ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2002
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Members Absent: Mr. Hare, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Temple
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey, Ms. DeAngelo, Mr. Moore, Mr. LaDouce
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 177-187 State Street, 4 Pleasant Street, 53 Standart Avenue, 33 Elizabeth Street, 19 Mary Street, 62 Swift Street
APPLICATIONS TABLED: 135 Perrine Street, 169 Van Anden Street
APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN: 17 Anderson Circle
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals is made of 7 members. We have two that are absent tonight and I am hoping against hope that two already told us they wouldn’t be here tonight, hoping for one more to show. With the Zoning Board of Appeals, you need 4 affirmative votes so, if we only have a 4 member board and you come before us, you cant afford to have one of us say no. So the option would be at point do you want to go forward or would you like to table until the next. I would suggest you consider it. The problem is if it is voted down there is no recourse other than the Courts. Lets hope that Gary shows up in the next few minutes so we can get started.
Mr. Gentile: If Gary shows up do they still have the option to table or no? Still not 7 people here.
Mr. Rejman: The point he has brought up if our 5th member does show you will still have the option to table if you wish. OK, I will officially open the meeting. We again still have 4 voting members, you need 4 affirmative votes. We have discussed having a special meeting, we can do that on the 8th, we get it in the papers tomorrow, that will give you a little bit of relief. So again I will call you up one at a time and ask you whether or not you wish to proceed and just state your name for the record and say whether or not you want to proceed. Tonight we have ten items. We have: 17 Anderson Circle, 177-187 State Street, 4 Pleasant Street, 53 Standart Avenue, 135 Perrine Street, 19 Mary Street, 62 Swift Street, 169 Van Anden Street
________________________________________________________________________
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? 17 Anderson is not here.
Mrs. Diffin: I am the neighbor.
Mr. Rejman: Come up and state your name for the record.
Mrs. Diffin: I am Sarah Diffin and I reside at 15 Anderson Circle. We are the neighbors that were at the last meeting.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mrs. Diffin: You tabled it with the option that they work out something with us.
Mr. Rejman: We thought it would be nice if you two would talk and see what happened.
Mrs. Diffin: We have not heard from them so I was here tonight, they have not approached us regarding anything. I called Nancy and she said I should show up because the variance would be resubmitted.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Jim
Mr. Moore: If you do the special meeting you should put them back on but I will get a hold of them.
Mr. Rejman: Get a hold of them and if they do not wish to come forward would you let the neighbor know.
Mr. Moore: Which one, Diffin?
Mrs. Diffin: Yes Diffin.
Mr. Rejman: We have a note here from the attorney that this matter has been withdrawn.
_______________________________________________________________________
177-187 State Street, C1, area variance for signs. Kinney Drug Store.
Mr. Rejman: Is 177-187 State Street, are you here please?
Mr. O'Neill: Good evening Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike O’Neill with American Group One and I am representing Hart, Meath, Primo LLC who would be the landlord of 177-187 State Street which would be a preferred Kinney Drug Store. I have a couple of photographs here of what the signs would look like.
Mr. Rejman: Mike, you understand if you go forward you need all 4 votes.
Mr. O'Neill: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: OK. One other issue I wanted to mention and I have a couple of maps that basically this building is in the C-1 zoning district and therefore was limited to 50 square feet of sign for street frontage. If it was in C-3 we would be allowed 2 square feet for each foot of frontage and we approximately have about 800 square feet. One of the issues also that does occur and whether or not it weighs anything to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I wanted to mention and what is actually occurring and I will show these maps in a second, there are 8 properties involved in this particular building and what is occurring is those 8 separate tax parcels we are combining into one taxable parcel. The reason I am pointing that out is if we had a business in each of the 8 buildings in a C-1 zone, we could have
a 50 square foot sign on each of those for a total of 400 square feet. It is not a real strong argument but I just wanted to point that out that what is occurring is that individually there is 400 square feet of sign available but because we are combining it into one, we are allowed 50 square feet of sign. I just wanted to show you that. (Shows the members the maps). I wanted to point that out as I said I don’t how strong an admission that is.
Essentially the signs are as shown on the photograph. There are two signs that are approximately 58 square feet that are show on the photograph. In addition to that there is a sign that says One Hour Food Mart as you see in the photograph and some of the literature that I passed out those signs are not lit. One says Food Mart, Drive-thru Pharmacy and One Hour Photo. Those are basically those signs. They vary in length; they are approximately one foot high.
In addition to that there is an 80 square pylon sign that would located at the intersection of State and Seymour Streets. As an example, that would be the size of the sign in Elbridge not the size of the sign that is up at Owasco Street that was an existing sign we got the variance for. This sign is about half the size of the sign on Owasco. So we are basically I guess in summary asking the Board to consider the two 58 square feet signs that say Kinney Drugs that are shown in the photograph at the corner of the building. The signs that say Food Mart, One Hour Photo, Drive-thru Pharmacy that in addition to that is the pylon sign which we agree to lower to 21 a maximum of 21 feet in height and that sign is 80 square feet and that has a reader board and it is internally illuminated as
well.
Ms. Marteney: Is that like the sign in Elbridge?
Mr. O'Neill: Yes, it is, it is exactly that sign.
Mr. Westlake: There is no reader board in Elbridge.
Ms. Marteney: There is something below it.
Mr. O’Neill: The read board at Owasco
Mr. Westlake: There is no reader board.
Mr. O’Neill: OK. The portion part of the sign is exactly the same sign.
Mr. Westlake: There is no reader board on South Bay Road either, route 31.
Mr. O’Neill: I didn’t take a picture of that.
Mr. Westlake: There is no reader board.
Mr. O’Neill: OK.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none we will come back to the applicant. This has already been through Planning?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: And we had some notes from Planning on this. Last call for questions from the Board. Closing statement?
Mr. O’Neill: Essentially we asking for a total of 245.7 square feet which will be a 20 foot high 80 square feet on the pole sign, two building signs at 58 square feet each and 5 building signs for a total of 49.7 square feet, those are the signs that say Food Mart, One Hour Photo, Drive-thru Pharmacy.
Mr. Rejman: OK, we will close the public portion and that this matter unto ourselves here.
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Comments, issues?
Mr. Westlake: Just that there are no other reader boards on any of the others in the other towns; I don’t know why Auburn is the only place that has to have a reader board.
Mr. Rejman: That has been through Planning though. The only thing they are asking us to do is the approval the total square footage.
Mr. Westlake: Right and the reader board would be part of that total square footage.
Mr. Rejman: Yes. Does make a good point that once all those parcels are put together he doesn’t even need to be here. If you do that and put those parcels together in a C-1
Mr. Moore: This is going to be revisited because it is too restrictive for a commercial district, it was a mistake that this was done. That is why every time someone develops in a C-1 you get them here. We are definitely going to change this. This would be more like a Grant Avenue; it should be treated that way. On Grant Avenue he wouldn’t be here.
Mr. Westlake: But it is not on Grant Avenue it is on State Street. I repeat there is no other reader board on any other Kinney Drugs except in Auburn. Why? That is part of what he is here for is a variance for that.
Mr. Rejman: No, he is here for a variance for the number of signs and for the square footage of the signs. What they look like or what they do really that was for Planning, we are just here for the math.
Ms. Marteney: By not having the same community here that was at the last meeting, we can assume that the problems have been alleviated.
Mr. Rejman: I was surprised no one was here for this meeting. So things must have been settled out of court so to speak. I need a motion of if I may; I will place before the Board the application of 177 187 State Street that being an area variance for a total of 7 signs, 245.7 square feet.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Westlake-I will vote yes but you know my reason why I rather not have it there, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. See Mr. Moore in the morning. Good luck.
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Expected opening date on the project?
Mr. O’Neill: Probably construction wont start until the end of July assuming all the paper work and permitting and that, sometime in July and we welcome all of you to the Grand Opening and thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
4 Pleasant Street, R2, area variance for pool. Michael LoPiccolo.
Mr. Rejman: 4 Pleasant Street, are you here?
Mr. LoPiccolo: Hi.
Mr. Rejman: Again, you understand that there are only 4 of us and you need 4 of us. Would you like to go forward with this?
Mr. LoPiccolo: We would.
Mrs. LoPiccolo: We are ready to swim.
Mr. Rejman: State your name for the record please.
Mr. LoPiccolo: Michael LoPiccolo.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Mike. Tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. LoPiccolo: Put a pool in the back yard because of the property there and the neighbors in the area it is so narrow we are encroaching on what would be considered an area variance here in Auburn. The pool will be on the south side of the lawn and that will be less than 3 feet from the fence and the fence is also on our property line.
Mr. Rejman: OK, this was tabled from last month; there were a few issues there.
Mr. LoPiccolo: We hadn’t closed on the house yet and we closed several days after I got the deed. Do you want to see that?
Mr. Rejman: Any paper work sure.
Mr. Moore: He also needs a survey, a copy of the survey. The neighbors are claiming the fence is on their property.
Mr. LoPiccolo: That had to be moved before closing and we moved the fence before closing and then reinstalled the fence.
Mr. Moore: But did you get the survey?
Mr. LoPiccolo: Yes.
Mr. Moore: We need the survey showing where the fence is.
Mr. LoPiccolo: The survey where the fence is installed?
Mr. Rejman: Jim, you are saying we have to have a copy of the survey?
Mr. Moore: Yes, because there might be neighbors here that is against it. He was supposing to us with a copy of the survey.
Mr. LoPiccolo: They probably would have been here at the previous meeting but agreed to take the fence down the day before the closing and we moved the fence 2 feet toward our line.
Mr. Rejman: So the fence has been moved.
Mr. LoPiccolo: Yes, the fence has been moved, that is why the closing went forward. I do have a sample of the site plan that I am sure you have a copy of, that was the drawing before and that shows the fence right up to her accessory structure, which is the garage. We believed at that time the garage was almost on the line, and now the fence has been moved forward and is no longer on her accessory structure.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone here wishing to speak for against the application? Hearing none come back to the Board. I was just with counsel over a thought. If the Board wishes we could move forward on this and give a conditional based on Jim getting, going down and seeing him or getting him a copy of the survey.
Mr. Moore: We need the survey, because this is the second time we have had Mr. LoPiccolo on a variance for a pool putting it too close to the fence.
Mr. Rejman: We know where the line is now right?
Mr. Moore: I don’t know. He is saying it; he has not shown his survey. He was supposed to bring in a survey.
Mr. LoPiccolo: The survey doesn’t show where the fence is.
Mr. Rejman: Shows the property line.
Mr. LoPiccolo: 3 feet from the property line.
Mr. Moore: A survey shows anything within 3 foot of the property line.
Mr. LoPiccolo: A survey is supposed to show anything within 3 feet?
Mr. Moore: Right.
Mr. LoPiccolo: So a new survey would show that?
Mr. Moore: Show where you moved the fence.
Mr. LoPiccolo: I do have a survey with the fence I remember seeing it. I don’t have it with me.
Mr. Moore: You were supposed to bring that in.
Mr. Rejman: We have 6 or 7 more items, if we put this up would you go right home and get that.
Mr. LoPiccolo: It is in my office. My office is open. We will be back.
Mr. Rejman: We will be here another hour. I will table this to the end.
Mrs. LoPiccolo: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: 4 Pleasant Street.
Mr. LoPiccolo: This is the survey. That shows where the fence went against here garage. That is the survey that I received.
Mr. Rejman: That is the old survey.
Mr. LoPiccolo: That is correct. That is the survey I received. I did not know that her garage was against the property line so I took the fence down, moved the fence, I can take pictures if you want me to to bring the pictures tomorrow or something, but I did move the fence because I couldn’t close until it was moved.
Mr. Rejman: The fence is moved approximately how far away from the garage?
Mr. LoPiccolo: It is moved in 17” at one point at the west end of my property at the far east part of the property it is moved in 28” because the property angles. Jim came to the house and he looked at the property and said Mike can you put a smaller size pool up, there is not a pool narrow enough where it wouldn’t require a variance. A 10 foot narrow pool would still require a variance, I only 21.6 inches from the fence to my garage.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Usually Codes has verification of the property line, is that correct?
Mr. LaDouce: Yes. It would be shown on the survey when he submitted it.
Mr. Rejman: We could move forward on this contingent that Codes goes down and has site verification. OK. See we are nice people, it is hot outside, we know you want to get into the pool. Any questions from the Board? Looking out in the audience I see no neighbors here wishing to speak for or against.
Mr. LoPiccolo: All our neighbors have pools.
Ms. Marteney: That is the problem; these yards weren’t built to have swimming pools.
Mr. Rejman: That is whole Citywide. Lot of small lots in the City. OK, we will close the public portion and discuss it amongst ourselves and see what we can come up with. Comments? Concerns?
Ms. Marteney: Verified by Codes.
Mr. Rejman: I place before the board the application of 4 Pleasant Street that being a variance for a above ground pool to be located 4 feet from the side and 6 feet from the house contingent upon Code site verification of removal of encroachment.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. LoPiccolo: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
53 Standart Avenue, R1, area variancefor10square feet for a 10 x 16 shed. William & Catherine Hawelka.
Mr. Rejman: 53 Standart Avenue, are you here? You understand that there are four of us; you need to satisfy all four of us? You wish to move forward?
Mr. Hawelka: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: OK, state your name for the record.
Mr. Hawelka: Bill Hawelka asking for a variance for a 10 x 16 foot storage shed.
Mr. Rejman: OK, this is one of those garden variety things where people by either a 10 x 14 or 10 x 16 shed, isn’t that pretty much it, Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore: Yes, 14, 16, 18 foot. Never a 10 x 15.
Mr. Rejman: That is one of the little glitches in the zoning that Jim is working on. This is pretty standard, pretty cut and dried. Let me ask this. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, we come back. Any questions from the Board?
Mr. Gentile: Did you consider a 10 x 14 shed?
Mr. Hawelka: I did, but I got so much I kind of measured things out what I have and I need that size for the things that I want to store, lawnmower, snow blower, pool.
Mr. Gentile: You wouldn’t need a variance if it were 10 x 14.
Mr. Hawelka: I knew that.
Mr. Gentile: OK.
Mr. Rejman: That is it, we will close the public portion and discuss this and get back to you.
Mr. Hawelka: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore, do you have a problem with this.
Mr. Moore: No, but I do want to get this changed to 160 square feet. You guys get it all the time. Should be changed in zoning.
Mr. Rejman: Does anyone wish to make a motion?
Mr. Gentile: I would like to make a motion that we grant a10 foot area variance to William and Catherine Hawelka at 53 Standart Avenue for the purpose of erecting a shed.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck with your new shed.
Mr. Hawelka: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
135 Perrine Street, R1, area variance of 150 square feet for 30 x 30 garage. Lee and Christine Cordway.
Mr. Rejman: 135 Perrine Street please. State your name for the record please.
Mrs. Cordway: My name is Christine Cordway and this is my husband Lee Cordway and we would like to wait.
Mr. Rejman: We will see how many we get tabled and I am not sure if we will have a special meeting or not.
________________________________________________________________________
33 Elizabeth Street, R1A, area variance of 83.3 feet for a 10 x 23.33 shed with covered patio. Steve Smith.
Mr. Rejman: 33 Elizabeth Street, are you here?
Mr. Smith: I am Steven Smith; I am the owner of 33 Elizabeth Street.
Ms. Reilley: Jackie Reilley, my husband is the contractor.
Mr. Rejman: OK, you probably heard before, there are four of us and you need to satisfy all four of us. What do you think you would like to do?
Mr. Smith: Proceed please.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Smith: Well, we were putting up a 10 x 12 shed and I asked Mrs. Reilly’s husband to put an addition on it, just a covered patio so I could put plants on a picnic table that sort of thing. They did that, we got a verbal ok to proceed and then Code Enforcement stopped and said you should not have gotten a verbal, you need to go down to City Hall so that we are here requesting approval for the addition. They said the shed was fine as far as size and structure and everything else but the addition was just an overhang, but they said we needed to go down and request a variance.
Mr. Rejman: It is a math thing.
Mrs. Reilley: I called to discuss it with Steve; I am also a neighbor, right next to him. I called Code Enforcement and told them we wanted to build a 10 x 12 shed and a 10 foot overhang to place a patio grill and what not and I was told as long as the shed itself was less than 150 square feet that that was ok. We were going to pour a concrete slab the length of the shed and the overhang. She told me that was fine as long as the shed was not bigger. I want to say we don’t object to the shed and patio. The shed before that you could put your finger right through the wall, it was falling down, needed to be replaced.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board? Anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Step forward.
Mr. DeBower: We are Cindy and Gordon DeBower, neighbors on the east side of Mr. Smith. We just want to say we are in favor of the structure.
Mr. Rejman: Good.
Mr. DeBower: It is a very nice structure, very nice job. Fits very well with the home.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you for coming, it is always good to have neighbors when we have these issues. Closing comments? Closing questions? Close the public portion and take this into consideration.
Mr. Moore: I included a letter; I hope you got it in your packet because she did make some statements that Code Enforcement had approved it. Code Enforcement didn’t approve it, if you look at the last sheet it shows the drawing and that is what they got it for that drawing, shows the house, 20 foot set back and shed 10 x 12. That is what they applied for. When we went up there on another complaint we saw them building a bigger shed.
Mr. Rejman: Sometimes people get confused between a shed, I can understand that.
Mr. Moore: I don’t care if they get it or not, I just wanted to make it clear this isn’t what they applied for.
Mr. Rejman: I see that. Somewhat typical too that people starting a construction project and start adding and adding
Mr. Moore: Could be. All he got was a permit for a 10 x 12 shed.
Mr. Rejman: I understand. OK. Board, comments?
Mr. Gentile: Minimal impact.
Mr. Rejman: We have neighbor approval, which is always nice. Anyone wish to make a motion? Hearing none, I place before the board the application of 33 Elizabeth Street, that being an application for an area variance of 83.3 square feet.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Smith: Thank you very much.
_______________________________________________________________________
19 Mary Street, R1A, area variance of 7 feet for front porch steps. Fred Hutchins
Mr. Rejman: 19 Mary Street. Are you here? 19 Mary Street.
Mr. Hutchins: I forgot what I was here for.
Mr. Rejman: You understand it takes all of us. If one of us says no it gets very difficult. Would you like to go forward with this?
Mr. Hutchins: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: OK. For the record your name is?
Mr. Hutchins: Fred Hutchins.
Mr. Rejman: What would you like to do there Fred?
Mr. Hutchins: What we have is a situation where I got three steps that are probably 50 years old and they are falling down. What I want to do is put a front porch on the house and the reason that I cant without a variance it is too close to the street. But every house along that street has the same problem, it won change the street at all.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Does the Board have any questions? That is all we need here. Have a seat and we will discuss this amongst ourselves. Close the public portion.
Mr. Hutchins: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Jim?
Mr. Moore: I would like to speak in favor of this. This has been an eyesore in the neighborhood. Mr. Hutchins daughter is going to move in there now. He is resurrecting the house and he is going to put a regular porch where people can come up and walk into the house so it will be much better looking.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Any other comments, concerns, motions? Hearing no motions. I place before the board the application of 19 Mary Street, that being an area variance for the erection of a 4 x 6 front porch, 37” from the property line.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. See Mr. Moore for the permit. Good luck.
Mr. Hutchins: Thank you.
_______________________________________________________________________
62 Swift Street, R1, area variance of 12 inches in height of fence. Terri Gage.
Mr. Rejman: 62 Swift Street, are you here please?
Ms. Gage: Terri Gage.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Terri you understand you need approval of all four of us?
Ms. Gage: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Would you like to move forward with this?
Ms. Gage: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Ms. Gage: I would like a fence to keep my dog in.
Mr. Rejman: Big dog or little dog?
Ms. Gage: Medium.
Mr. Rejman: What is the problem.
Ms. Gage: It is a corner house, come to the side of the house and it is suppose to be 20 feet from the sidewalk that puts you in my living room.
Mr. Moore: If you look at her drawing, I went up and measured for her 19 foot is actually to the sidewalk and she is only 29 feet off of the corner, but she is in the clear site plan.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Jim do you want to help with the front of the application, what are we looking for?
Mr. Moore: We treat all fences that you cant see through, you cant see through this one on an angle. If you are on an angle and you are backing out, or she is backing out of her driveway she really cannot see down the street. She needs a variance for the clear sight triangle and on the street. Some of her neighbors have called and complained.
Ms. Gage: One neighbor did approach me but she is on the other side of the house that doesn’t affect the variance.
Mr. Rejman: So is it an issue more of fence design is that what you are saying?
Mr. Moore: If she put a chain link, she could have it.
Mr. Rejman: All right.
Mr. Moore: It is an attractive house.
Mr. Rejman: Let me ask this, is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? No. Come back to the Board. Questions from the Board? Concerns from the Board? Closing comment?
Ms. Gage: No, but the one neighbor that approached me is on the side of the house that is not on the street and I did tell her that I would move it in between my house and garage because she is worried about the snow. She is a very elderly lady.
Mr. Rejman: OK, we will close the public portion and take the matter under consideration. Comments? Mr. Moore comments?
Mr. Moore: I leave it up to you. I say it is too high but your job is to override my decision. That is going to be all the way out to the sidewalk when she backs out.
Ms. Gage: Can I say something?
Mr. Rejman: I will open the public portion back up, yes.
Ms. Gage: My car is a SUV so I am way over it.
Mr. Gentile: It stays with the property.
Mr. Rejman: Here is the problem we are faced with ok. It stays with the property so 5 years, 10 years, 50 years from now when you move on that variance is still there and who is to say 10 years down the road you don’t get tire of SUVs and end up with a Porsche or something then you cant see through the fence.
Ms. Gage: Can I do a chain link on that portion? It is a nice neighborhood.
Mr: Know Know what I would like to do, I would like to see Mr. Moore, Ms. DeAngelo and Ms. Gage go into chambers and discuss this, I am going to table this to the end too because remember there are only four of us here. Lets see if we can come to some agreement and if we cant we will have to move forward.
If they have come to some agreement we can move forward, if not. Jim, Amy and the applicant have looked at this and they have come to some agreement. The main thing we need to look at tonight is the height issue, look at that as a variance and then Jim and the applicant will be working on cutting out that clear sight problem. Is that fairly well stated?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: We need a - Jim, what variance do we need on the height? 18 inches?
Mr. Moore: 18 inches.
Mr. Rejman: All right. We will deal with that tonight.
Mr. Gentile: Can I ask a question?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Gentile: Did you ever consider one of those invisible fences?
Ms. Gage: Yes I talked to the vet and they don’t protect the dog from other dogs, people and kids. I had the dog on a leash and a kid came down the street on a bike and the dog thought oh they are here to play with me, so he went charging and the kid drove out into the road with his bike.
Mr. Gentile: Just wanted to run that by you. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Good thought. Mr. Moore, Amy and the applicant seem to be happy with the agreements they have made and may end up using a chain link fence big issue right now is if we can settle the height issue can move ahead and get something installed.
Ms. Marteney: How can we vote on this when we don’t know what the material is?
Mr. Moore: Just doing the height right now, not type of fencing.
Ms. Marteney: I think we have to state that.
Mr. Rejman: So the application should read applicant wishes to erect a 48” aluminum high fence.
Mr. Moore: A chain link or posts or rails can be 48 inches.
Mr. Rejman: Fences are just like signs, you start out with 48 inches chain link fence and then you turn around and put ivy next to it and in 10 years you cant see through it and it is 48 inches.
Ms. DeAngelo: A 48-inch chain link fence is permitted. You want an aluminum fence that is not permitted. Height variance on the aluminum fence, she doesn’t need a variance is she puts in a chain link fence.
Mr. Rejman: Concerns, comments. The clear sight issue has been negated.
Ms. Marteney: How?
Mr. Rejman: Because they are going to square the fence.
Ms. DeAngelo: Her fence was going to be rectangular what we have done is made it fit (points to map). We changed the configuration instead of being a rectangular fence we changed it to put the clear sight triangle on the driveway. Jim will work with her to make sure that 45 angle here and 45 here and we can extent this close to the sidewalk so that she can get the same square footage. Just the height for an aluminum fence.
Mr. Moore: My whole problem has been, I don’t care about the height that much because it is not really going to block anybody except for her driveway and she has agreed to move that back on an angle so that way nobody is going to be hit, everything will be clear and I am fine with the height and the type of fence. That is the only concern that I have right there.
Mr. Rejman: What you are saying we have settled this out of court there is not need for a variance.
Mr. Moore: Still need a variance for that type of fence 48 or 42 inches. Everybody has been treated the same.
Mr. Rejman: Are we all happy?
Mr. Moore: That is the way they rewrote this.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Moore is requesting that we consider a variance of 18 inches for the installation of an aluminum fence on the property at 62 Swift Street correct?
Mr. Moore: Yes, installed.
Mr. Rejman: Installed to Mr. Moore’s specifications, which I am sure the applicant will do.
I place before the board the application of 62 Swift Street for the installation of an 18-inch aluminum fence on the property, installed per Mr. Moore’s specifications.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
_______________________________________________________________________
169 Van Anden Street, R2, area variance of 3 ft. for front porch. Thomas Giancola.
Mr. Rejman: Is 169 Van Anden Street here please? State your name for the record.
Mr. Giancola: Thomas Giancola. I am going to table.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Wise decision.
| 
