ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001
Members Present: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Staff Present: Mr. Tehan, Mr. Miller, Mr. Moore
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 48 Cayuga Street, 232 North Street, 2 South Street, 85 South Street, 90 Franklin Street, 43 Francis Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have six items; I would like to put the area variances first. So we will be looking at: 90 Franklin Street, 43 Francis Street, 48 Cayuga Street, 232 North Street, 2 South Street and 85 South Street will be last.
_____________________________________________________________
90 Franklin Street, R-1a, 18 square feet area variance for sign, Calvary Presbyterian Church.
Mr. Rejman: 90 Franklin Street, are you here?
Rev. Drake: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Step forward, please take the mike.
Rev. Drake: I have not done this before, is this the place to be?
Mr. Rejman: This is the place to be. State your name for the record please.
Rev. Drake: My name is Tom Drake, I am the minister of Calvary Presbyterian Church at 90 Franklin Street. As you will see we are requesting a square footage variance for a sign to put in front of the Church to let people know that it is there.
Mr. Rejman: Very good. We all are getting our applications out. We all have a copy of the proposed signage yes? OK. Fairly straight forward. Are there any questions from the Board?
Mr. Darrow: Yes, in reviewing it this morning, I see your sign placement on your plot plan
Rev. Drake: Right
Mr. Darrow: My question being where is the sign going to be placed in relevance to the flower bed that is there _ just in front of it
Rev. Drake: Right on top of it.
Mr. Darrow: OK, that is fine then. My biggest concern was getting into the sight of other traffic because that is a pretty tight corner there.
Rev. Drake: The Church in fact is the oldest Church building in the City of Auburn. The flowerbed is one of the newest, so we decided the flowerbed was going to go.
Mr. Darrow: OK. Also, the sign is for all basic concerns are going to run perpendicular to Capitol Street sidewalk, correct? Right angle to the Capitol Street side?
Rev. Drake: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: OK.
Mr. Moore: The drawing shows that it is more of on angle towards Grant Avenue.
Mr. Darrow: Yes, I see that. I drove around three or four times trying to figure out where the sign was going to be and if it was going to be an obstruction to traffic.
Rev. Drake: That is a free hand drawing by me, I am not an architect. We are basically trying to get the Franklin Street traffic and the Seymour Street traffic.
Mr. Rejman: Other questions from the Board?
Mr. Temple: How far off the ground will the sign be?
Rev. Drake: Basic sign will be 28_5” from the ground.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone else have a question from the Board? Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Have a seat sir.
Rev. Drake: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: I can see where their sign is now tucked in there. I can see why they want better exposure.
Mr. Rejman: Someone wish to make a motion? Oh, excuse me.
Mr. Temple: I just want to say what I routinely make in case of Churches and that is given the necessity of keeping separation between Church and State I don’t believe that this Board has jurisdiction over Churches in any case, I would support this application.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Darrow: Maybe you should abstain if that is your feeling. I would like to make a motion that we grant an area variance of 18 square feet for Calvary Presbyterian Church at 90 Franklin Street, for the purpose of erecting a sign as per the drawings enclosed at the point noted on the plot plan.
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.
Rev. Drake: Thank you
43 Francis Street, R-1, 3 foot area variance on west side for pool, Ronald and Roseanne David.
Mr. Rejman: 43 Francis Street, are you here? State your name for the record please.
Mr. David: Ronald David.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Ronald, put the mike a little closer so we can hear. Tell us what you would like to do there?
Mr. David: I want a 3-foot variance between the above ground pool in the back yard.
Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the Board?
Mr. Hare: Yes, Mr. David, the house just to the left of yours, the neighbors, do they have any objection to this?
Mr. David: Yes.
Mr. Hare: They do have objections to this?
Mr. David: Yes due to the fact that their house is up for sale, he thought if I asked for an easement that it would hinder the sale of the house.
Mr. Hare: I see your back lot is very, very small.
Mr. Darrow: In an inspection of the property and your map submitted, I noticed that your land is 47 feet wide in the rear. You are erecting an 18-foot round swimming pool, is that correct?
Mr. David: Right.
Mr. Darrow: So you would need 38 feet of property to keep that within our ordinances.
Mr. David: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: So is there any particular reason why you just cannot move the pool 3 feet further to the east.
Mr. David: As you can see by the diagram there, it would be right in the middle of my driveway.
Mr. Darrow: That would bring it into the driveway?
Mr. David: Right.
Mr. Darrow: I did notice the driveway. Only thing that made it difficult when we looked there actually was no layout of where the pool was going to lay so.
Mr. David: I took a couple of pictures.
Mr. Rejman: Any other questions from the Board?
Mr. Temple: Are there going to be any other decks or additions to the pool structure that you are going to come before us at a later point in time?
Mr. David: Just one addition to the original deck that is there so you can gain access to the pool, not around, just straight forward there.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question, can you come here (to Mr. David) that is what this picture is here, where the pool is going to go. So concerning it is a radius of 3 foot further where you will end up out in the driveway.
Mr. David: I believe right here is the driveway and it was given the winters, for snow removal
Mr. Darrow: OK for snow removal.
Mr. Gentile: Are you planning on putting up a fence to divide the property?
Mr. David: No.
Mr. Gentile: I was just wondering what this line was here.
Mr. David: That was to show the property line.
Mr. Gentile: OK, thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, we will come back, closing questions from the Board.
Mr. Darrow: I am just curious if we received anything via mail from the other property owner?
Mr. Rejman: Nothing noted. OK, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Comments?
Mr. Darrow: Not like he is over-sizing a pool for his yard, it is only 18 foot round.
Mr. Rejman: And the yard is only 47
Mr. Darrow: Right. Narrow City lot. Can understand not moving over that 3 feet bringing it into the area of the driveway and you can see where removal of snow he wants to push the snow all the way to the back, wouldn’t want to push it into the pool.
Mr. Gentile: Roger, did you talk to the neighbor?
Mr. Hare: No I didn’t talk to the neighbors, but that was going to be the one that was going to be the most affected. Since the neighbor objects to it on the one hand that is regrettable but did not object enough to be here
Mr. Rejman: Right, they are not here.
Mr. Hare: Actually we have given them a lot closer.
Mr. Darrow: Right.
Mr. Rejman: We have. Someone care to make a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I make a motion that we grant Ronald and Roseanne David
of 43 Francis Street a 3-foot west side yard variance for the purpose of erecting a 18-foot round swimming pool in the area that is so noted on the plot plan.
Mr. Temple: 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.
Those were area variances, they were garden variety and kind of simple. Now we are getting into the use variances where things get a little more difficult.
_____________________________________________________________
48 Cayuga Street, R-1, use variance to change legal status from single family to two-family dwelling. Jennifer Thompson.
Mr. Rejman: 48 Cayuga Street, please. I understand that Mr. Temple is representing the applicant.
Mr. Temple: First I would like to state for the record that I am Gary Temple and that I am making this presentation for the owner, Jennifer Thompson, who is a close personal friend of mine and accordingly I am not eligible to vote on this matter. I am here as a member of the public and not in any way in an official function.
She was asked to make a presentation for the benefit of the Board members who were not here last month or one who has just joined us tonight for the first time, I guess I will start at the beginning.
I ask that you direct your attention to your agenda sheet. It says the purpose of this hearing is to “change legal status from single family to two unit dwelling”. Jennifer’s two family Boston style house in an area of Auburn that in the infinite wisdom of someone has been zoned as a single-family area. Because of Auburn’s infamous six-month rule and the fact that Jennifer’s fire ravaged house has indeed been vacant for six months, the City of Auburn has stripped her entire existing non-conforming use. Other than getting her house’s legal status changed back to what it has always in fact been, Jennifer is not asking to make any changes to this property. She is just asking to be allowed to repair from the fire and at the same time up
grade the house to current building code standards. Although Mrs. Thompson entered a letter into the record during the July meeting from her still living tenant Esther Stoker, who resided in the upstairs flat of the structure with her mother Maude since the 1950’s. This letter proved beyond a doubt that the two family status that had existed well before Jennifer purchased the property should be continued. Some of the Board members present at the July meeting in an uncharacteristic fashion held up this applicant’s variance demanding that she prove the exact genesis of this 100 year old structure. Mr. Chairman, the letter that was introduced last month from Esther Stoker, is that still part of the record at this point or do I need to re-introduce it?
Mr. Rejman: I don’t have one with me, if you have one, I am sure we have it in our notes at home, why don’t you re-introduce it. I’ll have Counsel copy that and attach to tonight’s paper work and get the original back to you.
Mr. Temple: Thank you. In response to your stated need for proof, Amy DeAngelo of the Cayuga County Planning Department has prepared an excellent report which utilizes official City of Auburn tax records as well as the Polk City Directories in order to track more than a century of owners and tenants who made this house their home. So in effort to prove the exact genesis of this structure, I would like to introduce into the record such proof as is available. At this time I would like to introduce the Polk Directories which have been exhumed by Ms. DeAngelo. These directories go back to 1880. In the 1800’s a prominent businessman here in Auburn by the name of William Peacock, was a builder of things of wood including furniture which he sold at his store on Dill Street in
the area known as the Peacock Block. Mr. Peacock also owned several lots in the Cayuga Street area. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to enter into the record a copy of a mortgage of L. H. Bryant dated April 10, 1883 in which I have highlighted lot owned by “William Peacock and also William Peacock City Lots", plural. Mr. Chairman I would request if possible that these materials move around to the rest of the Board so that they all can have a chance to see them.
Mr. Rejman: All right, yes.
Mr. Temple: The fact that Mr. Peacock owned several lots ties into the observation made by Ms. Marteney at last month’s meeting when she commented “there are three or four houses right in a row that look like they were built exactly at the same time by the same person and to know what those houses are indeed two”. Yes, Ms. Marteney as you will soon see the houses on either side of the subject property were constructed in the same time frame, both as two family houses. Two family up and down houses. At this time I would like to state that of the two houses 34 Cayuga Street was also owned according to the Polk Directory records by Mr. Peacock. This ties in together what I am telling you in story form and the records that you see before you. In the 1890
City Directory we see the owner listed as L. H. Bryant, same one as was on the mortgage that Mr. Darrow has in his hands.
After doing research it has become clear that the two family house now known as 48 Cayuga Street was born 118 years ago as a two family house what was then called Cayuga Street 36. From the very beginning it has always had tenants, including as we see in the 1960 edition, Maude Stoker the mother of Ester Stoker, whose letter has already been entered into evidence.
Last month when Chairman Rejman asked me to address the architectural details of the subject house, which may have given proof as to its origins, I was not expecting to speak and thus was not prepared. Tonight I am.
First, I find it necessary to address Mr. Moore’s professional opinion as he stated it last month that he felt it was a single family house, he has seen a lot of houses of this sort, has been in this house and it was built as a single family house. For the moment let’s put the history, I have already showed you on this parcel aside. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to enter into evidence the upper and lower floor plans of 48 Cayuga Street.
Mr. Rejman: Again we are going to pass those around and I will attach them to the paper work.
Mr. Temple: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I want the Board to notice as they look at these floor plans the relative symmetry of both floors. Both floor plans are linear, that is the flow track is from the front to the rear. One has to move from one room to access the further back rooms. Both floors have kitchens and both floors have bathrooms. The rest of the floor plans show the kitchens over the kitchens and the bathrooms over the bathrooms, that is what I refer to as symmetry. I have pictures, which I would like now to enter which shows the original building cabinets for both the upstairs and the downstairs. The first three that I am passing around show a built in pantry located in the upstairs. The second picture I want to send separately which is
the 4th picture shows a building cabinet of which there are two located in the first floor kitchen. Plans will show that both floors have double French doors located between the two largest rooms in the upstairs and down. I want to show you one of the openings, this is in the upstairs two French doors that go to it located in the room. While you are looking at the pictures, please notice the old dimension frame lumber, lathe plaster construction. I want to now enter into evidence pictures of two old brick chimneys that still exist today.
Now I wish to submit to the evidence a picture, which shows where the back chimney the one that is closest to the rear of the house where it goes to and what it does. Two pictures, which I just sent around, show the brick area which is located in the second floor kitchen and when you look at this opening you will see a black sooty material there. That black sooty material is from old cook stoves that burned wood. That same chimney comes all the way down to the first floor and now I wish to enter into evidence a picture, which shows slightly in the center of the picture, where that opening for that chimney was for the downstairs kitchen as well. All the foregoing shows that this house had an ancient chimney brick built the purpose of which was to service two kitchens,
one upstairs and one downstairs.
I also wish to give you some evidence as to the electrical system. The first picture which I am going to submit into the record is a picture of the old fuse box, you see two of them, they have screw type fuses in them, the second one shows the box which has been installed in the house by Ms. Thompson which shows circuit breaker panels, these were installed since the building permit has been pulled on the house recently.
Also I wish to show a picture and enter it into the record, which shows the gas meters, which are located in the basement and have been there since before Jennifer purchased the property in 1985. Mr. Moore posed a question about why only one octopus furnace existed instead of two. My research has shown why. In the basement floor there is still a raised outline in the concrete floor from a once existing coal bin, which was located conveniently under an existing basement window, which faces to the driveway. When this was constructed in 1883 it was heated by coal. Anyone who knows the labor necessary to run a coal furnace will readily understand that operating two coal furnaces in one basement would not be sensible. One coal bin, one furnace in one basement. To
further cast out on Mr. Moore’s professional opinion imagine if you will the lot of upper floor tenants if they would have to traverse two set of stairs to the basement just to stoke up the coal. In side-by-side two family houses there were two basements, two coal bins, each tenant bought his own coal and paid for it and had two furnaces, one in each unit. Each tenant had the travel route to go to their own basement to stoke up the coal furnace.
Utilities were split and the second furnace was installed just about the time the octopus was converted from coal to gas. Jennifer has been in contact with the man she purchased it from and he knows that this change occurred before the 1970’s, other than that I can’t be more specific. I wish now I had a copy of the purchase offer that Jennifer made on this property in 1985 and ask did she know that the real estate sold her a two family Boston style house. I trust I have made the case on the architectural level that this subject property, structure that is, was built as a two family up and down. To further augment that case I ask each of you to consider Amy DeAngelo's analysis of her historical research and I quote from her letter which says “I have enclosed the
following documents which show the residence at 36 Cayuga Street had indeed been maintained as a two family residence for over 100 years.” Enough said on the structure.
Next I want to address the issue of economic hardship. I ask you to review the original application of Jennifer filed on this matter on June 11 of this year. Reading this we find that Jennifer is a single mom who makes less $20,000 a year. We learned that income from the rent of the upstairs apartment enters into any equation of any lending company who may issue her a mortgage so that she may complete the repairs not covered by her insurance. At question 17J, we see the figure of $5,100 annual income if she can rent the second unit. This number is her expectation based on 16 years of being a landlord of the property. At this time I wish to enter into evidence a letter from the Executive Director of Cayuga Homsite. This letter sets forth that the
Federal Government recognizes her subsidized housing units. This letter from Homsite shows that the upper unit at her house on Cayuga Street will being approximately $434 a month, or a total of over $5,200 a year. Nearly exactly the amount that Jennifer listed on her application, which she filled out on June 11th.
Question 17H Jennifer lists her additional expenses as $1,619.62 for total taxes. Together with homeowner’s insurance, Jennifer’s monthly expense rises to $152+ per month. The plus that I refer to is an uncertain number at this moment but refers to a future mortgage payment.
When Jennifer’s insurance company settled the building part of the fire claim, they paid off the mortgage holder the available sums of money. She has used the balance, which she has received to do some of the preliminary work as the pictures have already shown. In order to complete the project Jennifer must obtain another mortgage. She must pay application fees and mortgage origination fees. Depending on her income, including the potential for future rental income of $5,100 a year, prospective lenders will determine how much money Jennifer may borrow and how much interest she will have to pay for the mortgage. The mortgage paid off by her insurance company amounted to $23,000. If Jennifer were to obtain just that same amount her mortgage payment at today’s
interest rates, her mortgage annually would be $3,276 plus taxes and insurance for a total amount of $5,108, which again very nearly corresponds to what she hopes to make out of the rental of the second unit. I want to enter into evidence right now is a mortgage schedule which will show the amounts to which I am referring to for the proposed mortgage.
Make no mistake about it, the decision you make here tonight will have a financial impact on Ms. Thompson. Should you not grant her this requested variance, her overall income will go down by something approaching 25%. Her viability to a lender will thus be reduced and the ultimate financial hardship imposed on her that she may not be able to get approved for enough mortgage money to complete the necessary repairs. If this were to occur, Jennifer would have no option but to throw good money after bad undoing the mechanicals and framing of a two family house in order to create a single 2,114 square foot single home. She would be better off ceasing making repairs immediately. Potential for extreme financial hardship is not her desire or creation and this is a position from
which she can only escape with a positive outcome tonight with this variance request.
The final issue which needs to be addressed is whether this variance would adversely impact on the neighborhood. Last month you heard the testimony of a neighbor by the name of Robert Ross who owns both 34 and 36 Cayuga Street. At this time I wish to introduce as evidence a picture of Mr. Ross’ properties. In this picture you can see the front property which is 36, the new 911 numbering and the house down the driveway behind it #34. Mr. Ross testified that he couldn’t rent his property because of a glut of rental properties on Cayuga Street. I want to introduce another picture of his house at 36 Cayuga Street. Please note from the two pictures that neither side of 36 Cayuga Street has front stairs. There are no railings on the porch. This
is a condition that has existed for more than a year. I suspect that it may be difficult to find tenants to pay for an apartment which lacks front steps or one which has a bathtub displayed on the front porch. I wonder if such a structure conforms to code enforcement standards. Nevertheless, when asked by the Chair at last month’s meeting whether he would expect his non-conforming rights to be restored should he lose them due zoning laws, Mr. Ross was quick to respond and I quote “my house is double and if one was to have fire damage, I certainly would expect to continue on as a double” and so does Ms. Thompson, because that is what she purchased and that is what she has paid taxes on for 16 years.
At this time I want to enter into evidence the tax records of the City of Auburn which lists the subject property as a old style two family residence with no improvements from 1900 which is the last year that they kept these kinds of records. I apologize, I seem not to have those records with me, I think if you read the letter from Amy DeAngelo you will see that she makes a synopsis of the City tax records just as exactly as I have depicted them. I would be happy to bring them to the Board at a later date if need be.
Anyone has the right to come before this Board to publicly express their opinions on applications and to answer questions from the Board. The Mayor of Auburn has chosen not to do so. However, in a very unique behind the scenes move, she apparently was successful in attempting to influence the handling of this particular variance request. In her letter dated July 26, to the ZBA Chairman, she expressed her expert opinion that the subject house was originally a single family structure and further that this Board ought to “vote it down or again table this item until we have time to explore more appropriate Codes of the City”. Does the Chair have a copy of that letter, is it already in the record for this application?
Mr. Rejman: No, I don’t have a copy here.
Mr. Temple: I would like that entered into the record.
Mr. Rejman: We will do so.
Mr. Temple: Thank you. The we that she refers to when she says she wishes to have time to explore more appropriate Codes are the members of City Council and she offered a estimated time table that would be two or three weeks and they probably would have a moratorium in place. But such is not the case. This applicant has waited since June and she deserves an answer. The Mayor pretends to speak “for the good of the neighborhood”. I must address the R-1 neighborhood issue. At this time I would like to introduce into evidence a map of the area surrounding the subject property. In this color coded map the subject property is located towards the right center of the map and is shown with green stripes. The area shown on this map is zoned
R-1, it shows 149 parcels of land. It should logically follow that there should be approximately 149 housing units in a R-1 zone, right? Wrong. There are 243 total housing units in this map area. In fact there are only 79 single-family residence in this entire area.
Mr. Rejman: Give me those numbers again please.
Mr. Temple: There are a 149 plots, one of which is vacant, no development on it. There are 243 total housing units that you will see if you were to add up the color coded guide of two family, three family, four family, five family and more, there is one commercial which is located very close to the subject property.
Mr. Rejman: And how many singles?
Mr. Temple: There are only 79 single-family residences in this entire area. Put it another way, if you look at the block of Cayuga Street which the subject property is located on from Genesee Street to Capitol Street, there are 39 parcels which face onto Cayuga Street, of those only 15 are single family residences. Jennifer’s lot has over 9100 square feet. The residence and the carriage house occupy just under 1700 square feet only about 18% of the total lot size. There is more than enough mandatory off street parking to accommodate two off street units. I now want to read from a recent newspaper article. Monday, August 6th, the Cayuga Edition of the Post Standard the highlight “Auburn Outlines Apartment Glut Fight”. It goes on
to tell us that City Inspector James Moore is asking for authority for certain conversions be taken out of his hands and removed to the City Planning Board. He also proposes that square foot requirements on a per lot apartment be increased from 2500 square feet to 4000 square feet and minimum size for apartments of 700 square feet. Well Jennifer’s two unit house if we were to take the figure of 4,000 square foot for lot size and if we were to take the figure which he proposes is a cancer to the current standards 700 square foot for each unit, we see that Jennifer’s house has more than that in each unit. 1,057 square feet is what is listed in the tax records, which I have been unable to find. I think they have been in with the Polk Directory materials which I gave you earlier. I think that is what may have happened to them, I know they were here earlier.
Ok, I believe I have fully exposed the expert opinions myths surrounding the genesis and history of the subject property. That I have fully depicted the financial hardship that would be worked upon Jennifer if she were to be deprived of $434 per month in rental income. I believe that I have fully addressed the R-1 neighborhood issue with respect to existing conditions as well as her lot sizes. Should such not be the case, I stand ready to answer any Board questions.
Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the Board?
Mr. Hare: You answered them before we could ask.
Mr. Rejman: Very comprehensive.
Mr. Gentile: One question, the floor plans, those are as of today? Those aren’t going back 50, 100 years, right?
Mr. Temple: Those are the floor plans as the house came to Jennifer. She has never changed the floor plans, the kitchens are still located as I have already shown you. The French doors, all the old style full sized 2 x 4, lathe and plaster construction, there has never been any renovation to the structure, the framing or to the electrical inside which has first generation electrical in there, knob and tube wiring.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Yes, come forward, please state your name.
Mr. Ross: My name is Bob Ross, I own 34 and 36 Cayuga Street. I didn’t say that I wasn’t able to rent my property, I said we have enough rental property in the City of Auburn and enough empty units. The house I just got through remodeling, I am being very selective as to who I rent it to and that is the reason it is not rented now. I have advertised it and again I am very selective whom I am going to let rent it. I have put a lot of money into it and the house in front that construction going on, the two porches, there is wrap around porch and it was getting dilapidated, it was getting rotten and it had to come down, so it has been removed and all this work I use to do and I can’t do it no more. I can’t continue on doing the kind of work that I was
doing and so I am hiring the work done. My son is a union carpenter and he is coming in and I am paying him to finish up the porch. I appreciate what he said because this proves the hardship of owning rental property and trying to keep it maintained and the preventative maintenance done on it and hiring someone to do it, I was able to make ends meet doing the work myself and it worked out fairly well. Now I am finding it is a pretty tough task to maintain rental property and keep up with it with the tenants and with their kids, etc. with the way they treat rental property.
Yes, if my house was to have a fire, it is a two family, I would expect it to go back and I would bring it back as a two family dwelling. As far as all the pictures and everything else goes with this house, I don’t know whether there is proof there that it was legally made a two family dwelling or not. I have been beat in many situations with technicalities and I guess technicalities are important when I comes to situations. I have had a fairly tough go in maintaining these houses and getting the work done right and by the way, anybody want a tub? It is a costly chore and I can feel the pain that this young lady is going to endure down the road because unless she has a ton of money to bring this dwelling back to where it can be rented, it is going to take a ton of money to do
that and make payments. She is not going to be able to afford to have this house empty or one of the two apartments if it turns into that, empty for any time at all. I have encountered that too. I don’t know, I just I feel sorry for her and I don’t see any way in hell how she is going to manage to be able to make ends meet.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Thank you for your comments. Closing questions from the Board? OK I am going to close the public portion and we will discuss this amongst ourselves. Comments people.
Mr. Hare: Very hard because it is not our job to address the density of apartments here in town, we have to go by what is given us and what the rules are. I think the evidence has shown that this house was a two family house for many, many years. I think they have shown that there will be cases of hardship, I think they have also shown that it won’t adversely affect the neighborhood in any way. I am for it.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Any one else? Comments?
Mr. Gentile: Fairly obvious to me this has been a two family dwelling for a very long time.
Ms. Marteney: Major point that we want to have made.
Mr. Rejman: I think that is the major point and my feeling is it was constructed that way and it would be difficult to put it into a one family. The lay out would be stupid wouldn’t it? The upstairs, have a living room upstairs and one down stairs. Try to make a one family out of it.
Mr. Darrow: The living room upstairs could at some time be just a closet and a bedroom. I know it is in a common area.
Mr. Rejman: Yes. Common area.
Mr. Darrow: I am fairly convinced that it was a two family. I think that was one of the biggest things along with that there is a financial hardship. I think they both have been proven very nicely.
Mr. Hare: I make a motion that Jennifer Thompson, who resides at 16 Owasco Street, owner of the property in question, 48 Cayuga Street, be granted a use variance to allow the premises to continue to be used as a two family dwelling.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
ABSTAINING: Mr. Temple
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. It has been a long and difficult road, but we wanted to make sure that we did the right thing.
_____________________________________________________________
232 North Street, R-1, use variance to construct a medical office and related parking area, Dr. Ayodeji Lukula.
Mr. Rejman: 232 North Street.
Mr. Fandrich: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Mark Fandrich. I am an attorney here in town with offices at 110 Genesee Street. I represent Dr. Lukula, who is with us this evening and we are asking for the Board’s consideration for a use variance for this property located 230- 232 North Street. As the Board might recall we were before this Board in1999 for such a use variance and it was granted. In the interim we needed to clean up an issue with an easement of the Pierces which we have done to accommodate Mr. Pierce’s truck as well as to obtain financing for the project. The project is a medical building on a parcel which is just over an acre. The parcel has been for sale for a considerable period of time. To my knowledge Dr. Lukula is the
only offer on the property.
You will note that the doctor has made this application before he has purchased the property so there is no self-created hardship. We believe that the use is appropriate considering the location of the property next to North Street and considering there are other offices across the street.
Mr. Rejman: Very good. Questions from the Board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application?
Mr. Amodei: Tony Amodei, Amodei Construction which is right next-door. Couple years ago when they came up requesting property lines, I questioned the drainage. I wanted to review the drainage plans. It went back to the drawing board I guess the State DOT wanted a full drainage study done, the drainage was running towards our property. As far as I can tell that has been addressed but it was two years ago and nothing was heard again. I have not see any new drawings, if there were new drawings. That property line is still in dispute. I have a copy of our deed that show the fence lines on the north property line. Their property line I shown on there at the rear corner, the northeast corner of the property 8 feet off the fence line. The deed actually
states to the fence line is the property line. So according to that drawing and if our deed is correct, when the property surveys were done in the past, the property line is 8 feet off into our property.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Amodei: We also have utility lines that run back to the property line and the utility poles will also be on our side.
Mr. Rejman: Any questions?
Mr. Temple: What are the utility lines and are they for your use?
Mr. Amodei: Yes, they go to our building.
Mr. Temple: What is the address?
Mr. Amodei: 240 North Street.
Mr. Temple: Which utility lines?
Mr. Amodei: Telephone and electric, both NYSEG and NYTEL stamped on them.
Mr. Temple: Let us say that the property line dispute is resolved, do you have any concerns about this type of development?
Mr. Amodei: No, but if you look at what they are planning on doing a few years ago, there is a hedge row that runs along that fence line, the majority of the hedge row is on our property.
Mr. Darrow: Wouldn’t that depend on whether the deed or survey are correct and whether the hedgerow is yours?
Mr.Amodei: Right, that hedgerow runs right on top of the property line.
Mr. Rejman: I think there are two different issues here.
Mr. Darrow: As far as the deed goes, I mean just a few cases earlier Francis Street, the surveyor in there, documentation of the deed was wrong. I really think they need to settle the deed issue and the surveyor issue to see which is correct, the deed or the survey.
Mr. Amodei: I have been in contact with the surveyor and am waiting to hear from him.
Mr. Rejman: But that shouldn’t interfere with
Mr. Darrow: No, look at what has transpired over there to see if it is going to affect us because if it is the worst case scenario the deed is correct, the survey wrong and moving that point back over 8 feet - all that is doing is on an angle sliding a few just a couple of the last parking spots any where from probably 2 to 4 feet back because of the angle of the side lot.
Mr. Rejman: May change the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Darrow: They are already in excess of what is required.
Mr. Amodei: I don’t know if there are any minimum requirements of that parking lot being off the property line?
Mr. Darrow: If they are set currently to the proper set backs if at that point its 8 foot off which would be half way down in the front so it is 4 foot off so ¾ of the way would be 6 foot off.
Mr. Amodei: OK.
Mr. Rejman: What we are interested in here tonight is the use variance.
Mr. Amodei: The point I was making before is kind of hard to grant a use variance if the property line is in dispute, it may affect what they are doing.
Mr. Rejman: No, it is two different issues.
Mr. Amodei: No it is not. If the line is incorrect it affects the use of the property they way they intended to use it.
Mr. Darrow: This line is a Planning issue.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, a Planning issue.
Mr. Darrow: What is allowed for use there is a zoning issue.
Mr. Rejman: Right.
Mr. Temple: Perhaps the witness should be advised about the role of Planning and what is involved in a use variance.
Mr. Rejman: David, would you give us an encapsulated view of this.
Mr. Miller: We covered this in 1987 and we covered in 1999 when this matter came up and it was exactly the same question both times. The issue here before this Board is really very simple. Can this property be used for a certain use. Let’s say they say it can and let’s say you are correct that in fact the layout can’t work the way they proposed it and they can’t do the project. They are out of luck and presumably a future owner would have to come back here and maybe get a different kind of use variance for a different kind of activity. It is no different than if this Board gave a use variance for me to build an office building and then it turned out I couldn’t met the Building Code requirements for some reason, I have a use variance,
I can’t have my office building. So how the lines line up really when - only relative to the Board’s consideration in the context of potential impact perhaps on the neighborhood and I think Mr. Darrow a few minutes ago pointed out that even under the worst case scenario you still are accommodating parking which seems to be the primary concern on North Street. Good enough?
Mr. Rejman: Good enough. Very good.
Mr. Amodei: Does this have to go before the Planning Board?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Amodei: Address this with them?
Mr. Rejman: Yes. Any other comments? While you are here, what is your feeling on the proposed use a medical building?
Mr. Amodei: Well considering there is one across the street that is empty, why another one.
Mr. Rejman: That is a point. Thank you.
Mr. Moore: Most of North Street is a C-5 District which is all towards the hospital, doctors’ offices.
Mr. Amodei: Auburn is turning into a City of lawyers and doctors.
Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you very much. Any one else wishing to speak for or against the application? Closing questions from the Board?
Mr. Temple: I might have one.
Mr. Rejman: For the applicant?
Mr. Temple: The applicant. A question was raised as to what the use of this building will be, is it for the doctor’s use?
Mr. Fandrich: For doctor’s use plus three other physicians.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: OK, close the public portion and we will discuss amongst ourselves. Hopefully we come to a decision. Comments?
Mr. Darrow: It is a vacant lot that has been for sale for a long time. The last time they were before the Board I thought it was a good idea that it was going to be put on the tax role, of course, we never got to a vote.
Mr. Rejman: Comments.
Mr. Temple: I would find that R-1 is not a likely use for this property ever because of its location and in keeping with the other developers adjacent to what is going down North Street, that it would be a good and proper utilization. And that it will be occupied by the person who is developing it. I would be in favor of this one.
Mr. Darrow: You can understand why a doctor would want to be as close to the hospital as possible.
Mr. Rejman: Someone like to make a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant a use variance to Dr. Lukula of 232 North Street for the purpose of erecting a medical building on said site.
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. Take it to the next level.
Mr. Fandrich: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
2 South Street,C-2, use variance to operate a light assembly business, Dean/Conroy, LLC.
Mr. Rejman: 2 South Street.
Mr. Granato: My name is Jim Granato, I am the attorney representing the owners of the Phoenix Building and we come before this Board tonight as a continuation of a public hearing that was commenced last month, at which time proof was submitted but the focus of the proceeding was to seek an interpretation of the Zoning Code as it became clear that the Board was desirous of obtaining more information that would lend itself towards consideration of the use variance. We are back tonight asking that that prior information be reflected upon as well as the new information that is being delivered tonight.
In an effort to support our application we are going to be submitting some testimony as well as paper proof regarding the attempt to show that there is unnecessary hardship that exists with respect to this structure.
1. That there be a lack of reasonable return on the investment based upon the existing tenants .
2. There is a uniqueness to the structure that merits the granting of a variance from the strict application of the Zoning Code.
3. That such a grant of a variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and that the alleged hardship is not self-created to the extent that it exclude and prohibit this Board from granting the variance that we are seeking.
In an effort to establish that proof I am going to give the handouts distributed early and then I will refer to them during the course of the testimony. (Passes around handouts to the Board).
Initially I would like to introduce Terry Dean, Terry is also one of the owners of this structure and I would like Mr. Dean to explain to the Board what the acquisition costs were for this structure and what their vision of this structure is. Mr. Dean.
Mr. Dean: We purchased the building of this year for $150,000. We put a $115,000 worth of improvements bringing our cost to $265,000. We want to have a nice professional building, retail in the bottom and office space and whatever type of high tech clients we can get. It is a grand building in a nice City that needed some attention and we are into antiques and things and we just thought it would be a good thing for us to get involved in.
Mr. Granato: Mr. Dean did you retain someone to help you market this structure and manage the building?
Mr. Dean: Yes, we did, we hired Maureen Conroy to be the building manager on the site and we hired outside companies to help us market the building.
Mr.Granato: Thank you. Maureen Conroy, I would also introduce to the Board and I am going to ask you a few questions. How long have you been managing and marketing this structure?
Ms. Conroy: Since the purchase of the building on January 15th of this year.
Mr. Granato: Could you help orient us, now I realize that we have an audience facing in one direction and the Board in the other, but let me do this, maybe I could put this off to the side and will certainly turn it back to the audience as soon as the Board has had a chance to look at it. Maureen could you orient us on this building to show us exactly where the property lines are and where it is in relationship to Genesee and South Streets.
Ms. Conroy: What you see here highlighted in yellow is all the building that belongs to the Phoenix Building. You are looking at South Street here, Genesee Street here, Cumson Lane here, this is parking area and this is the building, this is the building.
Mr. Granato: If I were to try to designate the parking area separate and apart from the building and use this second copy of the survey outlined differently, can you explain again where the corner of Genesee and South Streets are and where the parking area is to this building.
Ms. Conroy: This is the corner of Genesee and South Streets, this is the parking area behind the Phoenix Building and behind the Swaby Building, but the parking area is owned entirely by the Phoenix Building.
Mr. Granato: What attempts have been made in order to market this building, by marketing I mean to fill it with tenants.
Ms. Conroy: Immediately upon purchasing the building we had professional signs made which are hanging in the street level windows on both Genesee Street side and South Street side. We advertised in The Citizen, we advertised in the Finger Lakes Business Almanac, the Finger Lakes Business Almanac did a very nice article on the Phoenix Building and all the work and renovations that was put into it. We worked with Bouck Real Estate and we worked with Murphy Real Estate and we check in with real estate companies every two weeks to see if they have any possible tenants for us.
Mr. Granato: As a result of those efforts, can you tell me what percentage of occupancy exists with respect to the Phoenix Building today?
Ms. Conroy: At this point we have about 40% occupancy.
Mr. Granato: Now how many tenants have you gained and how many tenants have you lost since you took over ownership of this structure.
Ms.Conroy: Since taking over the building we have gained two tenants and we have lost two tenants.
Mr. Granato: Can you briefly just tell us what tenants you lost and what tenants you gained?
Ms. Conroy: We lost one tenant unfortunately he passed away and his wife at the time was still maintaining the rent on the office space and Dr. Doan subsequent to our purchasing the building had decided to move to another location.
Mr.Granato: I am going to ask Mr. Ford to step forward but Maureen I will be recalling you in just a few moments. Mr. Ford is the accountant for Dean/Conroy LLC, the ownership entity for the building and I have asked him if he would prepare a statement of the projected operations cash flow commencing with this year obviously we don’t have a full year in so it is a projection taking the existing data and running it out to the end of the year and then seeing where we go with this structure. We have a copy of what Mr. Ford is going to be referring to and you have that in your hands but first I would like Mr. Ford to introduce himself to the Board and give his credentials.
Mr. Ford: Robert Ford, I am a certified public accountant. I graduated from Western Michigan University in 1976 and have been practicing public accounting since that time about 25 years. I was a tax partner with a larger local firm here and in Syracuse and since then I have my own practice for nine years now.
Mr.Granato: Mr. Ford have you had an opportunity to review the data for this structure?
Mr. Ford: Yes. It was submitted by Dean/Conroy LLC.
Mr. Granato: And in layman’s language and by that I mean so that I even can understand it, could you tell us whether this building currently has a positive or negative cash flow?
Mr. Ford: It has a negative cash flow. I would like to call your attention to page 2 in the statement of projected operations which generally takes the income and expense approach that you are probably familiar with. Half way down is the net loss and then what I have done is added back to the depreciation which is a non-capped item even though on your income statement it doesn’t cost you any cash and subtract out the principle payments which do cost you cash but you don’t get a deduction for those that do not show up on the income statement and you can see the ending cash flow for each of the years and accumulative for the ten year projection.
Mr. Granato: Mr. Ford, on line 1 of page 2, where it says elevator maintenance, if we review this, is it safe to say that elevator and maintenance is for the entire structure.
Mr. Ford: Combined, that is correct.
Mr.Granato: Very good. Now based upon just this year, just what is here and now, can you tell us how much money this building is going to be losing?
Mr. Ford: Cash is a negative $46,200.
Mr. Granato: Is that per annum or accumulative over a year period of time?
Mr. Ford: It is projected for the current year, but they run any where from a negative $46,000 negative $24,000 in later years.
Mr. Granato: Based upon your review of the building data, can you put your finger on what is the most needed thing for this building, is it a question of outrageous expenses or lack of tenants?
Mr. Ford: Lack of tenants.
Mr. Granato: What percentage of occupancy is it going to take before we get to break even on this building?
Mr. Ford: Roughly 80%.
Mr. Granato: And that compares to the 40% that they currently have.
Mr. Ford: Right.
Mr. Granato: As you review this sheet, is it my understanding is what you have done is just preserve the initial acquisition costs of the building, you haven’t even added back in the improvements costs which came after the date of acquisition.
Mr. Ford: That is correct. Depreciation was calculated on 90% of the $150,000 acquisition costs, estimated 10% would be land which is non-depreciable, you would have other expenses on the capital improvements.
Mr. Granato: Simply stated would the picture get more or less bleak if we factored back in those improvement costs on top of the acquisition costs?
Mr. Ford: The income loss would be increased but the cash flow would remain the same because if I take depreciation from $3375 to $10,000 I am going to subtract that out from my income statement but I am going to add it right back in for my cash flow. It will not affect the cash flow other of course you are out $115,000 for the improvements.
Mr. Granato: Thank you. We certainly will give an opportunity to the Board to ask questions of any of the people that we produce today. We will try to keep this moving along so that all the information can be put in front of you. I would ask Maureen to come back and to address for us why based upon her exposure to this building we believe that this building is extremely unique in the City of Auburn and merits consideration for a variance.
Ms. Conroy: You are talking about a building that was built in 1880, it is a treasure, a landmark in downtown Auburn. If you take a look at the letterhead for the Auburn Downtown Partnership, they use our clock tower as their logo. This building, you ask anybody, what is the Phoenix Building, oh the Phoenix Building that is in Auburn, that has been there forever. Everybody knows this building. We have worked so hard to restore and keep this building the landmark that it has always been known as and we want to continue to do exactly the same thing.
Mr. Granato: What is the size of this structure?
Ms. Conroy: Approximately 15,000 square feet, four stories.
Mr. Granato: In terms of architecture are there any unique characteristics of this building that would make it say a more expensive project in order to produce a profit?
Ms. Conroy: Absolutely, again because of the age of the building, older buildings were built in a different fashion than newer buildings are. This building was built based on going in and seeing the beauty of the building. It has extremely wide hallways, it double wide staircases, there is a lot of space that is used up in that building not as rentable space but just open space to preserve the beauty of the building.
Mr. Granato: To your knowledge are there any other buildings of equal size and age in the City of Auburn that is a similar use entity specifically any other building that would be 15,000 square feet and currently dedicated for offices only that are not similarly built.
Ms. Conroy: To my knowledge, no.
Mr. Granato: Thank you. You had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Allred who is the prospective tenant, I would ask if he could present himself again and I have a few questions for him that might help clarify what is the actual intensity of use that would be affected if a variance were granted by this Board.
Mr. Allred: Hello, I am Joe Allred.
Mr.Granato: Mr. Allred, I know you have given us a very specific over view of your business showing us some of the medical equipment, but I want to focus right now on what is your need for access and why this building provides the right access for you, for that arm of the business that handles the violin making machinery.
Mr. Allred: I am not sure I understand the question but there is 1,000 square foot that we are going to use for the assembly of that. Reason why we want to be in this building is it is such a beautiful and professional building.
Mr. Granato: You had indicated that an office park area is not the form which you want to meet your clientele that you deal with.
Mr. Allred: Exactly. I deal with surgeons, I deal with corporate Vice Presidents, I deal with pretty high up organizations, I want to bring them to a beautiful and professional building, it is consistent with the way I do business.
Mr. Granato: Let me ask this, how frequently do you expect that there would be a pickup from that facility which would involve the need for a truck on a weekly basis.
Mr. Allred: We have sold two carbon machines this month. I told you the greatest number I could envision would be 8. I think we sold 8 because one month because of a show. Typically it is more like 4 a month and very often we will have a truck pick up 2 at a time.
Mr. Granato: If I were to extrapolate those numbers just to put a number to the pickup system sounds like you are talking about twice per month you are shipping out two machines at a time and on the average you are selling 4 machines.
Mr. Allred: Yes.
Mr. Granato: What size truck is needed in order to move this equipment. Are we talking about a tractor and trailer truck or are we talking about a Ford pickup truck?
Mr. Allred: No, we are not talking about a tractor-trailer truck, we are talking about a commercial truck that has a lift gate so that we can pick things up. The crate itself is about (motions with hands) about the size of two cases of beer. The crate itself is about 24 inches wide maybe 8 inches deep and maybe, if you stand it on end it is about 4 feet tall.
Mr. Granato: Thank you. I would like Maureen to come up and address and issue that was brought up last time. I think the more we talked about it the more confusion seemed to be generated. To eliminate that confusion what Maureen Conroy has done is she has taken pictures of the rear area, so that I could properly address what the issue we are talking is, there was an issue which respect whether this would be disruptive to the neighborhood in terms of traffic that is allowed or disallowed to the back of this property to make pickups or deliveries. With these pictures in mind - Maureen I am going to ask you to do this, I am going to ask you to point to each of these pictures and show how they relate to the survey that has been distributed to the Board members. What scene are we
viewing at we look at them.
Ms. Conroy: Picture #1 is a view looking north from Cumston Lane
Ms. Marteney: Could you hold that on the railing there? I can’t see.
Ms. Conroy: Sure.
Mr. Granato: Goal is to try to relate to the survey which you have in front of you.
Ms. Conroy: The very first view is from Cumston Lane, looking from Cumston Lane look at your survey map, it would be standing on Cumston Lane right here and looking north down the parking/driving area behind the building. What you are looking at is the corner of the Swaby Building right here, this is the Phoenix Building.
Mr. Granato: Turning to you are looking at this first picture, now turning to the second picture, can you tell me what the view is in that picture?
Ms. Conroy: Again it is a view taken from the same angle looking north, then you see the Swaby Building in the foreground and the Phoenix Building in the background and what you see here, on the Phoenix Building property is a cement pad which Mr. Dwyer, I am assuming, must have built because that is where his fire exit is, a 10 foot cement pad that is on the Phoenix Building property.
Mr. Granato: So when we heard testimony last month regarding concern for whether or not the use of this rear driveway area would affect the adjacent building, the fact of the matter is that exit door physically exits onto property that is owned by current applicant.
Ms. Conroy: Correct. I would also like to point out in this view in looking at the pavement from here to the other side of this vehicle which is parked on the property line is 15 feet from one side to the other across the pavement.
Mr. Granato: The third picture we are looking at is a staircase heading downstairs off street level. Can you tell us where that view in relationship to the survey?
Ms. Conroy: Again if you look at picture 1 and 2, again looking north bound but is a close up of the staircase that is shown in this picture looking down into the staircase which is the area that Mr. Allred would like to use in order to bring him shipments out to be sent out.
Mr. Granato: And if we look at the 4th picture, can you tell us from what angle you are viewing this and how that lines up with the survey that is front of the Board?
Ms. Conroy: This picture is taken actually standing on the stairs coming up from the basement, so it would be looking south bound. What you are looking at in this picture is you are looking at the corner of the Swaby Building right here, this is the Masonic Temple Building in the background, and what is hard to see because of the dumpster here this is Cumston Lane right here. This again is our parking area right across here (points to picture).
Mr. Granato: In this picture, if a truck were to back out to the stairway to allow equipment to be loaded, this would be the view the truck would see?
Ms. Conroy: Yes.
Mr. Granato: And I will ask you to briefly describe the location of the last two pictures - 5 and 6.
Ms. Conroy: 5 and 6 if you look at your survey are actually pictures of this area right here (points to pictures) they laughed at me, I call it the court yard, I didn’t know what else to call it, but it is just an area back between the two buildings.
Mr. Granato: So the last two pictures also of this rear portion, what you are referring to as the court yard is the open area to the immediate rear of the Phoenix Building that is still part of the property owned by the Phoenix Building.
Ms. Conroy: Correct.
Mr.Granato: Very good. I will turn this around to allow other people from the audience to see it.
I want to also submit with the approval of the Board this package into evidence, this the closing packet from the acquisition of the Phoenix Building which will help fortify the acquisition costs for the structure, the deed for the structure, the date of the transaction, the certified rent role that was in existence when we acquired the building and that was the rent based upon which we built, unfortunately we have two new tenants going forward, two tenants who have left and now we have the current tenant that necessitates the need to address this Board.
We certainly are concerned with the reality that the Board has to make a decision in this case, but we ask the Board to consider the magnitude of that decision and the magnitude of that decision is a function of the magnitude of the variance. We do not have a tenant who is going to start a manufacturing business or even an assembling business in the conventional sense of the term. We are well aware of the Zoning Code and understand that the term light manufacturing incorporates assembling. But as it has been described to this Board at the prior meeting, that assembly is pre-manufactured parts, pre-manufactured off premises, everything is done off premises and in fact the only thing that happens here is it comes together with enough control over a unit so that it can properly come
together and met the specs in order to be a very, very precise instrument. It is a small part of the business, but unfortunately it is inextricable and that was explained by the tenant at the last appearance and he can’t pull these two pieces of the business apart because my employees are interchangeable and this is one source of cash flow that helps make the balance of my engineering business viable. I wouldn’t come before this Board and ask for an assembler to come into the Phoenix Building if that was the full nature of his business, but when it is an adjunct of the business, I feel it is a far and reasonable request to make of the Board. In order to show exactly what the magnitude is of the assembly that goes on, I have asked the prospective tenant to tell me literally how many bolts go into putting this together and I haven't even heard the number yet. If you could share it with us, how many bolts?
Mr. Allred: Eleven bolts.
Mr. Granato: Eleven bolts. I knew from the description it is minimal and because it is a small part of the business, because it can’t be done off premises because of the need for keeping the finances rather fine lined for this, because it involves items that are manufactured off premises and I used the analogy the last, not different than a trophy coming together, where you take individual brass plates, bases, the model and you screw them together and put them on the shelf for sale, we are not looking for a major shift in the use of the building. We are asking for consideration though to allow this particular aspect of the business to exist with a tenant who preoccupies the majority of his business with engineering and design work, which is exactly the type of business that we need here
in Auburn.
Both at the past meeting and the present meeting and from the association that he has with Auburn that goes back many, many years, it has become very, very apparent that one of the problems that we have in the City and which falls on your shoulders is zoning. The amount of rental income property is a constant source of problems that come before the Board. What we really need to do is focus on businesses that bring business to Auburn, because as the business base increases so too does the homeowner occupant which is really one of the key sources that strengthen any City. We have to try to move forward so that as we look at this City we see it as a City where people don’t want to buy and leave and rent out their properties but they want to own and to own you need a good
job. To have a good job, you have got to have the business bases here. This is a gentleman that not only brings the engineers, as well as himself to the community, but he brings opportunity because when his inventions in the medical field, which we have to remember is his primary business, when those inventions work, and they need to be built, he doesn’t build them there, he builds off premises, just as he is doing in the community now, he is a spark that allow other businesses to grow. I would like those other businesses to be centered here in Auburn and I ask this Board’s consideration by granting a variance to allow this tenant to be located at the Phoenix Building.
Thank you and I open this up to any questions whether of me, Mr. Dean, Ms. Conroy or the tenant or any of the parties that we have brought before you today including the pictures and surveys.
Mr. Rejman: Questions?
Mr. Gentile: For Mr. Ford - Verification on your projected operation cash flow statement. I see your rental income is increased annually.
Mr. Ford: I have increased that 3%.
Mr. Gentile: Yet, you left a majority of the general administrative expenses fixed for 10 years.
Mr. Ford: Correct. That would go up too but just for emphasis, if they went up
Mr. Gentile: Show more of a loss
Mr. Ford: That is right, that’s right. They will change and what I did on the projection on page 3 was to include the rent that Dean/Conroy would receive should you grant the variance and you can compare the differences all it does it take them out of the red and put them into the black. It certainly helps and it puts them on the way to where they want to be.
Mr. Gentile: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Gary?
Mr. Temple: Yes. I see your credentials and experiences are note worthy as you painted them, I am just curious how does all that relate to the ability to forecast 10 years into the future and have us factor that in so it is meaningful? I mean we already know based on the testimony presented here tonight tenants have gone and tenants expire
Mr. Ford: That is all it is, projections. People do projections in businesses. It is a tool that we use to give us some guidance and to make some decisions, but you are absolutely right.
Mr. Temple: Was your relationship with the building and Dean/Conroy, did that pre-exist the purchase of this building?
Mr. Ford: Yes. Not specifically that entity but the individuals in doing with them.
Mr. Temple: And at such a time as they were giving consideration to purchasing this building, were you asked to provide any advisories or forecasts or projections on this building as the rent currently existed?
Mr. Ford: No.
Mr. Temple: You never gave any opinions as to the viability of buying for $150,000 and then sinking another $115,000, you never gave any projections or comments as to the propriety of those decisions?
Mr. Ford: That is correct.
Mr. Temple: I see. I have another question. Mr. Chairman I would like to reserve the opportunity to ask further questions
Mr. Rejman: Yes
Mr. Temple: We have had a tremendous amount of material dropped on us here tonight that in order to pay attention to the testimony and then read this, exhibits that have been introduced so far, but I have looked at it briefly and I don’t have it in front of me right now, I would ask you to state the rent list when the building was taken over. Do you know which one of those renters and the amounts are the ones that departed?
Mr. Ford: No, I don’t.
Mr. Temple: You don’t. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Granato: Would you like that particular question answered. If I could borrow back that exhibit I will have Mr. Dean walk us through that. Thank you. Mr. Dean.
Mr. Dean: Major tenant that we lost was Dr. Doan, he was paying just short of $1,500 a month.
Mr. Granato: Can you walk us through the list and tell us which tenants are still there and which ones have left.
Mr. Dean: Ann Bunker still there, Brian Landers is still there, the Arts Council is still there, Dave Connelly is still there, Peter Doan left he was a doctor, Cunningham is still there, Nangle is still there, Dwyer was renting the year before but no longer rents from us.
Mr. Temple: Who is the tenant that you referred to as passing on?
Mr. Dean: Frelon Hunter.
Mr. Temple: What was the amount of his rent?
Mr. Dean: I believe $150.
Ms. Conroy: I believe so.
Mr. Temple: Also I would ask you the additional two that you took on, what are the amounts that you receive and the renters.
Mr. Dean: $1,200 for the Pottery and $250 for the accountant.
Mr. Temple: What I hear you saying then is that you are losing $1650 a month in rent and picking up $1450 for a net loss of $200 a month.
Mr. Dean: That is correct.
Mr. Temple: With that figure in mind, I wonder how is it that the projections and perhaps I should go back again to the accountant, how is it that the projections surprised to the extent of what I see on this page loss of $40,000 when only $200 a month comes to $2,400 annually.
Mr. Dean: We never thought we could sustain the building on the rents that are there to start with. The renovations were a lot more costly $115,000 worth of renovations, we didn’t anticipate that.
Mr. Temple: Building have heat at the time you bought it?
Mr. Dean: The furnace was leaking and for all intents and purposes not going to last so we decided to replace it totally.
Mr. Temple: What other improvements did you make?
Mr. Dean: Did a lot of electrical work, new ceilings, new lighting, the second, third and fourth floors were like walking into the 50_s, not beat up but just old and felt like you were in the 50's now they are bright have new lights up there, new ceilings, new carpets in the halls, walls have been wallpapered other than the doors you would think you were in a brand new building. Carpeting down the stairs, main floor we painted 5,000 square feet downstairs, just a lot of little things. Air conditioners needed work. It is a great old building, but it wasn’t tight on the mechanics and we wanted to address it so we wouldn’t have to later on.
Mr. Temple: Again I don’t have that document in front of me, but referring to if you would, tell me as it relates to tenant Michael Dwyer, I see a figure of $300. Was that a monthly figure?
Mr. Dean: That was the monthly figure for the courtyard, it was for like 5 month.
Mr. Temple: Five months at $300? That was something you picked up after you purchased the property?
Mr. Dean: No, that was the year before, we didn’t own it then.
Mr. Granato: Mr. Dean, is it fair to say that between the dates that the purchase offer was submitted and the closing date, the cost of replacing the furnace escalated rather markedly in terms of what the costs were given to you.
Mr. Dean: They were considerably higher, first we thought we could repair the furnace for a few thousand dollars and get another 5 or 10 years out of it. When we brought people in that knew steam systems, there are not a lot of them out there, said we can put a band aid on it and we will see you next year. We didn’t want to be in a position constantly having a problem with the heating. That was the number one complaint of the tenant that were there, the mechanics of the building, so we made a decision that we were going to do it right and be done with it.
Mr. Gentile: Of the tenants that you currently have there, are there lease agreements with the current tenants or are they all month to month?
Mr. Dean: The new tenants we are taking on we are signing leases with. A lot of the tenants there are month to month we didn’t want to disturb anything that was in place so we just left it month to month. Some of the tenants have been in the building for 25 years. So we tried to honor the time that they have put in there.
Mr. Gentile: Is the Cayuga County Arts Council still paying no rent?
Mr. Dean: They are paying no rent, that is kind of community gesture that we made there, they are revamping their building and didn’t have any headquarters and we said we have 60% of the building empty, we will be gracious pick an office and move in.
Mr. Gentile: Thank you.
Mr. Granato: Mr. Dean, did you have an opportunity to review the income tax statements of the prior owner to see if they were any more successful at operating this structure than you are?
Mr. Dean: I saw three years tax returns and they lost money every year. It was getting worse because of the gas situation, the gas bills were ridiculous with the old furnace.
Mr. Granato: Thank you. Any other questions of any of the witnesses?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Temple: I have one, the testimony of the company owner who spoke of shipping two machines a month
Mr. Granato: Yes, two pickups per month would be loaded two at a time.
Mr. Temple: If you loaded two at a time or two separately?
Mr. Granato: I think what he indicated was that he would sell up to four of these carbon machines and that they generally are picked up two at a time so there would be two pickups per month.
Mr. Temple: So we are looking at a couple of pickups and presumably materials that are going to be assembled there are going to be delivered so we have to factor on a little bit more.
Mr. Granato: Absolutely they have to be delivered.
Mr. Temple: Then in addition to the carbon machines is it not true the business would be shipping and receiving other parts for assembly of the other primarily medical devices which the owner.
Mr. Granato: I don’t that will be active, I would like the tenant to address that himself.
Mr. Allred: Most of the medical devices that we design is small stuff, we get a lot of FedEx deliveries. So we don’t need trucks. Lot of times we pick up these items ourselves.
Mr. Rejman: I have a question. Just trying to fame this whole argument down to something sensible. Can I assume that the assembly area that we are talking about will not exceed 1,000 square feet, is that the approximate square footage that we are dealing with?
Mr. Allred: You can assume that, it will actually be less.
Mr. Rejman: OK. And the issue that we have here is that we have two businesses owned by one individual, one being an engineering business and the other being an assembly business. On a gross income percentage, what would you say the assembly is to the combined gross income?
Mr. Allred: 25%.
Mr. Rejman: All right. So to frame this again, we are dealing with 1,000 square feet, we are dealing with a sub-business that produces 25% of the gross revenue and uses approximately how many man-hours per month?
Mr. Allred: 100 hours.
Mr. Rejman: So we are talking not even talking
Mr. Allred: I don’t have a full time employee. One fellow that works for me does that and also mechanical design for me. I also bring in another part time guy who works about 10 hours a week to help him.
Mr. Rejman: In your hopeful opinion if the assembly business hopefully it will grow, how soon might you out grow that building?
Mr. Allred: I don’t think you have a lot to worry about. I can’t build a lot in 1,000 square feet, in fact, part of that is going to have to have room for a drill that I build prototypes with, going to be more like 700 square foot or 600 square foot for assembly. If it grows, I have a young man that works for me, I am going to rent a lot in an industrial area and build him a factory. I will keep the offices for my consulting.
Mr. Rejman: OK. I think we are losing track of what the issue really was here. I hoped to frame it better for us.
Any other questions from the Board before I call for those who wish to speak for or against. We can always come back. Any one wishing to speak for or against? We have one.
Mr. Dwyer: My name is Mike Dwyer and I own Swaby Building next to the Phoenix Building. My biggest concern is the assembly, bottom line is they don’t need it why are they asking for a variance. They will grow, they may do one this year, four next year, 1,000 square feet this year, next year might be 2,000 square feet of the building with as much space available. Once you grant it you can’t control it. The other is hardship, I use to own the building, I knew about the discussions of it when they bought it. They knew all the pit falls of the building, maybe that is why they got it for $150,000.
The part they talk about out in back bringing in trucks, I am going to have to address that in court, I will not address it here.
My main concern here is they brought in all these pictures, saying a couple cases of beer, it is very congested in that area. I would love to see one of the machines, I saw the article in the Citizen stating that says the machine weighs170 lbs. assembled, that would be coming out of the Phoenix Building. Two cases of beer, can you carry two cases of beer? This is not the place this business should be. I would have loved it when I owned the building four years ago and I came before you, I am sure I would have been denied.
Mr. Rejman: Is there any one else wishing to speak for or against the application?
Mr. Yoensky: Chairman and members of the Board, my name is Carl Yoensky and I am partner in the Lor-Mor Building next door. The thing that disturbs me the most about what is being talked about tonight is a zoning change, that would change the character of the building and will run with the land forever. As Mike pointed out it could expand and there would be control. Who knows what the rest of the building is going to be used for. Is there some zoning that allows for spot zoning or use variance so that this specific operation could function, but I don’t want to see the building’s control lost so that 10,000 square feet will be assembly? Once it is past it goes with the land forever and the control is gone forever.
Mr. Darrow: We discussed that with Mr. Miller last month.
Mr. Rejman: We discussed and during the discussion phase we are going to have some input from counsel on different things on different items that we may do.
Mr. Yoensky: OK. I would address a couple of other issues. The economics they claim hardship for is for a 7-month period. Usually when you buy a building you go in plan on a year or two, you develop it. Mr. Ford probably should have done an analysis before the purchase. They said they had three years tax statements and there was a lose three years in a row, they obviously thought they had a plan to turn that around. I think they also stated they lost Dr. Doan before the purchase. So economics I think are their own doing and I feel sorry for them, but I think they should give it a longer period of time to try and turn it around.
My other concern is parking and access in the back. I don’t want to have my parking and parking for my tenants disturbed; otherwise I don’t have a problem with it. I am worried about the long-term effect of the zoning change. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you. Any one else wishing to speak for or against the application?
Mr. Dean: May I say something? We didn’t know that Dr. Doan was moving out until June.
Mr. Rejman: Questions again from the Board?
Mr. Temple: Yes, I would like to ask Mr. Dwyer a question when he was up here.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Dwyer, are you willing to come back up for a question?
Mr. Dwyer: Sure.
Mr. Temple: Have you had a chance to look at the color map there in the center aisle, where they have the yellow shaded area. Is that depiction as you understand it with respect to your building? Your building would be the white one down at the bottom. I am not sure that drawing shows your parcel or just the building or is that actually the entire parcel?
Mr. Dwyer: I think it is just the building.
Mr. Temple: What the map shows that there is no land whatsoever outside the back of your building. You don’t find that to be true?
Mr. Dwyer: I don’t find it to be true at all. They own the land where they are talking about the pad, it was grandfathered in, it use to be our air conditioner area
Mr. Temple: An easement according to the
Mr. Dwyer: Right. It was grandfathered in, they own the land, but we had the use. I also have a letter from Mr. Mahlstead giving it to us. As far as I understand it we have one foot or less for our emergency door out that goes with the building. We don’t have that much land about one foot in the back.
Mr. Temple: OK.
Mr. Granato: May I also address that issue? What Mr. Dwyer is referring to here is what was designated as an easement. That easement which we have a record of and I will submit this for the record is appears that item #48 of the abstract of title for our property clearly demonstrates that easement was for the right to own and maintain an air conditioning unit and if that air conditioning unit is not maintained within two years that easement expires. That easement has expired, it does not exist. I will submit a copy of the abstract of title and you can see sheet #48, item 29 are terms of the easement as they appear on the public record. This clearly does designate the exact area owned by Dean/Conroy LLC and it matches the deed that is not only referenced in that abstract of
title but referenced in the packet that was submitted to the Board. It is simply a reality that on the north and on the easterly edge of the Swaby Building, there is no property that extends beyond the property line. On the southerly side this Cumston Lane as it shows on the survey does exist, gives him a spot of approximately 12 foot to use in common ownership with everyone else. It is a right of way. That is what Cumston Lane gives all parties access to the back of this property off of South Street.
Mr. Rejman: Final questions? Do you have a final closing statement?
Mr. Granato: I promise to be very, very brief, you have been very patient with this application. The objections that were raised seem to run to the issue of if the variance is granted how can it be contained or confined and prohibit the entire building from becoming a huge assembly plant. Well the physical dimensions for which we seek relief is the 1,000 square foot area in the lower portion of the building. The physical dimensions of the building prohibit this from being expanded beyond that because we are not asking for a variance to go beyond that 1,000 square feet. The issue brought up of historic preservation of this building that is a legitimate issue but an issue we carry to the Board also, we have to maintain economic viability in order to allow the structure to
continue. We are not the first owners to have had trouble trying to make a profit from this building. Historically it stopped being a single use building for the bank, it had it problems. The problems have been economic. This is a way of helping not curing but helping the building maintain that economic viability so that we look at this building today and 50 years from now and still see the clock tower present in a beautiful historic building.
With respect to the issue of congestion there is no issue that I can see that has been brought before the Board that would suggest the use of this building by our prospective tenant is of any greater intensity of use that may be in existence by any other tenant in that building if it was a perfectly legal and conforming use with the exception of two truck deliveries per month, I should refer to that pickups as well as the incidental deliveries that come by FedEx, the same truck that comes to my office once a day, the same truck in terms of size that deliveries products by UPS by AirBorne, they don’t breed traffic congestion. I think these are red herrings, the real issue before the Board is whether or not this Board feels there is enough proof in front of them to allow for a variance to
exist with respect to this tenant for this use for this confined space on this occasion. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: We will now close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Hopefully get input from counsel.
Mr. Darrow: I am most curious to the findings of limiting it, you know, so that it doesn’t run with the building or ownership, that Mr. Miller was going to check into.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Miller do you have input on that?
Mr. Miller: When we talked about other requests for use variances, the best way to address this is to be very, very precise as we have done in the past to talk very specifically of the use in question. The best way to do this is to be very precise in your ruling. As the attorney for the applicant just pointed out their application itself is fairly narrow, it points to 1,000 square feet. I am looking at this to make sure that is the case, but I think you can simply site the 1,000, I don’t happen to see the 1,000 square foot specifically mentioned in the application copy I am looking at. So you may want to do this, limit it to 1,000 square feet in the basement area as described during these proceedings and on drawings submitted. You may want to limit to the
assembly of products such as described in this application. I think just the more precise you are, that is the best key as we have done many times in the past.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Other comments? I would like to hear comments.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t see a big problem with it providing we are very precise in limiting it so that addressing the concerns of any other downtown business owners or operators. If it needs to grow to 1,010 square feet they need to be back before us. I think that is the most important concern is that we limit it. From what I can tell the applicant has no problem whatsoever with that either.
Mr. Gentile: Also there are two light manufacturing facilities on Genesee Street, one is Imaging Business Technology at 132 Genesee Street, above PBJ and the other I guess is in the 110 Genesee Street building, remanufacturing toner cartridges.
Mr. Darrow: Now is your concern that we already have some sort of assembly or manufacturing downtown and that we need nor more or that is already down there and that sort of gives us a little guide?
Mr. Gentile: I don’t think they need a variance. There is light manufacturing already going on downtown.
Ms. Marteney: They have a variance.
Mr. Gentile: They both have variances?
Ms. Marteney: Yes.
Mr. Gentile: OK, then that answers the question.
Mr. Temple: Are you saying then that this is in favor of the project?
Mr. Gentile: I am saying I don’t have a problem with it.
Ms. Marteney: Do you remember how it was worded?
Mr. Rejman: It was framed fairly tight, I remember that. They were limited to a specific use I am not sure about the square footage.
Ms. Marteney: I don’t think it was square footage.
Mr. Miller: I recall the laser one and I think in that case we actually applied if I remember, the office number in the building where they are located, I think we limited it to that office by its number.
Mr. Rejman: Just going to give a personal opinion here. Seems that a lot of time and effort has been put forth on a very small problem that only 100 man hours a month and provides 25% of the gentleman’s income and he only uses 1,000 square feet and not even all of that. We want to revitalize downtown, we have to be willing to come to terms with the new manufacturing that wasn’t even envisioned a few years ago, the lasers, who knows what we are going to have 15 years from now. The impact is minimal, it is not manufacturing. Not generating toxic wastes or anything, that is my personal opinion. I think we need more people downtown.
Mr. Darrow: I think basically we are just crossing another bridge that 10 years ago we crossed when Bed & Breakfasts came to town and we had no zoning for it.
Mr. Rejman: Right, we had no zoning for it.
Mr. Darrow: I think we are doing the same scenario here. It is 11 bolts he is putting together to assemble a unit.
Mr. Rejman: And hopefully two years from now he will be in the industrial park.
Mr. Hare: Can we legally limit truck traffic?
Mr. Darrow: I don’t see how we could, wouldn’t be any different than telling Mr. Dwyer he is allowed to have only one beer delivery a week as opposed to two.
Mr. Rejman: I thought about this the other day, say there is a craft shop downtown somewhere, that someone walks into and says I want buy 100 flower baskets or whatever and oh by the way, deliver it. Didn’t they just cross the line as in the situation right here? Again we aren’t dealing with thousand of items a month and it will in my opinion never get to that. He will be in industrial park before that happens.
Mr. Temple: I would like to address a number of things. One the idea that we are being asked to extrapolate into the future both on economic projections and also on what success the inventor will hopefully enjoy in this location and thus what he will be shipping. I think he is asking a bit much particularly when once we grant a variance as everyone has already stated, the variance runs with the land. We should not be focusing on just what is it that this applicant is going to be doing with his 1,000 square feet in that building in the basement rather we should be focusing on the concepts of manufacturing of any sort light assembly which is what we are being asked to give a variance for. That is could consist of something different a year from now, six years from now whenever. I noted with interest the number of times we have been asked to grant variances, use variances and that the properties have changed hands a very short order thereafter. So the likelihood I feel is that
there will be changes rather a constancy with this particular arrangement.
And furthermore, I have a lot difficulty with the threshold issue which we all should be looking at and that is the issue of self-created hardship. We heard the testimony here tonight that before purchasing the property they looked at three years of financial statements of the prior owners of the building. We heard an allegation that was made by Mr. Dwyer that the reason the building sold for the price that it did was a reflection of the fact that there were certain mechanical problems with the building, that now we are told have caused the current ownership to spend $115,000 to cure. I have been up in that building in the past and I am familiar with the upper floors and what they looked like and if anyone wishes to upgrade and refurbish that is certainly a nice idea, but as it
goes to the issue of creation or lack thereof of a hardship, here we have an applicant who purchased the property knowing that it was not going this way and has owned it less than a year and now tells us that there is a hardship if they don’t have this variance. I would submit that this particular area of the building which were are being asked to grant the variance on in actuality generally in downtown serves as an ancillary to the other building activities that are going on in the upper floors. In other words, tenants that wish to have storage space in relation to their building and can’t do it in these square footage allotted to their business on the office floors, might have a cubicle set aside downstairs for the purpose of storing things. I feel that perhaps realizing the space in this way in the basement, it may have adverse impact to later tenants which could come in here and be of the commercial type nature the current zoning allow.
This threshold issue of self-created hardship I feel weighs heavily against the proposal although I have to say I would like to see this inventor come to Auburn, I would like to see this inventor use the building for the part of his business that ¾ of his business that he can use as it is currently zoned and the other things is the BID organization is relatively new, they may not have had enough time in which to converse about this amongst themselves and to offer an opinion as a group. Also we have not heard anything from the historical group to tell us what they think of this particular zoning being changed in its use for time eternal, I think perhaps a tabling of this might be in order so that we can look at the material which we were given here tonight which I for one have not
had a chance to consider and I will at the appropriate time I will make a motion to table it for 30 days.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chairman, may I have the floor to make a motion?
Mr. Rejman: I wish to make a comment first.
Mr. Darrow: OK.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Temple, I don’t see where the information that this applicant gave to the Board in any more burdensome than the information that you presented to us originally. I personally feel that I have enough information to make a decision and I would like to go around the room and ask if you feel you have enough information to make a decision tonight. Mr. Hare, do you have enough information to make a decision?
Mr. Hare: Yes, I feel I have enough information to make a decision.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Ms. Marteney?
Ms. Marteney: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Darrow?
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Westlake?
Mr. Westlake: I am relatively new to the Board, but I do feel I have enough information.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Gentile?
Mr. Gentile: Yes, more than enough information.
Mr. Rejman: It would seem Mr. Temple that we would like to go forward with this.
Ms. Marteney: I would like to respond regarding BID. I am a member on the Board of Bid, Mr. Yoensky is involved with Bid he came as a private individual and anybody who is involved with BID or has a business downtown were eligible to come here and make comments. There was some minor discussion at one of the BID meetings and no one is attending and having a problem with it. There is no historic group which has control over the downtown area. In terms of new businesses if one were to say a business other than this moved into that space and if we came up with the most bizarre place, Austeel/Nucor decided to move into that basement, the kind of renovations and codes enforcement that they would have to follow would not make that a likely place for a manufacturer of anything
other than light assembly to move into that space. I can’t imagine someone who has to bring in huge machinery for any other kinds of large-scale changes would want to move into that space. If we are very specific about the space in terms of the actual size of the space and the location of the space, I feel very comfortable with voting on the resolution and passing it.
Mr. Rejman: Counselor just brought to my attention Municipal Code 30.74I Light Industry. Would you like to hear what that is? Would you read that for us.
Mr. Tehan: Basically it provides a definition of light industry - “a use engaged in the manufacture predominately from previously prepared materials, finished products or parts, including processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, packaging, storage, sales and distribution of such products, but excluding basis industrial processing.”
Mr. Rejman: That does limit it to assembly. And we limit it again to 1,000 square feet to be confined in the basement.
Mr. Darrow: May I make a motion?
Mr. Rejman: I would suggest you reference this though if you would - take a look at that for this applicant only.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant a variance to use 1,000 square feet in the basement of the property known as 2 South Street, also know as the Phoenix Building, in the City of Auburn, for assembly as defined by the Auburn Municipal Code Subsection 30.74I Light Industry.
Mr. Rejman: Is there a second to that? Or is there a question first?
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that.
Mr. Temple: Are you asking for certain words to be involved on this Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Rejman: Did we limit it to this application only?
Mr. Darrow: No we did not
Mr. Miller: Someone else could come in and propose to do basically the same, to assemble products and do so within that 1,000 square foot area. Realistically the logic behind that is does anyone care, you are dealing with properties, not whether or not he owns it or I own it or you own it.
Mr. Darrow: The only other limitation would be to specify the assembly of the carving machine but that would go with the business and not the property which would be out of order.
Mr. Rejman: Just clarify for us on the other two variances that we gave, did we reference, did we or did we not limit the manufacturing.
Mr. Miller: In much the same way the counsel suggested you limit this. I think in the laser one again we talked about manufacture of circuitries to be used in laser production or something of that sort so very precise but we didn’t say Joe Blow X or Joe Blow Z, it just
Mr. Tehan: For clarification General Cities Law 81-D sub 5 allows for the imposition of the conditions, however, these conditions are to be imposed for the purpose of minimizing any adverse impact with the granting of the variance might have on the neighborhood or the community. Now, limiting it to a certain production of the carving machines I think goes beyond that authority granted by the General Cities Law.
Mr. Rejman: Would the secretary reread the motion.
Mrs. Westlake: Ok, make a motion that we grant a variance to use 1,000 square feet in the basement of the property known as 2 South Street, also know as the Phoenix Building, in the City of Auburn, for assembly as defined by the Auburn Municipal Code Subsection 30.74I Light Industry.
Mr. Rejman: Call the roll.
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. Good luck with it.
Mr. Conroy: Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________________________
85 South Street, R-2, use variance for 8 efficiency apartments, Westminster Manor.
Mr. Rejman: 85 South Street.
Mr. Fandrich: Good evening once again ladies and gentlemen, I am Mark Fandrich an attorney here in town with offices at 110 Genesee Street. I am here tonight on behalf of Westminster Manor for a variance at 85 South Street. Westminster Manor is an adult care facility which has been in Auburn since 1961. It purchased by foreclosure some property next to it at 85 South Street in 1997 and at that time that property that the Manor purchased had approximately 8 or 9 apartments in the structure, most of which were already efficiencies. The Manor obtained the property for two purposes; 1) to protect itself from the existing eyesore that had been present for a long period of time and 2) to propel the other type of senior housing to compliment the adult care facility which
was operating at 81 South Street.
The variance requested would allow up to six efficiency apartments and two one-bedroom apartments in the present structure, based on the plans that have been provided and prepared by the architect team.
At the time the property was acquired the applicant did not know that to continue to use the premises as efficiencies apartments that they need to come before this Board for permission and that is why we are here before you this evening. The Manor has been working diligently with Mike Long and Historic Resources Advisory Board and they also received $119,000 grant from New York State Office of Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation.
The Manor has been a good neighbor in this community. I don’t think there is any local or neighborhood opposition to the project. The Manor is going to strive to keep the structure exterior in keeping with the historic nature of the neighborhood and I have Albert Elder here who is one of the architects on the architect team who has been working on the project to answer specific questions. I also have with me the contractor and the President of the Board.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Who would you like to present first?
Mr. Elder: My name is Albert Elder and I am with the architect team. I am here to answer any technical stuff about the efficiencies or the one-bedroom apartments.
Mr. Rejman: Give us a general over view of the project of what you intend to do, how the building stands now, what you envision in the future.
Mr. Elder: OK. The intent was to as previously said is to stop the deterioration and the eyesore in the neighborhood and maintain the historic nature. In doing that we wanted to design the units so that minimal demolition work would be done to the original building. In doing that the one-bedroom apartments were not always the best means and went right as the plans, so that is why efficiencies were required.
On the exterior we are going we received a grant to help with the façade restoration which includes the rebuilding of the porch to the original detail and also work on the brick and the existing windows.
I think the other thing I wanted to say was that the number of units we are proposing six efficiencies and two one-bedrooms is a number from the economic model of what works for Westminster and to have more one-bedroom would be less units and therefore hurt that model. All these were considered during the design.
Mr. Rejman: I am interested in the grant that you received. In the application that you sent in did you, was it fully disclosed that that was the intent of this building to make efficiencies out of it? Somebody is nodding yes out there, would you want to come forward please and state your name.
Mr. O’Connor: Yes, I am Mike O’Connor, general contractor for O’Connor Mechanicals.
Mr. Rejman: Mike, come up and use the microphone. Again the question was in your grant application that was sent up, was it clearly stated in here that the intent of revitalizing this building was to make efficiencies apartments?
Mr. O’Connor: I wasn’t involved in the application for the grant. The redevelopment of the house has always been for efficiency apartments. That is what the square footage of the house offers.
Mr. Rejman: I think we have another.
Mr. Kane: My name is Peter Kane, President of the Board. In the grant application it was for the historical aspect, did not talk about the interior of the house. We were able to secure pictures of the house in the 1890_s so that is why we are going to rebuild the two porches and redo the artwork wit the money.
Mr. Rejman: Just a curious question that I had.
Mr. Elder: I think the grant money is for the façade.
Mr. Kane: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: For the outside, ok.
Questions from the Board? I know it is late. Must be something. Closing comments?
Mr. Fandrich: I want to thank the Board of its patience during the evening and hope you act favorably on ours.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. We will close the public portion at this time and make our decision.
Mr. Darrow: I am curious if Mr. Moore has an opinion.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore, do you have an opinion?
Mr. Moore: Always.
Mr. Rejman: Would you care to share it with us.
Mr. Moore: This is all senior citizens. They have gone through the expense of putting an elevator in. All the apartments are handicap accessible, transitional house where people that are ambulatory now may later on they will move over across the driveway into the Westminster. It is a good fit with Westminster Manor. Those are efficiencies, some of them are fairly large, but there is no way they could make one-bedrooms.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you Mr. Moore. My packet was incomplete, I touched base with Mr. Moore this morning and I wanted him to share with everybody what he shared with me so we can all be on the same page.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
Mr. Temple: I just would like to observe that this was indeed one of the projects that would have been helpful to me as a Board member to evaluate were I able to go into the project itself and review it. Of course I have been admonished in the past that Board members ought not to do anything on the inside of the building. I wonder if this is something that should be rethought, not in respect to this particular application but in general looking towards the future because it has been interesting to hear the words of Mr. Moore unfortunate that each of us member couldn’t avail ourselves the opportunity to see it for ourselves.
It appears as though this project is the best that could happen out of an unfortunate situation. The house, the neighboring _ they have a good sound business plan which is going to be involved here and I think it is clear that any change the Board was not to approve the variance that at this point would result in hardship at this point.
Mr. Rejman: Motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant a use variance to 85 South Street, in the applicant’s name of Westminster Manor for the purpose of converting the dwelling into 6 efficiency apartments and 2 one-bedroom apartments for the elderly.
Mr. Temple: 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.
Mr. Fandrich: Thank you very much.
| 
