ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2003
Members Present: Mr. Gentile
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Member Absent: Ms. Marteney (called conflict with other meeting)
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey
Mr. Galvin
Mr. Hicks
APPLICATION
APPROVED: 202-204 Genesee Street
APPLICATION
DENIED: 28 and 32 Madison Avenue
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have two items on the agenda:
202-204 Genesee Street
28 and 32 Madison Avenue
Before we start this is a seven-member board, you need four affirmative votes to have any application passed. We do have one absentee tonight; she is attending another meeting that was rescheduled.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2003
202-204 Genesee Street, R-2, lot area variance for 16 apartment units at Bel-Aire apartments. Brendan Grillo.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 202-204 Genesee Street, are you here? Are you ready?
Mr. Giacona: Good evening, Sam Giacona on behalf of the applicant Brendan Grillo who is also here, along with our architect William Walton. This is an application to obtain an area and use variance in order to construct two eight (8) unit apartment houses. Many of the members may recall that we were here over a year ago seeking the same application; there were some problems with regard to tree lines and a right of way for utilities. Since that time one substantial factor that has changed is that my client purchased 206 the corner consisting of a three-unit apartment house on the corner of Ross Place and Genesee Street. Basically he made that acquisition upon reliance of representations by former Building Code Inspector Jim Moore, who said
that in the event he required additional square footage the two eight unit apartment houses would be a feasible application, so that is primarily the thing that has changed.
In addition, the architect revamped the tree line aspect of it. By acquiring the three unit on the corner we have alleviated the problem concerning the right of way for utilities as that it makes it feasible for Mr. Grillo to put the utilities at the end of that corner lot. In addition, it could provide ingress and egress for Ross Place in the event that is a concern as well by the board. As previously indicated, the two units that presently exist are two ten units and it is up-scaled apartment housing for mature adults and the transient level of those tenants is very minimal. My client has a standing waiting list, he has zero vacancy. He does an excellent job. You may have noticed a change in the
three units since my client bought it. He paid a premium dollar because the seller knew that he needed the additional square footage to proceed with this application. He paid $75,000 and at the time I believe that the City condemned two of the units. Since then he done extensive renovations and we have noticed a change and all three units are occupied. The quality of the tenants has increased substantially, as my client is very aggressive in seeking out top-notch tenants.
Mr. Walton is prepared to answer questions concerning the financial hardship as reflected in the addendum that has been submitted. As I indicated the financial hardship of my client is that he also purchased this corner lot at a premium rate far and above what I believe is a fair market value for that unit in light of the condition at the time he purchased it. Basically that is my presentation concerning the application. Does anyone have any questions for me?
Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board? Must be some?
Mr. Sincebaugh: One of my concerns is the traffic on Genesee Street, is that going to be a problem? I know that they did add an arrow at Washington. Has that been looked at?
Mr. Giacona: We don’t perceive that as a problem and Mr. Walton may be able to handle that question better than I, but there has been no problem to date and we don’t anticipate that would be a problem. Mr. Walton your thoughts.
Mr. Walton: It is our hope, looking a the plans, it is our hope that we can bring our traffic out and onto Ross Place so we have a way of in and out as opposed to bringing everybody in and out off of Genesee Street. This will alleviate backing up here at the light.
Mr. Rejman: In looking at these two construction estimates and return on investments, we are using an 8% return and the twelve apartment unit brings back $61,000 and change and the sixteen unit brings back $71,000 and change, I guess that is where this whole budget – can the applicant receive a reasonable economic return on the property from the uses permitted, six versus the eight. I am not sure exactly sure how to weigh that answer. Counselor your comments on that?
Ms. Hussey: It is on the figures submitted and the applicant’s answers.
Mr. Rejman: So we are looking at $696,000 invested with a $61,000 return or $810,000 with a $71,000 return. We have all the figures but just having difficulties with this.
Mr. Walton: If I could, one of the things on the financial packet submitted is an addendum to our application. I think the number that is probably the key factor that counts a little more is the cost per square foot for the building costs. As you will note in the twelve unit apartments it comes up around $33.00 and some change per square foot versus the sixteen unit which is around $39.00, so the cost per square foot is not that much different between the two which says that a lot of the investment is going into land development as opposed actually to the building cost. Therefore the owner’s return for investment will be much better on sixteen units versus the twelve because of that difference I the price for the building
costs.
Mr. Rejman: I would like to revisit this purchasing the property on the corner.
Mr. Giacona: Very well.
Mr. Rejman: With Mr. Moore’s guidance let’s say and again why would he wish the applicant to purchase this property on the corner?
Mr. Giacona: Number one to alleviate any problems with the square footage per unit.
Mr. Rejman: Please stop, if by purchasing the property there is no problem with square footage, then why are we here?
Mr. Darrow: If I remember correctly from our last meeting, Mr. Moore had perhaps suggested to him that they would not be required for the variance if they had purchased that corner property but then what had popped up was the number of units per square footage of entire land area. So now they are caught between a rock and a hard place because to what the original reason Mr. Moore had them seeking a variance for was alleviated but purchasing that other property it increased their units per parcels, units in whole and now it created a whole new variance.
Mr. Walton: Part of it I wish to go over tonight too a little bit because there were some questions the last hearing we had regarding the neighborhood density calculations which is I the book that was provided and you have a copy of this page in front of you, but there are two calculations which the zoning goes through to figure out the number of units and one is the area density per area based on a four acre square. If you look at the calculation on this page, by the four square acres that we have surrounding our site development there is an allowance of twenty-one units to be permitted by zoning. We are asking for sixteen, so we are under what is required by five, but there is also another place in the zoning, which says you need to have 2500
square feet per dwelling unit of your area. Now when we were working with Jim Moore originally and we were looking at the numbers, he said purchasing the corner lot will give us the square footage that we needed to meet our units that we were looking to do. What was missed in the calculations of what he ran and I was using numbers he was helping me run through was the three additional units that we picked in purchasing the corner lot. That corner lot has three units in it, so we are over by the what is allowed by zoning by three units in terms of the use area and that is what we are seeking a variance on, those additional three units.
Mr. Darrow: Never figured in the three additional units that he had picked up.
Ms. Hussey: If I may, you have the minutes from the original the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting dated October 29, 2001 and the applicant originally applied for the eight units on end and the minutes explained what the variance is and it is similar to what Mr. Walton just said.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, but now that the has purchased the property on the corner, we are not looking for an eight unit variance, we are looking for three unit variance at this point.
Ms. Hussey: You are looking for a use variance in as much as a multi family dwelling the maximum units allowed in that building district are six per building.
Mr. Walton: Right and again it was through Jim Moore what we came up with was a configuration of two separate buildings eight units in each building with a fire wall separation so that the maximum area that we are doing is four units in blocks with required separations.
Mr. Darrow: So it is not that or we would be granting a variance of more square footage, we would need to grant them a variance to allow three more units under a use variance for that square footage.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, while we continue to mull that over, let me ask this, I there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? There seems to be quite a few people. Sam why don’t you have a seat for a moment, we will work through this and we will bring you both back and address the issues and concerns.
Mr. Walton: There were some other items on my list, should I address them now?
Mr. Rejman: Yes, let’s do that first.
Mr. Walton: One is I wanted to address the fact that our change in plan from our previous plan submitted what we have tried to do in the latest development of the architectural development was to reduce the square footage of the building by combing a lot of the common space which is entry, laundry, mechanical facilities and so forth that service both wings of this building. It is basically two buildings that are connected by a length which is the entry and common space for the apartments. I do have a set of the previous plans here which were two separate buildings with six units in each building and if you look at that on the site which will we are allowed to do under the zoning, we are using a lot more land area to develop those buildings than
we are with the current configuration, so we are providing a lot more green space with the current configuration. What we have tried to do is cut back on the amount of green space that we were cutting down and removing. We are maintaining the green space at the back of the lot which is a forested area as well as developing a green space between what is know 202-204 and the 203 lot which Brendan purchased we are developing a green space along here as well which is a separation between the abutting neighbors. That is it for now.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Step forward please, someone. State your name for the record.
Mr. Cristantiello: Good evening. My name is Steve Cristantiello; I live at 103 Ross Place. Wonder if I could take a moment to look at the latest drawing.
Mr. Rejman: Sure, why don’t you and the applicant partner up and go look at the drawing and is there anyone else wishing to speak?
Mr. Cristantiello: This must not be the current plan anymore.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s take a little break here. Those that wish to take a look at the new site plan, why don’t you come up and get the tour.
Ok, we are back now.
Mr. Cristantiello: Firstly I noticed that Mr. Grillo’s representation said that he purchased the property for $75,000 on the corner and that that was a hardship to him. Then immediately following he says that the price per square foot for a twelve unit apartment is $33.00 a square foot and sixteen unit apartment is $39.00 a square foot. That difference of $6.00 a square foot for sixteen units, even if they were only 900 square feet which is the minimum I think for the City of Auburn, if $75,000 was a hardship then why is not $172,800 not a hardship? He said the $172,800 wasn’t going to be a problem so, I don’t understand why a smaller amount is a bigger hardship than a larger amount.
Additionally, if the driveway is going to be relocated, as I see on the current drawing, that puts the driveway in my front yard. As it stands now, the people living in the corner house on Genesee Street back into my front yard now to get into the driveway for that apartment house. My car has been hit by cars coming from there, cars on the street have been hit by cars leaving there and the odd and even parking which we have to obey because of the snow plowing for the City, often causes us to part half a block from my house at present, with 32 more residents, even though they have parking on the property, I am sure they will have guests and occasionally they will park on the street causing us perhaps to park even farther away. My wife is 100% disabled and half a block walk for her to get home is just a little bit too much, especially in this kind of weather.
I am opposed to the development of the two sixteen apartments houses. We have an Economic Development Zone on Owasco Street, one at Five Points. Adelphia just bought some property on Owasco Street, I think it was for $25,000 that is a sizable piece of property, I looked at it myself. It use to by Jay Sawyer’s Plumbing. We looked at it to put up a twenty-unit apartment, a safe house for battered women. We talked to Mayor Carnicelli, Mr. Nozzolio and Governor Pataki. We had approval on all fronts from them for that type of structure in that area. I don’t understand why this has to be built in an area where we are going to be cramped in, forced to park down the street and
then the driveway that goes from the sixteen units two sixteen unit apartments will exist unto Genesee Street at Washington. We just changed the light there to lighten up the congestion in that area now we are going to do something to impose more congestion.
The proposed drawing also shows that there is going to be an exit onto Ross Place and that exist will be used for cars I am sure, I am speculating but I am sure it will be used for cars it is certainly wide enough as a right of way for that. Although we are led to believe that it is for the egress and existing of fire equipment. There is a green space on the property that would allow fire equipment to turn around if the property drawing is to scale, seems as though it is big enough to turn around a truck, just about any fire truck that we have in our Fire Department. So I don’t understand why we have to have a driving area exit onto Ross Place. My opposition is mainly, I don’t want that traffic on my
street, I don’ want to have to walk half a block to get into my house every night and I don’t want my wife to have to do that either. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application?
Mr. Mills: Hi, my name is Darryl Mills and I live at 106 Ross Place. I believe, he talks about financial hardship; I believe that is not something that a community should bear because he paid too much for a house. How much is a financial hardship to shovel your sidewalk from the east side of Ross Place to Genesee Street. Is that so hard? It has not been shoveled once this year. There is probably 18 inches of snow there.
I believe he should stick to the existing ordinances, the building is approximately 30 feet from the back of my house, the kitchen window, look out the window and see a two story apartment building or whatever. They spoke about the congestion on Genesee and Washington at the light which they put the arrow in to help take care of that which this is only going to add more to it. There are already numerous apartment buildings in the area, Murphy Buildings, Bel-Aire, White Birch Apartments. They are advertising apartments in the paper now so how can they be fully occupied. They say mature adults, there is no way you can guarantee you are going to get mature adults, any one young you can’t just turn them
down. How much of the property value of my house will go down, you look out the kitchen window and see apartment buildings out there.
I would also like to see a fence a privacy fence, I would like to see the property fenced in as one parcel individually. If it was it would keep people from cutting through and parking on the street and walking through there. That is it for now. Make sure you shovel your sidewalk.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Yes?
Mr. Connors: Good evening, my name is John Connors and I live at 110 Ross Place. I had a plan which I guess is obsolete now, they have made some significant improvements and corrected some of the issues that I was going to bring up. I agree with what the other fellow said as far as disruptions to the neighborhood it is definitely going to do that. There is already an enormous amount of foot traffic and car traffic up and down Ross Place off of Genesee Street. Hard to imagine why but it is a fact. Cars parked up and down the street all the time, a lot of traffic. To add more to that would just be so much congestion it will be a major disruption in our daily lives.
I think some of the improvements they have made are definitely good. They moved this building forward which gives us that buffer zone of a tree line now, that is a little help when you have all these cars and traffic going in and out of here. It is going to put an additional tax on the sewer system; the architect tells me they may possibly be running a new line down to Woodlawn. The current system won’t handle it all especially with storms. The catch basin in front of 108 overflows regularly. That would be something that would have to be corrected. Those are my objections. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Ryan: My name is Kevin Ryan, I am an attorney, and I represent Joseph Carmado Sr. who lives on Ross Place. I am here to object in opposition to this area variance and I note that the notice that advertised it characterized it as an area variance and it made no mention of use variance so I don’t know who the board is characterizing this application. But in terms of the variance that is being considered, now this board has already heard from residents of the neighborhood and they have demonstrated why they are opposed to this because of a number of factors including traffic, area congestion and the general residential character of the neighborhood.
But more importantly is the fact that this board should recognize that the Auburn Council, the City of Auburn enacted zoning regulations to govern the way of property use in the City. What they are trying to do today is to get a variance an exception around those rules. In order to do that they need to demonstrate a reason why this Zoning Board of Appeals should grant the variance that they seek. The only reason that we have heard why such a variance should be granted is because of the economic hardship. They are not saying they can’t use the property there is no economic return from the property as it stands right now. All they are saying is that they can make more money if you allow them to put more units in.
Now Mr. Walton, I believe, his architect said that the return would be “much better if you allowed him to have the plan that they are applying for tonight”. Now that is not sufficient, the law of the State is very clear that a variance not one simply to allow a greater economic return on a business. We know that they already have a valid economic return on the property. It is a viable operation, there are rented units, they are making a return. Any hardship that he has that he is talking about tonight is either self-imposed because nobody forced him to buy the property at the corner or is simply insufficient to grant the variance that they are applying for tonight.
Now I ask this board to recognize the fact that all they are trying to do is make more money and not allow them to do that and the fact that the residents of this neighborhood have given you ample reasons why this variance should not be granted. Thank you.
(Audience applauds Mr. Ryan)
Mr. Rejman: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Yes?
Ms. McMurray: Good evening, my name is Joyce McMurray; I am the former owner of the Bel-Aire Apartments. I have heard what the people over here have said and I have been an owner and manager for twenty-seven years. Most of the clientele that are there are middle aged people and all the time that I owned it, I very seldom had an empty apartment. If you yourself had gone around Auburn to try and find an apartment that is nice, that is clean and well maintained it is very difficult and what is Brendan is trying to do is to make a complex where I have seen and I believe he has seen a need to for people that want to live, maybe not in Boyle Center and not Standart Woods. But if you look around there are very few complexes that are not really
big, where everything is taken for them. Most of the people that live there either sold their homes or they are not able to do all the snow plowing, the shoveling, they have a laundry facility that is in their building. The location is close to downtown, near the library, near the Post Office, doctors, close to the arterial, the bus route goes by there, your restaurants are close by, your churches and museums are close by.
This complex has been kind of a special place because the people that rent there are people that begin to know each other, they begin to form a little group themselves, so they watch out for each other. They are not living some place where no one is really thinking of them, they take care of each other and this is what Brendan is after because he has seen a need in the community as I saw there was a need for these apartments. We didn’t want to add on at the time and we were not young enough to do it. I am retired now, retired from teaching and that is why I sold them, because I was getting older and I wanted others to take it over.
Brendan did buy the building next door, 206 and there are probably more reasons than he is going to explain why he bought it, but the building there, if you are familiar with the area, was badly deteriorating. The clientele that was renting were not the clientele that would fit with Bel-Aire Apartments by that I mean that the cops were there lots of time, there were a lot of problems. Since he has bought them he is trying to improve it and I think the neighbors will say that maybe there hasn’t been quite as many police down in that area lately, things have quieted down and he is doing a better job with the tenants.
Also, when we owned it the traffic that went in and out, it was not traffic that was going in and out every minute of the day; maybe earlier in the morning when people are going to work or maybe when they are coming home at night. There was always an access which we could have used onto Ross Place, which was not used because there was not problem going out onto Genesee Street. So think of the traffic I don’t think it is going to be as big a problem as they think it is going to be.
I am hoping that you will look at it in a more positive outlook that it is something that is going to added to the community for the people because we are an aging community and may be another place for some of us to live, that is clean and well taken care of. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Yes?
Mr. Mason: My name is Chuck Mason and I live at 204 Genesee Street, which is one of the Bel-Aire Apartments. There are a number of things that I would like to address to the board. Good to see Ed, Chairman Rejman who I use to be on the board with way back in 1995-97. I know you guys took a break but you are back and I am glad to see you back. Good to see everybody, Dan Sincebaugh here a new member.
I would just like to start out by saying that I think it is very rare here in Auburn that we have somebody step forward like Brendan Grillo has on looking to make an investment in our City. We are all well aware of the economic times and the climate that we are living in here in Auburn, and I think that we are all citizens that are dedicated to try and make Auburn a better place and Brendan has stepped forward over the last few years as a new comer to the landlord business. But as someone that is very concerned about the future of Auburn and willing to make an investment behind his efforts. All the properties that he owns here in Auburn are extremely well maintained. He owns a couple of other properties besides the Bel-Aire property. I can attest by being a tenant of
his that he is an excellent landlord, he takes excellent care of the Bel-Aire units in particular, he has done quite a bid of work on them over the last year to try to keep them well maintained. I know that he has plans for some exterior upgrades to Bel-Aire as well to 206, which he just purchased a few months ago. He is somebody that is making an investment in his properties. In my opinion he is exactly the type of landlord that Auburn needs and definitely the type of landlord that Auburn needs to be encouraging so that they will continue to invest.
I have been in close contact with Mr. Grillo over the last couple years over this project. When he first started this project a few years back I was a member of the City Council here in Auburn and would talk to him in that capacity and I know that, that is why I am giving you some of my input as to what I feel coming from that angle. When I was here as a member of the City Council, one of the biggest things that this City is trying to do is address its need for an adequate housing stock and address its need to improve the aging and dilapidated housing stock that we have. As Joyce just mentioned earlier, it is not easy to find an apartment in this City. I was lucky a year ago that one of the Bel-Aire apartments came open when I was looking for an apartment. I had rented a
house prior to that for four years and needed to move out of that house and was looking for a couple of months here in Auburn and it is not that easy to find something that is new or modern, well kept up. There are plenty of apartments like that in the City, but often times you find that they are full. The City is always getting itself into projects in which it is trying to address the housing needs of Auburn. As a community I think we are tremendously invested into a lot of public housing projects, such as over on Westlake with a major project that we took care of over there, they are spread across the City, you can consider the college dormitory downtown as one of them. When an opportunity comes up that private sector person is looking to step up to the plate and make an investment in housing in this community, I think we need to embrace it because one of the dilemmas that Auburn has is that if we don’t have adequate housing here in the City
for people to live they are not going to come here even if jobs come here. Because what is going on is a lot of the new modern housing start ups, the new single family start ups that are being constructed out in the donut towns and so a lot of the building is going on out there. If there are not places for people like myself who are working and not ready yet to purchase property or not ready yet to own a home, if there are not places here for people like me to live in the City, we are going to go elsewhere, it is that simple. So more of that type of housing is needed in the City and I think that is what Brendan’s project is going to address.
If I could, I just want to touch on the question that Dan Sincebaugh had asked about the intersection there. I would just like to remind everybody that one of the reasons that the arrow has been put in at the corner of Genesee and Washington Streets is in anticipation for the Genesee Street reconstruction which is going to roll out here in the next couple years. That is another project that we dealt with when I was here on the City Council. It is just getting to the point where it is going to start to unroll itself now. We have been planning that project for the about last five years.
That intersection is going to be greatly improved to be able to better handle the traffic flow and future traffic flow of that intersection. The funding that is coming in that is a project that is going to be 95% funded by the State and Federal government. That road is being constructed to anticipate future growth for the next twenty years. Those are the requirements that the State sets for you when you re –do a State highway like that, you have to project future growth that is going to occur over the next couple of decades and take that into account when you reconstruct the road. The Genesee reconstruction is going to allow for smoother flow of traffic through that intersection and it is going to be widen out, it is going to have better parking, it is going have better
accesses, better intersections especially over at Ross Place and once that construction takes place and we will have the benefit of that in a couple years, it is going to be much smoother for everybody. I travel that myself in and out of there two or three times a day and every once and a great while I have to wait because there might be eight or ten cars backed up at the light there, but it is only once in a great while. Usually in the mornings I go right out and there is no problem.
The other things based on what I know about this project; one is, Brendan’s next step once he hopefully receives variances from you tonight, will be that he will have to go o the Planning Board for a site plan appraisal and site plan approval, so a lot of the concerns that were brought up by residents here tonight are going to be addressed through the site plan work that the Planning Board will do in the next couple of months and the other thing is and this is some input that I have based on the fact that I have been well aware of this project for the last couple years when I was affiliated with the City as a member of the Council, I was kept in close contact with Brendan and people here in the City about what we could try to do to get this project through.
I think that, you know, Brendan was told that if he purchased 206 that it would open up opportunities for him to be able to do the project with sixteen units. When the project came back for design, it has been designed as two eight units with a fire wall in between. What he was told that if he had that firewall in between each one of the eights, it would be considered two fours. Therefore, there would be four, each one would be two fours and therefore you would have four structures all under six so you in fact wouldn’t need to come in front of this board for a use variance. That is one of the things that he was told, that is what he was led to believe. He then purchased 206. Had to pay a premium price, in fact probably paid a lot more for that property
than it was really worth and he now holds the burden of the investment that he has made in that property based on the fact that he was kind of led to believe that he would be able to get this, he paid extra, and he holds that burden, that is a financial burden that he currently holds.
To conclude and thank you for your time, I tried to address a lot of things there, but I can’t emphasize enough that as a member of this community that has been involved with some projects trying to do things to move this City along a little bit, we cannot afford to be turning away people like Brendan Grillo when he steps up to the plate and wants to make an investment in this City. I think this will be an improvement for that section of town. I know that his investments in 206 have been already a drastic improvement. I live in one of those apartments that is immediately next to 206 and I couldn’t even open my windows this summer because the old situation was very very bad. I know it probably drove the rest of the neighborhood crazy just like it drove me crazy all
summer. Brendan has provided a solution for that problem. I know that once we get to better weather months we will all realize that Brendan has done a lot of work there and has brought some peace of mind to use.
Just to conclude again, I don’t think we can be turning away people that are making an investment like Mr. Grillo. He is at the beginning of this, so we are looking, if he is encouraged as a private sector investor, I am sure we are going to see a life time of commitment from him. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?
Ms. White: I am Mary White. I would like to speak from the prospective of the big picture. Auburn is a town that is trying to revitalize downtown and many of the merchants downtown have talked about getting downtown back so it is a thriving part of the City. It would be a good thing. I have rented and owned and when I have rented either a half of a house and I have rented an up and down, with a second floor, the people that owned a lot of the rental houses are not as necessarily quick to come in and fix something as someone who that is their business, they are the landlord of several buildings, so that is a major difference.
Not everyone can afford a house. I know some people that would like to sell their house, their house is getting to be a burden so to speak and they don’t have the strength or whereabout to plow their driveways and things so wrong in their house and they have to repair it and that would like to be able to move into new unit that is so close to so many of the things that people need, grocery store, Post Office, library.
The other thing is my son graduated from college a year and a half ago and now lives in Buffalo. It is kind of common knowledge when the young people come back at Thanksgiving, many of them don’t see a reason to stay in Auburn because it is a town that needs to come back and I think that when you have a young man with vision, who has been jumping through many hoops to try and make this happen, I would think that if people worked together maybe a solution could happen where both sides could be happy.
Mr. Rejman: Good, thank you.
Mr. Darrow: My I have your address for the record please?
Ms. White: My address?
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Ms. White: I live on Zoar Street
Mr. Darrow: Excuse me?
Ms. White: I live on Zoar Street
Mr. Darrow: Zoar?
Ms. White: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Are you a City resident?
Ms. White: I didn’t know I had to be one
Mr. Darrow: No, no, for a matter of record.
Mrs. Westlake: Did you say Zoar? Could you spell that?
Ms. White: Z O A R.
Mrs. Westlake: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: And that is in what municipality?
Ms. White: Owasco. I pay City taxes and my address is Auburn.
Mr. Rejman: Just a matter of record. Thank you for your input. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Galvin: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the Office of Planning and Economic Development did receive one call from a Mr. Moran, the Insurance Company across the street on Genesee Street, he is in support of this proposal.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Applicant and counsel.
Mr. Gentile: Can I have Mr. Connors come back, I want to ask him a question.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, excuse me, Sam. Mr. Connors, would you like to come back for a moment.
Mr. Connors: Sure.
Mr. Gentile: I wasn’t clear on which direction, you seemed pleased with the changes.
Mr. Connors: Since the last plan that I had, this is my lot right here (points to drawing) the original building this building was back in this wooded area, right back to here which put this wall in front of my property. They have since moved that and they are going to leave this existing woods here except this small section. The value of these woods of course, there are birds and wildlife, to provides a buffer for the rest of the houses from noise and commotion up and around the area.
Also, there is quite a difference in elevation from this level down to my level which is somewhere around ten to fifteen feet and I think if that is disturbed the runoff itself is going to cause such a pool down in here because the trees won’t be there to take care of the snow melting, the rain and that. So that was one of my concerns about that is to keep that wooded area for buffer and to prevent any water and snow collection down in there.
There is also an old septic that sits down in here and all the houses are hooked to the septic and disruption of that, I don’t know what problems that would create, but I am sure there would be some. So it is a good idea to move that away from that. Also part of the plan it doesn’t show too clear, is another buffer of trees along here along this 108 property. That would be an additional help. This building is going to sit much higher, so I would be looking into the brick wall.
Mr. Gentile: Are you satisfied with this revised plan?
Mr. Connors: More than I was with the original, yes, a lot more. The thing that concerns me now is if you do something like this you have a lot of traffic and if they do end up making this an egress in and out, there is already too much traffic on this street, but you get the additional cars running around here plus the lighting, there are bedrooms in the back here, additional lighting early in the morning, snow plows come in there, trash pick up, so obviously there is going to be some disruptions. Something I rather not have to deal with.
Mr. Gentile: Thank you.
Mr. Connors: Another thing too, I am sure everybody has got good intentions and I respect Mr. Grillo’s efforts and everything he is doing but my experience has been with absentee landlords and it has always been a problem. We all have good intentions. We have 112 next door to us, one problem after another for I don’t know how many years, so I am sort of like sensitive to all this. If they are not there paying attention to things on a daily basis, problems come up and just fester, they don’t get take care of, we are the ones that are there every day. That can occur with the best of intentions.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Connors: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Applicant and counsel please.
Mr. Giacona: I was at a meeting last Friday morning and Mayor Melina Carnicelli was the keynote speaker and she is committed to make this the best little smallest City in New York State. One of her highlights was that we need people to invest in the City, we need housing, we need to get housing downtown and here we have this young man who is going to invest upwards over $750,000 and I think to echo the words of the Chuck Mason, who pretty much said it all, we shouldn’t turn him away. We need to find a way and a lot of the comments as he indicated will be addressed at the site plan review and I understand that there was meeting of the Planning Board today and they are very excited about the project. He could withdraw this application
and put in two six unit buildings right now and eliminate a lot of the green space that we have with this plan here.
To address some of the comments made by Mr. Ryan, why isn’t someone able to make the best and the highest use of the property. This is a four acre tract of land right smack dab in the heart of the City, right near downtown, right near all the facilities, restaurants, Court House, the Post Office, it is right in the center of the City and it is very unique in that there aren’t that many tracts of land that big downtown. Why shouldn’t he be able to make the highest and best use of it? Why isn’t he able to make money? Why isn’t he able to make more money? There is a financial hardship and we have shown it. He was misled by Mr. Moore and I think he would come in and tell
you that he made a mistake but that doesn’t negate the fact that my client spent a premium amount of money for the property on the corner, made renovations to that, there is a financial hardship there. I think the board can act on that financial hardship and grant this variance, use and area.
Mr. Ryan indicated that he is making money now let’s leave it be. What about the taxes, what about the water and sewer, anyone who lives in the City knows that all of these are going up, why shouldn’t he be allowed to make use of this unique piece of property and expand its use so that he can make more money. It adjoins commercial property on the northeast.
Regarding the comments concerning an absentee landlord, Mr. Mason has attested and I believe that all of the tenants can attest to Mr. Grillo’s tenacity to maintain these properties and that is why he gets and keeps good tenants. So basically I believe the board has enough before it to make a decision tonight to grant the variances that we have requested.
Mr. Rejman: I have a question. The present plan that shows sixteen units, is the footprint of that building smaller than the original plan for the twelve?
Mr. Walton: Smaller.
Mr. Rejman: It is smaller?
Mr. Walton: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: So the footprint is smaller, the impact on the whole property is smaller.
Mr. Walton: Correct.
Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Gentile: Does Mr. Grillo manage his own property or does he hire someone to manage his property?
Mr. Giacona: He does it all himself.
Mr. Gentile: He does it himself. This is his full time job?
Mr. Giacona: He has a job, his hours are flexible.
Mr. Rejman: Closing questions?
Mr. Sincebaugh: You are saying you are not going to be able to pull in and out of Ross Place?
Mr. Giacona: That is an option that we have, but we don’t believe we need it, but if we go through site plan review and they believe that would be required
Mr. Sincebaugh: My concern is pulling in and out of a residential area, I would rather see them go out on Genesee Street.
Mr. Giacona: Genesee Street entrance can handle the traffic.
Mr. Walton: The drawings we submitted to the Planning Board are the same as you see here without connection to Ross Place. It is only an option that if they push us to do a connection with firetruck egress or other type of egress out of the site, we would use it.
Mr. Giacona: There are a lot of things on the horizon that will greatly impact Auburn. I believe everyone is aware of the Bass Outlet that is coming to the Fingelakes Mall, it is going to bring in 300 jobs. Where are these people going to find housing? We have got Destiny NY and who knows what that is going bring, what opportunities, people are going to locate to this area. Maybe they want to come to a small City, maybe they want to find housing downtown. This is an opportunity for the City. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Close the public portion and start the discussion amongst ourselves.
Mr. Darrow: My biggest concern would be any legal ramifications of mis-advertisement.
Mr. Rejman: I have a question. Are we dealing, we are not dealing with a use variance, we are dealing with an area variance, is that correct?
Ms. Hussey: Dealing with a use varinance.
Mr. Rejman Why?
Ms. Hussey: The structures that are being proposed to be built are in a R-2 district. An R-2 district allows multiple dwellings no more than six units per building. So because eight per building is not allowed in an R-2, it exceeds the number of units allowed in an R-2, therefore it requires a use variance.
Mr. Rejman: You happy with that?
Mr. Darrow: Yes, I am completely.
Ms. Hussey: Your concerned about the public notice
Mr. Darrow: Ramifications of improper advertisement of the public hearing and if an appeal was to be filed, I would look to Counsel, I don’t think it would be upheld, I don’t think our decision would be upheld on account of that because it was mis-advertised.
Mr. Rejman: Here is where I am having a problem. There is no problem for the applicant to go out and put in two six unit buildings, he can put in two six unit buildings bigger than the new proposal.
Mr. Darrow: Correct.
Mr. Rejman: He can go out there and do that. So why is it if the new building has a smaller footprint, that it is a use variance
Mr. Darrow: Because we exceed the legal number allowed in an R-2.
Mr. Rejman: Why wouldn’t we be considering an area variance too.
Mr. Darrow: It has to do with the use of the building which comes under zoning issue.
Mr. Rejman: Alright, I just wanted to get that all clear. We are dealing with a use variance.
Ms. Hussey: More than six units, from six to twelve units is considered under the definition of Garden Apartments. Garden Apartments are allowed in an R-3 districts, not allowed in R-2 districts.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Other concerns, comments, questions?
Mr. Westlake: Is this a hardship that is brought on by himself or is it, anybody could say yes you can make more money with more apartments, but there must have been a reason that the City Council here decided they wanted this type of deal in here. Now you are asking for because he wants to make money granted but is that a hardship he brings on himself?
Mr. Rejman: That is what we have to weigh with the information that we have before us. Are we ready?
Mr. Darrow: I would still like Counsel’s input should be affirmative that something that would withstand because if it is something that would not withstand therefore we could be going down a bad avenue at this point.
Mr. Rejman: Help me understand what your concern is.
Ms. Hussey: If I am correct, Mr. Darrow wants to know if number (1) these issues that you are considering tonight are appealable in an Article 78 proceeding and further if the Zoning Board of Appeals decision in the event that they made one, would be sustained.
Mr. Darrow: Yes because
Mr. Rejman: How can you answer that?
Mr. Darrow: You are the one that would have to defend it so
Ms. Hussey: That is correct, I mean
Mr. Darrow: We are looking at grounds of mis-advertisement, because it was advertised as an area variance instead of a use variance. In order to do it proper in all my years on the board, I think it needs to be re-advertised as an use variance and tabled until next month, but I would feel with Counsel’s recommendation
Ms. Hussey: This is the third hearing with respect to this
Mr. Darrow: Right
Ms. Hussey: The first hearing it was advertised as a use variance and an area variance, this one was an area variance. Every issue you raised is arguable and
Mr. Darrow: I just want to make sure
Ms. Hussey: A judge would determine it, I can’t make that determination.
Mr. Rejman: I understand your concern, but I think we just have to move forward one way or the other and deal with it from there.
Mr. Darrow: I just wanted it brought forward, that is all.
Mr. Rejman: That is why I pushed why the area thing. I guess we are on the same page. To move forward, yes?
Mr. Gentile: I just would like to say I personally commend anybody who wants to invest that kind of money into the City, I think it is wonderful. Adds to the tax base of the City, although building apartments isn’t the best thing to do, but personally I think it is nuts to invest that kind of money in apartments, but that is his choice
Mr. Rejman: But it is for a niche clientele.
Mr. Gentile: If I am clear on this, if this is turned down tonight he still has the option to construct twelve units without any problems.
Mr. Rejman: I guess that was my question, if he can legally do twelve and the original proposal had a bigger footprint and now he is saying gee let me do sixteen with a smaller footprint, what is the big impact other than a few additional cars that maybe there. I don’t know.
Mr. Sincebaugh: I really haven’t heard any bad from Bel-Aire Apartments and never heard anyone – it seems to be an upper class apartment building that I have never really heard anything bad about Bel-Aire Apartments.
Mr. Darrow: I tend to agree with Mr. Gentile that I think he is thinking quite large step forward on his own behalf for financial reward as well as I think an investment into our City. I do share a concern with the neighbors about Ross Place, but I think the truest place for that concern to be addressed and addressed properly would before Planning and site review. I think if we stay focused on what is being asked of us and act upon its merits and let Planning act in their proper capacity, it would make our decision much easier.
Mr. Rejman: Is someone getting ready to propose
Mr. Darrow: Sure
Mr. Rejman: Do you have Counsel’s guidance on this?
Mr. Darrow: No, I don’t.
Mr. Rejman: Here you go. It would be good to put the SEQRA review in and full site plan, see it at the bottom?
Mr. Darrow: Assuming Planning Board already ordered one.
Ms. Hussey: This has not been before Planning, a recommendation in the event that the Zoning Board if they grant the application the recommendation is to make it condition upon full site plan review and approval and SEQRA.
Mr. Darrow: I just took it for granted that it was going to have to go to Planning
Ms. Hussey: No, however the ZBA is an interested agency and their comments could be submitted to Planning.
Mr. Darrow: OK.
Mr. Rejman: While you are drafting that in your mind, let me just make this announcement, all applications before the Zoning Board of Appeals must be made in the affirmative. You cannot say I move that we not do something. Always has to be in the affirmative, that is the way it was written in the by-laws years ago.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant a use variance to Brendan Grillo for his property located at 202-204 Genesee Street, the use variance referring to the ability to exceed the City’s legal limit by four dwelling units in an R-2 complex. This is to be constructed as per site plan, architectural drawings and after obtaining a full SEQRA review and appearance before and positive review of the Auburn Planning Board.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved, good luck with Planning Board.
Mr. Giacona: Isn’t there also an application for a area variance? Sorry. Isn’t there an application for an area variance?
Mr. Rejman: I think
Ms. Hussey: With respect to the lot size. Brian can you help us determine that?
Mr. Giacona: We are three units shy
Ms. Hussey: Have to do with the allowed number of units on the property, is that correct?
Mr. Giacona: We wanted a use variance for four additional units, we needed an area variance for the three units because we forgot to compute the three units that he bought.
Ms. Hussey: That is the corner house.
Ms. Giacona: So we need an area variance for the three units.
Mr. Darrow: Can’t be acted on because it wasn’t advertised.
Mr. Rejman: Won’t the use variance for the four supercede the area variance?
Ms. Hussey: We are looking at density issues
Mr. Darrow: Under density that is all
Ms. Hussey: Do you have the calculations on the square footage? By adding the other property on the corner I believe the lot size was adequate, I don’t have the calculations on that.
Mr. Giacona: The problem was that we are three units shy because we forgot to calculate the units on the corner.
Mr. Walton: Part of the total area.
Ms. Hussey: What we are looking at is the neighborhood density calculation prepared by Mr. Walton in the application.
Mr. Walton: Table on the left hand side has the area based on 2500 square foot. Give the area that he has he is allowed 2300, he has 2300 existing
Ms. Hussey: It would equal 39 which is 3 over of the allotted square footage in the event it has to do with square footage and that would yes be an area variance, you are correct. So there is another variance before the board. That was originally
Mr. Walton: This application form here on the front is for an area variance.
Mr. Rejman: We only had a use variance before us
Ms. Hussey: In the October 15, 2001 application, the application was for a use variance. In the October 15, 2002 application the following year, it was an application for an area variance.
Mr. Walton: That comes back to the issue that we directed by Mr. Moore
Ms. Hussey: You are correct. What is confusing it is saying that you need a variance for three additional units.
Mr. Walton: Right.
Ms. Hussey: What the application states is the lot size is 91,108 square feet, the current Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 2500 square feet per unit or 97,500 square feet total. Applicant is requesting a variance of 6,392 square feet.
Mr. Rejman: We closed the public portion, do we have to reopen it?
Mr. Darrow: Was advertised as an area variance.
Ms. Hussey: That is correct.
Mr. Giacona: Can we amend the motion
Ms. Hussey: You would have to reopen
Mr. Darrow: All the discussion that we just had, whole new discussion
Mr. Rejman: I am a little upset that this wasn’t put before us correctly the first time, that is what we were doing here tonight, two instead of one, that is why I kept saying about the area variance.
Mr. Darrow: I thought you kept referring to the area for the units
Mr. Rejman: No
Mr. Darrow: But the units were separate from the area
Mr. Rejman: I was referring to that there were two problems on the table and I was being told there wasn’t. Would the applicant and Counsel sit down, I am just move forward for right now, we might revisit this tonight or not, I am not sure yet. Let’s get Madison Avenue. These people have been sitting here for a long time. Let’s help them out.
OK, let’s revisit this issue.
Mr. Giacona: I thought it was clear that we need a use and area variance.
Ms. Hussey: I agree. Therefore I believe that the public hearing portion of this meeting was adequate to address both. The area variance was published where the use wasn’t. It was through the summary or introduction of the matter in the beginning it was mentioned and the fact that some of the speakers got up and addressed different area aspects of the plan, including Mr. Conner with respect to where the building was moved and the square footage and those issues were addressed
Mr. Darrow: And the smaller footprint of the building.
Ms. Hussey: It is my opinion that it would be proper for the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider the area variance motion at this time without further public hearing.
Mr. Rejman: Can we make an amendment then, to your, is that the correct way?
Mr. Darrow: We already have one variance so now make a motion for the second one.
Mr. Rejman: We need 6,392 square feet.
Mr. Westlake: With the same stipulation as the first motion?
Mr. Darrow: Say that again Bob.
Mr. Rejman: 6,392 square feet. That would be a good thing, SEQRA and site plan review.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant a area variance in the sum of 6,392 square feet to Brendan Grillo for the purpose of erecting new apartment dwellings at 202 – 204 Genesee Street as submitted per plot plan and lay outs contingent upon a positive SEQRA review and positive Planning Board review.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application approved.
Mr. Giacona: Thank you very much.
Mr. Rejman: Good luck with the project.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2003
28 and 32 Madison Avenue, R-2, use variance for commercial use. Vivian Cecora.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 28 – 32 Madison Avenue, are you here please? We are nice people, we just get upset sometimes. State your name for the record.
Ms. Peltz: My name is Judith Peltz.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Judith, what seems to be the problem here. What would you like us to do for you?
Ms. Peltz: I am here representing my mother, Vivian Cecora. She is the owner of 28 and 32 Madison Avenue. I am looking for my counsel, is what I am looking for, I don’t know where he went.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s take five minutes, a little break and we will wait for him. (Attorney comes in) State your name for the record please.
Mr. Thurston: Earle Thurston, I am here on behalf of Vivian Cecora. This is Judith Peltz, her daughter. Sorry I was late here, I didn’t think Mr. Giacona was ever going to stop. (Everyone laughs)
This is an application for a use variance for property down on Madison Avenue. We submitted two packets. Mrs. Cecora has been hospitalized and we have had some trouble getting some of the financial backup data and costs related to the property. I dropped those off today, it was packet with some more specific bills and documentation and cost factors.
This property is located, it is really three parcels, known as 28 and 30 parcels which on the south side of Madison Avenue down towards the bottom of the hill near Baker Avenue. The application also involves 32 Madison Avenue which is a vacant lot, I am sorry, 37, I guess that is not part of the application. There is a vacant across the street at 37 Madison Avenue also owned by the applicant, but not part of our application. This is the area the large vacant piece of land that borders Orchard, Baker and Madison at the western end of both Orchard and Madison.
This property has been, I think our situation is a little different than what you were listening to here, we are not trying to expand our income trying to preserve the property and by seeking this use variance. This property had been owned and operated by the Cecora family for more than 40 year. He ran a small machine shop, tool and die shop on this property. I submitted a map with the packet that shows you have a unique situation with the what I call traditional old family business in a changing neighborhood from residential to commercial. The business building is located right behind the house. He operated his shop there for many years, a tool and die maker, both the Cecoras worked there, sold parts
and machinery equipment to GE. He operated this up until the time of his death in 1996. The business was operated for almost a year after that by Mrs. Cecora but then she was unable to continue to do that.
We have a pre-existing, I have alluded to that in our papers that this was always a legal use. They have been into the City three times over years since the early 1950’s for building permits and construction and expansions. I believe this is uncommon and they may have thought that they already had the use variance but we originally had bee told by the City was the case, but those are basically area variances to expand the business.
We feel we have a situation here where I have documented this with our papers, we have very little likelihood of any retention of value of this property without a use variance. We had it marketed, we have a residential/commercial structure, the banks won’t give us a loan to sell it as a house because there is a commercial structure and we can’t get a commercial loan because there is a residential structure on it and more importantly because we can’t get a use variance to permit the use. We are in the kind of a chicken and egg situation where typically I know the board expects some of detail of what we want to do with the property, but we can’t market the property without some direction as to what
I describe in various parts of the application is a continuation of a pre-existing non-conforming use. We are not trying to build into the neighborhood, we are not trying to change anything, we are trying to continue, even in some modified fashion what had been allowed there for years. In fact the commercial use I think pre-existed many of the people that now live in that neighborhood and pre-existed zoning too. So we have a problem and I have documented the expenses of almost $14,000 over the last three or four years. The City makes us come in and replace the sidewalks, we have fixed the roof, pay taxes, maintain insurance. Mrs. Cecora now lives at a different location, she is not well. We can’t sell it as a residence. We have had break-ins, we have had to do repairs down there and this is a case which I think is perfect for a use variance because if we don’t have that we are just going to see a continuing deterioration
of this property because these people can’t afford to keep throwing money into something that they can’t get any kind of return on.
The Ordinance requires us to describe a unique situation as I think this is the case, unique in the sense that we have a commercial/residential use on the premises. Where not so unique in the sense that this is a typical type of ownerships that you might see in cities like Auburn, in different parts of the City, different locations within the City. It is a unique situation from a marketing standpoint, but for the death of Mr. Cecora and the inability of his wife to continue the business it would be valid and legal. This is not self-created, this has been there as we indicated before the Ordinance. We don’t feel it will have any adverse affect upon the neighborhood because it has basically been the
neighborhood for many years. If you look at the map, there is no commercial entrances to these premises other than directly from the street. You can go right into the block building, fairly large size yard to that to the east, buffered by trees and the back of the building has a tree line, in fact we have so many trees and cover that protects and insulates the property that we have had some complaints about cutting some of the trees down. So we feel that this fits into categories required under the Ordinance and we are here to seek that variance.
The other thing about the that I would point out is the question of whether or not we have a hardship and I think I have documented that. We have had purchase offers, we have had it marketed, she has had tons of people come down there, but they can’t get the financing or they don’t want to go to the trouble of waiting a period of time to find out whether the use is there. We had one, I gave you the papers on that, the banks just finally said no, we won’t give you a commercial loan, we won’t give you a residential loan.
The net effect of this without the use variances, I think this property is just going to continue to deteriorate. We can’t afford to maintain it. We have done everything we can up to this point in time. It has always been taxed and it is still taxes as of this date as commercial, but we have a problem that we can’t use it simply because of the fact that the death of Mr. Cecora, it is a nice building, it is well maintained. We could have a reasonable commercial, I put commercial and industrial work agreeable to even – this was from what I understand a one shift maybe one time two shift operation. Our application is for consideration of a use variance of either a commercial nature or to
continue the industrial limited industrial use that was there before so that we preserve any value to this property.
I see under 305.D13 the board has the authority to impose whatever conditions that they wish in granting the use variance. We are agreeable to any reasonable conditions. We need the help of this board to be able to go out and market this property. We can’t afford to keep replacing broken windows and maintaining the property without an expectation of a reasonable return.
The other thing I noted in the application it talks about some language here about any deprival of all economic use, I don’t think even though the form says that, that is not what the statutes says. The statute talks about expectations of reasonable economic return and we just can’t get one, we can’t without the commercial use, allocation of industrial use or variance we have tried to get documentation to show that we can’t market this property. So we have no return and Mrs. Cecora is not in a position to rent out the house at this point. We can’t sell it as a residential but even just to rent it out and try to maintain it, she doesn’t live there any more and at her age it is
beyond what she is capable of. With that I would entertain any questions.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board at this point?
Mr. Darrow: Not at this time.
Mr. Rejman: Let’ do it this way. Have a seat, let me ask if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against the application?
Mr. Ryan: Good evening, my name is Thomas Ryan, I reside at 35 Madison Avenue, the property directly across from this property which is the subject of the hearing this evening. I would ask, with your permission, I have copies for everyone of the board members, counsel as well, secretary, a petition that was circulated through the neighborhood in opposition to this particular variance. So if I may.
Mr. Rejman: Yes. (Mr. Ryan passes out copies of petition)
Mr. Ryan: There are I believe a number of signatures that repeat, those are from individuals who owned more than one property on the street. I have to state I have been at that property across from them for approximately two years. I am not from this area, I moved, a handful of years ago, decided this is where I was going to live, purchased a house approximately two years ago, do I don’t have any background or history as to what that property was used for in the past, so I can’t really speak to that. I can only speak to the fact that I certainly wouldn’t have purchased my home in an R-2 residential neighborhood with the thought that a commercial business would operate across from me. The other
property that Mr. Thurston referred to, 37 Madison, which is actually a wooded lot directly beside my home.
A number of things that I think concern myself as well as some of the other neighborhood members are that the application appears to be rather vague, it does talk about sale of property, not being able to market it. I can only say that it appears that for whatever reason the property became as it is through no fault of this present Zoning Board or perhaps in the past that created this is a business that got added onto and now it is what it is.
In terms of the applicant and I just want to point out that the Zoning Code the R-2 designation for R-2 says basically that persons residing in an R-2 area can expect protection from the characteristics associated with commercial or industrial areas. They are incompatible with the maintain of the state of the neighborhood. Now I can’t see how adding a commercial property would do anything except ruin the stability of the neighborhood. I think that we can prove the stability and coherence of this neighborhood as evidenced by the petition and the people that are here this evening. I read and pay attention to what the City is doing and find quite interesting that I am certain that some where there is a overall
comprehensive land use plan and I see that the City is involved with neighbors such as Westlake Lake which is now Fort Hill area, they talk about Owasco, Five Points and now just recently Dunn & McCarthy about improving the neighborhood. At the same time the City also has industrial development areas, if someone wished to purchase an industrial property it seems that would be more the area to go to.
As far as marketing the only thing I can say is that the time that I have been there, I know there are a number of different ways to market your property, the only thing that I have seen are just For Sale signs on the building. I don’t know if any realtor has actually been showing the property, I realize there are a number of different ways to market the property. With that I would just appreciate the board’s consideration of the neighborhood as it is in whatever you might do. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Bates: Hi, my name is Kevin Bates and I live at 14 – 16 Madison Avenue. I live, it is a two family home, I live on one side and rent the other half of the house out. As the previous speaker so eloquently tonight suggested that clean, well maintained quality apartments seem to be scarce in Auburn. I consider my property, my rental to be a clean, well maintained quality apartment. I don’t believe having commercial property with associated extra traffic and restricted off street parking would enhance my ability to attract quality tenants.
My property borders West Middle School so I take very seriously who I rent my house out to. On the surface it looks like I could be hurt financially since my rental property might not seem that appealing. The truth is I could probably rent my property out to lower income families or Homsite, but I choose not to. I have no doubt granting the use variance will increase the resale value for this property, but should it come at the expense of the rest of the neighbors, including myself and the good people here tonight. I sympathize with the Cecora family and the hardships they have stated. They have had the property on the market for some time. I know my apartment has gone vacant for two year stretches,
not because I couldn’t rent it out, believe me I could have rented it out to anybody, but I choose to rent to the right people and the preserve the quality of the neighborhood. I conclude that I don’t believe that commercial is in the best interest of the neighborhood. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you.
Mr. Dygert: Hi, my name is Jeff Dygert. I own and reside at the house at 34 Madison Avenue, which is right next to the property we are discussing tonight. There have been some issue that have come up, one being traffic, if you are familiar with Madison Avenue, we have alternate side parking in the winter time, both side parking in the summer time, it is tight. We don’t know what kind of commercial business we are talking about here. I feel it is kind of dangerous just to open-end it and say, yes, we are going to allow a zoning variance for this, not knowing what is going to come in. We don’t know what is going to happen to the traffic patterns, we don’t know the status of hazardous materials, hazardous
emissions from that building will be. That is dangerous to do that in my opinion and others as well. You are going to change the characteristics of the neighborhood. Mr. Thurston said what was run there was a traditional old family business. Well, unless we can assure that someone that is going to start a business in this location is going to live there, we don’t know what their interest in that property will be and how they will maintain it.
The property is locked in by residential properties. It doesn’t border any industrial/commercial property anywhere, it is locked in. As far as the original variances that have been granted throughout the years, these variances were granted by a board such as the one that sits here now, with input from the neighborhood probably as it sits here now, but the circumstances were different. It was a pre-existing business run by a local man from the neighborhood. To open this up now, we don’t know what we are going to get in. You don’t know what the business will be, what is going to come into our neighborhood and what the ramifications will be.
As far as return on the investment and the financial hardship, I think that Mr. Cecora over 45 years worth of business probably made a pretty good return on the building he built there. From what I know, I never knew the man, but from what I have heard of him, he was a very good business man.
Next in general are we going to de-value the residential property in the City and eliminate residential in the interest of certain individuals with no definite or guarantee of jobs or a financial input to the City economy. Are we going to change this and what are we going to get? You can have someone that buys it for a business and it turns into nothing but another run down shed. We have no definites and you are putting into jeopardy all the homes in Auburn.
I bought my home in 1996. In the years following that I have put in over $50,000 into my house, you can speak with Mr. Hicks and the Codes Department people, we have put a lot of money into it and the people in that neighborhood have been doing wonders the last three years. When you talk about revitalizing neighborhoods, Madison Avenue has been revitalized. A lot of work going on there.
There is a lot of vacant property in the City, I know it. In 1999 I went out and bought commercial property for my own business. I didn’t look next door. It would have been very easy for me to look next door, I didn’t want to do that to my neighbors. I moved in there a nice quiet residential area and it was at that point. Yes there was a business running but it was dwindling and the neighbors knew that. When we talked to the neighbors before purchasing our house, they said the business has been slowly getting smaller and quieting down. Some of the residents on the street have lived since the 1940’s and they can attest that how the business grew and then shrunk back again.
Again, when the previous variances were granted the neighbors knew the business owner and they knew what to expect. We don’t know what to expect, we don’t know what to expect and I think it is very dangerous to just generally open it up to anything that may come up. That is all I have to say, thanks for considering our concerns.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
Mrs. Ryan: My name is Jennifer Ryan and I live with my husband at 35 Madison Avenue. I don’t have anything prepared I was sitting here. I am going to be very brief. I just want to reiterate how I do oppose this. The neighbors here and my husband have basically told you how we all oppose the petition that Anthony so generously brought around to our neighbors it was very appreciated. Just putting in a commercial property in the midst of two single family homes seems insane to me and I personally living across the street from this property really don’t want to see this turn into a commercial property. I manage Liberty Travel and I certainly don’t put my travel agency across from myself being in a
residential neighborhood, it just doesn’t seem right to me.
And also the traffic and the neighbors, we all have been putting a lot into our houses to keep it up, to bring the community and our residential area to look nice all seasons long. We would like to keep it that way, we don’t traffic and being so vague is the other thing too. It is just vague for her to go for this variance so I just wanted to put in my two cents. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Your welcome. Any other speaker for or against? Closing statements.
Mrs. Peltz: First of all I would like to address this petition. It is very interesting to me the names that are on it and their addresses. We have several people from Baker Avenue. Baker Avenue residents who live across the street from the property, that Bob Bruno bought from us and uses as a storage for all of his construction equipment and his is it automotive repair or whatever. Certainly not residential type property and they live directly across the street from it so I am wondering why people on Baker Avenue would sign a petition for a piece of property on Madison Avenue when they live across from Bob Bruno.
Another issue is Mary Jane Moniz, she is listed here four times. She lives in only one of those houses. I do not see that her mother and brother who live in the house next door to her have put their names down on the petition, yet that is where they live. She might own it now because of inheritance, but her mother owned the house next door to her. The next house to that, her mother also owned that one, she has herself listed as owning all the property that her mother owned on the street. Yet I do not see her mother’s or her brother’s signature or her sister’s signature down.
As for Mr. Bates, I don’t know him personally, he is not someone that lived there when I was there and I lived there for many years. His comments smack of discrimination and if I were housing, I would be looking into that.
As for Mr. Dygert, he personally approached me about buying that property for his commercial business at one time. And I found it very interesting to know that he didn’t want commercial property when he himself approached me early on because he was looking for a new place to locate his business.
As for, I am not finished (to Mr. Thurston) as for, we are down to, oh yes, we are down to Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan has lived there for two years. The people who owned his property are the people that live next door. They have never had a complaint. That house was part of their family for all the years that I lived there, it was their grandparents house, and then it belonged to the son and then the son eventually sold it to Mr. Ryan. They never had a complaint and they lived directly across. Mrs. Ryan’s complaint might be that she tried to buy part of the property from me before Christmas at 55% of its value. So you see each one of them has sort of a little vested interest in this and I really don’t understand as I go through this petition, many of these people I don’t even know, I can’t understand why these people on Baker are there and as for the Pleasant Street people who border on the back edge of the property. I don’t know exactly what their names are, but one of them
has contacted us to see that property because they are interested in buying it and he borders our property on the Pleasant Street side.
As for showing this property I show it often. No, I am not a real estate agent, yes it was listed with real estate. They showed it hardly at all. Do I show it a lot? Yes, I do. Have I advertised it? In the New York Times nationwide. I would like you to know that we got a buyer, a buyer who was going to live in the house and make flower boxes for Home Depot. We lost the sale because of Jim Moore. Jim Moore told me that there was a variance on that property. Earle can attest that we went through all the steps to sell that property. We had the survey done, he went through all the abstracts, my mother paid for everything. Everything was set and when I asked for the
Certificate from Jim Moore after he told me we had it, he kept giving me the run around for three weeks. I haven’t had time to do it but I will mail it to you, oh, I am getting to that, I am just very busy and then one day he calls my home and says, ah, you don’t have a variance. And I said what do you mean? Our date for closing is set, everything has been done. Now this man needed that property because this is a seasonal thing, he needed to start in November, so that he could make those flower boxes and Home Depot could have them in time for sale. We lost that sale because no bank would give them a loan without the variance. They said it was too much money for the house property and that they couldn’t give them a commercial loan because we didn’t have the variance.
Yes, I have worked on this property and I have gone in here and cleaned after kids have made real messes and they just broke in again. I went to the City Police after I found out myself who they were, gave them the addresses and the names of the kids, they will not act on it because they are minors. So they have broken in again and I have another mess to clean up. This makes four times.
Now I don’t understand this petition. I really don’t since you can see the creditability of most of these people is non-existent. I don’t understand why they think we are trying to make a big killing. We are only trying to sell this property. As you see we have gone by assessment for taxes, we have gone by an official appraisal and we have also gone by what the real estate was listing it as, and we sold it under all of those amounts. So I don’t understand this. All we are looking for is a variance to get rid of this property. It is really making my mother more ill. Every single time something happens it is a little bit harder for her to take plus the tremendous cost
that this property is costing us and I am being called by the City Police at 7:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning, 10:30 at night to run down and take care of something.
Mr. Thurston: Just let me add a couple other comments if I could. One of the comments was about keeping the neighborhood as it is. I don’t think anybody can question anybody that has bought their house down there certainly within the last five years, this is not solely a residential neighborhood, it is a nice residential street, but you can’t say you weren’t aware that this building was there or that Alco whatever Bombardier and that whole area down is commercial. This is a border area.
Secondly there is some misconception in my view, one other thing before I get to that, they talk about, they are presuming that the neighborhood it going to go down hill because we are going to use the property the same way it was when many of these people bought their houses, and I think that is a false statement that can’t presumed. I can tell you one thing is if we don’t get the variance no one is going to continue to put $5,000 or $6,000 a year into that property to fix it up and maintain it. In my view, the question is whether the neighborhood is going to be maintained.
The thing where I think there is misconception here is that the purpose of this is not a popularity contest or whether this board wants to make a decision whether this should be commercial or not commercial, that is not the issue here. What the law says is if you are going to come into the City of Auburn, I hope these people don’t run into the same problem, if you going to spread out a new Zoning Ordinance, the law says and the case law says and fairness says there are certain parcels of property within that new Ordinance area that you have established that have unique conditions and problems and we are not going to force people to lose their livelihood or what they have worked all these years, like the fellow that said we
must have made a lot of money all these years in the business so therefore why do we need any money now. That the Ordinance that we are talking about here is not whether this board wants a commercial zone or anybody wants a commercial zone, it is whether or not this property meets the unique set of circumstances set up in the Ordinance which says if we have a hardship, if we have a unique situation, if we are not adversely effecting the neighborhood and we have a difficult financial situation then this qualifies for a use variance. All this speculation about how bad this neighborhood is going to be, all these houses were built and bought and sold many times over when that business was operating. So on that basis I think the issue here whether this is a popularity contest something for this board to decide is not the case. This board is bound by the Ordinance which says if we qualify with that criteria, if we have shown you that we have lost money,
can’t sell it and this board has seen many times before the situation with these banks, trying to get mortgages to maintain these properties and keep them on the tax rolls, this is not an unfamiliar problem to this board. On that basis and I agree we are a little vague with this because we don’t have the specifics, but we have agreed to and I have cited when I was here before whatever section of the Ordinance is that says you can impose whatever conditions you want, hours of operation, fencing, whatever and we are agreeable to that. We will come back for site plan review, but we can’t go anywhere without the recognition of the availability or our entitlement to a use variance. I don’t think we are being unreasonable in that regard and all the neighbors will have an opportunity to talk about it, the problem that this board is confronted with is having people tell you we can’t go find a buyer unless we have some indication that we
qualify for this use variance. We will come back at you, all we want is an indication a general indication that we qualify and we will come back and show you the specifics and if you don’t like the specifics you don’t have to agree to them or the Planning Board. We are not asking for cart blanche here, but we also don’t agree that the neighbors through a popularity contest can decide who is going to live there, who isn’t going to live there and this family that has been there long before many of these people are going to be deprived of any reasonable return whatsoever on their property. On that basis we seek the approval of the board.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Question for the applicant? I am going to close the public portion right now. Now the board talks amongst themselves.
Mr. Westlake: I personally don’t feel comfortable without knowing something about what they are going to do there.
Mr. Darrow: I am in complete agreement. We can create a long list if we want it of applicable uses under light industrial or commercial for this and it is our job to preserve neighborhoods and without knowing what could possibly go in there, we would be remiss in doing our job.
Mr. Rejman: I’ll agree with that and I also agree that counsel made an excellent point that there are unique properties in the City that need unique pieces of help.
Mr. Darrow: Very much so.
Mr. Rejman: But I am not comfortable with a blank check either.
Mr. Darrow: If the applicants were to reappear with a buyer and a signed accepted purchase offer with a proposed intended use, I think the entire neighborhood along with us as a board would certainly look differently upon it, but as far as just looking at it for a use variance for light industrial and/or commercial.
Mr. Rejman: We have imposed restrictions before
Mr. Darrow: But we need to know what we are imposing them upon
Mr. Rejman: Right. I am sure that now a days it is not like it was 50 or 100 years ago, everything is light commercial now a days, it is all electronics, all small stuff, minimal impact on neighborhoods, one or two people working in the back room sort of thing and that may be acceptable to the neighborhood, but again we give, in my opinion, we can’t give a blank check. Now here is the question. If we frame the motion that it is unspecified and we
Mr. Darrow: I understand exactly where you are going, that there is enough of a change so it can reappear before us with a user and a purpose.
Mr. Rejman: I guess I would like to send the message that, yes, we will look at, you find a buyer, we will look at it, which would be a fair thing. Do we use the word unspecified?
Mr. Darrow: Absolutely. I would like to put forth a motion that we grant a unspecified use variance for an unspecified use to an unspecified buyer for 28 and 30 Madison Avenue for Vivian Cecora, as filed by her appeal to the Code Enforcement permit.
Mr. Gentile: I have a question. Are we saying we are granting the variance?
Mr. Rejman: Remember when I said that everything has to be in a positive
Mr. Gentile: Right
Mr. Rejman: I don’t know how the vote is going to go. It has to be in the affirmative.
Mr. Gentile: If there are four positive votes, we are granting the variance.
Mr. Darrow: Yes. That is where you have to have faith in your fellow members.
Mr. Rejman: The way the by-laws are written it has to be in the affirmative. I need a second on this.
Mr. Westlake: I second the motion.
Mr. Rejman: I understand your concern.
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Gentile
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin – abstain – lives on Madison Avenue
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: This is not to say that we would – we would be hopeful that you find a buyer that is acceptable to the neighborhood and we help in that negotiation when the time comes, through a use variance. We will consider it.
Mr. Gentile: Door is still open.
Mr. Rejman: The door is still open.
Mrs. Peltz: May I say something? Every single buyer that I get refuses to come to get a variance because they say they are going to be denied. That is why we approached for the variance, they said they will not approach the City of Auburn for a variance because they are going to deny us.
Mr. Rejman: Only thing I can tell you is that I have sat on this board 15 years, as Mr. Darrow, as the 5, 6 or 7 people that are here, there are quite a few variances that get approved on purchase offers.
Mrs. Peltz: What are we suppose to do with this property? I can’t advertise it as commercial and light industrial. I have already advertised it a hundred times as a house with a large cement block building, you know what they say to me? I can’t use this building for anything, I want the house but I don’t want the building. The one time I got a buyer was when Mr. Moore told me that I had a light industrial variance.
Mr. Rejman: I understand that.
Mrs. Peltz: And I got a buyer immediately. I think perhaps you really did not listen to my comments about what a travesty this was.
Mr. Darrow: If you just go forward and even perhaps you apply for the buyer.
Mrs. Peltz: I have done that.
Mr. Thurston: We understand, you need someone to look at. The problem is the banks won’t give the financing unless they know the zoning.
Mr. Rejman: It is a unique catch 22.
Any housekeeping? No. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
| 
