ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
Members Present: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney , Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey, Mr. Moore, Mr. Hicks
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 57 No. Lewis Street, 101-103 N. Fulton Street, 17 Columbus Street, 18 Wright Avenue, 109 Washington Street, 31 Gaylord Street, 10 Evans Street, 102 South Street, 45 Columbus Street
APPLICATION TABLED: 14 Tehan Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. At this moment we are short one member, we expect him to show. No use holding up the meeting. You will need four affirmative votes from the people present for any application to be approved. When we call your name just come up, speak into the mike clearly, help our secretary along, she is taking notes here. Just simply tell us what you would like to do. On tonight's agenda we have: 57 No. Lewis Street, 101-103 N. Fulton Street, 17 Columbus Street, 18 Wright Avenue, 109 Washington Street, 31 Gaylord Street, 10 Evans Street, 102 South Street, 45 Columbus Street, 14 Tehan Street
______________________________________________________________________
57 No. Lewis Street, R-1a, area variance of 19' to rebuild porch which will be located 6' from front property line.
Mr. Rejman: 57 No. Lewis Street, are you here?
Mr. Krell: Hi, my name is Ed Krell.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, Ed.
Mr. Krell: Coming back from what we got tabled on last time. Mr. Moore came up the next day. I wrote up all the requirements that he wanted done. Which I have on a piece of paper in front of me, the requirements. This was everything that he said that he needed.
Mr. Rejman: This Mr. Moore's writing or your writing?
Mr. Krell: My writing.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. Jim do you concur with all of this?
Mr. Moore: We showed him some construction that we didn't like, so we showed him how we wanted it.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mr. Moore: We measured it up and the south side he does need a variance of 2 feet and I didn't mark it down, I think it is 7 feet in the front to the building and he could put an entrance on the north side.
Mr. Rejman: So what we are asking for tonight is just a 2 foot variance, is that correct?
Mr. Krell: And everything that was tabled from last time.
Mr. Moore: No, also have a required front yard of 25 feet.
Mr. Darrow: Did you ascertain what the actual distance was from the
Mr. Moore: About 7 feet, if he puts his steps in there, it is going to be even less.
Mr. Krell: When that tax map roll goes over, May 1st, I talked to Sue Chandler on that why can't I have the door coming off the south side because that is the way you told me to do it, when I put my garage up I will have my breeze way going to it.
Mr. Moore: That is fine, but you need a variance to go out there too because the lot is not subdivided.
Mr. Krell: I will worry about that later, I just want to get this thing accomplished because the deck is already rotting
Mr. Moore: Got to give you a variance. I think you had 5 feet to the property line. What he is talking about he owns the property next door and he has got it subdivided into his property and until that is done he needs a variance.
Mr. Darrow: So am I correct in understanding that we are going to need a 2 foot north side yard variance and an 18 foot front yard variance?
Mr. Krell: No, it would be on the south side, not north side.
Mr. Rejman: South side.
Mr. Darrow: South side, ok, 18 foot front yard?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Krell: That is something I don’t understand, it is 8 foot 7 inches from the sidewalk to the front of the porch, you said there was also a 2 foot variance in there.
Mr. Moore: We measured it not from the sidewalk, your stake is into the sidewalk.
Mr. Krell: All right.
Mr. Rejman: Make a note that Gary Temple just came in.
Mr. Darrow: So you are going to now have the stairs come down what would be like parallel to the front of your house is that correct? Go off to the left.
Mr. Krell: As you are looking at the house off to the left.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, and that is the property you own?
Mr. Krell: Yes.
Mr. Moore: The steps can go within 3 foot of the property line. Again they are going to subdivide it but it has not been done
Mr. Rejman: So we need a third variance for that?
Mr. Darrow: Just two.
Mr. Rejman: Just two, ok. Anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, we will come back. Questions from the board? All set. We will close the public portion and discuss this amongst ourselves.
Mr. Darrow: Now we have some good information so we can move forward. I would like to propose a 2 foot south side yard variance, 18 foot front yard variance for Edwin and Janet Krell at 57 No. Lewis Street, for the purpose of rebuilding a front porch.
Mr. Hare: I’ll second that.
Mr. Gentile: 18 or 19 foot front variance?
Mr. Rejman: 18 foot.
Mr. Gentile: Ok.
Mr. Temple: Are we going to discuss this Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Rejman: If you wish, go ahead.
Mr. Temple: One of the questions which we are suppose to consider when making these decisions, is whether or not the variance requested is the smallest one necessary to do the job. I am not sure that is the case and the additional material which we received I just got here moments ago, doesn’t really give me any dimensions of the project nor does it show where it sits in relation to the sidewalk. I can almost imagine having been by the lot, still in all I don’t know just how close the edge of the stairs come to the sidewalk and how that is going to look
Mr. Darrow: The stairs aren’t going to the sidewalk, they are going out to the side.
Mr. Temple: How close will the edge of the stairs be to the sidewalk? How much of a distance will be there, I am not sure what the answer to that is
Mr. Darrow: Depends on where he places them on the side of the entrance. Whether he places them up front, the side, to the rear, obviously it is immaterial because Mr. Moore didn’t ask for it.
Mr. Moore: At least 7 feet.
Mr. Darrow: Right, be at least 7 foot.
Mr. Temple: Thank you for that.
Mr. Rejman: Any further discussions?
Mr. Darrow: Is there a second on the motion?
Mr. Rejman: Yes there was. Call the roll.
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. You are all set.
Mr. Krell: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
101-103 No. Fulton Street, R-1a, maintenance as a legal non-conforming two unit. Walter D. Lowe.
Mr. Rejman: 101 - 103 No. Fulton, are you here please? Step forward and state your name.
Mr. Iocolano: My name is George Iocolano.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, George, what would you like to do there, what is the issue there?
Mr. Iocolano: I was not here but at the last meeting the facts of the case were stated but I will repeat them. Apparently 101 - 103 is in an R-1 and when Mr. Lowe, whom I represent, when he bought it, it was an R-2. He has had the property up for sale since 1995 and he was finally able to obtain a purchase offer, but none of the banks apparently will finance this property with the laws as they state today and that is that in the event of destruction of this property by either fire or the elements that the law does allow the rebuilding of the property as a multiple residence as it is today. It is a two-unit house. Today Mr. Lowe has a purchaser who has gone to the bank and the bank will not grant a loan unless the variance here tonight is granted, so that in the event of destruction of the property it could be
rebuilt since it is R-1 today.
The property is being sold for $40,000. Apparently at your last meeting, my client did not have proof that the banks would not finance this. Tonight he has this proof from a number of the local banks. Apparently this situation is created by the banks because they sell their mortgages and it is probably more due to the rules and regulations of the purchasing bank than our local banks. Apparently I don’t think it would be a big concern with local banks today, it is the rules or policies of the banks the local banks whereas they were in yester years. We have neighborhood that has been changed from R-2 to R-1 and probably about 25% of the neighborhood is probably 25% to 30% is multiple unit houses.
So we are here asking for a variance obviously on the basis of hardship because if the variance is not granted certainly Mr. Lowe will not be able to sell this property. He has been trying to sell it since 1995. He has what he considers a very decent standing individual, a prison guard, who is going to put money into this property and upgrade it. If he doesn’t, Mr. Moore I assume will to see to it that he does before granting the Certificate of Occupancy. I am sure, I feel confidant that Mr. Lowe will never sell this property in light of the banking polices these days so we are asking for a variance on the basis of hardship. If a variance is not granted, he will not be able to find a cash purchaser very readily in the community and he would have to lower the price considerably as he probably has already. I
personally feel that if it is not granted the property will remain as it is, it is only going to continue to deteriorate and we have a chance to upgrade the property. Thank you very much. Do you have any questions?
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? What is the current assessed value of the property?
Mr. Lowe: It is $58,000.
Mr. Rejman: So if it is assessed at $58,000 and you are willing to accept a purchase offer at $40,000 and you have been trying very hard to sell all these years that might help us in making a decision.
Mr. Temple: Is the property being used today both halves?
Mr. Iocolano: Yes, both occupied.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Would counsel like to comment on what we have seen in the past few months. This is just starting to crop us and we don’t know where it is going to end.
Ms. Hussey: There have been several requests a number of banks have requested these presently legally conforming units to be rebuilt as is. They are very specific in their requirements; apparently it is an underwriting as Mr. Iocolano said with respect to them selling the mortgages on the secondary market. Basically there are more and more. It appears to be a more prevalent and new underwriting requirement as far as the risk analysis and processes for mortgage lenders.
Mr. Iocolano: To add a little more to it. The irony of the whole situation is that for a $40,000 piece of property if it is destroyed for example by a fire, you are not going to be able to rebuild the property. So the chances of this even happening is highly remote. I don’t think that the people that are buying these mortgages know the conditions of our community. I don’t think they are bad but I don’t think they understand the market, in my opinion. So the chances of this happening and rebuilding this is highly remote.
Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board? Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing no, we will come back. Last call for questions.
Ms. Marteney: We have not received the information.
Mr. Rejman: Pass it out please.
Mr. Lowe: This is the proof of the listing of the property going back o 1995. Then I have statements from the banks and finance companies.
Mr. Moore: I would like to make a comment.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, Mr. Moore. Go ahead.
Mr. Moore: The whole idea of extinguishing non-conforming uses is to cut down on the properties. There are too many apartment houses in the City and when he would need a variance, he does not need a variance right now, he would a variance if it burned down, it is moot that he needs a variance now.
Mr. Rejman: Jim, from our side it is, but from the lender’s side
Mr. Moore: That is what the council passed. That is what the council passed to get rid of these apartment houses.
Mr. Rejman: In this situation we have a legal non-conforming use
Mr. Moore: We are getting them all the time now. You have got to come up with a position on it. Because every person is going to be coming in here for that same variance.
Mr. Rejman: That is exactly right.
Mr. Temple: Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Mr. Rejman: Yes?
Mr. Temple: Are we still with _ have we closed, is this board discussion? Where are we?
Mr. Rejman: I want to get into the board discussion; it is going to be really difficult to wade through this I think. Last call anyone wishing to speak for or against? Closing comments? Ok, we are going to close the public portion, have a seat please
Mr. Iocolano: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: We are going to open it up to board questions and comments.
Mr. Temple: I couldn’t agree with Mr. Moore more. We are edging up toward becoming the board of exceptions to the rule. If we are going to have rules, which the council sets, we should administer them with some degree of common sense for exceptions to the rule. What we are edging up on here is making our way down a path just as we did the first time when I objected to us doing so, we said that we imagined there to be hardship even though there was none. In this case the property is a prior existing non-conforming use which he is entitled to carry on, and if at such time in the future that there is a problem with the structure burning or being damaged or whatever or even vacant as far as that is concerned which could extinguish the non-conforming use, then that is the time for the Zoning Board of Appeals to
consider hardship applications. We have dealt with that in successful fashion in the past. We are edging down a trail from which we won’t have any way back if we proceed in this direction and I think this is a case where the banks are the tail wagging the dog which is the law that gives Zoning Boards of Appeals power to enact variances under certain circumstances. I think we have to adhere to what the law requires as opposed to what the banks are looking for.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. I would like to weigh in. The issue I have with this is the applicant can make a darn good case of the fact of hardship. The bank refuses to give a loan without a piece of paper from us, plus if his assessment is at $58,000 and the best he can get is $40,000 is there a hardship involved already?
Mr. Moore: Can’t you get a commercial loan?
Mr. Rejman: No Jim, all the banks, this is brand new ground.
Mr. Moore: Get a commercial loan, not a residential loan.
Mr. Gentile: That is not our call.
Mr. Moore: Neither is this. You are giving a variance on what if, there is no hardship
Ms. Marteney: I have a problem with this being a situation that may never happen, we are giving it and we are going to set precedence for other cases like this
Mr. Rejman: The issue I have is we are giving this in perpetuity, but the issue I have is if it burns down 10 years from now, are we saying 5 years after that point it should be rebuilt or are we going to say does a 6 month window apply to a variance in this case, that is the issue.
Mr. Temple: Variance runs with the land.
Ms. Hussey: If it was an area variance that would be true, but with a use variance which this is because it is in an R-1 district, it runs with the land.
Ms. Marteney: Bigger problem with this.
Ms. Hussey: 25 years from now the loan has long been paid.
Mr. Temple: I think that is something that if there is a need it exists in the legislative branch our government, City Council to enact or change the law if that is what is required, but I don’t think we have the statutory power to imagine a hardship at this point in time. By the way the hardship is suppose to deprive a person of almost all of a return from the property and he is currently getting a return from his property.
Mr. Darrow: Reasonable return
Mr. Moore: It could always be rebuilt as a single family and still have a viable lot.
Mr. Rejman: That is a valid point. If the structure was originally designed as a single family, if the structure was originally designed as a two family, we have set this precedence, if it is designed as a two family and it has an issue that it can’t b put back into a single family, here we are again. I am uncomfortable with this whole thing because it never sunsets. That is the part that bothers me. It is not the variance it is the sunset.
Mr. Darrow: At what point, Mr. Moore, percentage of loss of the dwelling would it require that they have a variance to rebuild? God forbid they should have a structural fire that affects maybe two rooms, to repair those two rooms and the other rooms are still
Mr. Moore: 50% or more
Mr. Darrow: 50% or more then ok.
Mr. Hare: Mr. Chairman, this is a perfect example of how we can prove to the banks what they are doing wrong and we can have a fight here between the City Council, the Zoning Board and the banks, but the bottom line in all this is we have his poor gentleman here caught right in between. And if we want to prove a point at the expense of this man’s sale of the home, I think that is wrong. As far as the exception to the rule, that is the whole reason for zoning.
Mr. Rejman: I think I can find some middle ground. What if we consider acting on this, however, at the same time we draft a motion that says we will not consider any other
Mr. Darrow: We can't.
Mr. Rejman: Yes we can, we just tell them downstairs don't accept the application and we are going to put a work force together between Council and us and banks
Mr. Darrow: Anything that is forbidden by our Zoning Ordinance, we have to review upon denial of Code Enforcement. That is our City Charter.
Mr. Rejman: Only if they accept the application downstairs. Don't accept it.
Mr. Gentile: I think you are opening a Pandora's box with that one.
Mr. Rejman: We have a Pandora's box opened up no matter what we do right now.
Mr. Moore: What law would I be citing? I can't refuse anybody.
Mr. Rejman: We had a moratorium before right?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: We can’t do a moratorium, Council has to do that.
Mr. Temple: That was enacted by Council that moratorium.
Mr. Rejman: I don’t know where we are going with this.
Mr. Temple: As I see it, we have another possibility rather than voting on it tonight, we could table it and send for some kind of review to the Council with a letter from the Chairman.
Mr. Darrow: That is what we did last month.
Mr. Temple: Did we send something to
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Leone was going to review it and see where we stood on it and what the legality was. I will be honest at this point I tend to lean towards Mr. Hare in the fact that we are prosecuting a person who is already being hit on the chin selling that, $18,000 or $8,000, whatever it is below assessment just to try and move his property. He has been trying to sell it for some time, he has demonstrated that and I don’t think our problem is with Mr. Lowe. I think our problem is between us, Council and the banks that are trying to force this upon the borrowers. So therefore, I think it is something we need to address with the Council and the banks and not poor Mr. Lowe.
Mr. Moore: But you are still going on a what if. You are giving an what if variance.
Mr. Darrow: You are right, you are completely correct, I agree 100%. That is the biggest problem here.
Mr. Westlake: I am not against the gentleman that wants it, we are opening it up for a lot of other people to come back with the same request. This has to stop tonight.
Mr. Rejman: We can’t stop.
Mr. Westlake: We can vote on it and say no.
Mr. Rejman: If we say no it will still be coming at us.
Mr. Darrow: Rather than persecute Mr. Lowe that we should come up with something through either a workshop in a week or two or work with Council to find a way to nip this in bud and the Council through a motion should be able to draft something that is going to stop this or not require the lending institutions to seek this.
Mr. Gentile: I would also cite here a number saying we are going to set a precedence if we go with this tonight, I disagree with that. Each case is its own unique case. We can’t say just because we are granting this variance one comes next month it is not going to be an identical case.
Mr. Moore: This one here is, this is the same thing
Mr. Gentile: Circumstances are different
Mr. Moore: A variance on what if.
Mr. Gentile: Then I don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Darrow: I agree we need to look at each on an individual basis. But I think this one specific issue will be the closest we will ever come to anything setting a guiding precedence because of the fact that it is being set forth by the mortgage companies. The only thing that could really weigh different in here is the hardship on the seller, whether they are actually seeing a hardship and have spent time trying to move the property. That is truly the only variable that I can see in this.
Mr. Temple: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Temple: I would like to address the concept of persecuting any particular applicant. The fact that we deny any particular applicant does not mean we are persecuting them under any circumstances so I object to that use of words.
Mr. Darrow: That is the word I chose.
Mr. Temple: It has been used by more than one person here tonight and I think we should set straight that we have our obligations under the law and it doesn’t mean we are persecuting somebody to properly exercise our authority.
Mr. Darrow: And I also have my obligation to my personal feeling that I feel that that is what we are doing to this gentleman if we strictly vote against it on the fact that we will have come of these coming before us.
Mr. Temple: The other thing that I want to say has to do with the issue of hardship is the assessment versus the selling price. I have looked at a number, quite a number, hundreds of properties under $60,000 and it is my opinion that our assessments in the City are uniform high any where from 25% to 35% in housing class that is $60,000 and under. So I don’t find this to be surprising or particularly noteworthy as it relates to this particular application because I see it throughout the City.
Mr. Rejman: Not to drag this out but as Chairman of the Assessment Board of Appeals I think like to discuss that with you 25% to 35% might be a taller.
Mr. Darrow: Here we are. Should be put it in the form of a motion?
Mr. Rejman: Only two options here. We can table it or we can vote on it. If we vote on it and it is no, that is the end of that.
Mr. Darrow: I have no problem tabling it if we actually have something that is going to be accomplished in the next the next 30 days. If it is just going to sit and spin then I feel we are serving no justice by tabling it.
Mr. Temple: I agree.
Mr. Gentile: I agree.
Mr. Rejman: Motion please.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Walter D. Lowe of 17 Brae Ridge, Auburn, property locate at 101-103 N. Fulton Street, Auburn, a use variance for the purpose of ability to rebuild in case of a 50% or more loss a 2 family dwelling listed at 101-103 N. Fulton Street.
Mr. Hare: I will second that.
Mr. Temple: Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend that motion. An amendment to table the motion of voting on this until 30 days so we have an opportunity
Mr. Darrow: Point of order Mr. Chairman. I have a motion on the floor, it has a second, and I would like a vote.
Mr. Rejman: That is right. I don’t believe we can do that.
Mr. Temple: Amendments are always germane to motions.
Mr. Darrow: You can’t amend my motion; I have to amend my motion.
Mr. Temple: Offered as a friendly amendment.
Mr. Rejman: Secretary call the roll please.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman,
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
I would like to make a note that I hope we find a way to deal with these in the future. I am not comfortable with this whole situation.
Mr. Darrow: I think under housekeeping we definitely should discuss a workshop on how to deal with these because it is obvious that we are going to start seeing more and more every month.
Mr. Iocolano: Thank you very much.
Mr. Lowe: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
17 Columbus Street, C, 16' rear and 5' side yard area variance for addition. Tim Blackman.
Mr. Rejman: 17 Columbus Street, are you here? State your name for the record.
Mr. Blackman: Tim Blackman.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there Tim.
Mr. Blackman: Basically I guess I didn’t include in the first time the back porch as Jim told me and I went ahead rebuilt that and I took out the wall that divides that from the kitchen to the back porch and I want to keep the wall out. I didn’t make the porch any bigger in diameter or wider; it is the same as it was.
Mr. Darrow: So you took out the wall that separates the building proper from the kitchen?
Mr. Blackman: Yes.
Mr. Moore: What he did was he made the place...it was a porch but he made it part of the building, he has to put a foundation under it and it will become an addition to the property, it will not be a porch. He should have included this on his last variance.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Anyone here wish to speak for or against the application? Coming back to the board, questions?
Mr. Temple: The section that we are talking about is the section with the CDX board?
Mr. Blackman: Yes.
Mr. Temple: No foundation under it?
Mr. Blackman: No, just 6 x 6's.
Mr. Temple: Is there any reason that has to stick out, I didn’t measure it with a ruler but just beyond the normal straight line?
Mr. Blackman: That is where it was originally it was the same structure. It is not any wider or bigger. That is exactly where the porch was.
Mr. Moore: He just rebuilt the porch.
Mr. Rejman: So the footprint is the same.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Other questions from the board? Comments, concerns? We will close the public portion, discuss and hopefully come to an agreement.
Mr. Darrow: After reviewing it I can see it, nothing has really changed as far as the outside goes, just changing the use of that area.
Ms. Marteney: Certainly made good change to the exterior of the building.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Tim Blackman a 16' rear property and a 5' side property variance for the property located at 17 Columbus Street for the purpose of incorporating a 7' x 14' addition to the building proper itself.
Mr. Gentile: I second the motion.
Mr. Temple: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rejman: Yes?
Mr. Temple: Just want to make sure that we are giving this variance to the person to whom it belongs. It is my understanding I thought that this property was owned by somebody different and I see in the application here it mentions the name of Lozada. I would like to ask Mr. Blackman who owns the property so that we issue the variance to the property owner.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Blackman would you come to the podium please.
Mr. Blackman: That is my wife, Luz Lozada.
Mr. Temple: Who owns the property?
Mr. Blackman: She does.
Mr. Temple: She does ok.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to amend my motion to show that the variance is granted to Luz Lozada for the property at 17 Columbus Street.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck with the project.
Mr. Blackman: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
18 Wright Avenue, R-2, area variance of 7' for pool to be located 3' from side yard. Joseph Calcagno.
Mr. Rejman: 18 Wright Avenue are you here? Good evening.
Mr. Thurston: Good evening. My name is Earle Thurston and I am here with Mr. Calcagno who is the applicant here. This was an application for an above ground pool in the rear yard of his property the edge of the pool will be 3 feet from the adjoining neighbor. We have consents that I have filed from both adjoining neighbors. In the back yard there is a driveway that extends there and the dimension of the pool would be consistent with current building line of the house, it would not be any closer than what already exists. Tried to locate it a little farther to the west, but you would have to take the driveway out and would not line up with the deck. Some hardship argument here but primarily we will not change the character of the neighborhood. A lot of properties down there as stated in the application have
above ground pools. I think it is consistent with the residential use. It is kind of a tight neighborhood down there and on that basis we are requesting a variance.
Mr. Rejman: One of our infamous 87-foot wide lot in the City that we are dealing with constantly. Questions from the board?
Mr. Temple: Councilor am I correct in interpreting the drawing here that the 15' dimension of the pool will be from east to west on the property?
Mr. Thurston: That is correct.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Thurston: Paid a lot of money for that sketch, disappointed we had that question. (Everyone laughs)
Mr. Rejman: It is a nice application; we really appreciate the drawings being as they are. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, we will come back. Final call for questions. None. Close the public portion, again thank you for the application, nicely done.
Mr. Darrow: As you said earlier Mr. Chairman, it is a narrow yard, the pool is 15 foot wide by 24 foot long, can’t go any smaller, if they go any further they will be in their driveway. I feel they aren’t asking for too much.
Mr. Temple: I am glad that the neighbors on both sides are in favor of it.
Mr. Rejman: Again, nice to have something to work from. Someone like to make a motion?
Mr. Temple: I would like to make a motion that we grant an area variance of 7' on the side yard for Mr. Joseph Calcagno of 18 Wright Avenue for the purpose of installing a pool.
Mr. Hare: I will 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. Thurston: Thank you.
109 Washington Street, R-2, area variance of 3'6” in height for 6' fence to be located on the property line. David Finster
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 109 Washington Street.
Mr. Finster: My name is Dave Finster and I appreciate your time in letting me be here. I am asking for a variance for privacy fence. The property is on the corner of Washington and Seymour Streets. I bought this big gray monstrosity of a building and I have sunk money into it. It is starting to look better. Neighbors come and tell me what a wonderful thing it is, that it is looking better.
What I need it being a corner property there are special restrictions on fence and the fence I want to put it is over near the corner but the property itself is on a corner and what I need instead of putting the fence 37 ½ feet from the center line of Seymour Street I need to put 25 ½ feet whatever the usual placement of a fence would be if it were not a corner property and I want it to be a 6 foot fence so it kind of blends in with the neighborhood as the property kiddy corner to it I started to paint my building brick red basically a brick building it matches the property kiddy corner from it. There is a privacy fence there. If I put up my fence from the 37 ½ feet from the center line end up with very little lawn, not a lot of yard there, I need the lawn for my little dog, my child and I have
2 tenants, I don’t know how long they will stay, hopefully they will like it. I still have access to putting the fence with access to a 3-car garage and space in front of it for parking.
Putting up my fence is not going to interfere with traffic, not going to interfere with line sight on the corner. As I said I have been improving the neighborhood, it is a nice neighborhood with a horrible building which I bought, now it is a better building in a better neighborhood.
Mr. Rejman: Good. Questions from the board?
Mr. Temple: The drawing which you have here suggests that
Mr. Finster: I apologize, I am not an artist.
Mr. Temple: Without giving any distances, it suggests that the fence is going to be right close to the sidewalk, am I correct in that?
Mr. Finster: It will be about 2 feet in from the sidewalk.
Mr. Temple: Two feet in from the sidewalk.
Mr. Moore: Will it be even with the side of the house?
Mr. Finster: There are two sides of the house
Mr. Moore: Brick side on the street
Mr. Finster: The brick side is right up to the sidewalk, the fence is going to be a couple feet in where apparently one time there was a back porch which is now the kitchen. That is in fact about 2 feet in from the sidewalk and that is where it is going to be parallel with that.
Mr. Temple: Mr. Moore, just to clarify. He seems to be making mention of this 37-½ foot from the centerline dimension, is that something that is germane?
Mr. Moore: We don’t measure like that any more. From his property line in.
Mr. Temple: Ok.
Mr. Moore: Only thing is you are going to have a 6 foot high fence and you are going to have children walking by there and cars backing out, that is the only hazard. People walking by you are not going to be able to see them.
Mr. Temple: Could there be any set back requirements for the fence?
Mr. Moore: That is why they gave Code Enforcement the prerogative of saying any fence you can’t see through can only be 30 inches high. He is going for 6 foot.
Mr. Finster: The parking lot that is going to be remaining is in front of a 3 car garage, plenty of room, not like they are pulling out of a narrow spot. There is a 3-car garage, space to see when you pull out.
Mr. Temple: What I interpret from your drawing also is that the fence is going to turn and head toward your garage
Mr. Finster: Yes
Mr. Temple: And it is going to intersect with the garage at some point
Mr. Finster: Yes, it was designed as a 4-car garage which it was at one time, but part was converted
Mr. Temple: There is a pedestrian door in the end closest to the house
Mr. Finster: Right, workshop area that was the fourth garage, that will be inside the fence.
Mr. Temple: The fence will come in an intersect somewhere between the pedestrian door and first garage door?
Mr. Finster: Yes.
Mr. Temple: Can you tell us why it is that you need to have a fence 6 foot high, stockade, why do you need those kind of things?
Mr. Finster: Privacy for myself, my child. Security of my child.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Any other questions from the board? Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Ok, we will close the public portion.
Mr. Finster: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: I have one concern and that is backing out and not seeing a child coming down. I suppose some children from Casey Park that would be a route home walking across the street. That is my only concern about not seeing a child other than that I can completely understand why he wants to do this, why he want 6 foot on the side.
Mr. Rejman: With the width of the driveway being 3 cars do you think people will be backing out or driving out?
Mr. Darrow: If there are other cars parked in front of the doors
Mr. Gentile: Just 3 cars, somebody is going to back out.
Ms. Marteney: We had a similar case where the gal up on, I can’t remember where it was and instead of having it
Mr. Moore: Swift and Mary
Ms. Marteney: Instead of having it squared angle it so that there would be enough visual for a car to back out and see because you have to have the space between the house and edge of the
Mr. Darrow: Put this on the corner on a 45-degree angle
Ms. Marteney: Or come from the corner of the house
Mr. Darrow: He will be losing a lot of the yard
Ms. Marteney: Huge yard back here
Mr. Darrow: Not what I saw, it is about 20 feet
Mr. Gentile: If that
Mr. Darrow: If that
Ms. Marteney: There is yard back in there.
Mr. Darrow: I did not see an abundant amount of yard space.
Mr. Rejman: Even if we agreed on that 45 degree cut we still have the issue of the 6 foot fence, we still need a variance there also.
Mr. Darrow: Yes but then we would just need a height variance of 3' 6”. Now this is the possibility of a pedestrian being in a blind spot because now you have that area where even if it was a 6 foot section of fence or 8 foot section of the fence put on that 45 degree angle, so now there actually is a stop where you are going to see
Ms. Marteney: The pedestrian will see the car
Mr. Rejman: I agree with this but who sets the points of contact?
Ms. Marteney: Up there Jim went and talked with the gal and they worked it out if I recall correctly.
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: It would be easy if we knew the lengths.
Mr. Finster: The fence is 25 x 25
Ms. Marteney: 25 from the corner of the house
Mr. Rejman: This is what I would like to do to keep things moving. How about if we do this just to keep things moving. How about Mr. Moore and the applicant and counsel go into chambers, discuss this idea, for the moment we will table this and move onto the next one. Instead of sitting here for 15 minutes.
Mr. Darrow: Sounds good.
Mr. Rejman: Temporary tabling of 109 Washington Street.
Mr. Rejman: Back to 109 Washington Street.
Ms. Hussey: The applicant has asked the board to reconsider if he amend his request to angle the fence toward Seymour Street, basically 6 feet on both sides with a diagonal across it so it is reducing the size of the fence along Seymour Street by 6 feet. Reducing the side of the length of the fence along the house reaching to the garage by 6 feet.
Mr. Moore: It will be 8 foot off the sidewalk.
Ms. Finster: This is what I agreed to 45-degree anglesite.
Mr. Rejman: Then all we have is the height issue. Close the public portion. Thank you.
Mr. Temple: In the past we have been asked for the type of variance that is asked for tonight increased in height solid in nature. I suspect that if we were to ask the Police Department for their ideas about patrolling where the sidewalks are lined with solid fences it would become more difficult for them to do their job. I looked at some of these projects that we have approved in the past and I can’t say that they are a good thing. I don’t favor the solid stockade type look lining the City streets. I don’t think that the fence has to be 6 foot in height to control a youngster. Many people in the City live very nicely with much lower fence except for these reasons I don’t understand the significance of solid and this high.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Darrow: I do have a question for Mr. Temple. Do you live on a corner lot?
Mr. Temple: No.
Mr. Darrow: I do, I understand the 6-foot high fence completely.
Mr. Rejman: I understand the issues of a corner lot. Real difficult to have privacy on a corner lot.
Ms. Marteney: He also has the stop light so everybody stopping at that stop light watching him eat dinner out in the back yard.
Mr. Rejman: I thank everyone for their comments. Is there a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant David Finster of 109 Washington Street a 3'6” height variance for the purpose of erecting a stockade fence as per submitted in the revised said plan.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Temple
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck with your project. See Mr. Moore in the morning.
Mr. Finster: Thank you very much, gentlemen and ladies.
_______________________________________________________________________
31 Gaylord Street, R-1a, area variance of 5'7” for 20'7” high garage. Robert and Patricia Hunter.
Mr. Rejman: 31 Gaylord Street, are you here please?
Mr. Hunter: Good evening Mr. Chairman, fellow Zoning Board members. My name is Bob Hunter and my wife and I are applying for a zoning variance for a garage that hopefully will rise to 20 feet 5 inches on property that is owned by my daughter, that is why we are the applicants. This is my best pencil sketch.
Mr. Rejman: Very good.
Mr. Hunter: Here is the sketch and 6 pictures that indicate the property that the garage is being built on. As I mentioned it is going to be 20 feet 5 inches at the garage peek. As Mr. Chairman, Mr. Darrow and Mr. Temple I believe are familiar with my property and there is a large barn, a 3 car garage between my property and the commercial lot on the south of us and if you look at those pictures you can see that the lot that my daughter owns is about 128 feet, our lot is about 60 so there is about 78 feet of lot with nothing on it at all between our two house. We would like to put this garage up in the southwest corner of the empty area there, empty land. Is there anything else you would like to know?
Ms. Marteney: Is it going to be on your property or your daughter’s property?
Mr. Hunter: It is going to be on my daughter’s property. My daughter for some background happens to live in Miami, I am taking care of her income property, those 3 units on the north side that she owns and we are house sitting or tenant sitting if you will and she, my wife and I have agreed to build a garage for numerous reasons on her property.
Mr. Temple: Am I correct that the dimension of - which way will the garage doors open/
Mr. Hunter: The garage door will face the street Gaylord Street.
Mr. Temple: And that will be 22 foot wide at that point?
Mr. Hunter: 22 feet wide 26 feet long and 17 feet from the rear garage which you see there and it will be 17 feet from our present property line.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Anyone here wishing to speak for or against the applicant? Hearing none we will return. I only have one little concern, it is probably nothing. Mr. Hunter you are building, you wish, let me get this straight now. You are asking us to give your daughter a variance for you to build a garage on her property. The variance goes with the property.
Mr. Hunter: Right.
Mr. Rejman: But the daughter’s signature is nowhere here.
Mr. Hunter: There should be a letter some place, maybe not with the application, but there should be a letter some place.
Mr. Rejman: A letter of authorization, we do have one. I am happy now. Last call for questions, concerns.
Ms. Marteney: He owns the building and his daughter wants to sell the property?
Mr. Hunter: No, I am not going to own the building, she is going to own the building. It will be hers.
Mr. Gentile: He is just representing her.
Mr. Hunter: I am just representing her for all intents and purposes. I am the applicant, but I am not the owner of the property.
Ms. Marteney: OK. I was thinking that you were thinking that it was your garage on your daughter’s property.
Mr. Hunter: No, it will be her garage on her property.
Mr. Rejman: Last call for questions anyone. We will close the public portion. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hunter: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Seeing the property and seeing the drawing of the garage
Mr. Rejman: I will pass these photos around
Mr. Darrow: And seeing the height of the properties to the left and right, I thing anything smaller would look out of place.
Mr. Temple: The lot is very spacious and besides that this is a really modest sized garage and what makes me again thing of is these rules that we are constantly having to deal with, that seem to be unreasonable and it seems as though some attention needs to be give to some of these rules. I mean here we have a very nice looking structure. It is not extremely wide it goes in with the height of the other buildings, it is not up to the amount that you could have for a detached building on a lot. I think it is fine and I think the use of these rules that we labor under all the time need to be looked at.
Mr. Darrow: I wouldn’t say that they really need to be looked at I think this is a perfect example of it working properly because imagine that garage in a street full of ranch homes, no it is not going to work. That is why we have a 15-foot height limit. Imaging that home in this neighborhood remind me of a that identical garage 24 x 24 with another two story garage next to belonging to my neighbors and if I had to replace mine I have to come for a variance because it would be over 15 foot and anything smaller wouldn’t match the garage next to it. So I think our zoning this is a perfect example of it working. This is a perfect example.
Mr. Westlake: Individual case by case.
Mr. Darrow: Yes. We do an awful lot of garages.
Mr. Temple: We are going to have another one to decide tonight. We turned it down a month ago.
Mr. Rejman: We will get to it.
Mr. Temple: I know we will get to it, but my point is some people get it and some people don’t. Everybody who owns property may want the two-story garage for reasons of storage capacity, but some people are not going to get it because of this rule.
Mr. Darrow: Just for a quick comparison, you look at the square footage of that one and this one; we are talking two totally different dwellings.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s stay focused on this one.
Mr. Darrow: Only thing they have in common is the same roof style.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s stay focused on this.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we approve a 5'7” height variance for Deborah Hunter at 31 Gaylord Street for the purpose of erecting a garage as per drawing submitted.
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. Good luck with the project.
________________________________________________________________________
10 Evans Street, R-2, use variance to install a parking lot on a vacant residential lot. William and Amy Carver Dobson.
Mr. Rejman: 10 Evans Street, are you here please?
Mr. Dobson: I am William Dobson and my wife, Amy, and I are applying for a variance to have 10 Evans Street as a parking lot. It is almost an extension of the Church parking lot, Trinity United Methodist Church parking lot. The history behind this I think is important. The City wanted the old Evans Street School torn down and the Church was interested in having it torn down so they could have parking space and we were interested in having it torn down. We agreed that Amy and I would make the bid and share expenses and tear the old School down and make it into a parking lot for the Church and a parking lot for our building across the street. That was 25 years ago we used it as a parking lot for 25 years and in May of this we were denied the use of that as a parking lot and we are appealing to
have returned as a parking lot.
Mrs. Dobson: The old foundation to the building are still in there and it makes it difficult to use that for anything else. We gave you pictures and everything else, diagrams and everything so that you understand what we are doing.
Mr. Dobson: We never surfaced the area because what the School had done when they were using coal to heat the School, they dumped all the ashes in that area so it is pretty much ashes and although there is a skim of grass over it, the ashes are right underneath, but we decided should you grant this variance we are going to put a surface on the lot, it won’t be, it will be a stone surface.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board at this point? Yes, Gary.
Mr. Temple: You said something on May 10th, 2002?
Mr. Dobson: We were denied.
Mr. Temple: Who denied you that?
Mr. Dobson: The Zoning Board.
Mrs. Dobson: We were told we couldn’t use it for parking.
Mr. Temple: By whom?
Mr. Dobson: Jim Moore.
Mr. Moore: No, told by Judge McKeon, we took them to Court, they were parking tractor trailers there, it hadn’t been used and we took them to Court for it and we won and they had to stop using it. I have no problem with them getting a variance at all, they are just going to have to keep the trucks out of there, no commercial vehicles and they are going to have to go through site plan for that parking.
Mr. Temple: Did you have tractor-trailers in there?
Mr. Dobson: We had a tenant that owned a tractor-trailer and parked there. I don’t understand why if a tenant owns a tractor-trailer why that is so objectionable.
Mrs. Dobson: It is registered to 5 Evans Street.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s not go there.
Mr. Moore: Also Municipal Law says you cannot have tractor-trailers on City streets. There are at least two trucks there. We have pictures of it, I am not here to fight this, and they did not have a legal use for that.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s see if we can get legal use put together. Mr. Darrow has a question.
Mr. Darrow: Is it your intent at this time to landscape and dress the property
Mr. Dobson: Yes
Mr. Moore: Any parking lot over 7 spots they have to go to site plan and comply with site plan.
Mr. Rejman: All right so this is going to site plan too.
Mr. Darrow: So they will have to have a buffer zone, that is all that matters.
Mr. Rejman: Yes Gary.
Mr. Temple: Should this be approved, what is your intention as far as the type of vehicles that you would be parking there?
Mr. Dobson: I would hope that could let our tenants, whatever vehicle they are driving park there. We happen to have a tenant that has a tractor-trailer right now. We have asked the people around, our next-door neighbor is Judge Contiguglia, he saw no problem with the tractor-trailer.
Mr. Darrow: When you say tractor-trailer you are referring just to the tractor right?
Mr. Dobson: Just the tractor not the trailer.
Mr. Moore: Tractor trailers, we have pictures of that. That is a residential district. That is for residential vehicles only.
Mr. Gentile: My question is if this is a parking lot, who are we to say what they can park there.
Mr. Dobson: Just the tractor, the trailer would not be there.
Mr. Rejman: I don’t think we need to get hung up on the tractor-trailer portion of this.
Ms. Marteney: City law that you can’t park tractor-trailers on City streets, in residential areas.
Mr. Gentile: There was an RV parked on Orchard Street, now they put it in their driveway, what is the difference?
Mr. Dobson: But you can park a tractor-trailer on the street.
Ms. Marteney: No you can’t, counsel is looking up the law.
Mr. Dobson: That whole street has trucks on it.
Mrs. Dobson: Pickups.
Mr. Dobson: We would guarantee that the trailer part of the tractor-trailer would not be there.
Mr. Moore: Not even the tractor part.
Mr. Rejman: That is a whole other issue.
Mr. Gentile: Our issue is to grant a variance on a parking lot not what they are going to park there. If they park a tractor-trailer, let the Police handle it.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s get refocused on this.
Ms. Marteney: I just wanted them to know that there is a law that states that and the RVs.
Mr. Darrow: The key to this motion is the proper wording - residential.
Mr. Rejman: Having said that, is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? I see a hand in back, come up please.
Mr. Contiguglia: Mr. Chairman do you mind if I speak from back here
Mr. Rejman: State your name loud enough for the secretary to hear.
Mr. Contiguglia: Robert Contiguglia. I live at 3 Evans Street next door to 5 Evans the apartment complex. I am fighting a losing battle with the flu and I don’t want to affect any body. So if you don’t mind I will speak from here.
Just to preface my remarks. First of all I was unsolicited to come here, so I am here on my own. I have no qualms with Mr. Moore for what he has done is proper. His job is to enforce the Zoning Code and he has done it. He has done his job and that is what he is paid to do. As far as that parking lot on the other side, right now it is great. The danger is that with all the cars that are parked on the street right now in front of my property, the line of cars in front of the apartment complex and across the street. When I back into my driveway when I come with my car, it is a toss of a coin when I hit the road as to whether or not there is a car coming from the south end going towards Genesee Street and I did have one close encounter and fortunately the lady had good brakes on her
car. But it is very difficult; it is a dangerous situation with cars parked on both sides of the street which I believe is legal. My problem now is when it comes winter the plows go down that street, they are going to put a big pile of snow right in front of my driveway out on the side of the road. This is going to cause a problem when cars are parked on my side of the street. Now as far the Dobsons did use that as a parking place and it was really on my behest a couple years ago when Glen Carver who kind of manages the apartment complex and I asked him if he would ask his tenants to park on that lot so it would get cars off the street. I don’t believe that there is any opposition. I think if the Dobsons were forced to sell that lot, I think the Church would probably buy it and probably extend the parking lot. It is ideal for it, I will say this there is no rowdiness over there, it is a good neighborhood, I don’t believe it will
change the complex of the neighborhood if you grant a variance. And if everybody stays here until I leave so I won’t spread any germs. (Everyone laughs)
Mr. Rejman: Thank very much for your input on this. Last call anyone wishing to speak for or against. Yes, another hand. State your name first.
Mr. White: I am Bob White and I live on 9 Maple Street and I have no objection to having the tractor trailer in there, but I drove bus for 27 years we had these cords, we had a place to plug the vehicle in, we could not run it more than 10 minutes. They can plug in the tractor-trailers
Mr. Rejman: I think the whole tractor-trailer issue is something it is irrelevant to us. It is a zoning issue, but not for us tonight. Enforcement issue.
Mr. Moore: Restricted to residential vehicles, very simple.
Mr. Darrow: That is what I stated, how you make the motion.
Mr. Rejman: We think there is a low.
Ms. Hussey: There is but I just don’t know what section it is.
Mr. Moore: Under the V&T Law.
Ms. Hussey: Yes, it is but
Mr. Rejman: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Yes come forward.
Mr. Carver: My name is Glen Carver, I live at 5 Evans Street. We have had parking across the street since 1974 when I tore the Evans Street School down. If it is going to be a true bone of contention whether we take and clean the street of parking or not with the tractor trailer, we will simply evict the man and put him out on the street some place because I feel it is more important to get the cars off the street. Now you have to realize that there is a tractor-trailer that parks down the street, if you want to drive down any one of those other streets from there to Owasco Street you will find any number of them. I believe the laws reads if I am not mistaken because the Police have been called several times about the tractor trailer there. The tractor-trailer is registered to 5 Evans Street. That is where it is registered, if it were a commercial vehicle not owned by the person at 5 Evans Street it would in fact be against the law and the Police have been called, however,
there has never been a ticket issued to it for the simple reason that there is no law about a truck or tractor trailer or anything else that is where it is licensed. It is owned by one person.
But let’s get away from that, like you said the thing here is the parking lot. But if it does mean the difference between getting the variance so we can get the cars off the street, you have to understand Evans Street. Evans Street has 22 houses on it, 11 of those houses are multiple family. So you have a 2 to 1 ratio of multiple family to single.
Mrs. Dobson: And they were built that way.
Mr. Carver: And a good share of them were that way from the inception. So whoever zoned it that way in the first place, not that I am saying that there is truly a problem here in Auburn with zoning, but it is a problem in itself. What we are trying to do here is we are trying to solve a real serious problem. I mean you have a lot of cars parked on the street on Evans Street, then you have a Church on Evans Street and everybody says the Church has a few people there on Sunday, a few people there on Wednesday and maybe Sunday night, but it is a very heavily activity Church. You have a large AA meeting there that meets everyday at 5:30 p.m. which draws about 40 cars. If you look at the pictures that I took of the street you will see the parking problem and what we are trying to do is help the
safety of this community and I would think that maybe take and give some thought to other parking lots in the City too where you have had houses that burnt down or something else and in some way sort of help the people to help get some of the cars off the street. That is all I have to say.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Last call anyone wishing to speak for or against? Yes Amy.
Mrs. Dobson: I would like to say we have always tried to improve our neighborhood. I think you all have got pictures or we made a very complete presentation to what we wanted to do. I hope you have seen the pictures of what the street looks like. It is a very nice street, but a good share of the houses on this street were originally built as two family. They were converted. If you have any questions, I would like to answer them if I could or at least.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s see if there are any questions. Are there any questions from the board for the applicants? Last call. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Dobson: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Close the public portion. Discuss comments, concerns, motions.
Mr. Darrow: I can see the need for it having traveled down it. They have a site plan. We can phrase it properly and also it has to go before Planning so know that it is going to be aesthetically pleasing, it is not just going to be cars thrown in there.
Mr. Temple: I just would like to state that I am in favor of this proposal there have been some things that have been said tonight that I would like to put in some kind of prospective. Number 1: R1 versus R2 I don’t find to be particularly relevant as far as our deliberations here tonight. Something that did come out that is destructive to me the fact that when called on complaints in the past the Police have been unable to find a section of the Vehicle & Traffic Law to bar the use of this lot by a tractor-trailer. So I think that in the event that we frame a motion that we take into account the residential quality of the neighborhood versus the use of it for a tractor trailer parking lot.
The problem that I see with that is the use of the word commercial is too broad. The reason is for instance pickup trucks carry license plates that are commercial, vans that do not have a back seat carry a commercial plate and I have lived on Evans Street not too long ago and I know in this lot parks a vehicle that is used for business purposes shall I say and yet the person who lives there is the person that lives there and has lived there and it is not a tractor trailer that I am talking about, it is a van. The issue about this tractor-trailer thing I think was spoken to in a functional sense by one gentleman, I believe your name was Mr. Scott
Mr. White: White
Mr. Temple: Mr. White, I am sorry, who spoke about idling time and a tractor has air brake system, quite generally they have to run for some period of time to build up the air brakes. Quite often trucks are leaving at odd hours when people are trying to sleep. For all these reasons I think we have to craft something that says in some way that it is not acceptable to have a tractor-trailer on Evans Street. I thought that the City streets had what are called truck routes and that the trucks have to stay on the truck routes unless they are making a local delivery. But that is an enforcement issue as people have pointed out, but from my perspective I will not be in favor of giving a blanket authorization for a parking lot unless we limit it so that it includes passenger sized vehicles, I don’t
know how the wording needs to be, but there is another more basic problem what I have with this and perhaps Mr. Moore will be able to answer it for me and that is the issue of the prior existing non-conforming use, which ran on unabated for decades and now all of a sudden at a point in time these people are told that they have lost the use whether that was through Judge McKeon I think that Mr. Moore indicated. I don’t understand how a person looses a non-conforming prior existing use. Although the use may not be properly applied to tractor-trailers per say.
Mr. Darrow: Never had a problem with pre-existing non-conforming use to lose, it just may have been that was not enforced for some time.
Mr. Temple: I think the history of the testimony here shows that these people bought something from the City with an understanding and agreement
Mr. Moore: That was proved in Court that it was not true, they had no right to use it and we had a trial and Judge ruled in the City’s favor.
Mr. Temple: How long has the non-conforming use according to the evidence produced at trial how long has the no-conforming use been in existence in that place there?
Mr. Moore: I can’t tell you.
Mr. Temple: Testimony here from Mr. Carver, said 1974.
Mr. Moore: I think the permit was issued in 1976 to tear the school down.
Mr. Rejman: The deed is dated 8/11/77.
Mr. Moore: None of the dates were right and it was proved that they did not have any permission and there was no, we went back to counsel testimony, they were never given that building as a parking lot.
Mr. Temple: All right. I guess in summation I would like to see what words we can craft that will exclude tractor-trailers beyond any doubt and yet be allowed to be for tenants when they drive a van or pickup truck.
Mr. Hare: I would like to make a motion, but I don’t know how we can craft it in a way to do that.
Mr. Gentile: We are punishing a tenant who lives there because his personal vehicle happens to be a tractor-trailer, that is his business and that is what he drives. We are punishing this individual because of his business.
Mr. Rejman: Before we make a motion, let’s ask counsel
Mr. Gentile: I still say it is a Police issue.
Mr. Moore: What about all those people that live there and take care of their property they want to let a truck sit there.
Mr. Gentile: They all had an opportunity to be here. There is no body here speaking against it.
Mr. Westlake: Let the Police take care of that and we take care of the zoning matter.
Mr. Darrow: If there is in fact no law under Vehicle & Traffic Law to enforce, we are block zoning, we are taking one piece of property, putting our own zoning requirements on it and everything in the rest of the City is different.
Mr. Temple: We have the authority and we have used it on a number of occasions in the last year to modify somebody’s use variance something that we deemed acceptable.
Mr. Darrow: Exactly, when we deemed it necessary and acceptable. I don’t feel, I feel we are going into an area we don’t need to go into here.
Mr. Gentile: Exactly.
Mr. Temple: What do you do for the people who have the problem, they have called the Police, we know that the Police have been called by the testimony that was given
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Gentile said it there is no one here speaking against
Mr. Temple: I heard one man here speaking against it in a very nice way, he is right over here and he doesn’t live on Evans Street, he lives on the street that backs up to where the tractor trailer
Mr. Darrow: He asked for an electric outlet there to plug in the engine warmer.
Mr. Temple: Gets the truck started doesn’t charge the brake system up with air.
Mr. Moore: Besides we were there due to neighborhood complaints. That is why we were there, that is why we ended up in Court.
Mr. Temple: I don’t see why we are reluctant to place this with what appears to be an obvious situation that it not be used for tractor-trailers.
Mr. Darrow: Very simply I can’t see us placing a restriction on the only piece of property in the City, let Uniform Traffic Law take care of it.
Mr. Gentile: That is right, it is not our job.
Mr. Rejman: I would like counsel to just give us her perspective on this situation.
Ms. Hussey: It appears that it is a traffic enforcement issue. My understanding is when they were brought to Court before it was due to
Mr. Moore: Using for tractor-trailer parking there.
Ms. Hussey: It seems more like a enforcement issue than a regulatory issue.
Mr. Rejman: So what you are saying is we should
Mr. Darrow: We should leave it
Mr. Gentile: It is not our job to dictate what is parked there.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion.
Mr. Rejman: Go ahead.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we approve a use variance for William and Amy Carver Dobson of 10 Evans Street for the purpose of constructing a parking area that will meet and agree with all City of Auburn Planning proposals and Planning requirements.
Mr. Hare: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Temple
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck with your project.
________________________________________________________________________
102 South Street, R-2, area variance of 598 s. f. to erect a 1152 s. f. garage and variance of 8'3” in height for garage to be higher than the 15 feet allowed. Carl Townsend and Lori Dickes.
Mr. Rejman: 102 South Street, are you here please?
Mr. Townsend: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Here we are again.
Mr. Rejman: State your name for the record please.
Mr. Townsend: Carl Townsend, Lori is not with me tonight, she has contracted Mr. Contiguglia's flu.
Mr. Rejman: And what seems to be the issue here?
Mr. Townsend: A variance for the garage. I worked diligently with Mr. Long, reconstructed the whole thing. I also have a list of 18 different names of neighbors around the whole neighborhood that have no issue, no problem with me putting a garage whatsoever.
Mr. Rejman: Very good. Could we
Mr. Darrow: Is Mr. Cuddy’s name on that?
Mr. Townsend: No, Mr. Cuddy is leaving the area, he is moving to Rochester I guess.
Mr. Rejman: Would you pass that around and I will have it attached to the record.
Mr. Townsend: He has his house on the market right now, I guess he works
Mr. Darrow: I thought I saw a sign when I went by
Mr. Townsend: He works out of Rochester and I guess instead of traveling back and forth, he is going to move over there.
Mr. Rejman: Good for you. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Temple: Mr. Townsend what are the distinguishing feature that has changed that bring this back to our attention.
Mr. Townsend: 10 feet smaller, and also if you read this here the Certificate of Appropriateness from Mr. Long, we are trying to make it to the criteria of the era of the house so that everything completely matches. We don’t want to take away from the historical value because we have people that walk up and down the street that actually will get one of those little pink books from the Post Office and they stand back and look at the house and come up and knock on the door and go “wow” can we look inside of this historical house, because it is on the historical list in Auburn.
Mr. Temple: Which way is it 10 foot smaller?
Mr. Townsend: 10 foot smaller by either way. 5 feet more in.
Mr. Temple: So it is in the front to rear
Mr. Townsend: Yes, if you flip to the next page, to the bottom of the page, it is downsized 5 feet on either side to make it 10 feet smaller.
Mr. Temple: So the previous application then was for 46 foot wide
Mr. Townsend: 46 foot wide all the way by the fence to the pool. Now there will be a space between the fence and the pool which I guess we will make a breeze way or whatever out of it.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Moore: A breezeway from where?
Mr. Townsend: Hi Mr. Moore, how are you? I am just saying theatrically
Mr. Moore: OK. (Everyone laughs)
Mr. Temple: I do have one more question. The signatures that you have submitted to us here can’t be discerned in a large measure, do you know these people or who they are?
Mr. Townsend: Some of those people are people that live over at the Unity House, some of the workers, not the workers but the people that actually live there, physically live there.
Mr. Temple: How many of these people that you have here are actually property owners?
Ms. Marteney: What are you looking at?
Mr. Temple: He just handed it, I haven’t passed it around yet, but I am looking at a list of approximately 12 to 15 names
Mr. Townsend: There are approximately 18 on there all together with Mr. Wolczyk there and I would say probably 14 of them
Mr. Temple: Are actual owners?
Mr. Townsend: Yes.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Questions? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, we will come back. Final call for questions. Close the public portion. Thank you very much. I would like this petition to make it all the way around before we make a motion.
Mr. Darrow: I think probably the most creditable pieces of paper in the application is the Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Resources Review Board and that Mr. Long has signed off on is appropriateness. So I feel that speaks very well.
Mr. Rejman: I agree.
Mr. Gentile: This is what I was looking for at the last meeting, something like this, giving support to what he is trying to do. It is smaller too, which makes it even better. This helps with the justification.
Mr. Rejman: Has the petition made it around?
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Does someone wish to make a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Carl R. Townsend and Lorie Dickes of 102 South Street a 598 square foot area variance and a 8 foot 3 inch height variance relating to the over all peak of said structure in enclosed drawings to be erected as plotted on site survey and to conform with all recommendations submitted by the Historic Resources Review Board.
Mr. Temple: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney
________________________________________________________________________
45 Columbus Street, I, 10' area variance for fence around parking lot to be located on property line and for lot to be located 140' from residential area rather than the required 500'. Anthony Tardibone.
Mr. Rejman: 45 Columbus Street, are you here?
Mr. Tardibone: Good evening, my name is John Tardibone and I own 45 Columbus Street and I am asking for a variance to put a fence on the east side of the building.
Mr. Rejman: And the issue is we need a 10-yard area variance, 10-foot area variance
Mr. Tardibone: 10 foot area variance and 360-foot variance from neighboring neighbors.
Mr. Moore: Mr. Tardibone is in an Industrial area where a junkyard is allowed but it has to be 500 feet from a residential district, that is why he is asking for the variance of 360 feet. He is going to put an 8-foot high fence 260 foot down and 95 foot across and then back to the building. It also says in a junkyard the rear fence be 10 foot, so he wants to put the fence on the property line in the rear. He has some pictures there. He doesn’t handle junk cars, some cars could be dismantled like take a tire off, but basically these are the cars that he has on the corner of Clark and N. Division Street. He gets a large influx of cars every other month and all he wants to do is to store them until they have them ready for auction. The City is in favor of him doing this because he
stated lot of neighborhood complaints about all the pallets stacked all over. Part of this deal is that he is going to make accommodations behind the 8-foot fence for all these pallets.
Ms. Marteney: That are now in the front yard.
Mr. Moore: Yes. They are a legal use there, it is legal to have them there, but it will clean up the place better.
Mr. Tardibone: Anything that is in front of the building, will be put behind the fence. I have told the tenants to put the pallets behind the fence, some belong to the tenants.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore you said the City is in favor. Expand on that just a little bit.
Mr. Moore: Our Design Review Committee.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Moore: He has already gone through it on the front of his property to have a used car lot in front. He has done everything that Planning Board has asked him to and now he is trying to use the back. Just getting these cars, you will see the pictures, he has a lot of cars coming in and out.
Mr. Rejman: This is good. Basically we have recommendations from these other committees that this is what he needs from us to move forward.
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Good. Questions? Yes, Gary.
Mr. Temple: I am trying to ascertain from your drawing where is the fence going to go, can you show me on the drawing.
Mr. Tardibone: (Pointing to drawing) Right here.
Mr. Temple: 10 foot here high?
Mr. Tardibone: 10 foot in the back 8 foot here.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Tardibone: You are welcome.
Mr. Rejman: Last call for questions. Anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? Yes?
Mr. Dougherty: My name is Jim Dougherty, I live at 21 LaFayette Place, which is directly across from Mr. Tardibone's warehouse. We have been there 7 years, he started leasing space out to tenant that I believe services the Dollar Stores here in the City and upstate New York. I have talked to the Code Enforcement probably, if I talked to them 100 times at least. I have had the Fire Department down there, the inspector from the Fire Department down there. I have no problem with him putting the pallets out there, maybe this fence will help but when you walk out my front door that is exactly what you see is a junkyard. My house is assessed at $41,000 right now if it is worth $30,000 that is a lot. I am asking you that to give him the variance which I have no problem with, just keep it
cleaned up because it looks like hell. He has broken pallets over there, he has junk cars in the back of the building, and he has got rotten tires over there.
Mr. Rejman: Well it seems that that is why we are all here.
Mr. Dougherty: I don’t have a problem with it; I know it is legal to do what he is doing down there, but please clean it up. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you for your input.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question for Mr. Tardibone. Is it your intentions to put webbing in this fence as well?
Mr. Tardibone: No it is going to be solid metal fence same as you see at Kubis or Pick N Pull.
Mr. Darrow: That is fine. Good.
Mr. Tardibone: What we probably do - someone in the neighborhood does dump tires off we don’t dump any tires at all whatsoever but people see cars sitting there and they dump. On several occasions I have found little envelopes with other people’s names when they dump their garbage there. So it is not like I put tires there. I want a clean place.
Mr. Rejman: Last call anyone wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Carver: My name is Glen Carver; I live at 5 Evans Street. I have been down in Mr. Tardibone’s lot several times and the thing that I have to say is the character of the neighborhood unfortunately has a lot of foot traffic through it and if we have businesses in Auburn we need to protect them. I have seen several cars that have been vandalized so there is need for a fence here not only to obstruct the view of the cars but also to protect his property. I think it should be foremost concern that we keep business in Auburn.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much. Final closing comments?
Mr. Dougherty: One more thing, I am not stating that Mr. Tardibone himself was the one, it is the tenant. I believe it is up to Mr. Tardibone to instruct his tenant to clean it up and maybe this will do so. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Final questions from the board.
Mr. Temple: I have a question for Mr. Tardibone. We have heard from the Code Enforcement Office tonight that there is some kind of arrangement agreed to and as it relates to the tenant, who seems to have your neighbor on LaFayette distressed, does the agreement that you are a party to have anything to with the tenancy, the use of the property outside the fenced area. Will they have to put their things outside?
Mr. Tardibone: They are going to be put in back.
Mr. Temple: Behind the fence, is that part of the agreement?
Mr. Tardibone: Yes.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: We will close the public portion. Final comments, discussions, motions?
Mr. Hare: I would like to make a motion that we grant Anthony Tardibone area variances for purposes of erecting a fence 360' variance on the north side and 10' variance on the south side, as per site plan.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
_______________________________________________________________________
14 Tehan Street, R-2, 10' area variance for deck to be located on the front property line.
John Allen.
Mr. Rejman: Applicant did not show, application tabled until next month.
| 
