SPECIAL MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2003
Members Present: Mr. Gentile
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Member Absent: Ms. Marteney
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey
Mr. Hicks
Mr. Lynch
Mr. Galvin
APPLICATION
APPROVED: 78-80 Seymour Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, everyone this is a special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we are here to make final determination on 78 – 80 Seymour Street, area variance.
It is up to the discretion of the board whether or not to have additional public hearing as we already have had out input.
SPECIAL MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2003
Final determination of use and area variances at 78-80 Seymour Street, K & S Carwash.
________________________________________________________________________
Ms. Hussey: Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Ms. Hussey: At the request of the applicant the first order of business is to affirm the use variance which we previously granted conditioned upon a negative SEQRA declaration. This area variance can’t be considered until the use variance has been granted and ratified by the board.
Mr. Rejman: Do we have a copy of the language for that? For the use variance?
Ms. Hussey: The use variance being that the property is situate in a R-2 district and a carwash is not permissible under the Code in an R-2 district, therefore the applicant is seeking a use variance to operate a carwash in an R-2 district.
Mr. Westlake: We gave that to them.
Ms. Hussey: You previously granted it however you granted it conditioned upon a negative SEQRA declaration.
Mr. Rejman: Which we did.
Ms. Hussey: OK, the matter before the Planning Board at its last meeting and the Planning Board did declare a negative declaration, however, at the applicant’s request, we are back before the Zoning Board of Appeals tonight in order to ratify that and finalize that determination. They were requesting specific findings of facts in respect to your granting this variance.
Mr. Darrow: So the first order of business should then should be to vote that we agree with the negative declaration of the SEQRA review and then at that point move on to reaffirming the use variance, am I correct?
Ms. Hussey: Correct, it is a little more involved in that Jim Galvin will review you the negative SEQRA declaration and review with you further some of the findings of impact that the Planning Board considered. Also in order to grant the application, again the applicant is requesting specific findings of facts to agree with your previous findings in granting the use variance and I will help you run through that.
Mr. Rejman: OK, thanks. Jim would you like to help us with this first part.
Mr. Galvin: What I can give you is an update on what happened in the SEQRA process and then I will defer to Nancy on how things should have from then on.
At the regular Planning Board meeting for June the Planning Board held a public hearing and discussed the issues of SERQA related to both the use variance and the site plan review requested by K & S Carwash. At that meeting the Planning Board looked at a full long form which is an assessment form provided by the applicant, they provided some of our findings as well, we reviewed all those findings and the Planning Board made their own determinations, they found no significant impacts environmental impacts after reviewing both projects and the project description provided by the applicant and ultimately voted to issue a negative declaration under SEQRA meaning that there would be no significant impact.
The Planning Board acted at that meeting based the Zoning Board’s original intent with the use variance to act as leading agency by opting contingent approval on the use variance. So the Planning Board voted to be lead agency including any comments from the Zoning Board, which if I remember correctly were none and then considered those and approved the negative declaration.
Then on it is up to I guess the applicant wishes to have you reaffirm and the applicant wants to re-enforce some of the testimony that was provided before and to help you make your findings for the use variance if the board so choices.
Ms. Hussey: Although the Planning Board was the lead agency, the Zoning Board of Appeals has accepted to comment and ratify the negative declaration, make its own negative declaration with respect to this project. The Planning Board did identify, they considered the applicant’s petition and materials and they did identify a number of relevant areas of environmental concerns based upon its review of material, the long environmental form and public comments reviewed during the public hearing.
Basically I think it would be appropriate to go over the Planning Board’s negative declaration and communicate to you their findings on that. Basically I think the relevant portion the applicant proposed to expand their carwash business located at 108 North Street – 82 Seymour Street by demolishing two structures at 78 and 80 Seymour Street, combing these four lots into a single parcel and constructing a new six bay car wash structure and associated improvements. The site of the proposed project is approximately 1.1 acres of land and is zoned C-2 Central Commercial on North Street and R-2 Single, Two and Multi-family residential on Seymour Street. The proposed six bay carwash structure involved a physical
alteration of 0.5 acres of land and the creation of approximately 30 car-stacking spaces. The project requires site plan review and subdivision approval from the City of Auburn Planning Board and a use variance and area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The reasons that suppose the negative declaration. The Planning Board was given copies of the project proposal and description including supplemental information from a traffic study, lighting design and site design before the meeting to review. During the meeting the Planning staff reviewed briefly reviewed this information and staff advised the board of its determinations that only require technical comments, such as action type, endangered species and the board agreed with such findings. They have reviewed all remaining questions with the Planning Board including questions and there are several questions enumerated.
Question 6 is the project’s substantially contiguous to, or containing a building site or district listed on a State or National Register of historic places? The determination was no.
Question 1 the present land use being commercial and residential.
Question 7 is the project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? No.
Question 11 does the project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? No.
Question 12 are there unique or unusual land forms on the project site? For example cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? The Planning Board determined no.
Question 13 is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? The Planning Board determined no.
Question 15 will be an affect to existing transportation system? Planning Board determined that yes there would, but the Planning Board did find that there was no significant impact upon the review of the traffic study that was submitted as part of the application.
Question 16 will the proposed action affect the community sources of fuel or energy supply? The answer was yes that it would have an impact on it, however there was no action indicated in that it was a small impact.
Question 17 will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? The Planning Board determined yes but the Planning Board also determined that there was no significant impact.
Question 18 will proposed action affect public health and safety? The Planning Board determined no.
Question 19 will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? The Planning Board indicated that yes that there would be some impact on that.
There is a small to moderate impact determined that the proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals and that the proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. However the Planning Board determined that there was no action and also that the proposed action will create or eliminate employment and the Planning Board determined that there was a small to moderate impact.
The last question, is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? The Planning Board determined yes but there was no further comment or action.
Getting back to the remaining negative declaration for each question the board was asked to review the sample of actions that would likely lead to an assumption of potential large impacts. For each question the board would ask comments on any impacts they felt may be potentially large and require further analysis. After some consultation with staff and the applicant’s attorney, the board identified no potentially large impacts related to the proposed action. In particular they thought the specific site in question was appropriately given a use variance for a carwash use. The surrounding land uses was such a density that the proposed action would not have a significant impact. The board reviewed the traffic study presented by the applicant and calculated relatively
small increases in traffic with no reduction in service. Similarly they reviewed storm water, sound, light and air quality, discussed the specifics of the proposed action and found no potential large impact.
Mr. Rejman: Any comments from the board on any of this? No. As I understand it we need a motion to reaffirm the use variance to conduct a carwash and accept a negative declaration of the SEQRA review by the Planning Board. Can we wrap that all up in one motion? No.
Mr. Darrow: My first question Mr. Chair is has everybody reviewed the SEQRA so that they agree with its findings.
Mr. Rejman: Does everyone feel comfortable with the review. Heads nodding yes.
Mr. Darrow: Would it be proper to just have a show by yes
Mr. Rejman: Counsel? Motion.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we acknowledged and reviewed the findings of the full form SEQRA review and are in complete agreement with the Planning Board that there is a negative declaration properly issued for this.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: That motion has been approved.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion Mr. Chair that our findings of a negative declaration of a full form SEQRA review affirm our earlier decision of latter findings that a use variance for 78 – 80 Seymour Street for Mark and Terry Kubarek were true with the findings of the SEQRA review.
Ms. Hussey: That is true and that is an accurate motion, however, with respect to the use variance you previously went through the whole analysis, you reviewed the application, you made certain findings, what we are looking for at this point in your ratification of this use variance is to articulate those findings of fact in accordance with statutory requirements for a use variance.
Mr. Rejman: Haven’t we already done that?
Mr. Darrow: We need our minutes from that meeting.
Mr. Rejman: Not specifically on the record.
Mr. Darrow: Excuse me?
Mr. Rejman: Looking for specifics on the record.
Mr. Darrow: We need our minutes as to what the motion was so that we can at least
Mr. Rejman: I don’t think it is in there.
Mr. Darrow: That was the first time
Mr. Rejman: The very first time
Mr. Darrow: So we are without those minutes. Minutes should be in the Clerk’s Office.
Ms. Hussey: Specifically did the applicant show that the property cannot yield a reasonable return. Specifically did the applicant show and did the Zoning Board find that the hardship resulted in the unique characteristics of the property. Specifically did the Zoning Board find in granting the variance that the proposed use will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and specifically did the Zoning Board in their determination find the hardship was not self-created.
Mr. Darrow: Are you adding that to the first motion because the motion that was made is more all inclusive that less pertaining from what you had just recited, because I do have the motion as it was made.
Mr. Rejman: Would you read that for us?
Mr. Darrow: Motion as it was made on Monday, July 29, 2002, I would like to make a motion that we grant Mark Kubarek a use variance for the purpose of adding an apartment and corporate offices at K & S Carwash at 80 Seymour Street.
Mr. Rejman: That has gone by the wayside now, right?
Mr. Galvin: That is the one made previous to the one made in February 2003.
Mr. Darrow: Oh, yes this is 2002. This is the real old one, it is the first one.
Ms. Hussey: The latest version was when if you recall the applicant you requested the applicant to come back and submit
Mr. Gentile: What is the date on that?
Mr. Westlake: February 2003.
Mr. Darrow: The motion was made by Mr. Gentile – I would like to make a motion that this board grant Mark and Terry Kubarek of 108 North Street for the property located at 78 Seymour Street a use variance to construct two automatic and four self-serve carwash bays.
Mr. Rejman: And there was no contingency on that.
Mr. Darrow: Then it was added contingency upon positive SEQRA review. That was suggested by myself and then Mr. Gentile adopted that into his motion.
Ms. Hussey: Would the board like to restate what is in the record your findings of fact with respect to the statutory requirements that I just enumerated, that the property cannot yield a reasonable return, hardship resulting from the characteristics of the property.
Mr. Rejman: I think we all are in agreement with that; we are looking for some guidance in how to make that done.
Mr. Gentile: We could reach off each one.
Mr. Rejman: We could read off each one or we could vote on each part or we could
Ms. Hussey: What facts the board – the board’s findings.
Mr. Darrow: My concern itemizing every one out. I mean that is something in all the years that I have been on the board we never had to do. Is it something that needs to be done at everyone now and if not then why particularly this one? When our decisions are generally all encompassing those different variables.
Mr. Greco: Mr. Chairman, could I address the board?
Mr. Rejman: Yes you may.
Mr. Greco: My name is Charles Greco, I am environmental counsel for the Kubareks. Frankly as I believe the members of the board are aware, there is litigation of this project. Essentially what we are seeking what we are asking the board, we certainly want to thank the board for their cooperation in calling this special meeting, what we want the board to do is make sure, finalize their decision with all of the facts that are before them. Now you have the environmental determination, we believe we have submitted all the evidence that supports the Kubareks’ entitlement to a use variance including the appraisal report which we believe clearly establishes that you can’t have no reasonable return investment on the property at
80 and 78 Seymour Street as residential properties given the nature of that block and what is going on in the carwash industry. We also believe that the record clearly reflects that the situation is unique given there is only one residential use remaining on that block which renders residential basically impossible on that block. We believe that the record is clear that this project will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There again, given the predominance of commercial use property.
Essentially what we are asking you to do is consider that evidence that has largely gone uncontested and consider that evidence and finalize your determination that the Kubareks have established that they entitled to this use variance as well as the area variance. That is why we are asking for it now and again it is frankly largely because there is pending litigation and we want the record which we believe supports the Kubareks’ request to be perfectly clear how this board reached its decision. I hope that was of some assistance.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Is it the will of the board at this point to reopen this whole matter of the use variance, or would you feel more comfortable saying we looked at these issues before when we originally passed the use variance, we are not that stupid. Just reaffirm.
Mr. Darrow: I agree this needs to be reaffirmed.
Mr. Rejman: Would someone like to do that? Make a motion to reaffirm the original use variance as per, give us a date.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we reaffirm the use variance granted on February 24, 2003 to Mark and Terry Kubarek for the purpose of erecting a two automatic and four self-service carwash bays as said motion from said date shows in that findings do affirm that the matters of hardship, uniqueness, return on investment, location and surrounding property aesthetics have all been taken into consideration.
Mr. Gentile: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: To the issue of area variance, we have all looked at it. I would like some comments.
Mr. Darrow: Am I correct in understanding for the area variance what would be presented for public portion was done so at our last meeting?
Mr. Rejman: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: We are strictly discussing amongst ourselves at this point.
Mr. Rejman: Yes and the numbers that we have here are still correct.
Mr. Darrow: OK, good.
Mr. Rejman: Comments for the record would be nice on the area variance.
Mr. Darrow: On the area variance when I looked at the numbers required for buffer, the architectural drawings of the layout and what buffers are going in placement and taking into consideration surrounding neighbors, particularly to the south, to the west, it would be Mr. Kubarek himself, to the east it would be a playground and an abandoned house. Across the street there are some single and multi-family dwelling houses. I feel what they have placed in the plot plan appears to be more than adequate for keeping proper buffers, controlling traffic patterns and over all beautification of that area and corner.
Mr. Rejman: Has everyone reviewed the plot plan on this project? (Everyone nodding yes). Yes. Having said that would someone like to make a motion. Mr. Sincebaugh, would you like to make a motion?
Mr. Sincebaugh: I would like to make a motion that we grant Mark and Terry Kubarek an area variance to construct a two wash less bay and four
Ms. Hussey: I believe the variance is with respect to the east side buffer of 35 feet linear feet of depth and 137 plant units for the east and for the rear south buffer a variance of 43 linear feet of depth and 146 plant units.
Mr. Rejman: Do you see that?
Mr. Sincebaugh: For the rear south buffer a variance of 43 linear feet of depth and 146 plant units, and a variance for the east side buffer of 35 linear feet of depth and 137 plant units.
Mr. Darrow: I second the motion.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Sincebaugh
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. The Zoning Board of Appeals has concluded its business; we will make room for the Planning Board to step up here.
Mr. Kubarek: I would like to thank the board and its members for taking the time for this special meeting tonight.
Mr. Rejman: You are welcome.
Mr. Sincebaugh: Mr. Chairman, I just want to let everyone know that I will be stepping down from the Zoning Board at the end of the June 30th meeting next week. Thanks for everything.
Mr. Rejman: We appreciate your input although it was a short period of time, it was nice to have you here. Who knows, you may decide to come back and sit with us again. You are always welcome.
Mr. Sincebaugh: Thank you.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
| 
