ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2002
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Sincebaugh, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Member Absent: Ms. Aubin (called)
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey, Mr. Galvin
APPLICATION APPROVED: 290-298 Grant Avenue, 305 N. Marvine Ave
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have: 290-298 Grant Avenue, 281 State Street – withdrawn, 305 N. Marvine Avenue
_____________________________________________________________
290-298 Grant Avenue, C-3, area variances of 47’ for depth of lot and 19’ for rear setback. National Bank of Geneva.
Mr. Rejman: I see that 290 Grant Avenue is here. Would someone step forward please. State your name for the record.
Mr. Redmond: My name is Thomas Redmond and I am an architect and principal at Beardsley Design Associates. I am here representing the National Bank of Geneva who is in the process of purchasing three properties and are the design architects and engineers to develop a new branch bank on the property. I do want to mention who is with me because we have quite a crew here, Steve Rich, who is Vice President with the National Bank of Geneva, we have been working very closely with him in developing the property. To his right is John Latanyshyn, he is going to be the Branch Manager of the bank, so this is his home. To my right is Ron Bachta, he is an architect from our office and he will be the Project Manager on the property.
The bank approached us about a month ago and said they were interested in this piece of property and they did some quick studies on the availability of the properties and the properties we are talking about is what I call the old McDonald’s site which is directly across the entrance to Wal-Mart and to the south of that is the Gallanger property and then Pat Doyle, which was an apartment building at one time. We did some planning and we determined that they are going to need all three of those sites to develop this site appropriately. There are some interesting challenges here as you can see it is right now three separate pieces of property and very irregular pieces of property. The current zoning requires this area as a 200-foot front to rear depth in property. The deepest point is about 150
feet right now. So that requirement makes it very difficult to meet all the set back requirements on the site.
A couple things that we are doing is what we need is a variance for the rear set back. The zoning now requires 30 feet in front line to the building if you don’t have parking. If you have that requirement we will need 50 feet in the rear. We add all those numbers up and we can’t make that work no matter how you look at it. So what we are looking for is a variance we have 31 feet so we are looking for a variance of 19 feet on the rear set back.
We went into this project to have a win-win situation for both for the owner and Prospect Street Apartments and what we have done is we have cleaned up some of the property lines so they can improve some of their property and also give us some land that they don’t use to make our site work that much better.
The site now is 1.22 acres combining all three parcels of land. Cleans this up, there is a little jog in here (points to map) to work around his parking and goes along the edge of his parking in this area. What we will have is 43 in the front and 30 in the back. This will be the drive-thru lanes for the drive-thru on this end and the main entrance of the building here with parking for customers here and parking for employees here.
So what we put together we think is a very good use of the site. The only catch is here we need to get a variance on the depth of the property and the actual rear set back. Have we any information from Prospect Point?
Mr. Rich: Mr. Yoensky is here.
Mr. Redmond: Steve has been working very closely with Carl, the owner of Prospect Point Apartments to make sure he is in agreement. Carl is going to sign an agreement
Mr. Yoensky: I signed an agreement with the bank today. Just hear to let you know that I have no objection to this project.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the Board at this point?
Mr. Darrow: Is the 47 foot variance you are requesting is that for the front set back that the building is required to be 50 feet from the property line because as it is written here and as spoke perhaps you misspoke, you spoke of a 19 foot rear yard set back which I can see and you also spoke of a 47 foot rear yard set back which I don’t see.
Mr. Galvin: If I may, the 47 feet is actually measured and submitted as a lot depth requirement
Mr. Darrow: That is what he is lacking on depth ok.
Mr. Rejman: Any other questions from the board? Looks like you are using all available space possible.
Mr. Redmond: That’s right.
Mr. Darrow: I take it on the layout here that the bold line is the current survey line and the lighter is the proposed new survey line?
Mr. Redmond: Exactly.
Mr. Darrow: So you are actually cutting back in here?
Mr. Redmond: This is actually the old property line
Mr. Darrow: So bold is proposed?
Mr. Redmond: Right. This would be the proposed new line here (points to map). Squaring things off this takes a jog, existing line, then it jogs back up in here, then it comes way down into here and then it steps up, it is right in here.
Mr. Darrow: So bold is proposed.
Mr. Redmond: Exchange of land is very little like 1/10th of an acre.
Mr. Gentile: You mentioned you are going to have additional parking for Prospect Point Apartments, how will that be?
Mr. Redmond: What we are actually doing is it is really some improvement in their parking, right now you come down here the end of the parking and it gets very tight and awkward for cars to maneuver down here plus not a lot of room for snow removal, so in straightening out this line we can give some of that land to square this off and now he has more picking up 6 feet so he can improve his parking through here. At the same time, we are exchanging land over here so this squares this piece of property which now this little “pie” right there is what we are gaining and he is gaining this little “pie” right here and this strip there. So it improves his layout, not really picking up any more parking spaces.
Mr. Gentile: You are going to have 29 parking spaces total?
Mr. Redmond: Yes.
Mr. Gentile: That is handicapped spots also?
Mr. Redmond: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Any other questions? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? No other parties wishing to speak. Last call for questions. You still have to go to Planning on this?
Mr. Redmond: Right.
Mr. Rejman: This month?
Mr. Redmond: Next week.
Mr. Galvin: On the 7th with the Planning Board to discuss minor subdivision as well as the site plan.
Ms. Marteney: And they will discuss the traffic flow?
Mr. Galvin: Absolutely.
Mr. Rejman: Snow removal, not a lot of space to put snow on this, will have to truck it away I guess. That might be a question for them. That is it. OK, thank you very much, we will close the public portion, discuss this and make a decision tonight.
Mr. Redmond: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Comments, concerns?
Ms. Marteney: Good use of unusable property.
Mr. Darrow: That old McDonald’s has been for sale for 10 years anyway, For Sale sign has been in front. I think it will truly clean up that area. Everything is presented in a nice context where it is going to create nice patterns, traffic flow, align their entrance with Wal-Mart entrance, utilize that light, etc.
Mr. Rejman: Any concerns? None? Motions?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we approve a 19’ rear yard set back variance an a 47’ lot depth variance for the National Bank of Geneva for property at 290-298 Grant Avenue for the purpose of constructing a new banking complex as per submitted drawings.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Sincebaugh, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Congratulations, good luck to you. If things go good when might you have an opening here?
Mr. Redmond: Actually we will have two offices in Auburn and we are hoping to open one in April and one by mid-summer.
Mr. Rejman: Very good.
Mr. Rich: This is Tom Kind, President of the National Bank of Geneva.
Mr. Rejman: Good luck to you and welcome to Auburn.
Mr. Gentile: Where will the second bank be?
Mr. Kind: Will be announced shortly.
Mr. Redmond: Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________________________
305 N. Marvine Avenue, R-1, area variance for breezeway between house and home. Verla Newman.
Mr. Rejman: 305 N. Marvine Avenue, are you here? Please step forward. State your name for the record.
Mr. Newman: Ron Newman and Verla Newman.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Newman: We have a small space between the house and the garage and we would like to enclose. It would provide a place to get from the house to the garage under cover. A lot of time the snow tends to bank up in that area and makes it kind of unusable in the winter. I thought if we could enclose it then we would have an area where we would always have access to the garage but in the future put in a wood stove to help lower the heat bill.
Mr. Rejman: OK. You have turned in a nice application for us.
Mr. Newman: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: I enjoyed the photos.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t have a cover sheet.
Mr. Rejman: The cover sheet that is separate. Double check.
Mr. Darrow: Oh, I apologize.
Mr. Rejman: Any questions?
Ms. Marteney: How big was the overhang before you started construction? The original piece in the back?
Mr. Newman: The original the overhangs are large on the house – 1 ½ to 2 feet and also when we redid back roof we extended them a little further about 4 to 5 feet.
Ms. Marteney: Over the concrete
Mr. Newman: Yes
Ms. Marteney: So it kind of lined up with the steps coming out the back door?
Mr. Newman: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: OK. I couldn’t quite tell.
Mr. Newman: We thought at one time that would be enough, but we found that the snow banked up pretty well despite the roof.
Mr. Darrow: If I may Mr. Chairman, I have a question for either Counsel or Code Enforcement. If they are attaching a garage and it is going to become a breezeway, why is there a variance needed, I thought only if it is not attached then a variance is needed because it then becomes part of both dwellings.
Ms. Hussey: The garage is an accessory structure so even though it says it doesn’t have the required distance between the accessory structure and the actual primary structure the house. You do need a variance on that because there are fire issues
Mr. Darrow: So if a house is being built and then the garage and they wanted a breezeway in their plans, then it is still 10 foot for the breezeway to join the accessory structure which is the garage and the dwelling?
Ms. Hussey: If the garage is not built into the primary structure. I mean there are attached garages, this is an existing separate
Mr. Rejman: This is the issue that we are going to visit when we close the public portion. Any further questions at this point? No questions? OK, close the public portion, have a seat, we are going to discuss this. You will have an answer in a moment.
Ed, I think I understand your question, because if you have an accessory structure and you decide to make it part of the dwelling, this sort of hinders this is what stops you from doing it this part right here. It is a little gray area.
Mr. Darrow: As long as they meet, I would assume as long as they met the Building Fire Codes for an accessory structure where it had to be 5/8’s rock in the garage within 4 foot of the breezeway that it would be unneeded.
Ms. Marteney: He is also not say breezeway, I heard him say he is going to put walls up and a stove in there
Mr. Rejman: It is an addition
Ms. Marteney: Not a breezeway.
Mr. Rejman: At that point if he were building, if he started with a bare piece of ground and designed this building just the way it was and built it all at once, it would not be an issue.
Ms. Hussey: Two separate buildings
Ms. Marteney: It appears that it was started without a permit and there was some concern about the ability for the structure to withstand snow and other kind of things, so I think that is what appears to me to be one of the bigger problems, not the idea of the structure.
Mr. Galvin: If I may Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Galvin: The reason that he came before the board is because the house is under construction with a rehabilitation project sponsored by the City and Homsite and Mr. Newman had added the additional overhang. The construction methods in the overhang are non typical, therefore the Code Enforcement Officers couldn’t judge whether the construction was sufficient to withstand snow and to stand for a long term. They asked Mr. Newman to get a engineer’s statement saying the construction is sufficient and since then had to come before you.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Ms. Marteney: There are letters attached to the effect that describes that.
Mr. Galvin: Does that accurately describe the sequence of events?
Mr. Newman: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: So the actual variance that is needed is a 10-foot side yard variance for the purpose of putting
Mr. Rejman: To be honest, I am confused with this.
Mr. Darrow: I understand we need the 10-foot between them, but I don’t understand
Mr. Rejman: When there is an accessory building, there is not going to be an accessory building.
Mr. Westlake: This is an addition.
Mr. Rejman: It is an addition that ties everything together. I am not sure what the variance actually is in this case.
Mr. Darrow: Just want to know what the variance should be phrased as.
Mr. Rejman: Starting from a bar piece of ground and building this, there wouldn’t be
Mr. Darrow: Correct, it wouldn’t be an issue.
Mr. Westlake: As far as snow or anything like that, that wouldn’t be anything for us.
Mr. Rejman: We are ok with that because he has an engineer’s seal on it now.
Mr. Westlake: Right. I don’t know what the variance would be either.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone have any ideas here?
Mr. Westlake: I am not against it, don’t get me wrong.
Mr. Darrow: I am not either, I just want to make sure we give him the proper variance
Ms. Marteney: Because if he puts walls on he is going to have to come for a variance again, if it is a breezeway that is one thing, if it becomes a room that is something different.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Newman, would you come back. What is the long term thought on this breezeway.
Mr. Newman: My understanding was the reason for the variance was because the garage was built with a variance so therefore anything you attach to the garage also needs a variance.
Mr. Darrow: OK.
Mr. Rejman: Not sure about that. This is an enclosed breezeway that will turn into living space
Mr. Newman: It is almost completely enclosed except for the back wall because of the bottom boards and the house itself, it is a “U” shaped area we just wanted to put an additional wall on the back.
Mr. Rejman: It turns into living space, into a room. That is ok, just wanted clarification on that.
Mr. Galvin: There are a couple of ways to look at this, one he has a side yard variance for an attached garage, then the house standards of 10 feet from the side yard, if I am not mistaken the north side yard is fairly close, the opposite side yard – you have to have a minimum of 7 feet between the house and the side lot line.
Mr. Newman: Originally the reason for the need for a variance for the garage was because it was the only possible place it could go, there is a hill that drops off in the back. In order to be able to reach it with the driveway the restriction was it had to be 3 feet from the property line.
Mr. Darrow: Would the variance be for an accessory structure less than 10 foot from the dwelling itself?
Mr. Rejman: Not an accessory structure.
Mr. Darrow: If the four walls aren’t enclosed at the time and it is attached to the garage
Mr. Westlake: A couple months ago we had the shed that was in front of the house it wasn’t attached it was too close to the house now if the guy attached it to the house it is an addition, he didn’t need a variance at all.
Ms. Hussey: This survey that we have does not depict the garage is that correct? We have a survey dated 1971.
Ms. Marteney: Very light and then there is a number between the edge of the garage
Ms. Hussey: I can’t distinguish that
Ms. Marteney: I can’t tell what that is either.
Ms. Hussey: It looks like it is just sketched in, it doesn’t look like it is part of the survey so we really don’t know the accurate distance between the side yard and the edge of that garage. With the addition enclosed that makes it part of the house.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Newman, you can sit down, we are going to discuss this. Thank you very much.
Mr. Darrow: All that I am searching for is a proper way to phrase this.
Mr. Rejman: So am I. Stop taking notes for a moment.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that it is the opinion of the Zoning Board of Appeals, City of Auburn, that 305 N. Marvine Avenue under the applicant name of Verla and Ron Newman are not in need of any variance for the purpose of constructing an attached addition per plans to their house to connect with the garage and that Code Enforcement should issue a permit for this site.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Sincebaugh, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: You may proceed.
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
| 
