ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003
Members Present: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Staff Present: Mr. Leone
Mr. LaDouce
Mr. Galvin
APPLICATIONS
APPROVED: 84 Mary Street
217 Grant Avenue
55 Pulsifer Drive
7 Metcalf Drive
APPLICATIONS
PULLED: 202-204 Genesee Street
82 Owasco Street
APPLICTION
TABLED: 64 Perrine Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight two items have been pulled from the Agenda, 202-204 Genesee Street, Bel-Aire Apartments and 82 Owasco Street, both have been pulled from the Agenda. We do have:
84 Mary Street
64 Perrine Street
217 Grant Avenue
55 Pulsifer Drive
7 Metcalf Drive
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003
84 Mary Street, R-1,. 6’ side yard area variance for addition, John and Suzanne Rossi.
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 84 Mary Street, are you here, please? Come forward please. State your name for the record, please.
Mr. Rossi: My name is John Rossi, of 84 Mary Street. One additional item I do have is that my neighbors on each side have a signed a statement saying they have no objection.
Mr. Rejman: Very good. And the issue there is that you have an existing porch that you wish to enclose and it seems to be too close to the property line.
Mr. Rossi: Right, the porch has been there, I have lived there 36 years, it has been there many more years before I lived there and it has deteriorated and it was a question of either letting it remain as a porch but we could use the additional living space and the roof is there, we are rehabilitating this. There are photographs that I gave with the application.
Mr. Rejman: This is a common occurrence in the City. Are there any questions from the board? None. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Closing statement and I will make that statement of the neighbors’ signatures a part of the record. Good. Thank you. We will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves and come to an agreement.
Mr. Rossi: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Pretty open and shut, I mean when we consider what the footprint is.
Mr. Rejman: The footprint doesn’t change.
Mr. Darrow: Right.
Mr. Rejman: Motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant John and Suzanne Rossi of 84 Mary Street a area variance of 6 feet for a side yard set back for the purpose of enclosing the side porch as attached per plot plan.
Mr. Gentile: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck with your project.
Mr. Rossi: Thank you so much.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003
64 Perrine Street, R-1, use variance to change status of residence from single family to two family. Carr Magel
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 64 Perrine Street, are you here? We will call that at the end then.
64 Perrine Street, are you here? State your name for the record, please.
Mr. Magel: Carr Magel. I live at 171 Dunning Avenue, I own a piece of property at 64 Perrine Street. I know you are suppose to have all your material ahead of time, but some things I wasn’t able to get so I don’t know if you want to put me on next month, I have a couple things here from neighbors
Mr. Rejman: Pass those up to Counsel to see what we have. Do you have copies for everyone?
Mr. Magel: There are quite a few of them there.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us about the house, how did you come into possession of it?
Mr. Magel: It is adjacent to a piece of property that I own. I think I was contacted by the estate of, it was in an estate, Joe Black owned the property, he went bad with his mortgages, the estate took it back and one of the lawyers contacted me and asked me if I had some interest as he knew I owned the property next door and I did have some interest. It abuts a piece of property of mine on Perrine Street.
Mr. Rejman: So you have actually taken possession of the property?
Mr. Magel: Yes, I own the property.
Mr. Rejman: How many years?
Mr. Magel: Matter of months.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mr. Magel: The thing I don’t understand here, I am here to get a variance for a one family to a two family, but that property before I owned it was owned by my stepson and he owned it 30 years ago, it was a two family then. The people that live immediately in front of this property their letters are in here, Mrs. Dec and Mrs. Hudson. The Hudson family owned that property for years and the property has been a two family for 30 or 40 years.
I had Mr. O’Neil go in there because I didn’t think anybody would pay that much attention to what I had to say, but I can’t see even by talking with Mrs. Hudson originally this house hasn’t changed since way back when her great grandfather lived there it was a one family from the stand point that they just had so many people and so many kids that they just used the whole house. There are two cellar stairways, there are two stairways to the second floor and none of these things are new, you can tell by looking at it they have been there forever and a day. If you made a one family out of it, I don’t know who you would rent to with 7 or 8 bedrooms, because that is what you are looking at. I think
that is the fear of the people on the street, that there will be a lot of kids if it is a one family.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Magel, how many years ago, did your stepson appear before this board for a variance on this property?
Mr. Magel: This one, no.
Mr. Darrow: No!
Mr. Magel: He may have been here on another one.
Mr. Darrow: I remember about 7 or 8 years ago.
Mr. Magel: No.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Mr. Galvin: We actually have the zoning file with us and there is no indication of any prior activity before the ZBA.
Mr. Magel: As far as people in the area, probably end up with 2 bedrooms on each side and looking at one couple with one child or two children and if it is a single family it is nothing but bedrooms, it is a huge house. Two porches there, two of everything.
Mr. Westlake: Was it vacant for a year, is that how it lost it?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Magel: I really don’t know, I don’t know how that works, I don’t know why it is going back to a one family from all indications it was never a one in the first place.
Mr. LaDouce: That was built as a single family.
Mr. Rejman: Let me ask Codes. Ed, do you have any information on this?
Mr. LaDouce: Prior to Mr. Magel owning it, when Joe Black, I was in there for complaints and also Brian Hicks has been in there and granted it has separate utilities, but the way it was built, it was built as a single family, the layout. I have pictures, do you want to look at them?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Magel: When were these pictures taken?
Mr. LaDouce: Today.
Mr. Magel: These are inside pictures?
Mr. LaDouce: No.
Ms. Marteney: I did not look at this house. It has no number. I didn’t know that house was back there.
Mr. Darrow: I didn’t know that house back there existed.
Ms. Marteney: The house on Perrine Street is 64, so I did not look at this house at all. It was not numbered and there was no indication that this was behind it. So that is why when he is talking I am thinking there are people living in that house right now and it has two front doors and what is he talking about, because I was looking at the sided house on Perrine Street.
Mr. Darrow: I had no clue there was another 64 behind 64.
Ms. Marteney: The house on Perrine is 64.
Mr. Darrow: One must be the new number and the other the old number. They both can be 64.
Mr. Marteney: I am still surprised at how many houses when you drive around do not have numbers on them still after 911.
Mr. Rejman: I think counsel wanted to speak.
Mr. Leone: I was just going to say that Mr. Magel, prior to his presentation, passed out to the board a letter from the American Group One, PC, Michael O’Neil as President with regard to a find that he made at the County Assessor’s Office showing that this particular parcel was a two family. Also in evidence of that he did provide a I guess it would be an Assessor’s form from the County, he got this from the County, not the City, showing at one time and still shows it as being classified as 220 class. As well there are two letters one dated August 24, 2003 and the other dated August 22, 2003 from Diane Hudson and Pauline Dec respectfully supporting Mr. Magel’s petition.
However, Mr. Magel, I would say this and certainly it is up to the board and certainly up to you, it seems like there is some confusion here on the board. Mr. Darrow indicated that he didn’t look at this house, Ms. Marteney indicated that she did not look at this house. The pictures have not made it over to the other side here so I am not quite sure if Ms. Aubin and Mr. Westlake have reviewed this either. Want to give you the option if you want to table this until next month or if you feel comfortable with it, the board has sufficient knowledge of this property.
Mr. Magel: It is sort of up to them. I would like to do something one way or the other as soon as possible.
Ms. Marteney: Well it appears whatever this form is
Mr. Darrow: County Assessor’s
Ms. Marteney: It doesn’t have an address for the building and there are all kinds of things crossed out on this, which still doesn’t indicate to me anything.
Mr. Magel: I think something just did that because I just bought the property.
Ms. Marteney: But there is no address on here.
Mr. Darrow: They go by tap map number.
Ms. Marteney: Great! I don’t know where this property is.
Mr. Rejman: I think what I am hearing is that we want to have this tabled and I suggest we do that.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question for counsel that may help Mr. Magel for next month. Doesn’t even, it is my understanding even a short form SEQRA review is suppose to be done by an engineer because so that there is no biases.
Mr. Leone: I am going to refer to Mr. Galvin on that, it is not my understanding that it has to be done by an engineer.
Mr. Galvin: Any SEQRA form can be done an owner of the property.
Mr. Darrow: By an individual, ok.
Mr. Galvin: When you get to the more technical questions, you should probably have an engineer on hand to answer those types of questions.
Mr. Rejman: Another thing we can do is, if we table this to next month, we can bring down information from our Assessor’s Office, which will be a card.
Mr. Darrow: That is fine.
Mr. Rejman: We will have square footage and this and that.
Mr. Darrow: Give Ms. Marteney and myself a chance to see the property.
Mr. Rejman: I knew it was there because it is my neighborhood. I am sure it is confusing.
Ms. Marteney: I had no idea it was there.
Mr. Magel: It is a secret. (Everyone laughs)
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we table this item until our next meeting.
Ms. Aubin: I’ll second that.
Mr. Rejman: All those in favor. All ayes. Motion carried. We will have this next month. Tom can you have Assessor’s give us a copy of this card.
Mr. Magel: Is there something you want me to do before then, does someone want to call me and make arrangements to go through there or what?
Mr. Rejman: Ed, would you like to take another look at this?
Mr. LaDouce: We have been in there.
Mr. Magel: The Housing Inspectors have already been through the building and the list of violations are pretty much taken care of.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, tabled until next month.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003
217 Grant Avenue, C-3, area variance 52 square feet for sign. Pet Depot.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 217 Grant Avenue, are you here? Yes, come forward please.
Mr. Olsen: Hi, my name is Joe Olsen, I am the owner of the proposed Pet Depot that is coming into the Auburn Plaza and I thought I would hand out a few things that you can make reference to as I tap a few things on our chart here. I made 8 or 9 copies but if I don’t have enough maybe you can share with a neighbor. Can everyone see this easel over here? (Everyone says yes). This is the proposed sign, which represents 48 inch lettered sign, which is what we are applying for as the exception sign on the front of the store. What I did, I also took some shots from various points of the center and how our sign kind of matches up, and in fact even though the letters are large, it blends in with the façade
of the signs in front of the other stores. This is to scale by the way, our sign comes out brighter because of the way they duplicate the pictures that I took. But you can see how it blends in here.
The sign right next to us is Hallmark and you can see that although they have a different type of lettering, the amount of space that the Hallmark and particularly just down a little bit the On Cue Store takes up the space along the front part of the sign itself even though our letters are bigger their full sign which sometimes has multiple line signs takes up the same amount of space.
Also here are some deeper shots, there is one here too of Marshalls and you kind of see a whole blend of how it runs and another shot at the top, you can see our sign as very crisp, clean, aesthetic looking sign. It is just letters and very well done.
Lastly, I showed in the packet and also on the chart here, I have examples of other signs that represent stores much smaller than ours. Our store by the way, other than the Ames Store will be the third largest store in the center. It is 10,500 square feet and the intent of the landlord and myself was to have that store right in the middle of the center and kind of representing the anchor type of that portion of the center and that is another reason for a larger sign. But here you can see stores that are much, much smaller and the amount of space that their sign takes up when you look at all the different things that they have as part of their sign.
So we think that our request of 48 inch sign although it is large, the way the sign is designed and in comparison to other signs in the center, we think that it blends in quite well and for that reason we are asking for the exception. Thank you. Do you have any questions?
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board?
Mr. Olsen: I have a representative from the center here too, if there are any questions that you have about the center as well.
Mr. Darrow: You had mentioned I believe, if I heard you correctly, that on there your sign as its transferred to the photo is to scale.
Mr. Olsen: That is what the person did my sign, told me he did.
Mr. Darrow: But on our copies they all say no scale.
Mr. Olsen: Well that means no scale in terms of I don’t have like a ¼ of an inch representing
Mr. Darrow: Right, but that also means that these are to scale.
Mr. Olsen: I am not sure, I don’t have an answer to that question. I took that to mean that like on many drawings it will say an 1/8 of an inch equals 1 foot, didn’t have any thing designated with that.
Mr. Darrow: Right, but there is nothing that says that the sign is to scale, because it says no scale.
Mr. Rejman: There is representative here?
Mr. Olsen: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Come forward please. State your name for the record.
Mr. Kerstetter: Tim Kerstetter.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, Tim. You brought over the plan with the sign here and you feel that it is appropriate for the plaza?
Mr. Kerstetter: We do. Considering the size of the store and it is going to be our what we consider our anchor in addition to Marshalls, Ames and Eckerds because of the square footage sign of the store itself, we feel the owners of the center and myself feel that this is sign I don’t think will look too our of proportion with the property itself.
Mr. Rejman: Alright.
Mr. Darrow: What is your set back from the façade to the road? Do you know off hand?
Mr. Kerstetter: From the road it would be approximately, I don’t know exactly, but I would say between 300 and 400 feet.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. Any other questions for this gentleman? Ok, thank you. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Last call for questions? None? Ok, we will close the public portion and discuss this amongst ourselves and hopefully come to a solution.
Mr. Darrow: I have been taking two things into consideration, the set back from the façade to the road and the fact that the owners of the plaza don’t have a big problem with it, when they take into consideration all the other stores that are in there, I don’t really see a problem with it, I think it is minimal in scale compared to you know what other variances we have granted on Grant Avenue, I mean just Applebee’s alone and a multitude of them for their signage and they are much closer to the road.
Ms. Aubin: The first picture sort of is misleading if you look at the second one it gives you a bigger angle and it really is that big for three store fronts.
Mr. Darrow: I agree.
Ms. Marteney: I think proportionately even if you don’t know what the scale is, and the aesthetics of that in comparison to other signs, it doesn’t take up any more visual space even though we don’t know what the scale is.
Mr. Darrow: That is what I was getting at, with the scale, that we don’t know the proportion to be exact because it doesn’t state that it is to scale, but I don’t think there is going to be that much of a difference in it when you consider the actual height of a 48 inch letter that façade itself has got to be 7 to 8 foot.
Mr. Rejman: Right.
Mr. Marteney: If you look down at On Cue it takes up 90% of the visual space and this will have 10% on the top and bottom, so it is not out of proportion to the other signs.
Mr. Westlake: Proportion or not, we are going to give them 52 square feet, that is all we are going to give them, he has to make that sign 172 square feet.
Mr. Rejman: I think I picked up on the same thing that Ed did that the owners of the plaza are comfortable with it and they will have to defend that with their other tenants. We should probably be comfortable too.
Mr. Westlake: The application says applicant’s name Pet Depot. Are we giving it to a person or corporation?
Mr. Rejman: Good point. If we give the variance to the plaza owners then the next person that comes in we won’t have a chance to look at it.
Mr. Leone: You can give it to Pet Depot.
Mr. Rejman: That we get a chance to review the next tenant that comes in.
Mr. Leone: Joe, it is a corporation?
Mr. Olsen: Yes it is. The official name is Pet Depot of Update New York and we trade under Pet Dept.
Mr. Leone: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Darrow: I would to make a motion that we grant a area variance of 52 square feet for the purpose of placing a back lit sign at 217 Grant Avenue to Pet Depot, also know as Pet Depot of Upstate New York Inc.
Mr. Westlake: I will second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Good luck with your project.
Mr. Olsen: Thank you very much and I hope you show up to the store.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003
55 Pulsifer Drive, R-1, use variance for garage to be erected partly in the front yard. Carl Castiglione.
______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 55 Pulsifer Drive? Are you here? State your name for the record please.
Mr. Castiglione: Hi, my name is Carl Castiglione, 55 Pulsifer Drive.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, Carl, what would you like to do there?
Mr. Castiglione: I would like to erect a two-car garage, which is 30 x 25.
Mr. Rejman: I would like Codes to talk about this one. What seems to be the issue here from Codes point of view.
Mr. LaDouce: Because of the lay of the land, if you look at that, his back yard is actually the outlet.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. LaDouce: The street right of way is 50?
Mr. Castiglione: Yes, 50.
Mr. LaDouce: He is going to be set back far enough and it seems to be the only logically place to put it. It is partially in the front yard, which isn’t allowed, as far as the grade, do you have the pictures? If you look to the right of the pool and the building to the right, look at the roof of the building to the right, that is how much it drops.
Mr. Rejman: That is what I was looking for the drop.
Mr. LaDouce: You also have a sewer in the back yard.
Mr. Castiglione: There is a sewer main that runs through the back yard.
Mr. Rejman: I was using you as an expert witness that is all.
Mr. LaDouce: Don’t do that.
Mr. Castiglione: When I laid the garage out I did it very carefully and I am 36 feet from the City right of way to the front of the garage.
Mr. Rejman: So the issue there is just the way the landfalls off and the sewer line.
Mr. Castiglione: I have no back yard.
Mr. Rejman: And no back yard. Questions from the board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for against this application? Hearing none we will come back. Final call? None. Ok, thank you. We will close the public portion and we will discuss this.
Ms. Marteney: No place else to put it.
Mr. Rejman: I know. We need a motion from someone.
Mr. Darrow: We need to review the SEQRA first, short form SEQRA.
Mr. Rejman: Jim, would you walk us through that please.
Mr. Galvin: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, a SEQRA review is required for any use variance according to the New York State SEQRA law. You have received a copy of the answers to the questions in relation to the project in the packet, therefore, you kind of have an idea of what is going on and what the applicant says is going on about the site itself. Take a minute and go through the questions on the back on the other side of the short form. Part 2 of the environmental assessment form does the action exceed any Type I threshold in the SEQRA regulations, the answer is No.
Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted action. It doesn’t require coordinated review there are no other involved agencies. Answer is No.
Section C – questions that are related to the project.
C-1 – Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the 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? We at Planning Board ask if there are any comments from the board, if we don’t hear any comments, we are going to assume the board does not see any adverse effects. Any comments? Hearing none, No adverse effects associated .
C-2 - Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Any comments? Hearing none – No.
C-3 - Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species? Any comments? Hearing none – No.
C-4 A community’ existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of and or other natural resources? Any comments? Hearing none – No.
C-5 – Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Any comments? Hearing none – No.
C-6 – Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1 – C5? Any comments? Hearing none – No.
C-7 – Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Any comments? Hearing none – No.
D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Any comments? No.
Based on the results of the board and the completion of he environmental assessment form, this would have no significant environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration of the SEQRA is warranted.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Now is an appropriate time for a motion.
Ms. Darrow: I would to make a motion that we find a Negative Declaration for the SEQRA review short form.
Mr. Gentile: I second it.
VOTING IN F AVOR
OF THE SEQRA: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Negative Declaration has been affirmed.
Ms. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant a use variance to Carol Castiglione of 55 Pulsifer Drive for the purpose of erecting a 30 x 25 detached garage as plotted on the attached plot plan.
Ms. Gentile I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck with the project.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003
7 Metcalf Drive, R-1, area variance of 18 square feet for storage building. William and Josephine Coleman.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 7 Metcalf Drive, are you here please?
Mr. Coleman: Hi, my name is Bill Coleman and we are seeking a variance of 18 square feet for a shed in our back yard.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, Bill. This is something that Codes is going to take up with its next session with City Council. We have a lot of these
Mr. Coleman: I know.
Mr. Rejman: So you intend to put us a 12 x 14 shed and you need a 18 square foot variance, because it is very difficult to buy a 150 square foot shed out there isn’t it?
Mr. Coleman: I really don’t think for a standard number that you can.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? None. Anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Last call for questions, it is pretty generic. We will close the public portion, discuss this and come to an agreement.
Mr. Coleman: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: They are going to work on it.
Mr. Darrow: It is a well-kept property can understand why they want a little shed to store their stuff.
Ms. Marteney: Plenty of room, back in the corner of the lot.
Mr. Darrow: Not going to be an eyesore, not going to be in the way.
I would like to make a motion that we grant William and Josephine Coleman of 7 Metcalf Drive, an area variance of 18 square feet for the purpose of erecting a 12 foot by 14 foot shed as plotted on attached plot plan.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Gentile
Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Thank you.
Mr. Coleman: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
| 
