ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2003
Members Present: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Member Absent: Mr. Rejman (called in sick)
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey
Mr. Galvin
Mr. Hicks
APPLICATION
APPROVED: 78 – 80 Seymour Street
Mr. Darrow: We usually start at 7:00 p.m., but our Corporation Counsel called to let us know she is running a few minutes late because of weather, so we are going to give her 5 or 10 minutes to see if she makes it. If she doesn’t arrive by 7:10 p.m. we will start the meeting at that time.
Call to order City of Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals. We have on tonight’s hearing agenda 78 – 80 Seymour Street an R-2 for a use variance for construction of a six bay car wash. Would the applicant or his representation please step to the podium.
I would like to take this first moment to inform you that we are a seven-member board, we have one member absent tonight due to illness, and so it would take four “yes” votes for your proposal to be approved. If you so desire you can table until our next regular meeting, which would be the last Monday in the month of March. What would your pleasure be?
Mr. Giacona: Can I concur with my clients?
Mr. Darrow: Absolutely.
Mr. Giacona: We would like to proceed.
Mr. Darrow: OK. If you would please state your name and what you are looking for – for the record please.
Mr. Giacona: My name is Sam Giacona, I am an attorney in Auburn and I represent the Kubareks who are here for a use variance with respect to Section 305-46 of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance regarding permitted uses for a central commercial area district.
Mr. Darrow: Could you tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Giacona: I believe you all have the application before you and as you well know the Kubareks run K & S Car Wash, which is an automated car wash on the corner of Seymour and North Streets and has been in existence for decades. Mrs. Kubarek’s father formerly ran the gas station and was expanded into a car wash. My clients presently own 80 Seymour Street and are on contract to purchase 78 Seymour Street from William and Barbara Talbot. The purchase contract is contingent upon their application to obtain a use variance to expand their present use and what their plans are to expand the car wash business by knocking down 78 and 80 Seymour Street, which is presently owned by my clients and is partially used in their operation of the
existing car wash as an office. They will knock that down and construct a four self-service wash bays and two touch less wash bays, which is a new invention in the car wash industry.
Just by way of history, I believe that you have the application before you and the two parcels that we are talking about are highlighted on their application as C-2. Prior to 1992 the subject area was zoned C-1, the entire block, that is outlined here. At that time the zoning was changed to the configuration that we have on your Exhibit A and you will note that the C-2 was cut out and there was this little strip that turned into R-2. Subsequently the City applied for and obtained a variance to sell the corner of Seymour Street to the Dialysis Center which is another commercial use.
The grounds for our variance are as follows and as set forth in the supplemental statement. Except for one property, the entire block is entirely commercial. You will note that in our supplemental statement and the other parcel that is residential has been condemned by the City and as I understand it, is under bankruptcy, the owner has filed bankruptcy and the mortgage company has filed foreclosure and the actual foreclosure action has been stayed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court. My client’s intentions are to try and acquire that property which would be 76 Seymour Street and I believe you have a picture but I have original pictures that I would like to pass around. Pictures of the actual premises in question. The photograph on the bottom is 76 Seymour Street and the
property that has been condemned by the City.
In recent years changes have occurred in the car wash industry, which makes it essential for my clients to upgrade and expand their facilities. As you are well aware Wal-Mart has applied for and has been given a variance to construct what is called these touch less car wash facilities. Basically what it is, is a touch less you pull in and two garage doors come down and my client can explain it a lot better than I can, but machinery goes around the car and washes. It is less expensive than the full blown car wash that is in existence and the four bays self-service are obviously much more less than the automated car washes and the touch less car washes and it allows my clients to stay in competition.
It would create a hardship on my clients in as much as they would loose business by not being able to compete with the market with the new devices in car washes.
I have also attached as Exhibit C, a report from Greg Doan concerning the subject property that is under contract for purchase. My clients are under contract to purchase the subject property 78 Seymour Street, at a purchase price of $60,000.00. As reflected in Greg Doan’s report his feeling is that the property is worth more along the line of approximately $40,000.00. It would create to the Talbots in the event that this variance does not go through because they would not be able to sell this property at this price.
I understand the concern, my clients are not insensitive to Willard Chapel and they firmly believe that the improvements they will make and the substantial investment in the community will add to the value of the property in the area and the aesthetics of the property. I believe you have a rendering of the proposed project.
Mr. Kubarek: This is east coming down Seymour Street, what you would see coming east down Seymour Street, the old operation is in the background. The neighbors to the north would be looking at basically what would look like a two story house, facing Seymour Street. The neighbors across the street will not be looking into the bays; the bays are facing the other way. I think we can make a substantial improvement to the neighborhood and like he said our hardship is that major changes in the car wash business, Wal-Mart being the first one, but they are not going to be the last one. BJ’s is next, they are going construct car washes and I hate to say it but they look at my profession as a loss leader, they give it away. I have to
have an operation like this to be able to compete and when I originally bought my business, as my attorney showed you, the whole block was commercial, all the way around the block and how the City ever came back, I think I know how they did it, it looks like there are a number of lots on this map, well those lots didn’t exist. One lot was bought in 1962 by Sun Oil Company, one lot was bought by my father-in-law in 1978 the other lot was bought by my wife and I in 1991 which only left one lot, only three lots in that map. When they changed the zoning, the City Garage stood here, Seminary Playground and the City Garage property wrapped back around here. I know that there has been some concern from Community Preservation but I have some smaller aerial maps to pass out to the members.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Kubarek, I am sorry, could you please state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Kubarek: Mark Kubarek, 7246 State Street Road.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you.
Mr. Kubarek: If you look around the block, Dell Associates, Loblaws, Eckerd Drugs, Dialysis Center, back to my property, there are no residential uses left in that block, except these right here, and I have use variance on this one. That is where part of the confusion was if you look the County still has us unsubdivided that is my property all the way back there (points to drawing) and the City zoning map is wrong the line, the line as you see it delineated in the new zoning is half way through my building. We had to come to City Council ins 1994, I think it was Resolution #31 of 1994 to change it back because I ended up in a dispute with my bank at that time. I was never was notified that the zoning was changed on the property, my bank found
it. They were going to call my mortgage because of the zone that half of my property was in residential.
But if you look at, the project is going to bound the parking lot of Schwartz Towers; it doesn’t even go to the Chapel’s property. The Chapel is protected by these buffers that are owned by the City of Auburn and I have inquired with the City and these parcels are not for sale, there is nothing that is ever going to be built in front of the Chapel. Parking lot and park is owned by the City and property on Nelson Street is owned by the City. So that property is protected. My project isn’t even going to bound the Community Preservations’ property.
Mr. Giacona: As I said previously there is precedence for granting this variance. In 1997 the City of Auburn and the Dialysis Clinic Inc., applied for and was granted a variance to construct the building that is on there. I have minutes that reflect that the Assessor Mike Burns indicated that the highest best use of that property which would be for commercial use. There is also precedence for the variance to expand the existing commercial use in 1997 Hess Corporation applied for and was granted a variance for the rebuilding and expansion of a gas station and convenience store, on the grounds that the changing industry practices made it necessary for the owner to rebuild and expand his business and you all know that that happened.
We believe that if the variance is granted would be in harmony with the general purposes that is the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. It will enhance rather than detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. You have seen the pictures of the existing homes, my clients has well intentions of making an offer on 76 and his intention would be to expand his parking and create additional green space which would increase the green space and buffer zone between Willard Chapel in the event that comes to fruition. What has to happen is they have to prove that the bank has more of a lean than equity in the premises, they have to lift the stay of execution and proceed forward with the foreclosure and thereafter there will be a
foreclosure sale and my client fully intends to attend that sale and make an offer, and quite frankly I can’t imagine that anyone else is interested in the property as it currently stands, and I believe that Mr. Hicks can attest to the that there are numerous violations, I believe three pages of Housing Code violations.
My clients have a substantial investment in the City. They could have well moved out to Grant Avenue with everyone else, but they choose to stay. They made some improvements and I believe that there are neighbors here that can attest to the fact that they are great neighbors. I do have two testimonials from Gordon Dungey who is here and who has lived in the area for several years, and testimonial from Bob Ruschak who lives across the street and couldn’t attend tonight.
The hardship that has resulted has not been self-created and I know that the board wants to look into that. It is a change in the car wash business that has created this hardship. If my clients are not allowed to compete in the market place, they are not going to be able to get a full return on their dollar. They can attest since the last one opened, their profit margin went down at least 10% and that can be shown in the amount of water usage that they have and they have a substantial amount of water usage.
There is only one residential premises in that area and it is owned by the Talbots and it is on contract to be purchased. The other single-family residence is in foreclosure and subject to bankruptcy. We believe that this application is warranted and will be a substantial improvement to the neighborhood as shown from the rendering and my clients are very sensitive to the needs of the neighbors and will do anything within reason to make this happen including complying with any recommendations of the Planning Board, I know there is some concern about lighting. My clients are convinced that they can contain the light within the premises and I just have to say it is a wonderful project and the application should be granted.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you. At this point I would like to open up to questions from the board members to Mr. Kubarek or his counsel.
Mr. Gentile: Is the property at 76 Seymour right now, you don’t own that?
Mr. Kubarek: No. Nobody can own that right now. A Notice of Pendency has been filed by the bank and until it goes through legal proceedings nobody can own it.
Mr. Gentile: You are planning to purchase that sometime down the road?
Mr. Kubarek: Yes. I don’t want it next to my business, I don’t need it to complete this project, but I don’t want it next to my business. We are going to take it down, we might extend our curb line a little bit and then put green space in there.
Mr. Gentile: My question is what happens if for some reason you don’t obtain that property what happens to the project?
Mr. Kubarek: If we don’t obtain it my next door neighbor the house I bought at 80 Seymour Street who has lived next door to me for 12 years, said Mark I want an 8 foot fence, I put up an 8 foot fence. We can make it work, whatever needs to be done we can make it work.
Mr. Giacona: If I can add to that, I think in the event that he is not the successful bidder, I think the City will acquire that for taxes so the City will end up owning it. I can’t imagine anyone wanting that one family house in view of the commercial nature of the neighborhood. My client is prepared to bid at the auction
Mr. Kubarek: Which could be at great expense because when you go to an auction you cannot put any contingencies in your purchase. You can take possession of that property and one big one as Mr. Hicks can tell you is lead, the other is asbestos. The other properties that I bought I could put contingencies in, this could end up being quite an expensive endeavor. Like I said you can’t put any contingencies at the auction, you purchase it period that is it.
Mr. Gentile: OK. Thank you.
Ms. Aubin: The cars will be entering from the backside of this drawing? I need to know the traffic pattern.
Mr. Kubarek: I think with the rendering that you got I didn’t save one for myself, it was a plot plan. Yes, what we have existing now is there is a driveway right here (points to drawing) for the existing car wash operation. We are going to take that a widen it, put a median in to delineate between the two car washes, everybody will enter this way, the cars going to the new project will exist on Seymour Street and you know how the old at the old car wash they exist towards the North Street side not to Seymour.
Ms. Aubin: How many cars do you think that pattern will hold.
Mr. Kubarek: That there will hold
Ms. Aubin: My concern is now the cars for the existing car wash
Mr. Kubarek: Right
Ms. Aubin: We all know they go all the way back to North Street some days
Mr. Kubarek: Yes, I wish it was every day. This pattern right here, just doing it off the top of my head, 17 cars probably more because I didn’t – you can count that there is going to be a car in each bay, so you can count that as stacking too so 17 plus 6 - 23 cars. This operation this isn’t a big stacker. People don’t wait for this they will come back later it is not the type that stacks up because it doesn’t move as fast as the other one and people that use this know that and they will come back, it doesn’t stack up like the other one.
Mr. Westlake: Car wash will be 7 days a week 24 hours a day?
Mr. Kubarek: Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the self-service bays there is absolutely no way that I know of to secure those to close them. But there are other operations in the City now that are in neighborhoods that operation and there hasn’t been a problem. D & L Truck Stop, if you go up and look there are houses right behind it, all around Chammey’s, but there is not that much – I operate an operation like that in Weedsport and 10:00 – 11:00 p.m. there is no body there. The only reason that it is open there is no way to secure it. These in/out bays can be secured and the key to that is where you put your money is outside at the in bay automatics and there are two doors that come down. You
can’t put the coin mech outside on a self-service bay. It has to be inside because they have to switch functions while they are using the car wash. But this one with coin boxes outside with the doors this can be secured, automatic in bays can be secured and they can be closed at a certain hour. Self-service bays I have been in this business a long time and never have seen any way to close one of those down and secure it.
Mr. Giacona: Can I have my client explain the touch less?
Mr. Darrow: Sure.
Mr. Kubarek: Touch less in bay automatic has a out cashier out front, garage doors on each end, customer puts their money in, chooses what wash they want, door would open, doors are up sometimes, they can operate on time or temperature. You can have them closed all the time, you can have them operate on temperature whichever you want to do. Door would open, car goes in, sign tells them to stop, they put the car in park, and the machine goes around and washes the car. The sign will tell them they are done, the exit door will open and out they go.
Mr. Giacona: Relatively new
Mr. Kubarek: Yes, it is a rage in the car wash business that is why the Wal-Marts and BJ’s and Target stores are doing it. Top’s Super Market has a test line right now in Buffalo, they are doing gasoline and car wash. They found something that they could – what I am in now is quality control operation – it is something that you have to keep after every day, you have to have a lot of labor. This is less labor intensive and it doesn’t take as much quality control to do it. I don’t want to say an idiot can run it because I am going to run one I hope. It takes a lot less quality control where these big companies find that they can run them and run them successfully.
Mr. Darrow: Any other questions from board members?
Mr. Gentile: While the vehicle is in there washing, the doors are closed?
Mr. Kubarek: The doors will come down, yes. Especially in cold temperatures the doors will come down.
Ms. Marteney: Is there personnel in the bays?
Mr. Kubarek: No personnel. It is basically self-service, but the next part that will with this is that we have employees next door that will be from 7:00 o’clock in the morning until 9:00 o’clock at night to help customers at the other operation too. So it will be attended from 7:00 o’clock in the morning until 9:00 o’clock at night.
Mr. Gentile: You are going to hire additional employees then?
Mr. Kubarek: Two more employees, we have nine now this will probably push up to eleven employees. We do have four full-time employees now, this will make five full-time employees add one more part-time employee. If it goes well we could add another full-time employee, if it goes well. We do profit share, health insurance, our full-time employees have all those benefits, life insurance, and we do all those benefits for our employees. They are good paying jobs.
Mr. Sincebaugh: What is the noise level of those touch less washes.
Mr. Kubarek: The noise level even with the doors up you are still going to hear traffic going by the house, it won’t drown the traffic out, it absolutely will not. With the door down you can’t even hear. My Weedsport location there is a house 30 feet across the parking lot right next to it and we never have had a complaint from that neighbor.
Mr. Darrow: Any other questions? OK, if you gentlemen would like to be seated. At this point in time I would like to open up the public portion and call for anybody to speak for or against this proposal. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this proposal? Yes, please step forward.
Ms. Schlenker: My name is Nancy Schlenker from the house that might be torn down and I think the car wash is very nice it has been kept up nice, but the traffic is bad, people are parked up there waiting to get in and people coming on Seymour constantly park in front of my driveway all the time. Seymour Street is a real busy street. I just see this as making a bigger problem if he is adding on, more cars are going to come.
The other to say that it is hardship for his business, it is a hardship for us too because if we try to sell our house we are not going to be able to sell it probably for a reasonable price if people see that across the street. We already live next door to a landlord that doesn’t take care of his property. I just feel this is another problem.
Mrs. Westlake: I am sorry, I didn’t get your name.
Ms. Schlenker: Nancy Schlenker, I live across the street at 75 Seymour Street.
Mrs. Westlake: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you. Anybody else to speak for or against?
Mr. Villano: My name is Mike Villano, I live at 63 Fleming Street. I am for the car wash for a couple reasons. You go up through the City of Auburn we have been tearing a lot of houses down, who is going to make up this tax base? These people are going to expand their business, hire new employees and they are going to pay more tax. Just tore a house on Owasco Street what are they going to do with that? Vacant, empty lot. We keep tearing these houses down, we are going to read in the paper a month from now, City taxes are going to go up. School taxes are going up, County taxes are going up. Look how nice Kinney Drugs looks on Seymour Street. They torn four houses down there, they were no good. What are
you going to do with these houses on Seymour Street? Soon as they are torn down what are you going to have, empty lot. Who is going to make up the tax base. You guys are driving everyone out of Auburn, you have got to listen to the people that want to expand their businesses and generate money here. We need money, the State is in trouble. You know, you read the paper. So I think, they have a nice business there, I don’t think they bother anybody, my family has been in business, we try to make the resident happy in the area, but also we pay more taxes. We don’t get the Star Program for a business. I think the board should consider these people expanding their gas station or car wash. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you sir.
Mr. Villano: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Anybody else to speak for or against? Please state your name and address for the record sir.
Mr. Aikman: My name is Walt Aikman, I live at 17 Liberty Street, up around the corner. I was looking at this digital air photo, it was taken last fall with the fancy technology that the County can now work with the NASA people and everything and I like to look at it because it reminds me of what a lot of us in the neighborhood have been fighting for – for a long time, and that is, that there be a vision for the whole neighborhood consistent with what we have been fighting for, myself for 5 years and people before me for more than 40 years.
There was big effort in the neighborhood to preserve the theological center, they hired lawyers and they had petition drives and they tried really hard to maintain the park like setting that they once had because they knew that in the long run if they lost that it would really have an affect on the whole City, because it was a huge block. I don’t see the block as strictly commercial in nature, because I look at it as predominately residential with a lot of green space that we can continue to build upon. If you look at this digital air photo, I will pass it around, you can see where it is at. We have a chance to continue this thing that we have been working on for several years. Now I respect everyone’s point of view here, but I also had to work with the people who
wanted the Dialysis Center, I said no as a resident with a lot of my friends in the neighborhood to people that wanted to build on the green space on the north side of the Chapel because they wanted an office building. We said no to the idea that we would never get a playground again because we wanted a playground for the kids.
The key that we were missing which is brought out by looking at that digital air photo that I am showing you, is a vision for the whole neighborhood. It is not a commercial district, it is a neighborhood, people live, raise their families, walk their kids up and down the streets, ride bikes, walk dogs, fix up their homes, we are spending a lot of money fixing up our homes and what we wanted to have after this Dialysis Center was we wanted to have whole vision, the special commercial district as an overlay so that we could have a whole vision of the neighborhood. We have elder care facilities in there, we have Schwartz Towers, we have a retirement home down the street, we have drug store, doctors offices and we wanted to see those kind of businesses that were consistent with a residential
setting. I disagree, I think the reason why some of those properties were maintained and brought back to the residential character because they knew if they were ever torn down it would have the effect that the lady said on the residential character across the street.
Once of the things that I pushed for was that we get this historic structure survey done for the whole City so we would know quality of these houses that we have. We need to know the historic quality of the housing stock being torn down. Our corners are key. We tear down these three buildings he is talking about, five trees in front, all the trees in the back, I don’t care how much green space you put in for a facility of this size, ok, we are destroying what we have to work with. I am very troubled by the fact that although we have a great gas station and I love your business because it is a great car wash and gas station and the labor there is fantastic, but it is curb cut the whole way, there is no tree line, there are no trees. We know that the green
infrastructure helps all of us save money in the long run. We know that the green infrastructure improves our property values and I am very concerned about the facility that is going to run 24 hours a day. There is no way you can compare this to the Dialysis Center. The developers worked very closely way ahead of time with everybody in the neighborhood and the CPC, knowing very well that the Willard Chapel is a National Historic Site, it is on the National Register and therefore any activity that is directly next to it is a type one activity requiring a SEQRA review. No one has mentioned that.
We know it is right next to Route 34 and we know trucks are going up and down Route 34. I am concerned we are going to have diesels coming in here, big trucks coming in for car washes. What about signage, lighting. What I am trying to make is that we have a direction that we have been pushing for and I respect what they are saying but one of the reasons why people move to the suburbs is because they are looking for the security and the predictability of a residential environment that doesn’t change. Change is a part of life, but the reason why I think that zoning map was drawn the way it was, was to try and make sure that in the future we can have that residential character, which as far as I am concerned is what defines the neighborhood. So I think that if you
can possibly see you way to it, try to protect the neighborhood, try to protect the community and all our public interests. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you. Anybody else to speak for or against this application? Sir?
Mr. Dungey: I am Gordon Dungey. I live on the northwest corner of North and Seymour Streets, kiddy corner from the car wash. You have a letter that I wrote to you a week ago, I didn’t think I was going to be here. Do you have the letter that I sent?
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Dungey: OK, good. In addition to the letter, in addition to my letter of February 17th, addressed to your board, I appreciate adding a few additional thoughts supporting Mr. and Mrs. Kubarek. I really don’t know, but I don’t think they are coming to you with their palm out looking for a hand out, specifically extended tax breaks. They just want to expand and grow their business spending plenty to do so. I also don’t know what they if they recycle water, but I bet they are a huge customer of the City Water Department and I am sure their business contributes large sums to the sales tax revenue big time. I am also confident that they are going to do much to beautify and help keep the neighborhood
green, with more flowers, shrubs and trees. The concern that the expansion is going to add a lot noise in my opinion is bogus. The daily round the clock traffic of cars, huge trucks and tractor-trailers, ambulances, fire and emergency equipment sirens are the prime cause of the noise. That has not changed much over the last 7 years that Dungeys have lived at the corner of North and Seymour Streets. Perhaps traffic should be rerouted for the same reason the residents wanted the cement trucks rerouted off of Franklin Street and some people wanted the big truck traffic rerouted around the Village of Skaneateles. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you sir. Anyone else to speak for or against? Please come forward, please state your name and address for the record sir.
Mr. Kerns: My name is John Kerns and I live 3097 Franklin Street Road, Vice Chair for the Community Preservation Committee and as you all well know we have worked hard with the surrounding residents of that district in particular when the Dialysis Center project was proposed, worked hard with the residents and developers of that project. To make that kind of a promising project so that it would give back to the area. I think we should go on record we also gave you a resolution, I believe you have a copy of that. First off I would like to say I think a variance for a project like this is, it is not a good idea for a couple of reasons. I don’t think the projects that they mentioned earlier were really good, they are very
dissimilar to this one. The projects they talked about earlier didn’t require the tearing down of three houses in a residential district. Those earlier projects were boarding on a site that is on the National Register and is up for potential National Landmark status which is very high status.
In general, I think rezoning a residential neighborhood and off shots of a commercial road is a very bad idea for the City of Auburn as a whole. The reason those properties were so easy to purchase because of their reduced value was their adjacency to the commercial district to begin with, so by extending commercial district into that neighborhood you then impact the next group of houses, where is this going to stop? That is a big question for the Zoning Board I think as it stands, where is this spreading of commercial districts going to stop?
Argument regarding blight really is not a good reason either. The City and other agencies get involved with a lot of housing projects and if blight is a reason to rezone areas we are doing the wrong thing. My feeling is if the houses need to be fixed up or be torn down, new houses should be built in those places, not commercial, we need to strengthen the housing stock not weaken it by expanding a commercial district. I think Walt brought up a good point about the Chapel on the National Register. If any of the properties get rezoned adjacent to the property on the National Register, it is a type one action and requires a SEQRA review and I believe it goes before City Council
Mr. Darrow: Goes before Planning.
Mr. Kerns: That brings me to another point it sounded like a lot of the questions that were brought up regarding curb cuts, signage, noise are largely Planning Board questions, as well. Why wouldn’t you ask for Planning Board recommendation on a project of this scale. I think that would be something to do before making a vote on a project like this that would affect so many neighbors.
Another thing that was mentioned was a request from the overlay district, we have been waiting for that for quite a while since the Dialysis Center happened and we got to see so as a part of that community we don’t know well a car wash would ever fit into that plan if there isn’t one. The City is currently undergoing historic resource survey of all the neighborhood in the City to become a certified government and without that done without completed or well under way we don’t what we are tearing down. A lot of the surrounding properties were once part of the seminary and without fully understanding the significance of these properties we could be tearing down the next Pomeroy House without even knowing it.
I guess without getting into the resolution that was handed out to you I don’t know if our Vice Chair wants to talk about it, but we the CPCA as a neighbor of the car wash is opposing the rezoning of the residential properties to commercial.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you sir. Anybody else wishing to speak for or against this proposal? Please state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Deming: Mike Deming, 165 Franklin Street, former Chairman of the Community Preservation, City of Auburn Chairman of the Historic Resources Review Board. One thing that no one has mentioned is the tremendous commitment the City of Auburn did by moving the garage. The Public Works Department wanted to stay in the center of City. Couldn’t have an easier location to send trucks out or doing anything. For ten years the City Council, the Planning Department worked together with neighbors and against the recommendation from the Department of Public Works, they decided that this was destroying this neighborhood. This was a problem that started fifty years ago and a lot of people don’t have vision that you could look
and never see by removing that garage that that neighborhood could improve.
On Nelson Street, each side of the Chapel, virtually every house has been sold there, the density has been reduced from four and five families to basically two family homes every house on that street now. On the other side in front of Eckerds and lot of this is because of Preservation working with the neighbors and the commitment that was put forth there. For the City to spend this amount of money and the Central Garage was around since the 1970’s, making easier in the center of the City, but it doesn’t work like that in big cities. They don’t tear down the center of their cities and have a garage, commercial in someone’s neighborhood. The biggest asset this neighborhood was the moving and building the central garage out of the way from everyone, getting
rid of the noise and salt and everything that went with it. We are a big commitment as a Preservation group to work with the neighbors, the Chapel doesn’t do anything on its on sitting there, it is the corner stone of that neighborhood to revive that neighborhood. We can’t abandon neighborhoods all throughout this City and just knock houses down without plan. The City had a plan to look long and hard at this, what was going to happen here and they made a big investment of moving this whole garage and facility. They put Community Development Block Grant money in curbs and new streets there and lot of this hasn’t changed up in that end towards the car wash because the property hadn’t been sold.
A problem that started fifty years ago you are not going to cure over night. If this doesn’t go through it doesn’t mean someone else is going to come and buy that house and fix, it is going to take work, but we can’t constantly knock houses down like he said, we have to start building strong neighborhoods and there was a lot of planning and probably more public output on what happened to this neighborhood. The meetings just seemed to want one or two meetings like you would have a hearing like tonight, it is very hard to make a decision on this, this forced the neighbors for people to come here and in one night you say yes or no. If that is the only option, to me the answer has to be no. There was no input from anybody but the few minutes we come to speak here. There were years and years of negotiating that helped that neighborhood improve. Tonight if you make a decision and just let this happen with this little bit of input. They kept referring to the commercial zone as if
there was nothing there, there is a whole street across the street that are residential homes. The people, if I lived across the street and they kept referring like I didn’t exist, they weren’t even mentioned in any of this plan. There really isn’t a plan, this plan is just for what is going to happen there and the heck with anyone else. It needs a lot more input than this before you start changing a neighborhood this drastically, that is hopefully on its up. Willard Chapel is one project, people probably spent buying the Chapel ten years paid for it with cash raised $500,000 in ten months to do this project and probably invested at least another half a million dollars without any government, there were a lot of grants and things that came in on top of this, but these are the people, the whole community gave this support and for an hour tonight for you to make a decision to change this neighborhood, I just don’t see that, how you can
do that with so little thought. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Good evening, please give your name and address for the record.
Mr. Temple: Good evening, Gary Temple, 110 South Fulton Street. I raise an opposition to this proposal. I have heard a lot of things here tonight and I want to try to address as many of them as I can think of that I have heard. A number of the items fall into the category of what I will call fluff, but it is not really fluff to the people who reside by this. Things like how many trees will be there or won’t be there. Well we know it is there today not quite so sure it will be there tomorrow if this project is adopted. Things like traffic flow, we heard a woman that spoke here, the first speaker, spoke about the traffic flow. I can’t imagine that a project of this size, this is large project, that it
wouldn’t generate a great deal more traffic on this route.
The type of person that we want to have in neighborhoods is exemplified and I don’t know these people, but by the type of person who will come to a meeting of this sort and say I own a house I have my life invested in this property, it is my largest single asset. I am trying to make a go of it here and I am asking you people to recognize what this is going to do to me if you allow this to happen.
We heard that the possibility exists for maybe twenty-three cars to queue up around this expanded car wash. That was the expanded part of it. If you were to go by there on an active day you will see a large number of that quantity already qued up as some have said already going all the way back to the North Street entrance. Those cars sit there sometimes for half an hour and when you stop to think how much emissions are going out of vehicles, half an hour times whatever number you want to find in that line at any particular point in time, then you think to having a bedroom next to that premises for your child to sleep in perhaps. This is what happens in a neighborhood that is closely mixed between commercial and
residential. The people who have to live there have to deal with the problems that come with the commercial. This is the reason that a lot commercial development requires extensive consideration for buffering. I would suggest to this board that currently the best kind of buffer that could exist to the current operation does exist and that is in the form of two residential properties that are either owned or under the control of the owner of the car wash. If the circumstances to do with that car wash disaffect the tenants who might live in those houses, it disaffects the owner of the car wash. Not a third party like Mrs. Schlenker who was the first person speaking here tonight.
We heard a bit of crystal ball gazing that the property that is currently placarded for unfit will be purchased eventually by the current owner of the car wash. Maybe that is so, and maybe it is not. When you think about that property coupled with the next two properties, now you do have a buffer that exists to Willard Chapel and not only the Chapel but the park behind Willard Chapel. One of the things that we have been told is that tourism should be one of our mainstays for our economy. And if that is true, certainly Willard Chapel would have to be one of the linchpins of that type of economy. People coming to see this historic and unique building. That building is maintained at least in part through
the efforts of the Preservation Committee who use it for events, weddings and the like. And sometimes those weddings I suppose might look for a place for outdoor photographs and can you picture the traffic screaming by the park in all directions while they were trying to do such a thing as that.
Let’s think about the park itself. How about increasing traffic flow on an area where kids are suppose to play. I think that Mr. Kerr correctly assessed that there is a need for an environmental impact statement on this particular project if it is ever to be past because the traffic flow, the danger arising from that and the particulates being put in the air by the increased traffic that would be filling these bays must have some kind of effect on the quality of life in the immediate proximity.
You heard mention of a precedent in 1997. I will submit to the board that precedence of this type have little to do with the deliberations that this body should be engaged in. Every particular project should be viewed on its own merits. We heard the applicant bring up as something to look at the board to look, D & L Truck Stop and you know that I did go and take a look at the D & L Truck Stop. What I saw there is not anything that I would think of as being desirous to emulate. If you look at the first property immediately to the side of the D & L Truck Stop, it is a vacant house. It has a For Sale sign in front of it. The owner very much would like to have somebody buy that because
you really can’t keep tenants in there. In fact if you go and look at the property you will see that there is a buffer, if you will, a bit of a fence, a wooden fence. And fences as they have a habit of doing they get hurt snow plowing and such. This year there is another board off the fence that I saw as a result of obvious snow plowing, snowplow pushing the snow against the fence. Fences missing any number of boards and that doesn’t do a bit of good for the second floor apartment in that house. The fence is 8-foot high, two-story house doesn’t do much. You go around the back of that house you will see that it is boarded up. It is a symptom of what happens when a property becomes underutilized, no revenue stream, lack of maintenance. I don’t think this is anything that this particular neighborhood should be aspiring for. This is a neighborhood that as it has been pointed out, is on the upswing.
Density has been decreased and the properties have been improved in the neighborhood. This is something that should be aspired to. This board can help that type of development. In fact when we are looking at the D & L property it was suggested to you that there hasn’t been a problem with that D & L car wash in that neighborhood and I would suggest that you look at that situation that I depicted and decide if there is a problem there or not.
I want to go into another problem that the board nibbled on the edges of but I don’t think they really got to it. That is the problem of noise. It was suggested that the noise in this new system the technology of the touch less car wash would be unnoticeable. The doors can come down and it would all be contained within the structure. But that isn’t the noise that should be considered by this board. It is the noise by the people who use it. Who among us haven’t heard the volume of the boom box equipment from a car’s distance away that will vibrate your very being. Who is it that goes and washes their cars on a 24-hour day basis at 2 or 3 in the morning? These are the
kinds of situations that bring us to a point to where a house is vacant and boarded up next to the D & L car wash. It is not the kind of thing that Police can easily deal with, but this board can.
We have heard some interesting reasoning being given as to that fundamental question of hardship. We have heard that there is a house that is under option that the project owner here would pay $20,000 extra for if they just can get their variance here tonight. Think about that, what is it that they are asking this board to do? They are asking the board to say to the people that live across the street, deal with it, so that we can have a profit and build a nice profitable commercial business in a residential setting. Residential properties you know don’t bring more commercial properties, and it was suggested by counsel for the applicant that the applicant could have gone down to Grant Avenue somewhere and established themselves down there, and indeed they probably could, but
not for $20,000 extra. Not even for $60,000 could you get a property on Grant Avenue that you could do what this project wants to do. So you are being asked to take a magic wand of a variance and wave it over the top of this property so that the applicant can be enormously increasing in value on their investment. That is not what this board should be doing ever. What you should be doing is you should be looking at whether or the hardship does in fact exist and I submit to the board that there is no hardship, self-created or otherwise. As far as competent evidence of hardship being produced the only figures that I heard here tonight pertained to that piece of property at 78 with the option on it.
If a person enters into a transaction to buy a residential property you buy it subject to zoning. You know what you are buying when you buy it, you get the property ownership rights that are afforded to that particular zone, nothing more. So this project applicant is speculating that perhaps he can get you to give him a variance and therefore he is willing to give this extra $20,000 in value to the person who owns it and he is suggesting that if you don’t give that variance to him, that this hardship that works onto the current owner of 78, and that is not at all what – that is like kissing cousins hardship. It is not a hardship to this applicant and it certainly would be self-created if you want to consider it a hardship at all, it would have to be considered self-created. The other house at 80, which I guess he already owns, which this board previously granted a variance so that he could use it as an office in conjunction with his business. He is obviously getting value out
of that property. We haven’t heard that that property is returning anything on his investment. He is entitled to a fair return on his investment. You haven’t heard that he is not getting a fair return on his investment at either 78 or 80.
This is a complex proposal for you in the sense that all of the things that you have heard here tonight and I would ask the board to consider the fundamentals which are incumbent on such a board in such a circumstance to cut through and get to the things that are really bearing on whether or not a variance should be given for this project. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you sir. Is there anyone else remaining wishing to speak for or against this application? Please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Worden: Dave Worden, 112 Melrose Road. First I would like to state that I am in favor of the car wash and in regards to what the gentleman just said to the noise ordinance or kids with their boom boxes and cars in and out. As was stated last week in the article about this, Mr. Kubarek stated that he went back and got in the City records or whatever it was saying that all the car washes in this town, there has never, like in the past five or six years been recorded complaint ever about anything that has to do with car washes and the noise ordinance.
In regard to the car wash being loud that is not loud at all. You can stand right out front of the Apple Car Wash on Grant Avenue, you can stand right in the road, you won’t even hear it. The noise to be isn’t a problem and anyone ca see that if you went to the other car washes and the car wash that he has got in Weedsport is like the most well kept one of the most well kept businesses around. I mean you look at the car wash on North Street that they got right now it is so well kept there are flowers out front in the summer and the winter there is couple hundred dollars of wreathes and lights, I mean the building itself, the establishment looks create. The parking lot is perfect, it is a great area and
sure like he said to the people, I respect the people across the street and their decision, they put their life, their time and money into their house that they bought across the street from K & S. The same thing if you look back at the Kubareks, it is their life and their time and their money that they put in the car wash. As Mr. Kubarek said he has to compete with all the other car washes, Apple built one on Grant Avenue, it brought his business down a little, it is the way of live, it is the way business goes, you have to compete. When someone else expands you have to expand just to compete because it is his time, his life and his money. That is all I have to say. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you sir. Anyone else who would like to speak for or against?
Mr. Campbell: My name is Andrew Campbell, I reside at 12 Morris Street in Auburn. I worked for the Kubareks for seven years. As they have mentioned before they have a wash over in Weedsport. I go over there every day two hours a day keep it nice and clean. I have never once, I go over there late at night, nobody is around, I keep it clean, I hose all the bays out, keep the walls clean, pick up the trash. As the one gentleman said who washes their car but kids with their loud boom boxes at 2:00 in the morning. I go over there at 10 o’clock at night, I have been over there at midnight cleaning, nobody is ever there. You drive by D & L, as he suggested that the fence got holes in it from plowing, like I said I have
worked for Mr. and Mrs. Kubarek for seven years, that 8 foot fence, he has never hit it with his plow once. We keep it so kept up and clean and stuff, got a blower to blow the parking, it is just immaculate. We can eat off the floors of the car wash. That is all I have to say. Nobody is ever there late at night like Mr. Kubarek said. After 10 o’clock at night, nobody washes their car. The doors that they are talking about that can go down, they are just about soundproof door. You can stand right on the sidewalk if this proposed car is up, you can stand on the sidewalk you would barely be able to hear it. I am for the proposed car wash. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, sir.
Mr. Talbot: Bill Talbot, I am speaking for my wife, 78 Seymour Street, one of the properties being talked about here. Heard a lot about not having this car wash by people who live on Franklin Street, South Fulton Street, except for one in the neighborhood. There are fourteen properties on that street, three are owned by people who actually live there. All the rest are rentals, most of them are cut up well. #76 I have lived next to for twelve years, we are just tired of it, we don’t want to live there any more, not because of the car wash but because of that dump. It has been let go for years and years and now it is condemned. It is never going to be rebuilt. The pictures you saw were before water
pipes burst in that house this winter, so now you are talking about a basement full of water and extra damage. That house will never ever be fixed. The only people that can afford to fix that house would be the City and I don’t know why they would want to do that.
Traffic, I live on Seymour Street, this car wash will not create any more traffic, there is more than enough traffic on that street to go around everyone. Boom boxes, I don’t hear them coming out of the car wash, hear them go up and down the street all the time. Schwartz Tower, that is my back yard, when I go out in my back yard I know I have binoculars watching me from that tower, that is not fun. It is true.
Taxes, I know my house is assessed for, it is our hardship, I was asked what my house was worth to me, my house worth to me to move is $60,000.00. It is assessed for $40,000.00, I think there are a lot of houses in Auburn in the same situation. If you house is assessed for $60,000.00 doesn’t mean you will take $60,000.00 for it, you might want $100,000.00 for it. So that is not a hardship for me, or shouldn’t be for anyone. That is what I need to move, I want to move, I want out of there, that is what my asking price is, he agreed to that price.
Upkeep, I shoveled my walk at noon today, a little before noon, I look east to the Dialysis Center the property, I don’t know who owns it, if Willard owns it, the City, Gas & Electric, I am not sure, none of those walks from my property to the corner of Nelson Street were shoveled this morning. Looking west to North Street, my walk and the rest of it was clean because the car wash takes care of the rest of it. That is not just today, I walk my dog around that block all the time, very rarely are those walks, with the Chapel included cleaned properly.
Playground, people worry about green space. They had a beautiful playground for kids to use, my son use to play basketball down there, it is gone. They put up a little pre-schoolers that is all it is good for, I don’t know whose idea it was to put that up there. Willard Chapel talks about being a good neighbor, we were never notified or asked questions on our opinion what should be done in that area, not once in the twelve years that we have been there. So I don’t know who they say they are asking in the neighborhood, but it wasn’t us.
I don’t know who else would take that house at 76 Seymour. The City could buy it, take it over, tear it down and take it off the tax roles. Right now what he is proposing to do will I am sure make a lot more taxes for the City than these three houses do right now. I know I pay mine and I am sure my neighbor at 80 pays his, but I would guess that the others are not paid, probably never have been.
Just again, out of the fourteen buildings on that block, from Liberty Street to North Street only three of those have people living in them that own them and that is myself included. My immediate neighbor across the street, I talked to him today, he has no problem with, William Merelo, he has lived there for fifty some odd years, never had a complaint about the car wash. He sits on his front porch all day long, never has a problem with it, gives him something to look at all day. He was concerned about green space and I assured him that when that house the dump, the condemned house is torn down and most of that will be green space he loved the idea. The trees that are along that line, I thought it was directly associated with the Chapel’s property, but I guess it is not,
must be a buffer that the City owns already in between these two properties. He is going to increase the green space, what more can anybody want? Get rid of a dump and make a nicer site. I hate to be crude, but it is a dump, the house is a mess. Animals in and out all the time. He is doing the City a huge favor, not just me, he is not doing me any big favor, he is doing the City a huge favor by taking care of those houses, getting rid of them.
My neighbor to my #80 it was a double house. His tenant moved out, he didn’t want to mess around with tenants any more. If at that, he was an owner, he wasn’t a single family, I am a single family, there are two across the street, you heard from one of them today. Other than that they are all rental properties. Where are these people complaining tonight, when we had this same meeting in August for #80 Seymour Street, no one came here to speak their peace. Now all of sudden they all want to jump on the bandwagon. As far as I am concerned, living on Franklin Street, they shouldn’t worry about the traffic on Seymour Street. The traffic is there, trust me, with or without a car wash that traffic is there. It is a busy thoroughfare from Grant
Avenue to North Street and State Street. So as far as I am concerned it is a big mistake for the City not to grant this. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Servay: My name is Jerry Servay, I live at 10 Jefferson Street. I am in a bit of a unique situation here because I also sell car wash equipment, but I have been a resident of the City of Auburn for over twenty years. My daughter was married a the Willard Chapel.
I think we are missing a little bit of what is starting to happen in small communities. Not only in upstate New York but I think in the northeast, well all over. We see the Kinney Drug Stores, we see the Rite-Aids pop up in residential neighborhoods and I think it is all about, I think it is all about neighbors. I see the business that the Kubareks run. He is a good neighbor. Mark was also the President of the New York State Car Wash Association, he still sits on the Board of Directors. He maintains his car washes, he is planning on spending a large amount of money for this investment. You don’t do that and then have trashcans overflowing or kids hanging out at the site you maintain, you want to protect your investment. But I have seen a trend where
we put a commercial building in a residential area and if it is maintained well everyone benefits from it, the City, as a taxpayer of the City, I don’t want my taxes to continue to go up. I see the conditions of a lot of the houses, half of them are owned by absentee landlords. I go through the south end of Jefferson Street, but we have factories in certain areas, we have drug stores, it seems like it is bringing some activity to the neighborhood. Instead of seeing houses condemned, boarded up and our taxes going up, so again I am in a bit of a unique situation because I earn my livelihood selling car wash equipment, on the other hand I am a resident of the City and I have been for twenty years and I have had four children in schools. But again I think it is all about neighbors and I think he would be a good neighbor, so that is what I have to say, I know it is running late. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Please come forward, please state your name and address for the record.
Ms. Schwab: Tracey Schwab, 7230 Owasco Road. Well, I have heard people say that they have lived here for a long time, that they grew up here, I did not grow up here. I grew up in New Orleans and Alabama where we have a lot of history and we got to choose, my husband and I came here six years ago and we got to choose, we are military, where we wanted to live. We were sent here for two years and after that we had a choice of a lot of different places, Virginia Beach, Miami, and different places where a lot of you might want to live, but just like the sign says behind you, “the best small City in New York State”. That is why we choose to live here.
The gentleman just before me mentioned a trend he sees of buildings coming in, commercial buildings and the neighborhoods benefiting from that. I wrote down notes as people were talking and I think the bottom line as I see it is that commercial is commercial and that with commercial with commercial growth you do get traffic and I think they were talking about good neighbors and people had mentioned landlords there are a lot of landlords and people that rent those houses around the Chapel, I think that because people don’t want to live there and when we came here and got to choose where we wanted to live, we moved to Fourth Avenue. It is an old neighborhood, there is not really any commercial growth around there and we
like the neighborhood. When we got to stay here we bought another house a larger house in that neighborhood. I know as a mother of a young child, young families don’t want to live in these places where there are commercial buildings, no matter how good the neighbors might be. Potential buyers don’t get a chance to go running around knocking on doors of these business people and saying “are you a good neighbor?” I know that when we were looking for a house just as many people do, they don’t want to live anywhere near a commercial building.
I listened to what Mike Deming said about strengthening the housing stock the current housing stock and I see that the City has put a lot of money in the houses behind the cemetery and I wonder why not do something to revitalize these properties in this neighborhood. A gentleman spoke about living in the neighborhood for twenty years and seeing the neighborhood slowing improve over the years and that does take time. I think, well ok, why not give some kind of incentives for these houses for young families to move in and make a life in this neighborhood.
Finally, I am on the Preservation Committee and we have been assured that National Historic Landmark status is imminent for us and I do wonder what that will mean for that block when we do receive that. My biggest question here is there was talk about competition and the competition on Grant Avenue and that BJ’s and Wal-Mart are going to be building their own car washes. Well I would like to know what happens if this car wash fails. Then what will happen to that property? Question I wonder about.
Back to the incentives to buy houses and redo, I have personally seen a lot of that, my father is a real estate agent in the south, and we see a lot of incentives, my grandparents lived in the historic district in their town and families would be given incentives to buy these houses in the historic districts and places that sort of have been going down hill, young families would buy these houses and redo them and the neighborhoods just blossomed and I think that is wonderful a nice thing to see.
Also the houses, Mike Long bought a house across the street there. Those houses are large, beautiful historic houses and I think they need to be considered too. The traffic problem, I work a lot in the medical building, the old high school building and so I know, I drive on that street quite often and there is increased traffic there going where the Holiday Inn is and the medical building. I think the traffic is a consideration. I think the bottom line is that it is a nice neighborhood, I do see commercial buildings coming around in various parts of the City and I wouldn’t want to live near them, and I know that young families don’t. The neighbors really need to be listened to, I think that is very important. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for or against? Please come forward.
Ms. Holland: Brenda Holland, 4651 Eastlake View Drive. I am Chair of the CPC, seeing that sign up there, I just find it ironic that we are meeting below the sign with the stained glass of the Willard Chapel. We have worked so hard to make it beautiful, attractive, tourist site and we are continuing to make investments in that. We are working in trying to get our wiring underground. We have people working to help try to improve the area. This needs to remain a residential zone. It is a residential area, it has the character of a residential area. Seymour Street cannot carry that kind of commercial traffic. I just want you to know that it is important to the CPC board that you take into consideration what has been
done there and look to the future and not take a quick change like this because it is so permanent. Thank you and I appreciate your time.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you. Anyone else to speak for or against?
Mrs. Kubarek: I would like to speak, am I allowed to speak?
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mrs. Kubarek: My name is Terri Kubarek, I live at 7246 State Street Road. The car wash has been in my family since it was built. My father owned the property from I believe the 1960’s. My children are here, we intend to as far as what happens to the property, we have no intention of doing anything that is going to cost us our livelihood. We plan on the car wash being successful and we plan on our children going into the car wash business as they have expressed interest. So we are going to be there. We have been there longer than most of the neighbors, there are a couple that have been there since prior to us, Mr. Dungey and another neighbor that is not here any more.
I guess I just find it really hard to believe that we are trying very hard to improve the neighborhood. We want to build a beautiful building, we are doing that. We are not trying to put up a pole barn or anything else, we do care about our neighbors. We cared when we were told when we bought the additional property and put up the fence, whatever the neighbor wanted, whether he wanted a berm or a fence. The City wanted a berm he wanted a fence, the City conceited and let up put up a fence. We were doing what we could to make him happy. We are willing to attempt to make people happy, if they would just give us a chance.
We really would like the City to just try and give us a little bit of a little slack here because when we bought the property, the car wash, the existing one, it was the whole block was commercial. It was never residential, you changed it. We are just asking you to be fair because they are saying keep it what it is, well it was commercial, it was never residential until the early 1990’s when the City changed it back. The City did not notify us when they changed it back. We found out when we went to change the roof which we were trying to accommodate when we peaked the roof making it look really nice, we put nice shingles on it, we knew the Chapel was there. We didn’t do it just because of Willard Chapel, we did it because we care, we truly care about our
business. We work very hard at it and I think that speaks for itself, if you look at how we take care of it.
As far as the playground goes next to the Dialysis Center, it is great in theory, but the neighborhood does have some issues, they put up a fence. When we put up stuff we are going to have lighting, like we have on the existing car wash, the exterior of the building is lit, because there is damage otherwise. The fence at the playground, the kids have destroyed it. So these nice sweet little kids that you see down there, they are breaking that stuff. Yes, we would like to build this car wash, we would like to put lights on it, which we will contain on our property and you know it is going to look great. We are willing to work on the next step on exactly how to do everything, how they would like it done. That is all I have to say. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against. Seeing none, I am going to call upon Mr. Kubarek and his counsel for a final statement.
Mr. Giacona: Wow, we will be here all night. I have heard a number of people get up and express their opposition to this project. Everybody is saying neighborhood, neighborhood, neighborhood. There is only one neighbor that came forward tonight to express their opposition to this. Mrs. Schlenker, she complained about the traffic problems. One neighbor out of all of these houses that form this wonderful neighborhood that everybody is talking about, but everybody lives on Owasco Road, South Fulton, we question their intentions in coming forward. I think the Community Preservation Committee has done an excellent job with the Willard Chapel and I applaud them. I think it is wonderful if we get noticed on the National
Landmark status. I think it would be great, I am a resident of the City of Auburn, I would love that. I think tourism is a very important key to the success of the best small City in New York. But what would you rather have your tourists drive by and see, this house that is condemned or would you rather have them see something that looks like this, something that is modern, that is professional, that is well kept, that is not condemned, doesn’t have animals running I and out. I think I would rather see that. If I was at a wedding would I rather go by a house, going to a wedding at Willard Chapel would I rather go out and check out a house, take a picture by that? Or would I rather wash my car before I went to the wedding, it would look good. Wash the car. I mean, yes, I think it is important that we preserve Willard Chapel, but you are talking about a neighborhood, look at your schedule A, neighborhood. Your neighborhood
consists of two single-family residents, one of which is under contract with my client to buy, the other is condemned. There is no other single residence in this ten acre block, not one and how can you say it is residential, it is commercial, it was commercial when they bought it and then through some snafu it changed, in fact, the residential zoning line runs right through my clients’ building as it stands there today, technically you could shut them down. This neighborhood concept I think it out to do, there are no neighbors here to contest, not one, one, I am sorry. Not more than one.
This vision for the neighborhood I can’t see the City getting a block grant or whatever for two single-family residences. I don’t see it happening. The entire block is predominately commercial. These comments about D & L and lack of maintenance and how that affects my clients is irrelevant and unsubstantiated. The comments that the neighbor could sell his house, I don’t know where those came from, but my client here is a good neighbor. I don’t know if any of you go to this car wash, but I do, and everything is well maintained, we have had neighbors here attesting to that. He is a good neighbor, he wants to improve the neighborhood, he wants to improve their business, they
have this hardship. Whether you believe it or not, it is true, it is a change in the car wash industry and in order for him to maintain a competitive edge he has got to expand into this procedure.
With regard to the trees, how many are there, how many are going to stay, my client fully realizes that in the event this gets passed by the board, which you fully have the power to do, grant this variance, he has to go through Planning and he has to go through the SEQRA and he has to determine what green space is going to be left, what are the traffic patterns, he has got to work with the City, the Police Department, with the Fire Department to make sure that the fire trucks can turn around, he is not ignorant of those facts. Of course he has got to go through that, he is going to comply with everything as he has in the past. He wants to make a substantial improvement in this area and I think it is warranted and I think the
supplemental statement says it all concerning the hardship and everything else. Did you want to say something (to Mr. Kubarek).
Mr. Kubarek: Yes. I won’t keep you long, just as far as the tree line and green space, we have to wait until the snow melts to really get in there, but what we are looking at now, the City tree line going down the street, the tree line at 76, the tree line coming back down Schwartz Towers, we are not going to have to touch it. We are not going to have to touch it. A gentleman mentioned about the open curb all the way down Seymour Street, that piece of property was not developed by us, that was developed by Sunoco. The property developed by us with Planning was when we knocked what use to be 80 Seymour and anybody that goes up there, that is where the marigolds set every year, the trees are there, the green space is there. We
developed that. Where the open curb is, Sunoco developed that. We didn’t do that, that was there when we got there, we bought that property from Sunoco. That is something all that we can consider when we do this project when we get with Planning. We can’t get to the SEQRA stage until we get past this stage. We do have to do a SEQRA and we know that we have to comply with whatever Planning puts forward to us.
I am concerned about my neighbors. There are only three neighbors that have been there longer than I have, as Mr. Dungey has stated, Mr. Dungey, Mr. Guariglia and Mr. Merelo and his sister Pearl. I am very concerned about them and anything that goes into this project I will discuss with them personally and the Schlenkers, but those are the three neighbors that were there originally. We have been there the longest and as Mr. Dungey said and I am sure that if Mr. Guariglia could have made it here tonight, he would tell you that we watched the neighborhood fall down around us. I am going to be there twenty-five year from now and I want to stop the blithe, but I can do that on my side of the street. Thank
you for your consideration.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you. Do any of the board members have any final questions from the applicant, before we close the public portion? I only have one Mr. Kubarek. It was mentioned about trucks and tractor-trailers using the facilities, is it going to be of that size?
Mr. Kubarek: Not at all, we do not want tractor-trailer business, we can’t have tractor-trailer business on Seymour Street. We wouldn’t want it anyway, we don’t do that business in Weedsport, which is a heavy traveled truck community, we don’t want that business.
Mr. Darrow: Strictly passenger vehicles.
Mr. Kubarek: Strictly passenger vehicles, we do not do, there is a weight limit on Seymour Street. Tractor-trailers cannot travel on Seymour Street, there is a weight limit. I think from our intersection north of Seymour all the way up to Grant Avenue, there is a weight restriction on that street. So tractor-trailers would not be served at this facility at all. We don’t want that business.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you. Any other questions from board members? I am going to close the public portion, we are now going to discuss it amongst ourselves. Ladies and gentlemen, thoughts, questions? We have heard a lot tonight, yes.
Mr. Gentile: One concern that I have is the noise, but I think Mr. Kubarek just cleared that up with there won’t be, I didn’t realize that tractor trailers couldn’t go down that stretch
Mr. Darrow: I didn’t either. Any other comments?
Mr. Sincebaugh: Now we have the new Connector Road coming up is that down a little further, I think that will lighten traffic up eventually down the way, I don’t know how soon that is going to be up, but I think that will lessen the traffic.
Mr. Darrow: Cars taking an alternate route rather than taking Seymour Street to cut through is that what you are getting at?
Mr. Sincebaugh: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: I am impressed with the potential design of the building itself, but I am very concerned that the City has had a vision for that neighborhood that just doesn’t include the houses along that initial block of Seymour Street. When the Seminary was there it was an entire campus and included all of the buildings that ringed what was the campus of the Seminary and there has been a great deal of renovations along Nelson Street and up into the areas toward the hospital.
I am concerned that we are being short sighted by thinking this is going to have great economic impact. I was at last Thursday night’s City Council meeting and Meg Vanek, who is the Director of County Planning and Maxine Alberici, who is the Chair of the City of Auburn Historic and Cultural Sites Commission spoke about the impact of tourism on Auburn and Cayuga County. If we weigh a car wash against what a designation as a National Historic Site, the impact that that can have economically on our community versus that which a six bay car wash can have on our community, it completely obliterates the car wash. For a community not to be able to have a designation of the caliber of being a National Historic Site is unthinkable to be willing to trade that for a car wash.
Mr. Darrow: But do we know that if this car wash should go in, that means it is now thumbs down for the National Historic Site? That they would loose that, is that a given?
Ms. Marteney: I am saying I think we are very short sighted and I think the impact that that will have on the neighborhood and I am not just considering the three houses there and the six across the street, I am thinking of the whole neighborhood and a neighborhood isn’t just your immediate next door neighbor, it includes the streets the tributaries into that area. I think that one of the reasons that that area was changed from C-2 to R-1 was because of the impact of the Willard Chapel and the changes that took place there. The City has invested a tremendous amount of money on that corner in that neighborhood. It has invested money in the houses along Nelson Street, it has invested money moving the garage away from that space, it invested in
the playground and the individuals who spoke here may not be direct neighbors, but they are neighbors in our community and they have invested time and money in the Willard Chapel and effort. They are neighbors such as I am and I live on Tuxill Square. It is our community and we have to stop thinking about it, we have to thing globally in our City, not just site specific.
Mr. Darrow: Any other comments? I am personally I think it will be an improvement over the buildings that are there. I too would be concerned about the Chapel losing any historic registry but considering when I look at the overall site plan, the set back of it in proximity to the Chapel sort of eases that concern.
Traffic pattern, I don’t know if we would see a huge difference in traffic. I don’t know if we would see an increase dramatically, I don’t know if we would see a decrease when the Connector Road goes in. That is something that we don’t possess crystal balls and can look into. But it is for its intention or as it appears on its face value of cleaning up some, I hate to use the word neglected, but some not quite picturesque properties. Any other comments?
Mr. Gentile: I want to talk about the property behind Willard Chapel. That is commercial along there and they are vacant
Ms. Aubin: Use to be P & C.
Mr. Gentile: Is that vacant now?
Mr. Darrow: Yes, it is vacant now.
Mr. Gentile: Couldn’t someone come in and say I want to put a used car lot in that area
Ms. Marteney: No, it is R-1
Mr. Darrow: Not where
Ms. Marteney: That is C-2
Mr. Darrow: Not where Eckerds is.
Ms. Aubin: That can’t be attractive when you are at the Chapel because that is what you are looking at right.
Mr. Gentile: That is what I am saying, to me that would be worse than having a car wash and that isn’t in the direct sight of Willard Chapel.
Ms. Marteney: But that is not what we are voting on tonight.
Mr. Gentile: I am just making scenario, I realize we are not voting on that, but the possibility is there.
Ms. Marteney: I am going to play another devil’s advocate here, I hear Mr. Giacona was talking about a hardship. To be able to purchase a property for $60,000 because he wants to compete against new establishments on Grant Avenue, I have not idea how much a property would be on Grant Avenue and in some respects we would be subsidizing his business because he doesn’t have to have the same up front costs to even start his business. I don’t see a hardship there.
Mr. Gentile: Do you know how much it is going to cost to build a building like that?
Ms. Marteney: He wants to build it, he would have to build it somewhere, hardship is based on a reasonable return of property.
Mr. Darrow: If there is no other discussion, I would like to open the floor for a motion.
Mr. Gentile: I would like to make another statement. I personally commend Mr. and Mrs. Kubarek for wanting to invest in this community and he owns the two properties next to it, he didn’t let those run down and make it more of an eyesore, he is keeping those properties up. The car wash has always been there the past twenty some years that I remember it, it has always been keep in excellent condition, I am sure he will do the same with any further property.
Mr. Westlake: My only concern is the Willard Chapel and its ability to get the National Historic prominence. If we do this and block the Willard Chapel from getting that, I would be against it. If we won’t block the Willard Chapel from getting that then I would be for it.
Mr. Darrow: I think the one thing we have to keep in mind is there are still two more reviews after us and that is something that really falls into Planning’s scope of making sure they are preserving as well as us preserving, but the actually significance of that surrounding building.
Ms. Hussey: Planning’s job is to make sure that there are adequate curb cuts, adequate buffers,
Mr. Darrow: Trees, foliage
Ms. Hussey: Will those are the buffers, the curb cuts, lighting. If you look in your application package a SEQRA package was, a short environmental assessment form was completed. Since these applicants were requesting a use variance for a change in the use of the land as it is presently zoned, then a SEQRA is appropriate, not only to the Planning Board but as the ZBA as an interested agency is really authorized to comment on some of the issues in the SEQRA as an interested agency. Again, the board is similarly in the event that anything is passed they need a motion on a recommendation with the SEQRA and at this time you do have an opportunity to place some of these comments on the record as part of the Planning Board’s SEQRA review.
Mr. Darrow: We can make it contingent upon a positive SEQRA review.
Ms. Hussey: Right. We have some new members on the board.
Mr. Darrow: If there is no other discussion, the floor is open for a motion.
Mr. Gentile: I would like to make a motion this board grant Mark and Terri Kubarek of 108 North Street for the property located at 78 and 80 Seymour Street a use variance to construct two automatic and four self-service car wash bays.
Mr. Darrow: Contingent upon a positive SEQRA
Mr. Gentile: Contingent upon a positive SEQRA review.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor, do we have a second?
Mr. Sincebaugh: I second the motion.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Sincebaugh seconds. Please call the roll.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Darrow
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney – While I believe the Kubareks would be and are good neighbors, I believe it will have a negative impact on a R-1 neighborhood.
Mr. Darrow: Your variance has been approved. The Inspection Department will be in touch with you to give you the necessary paper work.
Mr. Giacona: Thank you.
Mr. Kubarek: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Any other business to come to this board under housekeeping? No other business for this board. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
| 
