ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2002
Members Present: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Members Absent: Mr. Westlake (called)
Staff Present: Mr. Leone, Mr. Moore, Mr. LaDouce
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 148 Ross Street Ext., 7 Canal Street
APPLICATIONS DENIED: 102 South Street, 62 - 74 Owasco Street
APPLICATIONS TABLED: 276 Grant Avenue, 101 - 103 N. Fulton Street, 57 N. Lewis Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are absent one member tonight; we do have six on board though. You will need four affirmative votes for approval. On tonight’s agenda we have: 102 South Street, 62 - 74 Owasco Street, 276 Grant Avenue, 101 - 103 No. Fulton Street, 148 Ross Street Ext., 57 No. Lewis Street, 7 Canal Street
101 - 103 No. Fulton Street has been removed. Are you here for that? It is my understanding that has been removed from the agenda.
Mr. Lowe: Is it going to be put on another time? I am Walter Lowe’s father.
Mr. Rejman: I am assuming when we come it to you will present the application and go forward with this?
Mr. Lowe: We he has one here.
Mr. Rejman: I guess we are a little confused here. Have a seat we will bring that up on the agenda as item #4 then.
Mr. Lowe: OK, thank you.
__________________________________________________________________
102 South Street, R2, area variances: a) 3’ for garage to be located 7 ft. from residence; b) 8.3’ in height above the allowed 15’; c) 722 square feet for total sq. ft. area of garage to be 1472 s. f. Carl Townsend and Lori Dickes.
Mr. Rejman: Is 102 South Street here? Step forward and state your name for the record.
Mr. Townsend: Carl Townsend.
Ms. Dickes: Lori Dickes.
Mr. Rejman: OK, and tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Dickes: We are looking to develop a structure in conformance with the established 3 feet from the line and 10 feet from the house, but it does exceed in the height requirement which requires an area variance. Basically just to house our personal belongings and personal vehicles, it is not to be a commercial property. We have been working with the Historical Society to develop a structure which is consistence with the times of the house, because it is an old Victorian building built in 1879, it is in the historical district and we want to maintain the integrity of the structure.
Mr. Townsend: So the roof actually has to be risen to fit the criteria of the year of the house.
Mr. Rejman: I understand that. Questions from the Board?
Mr. Temple: I was trying to catch the location. How far from the boundaries?
Mr. Townsend: The north would be within 3 feet.
Mr. Darrow: It is my understanding that the only thing you are in need of a variance is the height, 15 feet is allowable. You need a 8-foot height variance.
Ms. Dickes: In order to maintain the same pitch.
Mr. Darrow: Right, I understand that.
Mr. Rejman: Don’t we need a 3-foot variance from the garage to the primary residence?
Ms. Dickes: It is 10 feet.
Mr. Moore: It scales off at 7 feet.
Ms. Marteney: There is a 3-foot variance.
Mr. Rejman: Right we need that 3-foot variance.
Mr. Darrow: OK. I was assuming it was a 10-foot.
Mr. Moore: Drawing submitted scales off the house at 7 feet.
Mr. Darrow: Fine.
Mr. Temple: 7 feet from the edge of the deck or is that 7 feet from the structure itself?
Mr. Moore: Main structure.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Moore, do you have an original copy of the survey or a copy of it?
Mr. Moore: Just what was submitted.
Mr. Darrow: You have the same thing we do.
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: So therefore the scale could be of due to copying, could actually have 10 foot. Have you actually measured it from the property line?
Ms. Dickes: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: And you come up wit 10
Mr. Townsend: 10 feet from the structure itself.
Ms. Dickes: 10 feet from the structure itself and that was on the second level, second floor deck.
Ms. Marteney: Are you measuring from the deck or the house?
Mr. Moore: From the house to the barn. Scale of 1 to 30 it is 7 foot.
Mr. Darrow: The point I am making is the more the original survey is recopied the less integrity the scale actually has.
Mr. Moore: That is right, but this is a standard copy and you are not going to lose 3 feet on it.
Mr. Rejman: For the record he is stating it is 10 feet.
Ms. Dickes: We can establish that.
Mr. Darrow: I would definitely go by Jim’s recommendation, asking for a 3 foot side yard variance as well.
Mr. Leone: As long as you are reasonably sure you are not going to run into a problem. If there is a problem you will have to come back.
Ms. Dickes: OK.
Mr. Rejman: OK. You are also looking for a 722 square foot total for the garage. So you need another variance of 722 square feet for the garage. Again, tell us why the garage needs to be almost 1500 square feet.
Mr. Townsend: You are figuring with the height and everything with that. It is actually going to be able to put four cars in it, I have an antique car and stuff like that that I am going to be putting in there. She has a car, the kids have cars.
Mr. Rejman: So it is a four-car garage?
Ms. Dickes: Yes, with two doors.
Mr. Darrow: Have you been before the Historical Society with this request?
Ms. Dickes: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: And they have no problem with the size that you have?
Ms. Dickes: They made recommendations for dormers above each door to be more historical.
Mr. Darrow: What are they suggesting for the pitch of the roof? 6 _ 12, 9 _ 12?
Mr. Townsend: 8’ 12”.
Ms. Dickes: More expensive to put on but we are willing to concede that.
Mr. Gentile: Is the garage to store construction equipment also?
Mr. Townsend: No.
Ms. Dickes: No. We have a lot personal belongings and things that we need to take care of the property, lawn tractors, snow blowers, bikes for children.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application?
Mr. Darrow: I have one more question for the applicants. How many square feet is your house? So we can put it in perspective the garage size in reference to your house size.
Ms. Dickes: The house without the servant quarters and basement, 4100 square feet.
Mr. Moore: The footprint is 1700 in the Assessor’s files.
Ms. Dickes: On each level.
Mr. Moore: I don’t know about the levels.
Ms. Dickes: It would be double.
Mr. Moore: That is the footprint, someone called me and I looked it up.
Ms. Dickes: Not in accordance with our survey.
Ms. Marteney: Footprint, what it actually sits on.
Ms. Dickes: What it actually sits on, I see.
Mr. Darrow: Two or three story, is the attic a full story?
Ms. Dickes: Technically the attic is a full story.
Mr. Darrow: OK. I went by it. Would you know how many feet it is from the peeks to the ground? Do you have 9-foot ceilings downstairs?
Ms. Dickes: 9 - 10 feet. Our main floor is the second floor level.
Mr. Darrow: Plus the foundation it is about 30 - 35 foot to the peeks? Would that be approximately right?
Ms. Dickes: Yes because our main floor is the second floor level. Our basement is even with the ground.
Mr. Darrow: OK, thank you.
Mr. Rejman: We have someone to speak for or against. Please state you name for the record.
Mr. Cuddy: My name is Chris Cuddy. I live at 100 South Street, the property immediately north and I am not necessarily against the garage, but I had when I look at these dimensions with the notice for this hearing I immediately went to my family window and looked out and tried to envision this thing 3 feet from the property line about 20 feet from my house. I believe that the standard 722 square foot limit if you will for a garage is intended to accommodate a 3-car garage. This is more like a 6 car garage. It is just shy of 1500 square feet and 23 feet high at it peek. I am looking at the dimensions of this room, I don’t know 30 x 50 x 23 foot high sounds awful big sound like this room to me and picturing this thing sitting 3 feet of the property line. I was
the gentleman that called in actually about the footprint of that particular building is 1724 feet. That is a big addition of building onto that.
Also envisioning this as a small two-story house, if you take the 750 square feet for a standard garage and the suggested 15 feet height minimum, your visual perception is 11, 250 cubic feet of what you are seeing. These dimensions end up at 33,856, so given what this thing look like, it looks like it is 3 times the size of the garage limit set forth by the City. That doesn’t necessarily bother me too much, it is just the proximity to my own property, I just envision looking at this wall very close to my home.
I have not seen any pictures of what they intend to do, what it would look like so I am just trying to envision. It is one of the biggest garages I have seen in a small area.
Also on that particular lot they have a pool in the back and a little pump house. It is going to be very crowded along that border. I would imagine that the standards set forth by the City were instituted for a reason. It is not that you want to limit what people can do with their houses but also want to limit the impact it has on the neighborhood. As I said I am not opposed to them building a garage, it is that this thing seems awfully large. To say I am saying no I don’t want them to build a garage, is not what I am saying, it is just, I almost don’t know what I am saying, that is going to be one big garage and I would prefer it not be this close to my property line.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Questions from the board, concerns?
Mr. Temple: He offered some pictures.
Mr. Rejman: Would you like to see the pictures.
Mr. Temple: I was there I looked it over.
Mr. Rejman: I can understand 1700 square feet is a rather large garage especially when it is 23 feet high. Is the height driving the size of the garage, is that the issue here?
Ms. Marteney: The size of the garage is driving the height.
Mr. Rejman: No, the height is driving the size of the garage, because the Preservation Committee says we want one this tall to match the house, if you start with that tall and work backwards on your dimensions to make it look good, know what is happening here?
Mr. Moore: Maybe they just want a large garage.
Mr. Rejman: Who wants a large garage? The Preservation Committee or
Mr. Moore: The applicants.
Mr. Darrow: You could still achieve 23 feet 3 inches and a 8 _ 12 pitch on making their garage scaled back to 36 instead of 50 or even 32 foot.
Mr. Rejman: I guess I am confused where the Preservation Committee comes into play here.
Mr. Leone: I can’t really answer that, but it is my understanding and I have to concur with Jim that the applicants went to the Historic Resources Board, they went in with the dimensions that they wanted, they did not make you make it bigger nor make it smaller, that is want you went in with and they just had you do some aesthetics renovations.
Mr. Townsend: Yes. The garage is 32 x 46, not 50, that overhangs.
Mr. Darrow: Two feet on each side.
Ms. Dickes: He is also on the second floor level and that is why his view will be blocked.
Mr. Gentile: Is the Historical Society just recommending it or is that a requirement?
Mr. Leone: They are going to have to get a Certificate of Appropriateness before Jim Moore can issue the permit. They came in front of the board, spoke to the individuals and they made recommendations and they have agreed to those recommended changes. However, if you were to approve this tonight they still need to get that Certificate of Appropriateness before Jim can issue the permit.
Mr. Rejman: If we say no to the height, the whole project is dead.
Mr. Gentile: Scale down and come back.
Mr. Rejman: They can’t. The Historical Society says 23 feet or nothing and we say no nothing
Mr. Darrow: Can’t scale down the height because of the pitch, but they can scale down how much roof.
Mr. Moore: They have applied for a 1400 square foot garage from the Historical Society. They can’t give that because it is over the 750. He has got to get his variance and go back to them. Same with the height.
Mr. Rejman: Who demanded the height issue?
Mr. Moore: Height is standard for accessory structure is 15 foot. That is Zoning law.
Ms. Marteney: Historic Resources Board recommended that for the aesthetics.
Mr. Darrow: The only way you are going to stay under the 15 foot is 4'12" pitch.
Mr. Rejman See the whole issue here?
Mr. Moore: This was the drawing submitted and I imagine they submitted it to the Historical Board.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Any further questions for the applicant?
Mr. Gentile: I just want to know why it has to be so large?
Mr. Rejman: (To applicants) Please come back up here.
Ms. Dickes: We have a 6 bedroom 3 ½ bath home that we are currently in the process of renovating. In order to renovate a property that size there is certain equipment that we need, we have a large lawn, a pool, lot of things that have to be taken care of. We also have 4 children, 3 of which drive, so we have 5 vehicles at the moment, in addition to a snow blower, a tractor, a 1955 Chevy, a Harley, we need a house this size. We chose this property because we incorporated our two families together and now we have to take care of our personal effects, which we have had to store at a cost elsewhere or have outside. Our lawn tractor sits outside in the wind and the weather and the snow blowers they have to sit outside and that is not aesthetic to the neighborhood either.
Mr. Rejman: Further questions? Would you like to read this into the record please.
Mr. Leone: There is a letter from Joseph M. Wolczyk, Attorney & Counselor At Law. Dated August 20, 2002, Zoning Board of Appeals, Re: Variance request for 102 South Street.
“I am the owner of 96 South Street. I am writing to inform the Zoning Board of Appeals that I have no objection to the three variances requested by Carl Townsend and Lori Dickes for the construction of a garage at 102 South Street. 96 South Street is three doors north of the proposed garage, which would be clearly visible from my backyard.
Since acquiring the property in February 2002, Mr. Townsend and Ms. Dickes have done much to improve the property at 102 South Street, which had fallen into disrepair after being foreclosed by Ocwen Bank of Florida.
The most visible exterior improvement to date has been completion of the siding of the exterior elevator shaft, as well as the rear of the building. This has given the building a “finished” look.
The property continues to be well maintained and adds to the aesthetics of the neighborhood and the enhancement of the historic district.
Thank you for the notice of the public hearing, and for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.”
Very truly yours, Joseph M.Wolczyk.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Thank you. Final questions from the board?
Mr. Temple: We have a picture here of the structure the garage doors, the view here, you mentioned aesthetics as far as the cables that would be over the top of the doors, what does the rear of this structure look like facing to the north. Would it be one solid wall or would there be windows there?
Mr. Townsend: We sent a packet to you guys and don’t know if you have this map.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Temple: Once again I ask this particular here will be the end wall facing the pool.
Ms. Dickes: Right
Mr. Temple: No windows or anything. How about the side facing to the north which would be to Cuddy property.
Ms. Dickes: It would be the same as this view (holds up sketch) same as front except here it is just going to be siding. Dormers would be there also.
Mr. Rejman: Other questions? Final questions?
Mr. Gentile: I have a question for Mr. Cuddy.
Mr. Rejman: I will bring him up. Applicants have a seat. Mr. Cuddy would you come forward for a question.
Mr. Gentile: Mr. Cuddy you mentioned you don’t have with your neighbors building a garage but just have a problem with the size of it. You also said the proximity of it would be 3 feet from your property line?
Mr. Cuddy: My understanding is that the Zoning Board allows to come up to the 3 feet so that is the law, I can live with, but the size. Again this is a 6-car garage and when you were discussing the roof pitch when you start with two stories of course we are dealing with the roof pitch with that added height, this is a two story small home, people live in far less. I guess it is the size length and width and the second story is going to make it look awfully big. As I said it is triple the size the visual regarding cubic feet that it takes up in your visual side. That is a big difference from what the ordinances allow and I believe they were instituted for that such reason.
Mr. Gentile: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Close public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Darrow: I can see here from elevation to the bottom of the trusses it is going to be 10 feet 6 inches. Now that is now where two story. Typical garage is between 8 ad 9 feet so it is1 ½ feet higher than typical. But then again you do need some height extra height here so that aesthetically the roof doesn’t look out of place because there is going to be so much roof, so many square foot of roof.
Mr. Rejman: If it pleases the board, I think I would like to take this in two steps. Take the height issue and then the square footage separately. Concerns, comments, questions?
Mr. Darrow: I do have a concern for Mr. Cuddy preserving his view. I mean that is a part of his house that he enjoys sitting back, looking out the back, I can understand that. But then again the flip side, they do have the right to build something what size remains to be seen but I can understand their dilemma with having personal effects that they need to store in the garage.
Mr. Hare: I don’t see where the height is going to be that much of a problem because the way that the yard slopes down in the back, if you are in the back yard scanning up and down through all of the other yards, you see out buildings and big buildings all over the place. It is not like there are trees there but it is not like you are in the middle of a park, you are dead center of a very old neighborhood. Those houses are huge. I don’t even see where you are going to see this garage driving by on South Street. It will impact Mr. Cuddy for sure but in those narrow lots with those big old houses all you see are roof lines all over any way.
Mr. Temple: I look at this structure as being a 4-car garage. When I was there I saw 3 cars, one young lady was getting into one of the vehicles when I was there, there was a riding lawn tractor parked up next to the house seeking protection or whatever, getting it out of the way the best they could. I see it as being a 4 cars with some walk space in between them basically. Beside that I see a situation here with these citizens being whipped sawed between two governmental bodies, the historical aspect and the zoning aspect. I am not, I never served on the other board I don’t know how they operate, but as I look immediately to the south at the first structure to the south, and I think I am correct I recalling that the garage there is a 3 car garage not 4 and that it has a
basically flat roof and that is on the back end of the house that is not so much different in terms of the age and so forth as the house the Townsends and Dickes occupy.
The house that they are in I believe will look aesthetically acceptable, I think you raised that question earlier as far as comparison of the main structure of the building. The structure that they are in use to be the Irish Rose Inn I believe, a bed and breakfast at one time, I was in it some years ago and have developed from the basement area up through. I think that the size of 23 feet is probably a 1/3 smaller at least if not more than the principle structure is on the back presentation as it relates to the concern of the neighbor to the north, Mr. Cuddy who has been here this evening. I can understand his interest in what does it look like from his side that is why I asked the questions to what would it look like from his side and I think the side facing him looks like another
structure of a similar age in time as the other ones that are located nearby him.
The 12 pitch of the roof I don’t if that is reasonable given as I say my recollection of the garage next door is a flat roof
Mr. Darrow: Unfortunately that is one thing we don’t really have a say in it that is something the Historical Preservation Committee actually wants, that is something they will get. I have been involved in remodeling and additions of a piece of property in the historical district and basically if you want to go through with your project you are going to listen to them and take their advice.
Mr. Temple: Well they have taken their advice but they come to us now and this is where the bind comes in. We are suppose to take into account the neighbors and their concerns. If you are telling me that Historical group has the veto power over what we do basically, if we say no you can’t have the 23 foot roof then they will say no you can’t have a garage at all, I am not sure that that is a great thing for us to have in place in the City of Auburn.
Mr. Darrow: I agree with you.
Mr. Rejman: I agree unfortunately we have this before us tonight and we have to make a decision.
Mr. Temple: I am sitting here thinking that perhaps the neighbor to the north there might be less impacted visually if the trusses didn’t have to be as high pitched and as far as the owners of the project are concerned they already said the extra cost _ the extra cost of this design the Historical group imposed on them. I don’t know if it was their idea that they rather have this project now look like it is being proposed to us tonight or what they initially intended. I don’t know, but I am trying to look for a compromise here.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t know if this was the way it was presented to them and the changes that were made were the dormers were added and Mr. Townsend said they changed it from batten board to vinyl siding so, it is my belief that it was presented to the Preservation Committee with an 8 - 12 pitch.
Mr. Temple: I didn’t get that feeling
Ms. Marteney: There is no communication that this was even brought before the Historic Resources Advisory Board. That is not mentioned in here and I am afraid, I can’t believe that the Historic Resources Advisory Board would say that the final plan follow their specific aesthetics in the historic district.
Mr. Darrow: They do because the building I was involved in they dictated vinyl siding, they gave them latitude in the color, but they made it appear the way the windows were trimmed and boards put along the bottom to conform back with that era.
Ms. Marteney: I served on that board for 4 years when I first started and unless the rules have changed a great deal in that organization, I am surprised at that.
Mr. Rejman: OK. If there are no other comments
Ms. Marteney: I just have a real problem with an accessory building being only 250 square feet footprint smaller than the main building that it is accessorizing.
Mr. Rejman: That is why I want to do this in two portions - the height and the square footage.
Mr. Darrow: I just want advice from counsel, we are going to do it in two motions
Mr. Rejman: Yes
Mr. Darrow: Say one fails and they change that size substantially would that change be enough so that they can reapply?
Mr. Leone: I will tell you, I have to respectfully disagree with the Chairman. It was my understanding you were going to talk about it in two segments, I don’t believe the way it is presented that you should vote on it in two segments. As I recall I think you have already agreed that you are not going to pursue the 3 foot area variance, so that is off. So the only issue that the Board would be voting on is the variance of 722 square feet which would incorporate the height. I don’t disagree with you discussing it in two portions, but I have a problem with you voting on it in two portions.
Mr. Gentile: One variance we are going to be voting on then?
Mr. Rejman: If it is the will of the committee here to do it in one motion as suggested by counsel I am in favor of that.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Rejman: No problems? Someone care to make a motion then?
Mr. Temple: I still want to explore what I was wondering before. Is there anything to be gained by tabling this for a month and perhaps research what the other board what it is was originally proposed in deference to the other concern that was expressed here tonight
Mr. Darrow: Are you perhaps a letter of input from them?
Mr. Temple: A letter of some kind or communication doesn’t have to be a letter but some kind of communication between the two boards
Mr. Darrow: I am sure Mr. Deming would be more than happy to give us a statement.
Mr. Temple: He might be willing to come here.
Ms. Marteney: Mr. Chairman, he is on the Preservation Board this is a different organization. I don’t know who the present Chair is now.
Mr. Darrow: I didn’t realize it was different organization.
Ms. Marteney: Two completely different just like the Zoning Board for the City, but it is specific to historic issues in the historic district, not the Community Preservation Committee.
Mr. Leone: Once again, I am not a voting member of this board as everybody knows, but my thoughts are and I think this has been coming out during the process here tonight, is that the issue when the applicants went before what was thought to be the Historic Resource Board, they had gone in there with a 22 foot roof, he was not going with a lower roof which would perhaps please Mr. Cuddy.
Mr. Townsend: I spoke to them about a lower roof and they said no it has to match what is there.
Ms. Dickes: We consulted with them before we did anything because the drawings had to be to their specs. With all due respect if we are looking at another 30 days on this project we are going to be looking at construction in the later fall and we already pushed it back with the application procedures. We are already a month behind schedule.
Mr. Rejman: Can we have the applicant come back to the podium for a minute. I think here is the issue I am hearing before the board tonight. The board would certainly like to help where it could, however, remember that you need four affirmative votes and if only three say yes then you are in a situation where you have to make substantial changes to the application. Substantial is a word we have never quite figured out over the years. So it may be in the best interest to table this, get together with the other board, see what the issues are here on both sides. See if we can come to some mutual agreement.
Ms. Dickes: With all due respect, I disagree, we have been to the board, we have been working with the board and the Historical Society, we are just running up against the bureaucratic walls
Mr. Townsend: We were proposed to come here before but because of the Harriet Tubman thing was going on we had to wait a whole other month
Ms. Dickes: So we are two months behind.
Mr. Rejman: Just wanted to touch all the bases here.
Ms. Dickes: We just want to have you vote on it.
Mr. Rejman: OK, that is what we will do then.
Mr. Townsend: To address this lady here, they make a vinyl siding ship lap siding that you paint to match the color of the house
Ms. Dickes: Match the existing clapboard. When they say vinyl it is vinyl shiplap, which matches what is on there. It is a lot easier to maintain. When we bought the house there was a whole section that Mr. Cuddy had to look at for years and years from his property, the elevator was not complete and it was black and rotted and we went and got a permit to do the shiplap on the house
Mr. Townsend: That is what was approved by the Historical Committee, this is the exact same siding, it is called Dutch lap siding so it is all uniform and matches.
Mr. Rejman: OK, we will close the public portion. Thank you for your last minute input and we will move forward with this.
Ms. Dickes: Thank you.
Mr. Temple: I would like to address Ms. Martini’s comment about the footprint relatively between the main structure and the out buildings, I think that there are ample examples on South Street, there are some very large carriage houses indeed that sit behind the structures that may have a footprint that is as big or larger perhaps than the main building
Ms. Marteney: Those were built 150 years ago when they had carriages and horses.
Mr. Temple: I am saying in keeping with the area.
Ms. Marteney: Houses were a lot larger
Mr. Gentile: Built at the same time though
Mr. Temple: If it was Fulton Street it would be a different matter to me. In this location I think there is ample evidence that larger carriage houses
Ms. Marteney: It would not be built 10 feet from the house, it would have been built at the end of the property down by the swimming pool which wouldn’t have been there 100 years ago.
Mr. Rejman: Would someone care to make a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like a motion that we approve 8.3 feet height variance and 722 square foot area variance for Carl R. Townsend and Lori J. Dickes of 102 South Street for the purpose of erecting a garage measuring 32 x 46 feet as per attached drawings and lot plan.
Mr. Hare: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney - too large for the space , Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been denied. You may resubmit at a future date.
__________________________________________________________________
62 - 74 Owasco Street, C-1, area variance for 2 additional signs and area variance of 85.49 additional sq. ft. Hart, Meath, & Primo LLC
Mr. Rejman: 62 - 74 Owasco Street, are you here please?
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike O’Neill, I am representing the applicant, Hart, Meath & Primo. Kinney Drugs would like to add two signs to the frontage. We were before the board a few months ago for a variance for this particular property in the C-1 zoning district, which allows a total of 50 square feet for the project and that particular variance was granted by the board which allowed us to use the existing pylon sign and also allowed us to put the Kinney Drug sign which measures about 72 square feet on the frontage of Owasco Street. We were granted that particular variance.
Kinney Drugs would like to add two signs to the frontage basically they have reduced the scale of what they would like to do, they would like to put one sign that say the word “Foodmart” which would be 1 foot high x 8’3” long and a second sign that says “One Hour Photo” with the #1 as opposed to “ONE” and that sign would be 1 foot high x 10’ 3” long, that would be a total of 18.5 square feet o 18.6 inches in square footage. They would like to add that on the Owasco frontage on either side of the existing Kinney Drug sign and again the variance is requested in a C-1 district, we are limited to 50 square feet and looking at the Rite-Aid competition they have the same two signs on their particular store at Fulton and Genesee “Foodmart -
One Hour Photo”.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore, any comments?
Mr. Moore: All these big businesses want signage. Again it is a C-1. This area should be changed to where they shouldn’t have to keep coming back.
Mr. Rejman: Aren’t you working on something like that?
Mr. Moore: Yes, but I don’t think I am going to make it. It should be increased, these are just small signs. If you remember Applebee’s they have 9 signs. Everywhere you go especially in C-1 there is going to be increase in signage. The building is big just two small signs.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you for your input. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Questions from the board?
Mr. Temple: In addition to the signs that you mentioned tonight Mr. O’Neill, I seem to recall there was another one that said “Drive Thru Pharmacy” something facing Walnut Street also?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes there was it was a 48 square foot sign on Walnut Street and that was a permanent sign that was less than 50 square feet.
Mr. Temple: Are the signs going to be lit?
Mr. O’Neill: No they will not, they will be the individual letters.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Final questions? None. Close the public portion. Thank you very much.
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Not lit, not going to bother anybody at night.
Mr. Hare: They have probably the biggest sign in the whole City right now sitting out front. Although people don’t even see it because they just look through to the building so I do understand why they would like something on the building. Just that it is just growing and growing.
Mr. Rejman: Comments, concerns, motions?
Mr. Temple: I just especially in light of the rest of our agenda tonight, I think we have to try to be uniform how we approach signage, and when I look at the sign ordinance that this City has, I recommended for the last two years that the Zoning Board recommend to the Planning Board that some changes be made in that. There have never been any changes made. I don’t know why it is that we should continue making wholesale changes to the rules.
In other words if we look back to another case I can think of on Grant Avenue we were asked to allow an enormous number of signs throughout the property. The property was given the variances and we did it and I wonder if these rules don’t have any purpose and if we are constantly going to over rule them then we really ought to do something about changing the rules so we don’t have to have these kind of things given to us. I feel like I in a catch 22 all the time, we are asked to take the numbers and the square footages and throw them out the window. If we don’t want to follow these kinds of standards, then let’s change the rules.
Mr. Rejman: I personally agree with that. I would like to take that up under housekeeping at the end and really try to put some teeth into it and ship it upstairs and see what happens. Having said that, can we work on this piece right here. Would someone like to make a motion please and move this forward.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Hart, Meath, & Primo, LLC of 5112 West Taft Road, Liverpool, New York, an extension of 18.5 square feet to their currently existing variance for signage a 62 - 74 Owasco Street for the purpose of erecting two signs as per attached drawing.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney - I believe they have enough signs, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple
Mr. Rejman: The application has been denied. You may resubmit in the future with significant changes.
__________________________________________________________________
276 Grant Avenue (corner of Brookside Drive) C-3, area variance of 7 additional signs for 11 signs where only 4 are permitted and a variance in height for a pole sign to be higher than 100 ft. Yum Brands Foods.
Mr. Rejman: 276 Grant Avenue, are you here please?
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is still Mike O’Neill and I am representing formerly Tri-Con Global which has been changed to Yum Brands and they are asking for a couple variances, one of which I am not sure the legal got to the 100 foot high sign, that is not correct, it was originally 100 square feet and we are able as I can show you on the drawing we have made that sign smaller so we don’t need the square footage variance on that particular sign. (Shows drawing to board members).
The basics of the variance that is left is as you will see on the second drawing and I will point that out in a second, this particular project has two restaurants in one building. It is the first prototype that Kentucky Fried Chicken has built in the northeast with an A & W Root Beer and a Kentucky Fried Chicken. So what has happened and I can show you on the diagram in a minute, on the Grant Avenue frontage would be a sign that basically is their traditional logo which the photograph of Coronal Sanders and next to that would be an A & W Root Beer logo, underneath that is a third sign that would say All American Food, those same three signs are also on the Brookside Drive view. In addition to that there are four traffic directional signs that are about 2 feet x 2 feet that say
Enter/Exit and on those particular signs are the A & W Root Beer and KFC logo and therefore they are considered a sign so that brings us to 10 signs and then is the fact that the pylon sign would be the 11th sign. I can show that on these drawings. (Shows to board members).
This would be Brookside Drive which would be 3 signs, Kentucky Fried Chicken logo, A & W Root Beer, All American Food underneath it and on Grant Avenue same signs appear A & W Root Beer, All American Food and Kentucky Fried Chicken, that is 6 signs. Then there would be 2 signs that say Enter/Exit, 2 feet x a little over 2 feet and they have the A & W Root Beer and KFC logos on those, there are 4 of those, two on Grant Avenue, two on Brookside Drive. So with these 4 and the other 6, that is 10, then the pylon sign that is the 11th sign.
One of the other questions pointed out there is also a menu board and a preview board outside the buildings at the drive-thru area.
Mr. Rejman: May I assume that this has been presented to the Planning Board?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: I would really like the Planning Board in the future to at least acknowledge that they have seen a proposal like this and give us some input. I am getting just a little annoyed with this whole signage thing. I am not sure where we are going with this, but we are going to discuss this in housekeeping.
So have all the members on the board been brought up to speed on the signage?
Mr. O’Neill: There are 11 signs but I am not including the reader board or preview board.
Mr. Rejman: Should they be?
Mr. O’Neill: I don’t know. The menu board and preview board are they signs?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. O’Neill: Ok, so it is 13.
Mr. Rejman: I would like to recommend to the board that we table this whole issue and get someone from the Planning Board down here at the next meeting to explain this to us. I am tired of it. I am sorry, I have really had it with the signage thing. We don’t even know if the menu board should be counted or not. Somebody better figure this out before the next meeting. Maybe Melina would like to attend. I would like to invite her if she would come to see what kind of a mess this is. Put that in the record.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second that.
Mr. Rejman: All in favor of tabling this until the next meeting, say aye. (All says aye). Opposed? Item is tabled. You may sit. Thank you very much sir.
Mr. O’Neill: OK.
Mr. Rejman: It is not your fault, it is an internal problem with the City that we have been dealing with for 3 to 4 years.
Mr. Gentile: Should it be changed to 13?
Mr. Rejman: I am not changing anything.
Mr. O’Neill: Mr. Chairman to have to have it on the record, from our prospective it is hard to comply.
Mr. Rejman: It must be horrendous from your side trying to figure out what the City does or does not want before you get to us and we don’t even know what they want and that is the sad part, we read the ordinances and we can’t figure out what they allow.
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you.
__________________________________________________________________
101 - 103 No. Fulton Street, R-1A, maintenance as a legal non-conforming, two unit dwelling. Walter D. Lowe.
Mr. Rejman: 101 - 103 No. Fulton Street, are you here please? Promise to treat you better. For the record, state your name please.
Mr. Lowe: Walter M. Lowe.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Lowe: My son, Walter, has a contract to sell the property, but the people who are buying it and their mortgage company would like a statement from the Zoning Department saying that the property is a legal non-conforming and can be rebuilt to current condition. Walter bought the house in 1988 as a two family house, has continued to maintain it as a two family house until this time and sold it on the premise of being a two family house. He was told that he had to file 10 copies of an application for use variance, which I believe he did with a $50.00 filing fee.
Mr. Rejman: This is something new that has been coming up in the past month or two and I thought we had something addressed on this. There is a letter that was sent out.
Mr. Leone: I am not sure, it is my understanding there is something about a letter that my assistant sent out. It was her opinion and I guess I would concur with that as well, this is not, once again, I am not a voting member, but it certainly would be my opinion and I say this very respectfully Mr. Lowe that this is not relevant to this application, financial, because somebody can not get financing or can’t get a cheaper prime interest rate because it is going to be marketed as a two family or one family whatever. I have a problem with it. It is my understanding and I tried to review it tonight when I came in that perhaps the board passed a similar resolution month on Sheridan Street.
Mr. Rejman: Because we didn’t have the opportunity to fully research the application. This is something very new where the mortgage company is coming back and saying look what happens if it burns down 20 years from now. How can we guarantee conformity 20 years from now
Mr. Moore: That is when they should come for a variance when it burns down.
Mr. Rejman: The bank is forcing the issue here and the applicant is in the center of this as we are actually.
Mr. Temple: Just curious, is this a local bank that is bringing this up?
Mr. Lowe: Common Fund Mortgage Corp.
Mr. Temple: I predicted last month when this came up that we would be opening a door to this type of stuff.
Mr. Rejman: Yes you did.
Mr. Temple: And now we are seeing it pretty quick. Apparently this is a new wrinkle on the part of lenders and I think that the City has a way of serving the people but I don’t think it is the Zoning Board of Appeals. My opinion would be that this should be handled by perhaps the Code Enforcement Department, perhaps the Corporation Counsel’s Office with a letter to the lending company telling them that so long as the premises remains in its current use uninterrupted that they have the right to use it as it is currently being used.
Mr. Rejman: And if it does burn they have “x” number of months to reestablish it.
Mr. Temple: I think Mr. Moore told us last month that if it burns…
Mr. Moore: That is when they come for a variance.
Mr. Temple: That is when they should come for a variance at that time if someone has a fire obviously it is a hardship if they can’t reestablish what they had.
Mr. Rejman: Can you see how a lender would twist that around and say yea sure if it burns past 51% somebody
Ms. Marteney: There could be a flood, there could be tornado.
Mr. Rejman: That is right. Gary is right.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chairman, could you refresh my memory, what did we do last month?
Mr. Rejman: We approved it. We could have a hundred of these.
Mr. Gentile: Every time someone tries to sell a two family you are going to have a problem.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Temple was 100% right.
Mr. Gentile: Every time someone tries to sell a two family. We are going to see a lot of them.
Mr. Temple: I raised the issue last month and maybe now that Mr. Leone is here he might give us your opinion now or later, is it even possible to act on a variance when none is needed?
Ms. Marteney: Here is another problem, a house burns down a 100 years from now, the house was built too close to the property line, what happens then? It would have to have a variance to be rebuilt if it has been vacant for more than 6 months. So every single house in Auburn would have to have this.
Mr. Rejman: Pretty much.
Mr. Gentile: That is crazy.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question for counsel. Is it possible that we are perhaps able to set aside the request due to the fact that it is not a legitimate request because it already has pre-existing non-conforming use therefore does not meet the criteria for the variance. Is there a legal remedy?
Mr. Leone: I don’t think there is a legal remedy.
Mr. Darrow: So we have to vote on it.
Mr. Rejman: A hardship existing due to the fact that the property cannot be transferred through that particular lender.
Mr. Darrow: Right, but there are other lenders.
Mr. Leone: Or cash buyer.
Ms. Marteney: If we are going to be sticklers there is no information that indicates that in this packet.
Mr. Gentile: It does say that he has been trying to sell it for 6 years.
Ms. Marteney: As we have said to other people, show us the papers, where is the list that is essentially hearsay.
Mr. Darrow: You recommend that we table it for more information to support the request or are you recommending we vote on it as is?
Mr. Lowe: May I say something?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Lowe: It was mentioned a favorable rate, the rate is 7 ½%, current rates are 6 3/8% to 6 ½%. 7 ½% is not a favorable rate.
Ms. Marteney: They should go some place else.
Mr. Lowe: I don’t even know these people.
Ms. Marteney: I just don’t see how this is a variance that we can give somebody for a possible thing that might happen 20 years down the road.
Mr. Hare: But he is caught right in between, because now we are saying ok we are going to show the banks and he will pay for it.
Mr. Darrow: Can we call to see if there is anyone to speak for or against? Or should we go that far?
Mr. Rejman: No, we should. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, we will come back.
Mr. Darrow: Is public portion closed?
Mr. Rejman: If there are no more questions for the applicant. Final questions? Close the public portion, have a seat and we will try to decide what to do with this.
Mr. Temple: Ms. Martini’s point is well taken I think that we need to have this information that you are referring to. We have asked for it in the past, we don’t see it here, but I just don’t understand how we can pre-emptively pass variances on something that will happen in the future.
Mr. Leone: Look at #13, how a hardship is not self-created, purchased as a two family home 14 years ago and without this variance I cannot sell this as a two family. That is not true.
Ms. Marteney: He is selling it as a two family.
Mr. Leone: It is being sold as a two family. His application is asking the Zoning Board to throw itself into the financial world out there and that is not the place. I understand their problem because I just recently sold a double house so I know what it is like and if it is not owner occupied you pay a higher rate that is just the way it has always been. But you cannot, I am having a real hard time with this board or any board for that matter putting themselves in the fore front here and say ok listen we are going to give a use variance that you may never need. It is not your role. That is just my opinion, you can do what you want.
Ms. Marteney: #17 has the same notation as #13 too.
Mr. Rejman: We have 4 options, we can vote yea, we can vote nay, can we vote to dismiss without prejudice?
Mr. Leone: You have to vote yea or nay or table. If Mr. Lowe would like to withdraw, we can certainly grant that without prejudice.
Mr. Rejman: Should never have been here from the start. Should not be here. If we vote and say no that could have a negative impact.
Mr. Temple: We are reviewing what we did last month, a case involving 21 Sherman Street. Begins on page 19 of our minutes from last month and ends on page 29. The vote was 4 to 1. The most pertinent parts are toward the end I think, page 28 and 29.
Mr. Rejman: Alright, we are definitely going to discuss this issue in housekeeping also. We need to move these proceedings along.
Mr. Temple: For purposes of moving along
Mr. Darrow: In fairness to Mr. Lowe in trying to keep pace with other applicants who have had insufficient information perhaps we should table so that we can gain substantial information to substantiate the fact that there is a hardship and why they need
Mr. Rejman: Let me ask the applicant if he wishes to table or wishes us to vote. Mr. Lowe do you wish us to table this for one month or do you wish us to go ahead with it tonight and vote?
Mr. Lowe: Don’t see why it can’t be tabled. He has to come back and satisfy what your requests are.
Mr. Rejman: Counsel is going to draft a note get it in the mail in the next few days with some additional information that you might find useful.
Mr. Lowe: OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rejman: With the approval of the board then we will table this until next month. (All in favor). Item tabled.
148 Ross Street Ext., R-1, area variance of 9’ for porch roof to come within 1’ of garage. Louise Shaw.
Mr. Rejman: Is 148 Ross Street Extension here please?
Mr. Shaw: Hi, Joe Shaw, here with my mother Louise Shaw. It is her property and it has become necessary to put a bathroom on the back of the house and that is not what the variance is for but we adding a 9 x 10 bathroom. We are enclosing an existing porch 10 x 13 and then she won’t have a porch so we need to add a roof to the side of that to completely fill out that side of the house with a roof line and the problem is the garage is 14 foot back from the house but with the roof line with the eves it will come within 1 foot of the garage. So that is in violation of the Fire Code but I talked with Mr. Moore and he said usually in a case like that they would sheetrock on one wall of the garage, that can be done. The purpose for this walkway is that she needs a porch that
she will be losing. Secondly being the kind of lot that it is, kind of a flat lot, there is problem with ice buildup in the wintertime. The roof would bring about a safer condition on the property and she more or less would be walking from her garage, it would be a 1-foot gap between the garage and house. Other than that, it is more or less for safety purposes.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Nice to have something generic for a change. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, we will come back. Last call for questions. Close public portion, have a seat sir.
Mr. Shaw: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Pretty generic.
Ms. Marteney: Pretty understandable.
Mr. Rejman: Some one like to make a motion?
Mr. Hare: I would like to make a motion that we grant Louise Shaw of 148 Ross Street Extension an area variance of 9 square feet for the purposes of erecting a roof over a patio that comes within 1 foot of her garage
Mr. Temple: Should that be square feet?
Mr. Moore: 1 foot, the house has to be 10 feet from the garage.
Mr. Temple: Just posed a question of a 9 square foot variance.
Mr. Hare: Nine-foot variance.
Mr. Gentile: I second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck with your construction.
Mrs. Shaw: Thank you all very much.
__________________________________________________________________
57 North Lewis Street, R-1-A, area variance of 19’ to rebuild porch which will be located 6’ from the front property line. Edwin and Janet Krell.
Mr. Rejman: 57 North Lewis Street, are you here please?
Mr. Krell: Hi, my name is Ed Krell, residing at 57 North Lewis Street. When we took out the permit there was one question that I have here is says area variance of 19 feet to rebuild. From the understanding when Mr. Moore was up there should have been only about 2 foot because the originally porch was 10 foot and Mr. Moore tells me that there is also a 2 foot variance. Now I talked with someone that was on the Zoning Board before and they told me they measure from the center of the road back. Now I am being told they do it from the sidewalk back to the house, I am in total disarray on what the regulations are as far as what should be
Mr. Moore: What Town is this guy on a Zoning Board? Because the Towns work off the center of the roads
Mr. Krell: In the City of Auburn
Mr. Moore: City of Auburn has always been City right-of-way.
Mr. Krell: I am just saying that she was on the City Zoning Board before and she seemed quite knowledgeable on her information that this is what I was doing. This is why I am in total disarray of how 19 foot got in there.
Mr. Rejman: 19 foot, Mr. Moore, 19 is what you are looking for? Yes.
Mr. Moore: Yes. This is an addition. He took out a permit to repair his porch, he put an addition on with a full basement and it is 5 or 6 foot to the front sidewalk. I never went up and measured the width of the street, we usually try to go just by the inside of the sidewalk.
Mr. Rejman: OK
Mr. Moore: And he never comes in with any other thing so that is why I put 6 foot. Looks like 6 foot. Does anybody have pictures?
Mr. Gentile: I have both pictures but I don’t have any new pictures.
Ms. Marteney: I went and looked. What size was the porch before?
Mr. Krell: It is within 1 foot of where it was before.
Mr. Moore: The other porch did not come out that far. Here are the pictures. This is an addition, it is not a porch. A porch could have come within 10 feet of the property line. Even that he could not have rebuilt, he could only repair the porch.
Mr. Temple: Are those pictures of the old?
Mr. Rejman: New
Mr. Temple: Do you have any pictures of the old?
Mr. Krell: Yes.
Mr. Temple: How far does this current addition come out from the front line of the house?
Mr. Krell: Like I said it is a little over about a foot from the front door to where the old one was.
Mr. Temple: I am just asking, new construction, how far from the front of the house the old front house to the front of this new addition, how big is that dimension?
Mr. Krell: That is about 13 feet 8 inches from _ approximately, not it wouldn’t even be that, it would be 10 foot. Because 10 foot on the map there is says 10 foot.
Mr. Temple: On this drawing it shows 14 foot.
Mr. Krell: OK, that would be at you look at the front of the house, left or right, it would be 14 foot and the other way it would be 10 foot, from the front door to the front of the porch.
Mr. Temple: 10 foot?
Mr. Krell: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question, I didn’t notice when I drove by today, is this a full basement underneath or a crawl space?
Mr. Krell: Just crawl space. I didn’t knock out the wall going into the basement.
Mr. Darrow: What is your height say the bottom of your joists of your decking to your ground level?
Mr. Krell: Under 6 foot.
Mr. Moore: There is a door in there. If you look underneath, there is a door in there.
Mr. Darrow: I thought that was just support.
Ms. Marteney: Are you putting heat out there?
Mr. Krell: No.
Mr. Darrow: Is this a door in this picture?
Mr. Krell: No those are blocks that are under there. Those are cement blocks. I never took them out, they are up against the basement wall. They are just stacked up, I never took them out of there.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s get all these pictures passed around.
Mr. Krell: I have a couple letters from the neighbors if I can pass these around.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, you may.
Mr. Temple: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Rejman: Yes?
Mr. Temple: I call the other members attention to one of the photographs that Mr. Krell has provided there and it is one that shows a bit of a railing along side the side porch and I noticed that there are a certain number of spaces there and if they were as much as 2 foot distances, he has 60 and not the 10 foot which is the new addition. I would have to conclude, I don’t know if it is true, but based on those pictures there I am seeing it looks like 6 foot porch in the past, that is what I see.
Mr. Darrow: Have you seen these?
Mr. Temple: That is the photograph that I am referring to. The photographs that I am showing to you here, what is the bottom of this thing here, it is gravel?
Mr. Krell: It is cement.
Mr. Temple: Cement.
Mr. Krell: Yes.
Mr. Temple: OK. In the distance, let us say from the bottom of this piece of wood here down to where that cement is - how much space?
Mr. Krell: Well you have 2 - 2 x 8’s, so you are looking at 1 ¾” x 2 is 3 ½ and the same on top which would be about 16 - 19 ½ and other 1 ¾” - so you are looking at about 21 inches.
Mr. Temple: Plus blocks?
Mr. Krell: The way I understood you said from the top of the blocks to the top of the porch.
Mr. Temple: No, I wanted to go from the bottom of this wood here down to the concrete surface
Mr. Krell: Less than 6 foot.
Mr. Temple: Less than 6 foot. Can you tell me what those are?
Mr. Krell: Those are just the extra blocks that I had in there that I hadn’t taken out yet.
Mr. Rejman: Everyone having had a chance to look at the photographs both before and after, are there questions from the board?
Mr. Temple: You presented a letter from Scott Russell that says he resides at 58 North Lewis Street, do he rent or own?
Mr. Krell: He rents there.
Mr. Temple: Rents there. Do we have any knowledge about the neighbors on either side of you
Mr. Krell: Well, I own the property on Seymour on the corner of Seymour and everybody else in the neighbor has no objections to what I have done so far.
Mr. Rejman: Now, final questions for the applicant? None. We will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Comments, concerns.
Mr. Darrow: My only comment, I don’t know if anybody else noticed it, but it does seem to protrude further and noticeably further than any of the houses I have seen either way.
Mr. Moore: This is habitable space, this is an addition, not just a porch, but once you put steps on it, it will stick out even farther.
Mr. Darrow: What makes it habitable space and not an enclosed porch Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore: He took out a permit to repair the porch and then we went by and we couldn’t believe what happened. It sticks out way past all the other residences on the street. He has a front door with a storm door, new construction the door has to swing out over a landing 1 foot larger than the door and then the steps.
Mr. Darrow: That makes the landing 4-foot and steps in front of that.
Mr. Gentile: I personally don’t have a problem with it, I think he is improving the neighborhood, with no neighbors against it, any time you improve the neighborhood, I am all for it.
Mr. Rejman: It does seem to be in my mind I am not really sure that if you take out a permit to repair a porch that the footprint of the new project should be the same as the old project. There seems to be a discrepancy from the pictures
Mr. Darrow: Even the wording difference between repair and replace, this is replacement.
Mr. Gentile: Not replacing, putting an addition on, but again I still think it is improving the neighborhood as opposed to what is there now.
Ms. Marteney: I would agree with the aesthetics this looks better than the porch that is there. It looks like a contemporary addition. It also has nothing to make it look a porch, the sides appear ready to have windows installed and it makes it not a porch any longer, with windows and full wall. But I do agree aesthetically it looks a lot better than the old porch that was there. I think he did not follow directions very well.
Mr. Gentile: Not the first time someone has not followed directions and we passed it.
Mr. Hare: If he had come in front of us and knew all the procedures from the start we may have been a little more favorable, but I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say maybe he didn’t know what all the procedures were so I will just go by it from the frame of reference that he came in front of us for an addition to his house.
Mr. Moore: If he had come to us, I would have pointed out. The house next door he is tearing down, put those lots that would have been a beautiful place to put it, he would not have needed a variance.
Mr. Hare: He has the right to come in front of us for the addition to his house the way he has it now, is that not correct?
Mr. Moore: I could have put him in Court for filing a false permit, what he did was illegal and this is what got him into trouble. If he had come to us we would have come up all kinds of things that maybe would have solved his problem.
Mr. Hare: Plans
Mr. Moore: Yes
Mr. Hare: But if he had insisted on going ahead with this with addition it would have been within his right to come in front of us to ask for that.
Mr. Darrow: I think everyone is getting wrapped up in how he about, what he applied for, what it is, what it might be, what it is going to be. When I think the most important thing is actually looking at where it is going to end up, that bottom step in relationship to the front sidewalk. I think that is the bottom line dictating at this point. We looked at those and I will say within 8 - 10 inches from the front of that building now, the foundation to the dirt side of the sidewalk there is about 6 - 61/2 feet. You put 4 foot of porch on there, that is going to leave 2 ½ feet, each riser is 7 to 8 inches of step so if you have to go three steps and they are going to be another 30 inches.
Ms. Marteney: He is on the sidewalk.
Mr. Darrow: I think common sense dictates this if nothing else
Mr. Temple: I couldn’t agree more with you on your assessment and I am not caught up on all the how did we get here, but I can see that it is something more than what it was and to me that is kind of an important issues. Lot of houses are built in sub-standard size lots, where the houses cannot conform to the set back requirements and so forth, but here we have been asked to do something new that doesn’t conform to set back requirements and if the proposal had been brought in the ordinary course of business, I couldn’t vote in favor of it for the same reasons that Mr. Darrow has said.
Mr. Gentile: What is the problem having your front porch on the front sidewalk?
Mr. Hare: Lot around town.
Mr. Gentile: That is right, a lot of the older homes are like that. I point out that there are no neighbors here complaining about it.
Mr. Rejman: OK, I would like to move this forward, we need to have someone make a motion to put it on the table and move forward.
Mr. Hare: I would like to make a motion that grant Edwin J and Janet L. Krell of 57 North Lewis Street, an area variance for purposes of erecting a front addition to their house to be located 6 feet from the front property line asking for a variance of 19 feet.
Mr. Gentile: I second the motion.
Mr. Temple: I would like to have discussion on the motion, if I might. I think the motion is improperly framed. It says in the application, Mr. Hare has stated the same thing that is on the application 6 foot from the front property line. I do not believe that this addition can be accommodated and still have it 6 foot from the property line, so I do not feel that this variance as you have stated it could ever be done.
Mr. Hare: Do we include the stairs?
Mr. Darrow: Not only stairs, it is porch, porch you include.
Ms. Marteney: May I make a recommendation?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: Might we table this also and have Mr. Krell come up with an alternative exit from the porch which might alleviate some of that problem.
Mr. Gentile: Maybe on the side.
Mr. Rejman: If the applicant is willing to resubmit a drawing next meeting to show us that, would the applicant like to table to the next meeting?
Mr. Krell: I really don’t want to because it has been open for a month now, I am going to have to replace the floor because of the water damage to the plywood. I can change the doorways, I can change the walls and that I will do if that needs be, but I would like to get this thing wound up before snow flies. This thing is ¾ complete already and it wasn’t until it got this far into the project that the Stop Work Order was up there. When I pulled the permit nobody has given me any direction whatsoever on what can and cannot be done. This is the second time I have run into problems with doing work on my house in the City.
Mr. Leone: Let me throw this out for a second. Gary your point is well taken. The way the application is written now, they are saying if they were to put the stairs on the front, that certainly would be less than the 6-foot from the property. The way it is written now Jim if he were to do the stairs from the side instead of the front would that satisfy the requirement?
Mr. Moore: It is still 6 foot, no matter what he does on the side, he still is within 6 foot, he is suppose to have 25 foot.
Mr. Leone: My point is though, if he would to build the stairs out to the front of the house, he would be looking for a much greater variance. But my point is, if he agrees to, I am just throwing this out for whatever it is worth, he says I am going to have the stairs from the side then it would not be an issue now because he will be coming in from the side. You know what I am saying and the area variance that he is looking for could be voted.
Mr. Temple: The way Mr. Hare’s motion is structured, it could be voted on.
Mr. Moore: He has not subdivided the property, that would be too close to his side then.
Ms. Marteney: He could get a variance for that.
Mr. Leone: Is there a driveway on that side?
Mr. Krell: Yes there is. Property at 11 Seymour Street.
Mr. Leone: For the property you just purchased?
Mr. Krell: Yes.
Mr. Moore: That is another lot.
Mr. Rejman: Even if this passes you couldn’t build, which is Gary’s point.
Mr. Temple: Right.
Mr. Rejman: Let me get this straight, if we say yes to this, yes you have a variance but you still can’t do it because you can’t get steps but on and stay within the 6 feet. If we say no, you can’t have any way.
Mr. Gentile: Table it.
Mr. Leone: I understand Mr. Krell’s problem. My thoughts are if there is a way that we can pass this the way it is written now and unfortunately
Mr. Temple: I have an idea
Mr. Rejman: Yes?
Mr. Temple: As it relates to the stairs, let me see that green paper there, the stairs could be cut back into the porch with some reconstruction.
Ms. Marteney: He would have to take out concrete block.
Mr. Temple: He could move the steps back into the deck area and still have 4 foot for the door swing and so forth and keep it that much further away from the sidewalk. It is something what appears to be here I can’t quite tell, looks like on this drawing or his picture here of the old house, that the first stair was within a wall of the porch. Instead of one step we would be moving it back maybe two or three steps so that the bottom step comes out in the front of the addition where the property is now. I think there would still be enough room up on that 10-foot deck that he has built, he could do that. Just an idea how it could be done. This front yard thing I don’t think is acceptable the fact that he decided to build it out that far doesn’t make it
acceptable.
Mr. Rejman: I have an issue with that also.
Mr. Darrow: If it was the same size it wouldn’t be a problem.
Mr. Temple: I agree. I think there is a different of as much as 4 feet between the old one and the new one. Maybe more.
Mr. Rejman: I do too.
Mr. Darrow: If we were to estimate on the north side of the old porch is those 2 x 4’s were put 24 inch on 7, that old porch was in fact 6 feet.
Mr. Rejman: What is everyone’s pleasure? We can vote or we can table.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to see us work something out so that we could give Mr. Krell is variance. I don’t want to penalize him a homeowner, but I don’t think it should infringe that far into the sidewalk.
Mr. Temple: That could be made where the stairs come down between the footprint of that existing addition that he put on.
Mr. Darrow: If that porch if the elevation of that porch is 21 inches he is talking about three steps so that would be 3 foot in actually a little under 3 foot because each step would overhang the other by 1 inch so it would be about 33 inches into the existing deck.
Mr. Temple: 3 foot into 10 would be 7 remaining which is more than the 4 that you have.
Mr. Rejman: With the approval of the board I would like to table this until next month. I would like the applicant and Mr. Moore to get together and try to
Mr. Darrow: We would have to have Mr. Hare withdraw his motion.
Mr. Temple: Before he does we have already heard the applicant say he doesn’t want to table, that doesn’t mean we can’t table it, but I wonder if he might express some kind of opinion as to the idea I put out here.
Mr. Rejman: We have no drawings
Mr. Temple: If it is something that he would agree to or see his way clear to agree to, then we could table it.
Mr. Darrow: Small word change in the motion
Mr. Rejman: I would like the applicant back up. Would the applicant please come back up.
Mr. Gentile: Table it.
Mr. Rejman: Go ahead Gary.
Mr. Temple: Did you understand the concept that I was putting out as far as recessing the steps back into the footprint of the structure you built?
Mr. Krell: Yes I did. Now, I have one question, seeing how I answered that one, if I put the steps out to the side even though I own the property at 11 Seymour Street I can’t do that because of the property line?
Mr. Rejman: Correct. Here is the issue. Today you do, next month you may not.
Mr. Krell: How much paperwork do I have to go through to get the lots combined? Plus the house has to come down first, right?
Mr. Leone: You should consult with your attorney.
Mr. Hare: See if we don’t table it tonight there is a good chance that you will have no chance and then you would have to rip everything off
Mr. Krell: This is the only thing that I don’t understand. I own the property next to me, I can’t even do now with what I need to do with it seeing as how I own it.
Mr. Hare: The variances go with the property forever. That is the way we look at it even though it is your property.
Mr. Krell: I am catch-22 right now so I will do some drawings and try to figure this out.
Mr. Hare: I would like to withdraw the motion that I made.
Mr. Rejman: My counsel is to take 30 days to figure this whole thing out again. Because again if it comes up “no” then at that point you would have to physically tear down that front wall and start moving it back. So let’s not go there, let’s see what we can do. Jim, can you work with him.
Mr. Moore: We will establish where the right-of-way is.
Mr. Krell: I can tell you right now that the steps would be just as close to the side line as they would be to the front. What exactly is the variance in the front from the sidewalk to my front property? Is that something we have to be consult about
Mr. Moore: Your steps would be on the sidewalk.
Mr. Krell: The front of my porch right now to the sidewalk is 8 foot 6 inches. What is the variance? I have no idea.
Ms. Marteney: 25 feet back from the property line.
Mr. Krell: Never that way when it was started.
Ms. Marteney: Because there was no zoning in Auburn when that house was built.
Mr. Krell: So I am totally confused right now.
Ms. Marteney: If you had repaired it you would have been fine.
Mr. Krell: OK.
Ms. Marteney: Because you built a whole new structure
Mr. Moore: If you had talked to us
Mr. Rejman: Alright. I want everyone to get together tomorrow morning and try to come up with some solution. Sounds like we all want to work together just don’t know what the final answer is. Maybe by next month you will have an answer for us.
Tabled until next month. Motion has been withdrawn. All in favor to table. (All said aye). Application has been tabled.
__________________________________________________________________
7 Canal Street, C-2, use variance for auto sales. Frederic Kerr.
Mr. Rejman: 7 Canal Street, are you here?
Mr. Hearn: My name is David Hearn and I will be speaking on behalf of Fred Kerr tonight, he couldn’t make it.
Mr. Rejman: OK, tell us what you would like to do there?
Mr. Hearn: Currently it is, I would consider an industrial building on Canal Street, the only existing structure on Canal Street. It use to house Bowen Products. Currently a portion is being used as a machine ship and we would use a portion of it for auto sales. New York State has made a requirement that any time that you apply for a dealer’s license to sell cars, and anybody that sells up to 5 cars is considered a dealer, you have to have a letter from the City in order to get a satisfactory license. Being zoned as a C-2 district, I talked with Jim and Jim advised me that it was not allowed in a C-2 and not being allowed in a C-2 would mean a loss of about $300 a month or $3600 per year in tenant income. So we are looking for a variance to allow automotive dealer
auto sales on a portion of the property.
Mr. Rejman: OK, how big a dealership are you hoping for?
Mr. Hearn: Well it definitely isn’t going to be a Fox Auto Mall or anything, probably sell a car about a car a month or something. When you are licensed as a New York State dealer which allows you to conduct business at wholesale auctions and some would possibly go to consignment, probably one a month. Last year at the previous location probably sold 8 in a year. It is nothing huge.
Mr. Darrow: Where is the current location of the lot?
Mr. Hearn: It use to be at 23 McMaster, which was down behind Auburn Tank and that was being dissolved through purchase I guess and moved out. When I talked to Jim about moving up there, he advised me of the C-2 districting.
Mr. Darrow: My understanding this car lot is currently a car lot without a lot. They have no place to hang their shingle at.
Mr. Hearn: Right. What the Department of Motor Vehicles allows you to do is they allow you to operate for a term in order get your they allow you to operate still as a dealer as a licensed dealer, say you have stuff on your books, you need to dissolve them, I mean you just can’t sit on them say you have a $10,000 truck just sitting there and you can’t sell it, they give you a term of normally of 60 days and allow you to operate.
Mr. Rejman: Questions?
Mr. Temple: You said you wanted to use the property, does that mean building area or does that mean outside the building area?
Mr. Hearn: Basically what happened was the building, a permit was drawn and there were two large overhead doors. They put two on the side towards the Mill Street Dam, which would be like the southern
Mr. Moore: They are quite large
Mr. Hearn: I think they are 12 foot high 10 foot wide and they lead into - one of the portions of that would be utilized because there is not some place down there that you can just keep a vehicle of any value outside. You wouldn’t want to park a $5,000 car there and leave it, but it would grant the Department of Motor Vehicles’ request of being licensed.
Mr. Temple: What I am wondering here is as someone stated earlier, when we grant a variance it runs with the land.
Mr. Hearn: Yes.
Mr. Temple: So I want to know what is it exactly that we are giving a use variance to - is it to a certain prescribed area outside or is it part of the building inside?
Mr. Gentile: The whole parcel.
Mr. Temple: The whole parcel? But a portion is occupied otherwise.
Mr. Gentile: They can sell cars anywhere.
Mr. Hearn: We looked around in C-2 which is downtown business district there are at least 6 automotive
Mr. Temple: That is not what I am getting at. If you are going to occupy the whole thing, you can’t ask for a variance for the whole thing or is it that the owner is asking for a variance for the whole thing?
Mr. Rejman: The owner is asking for a variance that auto sales be included as an appropriate use in C-2.
Mr. Moore: If they are going to keep cars inside they are going to need a fire separation, I don’t know if they know that or not.
Mr. Hearn: Like I said before it may just be used for paper work, if they go for consignment sometimes you buy a car in Buffalo on Tuesday and you drive right to LaFayette. It is a morning auction and an afternoon auction. You don’t have the car in your possession although it runs through your books.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Coming back to the applicant.
Mr. Gentile: I think what Jim was saying if he is storing cars within the building you have to have a firewall.
Mr. Hearn: I did understand what he meant. He has to be portioned off in sections basically to contain it in the event there was a fire.
Ms. Marteney: Are you going to have signage at this place?
Mr. Gentile: Don’t talk about signage. (Everyone laughs)
Mr. Hearn: There are current restrictions on signage.
Ms. Marteney: Square footage
Mr. Hearn: The sign would probably no more than 3 square feet. You are talking a sign maybe 3 feet long by 18 inches wide or tall.
Mr. Hare: I would like to ask him something, this is on behalf of Mike Kenyon of 48 Osborne Street, he couldn’t be here tonight but he did make his opposition known and let me ask you about this. He lives up on top of that hill and I believe the way he said it, he is concerned about there being a lot of noise. He is thinking it is going to be a garage or people could be down there reviving their engines, pulling their cars in and out and being at the top of that hill, he would hear all that noise drifting up there and he was opposed to that. I definitely want to get it on the record that Mike Kenyon of 48 Osborne Street did oppose this, but could you address those issues? Is this going to be a way station the way you are describing it or a place to hang your shingle or he is
going to have rows and rows of cars
Mr. Hearn: No, there won’t be rows and rows of cars. The noise level will be, you probably will hear the outlet over any noise.
Ms. Marteney: Is this a repair station?
Mr. Hearn: No, you have to get a new license for a repair station.
Mr. Darrow: The only concern that I have is once the variance is there, if there is going to be such great money in buying in Buffalo and driving to LaFayette there may not be a car there, but there also might be so much retail profit possible that could end up with 15 - 20 cars, that is something we have no control over once the variance is given.
Mr. Hare: Or he could turn around and sell it to a giant car line.
Mr. Darrow: That is my concern and I think that is what we need to keep in the back of our minds what can, there are no limitations to what he can do except what can be done when we give him a variance.
Mr. Hare: As a personal opinion, that is a lousy location for a car lot.
Mr. Hearn: To sell to the public as you stated as a retail it is probably the worst within the parameter of the City of Auburn. Although it would meet the qualifications that the State has bound any individual who seeks to be a licensed dealer.
Mr. Temple: May I ask you a question?
Mr. Hearn: Absolutely.
Mr. Temple: What type of license do you have, wholesale or retail?
Mr. Hearn: Retail. Wholesale you could do out of your home, but if you get something nice and your neighbor is interested in it, you can’t sell it to him.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore was approached with the idea of
Mr. Moore: Sectioning it off
Mr. Rejman: How do you propose to draw it on the map, how would you conform to it?
Ms. Marteney: If the variance goes with the property then he could in turn subdivide or lease a variety of spaces to a hundred more of these folks who do the same thing.
Mr. Rejman: He could do that right now. You could go through the list of approved businesses approved activities and subdivide it as many times as he wanted to.
Ms. Marteney: But not for this use.
Mr. Rejman: Not for auto sales.
Mr. Hearn: I guess I was a little confused when he explained to me it was C-2 zoning, he explained that he had nothing to do with the zoning this was an industrial Bowen Products building that probably has been around longer than any of us in this room. They made grease cups that would have been industrial not
Mr. Darrow: But at that time it may not have been a C-2 when they were doing that.
Mr. Rejman: I think the point is this, let us look at the impact, is his impact greater or lesser than an allowed impact? What can you do in a C-2 Jim?
Mr. Moore: Retail sales
Mr. Rejman: Just retail?
Mr. Moore: Retail sales no industry.
Mr. Rejman: Say he wanted to turn that into
Mr. Darrow: If he can do retail sales why can’t he do retail car sales?
Mr. Rejman: Because it is not on the list and that is why he is here.
Mr. Darrow: I thought Jim just said there was no list.
Mr. Moore: Oh yes, there is a permitted use.
Mr. Rejman: Everything is there except what he wants to do, that is why he is here. So he could have a flea market with 100 stalls down there. What he wants to do is hang a shingle and move some cars.
Mr. Hearn: Basically what I want to do we want to be
Mr. Rejman: Prep them, bring them in
Mr. Hearn: If you are going to prep a car, you are going to wax it
Mr. Darrow: I don’t have a problem with what he wants to do, I have a problem with what the next person might want to do because it stays with the property. I can understand what this gentleman is saying DMV is requiring him to have a location a place to hang his sign that says motor vehicle retail or center, but the problem is we don’t know what the next person when he moves out to Grant Avenue with this nice lot, we don’t know what the next person is going to do that moves in there. That is my concern. If we give him a variance are we giving him a variance so that only auto retail sales can be there or are we giving a use variance to make this a C-1?
Mr. Rejman: Use variance for auto sales to be added to the list of approved uses.
Mr. Temple: That could be used in the future for auto sales or any other approved C-2 use.
Ms. Marteney: We are saying to operate an auto sales business.
Mr. Rejman: Right because that is not on the list.
Mr. Gentile: Or anything else that is legal in a C-2.
Mr. Rejman: I am not sure what your concern is.
Mr. Darrow: Now it is irrelevant because we are limiting it. I was afraid we were not limiting it to just auto sales.
Mr. Temple: I was just wondering, are we closed to the public portion yet? I want to reserve my comments basically
Mr. Rejman: If we are done questioning the applicant, are we done? Yes, close the public portion. Comments, concerns, motions, moving it right along.
Mr. Temple: I have some mixed views on this. First of all the question what is it that property, you can call a horse an owl, but it doesn’t make it an owl and by calling that a retail property it doesn’t make it a retail property, it has been an industrial property and it doesn’t lend itself very well in its current state as it is now to retail, so what do we do with it to bring it into some profitability for Mr. Kerr who owns it. I think that any property owner has a right to a return on their property.
This is zoned currently for retail and the horse and the owl concept here I don’t know how much property Mr. Kerr is going to be able to subdivide off of this for retail. It is not a great location any way you look at it. The building doesn’t lend itself to it and as it relates to neighbors’ concerns I don’t think that I can think of any new house structures in the last 30 years up on Osborne Street. So in other words everybody who bought any of those properties with a backyard facing down the hill to Bowen Manufacturing should have known what it was they were buying there. In difference to what Mr. Darrow said and I agree with him, we don’t know what it could become, if Mr. Kerr who is the owner of the property let it go to somebody else, they could
run some type of establishment that wants to play phone calls and they ring into outdoor chimes so people in the lot can hear it and run to the phone or a PA system like you hear in some car lots, Mr. so and so, pick up line 2 and those kind of noises could all be out of that location. We don’t know what form auto sales or other businesses could take but I would suggest that the people who bought property on Osborne Street edging up to this property should have been well informed of the fact that this what appears to be an industrial property from which noises, odors, sounds of all descriptions could be found.
And finally something that Ms. Marteney pointed out tonight has to do with the issue of economic hardship I think. I am wondering what the date is that Mr. Kerr purchased the property, I am wondering how much of an impact $300 a month is as compared to the purchase price, we don’t know what that is, we don’t know what it is assessed. I think this is applicable to our deliberations. I might be favorably disposed to a tabling. It would give us a chance to get some other information on this project. I think that if we can’t give this particular applicant a used automobile dealer down there, what are we going to do for this guy that owns property down there. He has a right to some kind of return.
Mr. Darrow: I think one factor that is truly not a benefit to the applicant is the fact that he himself is not here to answer some pertinent questions, so I would be in favor if the rest of the board is also so inclined to table it to have some of these questions or actually have him show that there is an economic hardship on this property.
Ms. Marteney: Your point about it becoming a manufacturer, I don’t know how long this has been abandoned.
Mr. Rejman: It isn’t.
Ms. Marteney: It is not abandoned?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Ms. Marteney: Not abandoned - unused
Mr. Moore: It was used on and off, they just moved to Syracuse, now Fred Kerr has a machine shop there.
Ms. Marteney: OK. I didn’t mean abandoned, I meant unused because it is in a C-2 and it is grandfathered in to be manufacturing and if it was not used for 6 months it would lose that and they would have to come to us for a variance to do any kind of manufacturing there, but he can do what he wants to do there he just can’t do that specific thing.
Mr. Rejman: That is right.
Ms. Marteney: It is C-2 and it is the same as what we had at the Phoenix Building about manufacturing versus not what is applicable in a C-2 area. You can do any kind of retail that fits in that list. Auto sales is not one of things that can be done there.
Mr. Temple: Are we saying use of a machine shop then is something pre-existing non-conforming?
Ms. Marteney: Yes, it has been there forever
Mr. Moore: There was a manufacturing and machine shop, now it is just a machine shop.
Ms. Marteney: And that has been there for 50 years continuously, so it is grandfathered in it has I don’t know the right term for it, it is there.
Mr. Rejman: I have two people asking for a tabling.
Mr. Darrow: I am strictly suggesting that that might be an alternative.
Mr. Rejman: Is there a motion?
Mr. Temple: Let’s ask the applicant perhaps what that is going to do with his Motor Vehicle Department scheme of things. Will it foul you up?
Mr. Hearn: Yes it will, they have given me until September 9th to come up with a letter for them basically to authorize the licensing and any business to be conducted beyond that length of time would not be conforming to their rules and regulations of the DMV.
Mr. Rejman: So being that time is of the essence, tabling is not an issue.
Mr. Temple: I think for my part then the pertinent question comes down to can I see an economic hardship here and I think $300 a month is an economic hardship for somebody who has a property like that that is not all that usable. He is lucky to get a tenant.
I think of another property that is truly a manufacturing facility and I don’t want to mention the name of it, but they are truly a manufacturing facility. They are much closer in proximity from the actual manufacturing site to the next house or next two or three houses even, are very close in and this place operates not only day times but primarily at night time from 11 to 7 and I wish you could hear the banging and clanging and so forth that goes on at that place at 1, 2, 3, 4 I don’t know how the people next door to them sleep, but when I think about that and I think about this site here as it relates to day time car operation, I see almost no impact at all. The distance is fairly large, it has trees, and it is a bank.
Mr. Darrow: Perhaps you would like to make a motion.
Mr. Temple: I would be happy to make a motion.
Mr. Rejman: I would welcome one.
Mr. Temple: I would like to make a motion that we grant a use variance to Frederic Kerr at 7 Canal Street for the purpose of using it for auto sales.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck with your project.
Mr. Hearn: Thank you, I appreciate your time and consideration.
Mr. Rejman: Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
| 
