ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MAY 29, 2002
Members Present: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, and Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Staff Present: Mr. Miller, Mr. Moore, Ms. Hussey
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 59 Arterial West, 47 Havens Avenue
APPLICATIONS TABLED: 17 Anderson Circle, 177-187 State Street, 4 Pleasant Street
APPLICATIONS DENIED: 37 Elizabeth Street, 6 Lexington Avenue
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have seven items. We have: 17 Anderson Circle, 59 Arterial West, 37 Elizabeth Street, 177 - 187 State Street, 47 Havens Avenue, 4 Pleasant Street, 6 Lexington Avenue
________________________________________________________________________
17 Anderson Circle, R-1, side yard area variance of 4 10” for construction of a carport. Suzanne Norton and Mary Balch.
Mr. Rejman: 17 Anderson Circle, are you here?
Ms. Balch: Yes we are.
Mr. Rejman: Step up to the microphone please. State your name for the record and tell us what you would like to do there.
Ms. Balch: My name is Mary Balch and we own the property at 17 Anderson Circle and we would like to build a carport that will extend over toward our neighbors. We are allowed 2 feet and we will be 2 feet 2 inches.
Mr. Rejman: OK. You are going to build within 2 feet 2 inches and you need a variance of 4 feet 10 inches.
Ms. Balch: Why do we need a variance of 4 feet 10 inches? They told us that we had to have 3 feet from their boundary over.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore: No they were told 7 foot, this is treated the same as an addition.
Ms. Balch: When I called the gentleman he said as long as it was 3 feet over there was no problem and when our builder came he said he said we need to have this extra space so we thought we were only 8 or 10 inches off.
Mr. Rejman: OK. We are going to work through that. Right now any questions from the Board?
Mr. Temple: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good evening.
Ms. Balch: Good evening.
Mr. Temple: Just wondering what is it that dictates that the carport needed to be the size you applied for?
Ms. Balch: The car port is only going to be 18 x 20, very small car port to begin with, just the size of the car and the ramp that we have built there. We have a handicapped person living there. The ramp was out in the exposed weather last winter and found out that it got very slippery and unmanageable for the person using a walker so we want it under cover and we want to get the car under cover so he doesn’t end up on a slippery driveway either.
Mr. Temple: You said 18 x 20?
Ms. Balch: Yes.
Mr. Temple: The application, which I have here, says 16 x 20 so is that an
amendment that you are wanting to make at this time?
Ms. Balch: I think we made a mistake; it should be 18 x 20.
Mr. Temple: I myself did not go up there and measure, but maybe Mr.
Moore, have you any knowledge as to whether 18 x 20 as opposed to 16 x
20?
Mr. Moore: When she came it she applied for a 16 x 20 carport.
Ms. Balch: The drawing I have here shows 16 x 20 so
Mr. Moore: Shows also that she needed a minimum of 7 foot to the side
property line, in the application.
Mr. Temple: It is 16 x 20, ok. I would ask you again what determined how
did you determine that it needed to be 16 x 20; I think your answer said that
you said it was the size of a car.
Ms. Balch: Car plus the ramp. We already have a ramp that is built there.
Mr. Temple: I saw that.
Ms. Balch: So between the ramp and the car we would have enough room to
get in and move around, would be able to walk around and hopefully he
stays in a walker, but if it changes to a wheelchair you need all that extra
room to wheel the wheelchair around. We are looking to the future. Make
sure that we have enough room ramp, wheelchair, have to have that in there
plus the car.
Mr. Temple: OK, thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Any other questions from the Board? Yes?
Mr. Hare: Your neighbor just to the right that would be affected the most,
have you heard anything from them, have you had any kind of a note from
them saying that they minded or don’t mind if this carport be this close?
Mr. Diffin: We are here.
Mr. Rejman: Let me do this. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak for or
against the application? Yes. Come to the podium, please state your name.
Mr. Diffin: Yes, my name is Paul Diffin and I reside at 15 Anderson Circle.
The size of the variance they are asking for we feel is a bit excessive. There
is suppose to be a 7 foot set back on that side of the property and this would
bring their structure within 2 feet of the property line. We are looking at it
from aesthetics the look of it. We believe the set backs are there for a reason
to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood allows space between the
houses. We are not opposed to a carport. We feel the carport could
probably be built a little smaller. I guess we would be open to some type of
variance allowing 1 or 2 additional feet to accommodate such a structure.
Getting it within 2 feet of the property line if anything was placed outside of
the structure it would be over the property line. We did speak with them,
but we did want to come and voice our opinion, what we thought of it and if
there is any way that you can find some other way of building the structure
and keep us happy, what would be an appropriate space between the two
houses. One thing we did mention to them was moving the ramp so that it
wasn’t parallel to the house.
Mr. Darrow: Approximately how many feet would you say your closest structure is to the property line where the carport is going to be?
Mr. Diffin: I did not measure it but I would say approximately with the set back 18 feet.
Mr. Darrow: OK.
Mr. Diffin: We do not have a fence up; we plan on putting one up in the future. We do not have any plans at this time for any addition on that side of the house. I think we have up to 10 feet for an addition if we had a fence it would be on the property line and that will be close.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Thank you.
Mr. Diffin: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none. Let me pause for a moment here. Can I have the neighbor Paul step back for a second?
Mr. Diffin: Yes sir.
Mr. Rejman: It isn’t the objection to the carport, it is just a size issue at this point, is that it?
Mr. Diffin: Yes sir. From a carport to an enclosed structure like a garage or addition, that would require another variance?
Mr. Rejman: Yes. They would have to come back to us.
Mr. Diffin: A carport is different than a garage or addition?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Diffin: I don’t have any objection to the carport just coming that close to the property.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Thanks for that.
Mr. Diffin: Yes sir.
Mr. Rejman: Just food for thought for a moment here, I am not sure I would like to go ahead and vote this one way or the other. Maybe it seems there is an opportunity for the two parties to get together and resolve this with a change in dimensions on the application and if someone would like to make a motion to table this to allow those two to get together.
Mr. Hare: I would like to make a motion to table.
Mr. Temple: I will second that. I would like to add that I did go up and look at the property, but I would like to look at the termination of the ramp where it comes down to the ground and see just what the requirement is there for a 16-foot wide carport. I did not go up there with a tape measure.
Mr. Darrow: It does seem a little wider than really necessary when you consider a standard garage door is 76” to 8 so if you added another 42 inches for the ramp, room to get out of the car
Mr. Hare: Neighbors objection poses a serious problem.
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: But it seems like they are willing to work something out here and I would like to give them the chance to do that.
Mr. Temple: If they had the carport reduced in size they only need to reduce it 5 foot they would not even need to have a variance at all.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t even know considering the neighbors’ opinion and feelings that it needs to be reduced to that sense.
Mr. Temple: A compromise, work out something.
Mr. Rejman: I would like to go that route first. Is there a motion on the table?
Mr. Darrow: Yes and seconded.
VOTING TO TABLE: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Would the applicant come forward for a moment, so you can understand what we did here.
Ms. Balch: My sister will have to come I will not be here. She is the primary resident there.
Mr. Rejman: All right. What we did was we didn’t want to close the door on this had we been forced to move ahead and vote on this it would have been difficult in the future. This way we are just tabling it and allowing you to get together with the neighbor. Maybe a few feet here and there and everyone is happy. We would like you to try that first and then come back to us if you still need us. All right? Application has been tabled so that the parties to get together to see if something can be worked out.
Ms. Balch: So it is 7 feet from their property line and
Mr. Rejman: At that point you don’t need us
Ms. Balch: Don’t need a variance.
Mr. Rejman: Right, but if you get into that 7 foot. Get together and work it out.
Ms. Norton: Suppose we work out where they say we can move another 3 feet but still within the 7 feet, in other words not the full 7 feet do we have to come back for a variance?
Mr. Rejman: If you into that 7 foot area, say you are 1 foot into it, then you come back to us and we will see that everyone is happy and chances are really good at that point that will give you that 1 foot.
Mr. Hare: If we voted this down tonight it would shut the door on you. We didn’t want to do that; maybe you can work things out.
Mr. Rejman: Good luck, see you next month.
Ms. Balch: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
59 Arterial West, C-1, area variance to install a second sign on the west façade of restaurant. Ordinance only permits one per street line. Patrick Parisi.
Mr. Rejman: 59 Arterial West, are you here please?
Mr. Parisi: My name is Pat Parisi.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there please.
Mr. Parisi: What we would like to do is erect a 4 x 4 oval sign on the façade of the building that we just purchased. Going on façade of the front entrance.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore, I am a little confused here on the map. What are we looking for? What is the variance?
Mr. Moore: Just another sign.
Mr. Rejman: Just a sign. Right. Not a square footage thing too.
Mr. Moore: No.
Mr. Rejman: Just wanted to make that clear.
Mr. Moore: Again I don’t know how to explain it, we are revisiting this to correct this in a C-1 district. Very restrictive in a commercial district, the Planning Board is going rewriting some of this law.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board? Yes.
Mr. Temple: I see the one sign I will call it a pedestal sign, that is two faced two sided is that lit?
Mr. Parisi: Yes it is.
Mr. Temple: OK, tell us why you need another sign, why at two locations?
Mr. Moore: Look at the map.
Mr. Temple: I looked at the site.
Mr. Moore: People coming up the arterial will be able to see that on the front of the building.
Mr. Parisi: Exactly. The existing sign isn’t really our logo, what we would like to do is put our actual logo on the building so people can see it traveling east on the arterial.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Final questions from the Board? Concerns? We will close the public portion and we will discuss this amongst ourselves and vote on this. Thank you. Comments, concerns.
Mr. Temple: I want to ask Mr. Moore a question. Do you have any ideas what the changes that might be envisioned for signage?
Mr. Moore: Increase the square footage of signage and possibly the number of signs.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Ms. Marteney: I don’t think it is an overly large sign. The exterior changes that they have made look great, add visually to the building.
Mr. Moore: They put a substantial amount of money in that building.
Mr. Rejman: Hearing that is there anyone wishing to make a motion?
Mr. Hare: I would like to make a motion that we grant Patrick Parisi owner of the establishment at 59 Arterial West, an area variance for one additional sign of 12.6 square feet.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that motion.
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 and you are right in business.
Mr. Parisi: Thank you very much.
________________________________________________________________________
37 Elizabeth Street, R-1A, area variance for storage shed to located 2 feet from the house instead of the required 10 feet and variance to allow construction of accessory structure in front yard. Ordinance does not allow accessory structure in front yards. Christina Aaserud.
Mr. Rejman: 37 Elizabeth Street please. Are you here?
Mr. Aaserud: Good evening, Gary and Christina Aaserud.
Mr. Rejman: You are looking for an area variance for a storage shed?
Mr. Aaserud: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Was there a shed there before, an existing structure there?
Mr. Aaserud: No.
Mr. Moore: I have pictures.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore has pictures.
Mr. Aaserud: It is not completed; we were told we were in violation so we stopped all the work. There are some things that I need to do like paint to match the existing building, trim has to be put on it, jack it up because it is not level, put bushes and flowers around it. We bought the house 3 years ago; we put a lot of money into it.
Mr. Rejman: So it is my understanding that we are dealing with a 66 x 63 lot, small lot.
Mr. Aaserud: Yes, very small lot, corner lot.
Mr. Rejman: Just wanted that for the record.
Mr. Moore: This was published as 2 feet, it is 2 inches. It was published as 2 feet, but if you see the application says 2 inches.
Mr. Temple: Is that a technical problem?
Ms. Hussey: The application is correct
Mr. Temple: I wondered if the advertisement wasn’t correct
Ms. Hussey: Actually it is a greater impact the published notice so if there was any adverse public comment then that would come into it, but because the application is of a minimum variance then there should be no problem, just a technicality.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board?
Mr. Aaserud: What we want to use it for since it is close to the house is kids bicycles, toys, lawn mower.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Yes Mr. Temple.
Mr. Temple: I was wondering why you would situate the structure there.
Mr. Aaserud: No matter where we put it we would still run into the 10 foot 3 foot rule no matter where we are because it is a small yard. We just figured it was the best spot kind of out of the way and not take up any more yard space.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Yes, step forward please and state your name.
Mr. Gordon: My name is Gordon and I own property to the west of this property. I was just wondering what I was concerned about was the wording here “and a variance to allow construction of an accessory structure” I was wondering what that was.
Mr. Moore: A shed.
Mr. Gordon: This is all about a shed?
Mr. Rejman: All about the shed.
Mr. Gordon: I thought there was going to be a second structure. There is not going to be a second structure?
Mr. Moore: No. That is their structure; the shed is an accessory structure.
Mr. Gordon: OK. That was my question.
Mr. Rejman: So how do you feel about the shed being there?
Mr. Gordon: I was a little concerned because it is not the most attractive but they did state they are going to do some stuff to improve it. I hope they do some stuff to improve it, but other than that I don’t have problem with where it is located.
Mr. Rejman: Terrific. Thank you. I think the pictures have made it all the way around. Any questions from the Board?
Mr. Gentile: Considering the size of the lot, I think it is a decent location for it.
Mr. Rejman: OK. I think Mr. Temple had a question.
Mr. Temple: Yes, I wasn’t sure if the author of this one letter as part of the package is present, Mr. Gauthier. “To Whom it may concern: We, Paul and Deborah Gauthier hereby give Christina Aaserud of 37 Elizabeth Street, Auburn, New York a variance to renovate a shed that adjoins our property line at 43-45 Steel Street, Auburn, New York”. What does it mean when they say renovate? Did you tell him what you were going to do?
Mr. Aaserud: He said never ran across anything like this so he wrote a letter like this and told him if he had any objections to the shed. And he said no as long as it is kept up. What his thoughts were when he wrote the letter, I really am not sure, but when I talked to him he had no objection as long as it was kept up.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Final call for questions. We will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Comments, concerns.
Mr. Darrow: I really don’t have a problem with a 42 square foot accessory structure. I mean if it was in the back and he needed a variance from the property lines to make it more presentable wouldn’t have a problem with that. But I do have some concern about granting a variance for it to be in the front of the house. Because if I am understanding correctly they also need a variance for that shed to be in the front of the house. Am I correct Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Hare: That isn’t the front.
Mr. Temple: That is what I wondered, why did we call this the front, it is the side of the house, right in line with the porch.
Mr. Gentile: Part of it would be in the front of the house though.
Mr. Rejman: The house is on Elizabeth
Ms. Marteney: It is on a corner
Mr. Rejman: I know it is a corner thing
Mr. Temple: If you drew a line down the front of the house, we usually say that is where the front line begins for purposes of fences and other things, and this shed would be totally behind that line of the front of the house.
Ms. Marteney: Visually it is on the front
Mr. Darrow: It is on the front because it is in front of the house on the side of the porch.
Mr. Moore: It is in a little alcove, but it also looks like it has got 25 foot front yard too and that is all that is required of a front yard.
Mr. Rejman: This is a 10 foot side yard variance.
Mr. Darrow: 10 foot side yard variance and a front yard variance for putting this accessory structure in the front yard. That is where I run into concerns.
Mr. Temple: About the front yard use?
Mr. Darrow: Yes. I have no trouble with the size or the side yard variance truly on the side of the house or the back, when you consider how small city lots can be.
Mr. Rejman: That is the issue here. If we choose to say no and they move it to a different portion of the lot they have to come right back before us again.
Mr. Darrow: I feel it would be enough change in circumstances to warrant another hearing personally.
Mr. Temple: What?
Mr. Darrow: If they were to be denied this evening, I personally, my personal opinion I don’t know what the Chairs is, but if they reapply for the variance say for the back yard or some other portion of the property, that is enough change in circumstances to warrant them another appearance.
Mr. Rejman: Counsel is happy with that.
Mr. Temple: I have had always had some concern about uses of front yards, the swimming pool we passed here once I was in favor of that. I am the guardian of the front yard I guess you could say, but I have a particular concern about this particular shed. I looked at the application the comment page here it says they take pride in the appearance of their house. This particular shed has its problems from my structural point of view, it is tipsy, the roof tips the wrong way and sheds water back to the house, you can see daylight between the slats of the boards there, no amount of paint is going to cover up all those problems. I have concerns about the neighbor that was here that spoke, he spoke to some of those things.
Ms. Marteney: I agree, I find the visual of the shed very unappealing in the front yard and I don’t like the way the roof slants back against the house, they are going to have some problems there. I find it unappealing that it goes there in the front corner.
Mr. Rejman: Not an opinion just to play devils advocate for a moment, all the neighbors within 400 yards were notified and only one showed. So the neighborhood doesn’t really mind it. So we can waive that. What does the Board wish to do?
Mr. Darrow: We need to vote on it. I would like to make a motion that we grant a 10 foot side yard variance and a variance for the purpose of erecting an accessory structure in the front yard to Christina Aaserud of 37 Elizabeth Street, as per drawing attached.
Mr. Hare: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Hare, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney-I feel there are other alternatives for placing the shed, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple-I feel the same as Ms. Marteney, Mr. Rejman-I think there are other alternatives here.
Mr. Rejman: Application has been denied.
Mr. Aaserud: What is our next step.
Mr. Rejman: David would mind talking with them in chambers for a moment.
________________________________________________________________________
177-187 State Street, C-1, Applicant wishes to install 7 signs with a total of 245.7 square feet for all signs combined. The Zoning Ordinance allows one sign per street frontage with a maximum of 50 square feet in area for each street frontage, or 100 square feet for frontage on two streets. Applicant is requesting a variance of 5 additional signs and 145.7 square feet in total area. Hart, Meath, Primo, LLC for Kinney Drug Store.
Mr. Rejman: 177-187 State Street, are you here?
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike O’Neill; I am with American Group One, representing Kinney Drugs for a sign variance application. I have a couple of photographs of what the signs are going to look like. That is not Elbridge that is the one in North Syracuse. The building will look exactly like that it wont have that pink colored brick on it. Effectively size wise the sign that say Kinney Drug are 58 square feet and that is exactly the same size sign that is at the Owasco Plaza Kinney Drug. There would be two of those signs, one on each side of the building as you see in that particular photograph. This property is located in the C-1 zone and therefore the maximum sign is 50 square feet and this particular size is 58 square feet.
In addition to that particular sign we would also ask for a pylon sign but I am not certain that we need that
Mr. Moore: For the sign itself.
Mr. O’Neill: I had read the ordinance and I had thought that 17 feet was the maximum size of the height of the sign, we will not exceed 22 feet so the height of the size is ok, but we have wordage on the sign about 80 square feet and need a variance for the area of the sign.
In addition to that there are signs that are one foot high by 10-12 or 16 feet long that say One Hour Photo, Drive Thru Pharmacy that type of advertising that is on the building and some of them are shown in that photograph. We will not be putting in any directional signage at the entrances so those would not be included. Therefore we have got two signs that are 58 square feet on each of the two gables, and then there are the one foot high sign that on the building that say Drive Thru Pharmacy, One Hour Photo, Food Mart that type of signage and then we would ask for the square footage of the pylon sign to be 80 square feet. That particular sign is a reader board and it is actually half the size of the sign at Owasco Plaza.
Mr. Rejman: Very good. Questions from the Board at this point?
Ms. Marteney: What is the variance for the pole sign?
Mr. O’Neill: The ordinance allows three times the height of the sign for the square footage so that would be 66 square feet and the sign as measured is 80 square feet so we need 14 square feet of signage. If the sign is higher than the way the ordinance is written we would want to keep the sign shorter.
Mr. Moore: But the way the ordinance is written it is up to a maximum of 50 feet period. No matter how many signs you can only have 50 square foot of signage. That is why he is asking for 245 square foot variance because of the number of signs.
Mr. Temple: I am trying to come up with that number of 245
Mr. Moore: It is 145 because each street is allowed 50 square feet, he is on a corner.
Mr. Temple: That would be 100
Mr. Moore: Then you take 100 feet off of the total.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore is this something that going to be addressed again this whole signage
Mr. Moore: This is a C-1 district and this should not be. You get more and more signs brought before you in this district because it is very restrictive.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application?
Mr. Holbert: George Holbert, I live at 150-152 Seymour Street. If this project goes through why not just keep them at the bare minimum. My God, City Hall doesn’t have a sign that big and everybody knows where City Hall is. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: We have another one. Yes. Come up.
Mr. Walczyk: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Joseph Walczyk, I live directly across the street from the proposed Kinney Drug Store. I had some concerns about the size of the sign as well as the illumination of the sign as well as the reader board. If those of you that are familiar with the corner of State and Seymour Streets you already know there is a Mobile Convenience Mart there directly across from that project also on my south side, so in the evening I can read my newspaper just by opening my blinds. Those signs are the same height as my window on the second floor and that illumination is 24/7 so that is a huge problem for the building.
We did have some discussion with the developer during the site plan review that was scheduled a couple of weeks ago and they did make some promises, but I am here this evening to ask the Board that if they do grant signs that they put restrictions on the signage and hours of use. They are asking for a variance of approximately 146% that is a substantial variance for a neighborhood that is boarded on three sides by residents. I really am the only one that is on the commercial side. My neighbors that are here may or may not be speaking here tonight have residences on each side. That is going to have an impact on those residences as well as me directly across the street.
When the developer originally spoke to the site plan the other day he said at that time the height of the sign would be 30 feet. Mr. O’Neill now has come in and said the maximum height is 22 feet. Is that correct?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes.
Mr. Walczyk: I still think that is too high and the reason is if you measure from the ground up 22 feet, you are still going to be on second floor windows. I had a tenant living next door to me and I live right across the street. It was also said that those signs would be turned off at 9:30 at night. That may be true when the store originally opens but how do we know in the future those signs wont burn 24/7 just like the Mobile signs. I am asking you to consider that if you grant variances that you put restrictions on the times the signs are allowed to be operated.
They made mention of a reader board. I don’t know if that is going to be electronic.
Mr. O’Neill: Yes it is.
Mr. Walczyk: It is ok, if that is electronic that could be on 24/7 also. Having that type of illumination on the adjacent houses again, I am facing the store, they are all around the store, it may create difficulty for them. They did do a good job the other day addressing the signage issue from the standpoint of signage on the building itself, they did talk about the lights pointing down on the building. Now they are talking about the signage in the surrounding area and we already have a problem there and my neighbors will tell you the same thing with the light from the Mobile station it is constantly on, if it is not lights from the Mobile station it is headlights from the cars. I realize that is beyond the preview of this Board but you could help us a little bit with the illumination
factor.
If I understand this correctly now, the pylon sign is going to be 17 feet high the whole signage area.
Mr. O’Neill: I said it was going to be 21 feet high.
Mr. Walczyk: OK, 80 square foot sign.
Mr. O’Neill: Yes.
Mr. Walczyk: Illuminated with a reader board?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes.
Mr. Walczyk: 80 square feet, now if you can imagine this, I am not good at numbers, but my house is approximately from the where the Chairman is sitting to the last bench that is the distance between where that sign is going to be located approximately to where my windows are. I ask you to consider that when you consider the signage because of the fact that if that is on until 9:30 p.m. my building is going to bathed in light. If it is on past 9:30 with that reader board it is going to look like a stadium just like it does on the south with the Mobile Convenience Mart. So please keep that mind when you look at this variance, it is a lot of additional signage. I understand they need signage in a business but I also think you can put some restrictions on it and use your power wisely you can
compromise all the neighborhood as well as the developers. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application?
Mrs. Iannone: My name is Carla Iannone and I have lived in the building where Tony's Barber Shop is located or directly across from the Mobile Station will be facing, I am not sure north, south, east or west Kinney Drug. I am also concerned about the amount of lights that are going to go in. We do have an abundance of it from the Mobile, now they are talking where these lights are going to be facing the front of our building and it is going to illuminate our bedroom.
Mr. Iannone: Front and side.
Mr. Rejman: State your name for the record.
Mr. Iannone: Francis “Tony” Iannone.
Mrs. Iannone: So we were hoping that you would take into consideration also and have the lights lowered and the 22 feet high also and the sign. That really bothers me because even with drapes you are not going to block out all that light that comes into your home.
Mr. Iannone: We are having the same problem as Joe is having.
Mrs. Iannone: And we will be just as close to it on the opposite side from Joe. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against the application? OK, will the applicant come back to the podium please?
Mr. O’Neill: I thank everyone for their comments and we would not have a problem with any motion that has the lights turned off at 9:15.
Mr. Darrow: Not in our power.
Mr. O’Neill: That will be on the Planning Board site plan review, we have agreed to that to have the lights off on the signs at 9:15. So that will be there. The other questions on lighting, the lights we have on the building the parking lights do shine down, however they are correct the lights on the which shine on the pylon sign that would be illuminated but we would again have that turned off. 21 foot height of the sign basically if we lowered the sign it would cause for us a problem with motorist not being able to see there is somewhat of a sign block across the sign if the sign comes down. We are trying to keep it up 8 feet of clearance so that you see underneath the sign so that you can see if anyone is on the sidewalk. That is the reason for that height.
Mr. Darrow: See I think that it would make it much easier for everyone to understand there are only two things we can currently look at. The fact that there are going to be 5 signs and the fact that you are 145.7 square foot over. As far as regulating what you are going to use for bulbs, where they are going to shine, the height of the sign is in the Code, so we are very limited to what we can put into our motion. These are more issues that Planning has control over.
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you for that clarification. I just want to point out that we are willing to work with that.
Mr. Rejman: Final questions from the Board?
Mr. Temple: One of the parts of the packet submitted to us showed a sign colored Kinney name on it and so forth, that shows a height at the top of the sign of 35 feet. Where is the 22 that you are talking about? Is that at the very top?
Mr. O’Neill: That is a previous version, we lowered the sign to 22, actually it will be 21.
Mr. Temple: 21 you just said yes. So you propose a 21-foot maximum
Mr. O’Neill: Correct
Mr. Temple: Height. Where will these lights be in relation, this apparently is not going to be backlit?
Mr. O’Neill: Actually what would happen is we can do whatever the Board would prefer, we can back light it or shine lights up on it. I guess what we could do with that particular sign is back light the sign and turn it off at 9:15.
Mr. Temple: I think what we need to know is what you are proposing because we can’t tell you
Mr. O’Neill: Backlit, I think once we turn it off it will be less light.
Mr. Temple: What about the little message board, is that going to be the same type of thing as what currently is displaced up on the corner of Owasco
Mr. O’Neill: Exact same sign yes. That also would be turned off at 9:15.
Mr. Temple: The part that pertains to the message board has very minimal illumination, I looked at the one up on Owasco Street, I don’t think that would be enough to disturb anybody. The part that pertains to the upper part which is Kinney Pharmacy whether it is back lit or beamed at from various directions would certainly produce the bulk of the light that we have heard would be objectionable to some of the neighbors. Do you agree with that?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes.
Mr. Temple: OK. In keeping with the need to minimize variances, can you tell us why is it that we need to duplicate what is already nicely done on the sides facing both streets, why do we need to have this Kinney Pharmacy part of this pylon sign. In other words if you understand what I am saying, this is two parts the pylon sign, why do you need to have the part that says Kinney Pharmacy that is duplication, that is what I am asking. Why do you need to duplicate that when you have on both sides facing both of your streets on the building?
Mr. O’Neill: Basically the building sets back from the street the building is not in the current location so that with the pylon sign up you can see the pylon sign on State farther down say by the prison where you couldn’t see it the building sign until you get quite close to the intersection because the building sits back about 50 feet north of Seymour and 50 feet west of State Street. So the building basically sits back with the landscaping up front. If you would like if it would make it easier we could make that a non-illuminated sign if that helps.
Mr. Temple: That particular Kinney Pharmacy sign?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes.
Mr. Temple: Do you have a plot plan that shows where that particular pylon sign is going to be located?
Mr. O’Neill: This is an older version of the site plan. The building basically sits back, the pylon sign would be right here (points to plan).
Mr. Temple: If I may ask you also, the signs which are shown on the front I believe will be facing both streets, these are also illuminated some how, how are they illuminated?
Mr. O’Neill: Backlit signs. They also would come off at 9:15.
Mr. Temple: In addition, you have parking lot lights that are going to be going on?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes, there will be a down light here, down light here, down light here and a down light there (points to plan). On the building there are three down lights and two on this side.
Mr. Temple: Three down lights are attached to the building?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes and shine down.
Mr. Temple: Those lights are turned off at the same time?
Mr. O’Neill: I think we
Mr. Moore: Those are going to be on.
Mr. O’Neill: Yes, those are going to be on.
Mr. Moore: For vandalism.
Mr. Temple: Mr. Chairman there has been a suggestion made as to not illuminating the pylon sign what so ever. That is a bit different than what the neighbors came in here fearing tonight or making comments about tonight. I wonder if we might be able to re-direct the program tonight to see how the neighbors feel about that proposal. Not illuminating
Mr. Darrow: That is out of our realm. That goes to Planning.
Mr. Rejman: Hold on for just a moment. Dave
Mr. Miller: You do have the right to propose conditions to mitigate potential impact of a variance that you are going to grant and this is an excellent example where condition might be appropriate. You are inclined perhaps to grant the sign but a neighbor objects to the lighting and now you are suggesting perhaps a way to grant that sign and address that concern. So I think that is an appropriate discussion to have. I would caution though if you get too specific, you might want to back up and get this in writing before you decide to start giving conditions. I think this is a simple example that could be done.
Mr. Darrow: The way I look at it it is just like what the placement of any down lit parking lights parking lot lights, they shouldn’t bear on our decision for the signage, because what is before us is the extra signs, 5 signs and the square footage of the sign. Yes I grant you a combined package they are all going to give off much more light, but that is not what we are being asked to look at. That is something that I feel is you know Planning’s duty to properly go over the site plan and to properly you know adjust for any lighting. You were on the Board when the Mobile station went in. That was like the middle of day at midnight with all the lights they have. It was a matter of I think they used quartz bulbs, which made everything so white instead of sodium vapor the
match the character of the neighbor hood. That is something that we had no control over and I feel this matter of some of this lighting is the same matter.
Mr. Temple: I was only asking about what other lighting was there so I could understand the full magnitude when it is lit up until whatever time they leave them on till with the idea of possibly minimizing this particular sign which is right out to the corner by this gentleman’s house who spoke here earlier, I didn’t catch his name.
Mr. Darrow: Walczyk.
Mr. Temple: Walczyk.
Mr. Darrow: My concern is
Mr. Rejman: Let me stop
Mr. Darrow: Just give me a little latitude for second, us trying to impose something there when you consider in December it is dark at 5:30 and people are still going to want to shop at Kinney’s and I don’t see this sign not being illuminated.
Mr. Rejman: No, this good discussion. What I would like to do though, this is good, I don’t want to stop you but lets just do this, are there any final closing questions for the applicant so he may sit down and we can close the public portion and then get back to this. Any final questions? Any final comments Mr. Walczyk?
Mr. Walczyk: Can I ask a question of the developer?
Mr. Rejman: Yes, you may.
Mr. Walczyk: Mr. O’Neill if the developer were to not back light this sign, agree not to having it lit, will they increase the lighting throughout the rest of the project to compensate for that?
Mr. O’Neill: No we do not increase any other lighting to compensate for that.
Mr. Walczyk: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Do you have a closing comment?
Mr. O’Neill: No just thank you.
Mr. Rejman: OK, we will close the public portion lets get back into the discussion that we had. Ed I liked you last comment that said it is dark at 5:00 a night
Ms. Marteney: 4:30
Mr. Rejman: 4:30, so there are some concerns whether
Mr. Gentile: If there are other lit signs this one shouldn’t make a difference. People aren’t going to drive by because they did not see that lit sign. The building is going to be lit in front.
Ms. Marteney: I still have a problem with the height of the pylon sign. It may be a C-1 but it is still residential.
Mr. Rejman: Can’t go there.
Mr. Darrow: The height is completely legal by a C-1.
Mr. Temple: It is legal if we allow the sign.
Ms. Marteney: Right.
Mr. Darrow: If we allow the square footage of it right and the extra signs but the height isn’t an issue. The square footage of is and the extra sign is
Ms. Marteney: Is it 22?
Mr. Moore: It is 17 but a 5 foot bonus for putting 24 foot of landscaping at the base of the sign.
Ms. Marteney: And that is what he is doing?
Mr. Moore: Yes, it is all going to be landscaped.
Mr. Temple: I think the sign such as it has been proposed height wise, width wise and so forth it is all we take the whole thing we look at it and say does this conform to what we think should be seen in C-1 in conjunction with the neighborhood and also rectifying if we can the concerns of adjacent neighbors. The closest ones have been here tonight, I am not sure where the first person that testified Mr. Holbert was it
Mr. O’Neill: He lives across the street on Seymour Street.
Mr. Temple: It becomes a total picture and we can say do we want to grant the variance for the one sign at all. Not sure that we do.
Mr. Hare: Mr. Chairman, when we had them up here for the Owasco Street store that was totally different situation, totally different kind of neighborhood and I would be willing to give them and was every benefit of the doubt up on the Owasco Street area. We have some legitimate concerns from the neighbors that I don’t have been addressed properly by the Planning kind of all ending up here tonight. I think this place hasn’t even began to be built yet, I think maybe they should, you know go back and try to work with the neighbors more on this.
Mr. Darrow: I concur, you are 100% correct but I think one of the first steps I for us to approve either a number of signs or square footage of signs and/or both so that now they have some parameters to work with with Planning and what is going to be allowed once we, if it is not 5 signs then maybe 4 signs. If it is not 145 square foot maybe it is 100 square foot. But at least parameters have been created for Planning to work with it because us giving them an idea Planning’s hand are sort of tied.
Mr. Rejman: I tend to agree with that. We need to set the size of the box that they can work inside of.
Mr. Temple: We are given an application here it is and unless we table I and allow them make modifications we have to vote it up or down based on what they have proposed.
Mr. Rejman: That is true.
Mr. Temple: I have a question that pertains to the mechanics of limitations or conditions and Mr. Darrow and I were looking at each other earlier agreeing mentally speaking that limitations or restrictions are pretty hard to put onto a project of this sort and yet Mr. Miller over there, gives us a clear indication that there could be conditions. What kind of conditions were you referring to Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller: The Board has a right to instill any kind of conditions that you feel are necessary if you grant a variance. So your example is a good one of the sign perhaps saying we will grant you the height you have asked for, we will give you all 5 signs but this one over here we will not allow to be lit as you have proposed. So you granted them what they asked for with one condition and I was making the point I think if it is that simple you can do it. Now, however, if you are going to get into a lot of detail about lighting schemes or variety of signs and a lot of detail about maybe angles of the signs, things like that, then I think what you probably want to do is before voting ask the applicant and maybe neighbors to work with our staff and City Planning staff and come up with a list if you would of
these conditions that are very precisely spelled out so everybody understands what they are.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question for Mr. Miller and corporation counsel. It has always been my understanding through the past years that if we are dealing with something as here, sign variance, if it is strictly a permit being issued that is not something that is requiring a site plan or Planning review, then we can impose a limitation but it also has been my understanding that considering Planning is involved they are the ones that have to impose limitations, if I am wrong, please correct me on that.
Mr. Moore: Planning has to go by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance says 50 square feet.
Mr. Darrow: I am talking about illuminated, not illuminated, brightness
Mr. Miller: That is something they are allowed to consider in site planning.
Mr. Moore: They have preliminary site plan approval. They got to go the 4th for final approval.
Mr. Miller: So I think the question for this Board is did they consider these lighting questions.
Mr. Moore: Yes they did.
Mr. Miller: So the recommendation that Mr. O’Neill presented is based on the Planning Boards views on light. So I think where I am getting to in some degree is the neighbors are saying they still have a problem and I am simply saying that you also have a right to mitigate impacts of your actions with conditions. Maybe an issue was raised here that wasn’t raised by Planning. I don’t know.
Mr. Darrow: As long as corporation counsel feels any limitations would withstand an Article 78 that it is important, then it is in our role.
Mr. Temple: Can’t hear you.
Ms. Hussey: I think that would require a little more a little deeper look into, I really do.
Mr. Rejman: Let me see if I can boil this down for us tonight so we can move forward or try to move forward. We are faced with 3 issues that I see. The number of signs, the square footage of the signs and now this whole area of illumination of a pole sign. Lets work on the pole sign first. Would like someone make a motion that we attach to this application an amendment that the pole sign be unlit and we will just vote that, is that an acceptable way to do that?
Mr. Darrow: Considering there are two parts I don’t know if we can break it apart any further.
Mr. Rejman: There are three; there is the illumination of the sign, let’s put that one first
Mr. Darrow: That is not in the variance
Mr. Rejman: It is now, it was brought up as an option and some may want it and some may not want it.
Mr. Temple: Could I ask one of the fellow Board members to tell me what she is thinking. I see you shaking your head.
Ms. Marteney: I don’t see that that is part of what we can dictate.
Mr. Gentile: We were told by Mr. Miller we can do it. Lets vote on it.
Mr. Rejman: So lets vote on it and put that to sleep one-way or the other.
Ms. Marteney: Having a sign non-illuminated will impact his business.
Mr. Gentile: He is the one that suggested it be non-illuminated.
Ms. Marteney: That is not in the variance
Mr. Darrow: I can’t see how we can vote on something that is not being presented to us. We can’t make the grounds for their variance. If we want to make it as a limitation of the over all package then
Mr. Rejman: Here is option #2.
Mr. Darrow: If it is part of the over all package then I think it is something, but it is a whole separate option itself. I don’t feel comfortable approaching that.
Mr. Westlake: His option #1 would be sticking with a 50 square foot variance, he would not have to be here.
Mr. Darrow: Yes, but if you figure a store that size taking up that many square feet of area with 50 square foot of signage
Mr. Rejman: It seems to me that we wont be able to move forward on the number of signs or the square footage until we get this whole illumination thing
Mr. Temple: I disagree. I think we need to do the number of signs first, then once we identify what signs we are finally approving in the package then we can talk about square footage and illumination.
Mr. Rejman: It is going to get terrible at that point. We will be here all night. I rather table this and put all our collective minds together and come back next month with a better plan, get the neighborhood input on this. Public portion is closed gentlemen, sorry. John, are you still on Planning?
Mr. Rogalski: Yes I am.
Mr. Rejman: John, I would open this up for you, would you mind coming up here please.
Mr. Rogalski: We went over
Mr. Rejman: Would you mind coming up to the podium, state your name and help us through this if you would if you could.
Mr. Rogalski: My name is John Rogalski, I am on the Auburn Planning Board. We went over this on the Planning Board on illumination. Your situation here is signs, more signs and square footage than illumination. Illumination is part of our work.
Mr. Rejman: And you are looking at that the whole illumination issue?
Mr. Rogalski: That is right.
Mr. Gentile: Has it been approved?
Mr. Rogalski: Has been tentatively approved with stipulations.
Mr. Darrow: John aren’t you a neighbor as well?
Mr. Rogalski: Yes I am on State Street.
Mr. Darrow: That is what I thought. You are going to be by this project.
Mr. Rogalski: Down the street.
Mr. Darrow: Across the street. One block down.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Temple: I have a question.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, as your question.
Mr. Temple: I just wanted to ask did you have much in the way of neighborhood testimony in your procedure?
Mr. Rogalski: The same questions that came up. These neighbors asked the same questions of us that they are asking now.
Mr. Temple: Your judgment as far as your Board is the pylon sign could be illuminated.
Mr. Rogalski: We made an agreement with them to make some changes.
Mr. Temple: What was the final agreement then? Illuminated or not or shut off at a certain time?
Mr. Rogalski: Shorter sign more landscaping.
Mr. Temple: What about the illumination the pylon sign in this area here did you discuss that as a Board?
Mr. Rogalski: I don’t have answers right now. These are the same questions that the neighbors discussed at our Planning Board. Your situation is more on the signs, square footage and the amount of signs more than illumination. If you get involved with illumination you are just duplicating exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Rejman: John, appreciate that, thank you very much.
Mr. Temple: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Temple: With what was just shared with us, coupled with the concerns that Mr. Darrow raised earlier in question of corporation counsel who thought it would be good to perhaps review before giving an answer as to what we can really do. I think what I am hearing is that we have a proposal here that includes “X” number of signs, includes “X” number of square feet, includes certain height, all the things that we know as a part of this application, we have to vote on the application. We may be able to set some restrictions in the mind of Mr. Miller and perhaps some others. When I look at this pylon sign and I think about the people who are going to be living the closest to it, I cant in good conscience vote to say that sign should be lit
Mr. Rejman: Lets understand something here, we just put this whole illumination thing to sleep. It is the opinion of the Chairman of this Board that Planning is taking lead agency on this. We have nothing to do with it.
Mr. Temple: The pylon sign should be as another sign
Mr. Rejman: As another sign, not as a height issue?
Mr. Temple: I didn’t say as an issue, I said, I am given and confronted with what I am looking at here, I have to decide whether I want to grant a variance for that sign in total and personally given you know the take it or leave it kind of condition here, I cant in good conscience vote for this pylon sign. I think it is a duplication except for the message board and if this building sits back at the distance that it is, it will be seen with signs on the two side streets
Mr. Rejman: I think we got this knot tied up pretty good size here and we need to unravel this knot a little bit.
Mr. Darrow: I would just like to make one statement that to let the other members know that as Vice-Chair, I do concur completely with the Chairman on the illumination issue.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Thank you, but do we feel we can move forward tonight on this or do we feel that we should have more time.
Mr. Hare: We have time to work with this; they haven’t even torn down the old places yet.
Mr. Rejman: If you wish to make a motion and someone wishes to second that.
Mr. Hare: I would like to make a motion that we table this item.
Mr. Darrow: I'll second that motion.
Mr. Rejman: What are we looking for after it is tabled, that is the only thing I am wondering about. What more information would you like?
Mr. Darrow: More guidance from Planning on what actually is going to be approved and take place.
Mr. Hare: Also input from corporation counsel as to whether all these conditions would withstand a challenge.
Mr. Rejman: All right. Your amending the tabled motion to those issues?
Mr. Hare: Yes.
VOTING TO TABLE: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Item has been tabled. Lets all get our collective heads together this month and maybe we present some facts at the next meeting that will help us come to a decision.
Mr. Walczyk: Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Walczyk: Are you going to have a second public hearing on this matter when you reconsider?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Walczyk: Thank you sir.
Mr. Rejman: Because we will want to get the new information put out to you as best we can.
Mr. Darrow: Everyone will be re-notified.
________________________________________________________________________
47 Havens Avenue, R-1front yard area variance of 9 7” for construction of enclosed front porch to be located 15 3” from front property line. Kay Henry.
Mr. Rejman: 47 Havens Avenue, are you here please?
Ms. Henry: My name is Kay Henry and I own 47 Havens Avenue. What I am requesting is there is solarium that was built on the house, they torn off the porch and built a solarium which was badly designed and badly done and needs to be replaced. I want to replace it with a three season enclosed porch.
Mr. Rejman: And the proposed construction is it the same size as the existing structure that is there?
Ms. Henry: The same size, we will be building on the existing foundation. It will be raised because the current solarium when they put it on you have to walk down from the living room, steps down into it, down on the ground level. So it will be raised so it will be level with the living room which will be the entrance to the enclosed porch.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Any questions from the Board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application?
Ms. Henry: May I just say that my neighbors at 45 Havens are delighted to see this solarium go.
Mr. Rejman: Final call for questions. Hearing none, we will close the public portion.
Ms. Henry: Thank you.
Mr. Hare: I think it is a good idea.
Mr. Rejman: I think it is a great idea.
Mr. Hare: If it was on the back of the house I think it would be a different thing, but it really doesn’t fit with the character of the house popping out the front the way it does and I think her plans are going to be in perfect keeping with that house. I have no problem with this.
Ms. Marteney: The house itself will blend better into the neighborhood.
Mr. Darrow: The solarium is out of place.
Mr. Rejman: OK, a motion and a second?
Mr. Temple: I would like to make a motion that we grant an area variance to Kay Henry at 47 Havens Avenue for the purpose of building an addition located 15.3 feet from the property line and a variance of 9 foot 7 inches.
Mr. Hare: Ill 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 construction.
Ms. Henry: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
4 Pleasant Street, R-2, side yard area variance of 6’ for pool to be located 4’ from property line and a 4’ area variance for pool to be located 6’ from house. Michael LoPiccolo.
Mr. Rejman: 4 Pleasant Street, are you here?
Mr. Moore: Let me explain something. He needed two things to get to us, one was a letter giving permission for him to apply for a variance because he does not own the property, he is buying it, he doesn’t own, so he needed that permission from the owner. The second thing is there is a question on the property line, he was to get a survey to me and he has never come forward with that either. That is why I think he is not here.
Mr. Darrow: It is an automatic table.
Mr. Moore: There is a question, a big question on his property line.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Darrow: Have to treat him as everybody else who doesn’t show up, we give them two chances to show and then it is dropped.
Mr. Rejman: He is not here. We are going to table because the applicant isn’t here.
Item tabled.
Man in Audience: Can I make a statement so it is not a waste of time. One other issue that is the main concern here tonight is that my aunt was on vacation for one month in Arizona and in her absence I was checking out her house and during that time a stockade fence was erected that ran along the left side of the property to the garage in the back and the fence is attached now to the garage.
Mr. Rejman: Would you speak with Mr. Moore I think he would love to hear about it.
Mr. Moore: That is why he is required to have a survey.
Mr. Rejman: OK, a survey issue. Item tabled.
________________________________________________________________________
6 Lexington Avenue, R-1, use and area variances for dining patio to be added to front of Friends Tavern and Nightclub. Anthony Tardibone.
Mr. Rejman: 6 Lexington Avenue please.
Mr. Moorehead: My name is Dave Moorehead and I am with Environmental and Site Planning Services and Mr. Tardibone is our client. However, we have had no communication from our client since the last meeting.
Mr. Chirco: I am Norm Chirco and I am representing Mr. Tardibone, who contacted me a few days ago. He did submit an addendum to the application. He unfortunately was called out of town and could not be here tonight, so it is my understanding he wants to proceed. I just would like some direction from the Board as to any additional information you may need. I guess I am requesting it be tabled. If there is more information I would be glad to provide it.
Mr. Rejman: I would like to survey the people sitting out here, how many people are here wishing to speak for or against this application? Hold on. Number one, has the Board had a chance to read the addendum?
Ms. Marteney: Just.
Mr. Darrow: Just received it this evening.
Mr. Moore: Also requested comments from the Planning Board Design and Review Committee and they do not want this.
Mr. Rejman: OK, here is what I would like to do. I would like to take the motion to table into consideration. There are quite a few people here that wish to speak. I think I would like them on the record. So come forward, state your name and give us your opinion.
Mr. Kennel: My name is John Kennel, I am representing my parents who reside at 5 Kensington Avenue, which is the property that is directly behind the proposed expansion of this establishment by putting an outdoor seating in it. I didn’t see the addendum. I walked into City Hall this morning and asked for corporation counsel where it was turned in by applicant’s attorney, I haven’t seen it personally. But with totally not seeing that I will had out a petition that has been signed by 47 people that reside by owning property or renting property in this neighborhood. What was presented to the Board the meeting previous that my parents did not was happening or else we would have been here or somebody would have been here. We are opposing the outdoor seating.
Number one because of the noise that is already a problem. The problem that has been going on with this property is that there has been a considerable intense increase of intensity of use of this building. They already have had problems, I know that Mr. Moore is working on concerning occupancy rates versus sprinkler systems. My parents and their neighbors have problems with noise already in the middle of winter with windows closed and doors closed. He is proposing an outdoor atmosphere that we feel with only contribute.
The second thing that we are concerned about is the way the process has been explained by the Planning Board, Mr. Moore and a few other people, in order to get a variance or even come before this Board to get a variance, there has to be some kind of economic hardship shown, which I am not convinced is proved here. He is doing an outstanding business as it is. He has a tremendous parking problem that goes along with this petition, I know it is not before the Board right now, but the original plan was conceiving maybe a possible parking lot which I just want to get on the record to address right now, we also don’t think is a good idea.
The other thing I would like to present to the Board is a photo book, excuse the flowers, my budget didn’t for anything else, but this is a compilation of the property concerned. All the views around it, including my parents’ view of it, some of the erosion that is already occurred on the property that Tops Grocery Market owns. The City has erected No Parking signs which helped for the first few days but is kind of ignored right now and even the Police Department doesn’t ticket anybody.
I talked to Mr. Tardibone about in October when I visited my parents and I couldn’t even sleep in my old bedroom. I got dressed I walked over bought a beer, asked him politely to come outside on the fence line at 1:00 o’clock in the morning the music was easily heard inside my parents house. His comment, I don’t see a problem here. He walked back in the building.
I called him a week ago and asked him about this proposal. He first started out and said that it was going to be for lunches only and before he even finished the sentence he said I promise I will have them in by 9:00 p.m., to me indicating this could be a 9:00 p.m., this could be a 10:00 p.m., this could be a 11:00 p.m. or longer. What I am trying to get to is that there are a number of issues already that may or may not concern this Board. What he is asking for is to chance the landscape, he is trying to say that he can fit into the landscape by putting this outdoor thing. At the end of that you will see some business that I just randomly went up and down Genesee Street that we feel intricate themselves very well into a residential/commercial atmosphere. Peppers Liquor Store, Smokey’s
Tavern which is the next bar in the next neighborhood, the old Prudential Insurance Building, that is what we want to see in this neighborhood. He has already increased the intensity of use which I don’t think he has been granted permission from what I understand by the process.
I flew in from Phoenix, Arizona to help out my parents who are in their 70s. Now if I really thought that this was a valid business that really enhanced our neighborhood and keep my parents property values and their neighbors great, but I don’t see it. I talked with other people I have looked at Mr. Tardibone's other properties around town and I am not that impressed. If you look at that property, it is not kept up. He has ripped apart the garage in the back, he says your parents cant see it because they have bushes. Thank God they have bushes, if they didn’t it would be even worse. They went 10 years ago, 20 years ago to the expense to put that stuff in to buffer themselves. They can’t keep on doing this; they need help from you, from the Zoning Board. You all have houses somewhere in town, you all want to be able to go home and be able to relax at night and sleep at night, this isn’t going to help the situation. He is not even here, I don’t know why but I need some help
from everybody. I listened to your conversations tonight and you sound very concerned especially when a business integrates next to a residential area. I need your help and I can’t be here again, and again and again, but these neighbors will keep on coming as long as you notify them. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Hare: Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Hare: Seems like for the last 6 months every time we meet Mr. Tardibone is scheduled to be here and something is always on going. Now putting that aside, I think what we have here tonight and what we have with the concern of the neighbors and how is at stake and who showed up and who didn’t show up, I would be comfortable with going ahead with as it is presented to us to vote on tonight.
Mr. Rejman: OK, I appreciate that comment. I would like the concerns of anyone else that wishes to speak and then I want to touch base here with the counsel on an issue. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Get I line, come down and state your name.
Mr. Glowacki: My name is Ray Glowacki, I live at 1 Kensington Avenue. That 'Friends' is at my back yard and all I hear music all the time. I don’t want that outdoor patio. That is all that is to it. That will be more noise for me. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
Mr. Glowacki: You have the petition everybody signed?
Mr. Rejman: Yes we do.
Mr. Glowacki: Ted Glowacki, 28 Kensington Avenue. When the Moose Club was there, there was no problem what so ever. Since they moved in we have complained for the last six months about the parking and the parking in the grass in the winter and in the spring making ruts. We have complained about it and nothing has been done. For the last six months we have complained about the noise and nothing has been done. Now he wants to add to the front so they can party out front. The Moose Club was a good neighbor these people don’t have parking now, there just is no room. Thank you.
Mr. Sincebaugh: Dan Sincebaugh, 14 Densmore. It is a shame that this guy is trying to work on his business, promoting a business, trying to do well and make well for himself and I can see you are against it. That is your vote but I don’t think that is right him trying to get anything done through the City Code Enforcement is impossible.
Mr. Glowacki: You are not a neighbor either are you? You don’t have to worry about the noise.
Mr. Rejman: Gentlemen. Gentlemen (uses gavel). Lets just take it easy tonight. I don’t want to clear the room. OK, Mr. Temple.
Mr. Temple: Can we have the gentleman that was just here back up so I can ask him a question.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, could you come back. We have a question from a Board member.
Mr. Temple: I didn’t catch your address.
Mr. Sincebaugh: 14 Densmore.
Mr. Temple: 14 Densmore. Do you have any kind of a relationship with this property, employee, employer?
Mr. Sincebaugh: No.
Mr. Temple: Are you a client of the place?
Mr. Sincebaugh: I have been there yes.
Mr. Temple: What is it that you speak of when you speak about the Code Enforcement part, are you referring to this particular property?
Mr. Sincebaugh: Sort of a general statement, dealing with the Code Enforcement is like dealing with a brick wall.
Mr. Temple: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chairman, one thing I think we need to keep in mind before the neighbors spoke, I am glad they did so that they are all on record, was that counsel for Mr. Tardibone asked for this to be tabled because he was notified very recently about it.
Mr. Rejman: That is true. It was tabled to tonight. A point was made that we seem to table his properties often. Is that well put? I would like to talk to counsel for a second.
Here is what we have. We have an addendum to the application that shows no financial support. We have counsel that has been recently obtained by the applicant and we have it tabled and we have an opportunity to do one of two things. To reject the application for tabling and move forward or to vote on the application to table. It is that simple.
Mr. Darrow: Don’t get me wrong Mr. Chairman I have no problem voting on this tonight none what so ever.
Mr. Rejman: I have none either.
Mr. Darrow: It is just a matter of whether or not we create fairness amongst other applicants who have asked to be tabled, that is my only point.
Mr. Gentile: This is not the first time it has been tabled.
Mr. Rejman: The applicant choose to get counsel late in the game, I guess that is not our problem.
Mr. Gentile: He should have been here.
Mr. Darrow: As long as that is everybody’s contention that is all that matters.
Mr. Moore: The first gentleman that spoke was actually his company was hired to present this the last and Mr. Snyder calls me today and he said he has not had any contact with his client. He didn’t show up tonight.
Mr. Darrow: I have no trouble voting.
Mr. Temple: I like to be fair to everybody. I wanted to be fair to this gentleman that came in from Phoenix tonight allowed him to be heard and we had the opportunity to do that and other people who wanted to speak tonight so they are on the record. I am not sure but I think we may be abridging some fundamental rights of counsel. We had a person who retained an attorney, the attorney spoke to us tonight and said he is not able to be here tonight for what ever reasons. The attorney came into the program late in the game. The consulting engineering firm they haven’t been heard yet. I don’t know what he may add or not add, but we haven’t heard him so I am just suggesting and I am ready to vote on this also. But I am suggesting in the issue of due process we consider
tabling again and I am going to make a motion to table it for the reason of fairness and safe guarding the due process rights of the applicant.
May I add that makes no reflection on my position or opinion on this particular application, just a matter of due process and fairness.
Mr. Rejman: So we have a motion to table.
Mr. Darrow: I'll second the motion.
VOTING AGAINST TABLING: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney - I don’t believe the applicant provided information that was requested after the first tabling, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Motion to table has been denied.
Mr. Darrow: Now that we have that out of the way, what is the next step.
Mr. Rejman: Next step is for the people in the audience understand that this Board has to work in the affirmative. A motion has to come before us to grant a variance and then a second has to come in. It must be put to us that way. We cannot have a motion that says to decline a variance put before us. Having said that, does someone wish to make an affirmative motion?
Mr. Gentile: I would like to make a comment first.
Mr. Rejman: Go ahead.
Mr. Gentile: As far as the applicant not showing any hardship, I have to agree there is probably not a hardship. If there is a problem with parking there must mean a lot of customers there, which means he is probably making some pretty good money. So as far as an economic hardship, it is hard to believe.
Mr. Rejman: I see no evidence of
Mr. Gentile: There is no evidence he is not showing any hardship.
Ms. Marteney: In his amendment he makes statements that have absolutely no back up and they are completely opinions on his part.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t have my sheet so I can’t make a motion. Does someone have a sheet from that month?
Mr. Rejman: It is a use variance.
Mr. Darrow: That is all it is there is no area, no side off sets? (Ms. Marteney hands him the sheet from last month). Thank you.
I would like to make a motion for a use variance for Anthony Tardibone at 6 Lexington Avenue also know as Friends Restaurant for the purpose of creating a front yard patio as per attached drawings.
Mr. Rejman: I will need a second.
Mr. Gentile: I'll second it.
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Hare, Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: The application for business improvement for 6 Lexington Avenue has been denied.
Mr. Kennel: Thank you very much.
Mr. Rejman: Any other business that wishes to come before the Board? Housekeeping?
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
| 
