ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003
Members Present: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey
Mr. Hicks
Mr. Galvin
APPLICATIONS
APPROVED: 67 Perrine Street
204 Genesee Street
102 Walnut Street
39 A Arterial West
184 Seymour Street
4 Sumner Street
22 Mary Street
34 Standart Avenue
149 Standart Avenue and 153-163 Grant Avenue
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have:
67 Perrine Street
204 Genesee Street
102 Walnut Street
39 A Arterial West
184 Seymour Street
4 Sumner Street
22 Mary Street
34 Standart Avenue
149 Standart Avenue and 153-163 Grant Avenue
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003
67 Perrine Street, R-1, use variance of 5.73 linear feet for front yard parking, Frank Porter
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 67 Perrine Street, are you here, please? State your name for the record.
Mr. Porter: Frank Porter.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Frank, tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Porter: I would like to widen the driveway in the front of my house. I was here last month and it was tabled until this month.
Mr. Rejman: So we are looking for a 5.73 linear foot width addition
Mr. Porter: From 14.73, which I have a drawing that Mr. Hicks gave me, I don’t know if you people have it
Mr. Rejman: We have it.
Mr. Porter: Only contention that I had as I stated to him, he is starting me out after the sidewalk at 14.27 and I gradually it will swing out to 20 feet. Once it snows and there cars will back across, I don’t think they will know that driveway is there, unless I put some type of barrier there.
Mr. Rejman: Well you could spot a bush or something in that corner.
Mr. Darrow: You are going for an additional curb cut then?
Mr. Porter: Yes. That is the other question that I had and I think he and I agree it says in the paper work that I can have 18.27 feet and for some reason they cut be back to 17.27 feet.
Mr. Hicks: That is a stipulation that was put together by Engineering reason is non-conforming lot of record.
Mr. Porter: I can live with it.
Mr. Darrow: That is why is went to Engineering first.
Mr. Rejman: Right.
Mr. Porter: Right, I understand that.
Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board? Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Yes.
Mr. Cameron: Mr. Chairman, Doug Cameron, 88 Perrine Street. As a neighbor of Mr. Porter I would to have his variance approved. Mainly because as you know between State Street and Washington Street on Perrine Street there is heavy vehicle traffic especially this time of the year and in the winter too. I think when a landlord is willing to make provisions to get his tenants off the street, so they don’t have to park on the curb side, I think it should be commended and approved by the board to make space for him. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, we will come back to the board. Questions from the board? Last call. We will close the public portion and discuss this.
Mr. Porter: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Now that we have the curb cut finalized from Engineering, that was one of the hold ups last month and there is a good layout of how it is going to be widen and where, taking into consideration a new curb cut.
Mr. Rejman: Looks like this is the minimum we could do and still the applicant what he is looking for.
Mr. Darrow: Yes. And with Engineering taking a foot off the curb cut that actually speaks that they were looking for the minimum and that is what they feel the minimum curb cut he could get away with.
Mr. Rejman: Any other comments?
Mr. Gentile: I agree with Mr. Cameron, any time you can vehicles off the street it is a plus.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we approve a use variance for Frank Porter of 67 Perrine Street, for the purpose of creating front yard parking as per drawing submitted and creating a new curb cut as specified by Engineering.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second the motion.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Hold on that, we need to do the SEQRA.
Ms. Hussey: This is a use variance.
Mr. Rejman: Counsel will read through the SEQRA.
Ms. Hussey: With use variances determined to be a unlisted action, the applicant filled out an short environmental assessment form. It is appropriate at this time for the board to consider:
A. Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6NYCRR, Part 617.12? The answer is no.
B. Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted action in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? None.
C. Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground/water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? No.
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic or other natural or cultural resource; or community or neighborhood character? No.
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species? No.
C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? No.
C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? No.
C6. Long term, short, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1-C5? No.
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? No.
D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No.
Given that a motion is in order to find a negative declaration SEQRA.
Mr. Darrow: I have a motion on the floor Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, we need a SEQRA motion.
Mr. Gentile: I would like to make a motion that we find a negative SEQRA declaration.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that motion.
Mr. Darrow: Point of order Mr. Chairman, we have to pull my motion because you cannot have two motions on the floor at the same time.
Mr. Rejman: Would you like to retract yours for a moment?
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
VOTING ON SEQRA: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Darrow would you like to reinstate your motion?
Mr. Darrow: Yes, please.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003
204 Genesee Street, R-2, use variance/determination of economic hardship, Brendan Grillo, Bel-Aire Apartments.
Mr. Rejman: 204 Genesee Street, please and we have a handout coming to us. (Everyone reads handout). Just so the people in the audience, probably wondering what was handed out, counsel can you explain.
Ms. Hussey: This matter – a use variance was granted in this matter on January 27, 2003, permitting the applicant to build two eight unit apartment buildings on his property instead of the maximum six that are allowed in an R-2 zone district. On April 1, this board granted the variance contingent on compliance of a SEQRA review conducted by the Planning Board. On April 1, the Planning Board found a that there was no negative environment impact and passed a negative declaration for the project.
On or about April 17, an Article 78 proceeding was commenced in the Supreme Court, County of Cayuga, State of New York, by Joseph Camardo, seeking to set aside the use and area variances. On May 20 motions on the matter were argued before honorable Mark Fandrick, Supreme Court Justice, and after due consideration Judge Fandrick referred the matter back to the City of Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals for the sole purpose of making specific findings concerning the issue of economic hardship.
On June 2, 2003, the City of Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals upon giving a published notice conducted a public hearing with respect to the specific issues concerning economic hardship. Heard public comments, considered additional information and tabled the matter to permit review of information by Mr. Camardo’s attorney and to allow additional submissions by Mr. Grillo’s attorney.
Mr. Rejman: What has been done is all those meetings have been nicely boiled down to three pages. Yes, for the record, state your name.
Mr. Giacona: Sam Giacona on behalf of Brendan Grillo. I outlined in my letter of June 26, 2003 and provided the pertinent information that was requested at the last meeting on June 2, 2003.
I can go through it quickly here it is a projected cost of a twelve unit versus the sixteen unit, proposed income and expense statement for twelve units versus sixteen units. Also included in there an Affidavit signed by James Moore. I believe at the last meeting there was some question how we can determine whether those expenses were in fact spent rehabbing 206 and I enclose in my packet a building permit for the three building permits that were taken out to do the construction work in order to repair the violation list that was pretty substantial and showing that all that work was done I also included a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building Department.
As outlined in my letter this is a very unique piece of property in a R-2 zone neighborhood. Already being used as a twenty-unit apartment complex, we can build an additional twelve unit; I don’t want to rehash the rehash. Did generate a tax map that shows this parcel of land in comparison to neighboring properties, shows the size.
The expense sheet was generated based upon the actual expenses that have been incurred at Bel-Aire, the twenty unit. What I did was scale back proportionately depending on whether it is a twelve unit or sixteen unit. For example, I took 60% of the actual expenses for the twelve unit and 80% of the actual expenses in order to arrive at the portion of expense for the sixteen unit. As you can see, the return is dramatically different and in a large part it is because in constructing the twelve unit versus a sixteen unit most of the costs are going to remain constant. For example, general conditions, site work, the concrete, the masonry, the metals, the works of plastic will all remain constant whether a twelve or sixteen unit.
The expense for the debt services is based upon percent of value and I just took 80% of the projected expenses and amortized that over twenty year period at 7% interest, it might even be a little high, but I used the same interest rate for both expense statements. Does the board have any questions?
Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board? I think we have had ample time to review this which is good.
Mr. Gentile: The income for the twelve unit would be how much versus the income from the sixteen unit?
Mr. Giacona: Are you talking net income?
Mr. Gentile: Yes.
Mr. Giacona: Net income on twelve unit would be $420.00 per year and the net income on the sixteen unit would be $13,380.
Mr. Gentile: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: No further questions? Closing statement?
Mr. Giacona: No, do you want me to wait?
Mr. Rejman: Have a seat and see how this unfolds for us. Anyone wishing to speak for or against? Yes.
Mr. Ryan: Thank you. Kevin Ryan on behalf of Joseph Camardo, neighbor of this proposed project. I have had the opportunity to review the submission that Mr. Giacona provided this board on Friday and I am most taken with the proposed income and expense statement for this project.
Initially, I would like to point out, that nobody is forcing Mr. Grillo to add any additional units to his property. He his twenty units on the property right now, which are rented and he is making a profit on them. Now, also, he bought a parcel of property at 206 Genesee Street the circumstances which are vague, but again an additional parcel of property was purchased with there are apartments, he is renting them, he is making a profit there. Now we have this proposed income and expense statement today that he is submitting that shows that he is making a profit and he would make a profit if this variance is denied and he installs twelve units. Now it is up to this board to decide whether that is a reasonable rate
of return or not, but I don’t think that is the question.
What is important is the fact that there is seriously absent from this submission is any calculation of what is already being made from the existing twenty unit and whatever at 206 Genesee Street. So I think it is a fallacy to sit here and say if you deny his variance he only makes $420 a year. That is $420 on top of the property he already has. He has twenty units already that are earning income. He has the right to make $420 more and he has the right to earn a return on 206 Genesee Street. Now the law, whether or not he earns a reasonable rate of return on property applies to the entire property as a whole. Not to just a simple project. So I don’t think you can characterize this saying he
gets $420 and say that is not a reasonable rate of return, that is not the issue. He has not show a demonstration that he is losing money.
He bought this property years ago when he knew there were twenty units and I would hope that he knew what the residential zoning restrictions were, so I think you have a situation where someone is buying a property, coming in after the fact trying to get a variance and saying he can’t do it because he has not reasonable rate of return. That would also be a self-created hardship and I think this board doesn’t have the authority to grant the variance he is requesting by their own admissions. They have yet to show that he cannot get a greater return on this property. I think if you grant the variance without taking into consideration what is already being granted, at least what he already has there, at least considering what he is making, I think you are acting in excess of
your jurisdiction.
In reviewing the submissions and having attended a number of the board hearings, I note that a lot of the claim of hardship is based the purchase of 206 Genesee Street. Now my understanding of the circumstances around that sale were that this variance is being sought because he doesn’t have enough property to add sixteen additional units, therefore by the additional property at 206 Genesee Street would increase the lot size therefore enabling what Mr. Moore claimed was he won’t need a variance. Well I think that in order to increase the lot size therefore to enable to build the additional units without the variance, I think that includes knocking the building down. You can’t simply advise someone to buy a parcel of property with a building on it and say that will
increase your lot size therefore you can put more units on there, I think it goes without saying the building should be knocked down.
I know Mr. Walton, Mr. Moore had an affidavit sent to the court saying he never advised that, but my understanding of this and my client’s review of the plans show that the building was being knocked. It has never been knocked down, he has people living there, he has rented property there, he is earning a profit on that as well, and I think that should be taken into consideration.
Again, in addition to being able to demonstrate an economic hardship in order to get this variance, any hardship cannot be self-created. I said it before, I will say it again, this property was bought a couple of years ago when he knew this was an R-2 zone district where there were twenty units. He is making a return on that. Now he is seeking a variance to get more return. Buying a parcel of property and seeking a variance later on, that is self-created. By the kind of property at 206 Genesee Street at the recommendation of Mr. Moore or whatever, the bottom line is he bought the property. Now you say you buy the property and then it didn’t exempt you from getting a variance. That should have been checked out at that time. You can’t simply rely
on Mr. Moore’s representation, have it be wrong and then incur all the additional costs therefore and that is how you figure economic hardship. By taking that line of arguing you could allow somebody to incur construction overruns if only for the sole purpose of allowing them to claim a loss of profit, therefore necessitating the granting of a zoning variance by claiming economic hardship. I think the basic information I have seen here tonight again granting this variance would be in excess of this board’s authority.
I wanted to comment on this proposed that resolution was passed out to me a minute ago. I think that this board again is making a number of assumptions in this resolution that are incorrect. Again it is up to the board to decide but I think this resolution pre-supposes the fact that if the variance is not granted all he makes is $420 on the property, that is not true. He does have an additional twenty units at the existing Bel-Aire plus whatever he is renting at 206. This resolution is not true in that regard.
Second of all I hope that you are claiming that he purchased 206 Genesee Street at an “inflated purchase price”. I don’t know how that was determined whether it is inflated or not. I know the fair market value of property in this country is whatever someone wants to pay for it. So I think to have legislation that says that any purchase price is inflated I think is outside what this board should be doing.
We have gone through this enough. We are here now because the Supreme Court said that he has to come back and demonstrate an economic hardship. In doing so they said that granting a variance before was in excess of its jurisdiction. This is the second time we have been here. I guess I have to ask the board on behalf of my client, enough is enough. They have had ample opportunity to demonstrate the requisite economic hardship, they have yet to do so. I think the information that we have seen, I think we are well aware of the facts of this project and I think it falls well short of required economic hardship. Thank you. Any questions?
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. The applicant, closing statement?
Mr. Giacona: Just to clarify a couple of comments that counsel made that so articulately argues the position here. First of all, the Judge never said that the board made a decision in excess of their authority. The Judge said that he referred it back for specific findings concerning economic hardship because the record wasn’t clear what the board considered. So that is a misstatement.
The Affidavit of James Moore that was sworn to under oath indicates that at no time did he advise Mr. Walton the architect that he had to knock that building down. The fair market value, I would agree that fair market value is what the willing buyer is willing to pay and what the willing seller is willing to accept. In this case the seller stated her benchmark and there was no negotiating. It was a five unit, two of units were condemned. I don’t know if you have driven by it, but it looks a lot better than it did. You have seen the violation list, that was at a premium. I don’t know if anyone is aware of the market in Auburn, but the multi-units are going for a dime a dozen especially in
dilapidated condition. It wasn’t my understanding that a pro forma or income and expense statement was required for the existing Bel-Aire apartments. We were advised and reviewed the minutes and I proposed an income and expense statement showing the difference in the return required. I don’t think the income at Bel-Aire as it exists today was any part of this application.
My client is a young entrepreneur, he has invested his time, energy and money in Auburn and I applaud his intent to undertake this project and expend several hundred thousand dollars to make upscale apartments that are sorely needed in the downtown area.
Regarding making a profit at 206, he paid $79,000 plus put about $20,000 into it, he is barely if anything, barely breaking even and with the $20,000 that he invested on his own, it will take years to realize any kind of return. I think we have demonstrated economic hardship and I agree I think we need to move on, I think that my client deserves this application being granted and if you will note in the construction estimates the annual costs charges that increase per year, my client has been at this I think for 2 ½ years. Had he been able to go forward at that time, he would have saved 2.8% or approximately $17,000 or $18,000. Now the percentage has gone up and it is costing him an additional 3%. The
numbers are there, you can do the math.
He would not have bought 206 Genesee Street but for relying on Mr. Moore and if you can’t rely on the head Code Enforcement Officer, I don’t know who else you can rely on.
I agree this need to move forward and I would ask the board to approve the application. Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? OK, we will close the public portion and start deliberation amongst ourselves. Would like comments for the record.
I will start. The purchase of 206 bothers me a lot. Had that not been in the mix it might have been a different story.
Mr. Darrow: All that aside do we know why?
Mr. Rejman: Why what?
Mr. Darrow: Why it was purchased and Mr. Moore did not advise him, it is in black and white. I have to agree that we if we cannot take the advice of the Senior Code Inspector, if you walk down to Code Enforcement, you ask you want to put a shed up in my backyard and they say ok that is good, your sizes are good, I mean you wouldn’t necessarily have shouldn’t have to walk out and call your attorney to double check Codes to see if they are right. They know what they are talking about.
Mr. Rejman: People are people and Jim may have made a mistake, but that doesn’t relieve the expense the applicant has at this point. Any other items of concern?
Mr. Gentile: I understand what the neighbor’s problem is, but on the other hand I think a twelve unit complex on a larger footprint, can hold sixteen, will be bigger than the proposed ones, with no variance needed.
Mr. Darrow: That is the part, maybe there is a small flaw in the zoning when it comes to that when we take into consideration that you can do a twelve as Mr. Gentile said when the sixteen with a smaller footprint is not allowed.
Mr. Rejman: Comments, concerns?
Mr. Westlake: Did he show economic hardship here the first time he was before us?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: He did?
Mr. Darrow: I do feel comfortable with the numbers that were presented
Mr. Rejman: I liked the numbers
Mr. Darrow: Something in black and white rather than just verbal statements that had been given before.
Ms. Aubin: Copies of a bunch of receipts.
Ms. Marteney: Never had this material before.
Mr. Rejman: Right. We just had the issue of 206.
Mr. Darrow: Yea. We asked for hard numbers and we finally received them.
Mr. Rejman: Nancy, how would you like us to proceed?
Mr. Darrow: Motion to adopt is that what you are looking for Nancy?
Ms. Hussey: Articulate the findings of fact that were presented in the proposed resolution.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we adopt the resolution for Bel-Aire Apartments use variance 202-204 and 206 Genesee Street, as submitted by Corporation Counsel this evening on our behalf.
Mr. Sincebaugh: I’ll will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Westlake
Mr. Rejman: Resolution has been approved.
Mr. Giacona: Thank you, have a good evening.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003
102 Walnut Street, R-1, side yard area variance of 2’ for deck, Mark Bouley.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s do some easy stuff now. How about 102 Walnut Street, side yard area variance. State your name please.
Mr. Bouley: Mark Bouley, I am requesting a 2 foot variance because the set back from the Norman Street side of my property. I made my garage into a family room and there is an existing overhang where the garage door use to be as you can see from the photographs there are a couple doors there and I would like to finish off with an entry way and deck in front of those doors.
Mr. Rejman: OK. So you just want to square it off with the house basically.
Mr. Bouley: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Bouley: Deck will be about 10 to 12 inches high.
Ms. Marteney: Stepping out of it from the side door.
Mr. Bouley: Right.
Mr. Rejman: 10 or 12 inches high?
Mr. Bouley: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Barely noticeable. Questions from the board?
Mr. Westlake: Did you have a permit for the original addition?
Mr. Bouley: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: While the board is looking at that. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Yes, please come up.
Mrs. DelFavero: Hi Mara and Fred DelFavero, we live at 1 Norman Avenue, so our property would be to the back of Mr. Bouley’s side property that you are looking at is actually our front property. So because he is a corner lot, his back yard, when you are looking at that if you are looking at the side of his property you are also looking at the front of our property.
We are kind of coming slightly unprepared because Mr. Bouley has not been forthcoming about his projects in the past and he is not forthcoming about this project either and we did call the Codes Office and I understood that he actually wanted to put a railing on the deck. We are concerned that he wants to put a deck on something that is already basically a patio.
We are concerned because of the proximity of the properties, because this deck would in a very nice well-maintained residential area. As people drive down Norman they are facing well maintained properties, front porches that are well maintained and people would be looking at his deck. We are sitting on our front porch we would be looking over at his deck toward Hoopes Park rather than at his now patio. I also have some pictures taken from our perspective what we would be looking the main entrance of his property the location of his property where this deck would be. Obviously we don’t have any right to say whether he can build a deck or not build a deck, but we have a concern that an inch in this case could become a mile and we also have a concern that a well maintained
neighborhood, where property values are decent, in a part of Auburn that people travel to and respect and enjoy could be hurt by not doing what he is saying he wants to do or going a little too far to the sidewalk. It is very close to the sidewalk, very close to the road, very close to our property. I know it is only 2 feet, but we have a lot of concern about exactly what his intentions are. I will hand these pictures out. That is all we have to say about it, but we just concerned about our property, our property values and the property values of our neighbors and our entire neighborhood.
Mr. Westlake: Are you saying you are against if he did more, but if he did exactly what he says you wouldn’t be against it?
Mrs. DelFavero: Actually, we have a problem with even the 2 feet
Mr. DelFavero: We are concerned about our property value.
Mrs. DelFavero: Where we sit now
Mr. DelFavero: And honestly, I don’t know what his plans are
Mrs. DelFavero: He has not been forthcoming and he also has mentioned going beyond just the flat deck at this point. He mentioned that he wanted to go 1 foot but because when he put up a railing it might go a little further, he would need 2 feet. Once he gave this proposal to you, he didn’t mention a railing. We have an issue with the deck, with the railing, he already has a patio. He has front not many feet away from this area. Yes he could use a step or something but we don’t understand why he wants to build a deck in this area that when we are sitting on our front porch and people are driving down a beautiful street, going to a beautiful park, they are now going to see a deck. We are just concerned about how it blends in the
neighborhood on property that is already not well maintained.
Mr. Darrow: I can understand what you are saying, but there is one issue I want you both to understand that if he should get the variance and say it is for 2 feet and he was to put up 2 feet 4 inches, under the letter of how these are worded, he could be made by Code Enforcement to either remove the deck or those 4 inches. So there is, when a variance is granted, it is for your protection as well so he has to do what he says he is going to do.
Mrs. DelFavero: I can tell you how we feel it is only 2 feet when he already has a beautiful porch, a porch that is sizeable to sit on, why does he need 2 more feet there on the side of the property. If he just wants to build an entryway, if he just wants to build a stoop or something like that, we are not understanding a deck that is coming out on the side of his property
Ms. Marteney: Have you looked at the drawing? I think you are having a problem with the semantics of what he is saying, calling it a deck, it is completely under the overhang
Mrs. DelFavero: But then it comes out
Mr. Rejman: No.
Mr. Gentile: It is even with the house.
Mr. Rejman: It is even.
Mrs. DelFavero: Then why does he need a variance?
Ms. Marteney: He is too close to the property line. I don’t understand how you are saying it is going to change the property values
Mrs. DelFavero: We are concerned about any kind of a deck with a railing that doesn’t go with the character of the neighborhood, not go with the environment of the neighborhood. Like we said, Mr. Bouley has not been forthcoming about any of his projects. He has not been open and honest about any of his projects and we are just very concerned about whatever projects where we have to get a variance, like I said before you give him an inch and he will go a mile.
Mr. Darrow: You need to realize that this portion here, even if he was to square off his house just to make that living space which would perhaps aesthetically make it more pleasing, he would still need a variance.
Mrs. DelFavero: When we are in our dining room, our living room, we have a beautiful view of the neighbors across the street, we have a view of the park, it is very pleasing and if he comes out to his overhang and builds a deck with a railing that is not going to be aesthetically pleasing and if we decided to sell our property it is not aesthetically pleasing and we agree that we have to work with Mr. Bouley, Mr. Bouley didn’t want to work with us on doing something to improve his property that would also maintain ours so we are just here voicing our concerns.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Darrow: I have a question for Mr. Bouley.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Bouley, come back up.
Mr. Bouley: I would also like to address some of the comments.
Mr. Darrow: The deck that you are proposing here
Mr. Bouley: Yes?
Mr. Darrow: It is going to remain under the soffit area, is that going to be just erected on the concrete pad that is there or is it going to be elevated?
Mr. Bouley: Going to be elevated two steps, two six inch steps in the front of the doorway.
Mr. Rejman: The foot print of the deck fits underneath the roof line.
Mr. Bouley: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Just wanted to make that clear.
Mr. Bouley: Another thing with that deck, a nice vinyl railing around it, it will finish up that space and I think it will make the whole appearance from the front to the side of my house a lot more pleasing that it is right now.
Mr. Darrow: So the top of the deck will be even with the threshold of your doorway?
Mr. Bouley: Slightly below.
Mr. Darrow: OK.
Mr. Rejman: Final questions for the applicant? We will close the public portion.
Mr. Bouley: As far as those pictures go, there is a lot of construction going on in my place, a new driveway is going in and every thing else, I have got the approval for the curb cut, I don’t know what those photographs are about. Under construction, let’s put it that way.
Mr. Rejman: Good.
Mr. Bouley: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Comments, concerns.
Mr. Darrow: Do you want the photographs?
Mr. Rejman: No, they belong to the DelFaveros.
Mr. Gentile: My opinion is it looks like he is going to improve the neighborhood from what is existing.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: If he was excessively going in front of the house line then I would tend to agree.
Mr. Gentile: I think Mr. Bouley has improved the property from what it was before he purchased it.
Mr. Westlake: I think you expressed it right, he has to stay within whatever bounds are given. Their concern was that he would go beyond and he can’t go beyond. He has to stop with the variance he is given.
Mr. Darrow: That is how it would be worded.
Mr. Rejman: The whole issue is the house within the lot.
Mr. Darrow: Right.
Mr. Rejman: If you wanted to build a house on that foot print, you wouldn’t be able to.
Mr. Darrow: We come across that every month with houses that are on small City lots.
Mr. Rejman: Motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant an area variance for Mr. Mark Bouley, 102 Walnut Street, in the amount of 2 foot for the side yard, for the purpose of creating a deck and landing area under the existing soffit of the dwelling as laid out on submitted plot plan.
Mr. Sincebaugh: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Bouley: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003
39 A Arterial West, C-1 area variance of 55% of window coverage for signs, Jennifer Slywka.
Mr. Rejman: 39 A Arterial West, are you here? Hi, state your name for the record please.
Mrs. Slywka: Jennifer Slywka.
Mr. Slywka: And Greg Slywka, her husband.
Mr. Rejman: What would you like to do there? What seems to be the problem?
Mr. Slywka: We are just applying for a variance to exceed 20% limit on window signage. Both principals of the property, but my wife runs the business. It is a hair salon business. I guess unbeknown to us we didn’t even realize it that there was a 20% limit to window signage for a C-1 district and we were advised about that a year ago. Kind of late for us getting to it, but we got here finally. What we are asking for is around 55% of the window to be lettered which will depict the business name, phone number and also the services rendered by the independent contractors that operate at the salon. It will make them more viable by showing their services. My wife can probably explain some of the services that some
of the salons offer.
Mr. Rejman: Not sure that is the issue, is it? Just a sign thing.
Mr. Westlake: Isn’t the sign already here?
Mr. Slywka: Yes, unbeknown to us the zoning issue, we had it lettered, like I said until about a year ago, we were advised about the 20%, so the top total is what was already there and the bottom total on the same page actually it is a drawing will probably be what we it to, pedicures, manicures, and a nail neon light instead of an open neon light. Basically the same thing, just an added feature, we took off
Mr. Rejman: These are always difficult issues, these signs. It finally boils down to aesthetics, doesn’t it?
Mr. Darrow: Well it does, I mean the glass, am I correct that maybe 3 or 4 years ago you folks remodeled put smaller where there was a large window
Mr. Slywka: There were two living room upright vertical and we went with the horizontal and we had all the permits when we bought the property.
Mr. Darrow: It is not like the physical vinyl itself has taken over all the clear paint
Mr. Rejman: In this case, right.
Mr. Darrow: Exactly that is it.
Ms. Marteney: And still is not a big sign, still not real visible, you can still drive by and miss it.
Mr. Slywka: We do have one neon light, that signifies being open.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Let me ask this, anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Ok, hearing none, we will come back. Questions from the board?
Ms. Marteney: I have a question, why did it take you a year to get here?
Mr. Rejman: Brian, can you answer that?
Mr. Hicks: It was started by Jim Moore
Ms. Marteney: Just got lost, ok, seems like a long time.
Mr. Sylwka: That is shame on us, we do admit it.
Mr. Hicks: We give everyone ample time.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Questions from the board? No, we will close the public portion. Have a seat. We will discuss this.
Mr. Darrow: I think this is a perfect example that a picture is worth a thousand words.
Mr. Rejman: If that center oval had been all white with black lettering on it, different issue here. These are tough to work with. The glass inside the oval, is that a sign or not? The glass inside the oval? Of is the sign just the white lettering?
Mr. Darrow: I know we count the area, I know that is how they calculate it, but I still feel that something as this as a window that you really need to count how many square inches of vinyl are applied. Well I don’t even know how to calculate it, because the rest of the glass is still viable, you can see out of it. It is not overpowering.
Mr. Rejman: I guess what both of us are saying is it just nice, pleasing.
Ms. Marteney: Yes, well maintained building, it is a well maintained sign. Maybe if it was shocking pink or something it would be
Ms. Aubin: You know with the neon sign that is not really flashy.
Ms. Marteney: No!
Mr. Darrow: See the variance needed is for 55%, it is hard to imagine that you add in the other 20% to bring it up to 75%, consider only 25% of this glass you can see through. That is basically what that is saying.
Mr. Rejman: Here is the other issue. The variance goes with the property not the person, therefore, if we say you can have 55% of this property, two years from now, Brian drives by and all of a sudden there is a different sign there.
Mr. Darrow: Better hope it is not 55.1%.
Mr. Rejman: Know what I am saying?
Ms. Marteney: Yes, still they are going to do 55%.
Mr. Darrow: They are asking for a variance of 55% so the total will be 75%.
Ms. Marteney: OK.
Mr. Darrow: If you are considering that we have 75% signage here, seems like I see a lot more than 25% clear paint.
Mr. Rejman: Right, in this case. What is the next person going to do?
Mr. Darrow: That is why I am saying there is a problem in the way we figure it. That is where it is. There is a problem in the way we figure it.
Mr. Hicks: If I can, the oval in the first picture you are looking at says Head West Salon, once you do that every bit of surface area within the oval is classified as signage area. That is calculated. In this case the two windows there is natural light coming through that area, it is not blocked. Still though it is the way that the book says to calculate the signage. If you also look where it says Hair, Waxing, Makeup, Manicures, if you take the space that is cut out that is still considered square area of signage.
Mr. Darrow: That is my point, there is a small fault in the way we calculate it.
Mr. Rejman: Absolutely. Let’s discuss this at the end so we can move this along. We are going to have to revisit this whole signage thing, hopefully. Comments, concerns, motion?
Mr. Darrow: Can we make a variance for a specific script?
Mr. Westlake: As is or something?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Mr. Darrow: What I am saying is text, state what the text can be for that variance so now therefore if we approve the area with a certain text, now sure it may go with the property, but when it goes with the property it is going with Head West Salon.
Ms. Marteney: They want to change the test and add services.
Mr. Darrow: I am going by what is literally on the window right now.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s jus t deal with what we have and then we will visit this sign thing.
Mr. Darrow: So we can’t do it for text?
Ms. Hussey: No.
Mr. Rejman: No, selective zoning.
Mr. Darrow: And I don’t feel that they should be penalized because we counting masses
Mr. Rejman: Right
Mr. Darrow: Rather than actual vinyl that is covering the window, that is truly stopping the light from entering.
Mr. Rejman: Then on the flip side the next owner might not even know that there is a variance there.
Mr. Darrow: Or it stays vacant for six months.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, or it stays vacant for six months. Motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant a area sign variance to Jennifer and Gregory Slywka of 40 Morris Drive, Cayuga, New York, for the property at 39A Arterial West, Auburn, for the purpose of vinyl signage on the front business window in excess of the 20% allowed by 55%.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Thank you.
Mr. Slywka: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003
184 Seymour Street, R-2, area variances of 3 feet in height and 80 square feet in overall square footage for garage. Shirley and Mark Ordzywolski.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 184 Seymour Street, are you here?
Mr. Ordzywolski: Mark Ordzywolski representing Shirley Ordzywolski.
Mr. Rejman: What seems to be the issue here?
Mr. Ordzywolski: Height variance for garage, 4 foot if you include the garden shed.
Mr. Rejman: So you need a height variance of 3 feet and square footage of 80 square feet. Any questions from the board? Seems to be very straight forward on this. No questions? Anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? None. Last call for questions.
Mr. Ordzywolski: I have one question.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Ordzywolski: Three feet that is the max? I am waiting for an engineering drawing for the trusses and they may be 3 ½.
Mr. Darrow: Ground to ridge, that is how it is measured.
Mr. Rejman: Right, ground to ridge. But you are waiting for Engineering to get back to you?
Mr. Ordzywolski: No, T & R Truss.
Mr. Darrow: Do you know what the pitch is going to be?
Mr. Ordzywolski: 8 – 12.
Mr. Darrow: Pretty steep
Mr. Ordzywolski: For snow
Mr. Darrow: How high are the side walls going to be?
Mr. Ordzywolski: Nine foot.
Mr. Darrow: It is going to be on slab or foundation?
Mr. Ordzywolski: Going to be on slab.
Mr. Darrow: Slab. You are going to leave the concrete exposed?
Mr. Ordzywolski: No, I am an engineer, it will be a pressure treated on the bottom covered with durock and then particle.
Mr. Darrow: OK. What I am getting at is if you know the height of the foundation we know your wall height is nine feet, we know it is a 8 – 12 pitch, we can come up what with what the peak is going to be.
Mr. Ordzywolski: Close but the depth of that bottom corner of the truss
Mr. Darrow: So you don’t know if they are going to use a 2 x 6 or 2 x 4
Mr. Ordzywolski: Right.
Mr. Darrow: For this they aren’t going to use a 2 x 8.
Mr. Ordzywolski: Right.
Mr. Rejman: If you amend this application to read 3 ½ feet
Mr. Darrow: We can’t amend it because of the way it is advertised. It is advertised for 3 foot, so we can amend it.
Mr. Ordzywolski: That is fine, 3 foot.
Ms. Hussey: I believe we can amend the whole purpose of publishing a notice is so that it gives the interested public an idea what the applicant is requesting. Now upon further discussion and finding out supplement the application, I don’t think you would be in violation of any publication notices or open meeting laws in this instance.
Mr. Rejman: And thinking back we have found errors in math before.
Mr. Westlake: We had one a long time ago where we had to recalculate it because of the angles, first time on the board, went into the other room, Mr. Moore and recalculated it and then restated it.
Ms. Marteney: Right.
Mr. Darrow: Ask for or against.
Mr. Rejman: I already did that.
Mr. Darrow: No one came.
Mr. Rejman: Right.
Mr. Ordzywolski: If it will delay the project, we will leave it at 3 foot.
Mr. Rejman: You feel comfortable with 3?
Mr. Ordzywolski: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: 18 feet is substantial.
Mr. Rejman: Leave as is.
Mr. Darrow: And all the dwellings around, character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Rejman: Final questions, final statements? Have a seat. He is happy with 3 foot.
Ms. Marteney: Good solution based on the space.
Mr. Rejman: Only place to put it.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Shirley Ordzywolski a 3 foot variance for her garage height and 80 square foot area variance for all accessory structures.
Mr. Sincebaugh: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003
4 Sumner Street, R-1, side yard area variance of 3’3” for addition to house and variance of 6’ for addition to be located 4’ from garage. Barbara Graney.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 4 Sumner Street. State your name for the record.
Mrs. Graney: Barb Graney.
Mr. Graney: Bill Graney. We are looking for a 3’3” side variance and 4’ variance from the garage to the house. What we want to do there is an existing second story kitchen, I want to add 4 foot to the west side 2 foot to the south and 5 foot east side, up and down.
Mr. Rejman: This is another issue where you are squaring off parts of the house, no you are not.
Mr. Graney: No, offset it a foot from the side of the house, west side from the existing.
Mr. Rejman: Why is that? Just worked out better that way?
Mr. Graney: Just so I don’t have to match the side coming across the back side. It is older siding and I won’t be able to match it up.
Mr. Rejman: Then we have the issue with the garage because it is too close to the principal structure to start with.
Mr. Graney: Not used, all storage garage, not big enough for a car.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? OK.
Mr. Ordzywolski: Mark Ordzywolski, speaking for the client. There house as most houses in Auburn is kind of small and they are expecting another child, that would put them over the edge for pleasant accommodations.
Mr. Rejman: Not sure we can take that into consideration, we appreciate it, but not sure we can take that into consideration (Everyone laughs). Again we are dealing with one of our smaller lots like 37 x 70 lot. Questions from the board? None. OK, we will close the public portion and discuss this. Comments?
Ms. Marteney: It is not going to impact the neighborhood because you don’t even see it from the front from the road.
Mr. Rejman: They don’t see anything actually. Would you like to make a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Barbara Graney of 4 Sumner Street a 3’3” side yard variance and a 6’ separation from a primary structure to garage variance for the purpose of erecting a 18 x 12 two floor addition with a 7 x 12 porch as per drawings included.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Graney: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003
22 Mary Street, R-1A, area variance of 64 square feet for gazebo to be erected on premises where there is already 718 square foot of garage space. Lynette Geisinger.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 22 Mary Street, are you here please? State your name for the record.
Mr. Williams: Good evening, Mark Williams, I am here representing Ms. Geisinger on a variance for 64 square feet but she has an application as a gazebo and this is not a gazebo it is a pergola which is there are four walls and most of it is lattice and the roof has 2 x 6 cross pieces.
Mr. Rejman: Brian, would you
Mr. Darrow: Maybe it is considered deckage
Mr. Rejman: Just to get the board up to speed, tell us the issues you are having with gazebos and structures like this.
Mr. Hicks: Still classified as a structure and it is classified as an accessory structure, still fall into our zoning regulations which you have raised a question about tonight. With the gazebos and pergolas that are being placed on the properties today still classified as a structure. Still have to maintain the property set backs 7 to 10 or 3 to 4 or 10 from primary structure or 10 from existing structure. This is where we are having a problem on this. When we look at these we have to look down the road to see where they are going. If we don’t maintain our 10 foot set back, a roof goes on, they get enclosed, windows get put in, it gets sided. This is why a variance is needed.
Mr. Darrow: Good point, very good point.
Mr. Rejman: Saves a lot of questions later on.
Mr. Darrow: They didn’t get the permit to put the siding on or put the windows in and all of a sudden there is a portable roof.
Ms. Marteney: It is not an arbor anymore.
Mr. Darrow: At inception you think it is just a deck, but what it could be so.
Mr. Rejman: Pretty straight forward request.
Mr. Darrow: 68 square foot.
Mr. Rejman: Now having gotten up to speed, any questions from the board?
Mr. Westlake: Same thing the variance goes with the property, variance goes with the property not the person right, so this person may have a pergola and the next person may have a hot tub.
Mr. Rejman: That is the issue.
Mr. Darrow: That way it is covered, giving them 68 square foot coves it.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Final questions from the board? None. Final comment? None, ok. We will close the public portion, thank you. I don’t know, I know the concerns. How do you say no to the present homeowner who has no intentions of doing anything to it and then five years down the road when it sells all of sudden Brian goes and says look what is out back. Another one of our workshop project.
Ms. Marteney: Because the use would change, wouldn’t they have to come for a variance for a change in the use?
Mr. Rejman: If they never came for a building permit, you would never know. If all of a sudden they put a roof on it and sided it who would know. The neighbors would know, but they won’t complain. This is an arbor.
Mr. Darrow: It is not like it is already an accessory structure that is using up 600 square foot or using up all 750 square feet.
Mr. Westlake: It is behind the garage.
Mr. Darrow: And there is 718 existing.
Mr. Rejman: OK. We have a recommendation that the motion should specify the type of structure we are giving a variance for.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Lynette Geisinger of 22 Mary Street a area variance of 68 square feet for the purpose of erecting a 10 x 10 gazebo/pergola to be unenclosed.
Ms. Marteney: Not only not enclosed, a pergola doesn’t have a roof to it.
Mr. Darrow: It has 2 x 6’s for the shape.
Ms. Marteney: Right.
Mr. Rejman: He is saying either or, the application does say gazebo.
Mr. Darrow: That is why I put gazebo/pergola.
Ms. Marteney: They are two different kinds of structure.
Mr. Darrow: I have pergola in there, if she would like to make a motion I will retract mine and you can make one. I made a motion that includes pergola.
Ms. Marteney: Fine.
Mr. Rejman: Do we have a second on that?
Mr. Sincebaugh: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003
34 Standart Avenue, R-1, area variance of 3’ for addition to house to be located 7’ from garage. Margaret Squires.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 34 Standart Avenue, are you here please. State your name for the record please.
Mrs. Squires: Marge Squires, I own 34 Standart Avenue, my mom has life use and I am asking for a variance of 3 feet to put an addition on her house which include a handicap bathroom because she is handicapped now, she has had some medical problems and place a washer and dryer that she desperately needs. It all has to be on the same floor. We have turned the dining room into a bedroom so there is no place to add one in the house now, there are only three rooms downstairs.
Mr. Rejman: OK. For the record, looking at the one car garage, looking at this map, tell us would there be enough room between this one car garage and the adjoining property
Mrs. Squires: Yes
Mr. Rejman: To drive a emergency vehicle?
Mrs. Squires: To drive it where?
Mr. Rejman: Emergency vehicle to the back yard?
Mrs. Squires: To drive it to the back yard?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mrs. Squires: Probably down the side of the house the other side of house where the garage isn’t.
Mr. Rejman: Right. The issues here are that emergency vehicles are requesting a 10 foot access and when we encroach into that that is what the bid question is.
Mrs. Squires: Not going to be closer to the property, just going closer to the garage.
Mr. Rejman: Right.
Mrs. Squires: The addition. This picture drawn by the contractor is not very good, I have something better.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, let’s take a look. Questions from the board? None. Anyone wishing to speak for or against? Hearing none. Comments, concerns?
Ms. Marteney: With that addition it would make it circumstances another family could use it too, just handicapped. That is great, we need more houses with that.
Mr. Rejman: Last call for questions, close the public portion then. Thanks.
Mr. Darrow: It shows the actual way it is going to be constructed.
Ms. Marteney: Again it won’t change the neighborhood because you can’t see it from the front of the house, won’t change the look of the neighborhood.
Mr. Darrow: When is the emergency vehicle access for the back yard come into play?
Mr. Rejman: That is what started this whole 10 foot thing is the emergency response people said we need to have a minimum footage between the house an accessory structure to get to a back yard. In case there is a pool in the back yard and have an issue back there. That is where they picked the number 10 feet.
Mr. Darrow: That is in our current
Mr. Hicks: Always has bee in there, 10 foot separation in the Code.
Mr. Darrow: I know the 10 foot separation, but I never realized it was for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Rejman: The problem we are having is that we have all these small lots in the City and accessory structures.
Mr. Sincebaugh: Then you have houses with shard driveways.
Mr. Rejman: But it is in there.
Ms. Marteney: I would like to make a motion that we grant Margaret Squires of 34 Standart Avenue to build a 16 x 13 addition to be located 7 feet from the garage with an area variance of 3 feet.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mrs. Squires: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003
149 Standart Avenue and 153-163 Grant Avenue, C-3, variance in depth of buffer yard, and number of planting units on north side of site. Eckerd Drug Store.
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 149 Standart Avenue, are you here please? This is good news. Good news is you are the last one, the other good news is if you turn around there is nobody behind you to object. (Everyone laughs).
Mr. Curtain: Thank you. My name is Paul Curtain, I am attorney from Syracuse. I am representing the applicant before you this Grant Avenue and Standart Avenue Development, LLC. They are the owners of property located at 149 and 163 Grant Avenue here in the City of Auburn, and the property is located on the northeast corner of Grant and Standart Avenues. It is contiguous to Standart Woods Apartments to the north and to the east the existing Salvation Army Building that has been in use for some time.
For me this is like a mini-homecoming. I use to spend a lot of time in Auburn because I represented the developer of Standart Woods, so I was always out here working with local banks and business people. After that I became in-house counsel for Fay’s so I use to come out here to check out things for Fay’s, it is a bit ironic that this site is next to Standart Woods and Eckerds hopefully will replace Fay’s by way of acquisition and merger. I am very familiar with this City and enjoyed working out here.
If you are familiar with the site it is composed of two different tax parcels which is shown on the site plan and submitted. The site is irregular in shape and it is a corner parcel. It is a C-3 as stated on the application itself. The two variances that we are requesting you to consider this evening really have to do with the existing buffer between our site and Standart Woods which requires 50 foot landscaping buffer and you will see on the plans we have provided because of the configuration of the building, driving lands that would be servicing the drive-thru pharmacy, the set backs, the sideline set backs otherwise require we are also accommodating parking, it pushes the building in such a fashion that it will
only accommodate up to at this juncture up to 20 feet of landscaping so part of what you re seeing tonight on this plan is a request for an area variance relative to that buffer strip being reduced from 50 feet to a 20 foot plot in turn because the way the Code is written we are also requesting consideration for reduction of the landscaping requirement of the 20 foot buffer so that there would be along the 20 buffer there would 56 points of landscaping for every 100 feet of linear feet of width. So that we would not have a lot of landscaping crammed into a very small area.
Again, part of the application is required simply because of the configuration of the building, this is a standard prototype from Eckerd. The foot pint of the building is 14,690 square foot and have a finished floor area, sales area of 13,813 feet. It also does have two drive-thru lanes for drive-thru pharmacy which we are finding to be very very well accepted in all the communities we have placed at Eckerd Drug Stores, new Eckerd Drug Stores like this in the central New York community. The drive-thrus are very helpful to Moms with small kids more particularly also for the elderly or anyone having to get out of their cars and go into the store which is laid out with the pharmacy in the back and general merchandise
in the front. We find that accommodates some very specific needs of people within the community.
We have two drive-thru lanes on the plan and based on our collective experience throughout Central New York, we find that is more than satisfactory, ample for the City of Auburn, a City of this size.
This is not exactly what I would call a self-created hardship simply because we are limited by the very configuration of the property itself and the prototype. That is in substance the presentation on this area variance and how it impacts the landscaping that would otherwise be required. I would be happy to answer any questions the board may have.
Mr. Rejman: You are the third or fourth applicant that has come before us lately with this point buffer system issue and could you just tell from a developer’s point of view what the problem with this point issue?
Mr. Curtain: There is no problem with the point issue but if in fact the buffer is reduced the number of point system per linear feet would be compressed so that it would almost be a hedge row and in our sense would be kind of an unnatural visual barrier. You are just compressing so much within a configuration if we had a full 50 you would be planting far more within that 50 foot by 100 foot linear foot run. So it is not with your point system, all we would ask you to consider is reducing proportionately as it relates to the actual width of the property that is established. So that it has the same visual proportion that would balance the property. The other pieces, as you are familiar with this, the existing car wash is the only visual
buffer between Grant Avenue and Standart Woods Apartments, of course any vegetation that we replace there is going to well received by people that use the pool and the club house over there. We are anxious to get this moving.
Mr. Rejman: There is quite a bit of green space between your west boundary line and the nearest pool.
Mr. Curtain: There is over 50 yards of space at least 50 yards between our property line and the actual fence of where the pool, 50 years and it is at least 100 to 125 yards from the edge of the property on the fly to any of the apartment buildings. Closest is a good 125 yards away. That site has been fully developed for better than 30 years, the Standart Woods Apartments have been there. That is a fully developed site.
Mr. Rejman: I think a lay person standing on the street 2 – 3 years from how would look at it and not even notice the condensed buffer area because of the greenery involved there.
Mr. Curtain: Because the greenery we also would be adding to greenery that isn’t there in terms of existing landscaping.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Curtain: Be adding significantly to that in a proportionate fashion.
Ms. Hussey: The ZBA has been requested to grant the area variance with respect to buffer requirement. This plan also has to go through full site plan review by the Planning Board. The Planning Board has the option of accepting the site plan as it is, with the ZBA area variance if it is granted or they have the option of requiring more space as part of the site plan review.
Mr. Rejman: The question I pose to counsel is this going to come back to be revisited here again?
Mr. Curtain: Can I suggest something that may address this, that we are asking for what we would think would be the maximum reduction buffer and if the Planning Board in its wisdom determines that they would instead 20 feet 25 we have already achieved the maximum level we are proposing tonight. That would be my reply.
Ms. Hussey: Thank you.
Mr. Curtain: We are appearing before your Planning Board tomorrow evening, we are on track with them.
Mr. Rejman: It is nice to see these new projects come into City. Don’t know why but Auburn seems to have turned a bit of a corner.
Mr. Kane: Joe Kane, Westlake Development. The Eckerd you have seen is the new prototype in the last 4 or 5 years, we have done all the stores in the Central New York in a stucco appearance. For Auburn this is what we are proposing, would be basically 100% brick building all four sides and we feel it is a pretty sharp looking structure. Burgandy brick building, no more blue façade on the side, all copper roof. This is what your Planning Board will be looking at tomorrow.
Mr. Rejman: Very nice. Questions from the board? Last call for questions. Thank you very much. Close the public portion. I’ll ask anyways, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? No, thank you.
Mr. Darrow: I would definitely consider the overall size of this project and the square footage that it is encompassing, their variance request is very minimal in scope to the overall project.
Mr. Rejman: Again with the fact that there is so much greenery at Standart Woods there already
Mr. Darrows: Creates so much more that is not there.
Ms. Marteney: Certainly going to be an improvement to that corner.
Mr. Westlake: Going to get rid of that car wash, rust and caving in and everything else.
Mr. Darrow: May I have the floor for a motion?
Mr. Rejman: You may have the floor for a motion.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Eckerd Drug Store of 149 Standart Avenue a area variance for 30 lineal foot of depth on the west side property buffer side and a variance in reduction up to 84 planting units for buffer zone for the purpose of constructing a drug store at said address.
Ms. Aubin: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Kane: Just one small comment, the actual name of the entity that will own this project is Grant Avenue and Standart Avenue Development LLC. Is that a problem?
Mr. Darrow: Is that what it will be titled under?
Mr. Kane: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to amend my motion to Grant Avenue and Standart Avenue Development, LLC.
Mr. Rejman: Meeting adjourned. 9:00 p.m.
| 
