ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY JULY 26, 2004
Members Present: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
One Vacancy
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey
Mr. Hicks
Mrs. Hoffmann
APPLICATION
APPROVED: 134 E. Genesee Street
8 Bowen Street
2 Seneca Parkway
APPLICATIONS
TABLED: 10 Prospect Street
APPLICATIONS
DENIED: 202-206 Genesee Street
257 Genesee Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have:
10 Prospect Street
134 E. Genesee Street
202-206 Genesee Street
8 Bowen Street
2 Seneca Parkway
257 Genesee Street
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JULY 26, 2004
10 Prospect Street, R-1, Redeemer Lutheran Church. Use variance for parking spaces in the front yard and an access driveway on Franklin Street.
Mr. Rejman: 10 Prospect Street, are you here? Yes, step forward, state your name for the record.
Mr. Wagner: Matt Wagner.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Matt, tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Wagner: It was tabled from the last meeting for the report from the Police Department and the Engineering Department. We are seeking handicap parking.
Mr. Rejman: For the record, how many spaces is that for?
Mr. Wagner: 4 spaces.
Mr. Rejman: 4 spaces.
Mr. Wagner: We share common space with wheelchair access.
Mr. Rejman: We do have the letter from the Police Department, Officer Weed. Everyone has that?
Ms. Hussey: Do you want me to read it into the record?
Mr. Rejman: Yes, please.
Ms. Hussey: This is a memo to the Auburn City Planning Board from Officer Tom Weed, Traffic Coordinator, dated July 15, 2004 regarding Redeemer Lutheran Church.
“A request was made a few weeks ago to review a plan submitted to the Planning Board for front yard parking in front of the Redeemer Lutheran Church on Franklin Street.
I met with City Engineer Bill Lupien and Code Enforcement Officer Brian Hicks, and after a review of the plan and a site study, we feel that there is a significant problem with the site distance for both highway traffic and traffic in the parking lot.
We also feel that because of the speed limit there and the nearby intersection, this plan should be denied.”
And it is signed T. Weed.
Mr. Rejman: We also have a letter from David Contiguglia. Do you have copies of that?
Ms. Hussey: Do you want me to read that into the record?
Mr. Rejman: It is rather long letter.
Ms. Hussey: This is from David Contiguglia to the City of Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals, Memorial City Hall, dated July 15, 2004 regarding 10 Prospect Street, Redeemer Lutheran Church Parking Area.
“Dear Board Members: I am writing in favor of the application of Redeemer Lutheran Church for its parking area at 10 Prospect Street. I have attended this Church all my life. I was baptized and confirmed in the Church. I currently serve as an elder with the Church, and I am very familiar with the need we have for accommodating the handicapped members and visitors to our congregation. I understand there is some concern with the traffic patterns on Franklin Street relating to the Church’s proposal for a handicap parking spot. Enclosed for your review is a photocopy of a survey the Church had performed on August 10, 2001. The survey map is helpful in showing the accurate
measurements. Redeemer Lutheran Church has approximately 350 feet of road frontage along Franklin Street. The parking area in question would be approximately 100 feet easterly of the intersection of the east line of Prospect Street with the north line of Franklin Street.
The use of this parking area would be strictly limited to handicap access. The Church has regular Sunday attendance of between 30 and 35 people. Church services are currently held once a week on a Sunday for one hour in the morning. A Bible Study ad Sunday School precede the service. The worship schedule varies during the advent season where an additional service is held on Wednesday evenings for four successive weeks and varies during the Lenten season when one additional service is held on Wednesday evenings. Hold Week Services are held Thursday evening and Good Friday. Community activities and other social events would take place in the Fellowship Hall on the ground level of the Church. The
parking for those events is exclusively the gravel parking lot, which is on the Prospect Street side. Franklin Street would not be used for parking during those events. It is important to note that there will not be a constant flow of traffic from the Church onto Franklin Street. Use would be limited to between one to four vehicles on a Sunday morning when traffic is lighter.
The Church building leaves this means of access as the only one for handicapped individuals. The side entrance, which is accessed by the Prospect Street parking lot, requires those attending the service to climb a large flight of stairs to access the Church Sanctuary on the second floor where services are held. Our Church was built in the 1950’s before accessibility concerns were a common consideration of building design and development.
I also note that the placement of stop signs on Franklin Street and Prospect Street intersection has greatly improved the safety of traffic for our property and slowed the speed of traffic on Franklin Street. There are limited occasions where vehicles traveling west on Franklin Street become frustrated by the wait at the stop sign during busy times of traffic and have left the roadway driving across the Church lawn to access the gravel parking area and then drive out onto Prospect Street. This practice is a concern, but the stop signs have abated the fast moving traffic.
My congregation is a small congregation. The finances are extremely limited; we do not have the money to afford an elevator or other device for allowing people to access the Church sanctuary. The current working balance of the Church account is approximately $1,500.00. This limits the ability to have professionally drafted plans or traffic engineers to scientifically demonstrate the request for parking.
As members of the body of Christ, we are concerned with the safety of our neighbors and the public who are on Franklin Street. If the current proposal is unacceptable, I would ask that the Board would consider alternate arrangements, which could accommodate our needs and the needs of the public at an expense which we can afford.
In closing, this handicapped space would be used lightly. The majority of the year the use would only take place for one Sunday service on Sunday morning. During the Christmas and Easter seasons the use would slightly increase to two days a week for a period of 1 – 2 hours. These time periods do not coincide with school dismissal or “rush hour” traffic. The parking spaces are critical to our ability to minister to an aging congregation and those members of our community with handicaps. It is from my experience that these individuals find the worship service and the administration of the sacraments so very important to their spiritual lives and their quality of life in the City of Auburn.” Very truly yours, David Contiguglia.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. We have heard both letters and I have questions for both letters, but questions from the board at this point?
Mr. Darrow: Have you looked at an alternate route or location that would bring your Church goers say up that incline or hill by accessing a handicap lot off of Prospect rather than creating a new curb cut on Franklin Street?
Mr. Wagner: The hill is very steep coming up that way, not sure, still puts the parking lot in front of the Church, I guess I don’t understand your question.
Mr. Darrow: Well, my largest concern of the parking in the front of the Church is not its location of the vehicles or of an aesthetic purpose it is more of a safety purpose of vehicles coming in and out. Or if there are already some people who are cutting across your grass, seeing a larger gravel area, would that want to make them cut through there over the grass and down? Those are the concerns that I am seeing, but I don’t have a major problem with what you want to do just with the Traffic Officer Weed report that is all.
Mr. Wagner: Just to address the cars going in the yard, most of them don’t make it. Coming down is ok, coming up is a problem.
Mr. Rejman: Brian, can I ask you a question?
Mr. Hicks: Sure.
Mr. Rejman: You stated in here that there is a significant problem with the site distance for both highway traffic and traffic in the parking lot. I assume you are talking the proposed parking lot?
Mr. Hicks: Correct.
Mr. Rejman: Define front yard parking.
Mr. Hicks: Any things placed in front between the front of the structure and the street.
Mr. Rejman: So that means if they decided to put in some back fill and the parking lot was on the side of the Church, it wouldn’t be an issue at all.
Mr. Hicks: It would not be an issue.
Mr. Rejman: Side corner of the building. So if a little bit of fill, actually a lot of fill was brought in a couple of things would stop. Cars wouldn’t be cutting across there because there would be a drop off at that point and parking would be on the side of the building and not in front of the building.
Mr. Wagner: That would be great along as the access point is on Franklin Street.
Mr. Rejman: It would be. The issue is front yard parking, parking exactly in front of a dwelling, parking on the side of the dwelling is a different issue. No issue actually.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question for Codes, do you still need Engineering approval for a curb cut?
Mr. Hicks: All ways.
Mr. Darrow: I didn’t know if that part was still in Auburn or not.
Mr. Rejman: That is another option.
Mr. Darrow: The whole lot.
Mr. Hicks: I am not sure where the City line is but I think all of their property is within the City of Auburn.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Concerns, comments?
Ms. Brower: I have a question. Have you looked into the cost of fill and excavating and grading and so forth that you would be able to entertain something like that?
Mr. Wagner: We certainly could get a quote, yes. You mean for side parking instead of the front?
Ms. Brower: Yes.
Mr. Wagner: We certainly could get a quote on it.
Mr. Rejman: What is the width of the building right now, 30 feet, 35 feet? So we are talking moving the parking lot 35 feet to the east.
Mr. Wagner: That would alleviate the officer’s problem with entering Franklin Street.
Mr. Rejman: Still need a curb cut, but the front yard parking issue is resolved.
Ms. Hussey: Would not require a variance.
Mr. Wagner: How much more likely is it that the Police Department is going to have a different view moving 35 feet?
Mr. Darrow: 35 feet from the corner of the intersection.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, 35 feet further from the intersection. At that point you have a turn around – I can’t speak for him, maybe his issue is with backing in.
Mr. Wagner: We are not backing into Franklin Street, the parking lot is wide enough that they back into the parking lot always enter Franklin Street facing forward.
Mr. Darrow: One point that is important, eve if we were to grant the variance this evening, you still have to apply to Engineering for a curb cut and they could deny your curb cut because of safety issues.
Mr. Wagner: I applied for that permit and received a phone call saying it was denied because it is in front of the house parking.
Mr. Rejman: Right, move it over 35 feet. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application?
Mr. Contiguglia: My name is Dave Contiguglia. You read my letter, there is not a lot that I am going to add to that. What we are struggling with are the finances of the Church are certainly quite limited. I really don’t suspect that we would have the ability currently to move a parking lot with fill and deal with the grade, because there is a grade that comes down from Franklin, which is similar to the grade on Prospect Street.
The other thing too is the further we try to get away from that front door, the harder it is for people with handicaps to be more independent. What we see is even though Church members, I think of one gentleman in particular who is a World War II veteran, need to use that and should use that, they don’t want help, they don’t want somebody to sort of escort them to the door sort of the bigger issue that people with handicaps want accessibility want the ability to go up and access it on their own. The further we get away from that door, we have a little bit of a problem.
Mr. Rejman: I think there is a lot of sympathy in this, just looking for different ways to solve the problem.
Mr. Contiguglia: I want to be clear too, no body in our congregation wants the public at risk, the public safety is very important.
Mr. Rejman: What if there was a pull up drive, a drop off area where for lack of a better word, valet parking, where someone would drive in, another member of the congregation could drive the car back down and then after service the car be brought back to them.
Mr. Contiguglia: That is a possibility.
Mr. Rejman: Parking is the issue, if you just pull up, Brian help me here, would that be a problem, if they pulled up, off loaded someone and then the car moved way, is that still an issue?
Mr. Hicks: As long as there isn’t a curb cut proposed for Franklin Street.
Ms. Marteney: There would have to be.
Mr. Hicks: You can come through the parking, there are several different options that I don’t think have been researched yet, which could be proposed to Tom Weed and the Engineering Department and once again be reviewed as see what the outcome would be.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Contiguglia: So that would be the first stop, to coordinate with them and see.
Mr. Darrow: I think it is important to get your idea and the backing of the Traffic Officer Tom Weed, I feel that is important. The other aspect you are speaking of the members having that 30 feet, being 30 feet away on the side rather than on the front, I don’t see that as being any further than any of them would park in a handicap spot at Tops, Wegmans or Wal-Mart and have the same walk to the front door.
Ms. Marteney: You are not handicapped and you don’t know how 30 feet more can be, I have a parent that is handicapped and having to walk 30 feet more can make the difference between going some place or not.
Mr. Darrow: I can understand that but I am basing it upon handicap lots are currently placed through the City in a uniform area.
Ms. Marteney: That Church has for lack of a better term, a peculiar front to it, it doesn’t have a front front door, when you look at it, it doesn’t have this is the front door kind of look about it. I frankly don’t have a problem with that being in the front yard. Not like Westminster putting a parking lot in its front. It definitely looks like a front yard. This doesn’t and the door to it is kind of on the side anyway.
Mr. Contiguglia: There are two doors, the one we all use is on the side, sort of a main entrance would be like St. Alphonsus or St. Mary’s, the main entrance is the one in the front. Every body uses the side.
Ms. Marteney: In terms of the visual for me, I don’t have a problem. The sign is kind of kiddy corner and to me, the face of the building is the side that is on the west where the sign is. I don’t have a visual problem with the parking lot being there. I understand their need to put the parking lot as close as possible for folks. We don’t have a drawing that actually shows where they are thinking about putting the parking lot, that is something I have a little bit of a problem with and I have driven up again to try and visualize where it is going to go.
Mr. Wagner: I brought a photograph the last time, where the sidewalk
Ms. Marteney: Oh, I have gone up and looked at the site, but on these, no body has kind of penciled in where you are thinking of putting it.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t think it is a visual thing, it is the safety that we are looking at here.
Ms. Marteney: But if people are coming down, they know they have to stop at that stop sign there.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s close the public portion. Any one else wishing to speak for or against? OK, we will close the public portion. OK, let me start. I think there is sympathy here to help, not sure how to do that. I think there is a solution somewhere and I would be hesitant to vote on this tonight because we would close the door.
Mr. Darrow: Exactly, I would prefer that it was tabled, speak with Tom Weed and if there is something that Tom Weed was behind, I find it easier for myself.
Mr. Rejman: Personal opinion, I don’t really see where 4 cars pose an issue. However, all congregations are getting older so, next year is it 6 cars, then 8 cars and then 10 cars. That is the issue.
Ms. Marteney: No enough space for that many cars.
Mr. Rejman: I know.
Mr. Westlake: Maybe a circular driveway, where they can drive in and drive out, drop their people off
Ms. Marteney: Problem isn’t being in the front yard for Officer Weed, it is pulling off into Franklin Street.
Mr. Rejman: I would like to ask Officer Weed if he could come to the meeting next month.
Ms. Marteney: They need to talk to him before to see if he has some solution, last time we talked about why couldn’t they put something at the end of their gravel and come up around, I went again and looked, it is a basin, it looks like it even has drainage problems and other things going on over there.
Mr. Rejman: I assume we are all in agreement to table this until next month. All in favor. Yes.
I suggest you get together with Codes and Officer Weed again and Brain extent a cordial invitation for next month so that he can come.
Mr. Hicks: He probably would have been here, but he is out of town.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. This item is tabled until next month.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JULY 26, 2004
134 E. Genesee Street, R-1, Use variance for business offices in a residential zone. Paul Meyer.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 134 East Genesee Street please.
Mr. Meyer: Hello, my name is Paul Meyer. I am here for a proposal that will hopefully help Catholic Charities.
Mr. Rejman: We asked you to come back because we needed some more information and it looks like you gave us quite a bit.
Mr. Meyer: Two fold actually.
Mr. Rejman: Looks like you went around and talked to some neighbors with nine neighborhood residents signing a petition for you.
Mr. Meyer: Actually I didn’t do that, that was done by somebody else, but I did include two letters from the immediate neighbors that are right next door to the property. One is from the Carrs, Mrs. Carr is a librarian and Mr. Carr works at the NASA center at the college and they live right next door to the property. Very intelligent people, they have young children, they are going to be there I am sure for a long time, and they are very much in favor of the proposal.
As some people may recall this was a B-1 building originally and it had a use variance for an R-2 to become an apartment building, but the situation the hardship is unique to the building in that because it was a B-1 it was apparently turned into apartments it was very congested in there and I think because of the amount of people that are in there and how small the apartments are, some are just one room, that the neighbors at least feel it would be more conducive and meet the character of the neighborhood more if it was a B-1 office, so they are very much in support because they feel it is to their benefit.
I mentioned that I did include some financial information here and I did also include supporting information, on the second page I listed the income and the expenses, but with each item I referenced with like Exhibit 1, 2, 3 and when I did hit Exhibit 1 I did include partially what our vacancy or actually our eviction rate is which is very high, because they are so small often the apartment building gets people that very transitory and often times because of that they don’t pay.
Next I included here my month’s checking statement with my partner and other Exhibit 3 is the actual mortgage, actual copy of that. Exhibit 4 is our taxes and that goes on for a few pages. Exhibit 5 is the Gas & Electric and that is the monthly installment and we are a little late on that. Exhibit 6 is a water bill that we had. Exhibit 7 is our monthly statement for our insurance, our snow plowing, some problems that we had with some tenants and that is pretty much the run of it.
I also brought receipts if there are any questions or anything else and I also brought all my records. I submitted this on request a few weeks before the meeting so that everybody would have the opportunity to look this over and I want to wrap it up and answer any questions, but I very much hope everybody is in support of Catholic Charities, along with the neighbors and that the financial hardship can be taken into consideration. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board? Any one wishing to speak for or against the application? None. This is what we need. Final call for questions. OK, we will close the public portion.
Mr. Meyer: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: It is a unique property, I don’t think you can argue that.
Mr. Darrow: Plus its history it was a doctor’s office.
Mr. Rejman: The proposed use would be better suited for the neighborhood I would think.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that these two letters be read into the record please from the Trutschel family and the Carr family.
Ms. Hussey: July 17, 2004, To the Members of the City of Auburn Zoning Board: “We would like to take this opportunity to support the current proposal to re-zone the property located at 134 East Genesee Street, in Auburn. Scheduling conflicts have kept us from attending the recent meeting.
Our residence, located at One Evans Street is adjacent to the two back houses on the proposed site which now houses apartments. Given the choices, we feel that allowing the Genesee Street property to be designated as office space (without dwelling privileges) would be beneficial to the entire neighborhood.
Over the years, we have endured through noisy, irresponsible, inconsiderate and rude tenants from this situation. The glut of apartments in this City leads us to believe that this will always be the norm. The majority of people living in these apartments generally do not behave in ways that are conducive to the quality of life that we, as property owners deserve. Our children should not have to be forced inside because of the “neighbors” and of their colorful vocabulary. Situations such as this force families out of the City’s limits and dwindles the City’s population.
Allowing this particular piece of property to be classified as office space would certainly be a step to return this neighborhood to a safer, quieter place to live and raise a family. We believe that property that will be used to house office space will be properly maintained, quiet neighbors and is a win-win situation for all.” Thank you. Gregory & Judith Trutschel, One Evans Street.
Friday, July 23, 2004. Zoning Board of Appeals, City of Auburn. Re: Change of Zoning for 134 E. Genesee Street. Dear Zoning Board Members: “The property at 134 E. Genesee Street currently houses 10 rental units within three buildings. Due to financial problems, the landlord is seeking a change in zoning in order to sell the property to Catholic Charities. We understand zoning is attached to the property and not the owner.
Given the unique nature of the property, we feel it is highly unlikely someone will invest the time and money to convert the property into a single-family residence. After much thought and discussion, we fully support the landlord’s request to change the existing zoning to business/professional. We are more comfortable with this change than the prior request for commercial zoning, which we feel would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood.
Living next door to this property, we feel the change in zoning will enhance our quality of life, as well as our neighbors. The change to business/professional zoning will reduce the amount of traffic and noise, particularly in the evening hours. While there is no guarantee that Catholic Charities will remain the owner, we believe they are making a long-term commitment to this property. They have expressed willingness to honor and maintain the historic character of the houses. We feel this is the best option for the neighborhood.” Respectfully, Lisa & David Carr, 136 E. Genesee Street, Auburn, New York.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: I feel that we are shutting a lot of windows now by giving a variance for business/professional which is going to limit what can and cannot go in there considering the variance runs with the property.
Mr. Rejman: Well, we definitely will be reducing some rental units. That is always a positive thing. Other comments?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Paul Meyer for property located at 134 E. Genesee Street, a use variance for the purpose of business/professional zoning use.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
Mr. Rejman: Hold on for a second, Nancy is that too vague or is that enough.
Ms. Hussey: That is pretty loose.
Mrs. Hoffmann: We need to do the SEQRA.
Ms. Hussey: Let’s do the SEQRA.
Mr. Darrow: Can we leave the motion on the floor and do the SEQRA?
Mr. Rejman: Yes. We are going to leave that open, it needs some amendment I believe and we are going to do the SEQRA right now.
Mrs. Hoffmann: We are down as far as C, Part II, at C.
Does this action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? No.
Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? No.
Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? No.
A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? No.
Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? No.
Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects no identified in C1-C5? No.
Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy?) No.
Is it the determination of this board that there will be no significant impacts here. Yes.
So you propose a negative declaration? Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Back to the original motion.
Mr. Darrow: Need to be more specific on the end, what it is going to consist of.
Ms. Hussey: Lisa and David Carr requested the change to the existing zoning to business/professional, business offices defined in the Code as the office of a lawyer, accountant, engineer, architect, real estate agent, insurance agent or similar professional but not a medical office as defined by this section. A business office specifically is defined as any office use not satisfying the definition of professional office or medical office shall be considered a business office for purposes of this chapter.
Gregory and Judith Trutschel requested that the property be designated as office space without dwelling privileges.
Mr. Rejman: Business use without dwelling privileges.
Ms. Hussey: There is a separate business use, I mean there are business goods and service establishment, business office. Business goods and service establishment is defined as a shop, store or office engaged in the sale of specialized commodities and goods to other businesses and industries.
Mr. Darrow: I think we can make that designation, when we spoke with them the first time whenever they have some body in need of lodging, have arrangements with a couple of the hotels in the City where they can get a room.
Mr. Rejman: Right.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to amend my motion at the end after to allow business/professional office and not to allow any over night accommodations at said dwelling.
Mr. Westlake: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application approved.
Mr. Meyer: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JULY 26, 2004
202-206 Genesee Street, R-2, BelAire Apartments. Appeal of issuance of building permit. Joseph Camardo.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 202-206 Genesee Street.
Mr. Ryan: Hi, Kevin Ryan, I represent Joseph Camardo, the applicant with regard to this appeal of issuance of a building permit for 202-206 Genesee Street. This matter was last before this board at the last meeting and at that time Brian Hicks presented what he characterized as his density calculations demonstrating the ability of the applicant to comply with the existing density calculation limits. I also had indicated that we had disputed that and we had our own density calculation of the area and determined that whether or not this board applies 40 units for a 4 acre neighborhood or 68 units for a 4 acre neighborhood, in any event, adding 12 additional units to the BelAire Apartments complex would not comply with the existing
requirements. My calculations were missing at the time so I asked this board to hold it over to the next meeting and I have submitted that by letter dated July 24, 2004 which was mailed individually to each of you.
That letters includes an affidavit that was submitted, an affidavit that I swore to, that was submitted to the Supreme Court in the course of one of the legal challenges that Mr. Camardo filed in regard to this matter.
Beginning at paragraph, I think it is #6, it identifies the density calculation as I and another member of our office preformed, whereby we went to the neighborhood and looked at each individual unit within the 4 acre neighborhood to try to determine how many units were present. As indicated in the affidavit, it is our calculation adding 12 units would make more than 68 units present, therefore violating the existing law.
As this board is aware, the Court previously struck down the neighborhood density calculation as vague and enforceable. That ruling is being appealed to the Appellate Division right now. We also applied for and had been granted an injunction prohibiting the expansion from going forward while the appeal is pending, so there can be no further development. The appeal that we brought to this board simply says that whether it is 68 units or 48 units, adding 12 additional units exceeds the maximum density calculation that is why we asked that the building permit be withdrawn. Now I know that City Council is also considering the issue what the density should be in response to Judge Fandrich’s ruling,
but again no matter which way it goes be it 48 or 68, it is our contention as set forth in this affidavit there can be no compliance with the neighborhood density limits which is why we asked that the building permit be withdrawn.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Ryan, is it my understanding when you did your density calculations you incorporated across the street which when the City did their density calculations they did not, they just incorporated the block. Is that true?
Mr. Ryan: We incorporated the west side of Ross Place, yes.
Mr. Darrow: That is why we have two different density calculations.
Mr. Ryan: I didn’t get a copy of what Mr. Hicks provided the last meeting but as I understand it he took it from the tax maps. I know, for example, Mr. Grillo owns a house at the corner of Genesee and Ross Place and that is represented as having three units. Well, we went to the site saw that there are four electrical service outlets and the very attic apartment had an area room air-conditioner, so obviously it appeared that there are more than three units in there. In as much as the City’s density calculation undercounted the number of units by simply relying on tax maps, we think that is inadequate and there should be a more accurate calculation maybe even census to find out how many units are present and how
many people are residing there.
Now, it is also our contention that the four acre neighborhood does incorporate the western side of Ross Place because as our architect showed the center point of the property had to be moved to bring in that western boundary so again, this issue right now the Appellate Division is going to rule on whether the Supreme Court erred in finding this to be vague and unenforceable. The City Council I am sure is going to weigh in with its ruling on what the density should be, but in any event, as indicated in the affidavit, even if you assumed the maximum amount of units, the maximum amount of units under anybody interpretation would be 68. As I explained in this affidavit, adding the 12 additional units would place it above 68 and therefore no matter what happens the expansion should not be
allowed. No matter what the board does nothing is going to happen until the appeal is resolved anyway, but I wouldn’t want to be in a situation where the building permit is in existence because it has been issued, it is not representative of what is going on.
Mr. Rejman: You state that you surveyed the area and you counted meters, electric meters.
Mr. Ryan: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Well, couldn’t that be an error also if the landlord had a house meter that had some sort of common area.
Mr. Ryan: It could be, again I don’t know. I didn’t go to each individual house and I didn’t knock on the door and ask. I did go to the ones that Mr. Grillo owns and knock on the door, but I do know for example I mean 206 Genesee Street the corner of Ross Place it is identified by Mr. Grillo and by the City as having three units, we are stating that there are four.
Mr. Rejman: But that is only from an exterior assessment.
Mr. Ryan: I think there was additional information that there are four units.
Mr. Rejman: In any case
Mr. Ryan: That is one example.
Mr. Rejman: I am trying to figure out what would be the most accurate survey in your mind other than knocking on the doors and going inside.
Mr. Ryan: Perhaps that is what should be done.
Mr. Rejman: How can we do that on every application for the City? That would be cost prohibitive wouldn’t it?
Mr. Ryan: Well, I don’t know how many applications for expansion actually run into the limits of an 8 foot density, so I don’t know that, but I do know that it certainly shouldn’t be my client’s responsibility to insure that the density calculations exceeded
Mr. Rejman: That is true, but you are asking us to believe your count,
Mr. Ryan: But if the City does a density calculation that says one thing and it is demonstrated to be untrue, then how can we rely on the rest of them being accurate.
Mr. Rejman: But how can we rely on yours? The same thing applies to both sides.
Mr. Ryan: Until an accurate finding is made, you are taking a leap of faith.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Isn’t there three points that we were going to address on this? Three different points?
Mr. Ryan: Yes, there were three points contained in the appeal but this is the only one that was held over from the last meeting. I can answer any questions you have with regard to the others.
Ms. Hussey: None of the other points were ruled on at the previous meeting so there is still the entire application before the board, the entire application was tabled.
Mr. Rejman: Would you like to discuss your other two points then because they were not ruled on last time.
Mr. Ryan: They were ruled on.
Ms. Hussey: I beg to differ I minutes from the previous meeting and the board decided to table the entire application.
Mr. Rejman: There was a definition of a dwelling, was that it?
Ms. Marteney: Yes, the difference between dwellings and units.
Mr. Rejman: Are you saying that you wish to strike that from the application at this point?
Mr. Ryan: No, I just don’t have anything else to add other than what I said at the last meeting. It is our contention that there is a minimum square footage of 1500 square feet where his application has 962. Now the City has come back and said that there are two different definitions I guess, one for actual dwelling and the unit itself. We disagree with that.
Mr. Westlake: Can’t we just table this until after we hear what the Court has to say?
Ms. Hussey: No, I will read the minutes.
Mr. Darrow: I am unsure why something of density is coming before us.
Ms. Hussey: Density is a determination by our Ordinance by the Code Enforcement Office. Any aggrieved party has an opportunity to appeal a decision by the Zoning Officer. In this instance the Zoning Officer made a determination that the project met the permitted density requirement and issued a building permit based on his calculations. Mr. Camardo, Mr. Ryan representing Mr. Camardo has appealed the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer to issue a building permit based on the density calculations.
Mr. Darrow: We are being asked to review the density calculations of a formula we are unaware of to make a decision of a possible density variance?
Ms. Hussey: No.
Mr. Darrow: Just that our Code Enforcement Officer was proper to issue the permit.
Ms. Hussey: Here is a copy of the Code that sets for the density calculations as required to be performed by the Code Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Ryan, I would like you to reiterate for the board and those present the three areas of concern that you have, a, b, and c.
Mr. Ryan: Three area of concerns and I may be stating them out of order, but first the density calculation which I just addressed. Secondly, we note that there is a provision of the Auburn City Code that requires a dwelling to have a minimum of 1500 square feet per unit whereas Mr. Grillo’s site plan identifies the units as being only 962 square feet. It is our contention that they are under sized and therefore not in compliance with the zoning regulations. It is also our contention that the driveway areas set forth in Mr. Grillo’s site plan don’t comply with the zoning requirements either.
Mr. Rejman: Does everyone have a copy of this page?
Mr. Darrow: Subsection 305?
Mr. Rejman: Yes, starts out Subsection 305-34. Those are the three areas we need to concern ourselves with. Have a seat for a moment, I am going Mr. Hicks to come forward and discuss it with him and Mr. Ryan will have last stand.
Ms. Hussey: What issue are you going to discuss first?
Mr. Rejman: Let’s do the area, let’s do (c) first, that is the freshest in our mind.
Mr. Hicks: I am sorry, where do you want to start?
Mr. Rejman: Name for the record.
Mr. Hicks: Brian Hicks, Senior Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Auburn.
Mr. Rejman: And you have heard the applicant state that he believes your density calculations were in error and would you like to speak to that?
Mr. Hicks: The density calculations were done from the formula set by the Ordinance at 305-34 on density calculations. We went through it step by step according to the Ordinance set forth by the City of Auburn and calculated them that way. That is the only way we can come up with our calculations for that area.
Mr. Rejman: Your calculation came up as what number?
Mr. Hicks: We did it several different ways and we came up each time under the required 68 as a possible maximum.
Mr. Rejman: Do you have those figures handy, the worst test case and how many different ways did you try to do the job.
Mr. Hicks: The last time we did it we did it two different ways due to the fact that they wanted to center of the project looked at from different areas. We moved it three different ways trying to decipher which way the architect had moved it for their calculations so we did it with different centers for each building project and we still came up with well total was 65, 54 and 52. So we took into account what Kevin mentioned earlier was the west side of Ross Place back onto Woodlawn and even going a little bit to the east which is commercial property which didn’t fall into the formula. We tried it every way.
Mr. Rejman: All right. Questions from the board?
Ms. Marteney: How did you determine the center of the property?
Mr. Hicks: Actually it is the center of the project, that is determined from the site plan.
Ms. Marteney: How did that get calculated?
Mr. Hicks: We took the center of the project through hypotenuse bulls eye and worked from there. The architect looked at it and said it was wrong so we tried to figure out which way without any information from her on where that point was, so we took Building A, Building B, foyer, center of the property, we tried all of those aspects and we still came up under.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Ms. Brower: Can meters be used as a way to determine density?
Mr. Hicks: Not accurately.
Ms. Brower: My house 5 apartments but it has many more meters because some are electric and some are gas, so I don’t know how you would use meters at all.
Mr. Hicks: See the thing is most of the times each apartment has its own meter, but if you have two common hallways in a structure and they are all fed off the one meter it would be the landlord’s responsibility or it was an after thought later on and the only way to get to it was to supply another service because of being cut up or a carriage house or some other item. There are several units out there now that have three meters cans with blanks off on them with four meters that are alive. We do it by the assessment rolls.
Mr. Rejman: All right. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Ok. Mr. Ryan would you come back please. Would you tell us how you did your calculations?
Mr. Ryan: We went down and we looked at electric service meters and I understand what Mr. Hicks is saying and what he is saying could conceivably be true, but again we looked at the building that Mr. Grillo owns on the corner of Ross Place and Genesee Street
Mr. Rejman: We have been through that. Tell me how you determined your center of the project.
Mr. Ryan: We had a licensed professional architect do that.
Mr. Rejman: And you used one center or multiple centers?
Mr. Ryan: One center, one center that she determined to be the center of the project which once you put it where it was, it moved the center of the 4 acre neighborhood to the west side of Ross Place. What we found striking was the fact that in Mr. Grillo’s site plan application is just so happened that the western most boundary for the 4 acre neighborhood just fell short of the west side of Ross Place so none of those housing units got included in there. That is one of the reasons why we asked Mrs. Miller to take a look at the application and it was her professional opinion that the western side of Ross Place should have been included.
If I could add something, may I ask Mr. Hicks a question?
Mr. Rejman: Sure.
Mr. Ryan: Mr. Hicks, when you just said that they the density calculations three different ways and said it came 65, 54 and 52, all of those would be under the 68. Now again we took the 68 unit limit for the purpose of argument for purposes of lets assume that Judge Fandrich ruling wasn’t vague and unenforceable, then 68 units would be the limit, however, it is our contention that Judge Fandrich decided wrongly and Local Law 1 of 2002 passed by the City Council expressly and unequivocally stated that the limit has to be 40. Now if that decision is proved to be wrong and if 40 units is proved to be the limit that even under Mr. Hick’s calculations this is way over the 40 unit limit, so I think it was Mr. Westlake that
suggested that
Mr. Rejman: Wait, wait, you are saying, forget the 40, let’s not muddy the waters there, you are saying that he exceeded the limit of 68 units.
Mr. Ryan: He exceeded the 68 units which maybe the limit assuming Judge Fandrich’s ruling is correct, which is not an assumption we are prepared to make at this point, but for this application as well.
Mr. Rejman: OK, that is fine.
Mr. Darrow: A question for Mr. Ryan. On this page of your documents, is this Mr. Hicks’ 4-acre plot or your 4-acre plot?
Mr. Ryan: That is Mr. Grillo’s 4-acre plot that was taken directly from his site plan application. I think the center point on that drawing shows to be the center of the entire property, not the actual expansion that he has proposed.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Are you familiar with Subsection 305-35(c)? I will read it and I will be referring to your affidavit page 3.
In your signed affidavit it says and it is referencing 305-35(B)(5)(c)[2][c]. After subtracting the 12 units, the permitted neighborhood density is reduced to 56 units in your opinion or your expert’s opinion.
Mr. Ryan: Yes, let me explain why. If you set for the purpose of arguing the limit at 68 we are trying to figure out whether it complies or not so every time you count a unit one less that is available to be put in.
Mr. Rejman: All right, but let me read the way it states that the calculation should be done. Identify the percentage of land area included in the four-acre neighborhood that it outside a residential zoning district and subtract this percentage from the permitted neighborhood density calculation. Also, just to give you an option, it says also, subtract the number of units outside a residential zoning district from the existing neighborhood density calculation. If these subtractions are made the resulting figures are to be used in Subsection B(5)(c)[2][d] below. So it seems you subtracted the twelve units once but you didn’t subtract it from the other side of the calculation.
Mr. Ryan: If I subtracted from the other side of the calculations the 68 units become even less.
Mr. Rejman: It is more.
Mr. Ryan: So you are saying I should be adding twelve units on there then so that under you interpretation he would be allowed to put in 80 units?
Mr. Rejman: No, under his interpretation he is coming up with 65, 54 and 52 units which is under the maximum.
Mr. Ryan: That is just a number of different methods he used again
Mr. Rejman: We should all be using the same method. It seems your expert used only part of the paragraph in my opinion.
Mr. Ryan: But again, that would actually reduce the amount of units you would be allowed to put in there I mean under your interpretation. Doing it that way would actually make it a little higher than 68.
Mr. Rejman: No you are subtracting 68 to get the 56 and then coming up with a figure higher than 56 that is what I am saying.
Mr. Ryan: I am taking 12 off of 56
Mr. Rejman: Reduce to 56, you are taking 12 from 68 reducing, no it is 68 the allotted dwelling units is 68.
Mr. Ryan: What I am trying to do is assume that if this goes forward and if you add 12 units on the BelAire Apartment complex, I am trying to show how many units would be present in that 4-acre neighborhood. No matter what we do the very maximum they are ever going to allow is 68 units and we are trying to show based on the number of units already present this neighborhood just can’t take 12 more units, that is the problem. I think in the paper I was quoted as saying you can’t jam these things in there and that is essentially what he is trying to do.
Mr. Rejman: All right. We are going to take this one step at a time, so we are going to put one to sleep and go on to the next and the next. So on the issue of dwelling. Is there any other question for either of Brian or Kevin? OK. We are going to close the public portion and discuss this and we will come back with the other two. So we have Codes saying under 68 and the applicant saying no.
Mr. Darrow: What I am getting from this is we have the 4-acre grid plot on a proposal in front of us. We can see center, we can see where the project is taken from. Mr. Hicks spoke of three different ways where he plotted his grid. Mr. Ryan spoke to the way that their independent architect plotted the grid. So now we have got basically 5 different plottings, 5 different density calculations. We are able to show on paper before us between what Mr. Hicks calculated and he did and Mr. Grillo did for his plot for his site plan approval that 4 of them fall under it. We lack Mr. Ryan’s on paper to see where it was. So as I am looking at 4/5’s of it is under. 4/5’s of what we are looking at shows
to be under.
Mr. Rejman: Comments, concerns?
Ms. Marteney: I can’t read Mr. Ryan’s numbers about the number of units on Ross Place
Ms. Hussey: Those are Mr. Hicks’.
Ms. Marteney: I know, there is another page here, I don’t know whose it is.
Ms. Hussey: Those are Mr. Hicks’.
Ms. Marteney: I can’t read to see what unit numbers are here, I don’t know what they are along Ross Place, it just didn’t copy well.
Mr. Hicks: What you are seeing there are the tax map numbers that are legible, it is the street address that is no legible, but the unit number is legible.
Mr. Darrow: Another thing we have to remember too Mr. Ryan counted electrical meters he didn’t go off the official tax records which is what our official numbers are based on.
Mr. Rejman: Mr. Ryan, what is Mr. Camardo’s address?
Mr. Ryan: It is on the corner of Ross Place and Genesee Street, but I don’t know the number.
Ms. Hussey: I believe his street address is Ross Place and that is what we are trying to determine the actual address of Ross Place, I can go look it up.
Mr. Hicks: The question is, is it a two unit or single?
Mr. Ryan: Two unit.
Mr. Hicks: There we go. It is a two unit.
Mr. Rejman: I would like to point something out, page 2, #5, this is Janice Miller telling how she came up with it. My review of Grillo’s site plan application reveals the center point is located at the wrong location of the property. All right we can dispute the location of the center. While the map identifying the neighborhood density calculation found in Grillo’s application doesn’t appear to be drawn to scale, doesn’t appear to be drawn to scale, underline that, it appears the center point is located at the center of the property and not the center of the – she admitting that she is using a map that appears is not drawn to scale, but continues to go forward and make calculations. Why would you do
that? That is just like saying, gee I know this 12-inch ruler is 11 inches long but let’s measure the house any way. No public portion is closed. That bothers me, that part right there bothers me. She didn’t say she stopped and got a fresh map.
Mr. Darrow: What bothers me the most is it is not taken from the official tax records. I am sorry, I just don’t have confidence in those numbers. If they were taken from our official tax records and the argument or dispute was made that way, it would be another story. But that is what we have to go by.
Mr. Rejman: Any comments or concerns?
Ms. Marteney: My problem is we are suppose to be looking at the number of units there and I don’t have a definitive number of units, I can’t even count the number that are there and say right now if it is 32 or 47 or 149 and then add 12 units to it. That is what you are making me decide right now.
Mr. Rejman: We are not here to decide the accuracy of the math, we are here to decide the accuracy of the Codes Office. Ed has hit on a perfect point, should you walk around and count meters or should you look at the tax roll?
Ms. Marteney: I don’t know how to make that choice. If I would say the tax rolls are what we base zoning discussion on that we look at that to see whether or not something is a one or two unit building. Or we look at old, we have had individuals bring in copies of City Directories from years ago. I don’t
Mr. Darrow: That’s it, our tax rolls are our official record.
Ms. Marteney: The tax rolls tell us how many people, how many units there are in each of those buildings and if we are going to go by that.
Mr. Darrow: If we had a hard survey if you will that disputed the tax rolls that would be a horse of another color. But right now our official tax rolls are what we have to go by and the calculations that were made off them.
Ms. Marteney: That is 34.
Mr. Rejman: And the other interesting point here is there is only one calculation made by her. She didn’t say if you move it here it is ok, if the center point is here it is ok, but if it is over here it is not, any one can bend the map.
I think what we need to do is make a motion to affirm the findings.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we uphold
Ms. Hussey: Prior to that, there are some other issues.
Mr. Rejman: We are going to do them one at a time.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we affirm and uphold the decision and calculations of Senior Code Enforcement Officer Brian Hicks on the calculation of density value for the Grillo development at 202-206 Genesee Street.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: We will reopen public portion and go to 305-34(B)(5)(a) requires that no multiple-family dwelling shall be constructed or established by conversion which contains less that 1,500 square feet of total habitable floor area. The contention here is that I believe, that the applicant is stating that each dwelling each unit should be 1,500 square feet. Mr. Ryan would you come back, is that the contention?
Mr. Ryan: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: And Codes is reading it that 1,500 square feet is the total. A two-family house shall be no smaller than 1,500 square feet versus there are many single-family houses out there that are smaller than 1,500 square feet. Still it is an interpretation.
Mr. Hicks would you like to step forward again and explain your position on this?
Ms. Marteney: We are looking at 5a, correct?
Mr. Rejman: 5a, yes.
Mr. Hicks: Question is 1,500 square feet it says, no multiple-family dwelling shall be constructed or established by conversion which contains les than 1,500 square feet of total habitable floor area. It says dwelling, dwelling means the whole structure. At that point we divide down to create units. You must have 1,500 before you can start to convert to create units.
Mr. Rejman: OK. In the Code is there just focusing on this one issue, unit issue, are there minimums in the Code as per units square foot or bedroom square foot?
Mr. Hicks: Yes there is habitable floor space for bedroom it was at 80 square feet by now it has gone down to 70 square feet with the new Code that would basically be a 7 x 10 for one inhabitant, two people in one room, 120 square feet and three people would be 180 square feet.
Mr. Rejman: So we have square footage definitions for bedrooms.
Mr. Hicks: Yes, throughout the Codes. Also for bathrooms and kitchens.
Mr. Rejman: OK. In the worst-case scenario, not worst case, looking for the highest number you can come up.
Mr. Hicks: The highest number using just the Code?
Mr. Rejman: Right.
Mr. Hicks: 420 square feet for one bedroom
Mr. Rejman: Total apartment
Mr. Hicks: That would be the highest number of the smallest apartment that you could create and meet the Code.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Questions from the board.
Mr. Darrow: Do we have in either our Building Code or Zoning Board Code a definition of dwelling that states it is built wooden structure encompassing minimal area.
Ms. Hussey: Page 30584 of the Code that I handed out.
Ms. Marteney: Any building or structure, or part thereof, used and occupied for human habitation, or intended to be so used, and includes any appurtenances belonging thereto. Are you contending that this is a garden apartment?
Mr. Hicks: What the new ones?
Ms. Marteney: Yes. I am reading the definitions here.
Mr. Hicks: I believe that is what he is calling them.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Ms. Hussey: Brian, I believe the site plan application, it was limited apartment, and not a garden apartment, it is limited to six units.
Ms. Marteney: Six individual dwellings.
Mr. Hicks: Six and six, each building is separated, meets the distance separations and the fire separations.
Mr. Rejman: OK, any other questions for Brian? None. Brian have a seat over there so you don’t have to keep getting up. Mr. Ryan, would you come forward. You take on this issue is 1,500 square foot, you belief is that the 1,500 means per apartment?
Mr. Ryan: That is what it says in the application, yes.
Mr. Rejman: Any further, do you want to expand on that at all?
Mr. Ryan: No. Mr. Hicks has his interpretation and I have mine.
Mr. Rejman: Close the public portion discuss this and come to a decision here.
Mr. Darrow: If you read in here the definition of limited apartment it has a multi-family dwelling containing up to six dwellings which it should read to make it simpler dwelling units.
Mr. Rejman: Dwelling units.
Mr. Darrow: I would have to say it is pretty clear, looking how dwelling and units are used in the Code here.
Ms. Marteney: Total habitable so they added
Mr. Rejman: All the units together
Ms. Marteney: The inside measurements of each of the units is more than 1,500 square feet.
Mr. Darrow: Exactly.
Ms. Brower: Then it can be broken up into individual units.
Mr. Rejman: If you had a 3 family with 1,500 and it broke down to 500 square feet per unit and that would exceed
Ms. Marteney: If you had 3 units that were 500 square feet each and you added those together and they were all in one building that would be enough habitable area and they are all more than that individually, I mean together.
Ms. Brower: Right.
Mr. Rejman: Is there a motion ready?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that after discussion our findings are that the total number of square feet in a dwelling unit is the calculation of each unit in that complete dwelling you have a total square footage and not just the amount of one dwelling unit. Sum of all dwelling units.
Ms. Brower: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: The last issue is in regards to parking. Mr. Ryan would you come forward. State your concerns on the parking issue and I’ll state mine.
Mr. Ryan: I don’t have a copy of my application. I thought I was called back only for the density.
Mr. Rejman: It was about minimum set back requirements for parking lots.
Mr. Ryan: Yes, our architects raised the issue that the set back requirements were not complied with.
Mr. Rejman: The only issue that I saw on the maps were the pre-existing non-conforming, they were already there, the parking lots weren’t being built. One of them were within 2 feet or something like that, it is pre-existing non-conforming.
Mr. Ryan: Are all parking lots pre-existing non-conforming because I don’t recall that they are
Mr. Rejman: The ones that fell in, the rest are all alright, there was just one that seemed to have an issue and that was a little fuzzy math whether it did or didn’t. You don’t remember which parking lot it was on the map?
Ms. Hussey: Brian, should answer that, it shows 10 feet from the property line.
Mr. Rejman: Brian? Do you remember where the issue was on this? That is the other issue, the architect isn’t stating where the problem is.
Ms. Hussey: Here is the map.
Mr. Hicks: There is only 10 and it should be 10.
Mr. Darrow: Should be 10?
Ms. Marteney: In the side yard?
Mr. Darrow: If she was working off something that wasn’t to scale when she tried putting it to scale it could have showed 9 foot or something.
Mr. Rejman: No, because this is part of her pack.
Mr. Darrow: It is a photocopy so not in scale unless she had it on CAD chances are or one of the original blueprints she is not going to have it to scale. Every time you copy it you lose scale.
Mr. Ryan: Can I say something about the scale the drawing wasn’t to scale that Mr. Grillo submitted as part of his application so discounting what she said because she relied on a drawing that was not to scale that same analysis should be applied to the City of Auburn, if the drawing is not to scale, the City of Auburn can’t rely on it either. She looked at the actual survey map those are the ones that were submitted. We didn’t make copies before she started looking at it so the scale didn’t get changed. She looked at what was submitted to this board which is all we can do and it is not our obligation for survey map we can only take what we are given to the City by Mr. Grillo.
Mr. Darrow: You are unaware of what she is saying
Mr. Ryan: I recall her saying that the parking lots parking areas were not far back enough from the property boundaries as a result they didn’t comply with the zoning statute.
Mr. Darrow: Then perhaps this should go back to Planning for review so then if it is not proper they can let them know that a variance will be needed in that area of parking.
Ms. Hussey: The Planning Board reviewed that and the Zoning and the Code Officer made a determination that they were that they did not require a variance, that is why Mr. Ryan is challenging the determination of the Code Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Rejman: Questions for Mr. Ryan? Ok, questions for Mr. Hicks? No. Close the public portion. I can’t see a problem.
Mr. Darrow: No, this is all we have to go from we have nothing disputing it.
Mr. Rejman: If I can’t see a circled with a pointing arrow saying this is a problem because all the math looks good on that.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we find the parking set backs to be correct for the Brandon Grillo project 202-206 Genesee Street.
Ms. Brower: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: The application for 202-206 Genesee Street is complete.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JULY 26, 2004
8 Bowen Street, R-1, area variance of 18 feet for new house to be located 7 feet from the rear yard where the ordinance requires 23 feet. Gary Guariglia.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 8 Bowen Street, are you here? State your name for the record.
Mr. Guariglia: I am Gary Guariglia.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Guariglia: I was recently denied a building permit for a lot at 8 Bowen Street due to a symmetrical issue I believe we had considered the frontage of this property to be on Eastridge Street which is a paper street. This is in a new subdivision up in the east side behind Lasca’s. Brian explained that the actual frontage of this house would be Bowen Street because that is the one that is approved and owned by the City of Auburn.
If you look at the plot plan that I distributed, it was done by a local surveyor, the house proposed meets the requirements I believe for the ordinance if in fact Eastridge Street is considered a valid street. Now that would give you a side yard set back of 7 feet which has to according to this ordinance be considered a rear yard which would require 25 feet.
Now it is an irregular shaped lot, it is a corner lot. You will notice the curbs in that lot there is quite a radius there. Why I am most interested in building this house for this couple is because the house itself conforms to the neighborhood, the one reason they like the neighborhood is there are a lot of other single level homes with attached garages. It is in the same price structure, size, it conforms to that particular property, but I believe it is a symmetrical issue that may be corrected by the fact that the City has agreed to take title to that street as soon as we can get a legal description to City Council.
Mr. Rejman: Is there any one here wishing to speak for or against the application? Sure, come up. State your name for the record.
Ms. Pierce: Cynthia Pierce.
Mr. Rejman: What is the question.
Ms. Pierce: I live at 12 Bowen Street, we built our home in 1997 and in 1999 after a terrible rain we had a terrible flood in the basement and lost many, many personal belongings. Last Wednesday after that terrible rain that we had, we have a finished basement 19 months ago, I know everyone thinks their home is beautiful, I think my home is beautiful. Our basement was beautiful, our whole basement was flooded due to poor drainage when the house was built. Very negligent drainage, everyone on that side of the street has had flooding problems.
My 75-year-old Mother calls that her living area, she is devastated. Tomorrow Carpet House is coming to put new rugs in, we lost a lost of money.
My question to Mr. Guariglia and Mr. Luksa is what kind of drainage are you going to be putting in this house. All the water from their roofs and everything else is it going to be coming into my house. It is horrible, my whole basement is ruined, the furniture. The City of Auburn was kind enough to come three times last week and pick brand new furniture from Raymour & Flanigan. I don’t keep things that are wet and damaged. The best part of this it happened last Wednesday at 10:00, my husband works in Philly, he is a union carpenter. I called him, he was home by 3:30, he was home for 40 minutes, he tore one of the carpets out and collapsed with a heart attack. What was diagnosed at that
time as a heart attack now we found it to be pulmonary embolism full of blood clots. It didn’t cause that but what I am saying this has been a headache on this street with drainage. I have two neighbors with me and they are disgusted. The drainage is terrible. I was at the City this morning getting a permit now we are going to put some drainage in the back yard.
I have nothing against Mr. Guariglia and Mr. Luksa, build what you want to build there, I want to know what kind of drainage is going to be there. Because this is going to be coming right down to my home.
Mr. Rejman: Well, not to defend them, it wouldn’t matter if the house is there or not, the same amount of water falls on a given number of square feet
Ms. Pierce: I mean drainage
Mr. Rejman: Let’s ask them if they have any
Ms. Pierce: We were told to come tonight. I don’t care what they put there, they can put 100 houses there.
Ms. Hussey: I am sorry, prior to the road being put in they have to submit engineering and drainage plans that will be reviewed by the Engineering Department, but it is really not part of the issue that is before this board tonight.
Mr. Rejman: Questions for the applicant? Or would you like to answer that question?
Mr. Guariglia: A couple years ago when your brother did some work for the City
Mr. Rejman: Use the mike please.
Mr. Guariglia: When you had the first problem, I noticed you had gutters put on the house, you put them into a connection in your footer drains, one was through your cleanout that is a plumbing requirement in the City that if you have a drainage tile outside your basement, at the time Mr. DeOrio made me put a cleanout which is kind of uncommon in new construction, however, your gutters go into your unless you pulled them out.
Ms. Pierce: We pulled them out.
Mr. Guariglia: I obviously don’t know where the water came from if it is surface water, Mike and I when we did that project back in the early 90’s we incorporated a 2 foot diameter storm sewer along the street and everybody needs to protect their own basements that way.
Mr. Rejman: Any further questions for the applicant? Close the public portion and discuss this. Nancy, would you tell us more about this proposed Eastridge Street as you know it.
Ms. Hussey: Back in, correct me if I am wrong, back in the late 80’s the subdivision was submitted before the Planning Board and it was approved. When it was submitted, the Planning Board did lot at drainage because that was part of the subdivision plans and requirements for a site plan and subdivision review. Bowen Street has been improved and that has been dedicated to the City and it was right after that time. The subdivision plan also called for Eastridge Street which is currently a paper street, privately owned by the developers, the property owners themselves. In order for the houses to be installed or put on Eastridge Street, that street will have to be dedicated, it follows a dedication process and given to the City,
it will have to be first built by the developers and then dedicated to the City. In order for the road to be built it has to pass certain engineering minimum requirements with respect to drainage, sewers, sewage, storm water run off and the like. They did obtain subdivision approval from the Planning Board in 1986.
Mr. Darrow: Did I understand the applicant or did he in fact lead us to believe that once Eastridge is a deeded street to the City of Auburn then the variance would not be needed?
Ms. Hussey: That is correct. He was accurate in his representation.
Mr. Darrow: Variance is for 18 feet.
Ms. Hussey: The Bowen Street is the present address because that is specifically the dedicated street. That is the 911 address. 911 doesn’t normally take into account a corner lot, but because Eastridge Street is not dedicated at this point
Mr. Darrow: It becomes side instead of rear, I follow it now.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Gary Guariglia of 7569 Grant Avenue, Auburn, New York, it requires a 25 foot set back, the applicant is requesting a 18 foot variance to construct a home at 8 Bowen Street.
Mr. Darrow: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN F AVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JULY 26, 2004
2 Seneca Parkway, R-1, are variance of 150 square feet for new 300 square foot shed; area variance of 12 square feet for amount of accessory structures on premises to exceed the 750 square foot limit. Gregory Keevil.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 2 Seneca Parkway, are you here? Please state your name for the record.
Mr. Keevil: Gregory Keevil, I am looking for a variance to build a shed on our property for storage an additional 750 square feet.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Greg.
Mr. Westlake: Additional or total?
Mr. Keevil: Total square footage would be 300 square feet, excuse me 150 square feet.
Mr. Rejman; We have some maps in the back but I am unclear where you want to put your shed.
Mr. Keevil: Using the map that I was given from the application it would be I guess in the rear northwest quadroon of the property, approximately 5 feet in on each side.
Mr. Westlake: I notice that you are going to be close to your neighbor’s garage and there is a overhang on the garage any water running off his garage I don’t want there to be a problem between the two of you.
Mr. Keevil: We had some problems there originally, we took the property over in November 18 and there were some drainage problems that we addressed we put a 2 foot culvert back in that corner property because we are the lowest end coming down Seneca Parkway and we have about 700 foot tile feeding into the lower neighbor who had done it already in his ditch which leads to the City sewer in front which alleviated his problem, so that was the first issue we did and there is a tile sitting there for Don when he gets his roof done with gutters new that will feed into our system so hopefully that will alleviate any problems there.
Ms. Aubin: I was there Wednesday and there was about a foot of water in your yard.
Mr. Keevil: There was a lot of rain on Wednesday.
Mr. Rejman: I think it was a special event, an awful lot of water.
Mr. Keevil: In November we didn’t really see the place until spring, it is a lot better than it use to be.
Ms. Aubin: Where the poles are is that where the shed is going?
Mr. Keevil: That is about it, the long end will be on the rear of the property and we are suggesting maybe more front to back rather than sideways. I think Don was suppose to put in a letter saying he didn’t have a problem
Mr. Rejman: Any other questions? Any one wishing to speak for or against? None. Ok, we will close the public portion. Nice sized lot 16,000 square feet in the lot.
Ms. Marteney: Not blocking any one’s view.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Gregory Keevil of 2 Seneca Parkway a 150 square foot area variance and also a 12 square foot area variance for going over the maximum allowance of 750 maximum square feet accessory structure, for the purpose of erecting a 15 foot by 20 foot storage shed to be 5 feet off each corner boundary.
Mr. Westlake: 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.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JULY 26, 2004
257 Genesee Street (corner of Pearce) C-1, use variance for parking in front yard of residence. Carlo Giordano.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 257 Genesee Street, are you here? Please state your name.
Mr. Giordano: I own 257 West Genesee Street. The people are working on Genesee Street. They knocked out the concrete next to my house and they said they can’t replace it. They want to make the driveway on the other side of the house, but the tenants don’t want it. There is a garage but it is short. I want it back the way it was, that is all.
Ms. Marteney: This was there before they put the new sidewalks in?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Giordano: There was a sidewalk and I had a little piece of concrete because the people didn’t want to park on the street. They parked on the side of the house and now they don’t want to rebuild it.
Mr. Darrow: How would they be parking on this new concrete? Would they be coming from Pearce, trying to come on from the corner?
Mr. Giordano: Yes from the corner from the sidewalk along the house 7 feet, next to the sidewalk.
Mr. Rejman: Brian, do you have any information on this?
Mr. Hicks: I believe in all your packets you should have some pictures of the property or some drawings of the property (everyone agrees they do). The biggest issue is if we enter this parking space that the applicant is seeking off of Pearce, the spot will not be wide enough for a car to be parked there, which means the car will be parked on the City sidewalk. This is a issue that they will be crossing a City sidewalk more so in a diagonal pattern than we would if we had a driveway approach. Also there is a section of the new proposed concrete from his drawing that is actually under the City’s acquisition also. It is a small portion, but it would still be in there. I think the biggest issue is the safety of
pedestrians on the sidewalk, the width of the parking space, it doesn’t met the required width according to Code. Bad scenario for that spot.
Ms. Marteney: Is the recommendation that it be put into lawn?
Mr. Hicks: That would be the recommendation.
Mr. Rejman: Looks tight, I don’t know if there is enough room there.
Mr. Darrow: I worry about the clear sight triangle when you are trying to get out from Pearce onto Genesee Street, cars are blocking our view easterly.
Mr. Giordano: Same situation on the other side of Pearce.
Mr. Darrow: That is wide open and the parking is more towards the building and it doesn’t encroach upon the City’s right-of-way.
Mr. Hicks: Going to go over the pie cut on the corner.
Mr. Darrow: Way too dangerous.
Ms. Marteney: With the schools there and kids walking along, I would be very fearful that they are going to take a little detour.
Mr. Darrow: This is a 2 unit correct?
Mr. Giordano: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: You have 3 parking slip in the garage, you have at least 1 parking slip on the existing driveway, is that correct?
Mr. Giordano: It is an old garage, they got 3 doors, but it is not
Mr. Darrow: No room for the typical car.
Mr. Giordano: No.
Mr. Darrow: Size of the garage then and the size of the cars now. Brian, on the existing driveway, how wide is that?
Mr. Hicks: The one to the east of the structure?
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Hicks: It actually has room for 3 slips in it, there is a picnic table in one portion of it right now. That is one of the things that we discussed down there that day about putting a pie shaped in there.
Mr. Rejman: I think we can take the existing driveway and do something with that quicker than we can anything else.
Carlo, do you understand that the City was going to take care of the driveway on the east side of the house?
Mr. Giordano: They want to make parking on the other side.
Mr. Hicks: That day we were down there discussing it with the engineers on the project and the City engineer and we talked about coming off the sidewalk at a slight angle and creating another space to the east of the existing parking lot to the east of the house, remember when we were over there talking about that?
Mr. Giordano: Talked with tenants and they don’t like it.
Mr. Hicks: Oh, you talked to the tenants and they don’t like it.
Mr. Rejman: Any further questions for the applicant? OK, we are going to close the public portion, sit down for a minute Carlo. We will talk this out. Any one wishing to speak for or against? None.
Mr. Darrow: As we all know we are required to give the least variance in all case. There is a simple solution to this where a variance is not needed.
Mr. Rejman: The City has already made arrangements to make some additional parking on the east side. I still need a motion, an affirmative motion.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Carlo Giordano of 15 Westwood Drive for property at 257 Genesee Street, the area variance to create off street parking between the house and the sidewalk on Pearce Street as drawn on the attached map.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow – due to the fact that there is a solution of less vulnerability available.
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application is not approved. We understand that the City is going to make some arrangements on the east side of your property for more parking.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
| 
