ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004
Members Present: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
One Vacancy
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey
Mr. Hicks
Mrs. Hoffmann
APPLICATIONS 50 Logan Street
APPROVED: 33 Seneca Parkway
217 Grant Avenue
APPLICATIONS Northwest corner Letchworth and St. Anthony Sts.
TABLED: 50 Fitch Avenue
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have:
50 Logan Street
33 Seneca Parkway
217 Grant Avenue
Northwest corner Letchworth and St. Anthony Sts.
50 Fitch Avenue
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004
50 Logan Street, R-2, area variance of 10’ for side yard setback. Michael LaVarnway.
Mr. Rejman: 50 Logan Street, are you here tonight? Yes. Please come up. Use the podium, state your name and tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. LaVarnway: My name is Mike LaVarnway.
Mr. Rejman: What would you like to do there?
Mr. LaVarnway: I bought property at 50 Logan Street. It is currently a single family home, but it is actually physically a two family home, I converted it back to a two family home.
Mr. Rejman: And you are requesting a 10-foot yard buffer to the south for parking area on Mary Street?
Mr. LaVarnway: Yes, it is an existing driveway.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Codes can you get us up to speed on this, why we need an area variance?
Mr. Hicks: Right now he has established a parking area along Mary Street. Code requires that he have a 10-foot buffer between another residential use and that is what he is asking for, he needs a 10-foot buffer. It is now paved for the parking area.
Mr. Rejman: OK. We are sharing tonight because this was tabled from last month and some of us forgot to bring our packet. You are asking us just to legalize the existing black top area basically?
Mr. Hicks: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Because it was a vacant property situation?
Mr. Hicks: Yes it was. It lost its two family status and went back to a single family home.
Mr. Westlake: So does he have to come before us?
Mr. Rejman: He wants to keep it a single.
Mr. LaVarnway: No I converted it to a double, it is physically a double but converted to a single because of foreclosure.
Mr. Hicks: He is in an R-2.
Mr. Rejman: Oh, ok. All right then. Before questions from the board, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? OK, hearing none, we will come back to the board. Questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: I think the fact that he is in a R-2 speaks for itself and the fact that he is trying to keep the tenants vehicles off the street.
Ms. Marteney: The extension is not encroaching more on the neighbor’s yard, it is encroaching in fact on his yard and it is 2 feet from the north where there isn’t any other home.
Mr. Rejman: Final call for questions. OK, we will close the public portion, have a seat.
Mr. LaVarnway: There was a use variance also or no?
Mr. Hicks: We started out that way but with it being in an R-2 and the way the house is designed the use variance is out of the picture.
Mr. LaVarnway: OK, thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Just a simple legalization of a pre-existing.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Michael LaVarnway, 50 Logan Street a 10 feet side yard set back area variance for the purpose of legalizing his paved parking as currently plotted on the land.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck.
Mr. LaVarnway: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPREALS
MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004
33 Seneca Parkway, R-1, area variance of 226 square feet for addition to garage. Richard Brown.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 33 Seneca Parkway, are you here?
Mr. Brown: I am trying a garage to my existing house.
Mr. Rejman: State your name for the record.
Mr. Brown: Richard Brown, 33 Seneca Parkway.
Mr. Rejman: You are looking to put a garage on?
Mr. Brown: Right.
Mr. Rejman: Bigger than code?
Mr. Brown: Right, asking for an additional 226 feet.
Mr. Rejman: 20 x 22 garage.
Mr. Brown: Right. Same as the one that is on there now.
Mr. Rejman: So you are replacing a garage?
Mr. Brown: No, I am adding to it.
Mr. Rejman: Adding to it.
Mr. Brown: The one that is there right now if I tried to put both cars in there then we can’t get out of the cars. It is the way it is designed on the inside because they put a fireplace in the house and used part of the garage so when I measured it, it was still 20 x 22 feet, so I want to add one so I have plenty of space for whatever. I have plenty of property to do it, I am not close to anybody, and I am 43 feet away from my nearest neighbor.
Mr. Rejman: It is a very nice application, give us all the information we need here.
Mr. Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Yes, no? Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none. Any questions?
Mr. Darrow: You can see where the chimney from the fireplace comes right down into the garage.
Mr. Rejman: Yes. Probably a one-car garage at that.
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Any comments from Codes? Do you wish to make a comment?
Mr. Hicks: Not at all.
Mr. Rejman: OK. That is it, we will close the public portion and discuss.
Ms. Marteney: Plenty of area.
Mr. Rejman: Yes lots of area.
Ms. Marteney: Big yard.
Mr. Darrow: Considering the layout.
Mr. Rejman: No concerns from Codes.
Mr. Darrow: That is barely a 1-½ car garage now.
Mr. Rejman: It is a one.
Mr. Darrow: It is about a 1-½ car for today’s standards.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, but it is encroached into by the fireplace. OK. Need motion.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Richard and Judith Brown, 33 Seneca Parkway an area variance for 226 square feet for a 20 x 22 addition to their current garage as plotted on plot plan.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Get your building permit in the morning and good luck.
Mr. Brown: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2004
217 Grant Avenue, C-2, area variances of 90 square feet in area and 5 feet in height for pole sign. Auburn Plaza.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 217 Grant Avenue, please, are you here?
Mr. Kerstetter: My name is Tim Kerstetter, I reside at 6693 East Lake Road.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Tim, tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Kerstetter: We are seeking a variance for 5 foot height variance for 217 Grant Avenue and a 90 square foot variance to install a new pylon pole on Grant Avenue at the Auburn Plaza. I have the pictures.
Mr. Rejman: Pass those around if you want.
Mr. Kerstetter: I also have a letter from the Traffic Coordinator of the City of Auburn, stating that as long as the sign does not interfere the current traffic flow and current traffic patterns that they support the construction of the new sign.
Mr. Rejman: So you are wishing to increase the height of this another 7 feet?
Mr. Kerstetter: We are going to put a new sign up. We are replacing the existing Ames pylon signs to new pylon signs that will be 5 foot higher than what is allowed by the current codes.
Mr. Rejman: An additional 71 square feet?
Mr. Kerstetter: Correct.
Mr. Rejman: On the pylon.
Mr. Kerstetter: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: The height reason is because you are going to go to the same multi tenant sign.
Mr. Kerstetter: Yes, those pictures that I passed around, the colored one that says Auburn Plaza next to the Hess there, it will be the exact replica of that.
Mr. Darrow: So it will be a duplicate sign of the tenants that are there, not creating room for more tenants.
Mr. Kerstetter: The only new tenants that will be on there are the tenants that are taking over the former Ames area, there are going to be 2 tenants in there now. The Ames will be split into 2 tenants.
Mr. Darrow: And they will split the new sign?
Mr. Kerstetter: There will be some redundancy on the new pylon, but the top will stay with the new anchor tenants. The little ones on the bottom should be duplicated, if they are not duplicated, the ones that are not on the one by Hess will be on the one by McIntosh. All 40 tenants are not on the one by Hess.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t know exactly what Officer Weed was trying to say here. Is he saying the sign will make them use McIntosh Drive rather than the Hess entrance?
Mr. Kerstetter: Well people coming from the City will see the new pylon sign first and that will make them turn into, take a left on McIntosh Drive rather than going further down the road to the existing pylon signs and taking a left. So if we catch the people coming from the City, take a left on McIntosh and catch people from the towns take a right.
Mr. Rejman: That would improve traffic flow a lot.
Mr. Kerstetter: Get them to turn at the light rather than taking a left across from Wendy’s.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Come back to the board. Questions from the board?
Ms. Marteney: In terms of height, will it end up the same height as the other sign?
Mr. Kerstetter: Yes it will, it will be a identical.
Mr. Darrow: 5 foot higher than what is currently allowed.
Mr. Hicks: It should be 7, we need to amend the application to say 7 feet.
Mr. Rejman: Mine says 5.
Mr. Darrow: Mine says 5.
Ms. Brower: How does that compare to the Arby’s sign?
Mr. Kerstetter: With the height?
Ms. Brower: Yes.
Mr. Kerstetter: It will not be as high as the Arby’s sign, no.
Ms. Marteney: Will be lower than the top Arby sign.
Mr. Kerstetter: Right.
Mr. Westlake: Take up a whole lot lower area when you come around the corner.
Mr. Kerstetter: It will be within the minimum height difference of the City Code now, it will be 6 feet from the ground, so the cars can still see under it to pull out, still see around it for traffic flow.
Ms. Brower: In what way would that interfere with traffic, there is a traffic light there?
Mr. Kerstetter: It won’t interfere with the light directly at the intersection or people coming through the intersection because it will be set off the road with the current set back. I believe it is 15 feet. It is going to be the exact same location on your survey map here (points to map) close to the corner where the current Ames sign is, same location as that.
Mr. Rejman: Good. Final calls for questions. OK, close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. I think it balances out the plaza with signage at both ends.
Mr. Darrow: I just have one question for Mr. Hicks, does the clear sight triangle come into effect in this scenario or no?
Mr. Hicks: As long as he doesn’t impede the clear sight triangle.
Mr. Darrow: That is what I am wondering, is he in the clear sight triangle? Looking at the layout that we have it looks to be pretty close into the clear sight triangle, we don’t have an accurate scale to go by.
Mr. Hicks: Exactly, we can leave that as far as the permitting issue that we need to have it properly plotted.
Mr. Darrow: OK, it has does have down 1 inch is 60 feet on here, but I am not sure if this is an accurate reproduction or not.
Mr. Hicks: It is something that we will look into before the permit is issued.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Auburn Associates LLC for property located at 217 Grant Avenue a 90 square foot area variance and a 7 foot height variance fore the purpose of erecting a multi tenant sign as plotted on site plan with the stipulation that it does not encroach the clear sight triangle.
Mr. Rejman: Hold, I have 71 feet, check on that.
Ms. Hussey: The applicant actually is actually asking for three variances, a 71 square foot variance in area, 7 feet in height and a variance for one pole sign, in as much the Zoning Ordinance allows one pole sign.
Mr. Darrow: Mine reads he is requiring a variance of 90 square foot.
Ms. Hussey: It was folded into the packet, it is on top of the packet.
Mr. Darrow: OK. I would like to amend my measurements to a one extra pole sign, a 71 square foot area variance and a 7-foot height variance.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application approved. Good luck to you.
I am going to jump ahead to #5, we are working on area variances and this would be another area variance and then we will get into the use variances.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004
50 Fitch Avenue, R-1a, area variance of 3’ 4” for the front yard setback for porch. Dan Emmi.
Mr. Rejman: 50 Fitch Avenue, are you here please? 50 Fitch, no here.
OK.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004
Northwest corner Letchworth and St. Anthony Streets, R-1, use variance for professional office building to provide day services for developmentally handicapped consumers. Seneca- Cayuga ARC.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: Letchworth and St. Anthony Streets, are you here? Seneca-Cayuga ARC.
Mr. Smith: My name is Ken Smith and I am Executive Director of Seneca-Cayuga ARC. If we just could have a couple minutes to set up some boards.
Mr. Rejman: Sure. Good.
Mr. Smith: Any particular place?
Mr. Rejman: Might be helpful, we have been known to stand up and move around just so that we all, the audience and the board can get a view at the same time.
Mr. Smith: Something like this?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Smith: We are requesting a use variance from residential to commercial. As I said my name is Kevin Smith and I am Executive Director of Seneca-Cayuga ARC. With me tonight is Tom Redmond from Beardsley Design, John Bouck from Bouck Real Estate and Charlie Lynch, from Boyle & Anderson Law firm. If it is ok we are just going to do a short presentation each.
Mr. Rejman: Yes. That will be fine.
Mr. Smith: I would like to start out, our mission at Seneca-Cayuga ARC is to provide assistance to people with disabilities, to assure that they are production and contribute as members of the community. We provide opportunities for employment, for training, residential housing, clinical services, individual family support, some comprehensive rehabilitation to about 1200 people with developmental disabilities in Cayuga and Seneca counties.
This particular project is part of an overall agency capital plan to be able to move out of inaccessible older facilities that are difficult to maintain, that are difficult to operate and weren’t designed for the current programs that we operate. We want to move to a smaller facilities, we want to make a commitment to the City of Auburn to remain in the City of Auburn and to assure that our facilities from this point forward are all physically accessible, that are designed for the needs of people with mobility restrictions, communication deficits and people with developmental disabilities as well. We want to make sure that we integrated in the community, we want to be in the City of Auburn, it is important to our
mission to be in the City of Auburn.
In conversations that we have had with Steve Lynch and Jim Galvin of the Planning Department, it is pretty apparent that the City is developed, that there are very few open areas, that there are very few parcels of land in the City one that met our cost criteria and two that are in the heart of the community and that is what we are about, is making sure that people with disabilities have the opportunity to be part of the community.
The existing space that we have looked at either has vacant buildings on it that have to be extensively renovated, would be cost prohibitive or the buildings would have to be torn down. Where we have situations where there is vacant land but it is in a commercial district, extremely expensive for us a not-for-profit organization and wouldn’t make this project doable. This particular project has three components. The first is what we call a day habilitation program for 24 people with developmental disabilities. Day habilitation we teach people with developmental disabilities to take care of themselves, to be more independent, to acquire what we call activities of daily living, those things that we take for granted and how to get through the day, those are the things that we
teach in day habilitation. We also teach people to access the community, to take advantage of what the community has to offer, that is why we really need to be in the City.
In addition to the program site for 24 people, we then have office space for about 50 people. People that would have office space in this building would not necessarily provide programs at this site, they would provide the program elsewhere. As I said we serve about 1200 people and we serve people in their homes, serve people in schools, serve people at employer sites as well. The bulk of the square footage really is for staff offices. If we are able to go forward with the project, this allows us to grow, would allow us to add to five (5) jobs, right now this would be about 50 people who would have office space in this facility. It would allow us to increase our growth from about 5% a year to about 10% a year.
The third component of this really is to do staff development, staff training. A portion of the building would be reserved for training people in direct support. Training people who train people with disabilities. Right now it would serve as our base of operations in Cayuga County for staff training. Currently we train about 10 to 20 staff about two to three times a week. That is in addition to people that have office space there. It is designed to train up to about 40 people, there are times that we may have 40 people in there maybe once a month, if that. It is primarily a day operation of 8:00 to 4:00. There may be a possibility of some night training that would go on or some night work but that is not in line with our primary purpose which is day office
facility. There may be some times where the facility would be occupied on the weekends, but again that would be rare. It is primarily Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30. With that I would like to turn it over to Tom Redmond, who will talk about the architectural design.
Mr. Redmond: Thank you Kevin. If you don’t mind I will make sure speak up, I would like to stand over here and point to the boards.
What we thought was important in looking at this use variance, is give you a little better idea what we are thinking of as far as the design. We have gone through programming with the facility to determine the size of the building that they would need. We have also looked at how the site would flow and some of the required setbacks and things that are certainly very important to incorporate a facility like this in a neighborhood.
The building that you are looking at is 14,750 square feet, that is the maximum that we would be looking at. We would be locating it pretty much in the center of the site. Now the site to orient you is directly west of Mercy Rehab and the florist here which is now currently occupied or owning the whole piece of land. Part of this process next would be if we get a favorable response is to go through subdivision to divide that current use of commercial use property into two pieces of property.
We would locate the building here that would break up the parking, there is a loading area here for vans for the day rehab programs, enter onto Letchworth and exit on St. Anthony. The total amount of parking is 85 spaces. Now the reasons for those spaces is we want to make sure that we provided all the parking that they needed on site. They have about 50 employees with some room to expand, plus occasional training that would bring in additional cars.
The site is a 2.11 acres and the building would be about 16% coverage which is under the allowable 25%. Setback requirements are in a commercial use area 30 feet in the front and 50 feet in the rear and in this case would provide 59 feet as shown on the plan here and 35 up front. The other requirement is when you separate commercial from residential that there is a 60-foot buffer before any development. What we have done in the areas that are built up against residential areas which is this area back in here (points to map) 60 foot buffer of berm, plantings and trees that will screen the facility in that direction.
Here are some photographs, this is looking from the corner of St. Anthony down Letchworth and St. Anthony is this way, you can see the greenhouses from the florist shop in back here (points to photographs). This is the view looking towards Mercy Rehab. One of the important things is we tried to incorporate this into the neighborhood. What we are proposing is to continue the tree scape with trees to follow the tree line and then this is an example of the building style that we are looking at, this is an impression of an office building up in Plattsburgh, but we are working closely with Seneca-Cayuga ARC to promote a style detailing some architectural or residential type elements, hip roof, gables and use of clapboard
siding to blend with the community. It will follow something along this line. John Bouck is going to talk a little bit more about the property and value.
Mr. Bouck: Good evening, my name is John Bouck and I was asked to complete a report, which I believe everyone has a copy of, to answer a couple of questions that were pretty important to the buyers and the owner. One was to determine if there is an unnecessary hardship that exists for the current owner of the property, of this Letchworth property and the potential uses of his land. Secondly, whether the owner could realize a reasonable rate of return and the property is used for its permitted use. I tried to be objective as possible with this report. It took a lot of time and research and I will be glad to answer any questions in regard to the report.
Current permitted use which is R-1 allows the property to be used as a single family residential use or can be used for the sale or used for other types of uses as Churches, Non-Profit and schools and when I looked at it, I had to examine those potential uses had the property actually been marketed for that. First of all, based upon the general market schools today, which are benign, they are not buildings new ones. For Churches there really is not a market for that type of use. So looking at the only reasonable uses expected for that fairly large parcel and I am looking on the basis of is there a market for a new single-family residential homes, not just in our community, but in that specific area. What I had to
do, of course, first of all was examine the area. I am sure everyone here is familiar with it. It is in an area with high-density housing, Auburn Housing Authority and Melone Village almost immediately adjacent. Mercy Rehab is also immediately adjacent. Right behind the property along Dunning Avenue are several commercial enterprises, the largest of which is a florist, heavy commercial uses. Obviously that is going to inhibit the potential for some type of single most type of single-family use.
To be practical with this and even do additional research, I examined all the typical homes sales that have taken place in the area. I did include it in the report that you have. Most of the homes, if you will notice, I didn’t do just a research on properties of the type that I am working on, I did everything in the neighborhood. I probably have three times this number, I tried to call it down to the ones that are specifically in the area. You are going to note that most are in the range of $40,000 to $70,000 and some are less than that, there are a few that are more than that. The homes in the area, I don’t want to misrepresent anything, the homes in the area, the majority of them are very well
maintained, they are well kept, they are attractive. But what we have to look at is what the market sales dictate or indicate in the area, and you know if you are buying a home or building a home, you are not going to build a home that is substantially more than the other houses in the neighborhood if you expect to sell down the road, that is what we have to look at.
Right now it costs about it runs about $100 a square foot to build a new house. There are some less there are some more. I have a note that I have from one contractor we have been using, we put up two houses in the area, both of which were over $127 a square foot. If you build, if you take that number and build a home that is only 1,000 square feet, that is a 24 x 24 ranch that equates to about $100,000 to build a house and obviously it depends upon the quality of the material, so it could run $90 to $100 a square foot to build. That means that the average home to build on that site, even the smallest home is going to be in the range of $90,000 to $100,000 that is without the land, and when you add the land value to the value of the house you have a property that is going
to have to sell for in excess of $100,000 and probably in the range of $120,000. Now as a home buyer if you were building there, that is going to be a concern for you because you now got what you can consider one of the nicer or nicest property in the neighborhood, not necessarily in terms of appearance but in terms of what you have invested in it and the market unfortunately is just not there in the neighborhood.
Now for the same reason there are have been no substantive new home construction in the area, there just hasn’t been anything in the last 25 years. I don’t mean 1 or 2 houses in different areas, what I am talking about is standard new construction that is expanding such as the eastern portions of Auburn and some portions of the south side of Auburn. There just hasn’t been any and that is just one of the reason unfortunately.
Speculators are not interested in this site in which the properties that they build and the houses that they build are not going to sell and generate a reasonable return. A speculator trying to sell a house in that vicinity for $100,000 or $120,000 just isn’t going to be there.
So unnecessary hardship then is based on four factors that need to be considered. #1 is the lack of a reasonable return. Basically as I found the owners can’t be expected to find a typical buyer or speculator that is going to pay him to acquire property and build a single family home which is basically the only thing that is currently allowed.
Secondly, the hardship that has been generated is unique. It isn’t something that is only specific to the area or community. This property is larger than normal and because of high density of housing, because of the commercial uses in the area as well as Mercy Rehab there are few properties or no other properties that I can really find there may be something around here, but I couldn’t find it, that face the same problem of marketability. So if the owner is not allowed to use for what I consider a quiet compatible small business use, the question is whether or not he could ever find somebody that is going to be able to buy it. Again, I am trying to look at this from a practical standpoint.
#3 if the hardship is created will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. That neighborhood is already made up of uses that are incompatible to residential use and the proposal for this property is conceived from the design why wouldn’t it, it would fit in blending very well with the neighborhood, it is a quiet use, it would be compatible with the surrounding values and possibly create or enhance at least the surrounding neighborhood properties. It is going to be an attractive building. It isn’t going to be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Finally the hardship in your examination can’t be self-created. In other words, the owner cannot have created the hardship. In this case the property has been in the same family for generations. They didn’t establish the zoning, the zoning was put around them as they have owned it. They have owned it since 1921 I believe and the owner didn’t have the zoning changed. They certainly didn’t create this problem that currently exists. Basically that is it in terms of the unnecessary hardship. I think again I tried to answer as many questions as I thought anyone would have in the report. But I am available to answer any questions.
Mr. Darrow: Yes, Mr. Bouck, I have a question. If you were advising or appraising the property itself for a client to conform with current R-1 zoning to put a standard single family dwelling, what would you say that property for that use would be worth for a 2.11 acres.
Mr. Bouck: The entire parcel?
Mr. Darrow: For the 2.11 acres that they are looking to purchase to put that building on.
Mr. Rejman: To be used as a residential lot?
Mr. Darrow: To be used as residential.
Mr. Bouck: OK.
Mr. Darrow: To conform with all our zoning laws.
Mr. Bouck: Right. If you were going to use it for a single use in other words the entire parcel is going to be used for a single property, that is very difficult, I don’t like to be put on the stop here, but in this situation, the problem I find and I found in examining this is could I find a buyer for it. And I an not sure you really could. If you were going to buy it for example if you were a neighbor and wanted to buy it because you lived in the area all your life, whatever you pay for it you have to mitigate with how much you are going to put into the house. Now if you have a 2-acre parcel you are not going to up a 1,000 square foot home, you are going to put up a larger home. If you build a larger home, you
have 2,000 square feet, you are talking in home construction in excess of $200,000
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Bouck, not to interrupt you, but I think you are missing my point. You are advising your client who wants to put your sign out on that property, I have 2.11 acres to sell. Should I advertise it for $6,000, should I advertise for $22,000, should I advertise it for $35,000? That is what I am looking for.
Mr. Bouck: Sure. Here is what I always tell people in a situation like that. Why look at a property and I feel personally that is not going to be marketable or very difficult to market, I tell them let’s look at what I feel might be the highest price, put it on the market, if it doesn’t sell then either reduce it or you are going to have to find some how another use for it probably I would guess that amount of land $12,000 or $15,000 and I am saying that because that is the value of residential lots in the area and frankly it isn’t going to make much
Mr. Darrow: So what I am coming away from is this your professional opinion, you are stating that a City building lot is worth approximately $6,000 to $7,5000 per acre.
Mr. Bouck: No that is simplifying the situation, we don’t divide building lots out into basically the way I can put it is, I can sell probably one acre for almost the same price I can sell two acres for.
Mr. Darrow: That is what I am looking for.
Mr. Bouck: The highest use in your scenario would be perhaps to divide it in half. But again whether you are going to be able to sell either of the halves is, I would tell you this, I have a property down the street, on Garrow Street, one and a half blocks away, which I have had on the market in multi listing for 4 years. Those of you in the area may know it. Right now there is a modular home sitting on it and it is not on the foundation. I own the lot, the guy came up and bought one of the lots there which is about an acre and put a home on it after I have had it on the market for 4 years and unfortunately he put, this guy came and put this modular home on the wrong lot, it is not my lot, instead of the correct one. But
that was on the market for 4 ½ years. I happen to be able to sell it to that individual because he needed a place very quickly to put this modular home that he received he bought it from BOCES. I had signs out there, it was 4 ½ years and I was lucky to have been able to find a buyer for it. At a pretty low price, much less than what we were talking about. And that is right in the neighborhood. Are there any other questions? Thank you.
Mr. Lynch: Good evening, my name is Charles Lynch, I am with Boyle & Anderson and I represent Seneca Cayuga ARC in connection with this application. We think this is a pretty terrific use of this property, but of course, before this use can be realized this board needs to find that there sufficient justification for granting a use variance. Now under Section 305.14 of the Zoning Law, the owner of the property has to demonstrate, has to make a showing that there is unnecessary hardship. Unnecessary hardship is defined in your law. It means that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return and that has to be demonstrated by competent financial evidence and I think that is what we have heard today. It really isn’t
so much a question of what a building lot in the City goes for, but it is really a question listening to John of whether anybody or any buyer can be found who wants to build a house directly across the street from Mercy Rehab, directly behind a going pretty heavy commercial florist business. So I think that there is plenty of justification for determining that lack of reasonable return which probably exists.
The question of the property being unique I think is one which speaks for itself. There is not another piece of property in that neighborhood with the characteristics that this one has in terms of size, location, surrounded by a neighborhood of other very heavy commercial uses.
For the reasons stated already we don’t believe this development would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. While it is a R-1 residential zone the character of the neighborhood is mixed at best of many commercial uses. We believe that this would be in a realm of commercial uses, because you need to, if you are inclined to grant a use variance grant the minimum use necessary to allow the owner to have a reasonable return for his property. We believe that this really falls into that category of minimum necessary. There are a lot of commercial uses which could be much more detrimental to the neighborhood than the one that is being proposed. And for the reasons already stated, the hardship is not self-created which was clear from the public records. We
believe that the proposed development will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health and safety of the welfare of the community.
Specifically great pains have gone to keep all the parking that will be necessary on the site, keep it off the street. Keep the roads clear and we don’t believe the traffic would be increased in this type of development in the neighborhood. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Rejman: OK, we will hold those in reserve. I am sure there are people that are wishing to speak against the application. I am sure this is the first time you have seen in detail the project. So let me ask, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against, I would like to have the gentleman that brought up this petition speak first.
Mr. Llewellyn: My name is Dave Llewellyn. My brother and I and my parents own property
Mr. Rejman: Show us which one is yours.
Mr. Llewellyn: Pointing to map – this one right here.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Llewellyn: If you spend any time in the neighborhood, there is a lot of traffic in the neighborhood. Mercy Rehab as it is now, this picture doesn’t show the cars that are normally parked all the way down the street, all up this street. There is a lot of traffic already in the neighborhood and I really don’t think their arguments are cutting it as far as meeting the criteria for granting a variance. I am not a lawyer obviously. They keep citing the heavy commercial use over here. That is his own business. That is his business; I mean he is citing his own business is a reason why he can’t sell the property. If you want to sell property, I think you should put a sign up. My parents have been there for 35
years, and as far as I can tell he has never put a sign up to even try to sell the property. As far as the rate of return, they keep saying a reasonable rate of return; as far as I can see on his application his investment in the property is not listed.
Mr. Rejman: Before the meeting started you handed me a petition
Mr. Llewellyn: 40 neighbors
Mr. Rejman: 40 neighbors that are saying they are extremely concerned and that is will dramatically change the neighborhood and significantly change the already difficult traffic situation. Are there copies for everyone?
Mr. Llewellyn: There is not, sorry about that.
Mr. Rejman: Can we have copies made and passed around to the board members.
Mr. Llewellyn: 86 parking spaces is a lot and they say that there are not going to be many people there but a 12,000 square foot building, 86 parking spaces is not like a little amount of activity to me. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Or have a question? Sure, come up.
Mr. Lopez: Thank you. My name is Vince Lopez, I live on Center Street roughly ¾ of a block from the area in question. I have some questions about parking, about fire control. I don’t know if you know it or not, but at least once a day we have a fire engine that runs up St. Anthony Street in response to a call from Mercy Rehab. If you would check the Fire Department books you would see the log and you would see that this has been going on for years. There are no sidewalks in the general area. The closest walks are on Thornton Avenue and Dunning Avenue. In between there are cars parked helter skelter. You can see some of the cars parked around the perimeter of Mercy Rehab; he who gets
there the earliest gets the pick of the parking spaces. If I had a kid I wouldn’t let him go down there. Somebody is going to get run over. Now unfortunately I would like to say a lot more about granting the variance here, but I am not prepared because I only learned about this two nights ago.
Mr. Rejman: My concern is that people were signing a petition without really being fully informed about the project. I can see both sides of that. I am wondering if some people would like to just dwell on it for a month after seeing this, come back with some very good questions. I have some concerns myself about the application. I will address those too. Anyone else wishing to speak? Yes?
Mr. Barwinczak: My name is John Barwinczak and I live on Leavenworth Avenue. In my opinion those streets are not conducive to additional traffic that this will bear. All around that neighborhood when they park on the street they are putting a set of wheels on the grass not on the road, mud. If you have to have emergency vehicles come through there with these kind of conditions then you will have emergency vehicles, it is a congested area. People have to walk on the streets. Every night I can see 30 to 40 people walking, exercising on the streets. With additional traffic it is going to be a heck of a hazard and some of my neighbors have grandchildren they come down there, they are playing in that area and that additional traffic is going to be
detrimental. I build down there over 30 years ago and it is a residential area and I couldn’t get a variance, I won’t go into detail on that, but now we have a variance for major construction. A minute ago a gentleman said property value, I have not seen an advertised sign on that property for sale since I built there. So how can he say he can’t get his return back, he hasn’t tried, it hasn’t been on the market, I haven’t seen any signs up there. This is outrageous.
Mr. Darrow: How many years have you been in the neighborhood?
Mr. Barwinczak: Over 30 years, I moved in 1967.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you.
Mr. Barwinczak: On Leavenworth I am the second house.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
Mr. Daloia: My name is Joe Daloia, I have lived on Center Street at Leavenworth Street for 46 years. I have never seen a sign, we are talking about hardship, I am just going to take a moment to say that I have never seen a for sale sign on that property so where does the hardship come in?
Mr. Rejman: Joe, can I ask you something? I want to make a statement that the property was initially transferred in 1921, so that land has been vacant for 83 years. Has it or hasn’t it?
Mr. Daloia: No that is wrong, he bought that property after his father bought the property
Mr. Darrow: Says since 1961
Mr. Daloia: His father bough the business or started the business in 1921 and then his son bought that land back there later on.
Mr. Darrow: The application says October 1st, 1968.
Mr. Daloia: I have been there 35 years
Mr. Rejman: Here is the question, was it vacant land then?
Mr. Daloia: Yes it was. He had flowers out there. That is all he put out there was flowers.
Mr. Rejman: For the flower shop.
Mr. Daloia: Right.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Daloia: And somebody said it would be less traffic, you would be amazed at 3:00 when them people get out of that hospital they go down that street 60 miles an hour getting out of there. That gentleman said it would be less traffic! Like hell it would be – will be more.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. I have a list up here, but here is one concerning this land, if the land was so valuable for building lots, why wasn’t it purchased years ago, why didn’t somebody walk up to the owner and knock on the door and say how much do you want for the land?
Mr. Darrow: Perhaps we should wait and do this in discussion.
Mr. Rejman: We will do this in discussion. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Lynch: I would like to clarify one point. In your packet one of the things you will see is a survey map that was done by John Papalia in 1971 and that clearly indicates that the property was not vacant at that time as a matter of fact there were very large greenhouses on it and other commercial buildings. I am not sure exactly when those buildings came down but the supposition is that the property owner really now is left without any use for this property any way of getting any return, he isn’t able to use it for some use that is not permitted in this district. We think that this is probably the best use of this property.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
Mr. Lopez: Vince Lopez. Center Street. Across from the florist is approximately 8 acres of land for sale, been there for 10 – 12 years with a sign out in front saying for sale. The fact that he is saying there aren’t any more building properties around that is not true.
Ms. Marteney: You mean on Dunning Avenue?
Mr. Lopez: Yes, Dunning Avenue.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. I see another gentleman.
Mr. Boehler: I am W. C. Boehler, I am owner of the above-described property. To answer a few questions about it, we did have greenhouses that extended all the way back to Leavenworth Street. We worked the field when fuel oil was much cheaper and we had to tear down the greenhouses because the cost of operating them was too great. We had two boilers that heated that place that burned 30 gallons of oil an hour. Naturally they wouldn’t run 24 hours a day but you could average probably 10 hours a day. It was a hardship back then.
As far as parking on Leavenworth Street those are Mercy Rehab people. With this development they will have to find some other place to park and I personally think that this use of that land would be the best possible thing for the neighborhood. It is going to be an attractive presentation and as you can see from the sketches it certainly wouldn’t detract from the neighborhood.
In answer to another question, I have been there all my life and I am 78 years old, I was born there and I have been in business with my father and then I took over after he past away in 1969. I have a little longevity in the place. When my family bought the place in 1921 it had been a going greenhouse operation, it was Dodd & Sons.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you for the history.
Mr. Boehler: Any questions?
Mr. Rejman: Not at this time. Thank you. Thoughts.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to close the public portion so that we can discuss it amongst ourselves and bring up some issues that we can bring back to
Mr. Rejman: We will close the public portion to allow us to discuss amongst ourselves and hold your comments please, we will be touching all sides of this issue and then we will open it back up.
Mr. Darrow: Over all I think it would make a nice added feature to that property, it is going to be nicely done, properly buffers, considering they are going to meet all zoning and building codes with the exception of the use variance. I am truly in 13 years have never been so undecided about something up in the air.
Some of the issues that come to me on this are the fact we haven’t seen any real financial hardship on the property itself, starting with question 18, the only thing that was filled in was the date of purchase. So we need some dollars and cents to see that there is a hardship and as the other neighbors have said, there has never been a sign there, they have never tried to market it as an R-1, so there is another issue, there is no track record for that.
My other big concern is we don’t have any thing of a traffic study and this is something where I think Officer Weed might be needed because they are a narrower street and traffic patterns of when Mercy Rehab lets out, what time their operations are they could be letting out at the same time. These are other concerns that I have over letting that go commercial, while I grant you that latter one perhaps may better fall upon Planning’s lap but the application happen to land here currently.
Mr. Rejman: Good comments. Anyone else? I have concerns on the traffic flow. I have concerns that there are no sidewalks, for some reason that bothers me I am not sure if it applies. 85 parking spaces that could generate another 100 people if you wanted to.
Mr. Darrow: Maybe not today or tomorrow, but at some point in time.
Mr. Rejman: You are right about, if the testimony was right that there are people parking in the street now it will aggravate that whole situation but on the flip side Mercy Rehab will have to do something with providing additional parking.
Ms. Marteney: How is it their responsibility that people park in the street inappropriately? Not there responsibility.
Mr. Rejman: No it is not. To be honest we don’t have any financial dollars and cents hardship that we need to deal with, we need that.
Ms. Marteney: There isn’t any documentation though it doesn’t fall on Seneca Cayuga ARC responsibility but we don’t know if they have looked at parcels of property in the community and there is one someone mentioned in that neighborhood, I would have no idea what the price
Mr. Rejman: Not to say that this might not be a good project for that, but we just have these issues.
Ms. Marteney: It is a real hard neighborhood to drive through because the streets not having curbs at all I can understand peoples concerns about people parking an messing up their yards and it is a tight area there.
Mr. Rejman: And in the winter when there is snow.
Ms. Marteney: When I drove through over the weekend there were enough people there, the cars along the road.
Mr. Rejman: Comments, concerns.
Mr. Westlake: Some of the houses that Mr. Bouck has in his list here, we all know that the housing market is depressed anyways so it is awful hard to say that
Ms. Marteney: But that is what the market is. It doesn’t matter whether it is depressed or not, that is what it is. Is someone has $120,000 to build a house on that spot that is what you have to put it up against.
Mr. Westlake: Could have two houses on there if they want.
Ms. Marteney: Somebody would have to build two $120,000 houses.
Mr. Westlake: Right you don’t know that. Like the people said, they have never seen a for sale sign there.
Ms. Marteney: We haven’t had any indication that they tried to market it at all ever.
Mr. Westlake: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: There is my biggest concern. There is no track record that Mr. Bouck has carried it on his books for 3 years, he started marketing it at $35,000 and is now down to $9,000 still no takers. That is very, very important hardship that we need.
Ms. Marteney: Or that they tried to subdivide it or divided into two parcels. I am uncomfortable with that because there is no hardship indicated in that at all. Or that the price started out at $100,000 and they are taking $1,000 for it today. There is no indication of what the sale price is versus what the current market is for that type of property.
Mr. Rejman: Or that they made an offer to Mercy for additional parking lot and was rejected.
Mr. Darrow: That is a perfect use. I would like to see us table it with some answers put forth their representatives and perhaps that time will give the neighbors as you suggested a month to digest the project and perhaps come up with how they feel about it now that they have seen it and what actually is going to be done and what the purpose and need in our community is for a place like this, perhaps it is not the right place, but it is something that is needed in our community, perhaps it is the right place.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Ms. Aubin: This is proposed building, not a definite plan that the building is going to look like that right.
Mr. Rejman: Pretty close probably.
Mr. Darrow: Planning will have final say on that.
Mr. Rejman: Probably close but again it was suggested to us that they wanted to maintain that residential look to it.
I think we all are on the same page here. We need some more time, need some more answers.
I would like to reopen the public portion. Who would like to take the presentation, would you come forward please. I guess you sat there and heard some of our concerns, you are making notes, really concerned about hardship, dollars and cents. We would like some information on that.
Mr. Darrow: Just question 18 alone needs more than one answer on the application. The amount of the property, when it was purchased, values.
I guess what we would need then the firm that is representing Mr. Boehler, who ever is handling his. You are acting on behalf of ARC or are you Mr. Boehler’s representative as well?
Mr. Lynch: Mr. Boehler is the owner, he has assigned his rights to apply for this use variance to ARC. ARC is the applicant and Mr. Boehler is the owner. The reason why these look empty and maybe it should have been more specific, but it was intended to be included in Mr. Bouck’s report to answer all of the questions.
Mr. Darrow: I didn’t see any of these answers in Mr. Bouck’s report. So if you would like to put a page and paragraph next to these questions that would be fine. Again we need proof of hardship, there is no other purpose for it, we need to be able to hang our hat on something, dollars and cents and the fact that it has tried to be marketed over “x” amount of time and what the results were. You just can’t say no body else wants to buy it, when he had never had it for sale.
Mr. Lynch: Not to be argumentative but your zoning law says that you need a showing that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return.
Mr. Rejman: Dollars and cents.
Mr. Lynch: This is what you have heard from an expert
Mr. Darrow: But you have to understand asking and digging for these questions, we are not only protecting ourselves, we are protecting you and the community because if this should ever end up in an Article 78 it all could be done in vain, unless those questions are answered and are part of our minutes. You follow what I am saying?
Mr. Lynch: Absolutely and I am just trying to bring out the point that there are some properties that are so inappropriate for new residential development that there isn’t an effort made to do that.
Ms. Marteney: We didn’t hear that.
Mr. Rejman: Allow me to move this forward. Yes we need something in dollars and cents. We have had occasion lately to have been called to task on a few of our rulings that we did not have sufficient financial evidence provided to us
Mr. Darrow: No reasonable rate of return
Mr. Rejman: No reasonable rate of return. I would also like to acknowledge from Paul Llewellyn of 24 St. Anthony Street we do have a letter that will be submitted into the record. Some of those issues should be addressed also.
I would like unanimous consent to table this until next month. (All in favor to table).
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
| 
