I don’t know if you can read the, but that is for bands that play there Saturday nights.
Ms. Marteney: Two on the side that say now open and Friends is now open. How long have they been up?
Mr. Tardibone: We have been open for about 5 weeks.
Mr. Moore: That is one of the reasons he is here.
Mr. Rejman: This is about two years ago, didn’t we
Mr. Darrow: Yes, for the Moose for a sign out front 4 x 8.
Mr. Moore: They never put it up. That variance went by the way side.
Mr. Temple: The dimensions you quoted tonight was 4 x 5, but the pictures you have say 4 x 6. I did not get up there to measure it.
Mr. Tardibone: It is 4 x 5.
Mr. Temple: How do you intend to operate the property in general if this particular variance is granted that you requested tonight what are you going to do with all the various signs that you have on the property.
Mr. Tardibone: Plan on signs going up until the event happens, I have a different banner out every Saturday with different names.
Mr. Temple: How many banners per event?
Mr. Tardibone: One banner.
Mr. Temple: Looked like you had 4 or 5 extra temporary type signs there.
Mr. Tardibone: We had a Halloween Party Friday and something going on Saturday.
Ms. Marteney: There are 5 on the building right now and I think there were 3 on the street right now, 8 temporary signs plus the marquee sign.
Mr. Tardibone: The beer company put them up.
Mr. Darrow: Is there a use variance on this building because it is in a R-1?
Mr. Moore: Pre-existing non-conforming,
Mr. Darrow: So under that because he is basically operating as a C he is not allowed the signage of a C?
Mr. Moore: No, he is in an R-1.
Mr. Darrow: So R-1 dictates which is residential 10 square feet, but yet we allow a commercial building operating in there. That seems very hypocritical, because if he was across the street it would be a completely area as far as signage or next door where Tops is. I think the first thing we have got to realize is how long this building has been here. It is a commercial piece of property that has been a commercial piece of property and still is operating as a commercial piece of property, but yet it is imposed residential signage, which is 10 square foot. Now to run a commercial piece property on a 4-land road with 10 square footage of sign, I don’t think he will get a lot of exposure.
Ms. Marteney: I don’t have a problem with the signs, but with the floppy banners, maybe another sign in the yard.
Mr. Darrow: I didn’t notice them in the front.
Mr. Tardibone: We put them so people would know that we are there.
Ms. Marteney: You have done a lot, you have had great articles in the paper and you have done a lot of work and I think that is great, but the aesthetics are not good.
Mr. Darrow: Right on our plate is strictly the 5 x 4 sign, am I correct on that, that is all we can concern ourselves with at this time and any other sign clean up is between Code Enforcement and the applicant?
Mr. Tehan: That is correct.
Mr. Rejman: Let me interject this for a second, would it be better for the applicant and Code Enforcement to get together because we don’t want to revisit this in a few months, if I am hearing this right, and maybe you wish to amend your application next month and ask for a bit more and
Mr. Darrow: That is a good point Mr. Tardibone because your sign in front is in question, so perhaps if you sit down in 30 days with Code Enforcement to come up with a sign plan and layout and then you may be looking for more signage than you thought so that everything can be done at once, one time and all legal for you.
Mr. Moore: The marquee sign has to go.
Mr. Rejman: A sign plan.
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Tardibone: Table it for a month?
Mr. Rejman: Only a suggestion.
Mr. Darrow: I make a motion that we table 6 Lexington Avenue until the next meeting.
Ms. Marteney: I second it.
VOTING TO TABLE: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Tabled until next month.
_____________________________________________________________
202-204 Genesee Street, R-2, area variance to construct two (2) apartment buildings with eight (8) dwelling units in each addition to the two existing buildings at Bel-Aire Apartments. Brendan Grillo.
Mr. Rejman: 202-204 Genesee Street please.
Mr. Giacona: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I am Sam Giacona and I am here on behalf of Brendan Grillo who owns the beautiful Bel-Aire Apartments. With me is the architect on the project, Bill Waldon and the former owner who has come here in support of this.
As you are aware the existing apartment house consists of two ten unit apartment houses that are located on Genesee Street and the project will consist of adding two eight unit apartment houses on the back of the property. I believe that we are here for a area variance for the parking and a use variance, I am not sure about the use variance but an area variance I am sure.
Mr. Tehan: Mr. Giacona if I may, I prepared three resolutions for the Board and we are looking at a use variance to allow as a multiple family dwelling of a garden apartment type in order to allow construction of two new eight unit apartments, looking at a area variance of 11,592 square feet to allow the applicant to construct two eight unit apartment buildings on a 78,408 square foot lot and then the area variance for 24 off street parking spaces.
Mr. Giacona: OK, thank you.
Mr. Tehan: That way you can frame your argument.
Mr. Giacona: Bill Waldon will address the parking. I want to make it short, basically the current use is catered towards an elderly clientele, very little turn over, very low vacancy rate. I note that there is a question about parking, there are currently 20 parking spaces for the 20 units that are there and I have been informed by my client that only 10 or 11 maybe 12 of those parking spaces are used. If there is a big question about the parking generally it is a 2-bedroom apartment occupied by one or two persons with one vehicle, so I know parking is a question.
Regarding the area variance Mr. Waldon will speak to that. I know there is some question about whether this will increase congestion, whether it would create high density. The two buildings will be located off of the back of the property. I don’t know if you have been able to see the existing survey map Mr. Waldon has out. Here is Genesee Street with the two buildings in front and it is a pretty deep lot. This is the proposed layout of the two existing buildings, existing parking and the two new proposed buildings with additional parking and an access to Ross Place. I know there is some concern about congestion at Washington Street which I believe is here (points to map). People can access the property from Genesee Street by going down Ross Place or coming
Woodlawn and up Ross Place to access this property and I don’t think congestion at Washington Street would be an issue. That is my personal opinion, don’t hold me to it.
Mr. Waldon: What we are proposing instead of an entrance and exit here on Genesee Street where there is congestion, this is an entrance with a one way exit out only to Ross, so the site plan is set for a flow of traffic in and out in two different directions so that would free up one of the problems here now with the stop light that makes for congestion.
Mr. Giacona: That is the project, any questions or do you want more information.
Mr. Rejman: Why don’t you keep going with the presentation and I am sure at the end we will have a few questions.
Mr. Giacona: Again the exiting use caters to an elderly clientele and that is the use they anticipate. These units if you are not familiar, are high-end apartments and like I said very low vacancy rate and what they intend to do is continue with the high-end type of apartments with hard wood floors, intercom access to the apartments, etc. As I indicated previously the buildings would be in the back of the lot would not be noticeable from Genesee Street. He spent a lot of money to get here today and he is going to be spending a lot more money to put these units in and we believe that there is a need for this type of housing in the City and the central location of the apartments gives elderly people incentive to move to this area. At this point I would like to turn it over to Bill
regarding the area variance and the proposed development.
Mr. Waldon: I am William Waldon the architect for the project. We have submitted a density calculation sheet and the way we calculated the figures for this is according to zoning we did the four square acres of land using the center point of Brendan’s site to come up with the numbers that are allowed in four square acres and according to the calculations we came up they are permitted 23 permitted dwelling units within this area. We don’t exceed that amount by 16 as shown on this calculation sheet but if you take the 25,000 square foot land per unit and put it into 78,000 square feet that Brendan has we are short by four dwellings. Those four units is where we are transiting between a limited apartment use which is six units per building as opposed to garden which is eight and
up and Brendan current apartment configuration are ten per building so he is already has the garden apartment configuration for the two buildings that he has on site.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Yes, come forward please.
Ms. Kilmer: My name is Carol Kilmer, I own property on Ross Place, I also have a driveway which was the right of way at one time and my fence goes right there where he is going to build I believe. I want to know how close he is going to build those two apartment buildings.
Mr. Waldon: I can show you. The property line is right here, he is 25 feet off the property line which is the normal set back for this side yard, he is looking to utilize the right of way for an access to drive out to Ross Place.
Ms. Kilmer: I don’t know how you are going to do that there is a pile of stone this high that has been there since we had our sewer fixed and my driveway fixed, they left it there. Awful close to my house and my children and grandchildren. Ross Place is a very small street, it is a very busy street and we have problems with off street parking. I also own the piece of land behind the fence. I am sure Sam has done his job and he knows that. I just want my opinions noted. Very busy place to put a right of way on Ross Place, I am sure if my neighbors knew they would probably be here too. We have a big problem with off street parking.
Mr. Rejman: I am sure
Mr. Darrow: Did you receive a letter in the mail/
Ms. Kilmer: I did yes. I don’t know if the other neighbors did, but I did.
Mr. Rejman: They did also.
Ms. Kilmer: I park in the right of way.
Mr. Darrow: Whose right of way is it?
Ms. Kilmer: I was under the assumption my husband bought it and it was ours but then when I got a letter from Mr. Giacona this spring after my husband passed away telling me it wasn’t my right of way, but we were under the impression that we owned it and when we bought the back lot for taxes that the right of way went with it. I don’t anything about this
Mr. Darrow: That is something you probably have to do a deed search on to see.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. I would guess someone is going to ask you a question about that right of way.
Mr. Giacona: Which one?
Ms. Kilmer: Shared driveway
Mr. Giacona: Yes there is a right of way that runs with the land that Brendan purchased. As I am sure Corporation Counsel will tell you it is very difficult for anyone to extinguish a right of way and although they have used it the right of way runs with the land
Ms. Kilmer: Used it for 20 years.
Mr. Giacona: 22, 25 whatever it is, it is very difficult to extinguish a right of way.
Mr. Rejman: What is the width of this right of way?
Mr. Giacona: 8 feet.
Ms. Kilmer: Wide enough for two cars.
Mr. Rejman: OK. At this point any questions? Questions from the Board at this point? There must be questions.
Mr. Darrow: If it is hard to generate any questions at this time, we were not given any layouts, I have no clue other than what has been presented and reading through here, we have no site plans, stuff to derive any questions.
Mr. Giacona: We gave all that information.
Mr. Waldon: We submitted building floor plans and site plans with the application.
Ms. Marteney: We didn’t get them with our packets.
Mr. Giacona: Did Housing Code get them?
Mr. Moore: No we have all ours. There is a site plan in there showing the lot.
Mr. Tehan: It is attached to the area variance application.
Mr. Rejman: There is a density calculation.
Mr. Tehan: There were two applications for this property, use and area application.
Mr. Waldon: There was a full set of plans submitted and a list of drawings submitted with the application. Included was a site plan, foundation of first floor and second floor
Ms. Marteney: We did not get those but we got some calculations
Mr. Waldon: Right that was in 8 ½ x 11 format, but we submitted 24 x 36 drawings.
Mr. Moore: That is for the Planning Board.
Ms. Marteney: We don’t get those.
Mr. Waldon: I do have building plans here, if you want we can hold them up.
Mr. Darrow: Could you find out where the right of way is? This is the right of way back there? This narrow strip? OK. (Looking at map). And the other land that was purchased?
Mr. Giacona: That was here (pointing to map).
Mr. Waldon: The right of way actually varies in width, at the road I believe it is 8 feet but back on the site it is 15 or 14 feet. We have the overall building plans here, this is the first floor plan, four units on a floor, the second floor is actually the same as this, but a center entry to the building in the center, circulation zone, one rear exit, each apartment unit has a exterior patio or deck depending on what they want, two bedroom units, kitchen, bath, mechanical station for each apartment unit, crawl space, no basement below this. Hip roof design with a roofline pretty similar to what is on the exiting apartments, similar materials, and brick with concrete blocks. Any questions on the plans?
Mr. Rejman: No, I don’t think so. Are there questions from the Board?
Mr. Gentile: I have a question for Mr. Grillo. I am wondering what the occupancy is of the existing apartments.
Mr. Grillo: 100%. Prior owner agrees it was100% most of the time.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Temple you have a question?
Mr. Temple: The application seems to indicate that 6 units would not be economically feasible, yet there was nothing presented to show us that.
Mr. Giacona: I don’t know that we need to based upon the density.
Mr. Temple: According to the requirements that we have you do, the applications refer to it but doesn’t show it.
Mr. Giacona: If you take 12 times the number of apartment houses, the rent that is received right now, you would take 12 times $400 that would you give you what you receive on a monthly bases and then take that times 12 and that would equal what you get a year and then you take 16 times 4 and multiple that times 12 and that is what you get, so you are talking about 25 percent. So he could expend upwards $600,000 to $1,000,000 on this project, you are talking about a rate of return on that, that is what you are talking about. Is that enough of clarification for you?
Mr. Temple: I can extrapolate those kind of numbers.
Mr. Giacona: Great.
Mr. Temple: What the question is how does this constitute a hardship, a person buys a property knowing what it is and then goes and says I want more units than what the zoning allows me to build so that is where the hardship in the finding generally requires to show that he will be deprived of any reasonable rate of return on his property if we don’t grant the variance. Furthermore the variance has to be this size than something smaller and also that it is not self-created. There are all these different findings which I am trying to look into what we have had presented here and get through these things.
Mr. Giacona: Sure and I want to help you see those. I don’t want to spare with you here but we are talking about a major project here that will increase the tax base in the City of Auburn. We have a young man here who is trying to better himself, better his property, and try and get a reasonable rate of return. If we are going to try and shoot this thing down, if you want we will table it and we will come up with the numbers that whatever you need to make this thing so.
But I would think the City would look favorable upon the application like this. I find it commendable that someone wants to invest in this City given the tax base. I just had a three unit that I sold because of the taxes, the water, and the sewer. I think the young man is doing a commendable thing here. If you want to shot it down because technicalities you are trying to hold over his head, it is up to you. It is up to you Mr. Chairman if you want me to submit some numbers, hard in fact numbers, I am not sure where you are going.
Mr. Rejman: I am not either. Does the Board feel comfortable with the application that is placed before them and does Counsel feel comfortable?
Mr. Gentile: Does Planning have to approve this?
Mr. Rejman: Oh yes, Planning is next, they get involved next.
Mr. Tehan: The only thing that I would suggest is that when the motion for the variance is made that it should be made conditional upon a negative SEQRA declaration by the Planning Board. That way in essence under our City Ordinances, the Planning Board is the lead agency on any SEQRA applications, so therefore, you are not granting variances that may not make it past the Planning Board on SEQRA. That way if they do a positive declaration on the SEQRA and the applicant is unable to defend that, again I don’t know, I am just throwing out a scenario that way the variances that are granted fall by the wayside.
Mr. Darrow: Counsel, a project this size would call for a full review correct, a short form?
Mr. Tehan: Off the top of my head I really can’t answer that question. I would have to take a look at the SEQRA regulations unfortunately I don’t have them in front of me. Generally what you can do is do a short form and determine whether or not there may be a negative impact, I don’t know what they would find. Then you start getting into if you find positive environmental impact which SEQRA is kind of unusual because positive means bad almost and negative is good for you. Then you have to get into drafting environmental impact statements and that sort of thing. The lead agency for the City is the Planning Board when it comes to these types of SEQRA applications.
Mr. Rejman: Any further questions from the Board? OK, we will close the public portion, we will discuss it amongst ourselves. I suggest we start with the use variance, discussing that one.
Mr. Darrow: I only have couple concerns. Mr. Temple is you know in a proper means with this, I can understand, wanting to see not gaining proper return on their property as it is now. That there is a need to invest this and for the neighbor over the right of way. But I also look at it as a project in whole, what is going to be set forth, that they do have and maintain for all intents and purposes a 100% occupancy rate. That it does meet final review of Planning which will oversee the SEQRA process and that Code Enforcement is looking favorably on the project. So those are other areas where the proper contemplation is going to be needed.
Mr. Rejman: Other comments?
Ms. Marteney: I agree that hardship has not been shown, that is black and white information. I also think that it is interesting that we have had people state that there are too many apartments in Auburn and it is wonderful that you have 100% occupancy and that you are willing to make an investment. It is an interesting fact that you are willing to make this great monetary contribution.
Mr. Darrow: I look at it personally more as apartments, I don’t look at it as a nice aesthetically pleasing properly located complex. It is not a single family home that is going to be butchered off into 3 or 4 apartments. Everything is being done by the numbers. There are proper drawings, we are not going off a pencil sketch on a piece of paper. It is an investment in our community. When you consider what $600,000 just on that one lot could add to the tax base. For all intents and purposes there is room to do it there with a couple variances.
Mr. Rejman: OK, comments from this side.
Mr. Temple: Yes, I want to address the current situation which we are in with the City of Auburn. July 29th, reading in the Citizen newspaper here, “we have a glut of multi-units, we should do whatever we can to limit them. We absolutely have to do something” quoted from Mayor Carnicelli. Subsequent to that there was a public hearing held on a proposed moratorium on conversions of multi-family units 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and so forth. I spoke at that public hearing against having that enacted the way it was because it takes from people who have properties that they currently own and stops them from being able to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals if they need to or loss of prior existing non-conforming rights.
Here we have a person that has bought the property recently. He entered into the transaction knowing what the property is zoned as, they knew the financials of what it is, the income was versus the outgo. Now they have decided to make an addition to it given some extra land that they have there on the site. As I tried to point out Counsel was addressing the questions that I raised we have an obligation before we are empowered to pass the zoning variance to find certain things. We don’t have sufficient or any appreciable economic hardship information. It hasn’t been presented, I don’t see it for a person who just buys a piece of property and then comes to us and says I have to have this or else it is not going to work. Now I wonder for example what
would be the case if these properties were structured the size that would be allowable. We would have 4 times 2500 square foot area variance would be greatly reduced accordingly it would be relatively smaller at that point. If we are going for less units I suspect that the cost of value could be less therefore the amount of return wouldn’t have to be what it is on the size that is proposed. So I suspect that everything was scaled back of course I am only suspecting because we haven’t had really the complete presentation here tonight. But if we were to extrapolate the numbers such as were presented by counsel, yes it would be less income but there would also be less expenditure on the construction.
So for these various reasons and one other that we have a 8 foot right of way is kind of a lynch pin in the plan for we are going to circulate traffic around in a certain way and this is a good idea, I was impressed with that until I saw how small the right of way is, not even wide enough for a vehicle to pass through. So I can’t say I would support this because I don’t see that this is not self-created and I don’t see any financial hardship at all.
Mr. Rejman: I would like to hear a few more comments and I will weigh in.
Mr. Gentile: When we look at the economy you are building 12 units or 16 units versus 10 in the long run it would be cheaper to build the 16 now and then 10 five years down the road.
Mr. Darrow: That is the point that I was going interject
Mr. Gentile: Cheaper to do it today than doing 10 today then doing the rest down the road.
Mr. Darrow: If you are building 15000 square foot story home, your cost is substantially less putting another 15000 square foot on a second story, be basically you just have exterior walls and interior walls no more roughing, no more foundation. That is where a lot of your costs are incurred in your foundation, the prepping and the foundation and the roughing. You are just talking more exterior walls and interior walls. I think with that comparison, I agree with Mr. Gentile on that and also I understand the point on the proposed moratorium on conversions and I understand and I interrupt the word conversion for existing property not new construction. This is new construction. I think it is in a completely different league of its own from a conversion and shouldn’t
even be associated in that same paragraph, if you will.
Mr. Tehan: I just want to make a quick point on the moratorium that the language specifically talks about conversions and specifically excludes new construction firstly and secondly, the moratorium is for a period of four months so that Code Enforcement, Corporation Counsel Office as well as the Planning Department can look at possibly amending regulations as far as lot size, etc. But I just want to make sure that it doesn’t forever forestall anybody from ever converting their house again we can’t do that, that is not legal. However, I just want to make sure, I don’t want your deliberations for this application to be misconstrued with the moratorium that was enacted by the City Council.
Mr. Darrow: One last thing Mr. Chairman, if I would support my colleagues if they feel there is, the majority feels there is inadequate information in front of them, then I would support the majority of them to
Mr. Rejman: I was about to weigh in with my feelings. First I really like this project. However we do need to do it right and I understand the concerns about the hardship and lack of figures. If we are going to do this, let’s do it right so I would suggest and I hope
Mr. Darrow: And also attending to the neighbor’s concern
Mr. Rejman: That will also come up in Planning, that will be a big Planning issue, but I would suggest that we digest this for 30 days and if you could give us some help on the hardship side of this, facts and figures, I feel good about it, I just want to do it right. That’s my feeling. Motion to table?
Mr. Darrow: I make a motion that we table 202-204 Genesee Street to next month.
Mr. Rejman: And do we have a second?
Mr. Gentile: I second it.
Mr. Rejman: Roll call and I would like to put this first on the agenda next month.
VOTING TO TABLE: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application tabled until next month. Could Board members get a copy of the smaller site plans because all we have is the density calculations. I think it would be nice if we saw the whole project.
Mr. Waldon: We will get it to Jim Moore and he will distribute?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
_____________________________________________________________
197 State Street, C-1, area variance for shed. James & Margaret Swartz.
Mr. Rejman: 197 State Street please.
Mr. Swartz: Good evening. I am Jim Swartz, physical therapist. I first of all propose to that everybody stand up and stretch, my butt is sore.
I would like to thank the Board for the opportunity to present my area variance to the property known as 197 State Street, formerly known as the Polish Home. We wish to place a storage shed on a green space located at the rear of our building. While I may not have presented a perfect application, I hope to clear up any confusion and stimulate questions in the two-way dialogue portion of this hearing.
While I am asking for is an 80 square footprint on the green space at the rear building it represents less space than the 8 foot section that ran across the whole rear of the building that we demolished during the renovations in 1999 and 2000. While 197 State Street is listed as a C-1 on our hearing notice, I thought we were C-5. Current zoning requires I believe a 10-foot buffer from the property line of the adjoining residential properties. Enclosed in my application is a statement from the directly involved residents who are located on Cottage Street.
While much of tonight’s hearing has been revolving around parking for residents, my parking lot is abutting 4 separate properties, 3 of which are rental by off premises owners. On owner has repeatedly confronted me about his rights to use my lot as his driveway as he doesn’t have a driveway off of Perrine Street, so people use my lot all day long to get to the back of their properties, get back to their rental units. So in light of that I have purchased signs that say “No Parking and No Trespassing” first of all and that vehicles may be towed. I wonder if I have done enough with the No Trespassing sign and I question openly what is a sign, how big is a sign, how big can I put a sign because we do have a Scat Van turn around area in the back of our lot.
Mr. Darrow: Signs 12 x 18?
Mr. Rejman: Not sure.
Mr. Swartz: How about a turn around no parking turn around area?
Mr. Moore: Directional signs like that don’t require anything.
Mr. Swartz: OK, thank you. So my application is for area variance to put a storage shed on the back of the building at 197 State Street.
Mr. Rejman: Very good. Questions from the Board?
Ms. Marteney: Always wanted to tell you that the building looks great.
Mr. Swartz: Please come inside you will be surprised, not as a patient though (everyone laughs).
Ms. Marteney: It is a reasonable request, I don’t think there is any where else he could put it without affecting the parking. It is not encroaching on the neighbor’s.
Mr. Swartz: Also the placement of the shed will allow us to put the fencing that use to be up from her property fence to the old bowling alley piece that was put on the back of the Polish Home, so we talked about that closing it up because we do have right of way and pedestrian cutting through those the properties.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to check with Counsel to make sure I am correct here, we are not doing an area variance on square footage, simply giving an area variance that is going to allow him to put the building 2 foot from the property line so therefore an 8 foot variance is what he is going to be needing, am I correct?
Mr. Tehan: That is correct.
Mr. Rejman: That is correct.
Mr. Moore: This is commercial, commercial district he has to have 10 foot.
Mr. Darrow: That is what I thought, I just wanted to make sure that I was correct.
Mr. Moore: The shed could be right on his building.
Mr. Rejman: Any other questions from the Board? Good close the public portion and have a decision for you in a moment.
Ms. Marteney: Only place he can put it.
Mr. Darrow: Clean cut, open and shut.
I would like to make a motion that we grant an area variance at 197 State Street to James and Margaret Swartz for the purpose of erecting a storage building on the left side of their property an 8 foot variance so that it will be 2 foot from the adjacent property line as plotted on drawings.
Mr. Westlake: I second it.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application approved.
Mr. Swartz: Thank you.
| 
