ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY JUNE 28, 2004
Members Present: Ms. Marteney
Ms. Brower (came in late)
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Member Absent: Mr. Darrow
One Vacancy
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey
Mr. Hicks
Mrs. Hoffmann
APPLICATION
APPROVED: 31 Van Patten Street
59 Grant Street
31 Amherst Avenue
115 N. Marvine Avenue
201-211 Janet Street
147 Ross St. Ext.
58 Locust Street
APPLICATIONS
TABLED: 10 Prospect Street
134 E. Genesee Street
202-206 Genesee Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have:
31 Van Patten Street
59 Grant Street
31 Amherst Avenue
115 N. Marvine Avenue
10 Prospect Street
201-211 Janet Street
147 Ross St. Ext.
58 Locust Street
134 E. Genesee Street
202-206 Genesee Street
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MAY 24, 2004
31 Van Patten Street, R-1A, area variance of 42 square feet for 192 square foot shed, which will exceed the allowed 150 square feet. James and Carol Johnson
Mr. Rejman: 31 Van Patten Street, are you here please. Yes. State your name for the record. Please use the mike and speak loud.
Mrs. Johnson: Carol and James Johnson.
Mr. Rejman: OK, and what would you like to do there?
Mrs. Johnson: We want to put a shed up in the far corner of our property.
Mr. Rejman: OK and you want to use a 12 x 16 shed?
Mrs. Johnson: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: And you need a little bit of an area variance because
Mrs. Johnson: Because of the adjoining property there is a shed right on the property line, a shed/garage combination. I have pictures of what the property looks like behind us. (Passes pictures to board).
Mr. Rejman: So this is one of our generic shed issues.
Ms. Marteney: Small back yard.
Mrs. Johnson: Small back yard, when we purchased the home, we had a two-car garage but it was taken down, so we have nothing now for storage.
Mr. Rejman: There are a lot of those lots in the City that are small like that. Questions from the board? None. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Board members feel confident on voting? Yes. We will close the public portion. Have a seat and we will do this.
Ms. Marteney: It butts up against a dead end area, close to the neighbors, not blocking the view for any of them.
Mr. Rejman: Motion?
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant James and Carol Johnson of 31 Van Patten Street a area variance for 42 square feet for the purpose of putting up a storage shed.
Ms. Aubin: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr./Mrs. Johnson: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
59 Grant Street, R-1, area variance of 30 square feet for a 180 square foot shed, which will exceed the allowed 150 square feet. William and Patricia Mead.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 59 Grant Street, are you here?
Mr. Mead: Hi, my name is Bill Mead and this is my wife Patty and we want to put a shed in the back yard that is 10 x 18.
Mr. Rejman: 10 x 18 so in your case you need a 30 square foot variance. And being a neighbor and knowing where it is going and it is out back and you drove down (to Ms. Marteney) and saw it so there are no issues as far as I can see.
Questions from the board? Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. OK, have a seat.
Ms. Marteney: What is behind their property?
Mr. Rejman: There is a strip of land
Ms. Marteney: If you walked would you hit York Street?
Mr. Rejman: If you kept walking, but you would have to walk through the housing development.
Ms. Marteney: OK.
Mr. Rejman: There is a strip of woods, nothing.
Ms. Marteney: As I looked I couldn’t see anything.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant William and Patricia Mead of 59 Grant Street an area variance of 30 square feet for the purpose of installing a storage shed for a total of 180 square feet.
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr./Mrs. Mead: Thank you very much.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
31 Amherst Avenue Ext., R-1, area variance of 66 square feet over the allowed 150 square feet for a 216 square foot shed; variance for placement of the shed in the front yard of the premises. Jeff and Lisa Green.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 31 Amherst are you here?
Mr. Green: Good evening, my name is Jeff Green and Lisa Green.
Mr. Rejman: What would you like to do there Jeff?
Mr. Green: We want to build a shed 12 x 18, not build, but put on our property, it is already built.
Mr. Rejman: OK, whereabouts on the property?
Mr. Green: It is going to be in a turn around in our driveway.
Mrs. Green: We have woods on three sides of our property.
Mr. Green: It is out back.
Mr. Westlake: It is a huge lot.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board?
Mr. Westlake: I see no problem with it.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Feel confidant on this? Yes. We will close the public portion.
Ms. Marteney: Secluded, probably not even on the map.
Mr. Rejman: Motion anyone?
Ms. Marteney: I make a motion that we grant a variance to Jeff and Lisa Green of 31 Amherst Avenue Ext. a 66 foot variance to build a 12 x 18 foot shed.
Ms. Hussey: Also, there is a front yard variance.
Ms. Marteney: And a front yard variance to place the shed in the front yard.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application approved.
Good we have five members present (Ms. Brower just came in).
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
115 N. Marvine Avenue, R-1, side yard area variance of 4 ½ feet and 1 ½ feet variance in the distance between house and in-ground pool; 2 foot side yard variance for privacy fence. Kristine Wilkinson.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 115 N. Marvine, are you here?
Mr. Wilkinson: Good evening, Scott and Kristine Wilkinson.
Mr. Rejman: Hi, tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Wilkinson: Well, we have a house on a corner lot and one side of the lot they consider our front yard, it is basically on a seasonal used street which is Capitol Street Extension and it goes down to the baseball fields, there is no outlet and we really would like to put a pool and a fence variance in that side yard. We consider it a side yard but I guess it is the front yard.
Mr. Rejman: OK. So tell us more about the fence variance.
Mr. Wilkinson: Well, the fence, we would like to put a 6 foot high fence and the area between our house and the City property line is a little narrow and we do have a little more room in our back yard but because of our neighbors and we have young teenage daughters we really would to put it on and the baseball field, we would like to put it on the side toward where the road is because there will be more of a privacy issue. People won’t be able to see what is going on in our swimming pool, and our kids we will know where they were. We have an existing deck there on that side as well, so we won’t have to put another deck up.
Mr. Rejman: I see you have a petition. Do you all have copies of this? (Board members agree they have a copy). That is always nice to see. Ten people have signed it, very nice.
Mr. Wilkinson: Immediate and adjoining properties, all the neighbors, except for the City.
Mr. Rejman: Privacy does seem to be an issue on that corner. Any questions from the board? It is a nice application, tells us everything.
Ms. Marteney: Will the pool still be the required distance from the house?
Mr. Wilkinson: No, I believe it is actually going to be a little bit shorter, we are requesting I think 8 feet off the house and 8 ½ feet off the property line, so it is going to narrow those measurements a little bit.
Mr. Westlake: 1 ½ foot variance from the pool to the house.
Ms. Brower: The pool is 14 feet
Mr. Wilkinson: By 30
Ms. Brower: By 30.
Mr. Wilkinson: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Tell me again, these measurements changed?
Mr. Westlake: That is what it says right here.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Westlake: 1 ½ variance from the distance between the pool and the house.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? None. Final questions. OK, we will close the public portion. This is the big thing, the neighbors don’t care. Neighbors are comfortable with it.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Kristine and Scott Wilkinson of 115 N. Marvine Avenue an area variance of 4 ½ feet to place an in-ground pool in the side yard of a corner lot and 4 ½ foot variance for a distance between the pool and the house. Also a 2-foot variance for the privacy fence along the property line of the corner lot.
Ms. Aubin: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr./Mrs. Wilkinson: Thank you very much.
Once your application is approve you are more than welcome to sit and watch, but you can leave if you wish.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
10 Prospect Street, R-1, Use variance to establish a parking area in front of Church on Franklin Street. Redeemer Lutheran Church.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 10 Prospect Street.
Mr. Wagner: Good evening, my name is Matt Wagner; I am representing the Redeemer Lutheran Church.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Matt, we do have five people, you understand you need to have four say yes. We have always given the applicants the option of tabling for the next meeting.
Mr. Wagner: Doesn’t sound very encouraging.
Mr. Rejman: Well, no, it is realistic. The other thing we will do is if we get into this and we start running into some rough items, I might ask for a table myself, because there may be more information that we require to make a proper decision. So let’s go ahead.
Mr. Wagner: I apologize not for having a picture, in fact, it is just the front of the Church where we would like to locate a handicap parking space, it will be 4 spaces, the center lane where the cars back into the parking lot and not into the street. This front access to the Church is the only access to the sanctuary for any handicapped individuals. We have one member of our congregation right now in a wheelchair and three with walkers. At the present time they have someone drop them off, wheel them in, pull the car around to the front. In the summer time that is not such an issue, in the wintertime it is pretty difficult. We have a paved parking lot.
Mr. Rejman: This would help me, how many of these spaces will be assigned to the handicapped?
Mr. Wagner: All of them.
Mr. Rejman: All of them.
Ms. Marteney: And that is how many?
Mr. Wagner: Four.
Mr. Westlake: Franklin Street is such a busy street, getting in and out is a problem even if you aren’t handicapped.
Mr. Rejman: They have to come to a complete stop now.
Ms. Hussey: Yes, it is a three way stop.
Mr. Rejman: In the olden days they just shot by. Now at least there is a stop sign, they are slowing down.
Ms. Marteney: Plus it is on a Sunday morning.
Mr. Westlake: That is not the busiest, but it is a busy time of day, lot of traffic going by.
Ms. Marteney: Has this been approved by Planning or anything?
Ms. Hussey: It has been reviewed by the Auburn Police Department and the Engineering Department and both had concerns with respect to the egress and ingress on Franklin Street. We have not received a memo to date on that with a recommendation or concern.
Ms. Marteney: Nothing included in the packet.
Ms. Hussey: We would probably recommend that any variance granted would be specifically conditioned upon approval from Auburn Police Department and Engineering to issues there.
Ms. Marteney: I certainly applaud your congregation for waiting to get your congregants into the sanctuary because I can’t imagine them coming from the back parking lot up to the front. That is a concern and we don’t know whether or not we are going to get approval by the Police Department and Planning for egress onto Franklin Street.
Mr. Rejman: We sort of stopped the applicant from making his presentation.
Mr. Wagner: It was completed.
Mr. Rejman: Really.
Mr. Wagner: It is pretty straightforward. There is a need to have access to that area of the Church; right now there isn’t an access. What happens now is some cars just pull off and park in the yard beside the street that is hardly safe either.
Mr. Rejman: I have seen that. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Questions from the board?
Mr. Westlake: Would have liked to have had more information from the Police Department tonight, that would help me make a better decision.
Mr. Rejman: We can make it contingent upon
Ms. Brower: The way it is designed right now is it necessary to pull out of the parking place onto Franklin in order to go out or can you go within the yard itself?
Mr. Wagner: In the design?
Ms. Brower: I saw the design here, but I can’t remember does the car have to pull out onto Franklin in order to
Mr. Wagner: The lane is wide enough that they can back in.
Ms. Brower: So they are pulling out into Franklin facing forward merging into the traffic.
Mr. Westlake: This may sound like a silly question, but do the handicap people come by themselves or do they come with other people? Because if they are coming with other people could you make like a circular pull off here, drop the handicapped person off and then go back and park in the back parking lot?
Mr. Rejman: Still have the same issue. You are still pulling back into the street. I think what you are hearing from the board is that we would like to help, but we would like to have some time and some input, is that the feeling I am getting from the board? (All agree).
Ms. Marteney: I think another solution might be to have a drive come up the end of your current parking lot that would come up and around, I know it is a little steep on the eastern side.
Mr. Wagner: It is very steep, plus if we were going to expand the congregation of the Church in the future that is the direction we would go.
Mr. Rejman: I would like to make a motion that this application be tabled and that we ask for input from the Auburn Police Department and Engineering Department to help us make a final determination.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING TO TABLE: Ms. Marteney
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: We will put you on first next month.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
201-211 Janet Street, R-2, for placement of a 4 foot x 8 foot shed in southwest corner of property applicant requests: variance of 1 foot from the required 3 feet on the side; 2 feet from the required 4 feet on the rear; and 4 feet from the required 10 feet distance from the primary structure. Gary Thibeault.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 201-211 Janet Street, are you here please?
Mr. Thibeault: Gary Thibeault.
Mr. Rejman: What seems to be the issue here?
Mr. Thibeault: Well actually the shed has already been built, I didn’t realize I needed a permit and Code Enforcement was over there and told me that it needs a variance. It is just a 4 x 8. It is rental property to store my lawn mower and my garden tools there. There is only 16 feet behind the property.
Mr. Rejman: We are dealing with another one of our small lots, 66 x 99, difficult to get the required setbacks.
Questions from the board? Anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? None. What is the feeling of the board?
Ms. Marteney: Fine.
Mr. Rejman: Fine? OK, I will close the public portion, small lot.
Ms. Marteney: Almost non-existent back yard.
Mr. Rejman: Motion, please.
Mr. Westlake: I would to make a motion that we grant Gary Thibeault of 37 Onondaga Street, Skaneateles, New York, a 4 foot variance of the required 10 foot distance separation for the primary structure and a 1 foot variance of the required 3 foot side line set back and a 2 foot variance of the required 4 foot line setback for the placement of a 4 foot x 8 foot shed in the southwest rear corner of the property located at 201-211 Janet Street.
Ms. Aubin: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application approved.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
147 Ross Street Ext., R-1 Area variance of 124.1 square feet of combined area of accessory structures on premises for construction of 24.8 foot x 30.8 feet garage; and variance of 7 inches in the height of the garage. Jerry Kezar.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 147 Ross Street Ext., are you here?
Mr. Kezar: Good evening, my name is Jerry Kezar, owner of 147 Ross Street Extension. My wife and I would like to build a garage on our property. We are looking for two variances, one in square footage and one in height.
Mr. Rejman: OK. In your case you have 72 x 254 lot size.
Mr. Kezar: Correct.
Mr. Rejman: Just curious, I like to ask these questions, why the need for a 24 x 30 garage?
Mr. Kezar: I guess I am greedy when it comes to storage. Build a garage and never have enough room so might as well try your best.
Mr. Westlake: Why the height? For aesthetics?
Mr. Kezar: Yes, the architect is keeping it with the looks of the house and the neighborhood. I don’t think there is any specific reason for the height.
Mr. Rejman: The shed that is out back will that stay?
Mr. Kezar: Well, if you look at the site layout, there are two things that are identified as shed, one is kind of an old playhouse that outdates me, we are planning to remove that. The other is a woodshed, I included a picture there, I intend for that to remain.
Mr. Rejman: That is 253 feet off the road?
Mr. Kezar: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Any questions from the board? None. Concerns of the board? None. OK, we are going to close the public portion.
Mr. Kezar: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: The height issues is an architectural thing wants it to fit in the neighborhood. I don’t have a problem with it.
Ms. Marteney: It will be in good proportion with the house too.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Jerry Kezar of 147 Ross Street Extension a variance of 124.1 square feet over the allowed Section 305-24(d)(3), applicant is also seeking a variance of 7” in height to be 15’7” high and the allowed height is 15 feet for accessory structures according to Section 305-82(J)(1).
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Kezar: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
58 Locust Street, R-1, 270 square feet area variance for construction of 24’ x 36’ garage which will exceed the allowed 750 square foot when combined with an existing 156 square foot shed; and a 2 foot side line setback variance. James Dunster.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 58 Locust Street, please.
Mr. Dunster: My name is James Dunster; I am here to seek a variance as well for building a garage for my mother.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us about the garage.
Mr. Dunster: I am looking to build a 24 x 36 foot garage, 3 – 12 pitch and breezeway attached to the house.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board?
Mr. Westlake: Not really.
Mr. Rejman: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Any concerns here?
Ms. Marteney: Far enough from the neighboring property.
Mr. Rejman: OK, let’s go ahead with this. Close the public portion.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant to 58 Locust Street a variance of 270 square feet for an all accessory structure, Section 305-24(D)(3) and applicant is also seeing a variance of 2 feet o sideline setback for placement of the garage, current Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of 7 feet Section 305-78.
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Dunster: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: That concludes the area variance applications. We now have use application.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
134 E. Genesee Street, R-1, Use variance to change premises for residential use to business office. Paul Meyer.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 134 E. Genesee Street, please.
Mr. Meyer: Good evening, my name is Paul Meyer; I am here for a use variance for 134 East Genesee Street. I am asking for, actually this is currently a 10 unit commercial in R-2, it use to be a B-1 office and use variance was approved for having a commercial building. I am here to request the use variance be issued to turn it to a B-1 office. Catholic Charities would like to purchase this building.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Meyer, this is a re-application?
Mr. Meyer: That is correct.
Mr. Rejman: To be quite honest we endured a rather lengthy presentation last month and what we really really wanted to know, what we really needed to have was proof of these figures.
Mr. Meyer: I have those.
Mr. Rejman: Do you have copies?
Mr. Meyer: I did change the use variance request. We were requesting actually incorrectly and I am responsible for that last time. Last month we were asking to have use variance changed from a 10 unit commercial use to a commercial use just a plain old commercial use now we just want a B-1 office use.
Mr. Rejman: That really doesn’t
Mr. Meyer: If you want to go over the financials
Mr. Rejman: We need to have
Mr. Meyer: I have copies of insurance bills, I have just as detailed as you want to go, I have my mortgage, I have my water bills, my snow, I have as many receipts as you want to see.
Mr. Westlake: He was turned down last month for this. Is there a significant change here?
Mr. Meyer: Yes sir there has been. Like I was saying last month we asked for it is a 10 unit building we asked for it to be a use variance for commercial use which means it possibly could be a retail outlet, what have you, a commercial use. We are asking for it only to be a B-1 which is a professional office use for a non-profit religious use for Catholic Charities so it is a different type of application. I meant to do that I incorrectly asked for a commercial use due to what I thought was the proper way. Just wanted to, I can keep this very brief; I understand it was quite lengthy last time so I made a promise
Mr. Rejman: Here is the issue we are running into in the past few years. The courts have become very demanding on the type of evidence they want to see attached to a use variance and if we don’t have enough if the weight of evidence isn’t there then it can easily be overturned on appeal.
Mr. Meyer: I should know it, to go very quickly, everybody that was sent a notice to be here tonight we approached myself and Catholic Charities approached all the neighbors and I know we are talking about financial evidence first, but while this is separate it is a concern to me is whether the neighbors are for this proposal or not and that is very important to me. We set another meeting at Trinity Methodist Church this last Sunday and Catholic Charities discussed this will all the neighbors and they are very much in favor of this, everyone that was there was in favor of it. They are sold that it would be more in line with the structure of the neighborhood. It use to be a B-1 office building, it was Dr. Day’s Medical office
Mr. Westlake: Do you have that in writing from all the neighbors?
Mr. Meyer: No, I am saying that on my account I was there
Mr. Westlake: Each time you come here you come with information that isn’t, I am not doubting you, we have nothing to prove to us that this actually went on. I know you say it did, that is fine. Like last time they didn’t bring the proof for the financial problem, you say you had a meeting, that is fine, but how do we know. We don’t see any signatures.
Mr. Meyer: I guess you just have my word and someone from Catholic Charities is here also.
Mr. Westlake: I guess I give you the opportunity right now, Mr. Meyer, to either table this until next month and bring it back with some signatures from your neighbors saying that they approve it and maybe some more financial stuff in your package so that I myself can look it over and to have the information right in front of me.
Mr. Meyer: I would be happy to get whatever other financial information you would like. I brought all my receipts with me tonight. I was here for two purposes; one to discuss that it would fit into the structure of the neighborhood and that I did discuss with the neighbors, I am saying that under oath here. We did set a meeting with the neighbors and Catholic Charities is here, back there, he will attest to that, the neighbors were all notified and the reason being that we felt it was to our advantage to tell the neighbors completely, openly and honestly exactly what we were looking to do with the building. This is for a sale and they are looking to purchase it.
Mr. Rejman: We understand that. We are held to a higher standard on use variances.
Mr. Meyer: OK, I would be happy to go through all the financials with you right now.
Mr. Rejman: No, I would like to table this, I would like you to put together a packet that each of us will receive and be able to absorb for a few days prior to the meeting and I would like to have a 12 month P&L. Show me a 12 month P&L on the building. We will need proof of the bills, if there is a mortgage; we need proof of one mortgage statement. If there is
Mr. Meyer: Sir, I have all that here today.
Mr. Rejman: We are not going to sit here and absorb this in two minutes and vote on it.
Ms. Marteney: Part of the problem is that we asking specifically for that to be provided in our packets this month and it is difficult to look at things just given to us right now.
Mr. Meyer: Maybe it was through misinformation, but I was told to bring to these actual bills and things with me and I didn’t know you wanted copies of all these.
Ms. Marteney: I think you representative understood that last month. Perhaps he didn’t translate that to you.
Mr. Meyer: I want to be very clear though for this time, you want a 12 month profit and loss and you want proof of all bills.
Mr. Rejman: We are suggesting yes. The more the merrier actually. Just show us everything that a prospective, if I wanted to buy that operation from you and I said show me if it is making money or not, I want to see what you would show me.
Mr. Meyer: Unfortunately it is so easy to show you that it is losing money. I really don’t need to show you too many bills, I can show you how much we make, it is very clear from 10 units we make $2700 a month there and just with the few bills I will show it eats away at that and then some, I mean my mortgage is $1350
Mr. Rejman: Sorry, we are not going to take that tonight. We need time to study this.
Ms. Hussey: Mr. Meyer, I suggest checking with the Code and it tells you specifically what to provide in as much what you need to prove in order to obtain a use variance, self-created hardship, that you can absolutely have no reasonable return for use permitted in the zoning district, refer to the Auburn City Code.
Mr. Meyer: OK, I did bring those but I am assuming you need more time to look at those. That is your request; I will have to come back.
Mr. Rejman: Plus to be quite honest you will pick up one more board member next month. Remember you need 4 affirmative votes.
Mr. Meyer: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: I would like to make a motion that we table 134 East Genesee Street until our next regular meeting.
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that.
Mr. Rejman: All in favor. Aye – all in favor to table.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
Appeal of issuance of building permit at 202-206 Genesee Street. Joseph A. Camardo.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: This is some new ground that we have run into, this hasn’t happened to us before.
Mr. Ryan: My name is Kevin Ryan as most of you; I represent Joseph Camardo who resides at the corner of Ross Place and Genesee Street in the City. This matter concerns the proposed expansion of the Bel-Aire Apartments owned by Brandon Grillo, which is 202-206 Genesee Street.
This has been before this board, Planning Board and the Supreme Court a number of times and there have been successive challenges and remands back to this board for additional information. The most recent issue was Mr. Grillo’s proposal to add 12 units to the complex. A lawsuit was brought an Article 78 was challenging the Planning Board’s site plan approval. The Court instead of ruling the merits of the Article 78 petition invalidated the portion of the Auburn City Code relating to density calculations and dismissed the petition. Now that matter is presently on appeal before the 4th Department in Rochester and upon the appeal we are asking for a stay of the proposed expansion pending the
outcome of the appeal. We were recently advised that the Appellate Division has granted our application for a stay so in as much as this appeal tonight relates to issuing a building permit. Whether this appeal is successful or not the merits will go forward to appeal Judge Fandrich’s ruling with regards to the density calculations as heard by the Appellate Division.
That being said the Building Department did issue a building permit to Mr. Grillo and so but for the stay from the Appellate Division we would have had the authority to go forward. We filed an appeal of that building permit because there were certain concerns that we felt that should have been but were not considered by the City of Auburn before it was granted. Specifically we have suggested in our application that the proposed expansion violates Section 305-34(b)(5)(a) which requires any housing unit to have more than 1500 square feet of total habitable floor area. Mr. Grillo’s site plan application states that these have 926 square feet per unit.
Mr. Rejman: Doesn’t it speak too that there is no multiple family dwelling so we are talking dwelling on one hand and units on the other hand? Doesn’t the dwelling encompass the units?
Mr. Ryan: Well, we obviously feel differently but in as much as this board is the board of the City of Auburn in charge of the interpretation of that Code
Mr. Rejman: If we interpret the other way then every apartment in the City of Auburn we need 1500 square feet.
Mr. Ryan: And it is our view that is what that City Code requires but. In addition there is also it was also based on a suggested violation of 305-21(D)(1)(b) which requires parking areas and other driveways for ingress and egress to be located a certain distance away from the boundary lines. Our review of Mr. Grillo’s site plan application reveals that has not been complied with as well.
Finally most significantly is the fact that it invalidated the portion of the Auburn City Code relating to density calculations, which was passed by a Local Law I believe it was in 2002. That Local Law superceded a previous ordinance of the City of Auburn related to density calculations. It is our contention that when the Court invalidated the current law relating to density calculations, it in effect resurrected the prior statute, which had a maximum of 68 units in a particular four-acre neighborhood. Now I reviewed the site plan application taken with our own calculations and the other units present in the area revealed adding 12 additional units would have more than 68 units present in this four-acre neighborhood. As such granting the building permit to all these additional 12 units would violate the density calculations, as they existed prior to the most recent statute that Judge Frandrich struck down. I want to stress to this board that the Court’s decision
invalidated the present the most recent zoning calculation, it was invalidated because the Court that it was vague and therefore unenforceable. Again, that is on appeal before the Appellate Division. I don’t know which way the board wants to go given the pendency of the appeal.
It has also been brought to my attention that the City Council may be considering new legislation relating to density calculations within the City of Auburn as well. I am not sure how this board is going to consider that as well.
Also, based on the letter that I just handed you, this stay this matter is scheduled to be heard on the October term of the Appellate, I don’t know how long building permits last whether they expire after a certain number of months that is something to consider as well. Should the building permit expire on its own accord by virtue of the appeal or whether or not that decision is actually needed for tonight. Those are the points that I want the board to consider with respect to the building permit issued to Mr. Grillo.
Mr. Rejman: Brian do you wish to make any comments on this?
Mr. Hicks: I would be happy to answer any questions the board may have.
Mr. Rejman: I think the board has a lot of questions.
Mr. Westlake: Actually for the units that Mr. Grillo is going for, he doesn’t have to come in front of the Zoning Board anyway because he originally was 16, 12 he doesn’t need to come in front of us.
Mr. Rejman: That is what the issue is.
Mr. Westlake: We have to go with the way the law stands right now
Mr. Rejman: It is interpretation.
Mr. Ryan: Unless this board determines that adding the 12 additional units wouldn’t allow to be more density than presently allowable under the present Code.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t think it is an issue at all, doesn’t have anything to do with it.
Mr. Rejman: Let me see if I can clarify some of this. So what we have before us is an application that says we need to affirm or disaffirm the action of the Zoning Officer and there are three issues being looked at.
#1 – Section 305-34(B)(5)(a) – no multiple family dwelling shall be constructed which contains less than 1500 square feet. The applicant is saying that each unit should be 1500 square and Codes has interpreted that the building itself should be 1500 square feet, we have to consider that.
Ms. Marteney: Whose quote is the second quote in that and there is no end of the quote so I am wondering how that
Mr. Rejman: Read it
Ms. Marteney: It starts half way through that paragraph 5A says, “these units are planned as two bedroom apartments, at approximately 926 square feet.
Mr. Ryan: As the author of the May 19th letter I can say that quote was taken from Mr. Grillo’s site plan application and the closed quotations is suppose to be at end of 926 square feet.
Ms. Marteney: OK. So our question is are units the same as dwelling?
Mr. Ryan: Well, I am interpreting that statement as being where is says there must be 1500 square feet of total habitable floor area, whether or not that is the same as
Ms. Marteney: It is a question of semantics is dwelling the same as unit?
Mr. Ryan: I say that it is.
Mr. Rejman: That is what we are being asked to decide.
#2 – we are all reading the same page
Ms. Marteney: Show us which pictures, can we talk about that first before we move on
Mr. Rejman: I want to get everyone’s input then we are going to close the public portion and really discuss it.
Ms. Marteney: Our conversation about 5a is are dwellings and units the same thing?
Mr. Rejman: And the applicant says yes.
Ms. Marteney: I don’t care what that is, that is what the question is?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: Are those the same thing?
Mr. Rejman: Pretty much.
Ms. Marteney: So that is what our discussion will be about?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: OK.
Mr. Rejman: OK on b 305-26(D)(1)(b) requires that in all districts, no part of any parking lot area other than driveways for ingress and egress, shall be located closer to the street. And the applicant is saying that the driveways are in violation of minimum setback rules.
Mr. Ryan: I think that might have been a typo I think that also relates to the actual parking lots as well within the setback requirement.
Mr. Rejman: If I am correct, the parking lots, there are existing parking lots that will be not expanded, just repaved, no changes on those, so there are some questions marks here.
The third point that you want us to consider is the area density issue.
Mr. Ryan: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: Do we have something about that? A copy of, I don’t know what that is, what the law is right now about density in a four-acre or area or whatever.
Mr. Rejman: We can read that to you.
Ms. Marteney: When we get to that, but I don’t know, we have never come up to this
Ms. Hussey: I don’t think there is anything in this packet on how density was calculated by Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Rejman: No.
Ms. Marteney: No.
Mr. Rejman: So at this point are there questions from the board concerning the applicant’s concerns? Are there questions that you would like to ask Codes at this point?
I would like to ask Code Enforcement to take the podium for a moment. For the record, state your name.
Mr. Hicks: Brian Hicks, Senior Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Auburn, I reside at 14 Perrine Street, Auburn, New York.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you Brian. Point #1 no multiple family dwelling shall be constructed with less than 1,500 square feet. Give us your take on that, how has that been read over the years.
Mr. Hicks: The dwelling as we see it as a definition is the structure. We must have 1500 square feet in the structure to be able to apply for a conversion from a single family to a two family to a three family. You must meet the criteria in square footage to create an extra or a 3 unit of the square footage that is required. So we look at that as 1500 square feet minimum before you can start a conversion process for the structure.
Ms. Marteney: The entire footprint of the structure.
Mr. Hicks: Floor space of the structure to create separate dwelling units.
Ms. Brower: Is there a square footage requirement for two bedroom apartments?
Mr. Hicks: There is a minimum for the size of the bedrooms; the thing is it depends on the occupancy load for the apartment. If you have two adults in one bedroom and a child in another there is a minimum sizing. Now you could have a two-bedroom apartment designed for two single adults that square footage would change.
Ms. Marteney: How do you know that whether or not it is for two kids in a bunk bed when you built that.
Mr. Hicks: You don’t. There are many single family homes right now that are out there that fall into the same rule. The thing is you have got to take a look at the design that is put in front of you and say what are you using it for.
Ms. Marteney: Isn’t that kind of speculation?
Mr. Hicks: There is a garage that could have a business in it tomorrow.
Ms. Marteney: I understand that
Ms. Brower: What are the measurements of the bedrooms for a two-bedroom apartment?
Mr. Hicks: Normally they try to get around 90 square feet or above, most of the time you find something like 10 x 11 or 10 x 12.
Mr. Rejman: Point 2 we really are not sure they are speaking of minimum setbacks, buffers, landscape requirements, east boundary, and you looked at the site plan, help me remember here, I don’t thing there was any variances required for any of that, I could be wrong.
Mr. Hicks: There were some issues there with the site plan we tweaked the parking and I also had to tweak some of the radius for the turn around for the Fire Department, the garden in the center right in front what I call the entrance, the main entrance there, but I don’t remember any area variances needed to be granted.
Mr. Rejman: What I am saying is this says Camardo contends his licensed professional engineer determined the location of the driveway has violated this chapter by being placed within setback area. Driveways are specifically omitted from that requirement. So I guess I am not understanding something. Maybe we can clarify that later.
Mr. Hicks: And I looked at those as pre-existing non-conforming, they were there before I was even here.
Ms. Marteney: The only thing that would be new is back past
Mr. Hicks: The new parking areas and those have to meet the requirements.
Mr. Rejman: And they do.
Mr. Hicks: They do meet the requirements. That has gone to site plan approval, as far as I know, no area variances have been needed for those parking areas.
Mr. Rejman: And the third point is the density calculations.
Mr. Hicks: We have gone over these density calculations so many times, we are seeing so many figures bouncing around, he still falls within the allowed density. Maximum 68, he is coming underneath that every thing. When we move the center as the design professional that Mr. Camardo hired, suggested that we had the center off, we tried it her way and we still come up underneath. We tried it another way we come up underneath. So the thing is he still has a cushion of 2 to 3 units before he even hits our density.
Ms. Marteney: For my visual benefit what does that mean, what is the edge of that four acre around it?
Mr. Hicks: What we do is we take the tax map, we pin point where the project is going to be
Ms. Marteney: OK.
Mr. Hicks: We take a 4 acre template, we set it on here, any property that falls within that, we grab that tax map number, we check to see how many units are involved and at that point we total them all up find out where it fall into our parameter.
Ms. Marteney: Where would be the edge, kind of walk us around the edge for this property.
Mr. Hicks: We have Ross Place, we have Woodlawn behind and we have Genesee Street.
Ms. Marteney: Does it go over to Fort Street?
Mr. Hicks: No.
Ms. Marteney: Doesn’t go that far?
Mr. Hicks: No.
Ms. Marteney: Where does it stop on Genesee Street?
Mr. Hicks: Basically right there at Fagliarones, encompasses Pettigrass’, the old Pettigrass Funeral Home which is now the homestead for Pettigrass and the calculations the way we saw it, it just ended before the curb line of the western side of Ross, so we calculated every different way that we possibly could.
Ms. Marteney: So it doesn’t go over Genesee Street, there aren’t any apartments on Genesee Street on the north side anyway; it doesn’t go over there.
Mr. Hicks: It does not cross Genesee Street. It does hit the back lots of everything on Woodlawn.
Ms. Marteney: On Woodlawn, ok, I was trying to do an aerial for me to understand what the line of that was. And the most units that that can have is
Mr. Hicks: 68 maximum is our density that can fall into that area.
Mr. Rejman: I know this density issue has come up before and for the record it was last addressed by Codes 4 or 5 years ago, the newer calculations.
Ms. Marteney: I think it is more than that.
Mr. Rejman: And I know that I don’t think I can remember ever running into a situation where we had to.
Ms Marteney: We had somebody over in there somewhere
Mr. Rejman: One
Ms. Marteney: Yes one.
Mr. Rejman: Out of 5 years of calculations. We may be too lenient but that is a council issue, not ours, just interpret.
Ms. Marteney: That would be interesting to know that number and to see that, to understand that better.
Mr. Rejman: Nancy is going up and copying those pages for us.
Ms. Marteney: OK, we can say yes but to be able to really see, ok, each of these properties has 2 or 3
Mr. Rejman: I am not sure about that, but at least you will have the formula on how it is done.
Mr. Marteney: I understand how it is done, I don’t have a problem with that, it would be interesting to actually know that so that we can say yes there are 57 units in this and even if you move this grid
Mr. Hicks: We have done all of that.
Ms. Marteney: I believe you. I don’t have written documentation of it.
Mr. Rejman: The applicant has a question.
Mr. Ryan: Brian, you said that you have done calculations and you have factored in the east side of Ross Place, Genesee Street, down to the north end of Woodlawn.
Mr. Hicks: And up Woodlawn.
Mr. Ryan: And up Woodlawn. Do you consider the western side of Ross Place within the 4-acre neighborhood?
Mr. Hicks: Took that into consideration also, by moving the point away from what we
Mr. Ryan: Just as Ms. Miller suggested.
Mr. Hicks: We tried to do it her way and we calculated across Ross Street, we also moved the center of the project to the north, we moved it farther to the east, southeast to try to get
Mr. Ryan: And no matter which way you did it it still came in under 68 units and that is based on your tax maps.
Mr. Hicks: Tax maps and each individual property that falls into that as far as how many units are there.
Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you. Any other questions from Brian?
Mr. Westlake: Just this other handout that we were given tonight, this has been shut down by the Supreme Court anyway?
Mr. Rejman: There is a stay and there is an appeal.
Mr. Westlake: A stay until August 13th?
Mr. Hicks: Mr. Grillo’s building permit is good for 6 months and at this point in time, I don’t know the date of issuance, but I could tell you when it will expire.
Mr. Rejman: Isn’t your office allowed to grant one extension?
Mr. Hicks: Yes we are.
Mr. Rejman: So we wouldn’t want it to expire while under appeal. That would start the whole thing all over again. Thank you very much.
Like to bring the applicant back. Any closing statements.
Mr. Ryan: Yes, as I reviewed this application, I submitted an affidavit that identified the neighborhood density calculation that my office performed. I don’t see it here, which concerns me. This was all copied by Avalon Copy Service and I am concerned that it might have been omitted. In my copy I don’t have it.
Ms. Marteney: There is no calculation of what your person says.
Mr. Ryan: Like I said
Mr. Rejman: You submitted the calculations?
Mr. Ryan: I did, I did and I don’t see it here. One of the girls was on vacation so we had it sent to a copy service to be copied, so for that I apologize to the board and with that being said I would like to table this application until next the board meeting so that I can submit my affidavit where we show our density calculations which obviously contradicts what Mr. Hicks said and I would like the board to consider them well before ruling on this appeal.
Mr. Hicks: Kevin is this what you are looking for?
Mr. Ryan: Yes, my affidavit
Ms. Marteney: It is not on here.
Mr. Ryan: I would like the opportunity to table this for a month and submit what our density calculation is.
Mr. Rejman: I think that would be wise. At that point hopefully we will have a fuller board and give us time to look this over in detail because Nancy is copying some pages that she wants us to look at.
Make a motion that we table.
Ms. Marteney: How do we make a decision about what the difference is between dwelling and unit?
Ms. Hussey: Because it is specifically defined in the Code. I just made copies. Excuse me for interrupting.
Mr. Rejman: Nancy there seems to be a page missing from the application here, so we would like to table this until next month.
Move that we table the application of Mr. Joseph Camardo. We would like this table until next month giving us a chance to correct any errors that may be in the package and also giving us time to read up on this.
All in favor.
Mr. Ryan: Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: We are not stopping the building permit, this is.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
| 
