ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 29, 2002
Members Present: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey, Mr. Moore, Ms. DeAngelo
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 120 Chapman Avenue, 64 Columbus Street, 4 Englewood Avenue, 27 Park Avenue, 173 Cottage Street
APPLICATIONS DENIED: 87 Capitol Street, 40 Park Avenue
APPLICATION TABLED: 6 Lexington Avenue
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have nine items: 120 Chapman Avenue, 64 Columbus Street, 87 Capitol Street, 4 Englewood Avenue, 74 Genesee Street, 6 Lexington Avenue, 27 Park Avenue, 173 Cottage Street, 40 Park Avenue
Just to let you know how this works, we will call you up one by one, when you come forward just state your name for the record and simply tell us what you would like to do. You do need a vote of 4 of the members for approval. There are 7 members so the odds are pretty good for you.
________________________________________________________________________
120 Chapman Avenue, R-1a, 8-foot east side yard area variance for construction of pool, Peter and Pamela O'Kussick.
Mr. Rejman: First on the agenda is 120 Chapman Avenue, are you here? Come forward please.
Ms. O’Kussick: My name is Pamela O’Kussick and what we would like to do at 120 Chapman Avenue is put an above ground pool in.
Mr. Rejman: These pools things are pretty generic usually. Are there any questions from the Board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? None. OK.
I suppose the only thing we could ask is why would you need a 24-foot pool, instead of a 22, or a 20, or an 18. What made you decide on 24?
Ms. O’Kussick: Just basically the way the property sits, we would need a variance pretty much regardless. On the west side of the property the way the house sits, we have our house here and we have a driveway that comes down and the garage sits back here. So the garage actually cuts into part of the back yard. If you actually measured it from like the garage the property it really wouldn’t matter what size pool, we more than likely would need a variance.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Ms. O’Kussick: If the garage sat further up then it wouldn’t be a problem, but like I said it is a one car garage that sits back and takes up some of the property back there.
Mr. Rejman: Last call for questions from the Board. None. OK. We will close the public portion, have a seat and we will make a decision.
Ms. Marteney: Limited space.
Mr. Rejman: That’s it.
Mr. Moore: I would like to point out you guys gave a car port variance that is why it is on the property line, about 10 years ago.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Darrow: My only concern is you know why it wasn’t looked at maybe just down sizing one size to 21 to minimize the variance. It could have been worse, it could be 27, they could be asking for all 10 foot. That is the first thing that came to my mind why one size smaller wasn’t looked at.
Mr. Hare: I guess there are a lot of neighborhood kids around there.
Mr. Darrow: I think my biggest concern would be the property owner next door and seeing they are not here to speak for or against that would be my biggest concern that would be the noise and the splashing into their property.
Mr. Rejman: And they are not here so must be they don’t care.
Mr. Temple: Is there any reason that the thing couldn’t be moved closer to the garage. Give a little more I mean 2 foot isn’t very much when you are taking about pools and run off, water shedding onto another person’s property.
Mr. Darrow: I would ask Jim that if it could be moved closer.
Mr. Pool: It is their pool; they can put it where they want. We would have no say in it.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Temple: We do have a say as far
Mr. Moore: But I don’t.
Mr. Temple: I see.
Mr. Darrow: I have always been under the understanding if there is any outside electric on a garage, pool has to be 10 feet away from the garage because of National Electrical Code.
Mr. Moore: Just the house.
Mr. Darrow: Just the house?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Well I think we can move forward with the voting on the variance if they wish to jockey it a little bit and use less and that is fine with us too, not to exceed 8.
Mr. Temple: Yes, not to exceed, what about not to exceed 7.
Mr. Rejman: Then we get into that whole issue of what is wrong with 6 feet 9 inches, what is wrong with 6 feet 6 inches
Mr. Temple: We are supposed to try to minimize the variances.
Mr. Rejman: I know. That is correct but what is the right number? Who really knows.
Mr. Temple: I am trying to think of a compromise between the idea of sizing down this pool size which point is well taken on that and moving it over more to the middle of their property area, maybe I should have asked that of the homeowner. Do you suppose we could?
Mr. Rejman: Because we have a few of these tonight, lets reopen it and set some common guidelines that we will use tonight. Would you like to come back up for a moment please?
Ms. O’Kussick: Sure.
Mr. Rejman: One of the members has a question.
Ms. O’Kussick: OK.
Mr. Temple: I was just wondering if there is any reason that you could share with us that dictates that the pool be located as you show it on your plan 2 foot from the property boundary and 9 ½ foot from the garage. Could it be moved over a little closer to the garage?
Ms. O’Kussick: There is a slight sidewalk that comes out of the garage and stairs, I don’t think it is actually 2 feet from the property line, I think it is more like actually 3 feet from the property line and the way it would be situated in the yard, our house is here, the garage sits here and the pool is basically going to be like right here and the carport that the gentleman spoke of from the neighbors rests right here on the property line to the east of us and their house sits on the other side of that. We have spoke briefly, we contacted couple of the neighbors, we are all pretty friendly around there and asked them if they did have an objections when we started talking about this and they said they had no problem with it. We spoke with the neighbors on the other side, but you know we didn’t want to go too far back in our backyard because our neighbors have a very large pine tree that does have a small hole in it and there was concern that some day that tree falls down or
branches fall off of it then it is going to go right in the pool. But basically I mean…
Mr. Temple: You think there is 3 foot between the property line and one edge of the pool?
Ms. O’Kussick: When we originally discussing this we talked about possibly putting in an oval pool, in width it wouldn’t be as wide and we could put it any where in the yard but when we investigated it the oval pool unfortunately the supports jut out from it and that would even be more imposing toward that side of the fence.
Mr. Darrow: Not necessarily, say a 15 -30 oval pool it is 15 wide, the buttresses come out 2 ½ foot each side. So you are only adding 5 foot.
Ms. O’Kussick: Our concern with it further back in the yard.
Mr. Darrow: And the variance goes by the water not the edge pieces of the pool.
Mr. Temple: Another question. Your drawing shows 34 feet from property line to line of this garage here. You take 24 foot for the pool it leaves you with 10 feet, you are showing 9 ½ here and 2 here equals 11 ½ feet, it appears that you only have 10 feet.
Ms. O’Kussick: That I don’t know how to answer, my husband did the dimensions and such and unfortunately he had to go to calling hours tonight. Like I said because if you notice the pool is more toward the house in that drawing and the reason why we didn’t opt to move it back more is because like I said my neighbors have willow trees, very large pine trees that sits right at the corner of the property on the east side and we were worried about things from the tree falling down and damaging the pool.
Mr. Temple: I am all set.
Mr. Rejman: All set. OK. Close again. Thank you very much. Comments, concerns?
Mr. Darrow: I just think what speaks the loudest is that her neighbors don’t have a problem those are the ones that are going to be most affected by it.
Mr. Rejman: Would have been nice to have a little petition.
Mr. Temple: She seems to feel as though the set back is actually going to be 3 foot instead of the 2 foot shown on the drawing here.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Temple: Would the Board vote one way or the other about making the variance based on the 3 foot set back instead of the 2 foot.
Mr. Darrow: My concern about making the variance any less than she is asking for is only based upon the fact what you brought up showing 34 foot width in the back and it doesn’t add up across the front. Now property lines may run off and there may be more room there, we don’t know that could be coming down for a 90 degree angle although it is showing that on the paper so I feel if we minimize what she is asking for we might end up seeing her again because she can only go so far towards the garage before she hits the concrete walk and the stairs.
Mr. Rejman: That is true
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Peter and Pamela O’Kussick of 120 Chapman Avenue, a 8 foot side yard variance for the purpose of erecting a 24 foot round swimming pool as per attached drawing.
Mr. Hare: I'll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved; see Mr. Moore for your permit.
________________________________________________________________________
64 Columbus Street, I, 3 foot rear yard area variance for diner, Stephen Bianco.
Mr. Rejman: 64 Columbus Street, are you here?
Mr. Bianco: Steve Bianco, for the Columbus Street project.
Mr. Rejman: Just curious I am sure it was an oversight some how did some one just forget to measure
Mr. Bianco: The dimensions weren’t exact at the time and the equipment started coming, equipment for the kitchen and we needed every inch that we could get out of that. Plus the property runs at an angle where it is hard to sort of figure any thing squared off the property and we ended coming over that line just a little bit on that corner. It all comes out on my property but it comes out a little bit into that 50 foot set back there.
Mr. Darrow: So what you are saying Mr. Bianco is per the attached drawing that we have it is just a small portion of the I guess it would be the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. Bianco: Southeast corner comes out to about 3 ½ feet.
Mr. Moore: 3 feet
Mr. Bianco: 3 feet deep. There is nothing down there, I am sure you all know where Columbus Street is; there is nothing there.
Mr. Moore: Back yard requires 50-foot rear yard, just a 3-foot mistake.
Mr. Bianco: I couldn’t move the diner any further forward because of the 30 foot set back. It was a tough lot to work with parking down there, as you see in the plan, it is all angles; we tried to square it off the best we could.
Mr. Darrow: This plot plan that we have is this the one that was approved by Planning, so this is what it is going to look like when you finish.
Mr. Bianco: Yes, this is the final plan, second time around.
Mr. Darrow: Wonderful.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Final questions from the Board? None. OK we will close the public portion and discuss this out.
Mr. Bianco: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: It seems pretty simple to me particularly when you look at the approved site plan and the angles he was dealing with on the back property lines how he could have you know just that one corner come over 3 foot. Not like we are talking the whole building.
Mr. Rejman: Right I think that is it.
Mr. Darrow: I think personally the treatments around and the buffer zones and that are of such an adequate nature that
Mr. Rejman: Only thing behind him is the track.
Mr. Darrow: Behind the buffer zone yes. But even further behind.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Bianco: The tracks are there any more Bob, there is a road.
Mr. Rejman: That’s right too.
Mr. Bianco: Just a road
Ms. Marteney: Certainly a good use of that space.
Mr. Rejman: Great use of that space. Having said that.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Stephen Bianco of 218 N. Hoopes Avenue a 3 foot rear yard variance for the purpose of erecting his building at 64 Columbus Street, 47 feet off the rear property line as noted on the City approved site plan.
Mr. Temple: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Bianco: Thank you very much.
_______________________________________________________________________
87 Capitol Street, R1, 8-foot side yard and 8-foot rear yard variance for pool. Gerald DelFavero.
Mr. Rejman: 87 Capitol Street, are you here?
Mr. DelFavero: Jerry DelFavero, 87 Capitol Street. I would like to put up a 12 foot round pool, need an 8 foot variance for that.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board? None. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Yes, come forward and state your name.
Mrs. Walsh: Deborah Walsh I live at 85 Capitol Street. I am on the side yard of that 8-foot variance that he is requesting. We live...our quarters are very, very small in the neighborhood. We have very little yard space and he needs 8 foot of the 10 feet for the pool. He is almost on our property line with his pool. I don’t want it as a homeowner, I don’t want it on top of my property as far as I am concerned you know the code has been set up for a reason and I think you need to reinforce it, I don’t want it that close to my property.
Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Walsh: Hi, I am Bob Walsh, I live at 85 Capitol Street. I don’t know if there is a drawing for this as there was the other pool.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: Has anyone on the Board been there to that site? Mr. Moore I know is familiar with the area. The house behind us and that gentleman is not here, I know he has his own business, I don’t know if that is the reason, his basement wall is not even 10 feet from the property line. My concern is an accident with the pool that water would destroy his house it would go right into the basement. And another thing is the property line is set up by putting stakes in the ground, I cant find the stakes on that property. I looked now maybe they are buried, I didn’t dig the yard up. Those are my concerns also. I am not in favor of an 8-foot variance on that 10-foot rule.
Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you. Would the applicant like to come back up? Questions from the Board? Concerns? It is a very small lot, terribly small.
Mr. Darrow: Only 45 feet in the rear.
Mr. Rejman: 12 foot pool.
Mr. Darrow: 12, 32 is the minimum they don’t make anything smaller than 12.
Mr. Rejman: That is what I was going to say.
Mr. Temple: Is there any other way that could be situated?
Mr. DelFavero: I don’t believe so, I could come up with maybe another 1 foot from my house but I would still need the side yard variance.
Mr. Darrow: Now coming towards your house would that be towards the shed here as well?
Mr. DelFavero: It would be towards my house.
Mr. Darrow: So you house is off this way?
Mr. DelFavero: Yes. I would definitely need a side yard variance; I would still need the back yard probably so much and the side yard 8 feet.
Mr. Darrow: How much space will you have to step out between your pool and the shed?
Mr. DelFavero: Approximately 10 to 12 feet.
Mr. Gentile: Could you move it closer to the shed?
Mr. DelFavero: Maybe another 1 ½ I don’t think that is going to satisfy the complainants.
Mr. Darrow: If we could minimize your variance to the rear and side.
Mr. DelFavero: I could probably gain maybe another maybe 2 foot from each side and back and that would probably be the maximum.
Mr. Temple: Why do you feel that is the case?
Mr. DelFavero: Still going to need a walk up to get into the pool, Id rather not have it on the back or side so you have got to go towards my house or towards the shed, no I don’t want it towards the shed or the house.
Mr. Darrow: I see it showing a deck on the side of the shed.
Mr. DelFavero: It will be a walk up deck, yes, like a 3 x 5 deck walk up and the filter will go under the deck. I am trying to maximize the amount of room I have got there. It is 12' pool, I have a blow up pool for my 10-year daughter that is who it is for, that is basically what I am asking for. What ever happens happens.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Final questions? None. We will close the public portion and discuss this out.
Mr. Hare: Can’t ignore the complaint.
Mr. Rejman: No, but it is one of those situations where sometimes the lot is just too small to do what you want to do.
Mr. Darrow: As I look at it, I seem to think by shifting the deck, if you are looking at the pool from the house and the deck is sitting like at three o’clock shifting the deck down like four or five o’clock would allow it to go seems like at least another five (5) foot closer to the shed and coming maybe forward a little more so that we can minimize the exposure to the neighbors. I can certainly understand the neighbors concerns with the pool 2 foot from the property lines when it has to do with splashing or noise, but there is no a lot of water in a 12 foot round about 4,000 gallons.
Mr. Temple: I was just going to say again it falls to us to try to minimize variances, area variances where ever we can. In keeping with the spirit of what we are suppose to do plus in this case we have neighbors affected by the variance on the side of the property where the set back is minimum.
Mr. Darrow: I certainly have sympathy for Mr. DelFavero considering the lot size. He can’t go any smaller on the pool, encroachment on the neighbors and young child screaming in the middle of the summer.
Mr. Temple: We have to keep the pool Mr. Moore, 10 feet from the residence?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Temple: Most we could pick up there is 4 feet, 6 foot set back on the rear then instead of 10 that is required and pick up 5 foot added to the 2 would give you 7.
Mr. Darrow: If it is acceptable to Mr. DelFavero.
Mr. Hare: No matter how much you minimize it you are still going to have complaints from the neighbors.
Mr. Rejman: I think all we can do is go forward on the application as it is. Vote on it. If the applicant wishes to come with
Mr. Darrow: Table it and change the dimensions.
Mr. Rejman: Or we have two options, we can table it and do the dimensional change or we can vote on what we have here and I don’t believe that precludes him from coming back again with a different application.
Mr. Moore: Substantial change.
Mr. Gentile: Have to pay again.
Mr. Rejman: Might be the dimensions will change.
Mr. Temple: Have to be a substantial change, isn’t that what you said Jim?
Mr. Moore: Yes. It would have to be different.
Mr. Rejman: Right it has to be different. There is a finality to that, if we table it this can go on for a couple three months and I don want that. Lets vote on what we have and if the applicant wishes to come back.
Mr. Darrow: Not necessarily, I mean, why couldn’t we take action next month?
Mr. DelFavero: I would like to have it voted on the way it is.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Temple: I would like to say then part of the aspect of voting in favor of this is that I believe he does have a hardship if you can take the fact that he owns the lot, pool size is minimal in terms of what is available, the lot size doesn’t allow a lot of alternatives. It is a hardship situation.
Mr. Rejman: Lot size.
Mr. Temple: As far as lot size and people buy these houses and use them for things like sheds and pools something of that nature.
Mr. Rejman: Does anyone wish to make a motion? OK, hearing none
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Gerald DelFavero of 87 Capitol Street an 8 foot rear yard and 8 foot side yard variance for the purpose of erecting a 12 foot round swimming pool.
Mr. Temple: I’ll second that.
Mr. Rejman: Just for the audience, all motions made at the ZBA here must be in the affirmative.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow - The reasoning being I feel that we haven’t done all that we can to minimize the variance to the rear and side, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: The application is not approved, if you wish to change some of the dimensions and bring it before us again, you can do that.
Mr. DelFavero: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
4 Englewood Avenue, R1, side yard area variance of 3.5 feet for residence addition, James and Julie Fasce.
Mr. Rejman: 4 Englewood Avenue, are you here?
Mr. Fasce: Good evening, name is Jim Fasce and I am here for a side variance a 3.5 foot side yard variance for existing residence.
Mr. Rejman: For the record, why do you need that variance.
Mr. Fasce: We are extending our kitchen out to the west and I have spoken with all the neighbors and nobody has a problem with it. As a matter of fact with the application I have a letter from our neighbor to the immediate west of the property and she has no problem with it.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board?
Mr. Temple: I was looking at your drawing here and I see in the lower part figure of 42 inches and the upper part 30 inches. Did it change some how? 30 inches here and 42 inches here.
Mr. Fasce: I have a contractor that is going to do the work, he is here with us tonight, he is the one that drew that up. His name is Rocky McLoughlin.
Mr. Temple: I was asking about the dimensions here, 42 inches shown here and 30 inches was shown here
Mr. McLoughlin: It is 30 inches with a 12-inch overhang.
Mr. Temple: OK.
Mr. Rejman: Any more questions from the Board. Anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? None. OK, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Comments, concerns, questions, motions.
Mr. Temple: Very minimal addition.
Mr. Rejman: We have approval of the neighbor, which is nice. Could I have a motion?
Mr. Temple: I would like to make a motion that we grant an area variance of 3.5 feet on the sight line clearance to James and Julie Fasce for an addition to their house.
Mr. Darrow: 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. Good luck with it.
Mr. Fasce: Thank you.
_______________________________________________________________________
74 Genesee Street, C-2, use variance for LED movable lettering signs at Advanced Document Concepts, Inc., (Auburn Document Center)
Mr. Rejman: 2 South Street, are you here? 2 South Street. I am sorry, 74 Genesee Street. Document Center.
Mr. Moore: We have gone to the Planning Board with this, it needs a special permit and the Planning Board can issue a special permit.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
_______________________________________________________________________
6 Lexington Avenue, R1, use and area variance for dining patio to be added to front of Friends Tavern and Nightclub. Anthony Tardibone.
Mr. Rejman: 6 Lexington, are you here?
Mr. Snyder: I am Gary Snyder, Environmental and Site Planning Services, here with Anthony Tardibone, owner of Friends Tavern on the corner of Lexington and W. Genesee and Kensington. We are here for the purpose of applying for a variance for a patio that will be in the front yard of the establishment bordered by a fence and ornamental plantings outside of the fence.
Mr. Westlake: What is the purpose of the patio? It doesn’t say on the application.
Mr. Tardibone: Get people down there so the business can grow.
Mr. Rejman: We have no plot plan attached here or drawing. Could you explain more to us exactly what this will look like and dimensions on it?
Mr. Snyder: Yes, currently there is 5-foot wide sidewalk that is from the foundation across the whole front of the building. The patio would be extended out 16 feet from that on the east side and there would be saw tooth on the west so that visibility at the intersection would be maintained from cars approaching the traffic light on Lexington Avenue. There is currently a sidewalk that runs right from the middle of the building out to the sidewalk on Genesee Street and that would remain and the fence that is tight to the perimeter of this will be gated on both the east and west side and on the main lot that goes out to the street.
Plantings have been tied to that fence to buffer it and to make this whole area look a little bit more residential. The fence has been raised up to 3 feet 6 inch height. It would be a metal fence, one that would allow small tables to be set up along the inside of it and it is designed with a row of lights that will shine straight down out of the top of the fence to somewhat illuminate the perimeter of it to stop people from running into it or provide a little bid of mood lightening to this area.
Mr. Rejman: Have you been to the Planning Board with this site plan?
Mr. Snyder: No, we haven’t.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore, would they have to go to Planning Board?
Mr. Moore: After wards they will. But they couldn’t go now because it is not permissible.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t like not seeing a drawing.
Mr. Snyder: I furnished ten (10) copies of the drawing.
Mr. Rejman: We didn’t get a copy.
Mr. Moore: I have one.
Mr. Rejman: We could pass that around.
Mr. Snyder: I submitted ten (10) copies for the Zoning Board.
Mr. Rejman: What the applicant is asking here is to extend his non-conforming use for restaurant/bar outside. That is what we are here for? Yes?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: If this property were a C-1, we wouldn’t have these issues.
Mr. Moore: Well it depends on what the front yard was in C-1.
Mr. Temple: You would have set back
Mr. Moore: C-1 is only 5 foot front yard, C-3 is 50 foot, but this isn’t this is a use variance because it is an R-1. Nothing to do with set back for front.
Mr. Darrow: What is across the street, C-1 or C-3?
Mr. Moore: C-3.
Mr. Gentile: What is your intended of the patio, it is just for dining, drinking, bands, music?
Mr. Tardibone: It would be open from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Gentile: Will you have music piped outside?
Mr. Tardibone: No.
Mr. Gentile: So there will be no speakers
Mr. Tardibone: No speakers, just a place for people to drink outside and be outside.
Mr. Hare: How big a fence are you planning on? How tall is the fence?
Mr. Snyder: 42 inches detail on the set back.
Mr. Hare: How much interference would that be for the police driving around and looking in?
Mr. Temple: Rule in an R zone that you have to keep it 30' maximum height.
Mr. Moore: The light on the corner has to be within 40 foot, it looks like it might make that. I didn’t scale it off.
Mr. Temple: Just a fence where clear sight 30 inches high in the front yard?
Mr. Moore: Yes the first 20 feet
Mr. Darrow: By the looks of this 1 inch equals 20 foot there is not going to be much problem with the clear sight triangle. That looks like that is taken into consideration. If they didn’t step back the west side of the patio there might be a problem, but the way they have it set back I think they addressed the clear sight triangle.
Mr. Westlake: The ABC Board do they come before or after?
Mr. Tardibone: After.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? None. OK.
Mr. Darrow: Is this proposed parking paved?
Mr. Snyder: Under the proposal it would be.
Mr. Moore: Right now their front yard is not paved they are parking in the mud. He will eventually be going to site plan and he said it would be paved.
Mr. Rejman: I know we are still digesting some of this, but questions, comments, concerns? Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against? I see a hand, come forward please.
Mr. Fasce: My name is James Fasce and I live around the corner from there. As long as there are no live bands, people in the neighborhood would have no problem I believe. If they are having drinks as long as there are no live bands or blast of music because it is a quiet neighborhood down that way. Other than that, I wouldn’t have a problem.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. I guess the issue before us is whether or not to allow the some of the inside activities to flow outside into this area.
Mr. Moore: This is a use variance.
Mr. Rejman: There is hardship; there are all sorts of issues here.
Mr. Darrow: As far as I can remember 11 years on this Board, we have allowed something along this line once and that was for the Scoreboard Tavern on Washington Street, that was after a lot of drastic changes were made after the first presentation and that was in the middle of residential area and he used the back yard of the property next door that he owned as for the patio.
Mr. Temple: The two properties were merged.
Ms. Marteney: He fenced it.
Mr. Darrow: Right he fenced it, that is the only other one that I can think of that has come before this Board.
Mr. Rejman: What is the Boards pleasure?
Mr. Temple: Are we still discussing?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Temple: Fine.
Mr. Darrow: I like what I see and I think its good that he is trying to improve the building. Of course he is helping his business while he is doing it. Cleaning up something that had become an eyesore for a while. But I guess one of my biggest concerns actually two concerns I guess aren’t really concerns of this Board I hate to say and one that if he does go through and complete the plan as he is looking which of course would be up to Planning and my other concern is privacy of the neighbors and how loud even a couple of speakers outside for dinner music, how loud that could get and how much it could travel on a windy day. I do think it is good that he is trying to clean this up and make it aesthetically so much more pleasing.
Mr. Hare: If his only use it says right here in #17, the proposal is an amendment to the building and the only benefit is aesthetics and increased atmosphere for patrons, why do you even need a patio for that, why cant you just do the landscaping in front and put some shrubs and things and clean up the front. Why do you need a patio there if aesthetics is the only reason you are doing this? And I don’t see any kind of hardship whatsoever.
Mr. Gentile: I want to address Eddie's comment about this speaker. He did say there were going to be no speakers out there.
Mr. Temple: I wanted to address that aspect too. In the past we have thought about restrictions with owners that may or may not propose with part of their plan. Once we grant a variance we have no control of what they do in terms of the hours, in terms of the uses that they put it to if allowable with the ABC it will be done, if not by this owner the next owner. You open the door to a variety of things that could happen. I think we deceive ourselves not to realize that. I have always been a stickler about use variances and having to show a hardship. This is a property that has changed hands recently. Pretty clear what it was when the person bought it. I see no hardship and I also would say that as far as some of the other considerations to minimizing variances there
are probably other ways of doing it with some of the set backs, I am not really sure what they should be because it is an R zone, where they could be minimized by some other type of approach and the idea of having this out of doors.
Mr. Rejman: I feel it is a bit much for us to digest tonight and act upon maybe. I kind have like us to consider tabling this and have counsel give us a recommendation at the next meeting after meeting with the applicant. I do fell this thing about this noise thing, it can get away on us and then how do we do that.
Mr. Darrow: I have no problem with tabling it.
Mr. Rejman: I feel more comfortable with that instead of just, if I was forced to go tonight, I am afraid I couldn’t be real positive about it. I would like some more information.
Mr. Gentile: Would the noise thing be a Police Department job?
Mr. Rejman: This is another one of these, from time to time on this Board we have crossed into new territory, Bed and Breakfast, Ed if you can remember that, that took us a couple months to sort that one out. I don’t think we have had something like this before proposed to us other than the Scoreboard. I do like the idea if it is controllable; I think that is the issue.
Mr. Temple: If we are having a tabling I would like to see what the set backs, if there are any need for a variance based on being
Mr. Rejman: This will still go forward to Planning.
Ms. DeAngelo: Right now it doesn’t exist until you grant a use variance, it doesn’t exist.
Mr. Temple: I am also wondering what it is the reason we are discussing the idea of tabling and we have had the presentation and we have seen the plan.
Mr. Rejman: If we say no, he can never bring this back before us again, no matter what he dos. If we table it, then there may be an opportunity that given more information that we may choice to accept this. I don’t want to slam the door in the applicants face right away.
Mr. Darrow: I thing I am confused about Mr. Chairman, I remember more than once in the past on projects of this nature, that Planning was lead agency and acted before us. Why on this one all of a sudden is their foot shut in the door so we are not getting their input.
Mr. Moore: Because they cannot view a plan that does not exist.
Mr. Darrow: You are back to the chicken or the egg.
Ms. DeAngelo: This is a non-conforming use and it needs a use variance before it can go anywhere.
Mr. Darrow: But I would like Planning’s input on the legalization of this non-conforming use.
Mr. Rejman: We have to make the decision
Mr. Darrow: I know we have to make it but
Mr. Rejman: That is why I would like to table it.
Mr. Darrow: Seeing that we have completely no control at all over how its done, you know, what is added what is attracted, what is allowed, what is not allowed therefore I hate to vote in the affirmative or denial for something that I see in front of me that may not be in front of me on the property site in 6 months.
Ms. Marteney: By the time it gets finished the whole thing could be a patio.
Mr. Darrow: Yes. In years past we worked together on projects like this.
Mr. Temple: We have also had the same thing as this where we are asked more or less to buy a pig in a poke, vote on the use variance and then maybe the Planning Board changes we don’t know.
Mr. Rejman: The other issue is the use variance requires some sort of hardship dollars and cents.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Temple addressed that I think, that is one of the merits that the counsel has to seek for this to be tabled until next month. It would be a smart move so that way there could be hardship because with no hardship we have to vote no.
Mr. Rejman: We have no other choice actually. Is there a motion to table?
Mr. Hare: I make a motion that we table 6 Lexington Avenue.
Mr. Darrow: Ill second that.
Mr. Temple: Can we have a discussion on the motion?
Mr. Rejman: Sure.
Mr. Temple: Where is it that we are going resume back at square one when we come back. I have raised this issue in the past also when we get tabling. We have already gone through the presentation, the public to be heard and so on. Are they going to start back and have a second complete hearing? Where are we starting from?
Mr. Darrow: Have to by law.
Mr. Rejman: We are looking mostly for the
Mr. Darrow: We have to have a public portion; we are required to by Open Meeting Law.
Mr. Rejman: And by that time hopefully we will have some input from counsel and some input from Planning, if I can, and we really need some financials.
Mr. Temple: We are going to start basically back at square one.
Mr. Darrow: One thing I recommend is that Mr. Tardibone counsel or representative get the packet from Code Enforcement of what you need to prove for this variance and give them the proper direction.
Mr. Moore: It is part of the application.
Mr. Darrow: It is?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Call the role, please.
VOTING TO TABLE: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Tabled to next meeting. If the applicant would like to get with counsel and discuss this out and get some financials behind this. We like the plan we just need something to hang our hat on, I think that is it to go forward.
______________________________________________________________________
27 Park Avenue, R-1, area variance of 42 square feet for shed. Dale and Janette Elster.
Mr. Rejman: 27 Park Avenue, are you here please? State your name for the record please.
Mr. Elster: Janette Elster and Dale Elster.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do here.
Mrs. Elster: We are proposing to build a 12 foot x 16 foot storage shed on the northeast corner of our property.
Mr. Rejman: You have done a nice job on giving us all the information that we need. About the only question I can raise is 12 x 16, 12 x 12, 12 x 10. Why 12 x 16?
Mrs. Elster: We were told that the size shed that was allowed was 12 x 15 and we looked at sheds kits and they all come even numbered so we are trying to make the most of the 16 foot. We decided to ask for the variance for the 16 foot so we wouldn’t have to go down to the 14, but the 12 just came in there because that was the size of the plans that we found that we liked and we do have quite a bit of stuff, a lawnmower, toys, kiddy pool and there are no other buildings on the property other than the house. We decided that as long as we were trying to fit all our stuff into a shed we asked for the bigger one because we know we have enough stuff to fill it.
Mr. Rejman: OK. That is good. Any questions from the Board? Anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Last call for questions. Good application.
Mr. Darrow: Excellent.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much. We will close the public portion.
Mr. Darrow: There is certainly enough yard for this shed.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wish to make a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Dale and Janette Elster of 27 Park Avenue a variance of 42 square feet for the purpose of erecting a 12 foot x 16 foot storage shed on their property as so noted on the attached lot plan.
Mr. Temple: I'll second it.
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 it.
_______________________________________________________________________
173 Cottage Street, R-1, area variance for addition to garage. Gregory Michaels.
Mr. Rejman: 173 Cottage Street, please.
Mr. Michaels: My name is Greg Michaels and I am sure my application is not nearly as good as theirs. (Everyone laughs)
Mr. Rejman: OK, Greg, tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Michaels: I have a lot at 172 Cottage Street that has an existing garage on it that is 24 x 32 feet. There is a 2-½-car garage that is already there. I talked to my architect I am going to put another 12 feet x 24 feet right next to it for another bay of the garage. The purpose behind that is I have a riding lawnmower, roller tiller, a whole bunch of other stuff and another car. The lot is large and space where I want to it is towards the open side very far away from the property line. I am asking for a variance to put more square footage than I am allowed for a garage for the purpose of attaching a house onto it.
Mr. Rejman: I am confused, it is not you, it is the map.
Mr. Moore: He is subdividing, he hasn’t done it yet. One problem is I cant give him a permit for that garage until there is a house because once he makes that a lot that garage is an accessory structure and it has to be accessory to
Mr. Rejman: Something
Mr. Moore: A house.
Ms. Marteney: The variance goes in the other direction not into the other lot
Mr. Moore: He is subdividing that into two lots.
Mr. Michaels: I moved the line from the right side of the garage to the left side so I would have 7 feet
Mr. Moore: This is the new line here (points to map), and this is going to be one lot here. A and B.
Mr. Rejman: B is going to be a huge lot.
Mr. Moore: B is going to be a big lot, A is going to be a small lot.
Ms. Marteney: And the garage no longer goes to this lot, ah.
Mr. Moore: Right.
Mr. Temple: Who is Mr. Panek?
Mr. Michaels: He is the previous owner. I own the whole lot right now, with a house on it and that garage. Last year I bought this and I wanted to put a house right here but I didn’t have enough room to get in here so I decided to move the line from this side to that side, so now this is all one lot with this existing garage there. Right now I have a deed to this property right here separate parcel and I have property here which is separate. I guess I am going to change this parcel from here to there and then I will get a deed for this already surveyed land and this will be a lot with just a garage so that I can put up a house right in here. I was going to put a house in here and merge it but I cant have two houses on one lot so that is why I moved the property line over and will have
one big lot with no house so I can put a house there.
Mr. Temple: Has the property already been transferred to you?
Mr. Michaels: I bought the property last summer so I have the deeds, I am the owner for both of those parcels, but I have not moved the property line yet over to the left hand side of that garage because I thought I could put a house in there and just merge the two properties and have one big lot but it already has one home on it and the ordinance says you cant have two homes on one lot no matter what the size so I figure the best thing for me to do is maybe move that line over to the other side of that garage and have the house on that lot on the left and just a garage on the lot on the right so that way I could put a house on that lot.
Mr. Rejman: I think we understand.
Mr. Temple: On question, you showed a figure of 50 feet as the extended
Mr. Michaels: That is not true, the existing garage now is 24 x 32.
Mr. Temple: You are going to add 12 foot
Mr. Michaels: I am going to add 12 foot, another bay.
Mr. Temple: So it will be 44 feet.
Mr. Gentile: Do you have a copy of the deed with you?
Mr. Michaels: No.
Mr. Gentile: I am confused on the ownership of the Panek property. This is showing that it is still Panek. One says Michaels, the other says Panek.
Mr. Moore: We have it in our assessment files.
Mr. Gentile: OK.
Mr. Michaels: Have been paying taxes on it for the past year.
Ms. DeAngelo: The information that you provided was from the County Real Property Office and it is possible the City has not received this information.
Mr. Gentile: OK.
Mr. Michaels: I have my survey and I will take it to the County show that I have had it surveyed and move that property line over and it will change the boundaries of both of those pieces of property.
Mr. Rejman: Very good, final questions? None. OK, thank you very much, closes the public portion. Are we all clear?
Mr. Temple: Point of order. You closed the public portion but you didn’t ask if there was anyone to speak for or against it.
Mr. Rejman: Good point, I will reopen that. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Thank you Gary. Back to comments, concerns, motions.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t have a problem with it particularly when you consider he cannot get his permit for the addition to the garage until the house is built. So therefore we are not going to end up with a big garage on that lot. He has to have the house up first for the garage to be an accessory structure to it. So he can’t get the permit to put the addition on the garage.
Ms. Marteney: Is that right Jim?
Mr. Moore: Yes that is right.
Mr. Westlake: The are we doing?
Mr. Darrow: Obviously he is going to have to get the house within 6 months or extend the variance before it runs out.
Mr. Michaels: I have plans to build this summer. BOCES has agreed to take it on as a project.
Ms. Marteney: Take on what?
Mr. Michaels: Take on building my house.
Ms. Marteney: The house. OK.
Mr. Michaels: They are going to start this summer if I can get the ok.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Gregory Michaels of 175 Cottage Street a 738 square foot variance for the purpose of erecting a 12 foot x 24 foot addition on said garage at 173 Cottage Street as per attached plans.
Mr. Hare: I'll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Michaels: Thank you.
_______________________________________________________________________
40 Park Avenue, R-1-A, area variance of 9 feet for pool. William A. Sanderson
Mr. Rejman: 40 Park Avenue, are you here?
Mrs. Sanderson: Cindy Sanderson. Looking for a variance of 9 foot for a 24 foot round pool and our next-door neighbor, Barbara Swietoniowski at 38 Park Avenue, she could not make it tonight, she wrote a note.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board?
Mr. Temple: I will ask the question that I asked the other folks here tonight. Any reason the pool has to be located exactly where you are showing it.
Mrs. Sanderson: Our driveway doesn’t actually fit where he has it, it is closer to where the house is. It fits right along the side of the house, there is only like maybe 2 ½ foot of grass from the foundation to the driveway going down. Then the garage sits almost a foot into the yard. So where we wanted to put the pool, if we moved the pool over, it would sit right on the driveway. Right on the edge of the driveway and then we wouldn’t be able to get the car into the driveway, into the garage.
Mr. Temple: Mentioned 8 feet here
Mrs. Sanderson: We have our dog hooked from the back of the house to the corner of the garage so he has a run, he is on a runner, so he can run back and forth.
Mr. Temple: What about this?
Mrs. Sanderson: I think what he meant the tree is almost 8 feet from the garage. Trees sit up further, not quite to the middle of the garage but back further. I think that is where he got the 8-foot. Barb will also have 13 feet 6 inches on her side of grassy areas.
Mr. Temple: Is there any reason that you have to have a 24-foot pool?
Mrs. Sanderson: We were thinking about going with a 21, 24 would just give the kids extra swimming area for when their friends come over because we do have a lot of kids in the neighborhood that come over from Cady Street. We had a 15-foot blow up type things and they destroyed it last year because they are getting too big. If we went with the 21 we would still need a variance for that too.
Mr. Temple: The lady that wrote the letter is she the owner of the property?
Mrs. Sanderson: Yes she is.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Closing questions from the Board? No. Close the public portion and discuss amongst us.
Mr. Darrow: Technically it would work but the garage and driveway are in the way.
Mr. Temple: I am concerned about a 1 foot set back it doesn’t seem realistic that we aren’t going to see water shed on someone’s property.
Mr. Darrow: I see the dog run and I just don’t understand why moving the pool over into the dog run area and change the direction of the dog run, if its orientation now is say east and west, changing the dog run north and south.
Mrs. Sanderson: Where would I hook it.
Mr. Darrow: To a post. Put a 4 x 4 in the yard and attach the dog run to it.
Mr. Hare: We know that you get along with your neighbor now but this will go with your property forever and anybody in the future with this 1 foot from the property line, that is what our concern is.
Mr. Rejman: Go back to this, the proportions on this are better.
Mr. Temple: May not be a problem, I think it is ill advised to go with such minimal setbacks.
Mr. Darrow: There are other choices of 21 or 18. We had a gentleman that was willing to put a 12-foot earlier tonight so that he would have something for the kids.
Mr. Rejman: What would you like to do? Would you like to amend this, would you like to vote on this? The applicant should amend it.
Mr. Temple: I would like to make a motion that we grant an area variance for William A. Sanderson of 9 feet side line for the purpose of erecting a swimming pool on the west side of the property line.
Mr. Gentile: I'll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow-based on the facts that I believe there are some size changes that could be made to minimize any variances needed that have not been looked at properly, Mr. Temple-agrees with Mr. Darrow’s points.
Mr. Rejman: Application has been not been approved. You may resubmit next month or look at other options and you may not even need to come before us.
Mr. Rejman: Any other business wishing to come before the Board?
Mr. Darrow: I have one question. I have in my packet minutes from an April 15th meeting. I was unaware we had an April 15th meeting.
Mr. Rejman: It was a special meeting.
Mr. Moore: You didn’t show.
Mr. Darrow: That is because I was not informed of the meeting. When did we vote on a mid session meeting?
Mr. Gentile: We never voted on it.
Mr. Rejman: Didn’t work that way.
Mr. Darrow: I know I didn’t work that way otherwise I would have known about it.
Mr. Rejman: Melina called me and said that she needed to have a special meeting, time was of the essence.
Mr. Darrow: Who called?
Mr. Rejman: Melina Carnicelli. Time was of the essence sort of thing they couldn’t wait and I didn’t question that because counsel said yes time was of the essence and they asked for a special meeting and we got that together for her.
Mr. Darrow: I would ask that the record show that I was not absent due to the fact that I was never informed of the meeting.
Mr. Moore: They advertised it.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Moore, being on the Board for 12 years I never had to rely on the Citizen Advertiser to be informed of a meeting. I have always received something at my house. I received nothing about this meeting. I don’t want my attendance to reflect absenteeism when I was not truly absent.
Mr. Gentile: In the future, I would like to have this Board vote on a special meeting.
Mr. Darrow: That has always been our policy.
Mr. Gentile: Rather than have the Mayor saying we are going to have a meeting.
Mr. Rejman: Understand counsel was involved with this too. Corporate Counsel
Mr. Darrow: Even a phone call to the members
Mr. Gentile: Date wasn’t good, I was out of town that day.
Mr. Rejman: We will get an updated phone list to them. Next meeting, Memorial Day.
Mrs. Westlake: How about the day after Memorial Day, Tuesday, May 28th?
Mr. Darrow: Works for me.
Mr. Hare: No problem.
Mr. Rejman: Next meeting, Tuesday, May 28, 2002.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
| 
