ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003
Members Present: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Member Absent: Mr. Darrow (called)
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey
Mr. Galvin
Mr. Hicks
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have four items on the agenda.
30 Cross Street
14 Grover Street
56 Prospect Street
2 E. Genesee Street
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003
30 Cross Street, (St. Nicholas Church), R-2, area variance for construction of social hall without off-street parking.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 30 Cross Street. Are you here please? Step forward to the mike and bring as many up as you wish and state your name for the record.
Mr. Perfield: My name is James Perfield, I am the President of St. Nicholas Orthodox Church and with me is Father Stephen Mach.
Mr. Rejman: Good and what would you like to do there? What is the issue?
Mr. Perfield: We would ask that the board to grant us a variance for a Church hall at that address. We were granted a variance in 1995 I believe, discovered we were a little short of funds to proceed with construction at that time and postponed construction until the present day.
Mr. Rejman: Alright.
Father Mach: I would like to add a couple points.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Father Mach: Since 1995 we have purchased property next to the Church, which gives us more room that we originally planned. We are building the same size building; we are using more land to do it. One thing we plan on doing when we get some future funds hopefully is that we plan on having some off street parking. These facilities will be used for the same purposes that we use our Church basement for now; it will just give us more room. So it is not like we are adding more people, there are rumors by way of bingo and a liquor license, we are not interested in any of that, and we don’t have that now. When I came to St. Nicholas 18 years ago we had some bingo equipment, we gave it away. It is not in our future. I do
also have letters from all of our bordering neighbors supporting this project.
Mr. Rejman: We would be interested in those letters. Would you pass those around.
Questions from the board at this point? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, we will come back to the board. Take a moment to the letters.
Mr. Galvin: While they are doing that Mr. Chairman
Mr. Rejman: Yes?
Mr. Galvin: Just like to take a minute to amend the cover sheet that Mr. Hicks submitted with the variance request. There are actually two variances involved, one is the parking issue and most substantial there is a 16-foot front variance that is required as well. In that district 25 foot is required and according to the plans they have 9 feet.
Mr. Rejman: We need a 5 or we need a 16?
Mr. Galvin: 25 foot, they need 16 foot.
Mr. Rejman: For the record, how many parking spaces are required?
Mr. Galvin: We calculated 25.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Questions, concerns from the board? Comments?
Ms. Marteney: Where is the new property that is going to be purchased?
Father Mach: Well I guess the current 911 address would 26 Cross Street, excuse me, actually it is 28. Years ago there use to be a Church rectory next to the Church. When there was a Church rectory there the Church was 28 Cross Street, the rectory was 26 and the house we purchased I believe was 24. The house that is there now next to it originally I guess that would have been 22 is now 26. So I guess for purposes of City records what was on the books at 911 was probably 28.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Ms. Hussey: We have another letter submitted with respect to this issue.
Mr. Rejman: Would you read the letter into the record?
Ms. Hussey: I have a letter that was submitted to Mr. Brian Hicks of the Code Enforcement Office.
“Dear Mr. Hicks:
In regards of your Notice of Public Hearing of the City of Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals, mailed March 20, 2003, I wish to make the following statement to your concerning the request for a variance at 30 Cross Street.
As you know, St. Nicholas Church is requesting a variance for construction of a social hall without off street parking. St. Nicholas Church is a corner stone in this neighborhood. They have been there for many years. They use to have a social hall on 87 Cottage Street, but sold it a number of years ago. They now hold their social functions in the Church basement. Off street parking has never been an issue with St. Nicholas Church.
I am happy to see that St. Nicholas Church Parish is willing to enhance their property, and by doing that they are enhancing the surrounding area. The City of Auburn should encourage this, as it will effect the esthetic beauty of our City. If you take into account the new Kinney Drug Store, the remolding of the “old” Polish Home into Swartz Physical Therapy at 197 State Street, and the new Salva Electric Company on 174 State Street, I feel this is the starting of a renaissance for this part of Auburn.
I cannot be at the public hearing on Monday, March 31, 2003, and I would like to have my comments known. I am requesting you have this letter read into the record for me. If there is anything else you require from me, please ask.
Thank you for your time, I remain
Sincerely, William F. Jacobs, Member of Council.”
Mr. Rejman: May we keep these letters from your neighbors?
Father Mach: Yes you can.
Mr. Rejman: Last call, anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, back to the board, last call for questions.
Mr. Sincebaugh: You plan in the near future to buy some houses around there for parking?
Father Mach: If we get the chance to buy more property in the future, yes, but I think right now the plan is behind the Church right now is a driveway that goes all the way back. What I would like to do is, originally there was a driveway for the rectory, there is still a little portion that goes out from Cross Street, so my plan would be actually to connect the Cross Street original driveway to the back that borders Cottage Street and be able to have a drive all the way through, which would actually make it easier to get in and out of there now than it is.
Ms. Marteney: So it goes between
Father Mach: Between the Church and this hall if we build it, we have something like 13 feet there so the other side may be kind of tight. To get more parking space my idea is two lanes plus parking on the side.
Mr. Rejman: Very good. Final questions? Close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Perfield: Thank you very much.
Ms. Hussey: Mr. Chairman, this does require, it is an unlisted action but it does require a SEQRA review. I have submitted and passed around to everybody a short form application which is appropriate for their variance and I have second page which we can go through and perform the review prior to any vote on the variance.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s do that.
Ms. Hussey: This action Part A this action does not exceed Type I threshold – the answer is no on that.
On B, questions whether the action will receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions – this plan will go before the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals can call for a coordinated review which when this goes before the Planning Board it will give their comments and then come back to the Zoning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals can choose to conduct an uncoordinated review, choosing to review it themselves. That means that their determination, your determination, could be overridden by the Planning Board tomorrow.
Mr. Rejman: If we do coordinated, do we have to table the item
Ms. Hussey: Yes because the Zoning Board has to receive the comments from the Planning Board. One of the differences between whether your choose to have coordinated review then we will not be able to grant the variance tonight. With an uncoordinated review
Mr. Rejman: Personally feeling, if we act on it tonight then we would have more weight when Planning looks at it. I think Planning would like to know what we think.
Mr. Galvin: The Planning Board wouldn’t act until the Zoning Board made a final determination which could then push them back to the May meeting.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s do uncoordinated.
Ms. Hussey: So the answer for B is no.
The significant questions are: C1 – Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems.
Mr. Gentile: This letter address traffic from Jim Galvin, second to the last paragraph – “under these circumstances, the traffic and parking issues would be increased beyond current conditions”.
Ms. Marteney: It was in the packet.
Mr. Westlake: They are having their meetings in the basement now, unless they are going to have larger meetings, I don’t see it could impact the traffic much more than it is now.
Mr. Rejman: The only way that they would have larger meetings is if their congregation exploded, which could happen. I don’t know if the traffic would be any worse than it is now, if they are already having meetings and their social functions.
Mr. Westlake: Unless the congregation got larger that is the only way you would get more traffic.
Mr. Rejman: More functions maybe. Do we have anything from Fire or Police on this?
Mr. Galvin: The memo Mr. Gentile is referring to is one that I complied based on comments from the Fire and Police Departments as part of the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Rejman: Will this also be reviewed at Planning Board?
Mr. Galvin: Yes.
Ms. Hussey: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: I think I would like them to be lead agency on that issue instead of putting this in a catch 22. What are your feelings? Take that as a yes, can we put N/A on it?
Ms. Hussey: What has been done in the past is a conditional, basically conditioned on the Planning Board finding a Negative Declaration.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Ms. Hussey: A Negative Declaration doesn’t denote that it failed, a Negative Declaration denotes that there are no negative affect on the property.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Move to C2.
Ms. Hussey: Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?
Mr. Rejman: Adverse effect. No.
Ms. Hussey: C3 -Any adverse effects with respect to vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Ms. Hussey: C4 - Adverse effects with respect to community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Ms. Hussey: C5 – Adverse effects with respect to growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Ms. Hussey: C6 - Adverse effects with respect to long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 – C5?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Ms. Hussey: C7 - And any other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Ms. Hussey: D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Ms. Hussey: Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Ms. Hussey: That completes the assessment just to recap that Zoning Board has found no adverse effects except for possible traffic, existing traffic patterns and in that respect they would like the Planning Board to take lead agency for that issue.
Mr. Rejman: OK. We will need two different motions. We are looking for a 16-foot front yard variance to start. Need a motion for a 16-foot front yard variance.
Mr. Gentile: I would like to make a motion that we grant St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church located at 28 – 30 Cross Street, Auburn, a 16 foot front yard variance.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Variance is approved.
Ms. Marteney: I make a motion that we waive the requirement for off Street parking with condition being approval of a Negative Declaration from the Planning Board.
Mr. Sincebaugh: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Granted, good luck with Planning, good luck with your building.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003
14 Grover Street, R-2, 4-foot rear yard area variance for shed. Mary Fedyshyn.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 14 Grover Street, are you here please? State your name for the record and tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Fedyshyn: Dan Fedyshyn. Right now I presently have a 4 x 16 foot shed I use for my son’s battery operated vehicles and I failed to get a permit at the time so I am seeking a variance for it now.
Mr. Rejman: OK. We do have a letter from Mr. Lynch. Do you have a copy of that?
Mr. Fedyshyn: No I do not.
Mr. Rejman: Give him a copy. In reading the letter it seems that your neighbor doesn’t have a large problem, he does have one small problem that the shed is nailed directly to the wooden fence.
Mr. Fedyshyn: No, it is leaning against it.
Mr. Rejman: Leaning against it?
Mr. Fedyshyn: Yes. It is like a lean-to type – only a three-sided shed, doesn’t have a backside, his fence is actually the backside.
Mr. Rejman: Do you think you could do something different than that?
Mr. Fedyshyn: Oh, yes, I could pull it out and put a back on it.
Mr. Rejman: Alright, I would suggest that be a conditional. Why don’t you keep that. Questions from the board?
Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Final comments. Close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Comments? Motion?
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Mary Fedyshyn of 14 Grover Street a 4 foot rear yard variance to put their 6 x 12 shed on the line and on the condition that it is not attached to or leaning against the neighbor’s fence, it shall be self-supporting.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Your variance has been approved. Good luck with the fence.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003
56 Prospect Street, R-1, 22 square foot area variance for a sign. Auburn Seventh Day Adventist Church.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 56 Prospect Street, please.
Mr. Hrovat: My name is Bill Hrovat (spells name) and this Mr. Conrad Skantz (spells name). I am the Pastor of the Auburn Seventh Day Adventist Church and Mr. Skantz is one of our senior members, an elder. We have come to request permission to replace an older wooden sign that we have at our Church with a newer aluminum sign that would be an electric sign so that it would be lit up at night. I have here I believe at your request pictures, several pictures of the older sign as well as the sketch of the newer sign.
One of the problems that we have had with the older sign is that people have driven by it and not even seen it as they are actually trying to come to the Church, so we wondered what is it that people driving by don’t even notice that it is there. So we would like to have something that is a little bit more visible to the traffic as they pass by, let people know that we are there, times of our services and other various programs that we would like to make available to the community.
Mr. Rejman: How do you intend to place the sign, how many feet off the ground? What is your thought there?
Mr. Hrovat: On this second page here, from the ground to the bottom of the sign would be 3’ 6” and there would be cement which we would place as footers and it would be in the center of the sign, it would be 3’ 6” from the ground to the base of the cabinet.
Mr. Gentile: Is it the A32 model?
Mr. Hrovat: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: 7’ 6” to the top.
Ms. Marteney: How high is your sign off the ground now?
Mr. Westlake: I would say about the same.
Ms. Marteney: Same relationship.
Mr. Hrovat: Yes. Both sides are the same in length both 8 feet.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Yes?
Mr. Malone: I am Patrick Malone, I live directly across the street from the Church.
Mr. Rejman: You probably would like to see one of these.
Mr. Malone: Yes, I just have a couple of questions. (Discussed with Mr. Hrovat and Mr. Skantz).
Mr. Rejman: State your name for the record and give your comments.
Mr. Malone: Patrick Malone, at 73 Prospect Street and I just wanted some clarification on what the sign was going to be and I have that clarification and I have no objection to it.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against?
The illumination on this will it be all night or will you have some sort of a
Mr. Hrovat: It will be timed, but it will be on at night.
Mr. Rejman: 24/7?
Mr. Hrovat: No, not 24/7, we have a timer on it, turn on at sunset
Mr. Rejman: Keep it on all night?
Mr. Hrovat: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Any other questions?
Ms. Marteney: The sign it going to be running in the same direction so that you see it coming and going?
Mr. Hrovat: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: OK, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves and have an answer in a moment.
Comments, concerns?
Mr. Marteney: Internally, not a floodlight.
Mr. Rejman: Correct. The square footage issue hasn’t really bothered me because look at the other sign, there was some blank spaces in between the two boards. That is what this sign is taking up.
Ms. Marteney: This is a bigger sign, but you don’t notice it.
Mr. Rejman: I need a motion.
Ms. Marteney: I would like to make a motion that we grant to Auburn Seventh Day Adventist Church a variance for one sign, with a total of 32 square feet an illuminated sign.
Ms. Aubin: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Good luck with the sign.
Mr. Hrovat: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003
2 E. Genesee Street (Dunkin’s Donuts), C2, 2.74-foot front yard area variance. Mr. Donut of America.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 2 E. Genesee Street, are you here?
Mr. Wejko: John Wejko, I am with J & K Company, I represent Allied Domecq QSR, which is fondly know as Dunkin Donuts and the local franchisee Prashant Agrawal. We are proposing to put an addition on the front of 2 E. Genesee Street, Dunkin Donut. We are looking for a variance in regards to the front property line. We would still be behind the property line. Our addition is basically for, needless to say we need more room inside the store, also the ADA requires in regards to egress and ingress and as we are remodeling we are also remodeling the bathroom and the entire store. I think I provided a plot plan and two sets of plans. And based on that 90% of the stores on Genesee Street are right up to the
right-of-way, even with the addition, we would be 2 - 2 ½ feet behind the existing right-of-way. At least the adjacent buildings are right up to it.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Questions?
Ms. Marteney: The façade is going to look like Grant Avenue?
Mr. Wejko: Like Grant Avenue. That is subject to change because we are discussing the fact that initially we had planned on doing you see the gable roof, it has basically like a gable roof design, we initially talked about straightening the gable out and putting a dry finish on the top of that. Then we went to the glorified finished which is the Grant Avenue look, but that is subject to change and that really shouldn’t make any difference in regards to the building permit. They haven’t quite made up their mind, we might go back to the gable roof and just repaint it. Right now, we overhang on that building, extends beyond where our addition is. We have, actually the building itself sticks out an extra foot
beyond where our addition is. It has an overhang that on the Genesee Street side extends away from the building 7 feet, our addition is 6 feet 4 inches. I think the plot plan will show that, the site plan.
Mr. Westlake: The dashes are the overhang?
Mr. Wejko: The dash lines are the actual building outside overhang. So our addition is actually within an existing building but being that we are ground level trying to get and our existing vestibule is right now within a foot and a half of this too. We are actually within the parameters of the old building overhang.
Mr. Rejman: You are inside the footprint of the old building?
Mr. Wejko: Well, it depends on how you want to look at it.
Mr. Rejman: Roof line?
Mr. Wejko: Roof line, yes. The overhang sticks out 3 foot on both sides and on the front of the building sticks out 7 feet, actually I think it is 7½’, and that is still back approximately 2’ from the existing right-of-way.
Mr. Westlake: So you are not going to extend the roofline with the new addition out farther?
Mr. Wejko: No, actually we are just looking for ADA requires us to 6’ 4” – 6’ 6” out, that doesn’t quite make it out to the edge of the front of the building, but they are just looking for ADA requirements. So we are actually in some respects it was a case of the building is already there, but the outside walls aren’t, and if you look at the former, follow the line, Auburn Floor Covering and Gregory & Picciano Electric they are right on the E. Genesee Street right-of-way, if you follow our line our new addition is actually 3 feet behind here.
So we are really asking for something that basically the adjoining buildings have right up to the right-of-way and we have an existing overhang that beyond where we need so.
Mr. Rejman: Final questions? Any questions?
Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? OK, we will close the public portion.
Ms. Marteney: I think it is going to be a great improvement.
Mr. Rejman: Starting to feel good about all these new projects that are going around in Auburn. We need a motion.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant to Dunkin’s Donuts of 2 E. Genesee Street, a front yard variance of 2.74 feet to construct a 6’4” x 36” addition on the front of their store at 2 E. Genesee Street.
Ms. Aubin: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Good luck with construction.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
| 
