ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004
Members Present: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
One Vacancy
Staff Present: Mr. Leone
Mr. Hicks
Mrs. Hoffmann
APPLICATIONS 50 Fitch Avenue
APPROVED: 8 Underwood Street
79 Elizabeth Street
183 Van Anden Street
217 Grant Avenue
217 Grant Avenue
APPLICATION
TABLED: 45 Columbus Street
APPLICATION
DENIED: Northwest corner St. Anthony and Leavenworth Streets
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have:
50 Fitch Avenue
8 Underwood Street
79 Elizabeth Street
183 Van Anden Street
Northwest corner Letchworth and St. Anthony Sts.
217 Grant Avenue
217 Grant Avenue
45 Columbus Street
There seems to be a lot of interest in the Seneca-Cayuga and we just talked the board here and we would like to do that first. That way you won’t have to be sitting here for half hour or 45 minutes. So can we get that going.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004
Northwest corner St. Anthony and Leavenworth Streets, R-1, use variance for professional office building to provide day services for developmentally handicapped consumers. Seneca-Cayuga ARC.
Mr. Rejman: Please speak loudly, use the mike, if you would. Thank you.
Mr. Smith: Thank you my name is Kevin Smith, I am Executive Director of Cayuga-Seneca ARC. As you know you have an application for a use variance and to allow our organization to be able to build a facility to house program space for 24 people with developmental disabilities along with support office space and staff training area for 55 staff. We provided you with supplemental information as reflected in the revised application for the use variance and Charlie Lynch from Boyle & Anderson will address that. We followed up on some issues regarding questions about financial hardship those will be addressed by John Bouck. We did complete a traffic study, I believe you got a copy of that tonight. Gordon Stanberry will take
a few minutes to review the conclusions of that study.
I note the last time we were here parking was mentioned as an issue. I just wanted to emphasize the lot that we were proposing will be an 85 car lot and I have had conversations with administrators of Mercy Rehab that that lot could be available to them during the second and third shifts and weekends or any time that we were not able to use it, could use it for over flow parking situation.
Then there was a question about whether or not the owner had ever offered the parcel to them for parking. They did say that he did, however it wasn’t a formal offer and it didn’t actually, it was never something that was formally reacted to by Mercy. According to their recollection it was about 10 years ago.
Establishment of the facility will allow 55 jobs to remain in the City. We expect that at least 5 new positions would be added the first and we would very much like to be able to remain within Auburn City limits. So with that, I would like to introduce Charlie Lynch.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Lynch: My name is Charles Lynch, I am from the Boyle & Anderson in Auburn and represents the applicants Seneca-Cayuga ARC tonight.
Woman in audience: Speak up!
Man in audience: We can’t hear you back here!
Mr. Lynch: Sorry about that, I will speak up. I have taken the liberty of submitting a Memorandum of Law, which do everyone have a copy of that tonight?
Mr. Leone: Charlie, they just received a copy when it came in, I also have not had a chance to read it yet. I guess it was directed to Steve this afternoon.
Mr. Lynch: Yes, that is correct. The Memorandum of Law addresses certain items in the record by page and item, as to certain components which are required in order for you to grant a use variance. The purpose of the Memorandum is to focus on the requirements for establishing unnecessary hardship and what must be done to prove the four prongs of the test for unnecessary hardship. That being establishment of a lack of reasonable return, unique circumstances for the hardship to this property, no alteration of the essential character of the neighborhood and the hardship cannot be self-created by the owner or applicant.
Throughout the Memorandum you are going to see references to the record before you. That is very important because that is the bases upon which you are going to make your decision and the record is also the bases upon which a Court is going to review your decision. Most cases on appeal from an adverse decision by the Zoning Board are lost because the applicant at the Zoning Board level fails to address by competent evidence so of the important requirements for the relief they are requesting. For example an application for a use variance, if an applicant didn’t demonstrate that there was a lack of reasonable return to the property didn’t address, the Court would shot down the appeal. Great pains
have been taken in this case to prove each and every one of the requirements for establishing unnecessary hardship by competent evidence.
What does constitute the record before you. Well, of course, there is the application. The application has been revised at your request to make specific reference to the various sections of Mr. Bouck’s report in support of the application. The report by John Bouck, a certified appraiser, indicates that in summary that there is not market for this property to be used for single family residential dwelling. He has in his report relied on the letter of another expert, John Wejko, a long-standing homebuilder in the Auburn area, known to many of you, I am sure. Mr. Wejko recites that the average cost of home construction on an approved lot in the City of Auburn is between $90 and $100 per square foot. Mr. Bouck has expanded on that and will expand further to tell you that depending upon what variables there are, the cost may even exceed $100 per square foot.
The record before you demonstrates that the average sale price for homes in this neighborhood is between $50,000 and $80,000. Mr. Bouck concludes that the use of the property for residential purposes cannot be considerable viable, or economically feasible. Unfortunately single family residential is the only real permitted use in an R-1 district.
I won’t read through the entire Memorandum of Law, that is there for your convenience, I hope you do look at it carefully. What I want you to do when you listen to the various people that come up there tonight, is to listen carefully to what they are saying, listen to this because this is the record before you. You have the record of Mr. Bouck, certified appraiser, he is a qualified expert in this area. You also have the written letter from Mr. John Wejko, another qualified expert in the area of home building. We are going to hear tonight from Gordon Stanberry and you also have his written report before you, he is a traffic engineer, another qualified expert in his field of expertise.
You are going to hear from the owner of the property I believe again, Winfield C. Boehler. Mr. Boehler will tell you, he will make reference to the expenses which he has incurred over the years and continues to incur by virtue of his ownership of this property for which he has not reasonable expectation of recovery unless he can sell it.
We haven’t spent a lot of time on the fact that this property is unique, it is subject to unique circumstances. In this neighborhood there is no other 2-acre vacant parcel of land located across the street from a structure like Mercy Hospital and bounded on the rear by another commercial venture. There is no other property of similar size and location which makes this land which gives rise to this hardship unique.
The board’s estimate of the probable affect of a use will have on a specific neighborhood must be governed by the specific and unique circumstances that exist in the vicinity of the proposed use. The immediate neighborhood in which this use will be located contains not only single family residential dwellings, but a very large commercial site Mercy Rehabilitation Center and other commercial use Mr. Boehler’s florist and greenhouse businesses. That is the immediate neighborhood. The expanded neighborhood includes high-density residential use buildings, Auburn Housing Authority and Melone Village and other commercial uses. The proposed use would be a quiet business use consisting primarily of daytime
residential use with offices situated on the property and that can be found in developer’s report. As such, the proposed use is in keeping with the present character of the neighborhood.
You are also going to hear testimony again from Tom Redmond of Beardsley Design Associates and the steps that have been taken to make this property compatible with some of the residential buildings in the neighborhood, give it a residential look if you will.
The site plan and the architectural style proposals presented Beardsley Design Associates are all part of the ever important record.
The affect of the proposed use on the motor vehicle traffic in the neighborhood is a proper consideration for the Zoning Board. I think you are going to hear testimony tonight from Mr. Stanberry that based upon the investigation that he has done there would be no meaningful increase in the traffic volume in this neighborhood as a result of this use. It is also going to be established on the record that parking for this facility is going to be on site parking, no parking on the street. There will be more than ample parking required under the Zoning Law for this facility.
One thing that may not have been made clear but will be made clear tonight is that unlike the present situation, this development would include sidewalks along both St. Anthony Street and Leavenworth Street.
I understand that you have before you letter from Officer Tom Weed of the Auburn Police Department voicing some concerns about the impact that this development would have on traffic in this neighborhood. Mr. Stanberry, again qualified expert, has concluded that there will be no meaningful increase in the volume of traffic. We would be taking pedestrians off the street and no increase in on street parking would result from this development.
We touched upon already upon the reasons why the unnecessary hardship we are talking about here has not been self-created. The Zoning Law, if you will, grew up around the Boehler premises. This property has been used for commercial purposes since at least the early 1900’s. It has been used as a florist and greenhouse business, a thriving one, since before 1921 until 1981, I believe, the early 1980’s, building existed on the very subject property that we are talking about tonight that were used in that business. So at least until 1981 there is no way that this property could have been used for single family residential purposes. By the time those buildings were taken down because they were financially impracticable to keep running, it was no longer possible
to market this property, this lot, this 2 acre parcel for single family residential purposes. The neighborhood had changed to the point where that just has not been feasible for Mr. Boehler.
Proponents of this application are presenting a petition I believe. A question how many of the people who signed the petition and granted there will be some, I would say that most of them did not attend the last hearing and are not really aware of the specifics of the proposed use and what it would entail. And like with many petitions, people sign without really knowing all the facts.
I believe you are also in receipt of a letter from one of the neighbors containing a lot of conclusions but I didn’t really see much bases for those conclusions, when I say bases I make reference to case laws, statutory laws, etc.
And lastly, I really think you have to balance the record before you in favor of this application that being the oral and written evidence of testimony of three qualified experts and the written evidence of three of them and the oral evidence by two, as well as the other materials provided by Beardsley Design Associates and lastly the Memorandum of Law which you have before you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stanberry: Good evening, my name is Gordon Stanberry, with Stantec Consultant, formerly Sear Brown. I am a registered professional engineer in New York State, who has done quite a bit of work with the City of Auburn in the past as Sear Brown before the recent name change. Just FYI we have done on behalf of the City some traffic impact study reviews for KFC, as well as the Sunoco up by Wal-Mart that was proposed. We completed the Connector Road traffic impact study for the connector between Routes 34 and 5. We have also been doing a lot of work on the Fingerlakes Mall doing the signal and timing for signal improvements for the new Bass Pro Shop, as well as we are currently completing traffic impact study for the future growth Mall. So we
are very familiar with the area, we have done a lot of work here.
We were asked to take a look at this development and really do four things. Review the existing operations in the area, identify the traffic generation that we would foresee with this development, identify and develop the distribution of that traffic, how it would go through local street network and then finally identify any impacts, if any, this traffic would have on the local streets.
Starting with the traffic generation development. We received information from the Seneca-Cayuga ARC for their planned staffing levels, they have planned 22 full time staff members that will work roughly 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. They have 24 part time staff members that will spend a portion of the day between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at the facility. They have 14 day rehabilitation employees, 16 staff training employees and then finally there are 5 vans that will be planned to drop off participants for the rehab and then 2 vans that will be based on site that will make 1 trip per day. Looking at those numbers, we decided to go with the most conservative estimate and say that all of those people drive individually
to the development in their own car, except for the part time employees which we would say half of those would be arriving in the morning and half would be leaving in the evening. With that, getting all those numbers together we have a total of 71 people that we foresee arriving in the morning and departing in the evening. Again, a conservative number because we would expect a portion of those people to use the busing system, possible car poolers, some over lap between full time employees and the training employees, so we feel 71 people is a very conservative number of what we would see traveling to the facility.
As we noted there are 85 spaces proposed on site so there is ample on site parking and we do not foresee any on street parking associated with this development. We conducted a site visit during the morning peak hour and the afternoon peak mainly 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. in the morning when traffic is arriving at the Mercy Rehab facility and then from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. when they have their afternoon shift change. The idea of looking at these two times were mainly that we would expect our facility to share the same distribution of traffic that the Mercy facility currently has due to the similar uses. In our time that we were at the site, we did not note any significant traffic congestion. Traffic volumes were
relatively low in the area. We did note that all of the existing on street was occupied by the Mercy employees, but we also noted that two of their parking lots were substantially empty. More than adequate parking to accommodate all of their current on street parking. We then during the actual shift changes, we actually followed cars through the street network to see where they were arriving from and where they were departing to in the afternoon. We tracked 26 cars coming in the morning and 28 cars going out in the evening. Based on that car following we found of that traffic arriving in the morning approximately 46% arrived on Chapman Avenue from Route 34, approximately 27% arrived Dunning Avenue from the north, likely coming from Genesee Street or Routes 5 and 20. And then 27% arrived from Dunning Avenue or Thornton Avenue from the south, likely coming from Clymer Street from Route 34.
The traffic existing the development is very similar about 43% go out on Chapman Avenue in the afternoon, 36% were going up Dunning Avenue and the 21% were traveling towards the south back towards Clymer. Based on that distribution we took our 71 cars and distributed them over the street network which would result in anticipated 33 vehicles entering in the morning on Chapman Avenue, 31 exiting on Chapman Avenue in the evening, likewise about 20 to 25 cars on Dunning Street coming from Genesee Street or Route 5 and 20 and then other 15 to 20 arriving on Thornton or Dunning from the south. This volume of traffic we do not feel will have any significant impacts on the roadway. It is a very low increase in traffic.
Again, we point out the fact that we have significant or sufficient on site parking, we are not expecting to impact the on street parking operations.
With that our conclusion is that we do not anticipate any negative impacts on traffic operations.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bouck: Good evening. My name is John Bouck. Charlie asked me to provide a list of my credentials to everyone. One, it is in the appraisal report which I think everyone has. Secondly, I think I know everyone here. I have been in business over 43 years in this community.
Why I was asked to be here is to take a look at this property and determine what its ultimate uses could be and I took this on regardless of what it was going to be used for, I tried to determined what the potential uses are of the property and that is exactly what you have to do.
It is zoned R-1 which means that it can be used for a single family residential. There are a few other ancillary types of uses like schools, churches, etc., but I don’t see those as being very feasible down there and not just down there but practically in any other location, we don’t have a typical market for that. It is a larger vacant lot. So the first question I had to ask was is there a market in the area for new single family homes, because there is nothing existing right now. I looked around the neighborhood, the people that live there have testified in the past at the last meeting, that they have problems because of high density housing down there, which is the Auburn Housing Authority,
Melone Village, with Mercy Rehab and other heavy commercial traffic that is near the subject, the property we are talking about Leavenworth and the area in Dunning Avenue area right behind it. Those uses alone preclude typically or inhibit new family construction, single family construction. To be practical I also looked at the total market around the area, I brought this to you before and I provided it in your packets that I gave everyone, everyone has here, most of the sales in the neighborhood range from $40,000 to $70,000, I spent quite a bit of time going through this and pulling out the sales over the last couple of years. There are number of them below that amount that have sold, there are a few that are above that amount, but the neighborhood typically is a neighborhood with homes that are selling for approximately $65,000. That is not a negative. The homes are very nice, they are attractive and there is a lot of pride of ownership in the
neighborhood, but what the question is, is whether or not a speculator or builder is going to come in to that particular location, take a lot that is subdivided, and you are going to have to build a number of houses there, if someone wanted to subdivide it and are they going to invest the money in new housing in that location? Well the question you have to look at, the point you have to look at, is what is the cost. The cost and I have done a number of them, is going to minimum of $80 a square foot and up to $100 and certainly with something a little different a contemporary it is going to be far more than that per square foot. That means for an average 1,000 square foot small ranch, roughly 24 x 28 feet it is going to going $100,000 or more to build. And that is not including the lot. Are you going to be able to build a house there, include the lot and sell for $120,000 to $130,000? You just have to ask yourself do you want to be the first one
to build that $120,000 house in a neighborhood that is typically around $65,000? Unfortunately the market is just limited for it.
For the same reason, no such new construction has taken place in the area for probably 20 to 25 years. I build down in the area on Garrow Street Extension, so I know what I am talking about down there. There are some nice homes but the market unfortunately is not there for a higher end home. It is there if you want to build a $65,000 house, but you can’t do that today unfortunately.
The things I just want to go over briefly I know you have been inundated with all this information. The important factors that you have to make a determination based on. Number 1, what about the return to any property owner, including in this case, this particular property owner. It is my feeling that the owner can’t expect to find a typical buyer interested in the property for the uses that are allowed now, that is going to create a lack of return because he can’t sell it.
Secondly, the hardship is unique, it is unique to the community, as well as the area because of the high density housing and the commercial uses in the area including Mercy Rehab, there are few other large vacant parcels of property in the area that face the same problem of marketability. I might add if there were a single lot down there, we are talking about a lot that was 80 or 75 feet wide by 150 deep, it would probably be marketable, you could find someone who want to move back to the area that was originally from it or likes the area. But that is not practical with a large lot like this.
Next, the hardship is not self-created. The owner of this property didn’t create the zoning for the property, he has property in the family for generations, as I am sure you, the zoning changed around the property, somewhat selectively in some of the areas. The owner didn’t have the zoning changed and certainly didn’t create the zoning problem that has diminished his value, the marketability or the potential use of the property.
What the law in common sense dictates as it is that if the zoning precludes the only practical of use of the land that is economically feasible and prevents its development it imposes an unnecessary hardship and warrants the granting of a variance. Now I am not going to go through the appraisal report, every body has it. I am sure you have all read it, but I just paraphrased one area that I indicated that kind of sums it up with the proposed use here, it is going to provide a quiet compatible use for the neighborhood and also maintain the value of the surrounding properties in the area. It will allow the owner of the subject property on Leavenworth to develop or sell the property to another entity and he may not be able to otherwise. If this is not allowed I find it doubtful
the property would have an available market if the owner decided to dispose of it. In my opinion the subject site cannot generate a reasonable return for its permitted use as a single family residential property. The hardship is unique in that it is does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood or the district. The proposed use will not alter the basic characteristics of the neighborhood in which it is located. And lastly the hardship was not self-created by the owner. This type of quiet professional use is the nature of business that we want in this community, creating jobs and it creates a quiet working environment for not only the community but the neighborhood. Now I certainly would be willing to answer questions if anyone has any. Did a lot of research on this.
Mr. Rejman: I think we would like to take testimony first, John.
Mr. Bouck: That is fine, I will be available.
Mr. Redmond: Thank you, my name is Tom Redmond, I am a professional architect, registered architect with Beardsley Design Associates. I have been with Beardsley’s for 23 years now. We have been working over the past several months working on a plan for Seneca-Cayuga ARC. I know we went over this in great detail last time, but I just want to hit a couple highlights.
The site is about a little over 2 acres. The proposed building is going to be no more than 14,750 square feet. We are providing as you heard before, 85 parking spaces on the site for staff, training and some visitors. We are also providing a drop off area which I think has been confused with a tractor trailer drop off loading area, but it is marked loading on the building, just to the left of the building, that is just a pull off within the site for the vans servicing the building and dropping off residents.
Buffering is certainly a key subject particularly when you are separating commercial type operation with residential. What we have done along Leavenworth and St. Anthony Streets we are going to continue a streetscape as you would find in a residential area. Right now there is really no trees or landscaping there, so where you see those trees that follow Leavenworth and St. Anthony is going to create a desirable appearance as you come down those streets. Also on the west side towards florist we will be providing a fence to separate those two areas. On the north and northwest by zoning requirements we are going to have a 60 foot landscape buffer between any residential area and commercial area, so it will be a
combination of berm and heavy landscape planting and there are very specific requirements and calculations for developing those numbers as far as zoning.
Lastly, I would like to touch on the architectural style. We have done a building as you can see that is very similar to what we are proposing. This is up in Plattsburgh. We will be using a lot of materials that are used in residential construction. It will be wood framed with siding as you see on most houses, shingled roof and use of dormers to break down the scale of the building. As you can see something that would be very compatible with the neighborhood. I think we have done as best as we can to really make this good for the neighborhood, blend with the style and have parking off street and create something that will be very special to the neighborhood.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
Mr. Boehler: Good evening, I am Winfield C. Boehler, owner of the property in question here. I can go back quite a few years there, in fact I was born at that property and I watched the development of the neighborhood through the years. When I was growing up right after WW II, our house was the last house on Dunning Avenue before you got to the City line. City line was on the east side of the road, so I remember all these developments going on in the area from there on. That is just a side light.
The property in question, since we are not being able to use it as a commercial greenhouse operation due to the cost of fuel oil for one thing and inefficient greenhouses, why we just had to tear them down which left vacant land. We are paying $4,524.75 annual taxes on the major portion of that. We have spent roughly $3,953 in mowing every summer to keep that property mowed. For many years we had one of our drivers had a tractor and mower and would come in on one of his days during the week and mow it for us. Well, we lost the driver and of course the mowing. So we went off and purchased a used mower which was $2,568 and through the years, that was in 1996, we have spent $3,368 on repairs on that and
maintenance and what not. Other than that we don’t have much use for that property. I truly feel that this project that you see in front of you will be the best possible use for that parcel. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, thank you. I assume that concludes the presentation, am I correct in that for now?
Mr. Smith: There are some people that want to speak for the project.
Mr. Rejman: At this point I would like to ask is there anyone wishing to speak for or against -- on advice from counsel, we are going to do it this way. Is there anyone wishing to speak for the application? Come up please.
Ms. VanDusen: My name is Michele VanDusen and I am the administrator of the day rehabilitation services in Cayuga County for Seneca-Cayuga ARC. I have had to opportunity to work for the agency for the past 15 ½ years and have truly been able to see an agency that is committed to providing the services for folks with disabilities.
Over the past four to five years we have been looking at relocating our day hab program. We have been in buildings that aren’t accessible that truly don’t meet the needs of the folks that we work with. So we have been looking for vacant facilities, we are also looking at purchasing land which we are talking about tonight to build a site specifically for a group of folks that truly have a number of physical disabilities as well as medical limitations. In our day hab program we work with the folks to teach them skills so that they can be productive citizens within our community. To teach them skills so that they can be independent as possible in their daily lives. In order to do that we really need an environment that allows them to have the space for their
needs and this site really would allow us that opportunity to provide that for those folks. Our consumers are committed to being a part of community, being active in the community. We have a number of individuals that volunteer at the Rescue Mission, we deliver Meals on Wheels, and we volunteer at the local food pantries. We want to be able to continue to give these individuals the opportunity to be centrally located in the City of Auburn.
In closing, I am hoping that you will consider this motion to approve us to purchase this site so that we can continue to enhance the lives of folks with developmental disabilities and give them the environment that they deserve. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Any one else wishing to speak for the application? Yes?
Mr. Cosentino: My name is Guy Cosentino and I am the Executive Director of Options for Independence an organization that works with people with disabilities and we have a working relationship with the Seneca-Cayuga ARC. I also happen to live in the neighborhood, across the street from Mr. and Mrs. Boehler and my parents own a business there that also happens to have old greenhouses. I am here to speak on behalf of the applicant, it is odd that I not only live across the street from this property, but my grandparents who are here as well as my uncle live at 14 St. Anthony Street, which is up from the property itself and we have talked about this as well and what it would do to traffic patterns and what it would do to the value of property.
I do think there is a limited use, I was on the Zoning Board when the issue of rezoning that area came up, I believe in 1991 – 1992, Mrs. Hoffmann remember we did deal with the issue of R-3 in that district and changed that with the idea that from time to time, organizations or individuals would have come before the City and specifically the Zoning Board to get their variances, there would not these blanket properties with these changes.
I think that most likely in that area there is not a lot of other uses for those properties, we would all love to have homes go up there, but I don’t think that is likely. I did get a question from one of the Zoning Board members a couple weeks ago after the last hearing, saying what about the large F shaped property that runs behind my parents property goes up to Chapman and abuts Dunning. For example, that area I don’t believe the owner has ever wanted to subdivide it, which would chop up that property and make it useful for housing or an establishment, but he has not in the last twenty years that he has owned it wanted to do that. It is difficult to have greenhouses in that area. I have lived in that neighborhood for 40 years on and off, I still live there,
nobody wants anything to change. I don’t blame anyone for not wanting change. I am glad to have certain things happen there that have green spaces, but there is a need in this community specifically for Seneca-Cayuga ARC, they have changed their management in the last decade to be a very good citizen in this community to show that not only are they dealing with the needs of Seneca County, but specifically major changes dealing with the people in Cayuga County. They greatly wanted to move their facility one part of the City to another. We are very mindful of the needs to try to integrate communities and neighborhoods which is a major objective not only of Options but many of the disability organizations in our community. I would be happy to answer questions. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for the application? Ok, let’s open it up to opposed. Is anyone wishing to speak against it? Yes.
Mr. Barwinczok: My name is John Barwinczok, I live on Leavenworth Avenue and I have been there approximately 37 years, second home built on that street. There is in excess of five new homes built in that one block area and there are four houses on the corner of the adjacent street. Currently there is a home on Clymer Street around the corner under construction, other one up on Clymer under construction and I have a vacant lot, single family dwelling to get someone willing to buy it to develop and put a home in there, but I haven’t put it up for sale so that is my problem. I invested in it, it is my risk.
The proposed landlord that owns property he bought that property in 1969 at his own risk to enhance his business. He reaped the profit off it will it was good, the business goes down, now the property is a hardship for him. He says he is paying taxes, is the new proposed building going to be paying taxes or are they tax exempt? If it goes off the rolls, we have to pick up the tax costs, the City, the people.
Mr. Bouck, 40 years experience as a real estate broker, he used his own method of evaluation. Assessor’s Office upstairs uses national standards to evaluation our homes. My house is assessed for $96,000, I am a block and a quarter away from the land that they are talking about. I worked in quality control and statistics for 35 years. You put your answer down here and you pick and choose the information you are going to throw into the equation to get your answer. Mr. Bouck said that property one time I heard $70,000 other time I heard $80,000, he used a bunch of homes that he selected to come up with the equation he wanted to meet. I can name you right here his house over $60,0000 to $70,000,
his house, my house, I can name 5 or 6 within the first block area. He says that Melone Village, the hospital draws down the value of the property. He knew that when he bought that lot in the ‘60’s. Are we to bail out every body that makes a bad investment in the City by changing the rules and ordinances to accommodate them? I think this is getting out of hand. The Zoning Board is a division of the City. The Assessor’s Office is a division of the City. They should take in mind the national standards that the Assessor uses also when they evaluate and make a decision on this. Don’t take one person’s rule and use another person’s rules to jeopardize my property and the first gentleman that spoke, zero traffic increase, zero, no traffic increase. The engineer that just spoke here he is saying 25%, 30% increases in this direction and that direction. Why did he say no increase and now he is
saying there is an increase in traffic. Talk about both sides. I think they are going to get you all confused here. Settle down and look at some standards and do a real honest evaluation. Look at the property borders that are paying dearly taxes. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone else wishing to speak? Yes, come forward please.
Mr. Daloia: My name is Joe Daloia, I live on the corner of Center and Leavenworth Avenue. 47 years ago this month, we were digging for our new home and we moved in December, that is a little history. Now I just would like to preempt what I want to say is that Winfield is an Eagle Scout and we Scouters don’t lie, so what I say now is the truth ok.
When we choice to build our home on Center Street in 1957 all of that area including the rehab was R-1, we had no recourses as far as the rehab was concerned. That is a hospital, right? Ok, now why are we changing? 95% of the fellows who built the homes that were built in that area were built by veterans from WW II and the Korean War and we have proof of that. Let me also tell you about Melone Village. Are you aware that when we built our home on Center Street and Leavenworth it was only 1/3 of the size that it is today. We have no recourse when they increased the thing. But you also know that in order to be resident there you have to be a veteran. And that is all I want to say as
I think we don’t need to have a change. We paid for 47 years, we have been paying all kinds of taxes there. Let’s not change things.
One other thing, I have a garden there and a garden takes a lot of care and during the course of the summer I am out in the garden my neighbors are probably inside watching the Yankees play and it is not inconceivable someone stops by the garden and says to me, do you know who owns this property on the southeast corner. I say I believe it belongs to the Mercy Rehab. Is it for sale? I am not aware of what they do. Then they point to the northwest corner and say who owns that? I say Mr. Boehler. That is all I have to say. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone else wishing to speak?
Mr. Llewellyn: My name is Charles Llewellyn. I live on St. Anthony Street. My house if you look it up is worth approximately $75,000. When I built that house I was making $5.00 an hour and I worked hard for my money. Second thing, this guy that gives that report on traffic, now, I sat out there the other morning when it was nice and I counted 24 cars going by my house. Now he says there is not going to be any more traffic. He didn’t even say anything about the tractor trailers, the semis that go through there. Never mentioned it. He didn’t mention the fire trucks that have to go through there. None of that was mentioned.
Now Mr. Boehler says he pays $3,000 to have his grass cut. I am watching him cut his own, now does he pay himself? Do I get paid to cut my grass, you or you or you? No, you don’t so why should he get it? He didn’t say anything about that. And I guess that is what I can say. Thanks for listening.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Yes, come forward.
Mr. Llewellyn: My name is David Llewellyn, that was my father just spoke. All this talk, this is the same song and dance as last month. But all this talk about traffic this and that, they still have not established that there is a hardship. There is nothing there. You are just taking Mr. Bouck’s word for it. Mr. Bouck is saying that it is $100 a square foot to build houses. Has Mr. Bouck ever heard of modular houses? Because that is what is going up on the west end. They all are perfectly fine. There is no reason why he can’t sell that property four half acre lots for $5,000 each. Two months in a row, tow applications in a row he still has neglected to put any value for his property.
Nothing, we will offer him $10,000 right now for half of it. I mean it is just inconceivable to sit there and put on that application 0 value, it is ridiculous. Every empty lot on the west side of town is filling up, there is just no point to it.
What is even the point of having zoning? The government is restricting your rights to use your property. If he just make an exception because somebody just wants to make more money off the property how is that far? Maybe my parents will just let their house go to hell, let it fall apart and then come before you in five years and say my house is falling apart I can’t sell it as a residential single family, you have to let me split it into two uses. His property, those buildings and his rental property are the rattyish buildings on the whole block. Everybody else in the block is fixing up their property, keeping it nice. And he is letting his go to hell, he is coming before you and claiming his
own neglect in his own property as his problem, problem is not his, he is saying you have to cut me some slack. Yet, this is a stable moderate income neighborhood, you have to protect your house. Every body says no body wants to buy property in Auburn, that is why no body wants to buy property in Auburn because they are afraid their house their biggest investment of their life is going to become the next Washington Street or Orchard Street. Every body knows this. That is all I have to say. You have my brother’s letter.
Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak? Yes.
Mr. Eddy: I am Charlie Eddy of 134 Dunning Avenue. I am among many qualified R-1 experts here. I would echo the rest of my neighbors concerns although I think one thing has been overlook, if this thing passes, probably next week or next month there will be another group ahead of you to try to develop that 8 acres that is across the street from me. I really don’t want something that looks like the Volkswagen place over by the round house on the arterial in front of my house. That is what happens when many times with commercial without control. I stand here against this. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Any one else wish to speak?
Mrs. Llewellyn: My name is Rose Llewellyn I live at 24 St. Anthony Street, directly across the street where the proposed parking is going to be. The streets are narrow and as my son and everyone else mentioned there is a lot of traffic going up and down the street on St. Anthony. Mr. Bouck neglected to mention St. Anthony Street, he mentioned Chapman, he mentioned Dunning, and Genesee Street and Thornton, but we have a lot of traffic going up there. They speed up there some of these younger people that work at the rehab they can’t wait to get out at 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon and they are zooming down the street. Thank goodness my children are grown up. They were little at one time, that wasn’t too bad then, but now that Mercy has
grown a little bit more, there seems to be a lot more traffic.
As far as Mercy Rehab being commercial now, well Mercy Hospital was there probably over 100 years, so that we couldn’t change, that has to be there. His property on the land itself the assessment shows he said that property taxes were over $4,000, well the $4,000 includes the house and his other pieces of property. The land itself is assessed at $35,700, I checked it myself in the Assessor’s Office and he pays around $1,500 on the land, not $4,000. You don’t have to fool us people, we know what we are checking into. I guess that is all I wanted to point out to you.
I have nothing against the ARC, I have a handicapped niece and a handicapped nephew who belong to the ARC in Broome County, they belong there. I have nothing against them, I just don’t want this put across the street from our property, there are two other houses next to me, who would also have to put up with this parking across the street. I don’t know where the plan on putting the sidewalks, is it going to be on Leavenworth or St. Anthony Street. Our houses are going to be dug up for what, I don’t know. I just wanted to point that out to you that we have a tremendous amount of traffic on the street itself. Thank.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Is there a representative from the Auburn Police Department traffic and safety here?
Officer Weed: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Would you come forward? I am going to refer to this letter of April 22 that speaks about the traffic conditions. Are you familiar with it?
Officer Weed: Yes. I am Officer Tom Weed.
Mr. Rejman: Oh, very good. Would you recap this letter for us for the record. Your thoughts on this situation down there.
Officer Weed: Our biggest concern is the welfare and safety of the residents and the children in the area. We have a lot of kids that come from Melone Village and neighboring housing using that area to go to school. There are no sidewalks anywhere in this area. There is no curbing in the area. We are constantly going down there for parking because of Mercy Rehab and I think that one problem being when you see the empty parking lot and there is parking on the street at Mercy, I think the parking lots are the night shifts, when the day shift comes in, parking lots are full, they park on the street, then the night shift leaves and the parking is empty and the other people are on the street.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, can I interrupt you for a second. Can you tell me what constantly means? I mean how many times a week or day?
Officer Weed: I can check that and give you an exact. We get parking calls more so in the winter time than we do summer time. Because once they start plowing the streets, the streets narrow down
Mr. Rejman: Narrows down, all right
Officer Weed: The numbers that I have here for the Auburn Fire Department are true numbers. There were 150 calls to Mercy Rehab during the last 6 –7 years and they average 18 to 20 calls a year down there, some times a little more. Those are just fire rescue and fire alarm calls.
The other one of our concerns is that if you do have a major incident in this tall building, I don’t know where they would put fire equipment and emergency equipment with the streets being as narrow as they are down there. The big concern is , let me say this, kids walking in the street and as the neighbors say there is a lot of speeding and a lot of traffic, and not just traffic from Mercy Rehab or traffic from the neighborhood or traffic for this project, it is traffic that cuts through there for short cuts going to Melone Village and Dunning Avenue.
Mr. Rejman: Good, I appreciate that. We will reserve the right to questions. Anyone else wishing to speak against the application? Ok.
Mr. Barwinczok: I have one question.
Mr. Rejman: One question. State your name again for the record.
Mr. Barwinczok: John Barwinczok again. I noticed in the past week or so that the road directly in front of the proposed property has taken a change there is curbing already marked for construction with yellow, the colors to look for showing the utilities. Do they have an unofficial approval, just that one section is marked.
Mr. Darrow: Obviously they are gambling people.
Mr. Barwinczok: Gambling?
Mr. Darrow: They call UFPO, it is a free call.
Mr. Barwinczok: Who marks it out, utility marks it out.
Mr. Darrow: No UFPO marks it and that is a free call and they called.
Mr. Barwinczok: Looks like some one has the unofficial ok, we are just going through the motions here, wasting our time.
Mr. Rejman: Actually I would like Mr. Smith to come up for closing remarks and questions at this point.
Mr. Smith: We have done no work on that property nor authorized any work to be done on that property at all so I don’t know what the gentleman is referring to, but it has nothing to do what we are involved with.
I don’t have any closing remarks other than what has already been said. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Questions from the board at this time?
Mr. Darrow: Yes, you are the representative of ARC correct?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Where are you currently located?
Mr. Smith: We are located at various sites in the City of Auburn. Our main facility is 180 – 182 North Street, just north of the cemetery. We are in the same building as the E. John Garvas Center and we have the building immediately south to that. We have several homes in the City as well as other small what we call day services locations which are similar to the one in question.
Mr. Darrow: Ok. Are any of your other facilities going to close for these offices to open on St. Anthony.
Mr. Smith: We have leased space right now, we lease space from the YMCA on the 4th in the building on William Street. We have accessibility issues it is on the 4th floor, as well as the fact that we don’t adequate parking. So we would transfer the people who are at the William Street location to this site. We would also transport some people from North Street and some people from a location that we have on Ellis Drive in the Town of Aurelius, which is next to Stanton Automatics.
Mr. Darrow: So you have three leased facilities currently throughout the City and you are looking to combine as much as you can into one. You will not completely draw all from the Garvas Center.
Mr. Smith: No, we have a number of these facilities that the main facility that would move would be from the YMCA, the space that we lease from the YMCA and portions of others. We want to make a commitment to own space.
Mr. Darrow: One of your representatives said that you are looking for a central location. Do you consider that central spot of Auburn?
Mr. Smith: We want to be within the City limits, we want to be integrated with what the City has to offer. We have done an extensive review of available vacant spots in the City with the Planning Department. We haven’t found anything that meets our criteria. We have found a number of things that are outside the City limits in rural areas, that is not what we are about. We want to be in the City, we want people with disabilities to experience what the City has to offer and that is part of the criteria that we set up.
Mr. Darrow: Are you a tax exempt organization?
Mr. Smith: We are a tax exempt organization 501-C3, we do pay use tax.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Any other questions from the board?
Mr. Westlake: What you are looking for is to be in a residential area, that is what you are looking for?
Mr. Smith: We are looking to be in the City. Not necessarily in a residential area. We are looking to be where people with disabilities can experience the life of the City and that criteria being inside the City limits for us is important. Again, for a long period of time people with disabilities were shoved and shuttered from society, the people didn’t really want to deal with what they considered burden people with disabilities and we are all about showing people in the community what the capabilities of people with disabilities are and having people visible and having us have the ability to be able to access what the City has to offer is important to us.
Ms. Aubin: They mentioned about the vans and I assume are there buffers involved, will there be trucks and tractor trailers and that kind, just normal vans.
Mr. Smith: We would have two vans based at the facility which are essential like Ford Econoline extended vans, there would be up to 12 passengers. Some of them would be wheelchair accessible. We also have extended vans that bring people from their homes to the building at the beginning of the day and leave at the end. They are not buses, they are not Centro buses they are up to 24 passenger vans most of them accommodate 12 people with 6 people in wheelchairs. So they are not large buses but they are not small vans either, somewhere in between. So there would be 4 to 5 of those each morning.
Mr. Darrow: The vans that bring residents from their own homes that would be coming to this center, where are they currently going to now?
Mr. Smith: They are going a couple places, but right now we have a program on East Genesee Street on the corner of Hoffman Avenue and East Genesee Street, it is a little church. Right now our program is located at that center. It is a totally inappropriate site for the needs of the people that are there, the multiply disabled and require a physically accessible location as well as some design features that we just can’t do from the inside. So our plan would be to close that program and relocate these people this particular program. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much. Here is what I would like to do. I would call is there anyone wishing to speak for or against, you would be limited to two minutes and we would like to close this the public portion at 8:25 p.m. so we can get through this. One last call, any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Yes.
Mr. Eddy: I have a question.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, that too. Come forward, state your name please.
Mr. Eddy: Charlie Eddy, 134 Dunning Avenue. I wonder if there has been any contact with the City for property that would fit their requirements and a central location.
Mr. Rejman: That is outside of our knowledge.
Mr. Eddy: Would be a question for the principal involved.
Mr. Rejman: State your name again.
Mr. Lopez: Vince Lopez, Center Street, Auburn. I wanted to know if there is going to be a kitchen in this facility? Will they be cooking meals? We have a problem now with the people at Mercy dumping stuff off at 4:00 in the morning waking up all the neighbors.
Mr. Rejman: They only have day programs. Any one else wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Llewellyn: David Llewellyn. I just want to remind all of you this is not about emotion, convenience, this has to be decided on law and they have to meet all 4 points of the Zoning Law. You have the letter from my brother. They are not meeting these 4 points. It is not about emotion or convenience or traffic or anything, they have to pass that standard of the law.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
Mr. Llewellyn: My name is Charles Llewellyn. I have one question, I heard that they got a building permit already, is that true?
Mr. Rejman: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Llewellyn: Can he answer it?
Mr. Hicks: The Code Enforcement Office has not issued a building permit for this property and will not until a variance is granted.
Mr. Llewellyn: Ok, I wanted to know that. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak? Come forward please. State your name again for the record.
Mrs. Llewellyn: Rose Llewellyn. It was mentioned that there wouldn’t be a loading dock on that property, some body said that it would just be boxes being dropped off. How would they get the supplies, office supplies and whatever kink of supplies that they will need in the building? They have to have it dropped off some place, and to my knowledge I think that, my property is right across the street from that area and the loading dock is going to be on the side of the property. Also there are marks on Leavenworth Avenue. I don’t know what kind of marks they are it is DSNY whatever that means. With arrows.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Any one else wishing to speak. Seeing none, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Please let us do our discussion openly and candidly, no shouting. Luckily we do have assistance if we have to, if I have to go that route (people laugh) but we will be covering from left to right, up and down, we are going to talk it all out and hopefully come to a decision. Comments, concerns.
Mr. Westlake: Mr. Bouck stated that because of the density in the area already it is impossible to sell that lot. Are we going to put more burden on the tax payers by allowing this to go in there? He already said that you can’t sell property there now, if they put this building there with more density, it will be more of a burden on these people selling their homes down the line.
Mr. Darrow: My concern is, one of them is, Mr. Bouck addressed selling the lot strictly to a stock home builder, that he would not want to invest that kind of time and money for that area for a minimal or zero return investment. Where there other markets besides spec home builders. As a couple of the neighbors had said, you it can be subdivided into a couple other lots if it is 2 acres, may be divided into 3 lots and put on the market that way for R-1, modular homes. There are many other ways it could be an individual property owner may want to purchase it and put a house up. He spoke strictly on a spec home builder putting it up to sell for profit and that is not a good scenario.
The other thing I would have to completely agree with Mr. Barwinczok I believe it was, that you can make stats and figures say what ever you want them to say. It is all about what value to pull.
Another thing that was brought up was they are willing to put sidewalks in – in their layout. That is only going to be so many feet of sidewalks, there is still a lot of other area without sidewalks, without curbing, with other traffic and I myself have gone through there a number of times since last month to observe what the parking is like, what the traffic is like and I can understand what the people from St. Anthony Street are getting at when you see what the Mercy Rehab employees are doing. I can understand it, I would not want to live across from them.
The large problem I have had and this is one that sits in my mind the most, we have had no – zero proof that it has been tried, that they tried to market it as an R-1. We have had nothing from realtors, we have had nothing of a past listing. It looks like they have gone that this is the most economical return for them and skipped right over in trying to market as it’s zone purpose.
Ms. Marteney: I believe last month, a number of the neighbors indicated that they have never seen a sign on the property either. In terms of the property we never heard mention that it could be divided into separate properties and it be, for lack of a better term, owner occupied, that someone would build a house in that area. Now these other folks built their houses 30, 40, 50 years ago, that it a little bit different than today, but I don’t know that there isn’t a mark in town, because I do see new houses going up in that area and a lot of work being done on Clymer and some of the perpendicular streets along there.
Ms. Brower: I think Mercy Rehab is having a tremendous impact on the potential for that particular site. It looms over it. Every complaint is related to Mercy, it is impacting the owner of that property even if it isn’t exactly what we need for hardship, we need that specific designation I understand, but personally I think this is an excellent use of that space. It is a beautiful building. I think it will impact in a very attractive way everything around and one of the letters mentioned something about a dumpster facing their property, I was concerned about that, I would like to know where that would be. Also about the law, it indicates that there are three main ways of addressing the property or leaving the
property, I don’t understand that, I don’t see how that, I would like to get an answer on that. With the three existing routes connecting the site to the primary roadways in Auburn, that is Leavenworth, St. Anthony
Mr. Rejman: They are talking Dunning, Clymer, directionals out.
Ms. Brower: That just looks like one way to me or two, there isn’t really a whole lot of exiting space but again here is the person that owns that property being impacted by the abuse of the space for parking by Mercy Rehab, that has to be. Even this letter about concern for the safety of children, the number of vehicles coming in, fire trucks 20 times a year and the road being too narrow with snow, I think Mercy has to do something.
Mr. Darrow: I couldn’t agree more that Mercy is giving the neighborhood a black eye,
Ms. Brower: It is the black eye.
Mr. Darrow: If you listen to any of the points I brought up other than the one that I wouldn’t want to leave across the street from that parking, they were all related to that property to the applicant and to the lack of proof of trying to sell that property as it is currently zoned. And that is really what we need to look at.
Ms. Brower: From past experience that unless we can see that we won’t be upheld or something like that.
Mr. Rejman: We have had two.
Ms. Marteney: I am not a traffic specialist, but I added up the numbers the raw numbers that they gave us and said some people leave once and come back and other people leave and come back and they come and go, I ended up with a car going up and down the street 316 times, that many extra car trips on the street.
Mr. Rejman: A day?
Ms. Marteney: A day! If you take all the cars
Mr. Rejman: Oh, coming and going.
Ms. Marteney: Coming and going and if everybody is going to leave at least one more time, at least one more time, then when they came to work and left work
Mr. Darrow: And that doesn’t count current traffic.
Ms. Marteney: Right, so it has an impact on traffic. A considerable impact. I don’t know how many cars are associated with Mercy Rehab and that would include both employees and visitors who come and go and I am looking at that map, I don’t know when that aerial map was done.
Mr. Rejman: I have two areas of concerns myself. I have a street issue, narrow streets and emergency vehicles concerned about that and again, recently we have been overturned because we just don’t have good proof on the financial. We have competent testimony but we don’t have proof and the fact that it has never been marketed will probably weigh against us.
Ms. Marteney: I would agree they can say there is a hardship, but he has not shown that he marketed the property and therefore to me there is no hardship involved, because it is now shown, there may be some, but we have never had any indication of it.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Ms. Brower: This long narrow, how would it be subdivided?
Mr. Darrow: Its line runs parallel to the frontage.
Ms. Brower: So it is along Leavenworth. What kind of fence, chain link between the back parking lot, do you know what kind of fence?
Mr. Rejman: That would be an issue for Planning. Do we feel comfortable at this point?
Mr. Darrow: Sure.
Mr. Rejman: Before we start, let me explain some rules. The Zoning Board can only vote on an affirmative motion, which means someone here will have to say I move that we approve the application for so and so and so and so. And someone else will have to say I second it and sometimes we get violent reactions from the audience, but that is the way we have to do it and then we can vote. We cannot make a motion not to approve.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we approve a use variance for Winfield C. Boehler for property located at the northwest corner of Leavenworth and St. Anthony Street to become a commercially zoned area for the purpose of erecting a new principal and general office facility for Seneca-Cayuga ARC, as per documents submitted this day.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, I do indeed believe it is going to change the essential character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Darrow and I vote no due to the fact that there has not been a substantial case made of evidence showing that this property has been marketed for any other use than this.
Mr. Westlake, I have to vote no also because I feel that if they brought it to an Article 78 we don’t have enough information to show the hardship and will probably be thrown out in the Courts.
Ms. Aubin, I agree with Mr. Westlake said.
Mr. Rejman, I also have to agree on the financials, they are just not there.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Brower, I am voting yes even though I know that they haven’t substantiated the hardship.
Mr. Rejman: The application has not been approved.
We will take a 3 minute break to allow the gallery to clear and we will continue with the rest of the agenda.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004
50 Fitch Avenue, R-1A, front yard area variance of 3’ 4” for porch. Dan Emmi.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 50 Fitch Avenue, are you here? State your name for the record please.
Mr. Emmi: My name is Dan Emmi.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, Dan, what is the issue, what do you need?
Mr. Emmi: I am applying a porch on 50 Fitch Avenue and I would like to hand out some pictures of the project.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, please do. Tell us what we are looking at here.
Mr. Emmi: That is the front of the house, and I am in the process of having it sided and last month was suppose to appear here before the board and I had it down for Wednesday instead of Monday and I had to leave it and that is why it is sitting at that present state. I am just putting on a porch and need a 3’ 4” variance. I spoke with several neighbors in the immediate area of the house and I went out tonight last minute to get a petition just in case of any opposition and I have that petition here from people in the immediate area. They all have voiced thanks to me for getting rid of what was an eyesore prior to my taking over that property. I talked with one of the gentlemen across the street who grew
up there, he said he was 4 years old and he would sit on the front porch which was 1 foot from the sidewalk. I am not looking to come out that far, just need to put a porch on the front of it to give the structure some sort of look to be positive rather than just cut right off like it was. There was a porch on there that I did tear off that was more like a mud room, it has absolutely no conformity to the house whatsoever.
Mr. Rejman: Was the pre-existing mud room and this porch, do they have the same footprint?
Mr. Emmi: It would stick out but it was more or less like putting, it would be going across the front, I don’t know how to described it, it definitely didn’t comply with the house at all, it stuck out with the roof, it was like a shed pushed up against the house.
Mr. Rejman: I guess what I am asking is the porch wider or narrower?
Mr. Emmi: The width is wider and it will come out just enough so that someone can sit on the porch and get up out of the chair and walk around it.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. Please pass the photo around. At this point, are there any questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: Was this a condemned property?
Mr. Emmi: I bought it through the City auction.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, so you are remodeling it.
Mr. Emmi: Yes, totally.
Mr. Rejman: When the board members get through with this, I will make this part of the record.
Is there any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, I will come back to the board. Last call for questions. Pretty generic.
Ms. Marteney: It is looking good, I drive by it 4 times a day.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Have a seat.
Mr. Emmi: Thanks.
Mr. Darrow: Nothing but 100% improvement.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: And it certainly needs something on the front of the building.
Mr. Rejman: Need a motion.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Dan J. Emmi of 358 N. Hoopes Avenue a 3’ 4” front yard set back variance so that he can construct a front porch on residence at 54 Fitch Avenue.
Mr. Darrow: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Bower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck.
Mr. Emmi: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004
8 Underwood Street, R-2, 6.5’ side yard area on west for 14 x 17 addition. Sean and Sandra Kopper.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 8 Underwood Street, are you here please. Yes?
Mr. Kopper: Sean Kopper, 8 Underwood Street. I filed the paper work for a 12 x 17 addition to come off the back side of my house. Actually the room that is there existing is caving in and it already caved in once and I already fixed it once. Basically it is an old room in there, I have my washer and dryer in there and I recently purchased a freezer during deer season. I want to ask you if I could go while I am here instead of the 12 could I go 14? Because since I filed the paperwork I realized that I cannot get the chest freezer in the basement.
Mr. Rejman: You know what I would like you to do,
Mr. Darrow: Only advertised for 12.
Mr. Rejman: Come over to the sidebar and have talk with Codes and Counsel, may be we can do something. Look at total square footage and see what that is.
Back to 8 Underwood Street.
Mr. Leone: I want to put in the record that we allow this application to go forward. I would like you to make a notation on your form, it should read the applicant wishes to erect a 14 x 17 addition and it should read to be located 6.5’ from the side yard. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 7 feet from the side property line, applicant is requesting a variance of .5 or ½ foot from the side property line for the new addition. I am going to allow this to go forward although it has already been advertised as a 12 x 17 addition, I believe because the variance he is requesting is more restrictive than the original one, there is no harm in that. I will allow it to go forward. He is looking for a ½ foot variance.
Mr. Rejman: So this is a typo here?
Mr. Leone: It is, he is building on the back of the house, not the side.
Mr. Rejman: We don’t have to concern ourselves with a variance on the square footage.
Mr. Leone: No.
Mr. Rejman: Knowing all that, is there any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Questions from the board? None. Ok, we will close the public portion and we will discuss this. Ok, ½ foot.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Steve and Sandra Kopper a ½ foot variance from the side property line to erect a new addition on the back of the house.
Ms. Aubin: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application is approved.
Mr. Kopper: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004
79 Elizabeth Street, R-1A, area variances for 8 x 8 shed: 3’ side, 4’ rear, and 6.5’ distance from principal structure. Mary Ann Kowaleski.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 79 Elizabeth Street, are you here?
Ms. Kowaleski: Hi, I am Mary Ann Kowaleski and I live at 79 Elizabeth Street.
Mr. Rejman: Hi Mary Ann. What would you like do there? What is the issue?
Ms. Kowaleski: I would like to put a shed at the end of my driveway, but I can’t meet the variances of 3 feet from the back and 4 feet from the side.
Mr. Rejman: 3 from the side and 4 from the back.
Ms. Kowaleski: Or 10 from my house. My property is so small.
Mr. Rejman: Right. What lot size do you have there? Do you know?
Ms. Kowaleski: No, should have measured it with a tape measure.
Mr. Rejman: Like a 65 x 65 or something.
Mr. Darrow: Approximately 66 feet.7 inches of frontage.
Mr. Rejman: 64 feet back. Once you place the house on it, takes the lot up, not much room for anything else.
Ms. Kowaleski: The house itself is so small, I don’t have any storage space for any of my yard tools, like the lawn mower or anything like that.
Mr. Darrow: Do you have a garage?
Ms. Kowaleski: No garage, just the house.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. Any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Ok, we will come back. The shed that you are putting up, on a concrete slab?
Ms. Kowaleski: If I put it right there at the end of the driveway, that is already concrete.
Mr. Rejman: You are just going to put the shed on the existing concrete pad.
Ms. Kowaleski: Right.
Ms. Marteney: It looks like there must have been a garage there at one time.
Ms. Kowaleski: No. That is where it would go. I just black topped it, there was a driveway and that is the way it was when I bought the house.
Mr. Rejman: It is only an 8 x 8 shed, 64 square feet. Any questions from the board? Last call – for or against? Ok, Mary, we will close the public portion and discuss it.
Mr. Darrow: Small property.
Ms. Marteney: Not like she is trying to put a 12 x 24 shed.
Mr. Darrow: She has no garage, no storage.
Mr. Rejman: And the concrete is already there.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we approve 8 x 8 shed at 79 Elizabeth Street for Mary Ann Kowaleski with area variances of a 3 foot side set back, 4 foot rear set back and a 6 foot 5 inch separation from the primary structure which is required to be 10, as per plot plan submitted.
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.
Ms. Kowaleski: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004
183 Van Anden Street, R-2, area variances for 2 sheds on property: variance for second shed and area variance of 44 square feet over the allowed 150 for accessory structures which will also exceed the allowed 10% of the volume of the principal structure. Peter and Georgina Farinelli.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 183 Van Anden Street.
Mrs. Farinelli: Hi I am Georgina Farinelli and this is my husband Pete. We have two sheds on our property which I was told was not allowed but I see other people with two sheds on their property. But any way, bottom line is we are 150 square foot we are suppose to be able to have and we have 194. Again, we have a house with 4 children, we use to have a very small crawl space for an attic, a crawl space. After doing renovations on our property, we raised the ceiling in one of our front rooms that in effect destroyed the crawl space because the ceiling was so far down, it was like a suspended ceiling pushed it up, now no crawl space.
The basement was classified as a crawl space, it is a dirt basement not suitable for storage. It is not, I won’t go down there.
Mr. Farinelli: It is a crawl space.
Mrs. Farinelli: I can’t stand up in it. If we can’t keep our sheds
Mr. Farinelli: We need space for storage.
Mrs. Farinelli: Yes big time.
Mr. Rejman: I would like to tell the board that this other issue of exceeding the allowable 10% volume, that is a typo.
Mrs. Farinelli: I didn’t understand what that meant. That was not on our first application.
Mr. Darrow: How big are the sheds?
Mrs. Farinelli: We have an 8 x 8 and 10 x 13, the smaller one we have had for like 16 years and the other we added a shed on that spot about 6 years. Then our neighbor, we had trees that were bordering on our property, she called a tree surgeon to come in and pull the trees down, and while they were doing that they knocked down our shed. We used the same foundation and erected a $2,000 wood shed to match our property.
Mr. Rejman: You replaced the new shed with the same size as the old shed?
Mr. Farinelli: Right. Both neighbors on each side have written letters
Mrs. Farinelli: And I have another letter from my nearest neighbor.
Mr. Rejman: It is a great application. Any one wishing to speak for or against the application at 183? Questions from the board? None. We will close the public portion, thank you. Replacing a size of the same size.
Mr. Darrow: The time it has been there and they are limited in storage space. No garage, no basement.
Mr. Rejman: As long as it is not permanent.
Ms. Aubin: The neighbors have no objections.
Mr. Rejman: And we have letters from the neighbors. Who would like to make a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Peter and Georgina Farinelli of 183Van Anden Street, a 44 square foot area variance for the purpose of a second accessory non-attached structure.
Ms. Aubin: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mrs. Farinelli: Thank you. Do I need a building permit?
Mr. Rejman: See Mr. Hicks in Codes tomorrow.
Mrs. Farinelli: Any idea on the cost?
Mr. Hicks: I don’t know that. Will let you know tomorrow.
Mrs. Farinelli: Ok. Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004
217 Grant Avenue (Auburn Plaza) C-3, area variance of 210 square feet for sign on façade of new store. Auburn Associates, LLC.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: We have 6 and 7 - 217 Grant Avenue. Let’s do number 6 first. The 210 square foot sign.
Mr. O’Neill: Good evening, my name is Mike O’Neill. I am with American Group One representing Auburn Associates, LLC, the owners of Auburn Plaza. With us this evening is Michael Wachs, one of the members of Auburn Associates, LLC, Tim Kerstetter the manager of Auburn Plaza and Grant Avenue Plaza. Howard Levine, Mr. Wachs’ attorney, Levine, Goulding and Thompson out of Binghamton and Dominick Madia and Paul from National Structures, who build the Bed, Bath and Beyond structures. They just completed one in Plattsburgh.
Mr. Rejman: I hope these gentlemen are here for questions only. Just in case we have questions, they could come forward.
Mr. O’Neill: That is correct. If they were talking, I wouldn’t be talking. Essentially this evening we are asking for a variance, I believe in your package there is a sign, we would be building a new store front for Bed, Bath and Beyond at the existing Ames Plaza. Part of the lease requirement is that Bed, Bath and Beyond we are here because of two lease requirements. We do have a draft view of the Bed, Bath and Beyond sign and it will be an entirely new lighted store front very similar to the existing store of Bed, Bath and Beyond that recently opened in the Town of Clay on Route 31 in Syracuse.
Essentially that particular sign is 400 square feet and according to our calculations we are allowed 192 square feet hence the difference we are asking for a variance of 210 square feet. One of the issues that comes into play with the plaza that was formerly the Ames Department Store and obviously Bed, Bath and Beyond is 7 more letters than the words Ames. Bed, Bath and Beyond will be taking up 95 lineal feet of the frontage of formerly Ames. As you travel east bond or towards Loew’s –WalMart from the City it is difficult to see back in that particular corner the sign. In the other direction Bed, Bath and Beyond pointed out to us that the building is some what obscured by Applebees, Burger
King and Arby’s so that they have asked us to come before the board and ask for a variance so that they can put up their typical Bed, Bath and Beyond sign with the new store front.
Mr. Rejman: We have had similar requests in the plaza from Pet Depot. It does, it sits back from the road quite a bit. And the way everything is working now a days everyone has their particular size sign that seems to work well for them. Questions from the board at this point?
Mr. Darrow: Is the façade going to be renovated to appear the same as in this photo?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes, it will be the protypical Bed, Bath and Beyond store front.
Mr. Rejman: Right, I would assume that. This is what we will be looking at shortly.
Mr. O’Neill: Yes it is.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, we will come back to the board. Again we seem to be running into this quite often, maybe we should start to revisit the signage.
Ms. Marteney: I think it has to do with the national chain coming in. They have to comply with national
Mr. Rejman: They have their own image.
Mr. Darrow: Personally I think the way we are handling it now is appropriate so that there is still signage control and that Grant Avenue doesn’t end up looking like the Las Vegas strip.
Mr. Rejman: Well, that is a point.
Ms. Marteney: It is also not a lit sign, neon or flashing or anything like that.
Ms. Brower: It looks proportionate to the façade.
Mr. Darrow: Very.
Mr. Westlake: I would like a motion that we grant Auburn Associates LLC of 217 Grant Avenue a 210 square foot area variance for their sign at said location for Bed, Bath and Beyond, per drawings submitted.
Mr. Darrow: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004
217 Grant Avenue, C-3, area variances of 5,209 square feet and 12, 491 square feet for the creation of two parcels (30,000 square feet is required in C-3), Auburn Associates, LLC.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: An area variance for 5,209 square feet and 12,491 square feet.
Mr. O’Neill: Mr. Chairman, my name is Michael O’Neill, I am with American Group One representing Auburn Associates and as we indicated Mr. Wachs is here, from Auburn Associates, his attorney Howard Levine, Mr. Kerstetter, Mr. Madia and Paul from National Structures.
Essentially two things occur on this particular request. Basically what is occurring is existing conditions which this map reflects, McIntosh is in the brown and it cuts across the front of the former Ames, soon to be Bed, Bath and Beyond, it cuts across the frontage of that. We have entered into several negotiations. Once Ames was bankrupt obviously that particular site has been dark. We had gone to P&C we were in renegotiations with P&C, unfortunately they also were befallen by Chapter 11 and we also had talked with Price Chopper about locating, trying to get them into the Auburn market. Price Chopper spent basically funds in acquiring some of the vacant P&Cs.
Bath, Bed and Beyond have asked that the prime parking spaces in front of the store be increased and I will show what basically occurs. In order to accommodate the request of Bed, Bath and Beyond we are in negotiations with the City of Auburn to change the alignment from what you saw on the previous map the straight through McIntosh, putting a curve in McIntosh the net affect of which puts more prime parking in front of the building. In the net effect of that what occurs is the existing, the former Lum’s building which is now Metro Mattress was on an existing non-conforming lot in that its frontage on Grant Avenue was 60 feet and the rear part was like 51 feet. That particular is 31,000 square feet total and it does meet the City’s criteria, but it is an existing
non-conforming lot. So what we create by putting that jog in McIntosh to allow more parking is create two residual lots. We create one here shown in chartreuse and one shown down here in pink. There is no building on the one in chartreuse at the top. Obviously Metro Mattress is located on the pink building to the south. Metro Mattress is 3,000 square feet in size and that particular lot, the pink lot, is 12,000 square feet. So if you take the City’s zoning ordinance criteria for 40% coverage of a building, we do meet that criteria on that lot in that lot would be 12,000 square feet which is down from the 30,000 square feet that the City requires.
One of the other considerations is parking. The City wanted us to attempt to put 11 parking spaces on that particular lot. We were able to do that, but to be honest, the last two really don’t function that well. These two parking spaces right here (points to map). If you look at the City Zoning Ordinance, that basically requires and I think I have the right Zoning Ordinance but it would be under the parking criteria item 6, retail use 6B furniture, carpets and floor coverings for Metro Mattress requires 1 ½ for each 1,000 square feet of net floor area. With a 3,000 square foot Metro Mattress building that means that we need 5 parking spaces for Metro Mattress.
There is one other criteria that the City has that we could be within 500 feet and the City Parking Ordinance under the section 344.A3D customer applying for parking office, commercial or industrial uses within 500 feet of the site would be acceptable. So we have a couple of way that we could proceed. We can ask for a variance as we have for two existing lots that would be created, both would be non-conforming, which would mean the chartreuse lot and the pink lot. If you look at that lot historically when that was Lum’s that was one tax parcel by itself. What we are willing to do with guidance from the Zoning Board is to take both of those two lots, the chartreuse lot and this lot and make those part of the entire plaza. The entire plaza is 30 acres. If that
is an acceptable method to the Zoning Board then we really wouldn’t need the variance for the lots. What we do is eliminate that as a single lot and make that a part of the taxable lot of the entire plaza. We have been in negotiations with the City basically for the supermarket for a couple years and Mr. Leone about the swapping of the lots and basically moving forward Bed, Bath and Beyond has required the additional parking in front of their store which is leading us to be here this evening. We have a couple alternatives. We have to create a subdivision map acceptable to the City. Additional we have to go to site plan approval to the City Planning Board so we are seeking an opinion or a decision whatever the board would decide in that could we get a approximately 5,200 square foot stand alone lot, a 12,000 square foot stand alone lot or if the board would consider we would be willing to make these lots part of the over all 30 acres of the plaza,
so that when we created the subdivision map that we would show those as a part of the entire plaza and agree that the chartreuse lot, there will be no building there, basically storage and employee parking would occur there.
So in a nut shell we asking for some direction or if that is acceptable we can prepare the map accordingly. Stepping back from that then we would also then ask if they could be two existing non-conforming new lots. We would prefer if the board would allow that those two lots be made part of the plaza. We can work that out with a subdivision map and the City.
Mr. Rejman: I wear two hats, I am also Chairman of Assessment. The problem with leaving two out there, if there are issues down the road some place, 10 or 15 years, 2 years, who knows, down the road some place, putting it all into one parcel
Mr. Darrow: How does it become one parcel?
Mr. Leone: I was thinking the same thing, I was going to look to Brian. I am not quite sure. I would have to look it up.
Mr. O’Neill: We were just asking as a suggestion that that might be a possibility to consider, we were just trying to figure the easy way out of trying to accomplish getting more parking and the net effect is that we are creating two non-conforming lots and we would love to try not to do that, but we are at a loss as to how to do it.
We have been in discussions with Mr. Cherpanski who owns a 60 foot lot contiguous to that, but he does not want to sell. Auburn Associates, there are three lots here as shown on this particular map, this is one parcel, this is Mr. Cherpanski’s parcel and this is the Auburn Associates and there is a used car lot here so Auburn Associates owns this lot and this lot, but they do not own the intervening lot. Mr. Cherpanski doesn’t want to sell and we have not put any pressure on him other than we have had discussions with him that would make a good buildable lot in the future. So we are basically asking the Zoning Board which way you would like us to go.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to see Mr. Leone check the legality of it.
Mr. Leone: How quickly would you like that answer.
Mr. O’Neill: That was just a second thought that we had, because as I said the chartreuse lot will not have a building on it, we would agree to that, it would only be parking or storage.
Mr. Rejman: There is no way you could ever use that, other than 2 or 3 parking spaces.
Mr. O’Neill: As long as Metro Mattress stays a furniture related business that would met the parking criteria of the City, although it would be a non-conforming lot still, it is currently a non-conforming lot. So that is basically, again this is all again about the lease with Bed, Bath and Beyond that we have to deliver that and they are holding the lease pending our making a decision.
Mr. Leone: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mike is there any chance, I would like to take about a 5 minute recess, call the next case up. Discuss with Mr. Levine, also too can you tell us what the dimensions are, I have the square footage, but I don’t have the dimensions on my map here and I am also a little offended because I am color blind and I can’t tell chartreuse from pink. (Everyone laughs).
Mr. O’Neill: The lot is 60 feet wide and the end of the lot and the actual dimension approximately 250 feet.
Mr. Leone: Mike, take a few minutes, if it is ok with the Chairman.
Mr. Rejman: Go ahead. We appreciate it, it has been a busy night.
Mr. Westlake: Does the road have to have DOT approval?
Mr. O’Neill: One of the reasons the jog is as it is, is that we have kept the jog of 100 feet back from the intersection so that we do not need to have interface with DOT. We felt that that would be a horse of a different color.
Mr. O’Neill: Mr. Chairman, Mike O’Neill. If we could get an existing non-conforming lot designation on the parcel that currently houses the building of Metro Mattress for 60 foot frontage which is currently is and by a depth of 280 feet as depicted on this map, eventually we will be doing a sub-division map with the exact dimensions on it, but as depicted on this map and we basically the chartreuse area for everybody but Tom, we would just maintain that as a separate lot for just parking, snow storage something like that, no structures. If in the future there is a change in use for Metro Mattress we agree to come back to the board, which is very understandable, if there is any change in use there.
Mr. Rejman: And then further on down the road the other lot becomes available and acquire the property.
Mr. O’Neill: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: So this is just a stop cap measure to get things rolling along.
Mr. O’Neill: Yes, it is.
Mr. Rejman: I don’t have a problem.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t either, now that we have a direction we actually need to have this direction represented?
Mr. Rejman: No it is right here.
Mr. Darrow: So it is going to stay as
Mr. Rejman: Two non-conforming with a
Mr. Darrow: So Metro Mattress is included in that.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Leone: Also, I do want to put a contingency relative to the Metro Mattress site and I have asked Brian to briefly speak on this issue.
Mr. Hicks: The thing is the situation with Metro Mattress at this point in time the retail for furniture type item store requires 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. If that should change and go into a different realm of retail it may go to 3 required per 1,000 or 5.5 required per 1,000. So that the is the change of use that Mr. O’Neill mentioned. At that point in time they would probably have to come back to the board and show us another plan for the parking for that use.
Mr. Darrow: I have one concern over the Metro Mattress parking lot currently showed at 11 which I know is more than they need for a mattress store, but the last 3 spots how usable are they going to be when you consider curbing, set back, a car trying to back out and turn around.
Mr. O’Neill: I tried to mention that earlier that we felt they were not useful the last 3 spaces. We actually felt the last 2 were not but with the interpretation that we are giving 5 spaces, we are happy with that. That would make those functional, you are correct, we felt that also.
Mr. Rejman: Questions, concerns? I think this is good for all parties concerned. We can get this project to move forward, we can give them the minimum relief required at this point and still leave the door open for, you know, they get the parcel next door.
Mr. Darrow: I am still having difficulty on our application of what the exact relief is. It is showing the lot size is what is required, so we are talking
Mr. Leone: Eddy, go to your agenda
Mr. Rejman: Where Metro Mattress is make that an A, make that Lot A, go to the top one and make that Lot B, Lot A needs a relief of 12,491 square and Lot B needs relief of 5,209 square feet.
Mr. Darrow: That is just what I was looking for.
Mr. Rejman: On this property line in the road, is there a 1 foot set back, a 0 foot set back?
Mr. Leone: Sidewalk on the south side Mike?
Mr. O’Neill: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Just connecting these two. What would be the proper verbiage on this?
Mr. Leone: Basically I would frame this, I think Eddy is getting prepared to frame the motion. The only thing I would say is once again to add the contingency that we discussed in the other room that if the usage of the existing Metro Mattress should change then certainly you are going to have to come back to the Zoning Board to get that approved.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant variance 1) for Auburn Associates LLC, 217 Grant Avenue, Auburn, for an area variance in the amount of 5,209 square feet and variance 2) for the same applicant in the amount of 12,491 square feet contingent upon the parking requirements for the property currently occupied by Metro Mattress maintains same parking requirements, if not they shall have to appear for a parking variance.
Mr. Leone: That is fine, I would also like to add I wasn’t following fully what the Chairman had said but I would add that the parcel which is in the western portion, not the one on Grant Avenue, that would remain a non-buildable lot.
Mr. Darrow: Please show my motion noted.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004
45 Columbus Street. I, Use variance to allow pallet storage on Lafayette Place, John Tardibone.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 45 Columbus Street, are you here?
Mr. Tardibone: My name is John Tardibone and I am part owner of the business on Columbus Street. I didn’t know I could have people here on my behalf so I didn’t bring anybody.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mr. Tardibone: So if I could table this until the next meeting, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Rejman: Sure. Did you learn anything listening to all of this?
Mr. Tardibone: Oh, I definitely did.
Mr. Rejman: Because this is a use application we are going to need some hardship, we are going to need
Mr. Darrow: SEQRA review
Mr. Rejman: That too. Yes, I will grant a tabling of this until next month.
Man in audience: I object to that. We have been here 2 ½ hours.
Mr. Rejman: It has always been the practice of this board of the years to allow the applicant for any reason they choose to table for one time.
Man in audience: This gentleman has been here before, he knows what the deal is, he knows what the circumstances are, he knows your procedure.
Mr. Tardibone: You are wrong. I have not been here before for this type of thing.
Mr. Rejman: Gentlemen, take this outside. That has always been our practice.
Mr. Darrow: Being that he is tabled, he will be number one on the list next month.
Mr. Tardibone: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
| 
