ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004
Members Present: Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Rejman
Members Absent: Ms. Marteney (called)
Ms. Aubin (called)
One vacancy
Staff Present: Mrs. Hoffmann
Ms. Hussey
Mr. LaDouce
Ms. Hussey: We are just holding off commencing the meeting at this point as it turns out there are only four members that are present tonight from the ZBA which in effect means that all four members have to vote positively for any variance application. If one of the members in the panel here denies or votes no on a variance then it is automatically denied. The only recourse would be to table your application until next month. If the variance application is in effect denied the only recourse is to apply to an Article 78 proceeding before the Supreme Court.
Mr. Rejman: It is time and money and we are trying to avoid that.
Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have:
10 Prospect Street
75 Owasco Street
42 Foote Street
217 Grant Avenue
What I was doing while Nancy was explaining is just taking a straw poll of the people here to see if there were any issues on any of the applications. 75 Owasco Street and 42 Foote Street, there are some questions from the board on these two applications. You can still go forward if you wish, it might be in your better interest to wait until next month and have a six-member board. It does take four affirmative votes and that is all we have here tonight is four, so one would definitely put you in a difficult situation. Lets start off then.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004
10 Prospect Street, R-1, Use variance for parking in front yard. Redeemer Lutheran Church.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 10 Prospect Street, are you here? State your name for the record.
Mr. Wagner: Matt Wagner, I am representing Redeemer Lutheran Church.
Mr. Rejman: You understand the issue of four; let’s just go forward with yours and you can see how we feel on it. Tell us what the latest idea or plan.
Mr. Wagner: There really isn’t any latest; it is the same as before. As I understand it Officer Thomas Weed changed his mind and approved our plans as is. We looked to moving the parking lot to side yard unfortunately that extends it out down into the Church and covers up half of the bank of windows on that side of the Church.
Mr. Rejman: I have a letter to Steve Lynch from Thomas Weed, it is dated September.
“After going over the plans for the Redeemer Lutheran Church parking lot on Franklin Street, I am in full agreement with it and have no problem with the way that they want to put it in there.”
We will make the letter part of the record.
Anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Questions from the board? None. Do you wish to go forward and let us vote?
Mr. Wagner: I am uncomfortable.
Mr. Rejman: You are uncomfortable, that is understandable.
Mr. Wagner: But we are in a spot however because if we wait until the next Zoning Board meeting we won’t be able to get the parking lot in before winter.
Mr. Rejman: I see a hand in back. Yes? Come forward please. What is your name please?
Mr. Marvin: My name is Lester Marvin.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Lester, where do you live?
Mr. Marvin: 18 Prospect Street. I adjoin that area. First question is we have a drainage area that goes down behind our house and comes around and goes into a culvert that ends up going under Prospect Street and empties on the other side on the College property. I assume that it wouldn’t be too close to that.
Mr. Darrow: Have you seen the lay out where it is going to be?
Mr. Marvin: No. I really haven’t.
Mr. Darrow: Here is Prospect Street (shows Mr. Marvin the map), here is Franklin, right here on Franklin a curb cut 145 feet back on Franklin Street, going to fill this area here, 24 x 46 foot to allow parking there.
Mr. Marvin: Oh, that is over there by the building.
Mr. Darrow: Your house would be down here.
Mr. Marvin: They are not doing the area right next to me. I thought they were expanding the parking lot.
Mr. Darrow: No. They are just putting in a handicap parking area which would access only from Franklin Street.
Mr. Marvin: OK, no problem with that. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Now that we have a letter from Tom Weed, we have got a good site plan marked off, that is a world of difference from last time.
Mr. Rejman: Do you feel comfortable with it?
Mr. Darrow: Very.
Mr. Rejman: Does the applicant wish to go forward to vote tonight?
Mr. Wagner: Yes, please.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t have the package so I don’t know what the actual variance is. Just an area variance?
Mrs. Hoffmann: It is a use variance. Parking in the front yard is not permitted.
Mr. Rejman: Just use the 24 x 46
Mr. Darrow: At the last meeting did we approve the SEQRA review part?
Mrs. Hoffmann: No. We need to do that tonight. Mr. Wagner I will give you Part I and you can fill it out.
Mr. Wagner: What is that?
Mrs. Hoffmann: It is a SEQRA, Quality Review Act, which we have to do for any use variance.
We will do Part II. Starting with C.
C. Could this action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
C1. Existing are 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. All in consensus – Yes.
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? No. All in consensus – Yes.
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? No. All in consensus – Yes.
C4. 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. All in consensus – Yes.
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? No. All in consensus – Yes.
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? No. All in consensus – Yes.
C7. Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type or energy? No. All in consensus _ Yes.
D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a critical environmental area (CEA)? No. All in consensus – Yes.
E. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No. All in consensus – Yes.
Mrs. Hoffmann: Would someone like to make a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that set forth a negative declaration for the SEQRA review for 10 Prospect Street, Redeemer Lutheran Church.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
Mrs. Hoffmann: Is that the consensus of all the board?
Board Members: Yes.
Mrs. Hoffmann: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Having a negative SEQRA review, I would to put forth a motion that we approve a use variance for Redeemer Lutheran Church, 10 Prospect Street, for the purpose of constructing a 24 foot x 46 foot handicap parking lot with a 10 foot curb cut on the Franklin Street side of the property as plotted on submitted plot plan, conditioned upon obtaining the proper curb cut permit from the Engineering Department for that location.
Mr. Westlake: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Wagner: Thank you. I don’t understand about Engineering.
Mrs. Hoffmann: There is one little form that I have to ask you to fill out and I am not sure I have it, but I will mail it to you.
Mr. Wagner: Is that for the Engineer’s permit?
Ms. Hussey: No, you have to go to the third floor of City Hall to the City Engineer’s Office and fill out an application for a curb cut
Mr. Wagner: I did that four months ago.
Ms. Hussey: If he issued that permit then
Mr. Wagner: It was declined.
Ms. Hussey: Because it didn’t have this first.
Mr. Wagner: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004
75 Owasco Street, C-1. 4’ north side yard buffer area variance. James E. Hutchinson.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 75 Owasco Street, are you here?
Mr. Hutchinson: If the questions get really tough here, then I will table this and you can move on.
Mr. Rejman: We do have on abstention, I believe, so we don’t have the four required votes anyway.
Mr. Hutchinson: Alright.
Mr. Rejman: So we will see you next October 25th.
Mr. Hutchinson: Thanks.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004
42 Foote Street, R-1A. Use variance for parking in front yard. William Conway.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 42 Foote Street, are you here?
Mr. Conway: Hi, I am Jack Conway; I am representing my parents who reside at 42 Foote Street.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Conway: On the lower end of Foote Street almost to the corner of Lawton Avenue there is a real crisis as far as parking. My parents have lived there 43 years. There is a shared driveway; you can’t park in the driveway because of it being a shared driveway. With the new neighbors that have moved in they have two or three vehicles and there is only parking on one side of the street, because there is not enough room on the street to park on both sides it would be impossible to access the road. So what they are looking for is to sacrifice part of their lawn just for a temporary parking spot, temporary is a poor choice of words, just once in a while, holiday type of parking area, just basically for the convenience of it
otherwise they have to park several feet away from the house.
My parents having been residents of the City of Auburn for so many years and it shouldn’t really be declined such a trivial area, just going to go from grass to blacktop. The sidewalk and curb already allow for the access to the property and like I said it is going to be just a once in a great while, maybe Saturday afternoon for an hour, not even that, maybe a holiday, sisters live out of town they are not here quite often. I am not sure if you are familiar with Foote Street or not, the lower part of Foote Street kind of “S” off and goes to Lawton Avenue, but it is brutal, he is sitting on his porch and he has not place to park. Cosmetically it is to flow with the neighborhood, not like there is going
to be a car out in front of his house all the time, it is just going to be a once in a while type of thing.
Mr. Darrow: We had some pictures and the house in the picture shows #24, is this the house marked as 42?
Mr. Conway: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: OK, I wanted to make sure I looked at the right property today, it is at the end of Foote just before you make the right hand turn.
Mr. Conway: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: I looked at the right property and that driveway is a shared driveway?
Mr. Conway: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: Are there people behind there or a lot?
Mr. Conway: Goes to the left.
Mr. Rejman: This is a use variance, area variances are buildings too close to this or driveway is too close to that, that is area, this is use and part of a use variance is you need to have an economic, dollars and cents hardship and by your own admission when you say it is not a matter of economic injury, it doesn’t bode well to go forward with this.
Mr. Conway: Yes. My father proposed this, when you drive around the City of Auburn there are several of these little plots that are there whether they were snuck in or this board has approved them, but there are several areas where people park vehicles on their front lawns.
Mr. Rejman: But we are held to a higher standard on this type of variance and at present I don’t know how I could move forward myself with this. Again you understand that you need all four of us, you may wish and I will give you the opportunity now to table and rethink some of your arguments. It is up to you.
Mr. Conway: It doesn’t sound too good.
Mr. Rejman: No.
Mr. Westlake: Even from this drawing here, I am not trying to put any body down, it says vacant lot here, it says vacant lot here and says shared driveway here
Mr. Conway: Right
Mr. Westlake: I looked at it and I am not really clear, where does the shared driveway go to?
Mr. Conway: There is a garage behind. There was a house right next to that driveway and they demolished it. Unfortunately the guy next door purchased it and he torn it down and that is his lawn, but we still maintain this shared driveway. That is the way it was deeded with the house that was torn down.
Mr. Darrow: But the gentleman who purchased the lot, does he use this driveway too?
Mr. Conway: No. He does not. Being a shared driveway my father can’t park there.
Mr. Rejman: We understand that, but the shared driveway went to a house that is no longer there.
Mr. Conway: Correct
Mr. Rejman: You could talk to the new owner hopefully and have him remove that cloud from the title and deed. That may be a simpler route to go.
Mr. Conway: My father mentioned it to him and he said he would rather not get involved in that.
Ms. Brower: Who does the garage belong to?
Mr. Conway: My father. He can use the driveway for access to the garage but he can’t park in the driveway.
Ms. Brower: Right.
Mr. Rejman: That would seem to be the simpler of the two.
Mr. Conway: Well that is what he thought too. Like I said he has been there 43 years, he did suggest it to the gentleman and his response was I rather not get into something like that. Why, I can’t answer that.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Coming back to your situation. If you wish to go forward, we will vote on it tonight, or if you wish to table it we will have at least two others maybe three other people.
Mr. Conway: Reason why it wouldn’t get approved just because
Mr. Rejman: This is a use variance.
Mr. Westlake: I think we have a quagmire here to begin with, this is my opinion, and my opinion only, ok. You have a shared driveway here that you father can’t park in
Mr. Conway: Right
Mr. Westlake: If we give this variance out over here to your father it goes with that house forever. So we are just adding fuel to the fire, that is just my opinion. I think he should try to find a legal way to get this shared driveway away from this person. If there was still a house over here that the shared driveway went in, there were two garages, I could see it, but I would try my best to try to get this driveway to be his and not be shared.
Mr. Conway: Yes, but that is not going to happen. Better change putting that parking spot, I know for a fact he has a better change putting that parking spot. The guy wants nothing to do with it.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Conway: He said he would rather not get involved with it.
Mr. Rejman: Do you wish to go forward or do you wish to table until next month?
Mr. Conway: I will table it.
Mr. Rejman: OK. You might want to bone up on the items that we look at on a use variance.
Mr. Darrow: I might have a sheet. That is what we have to look at.
Mr. Conway: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Tabled until October 25th.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004
217 Grant Avenue, C-3. Area variance of 155 square feet for signs at Hallmark Store. Auburn Associates LLC.
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 217 Grant Avenue please. State your name for the record.
Mr. Corcoran: My name is Dave Corcoran and I am a tenant at Laura’s Hallmark, it use to be Love of Pete. Tim Kerstetter the Auburn Associates representative or the owner of the plaza couldn’t be here tonight, out of town, so I am here on my own behalf.
Mr. Rejman: OK, what seems to be the issue here?
Mr. Corcoran: We are doing an expansion we are going from approximately 3,500 square feet selling space to 7,000. We have taken over three stores to our right and added on and we are remodeling now and expect that to be completed approximately in 2 – 2 ½ weeks. The sign as it is now is covering basically four different stores and of course it looks rather small. We need a much larger sign to attract people from the road.
Mr. Rejman: You have given us some nice photos and digitally enhanced photos. We like that. So we need an area variance of 133 square feet I believe.
Mr. Darrow: When you consider the sign that was up there, it is being lost you know from the other tenants. We are swapping out a minimal amount because it goes by frontage.
Mr. Rejman: That is right.
Mr. Darrow: Every tenant that goes in there we have had that problem.
Mrs. Hoffmann: It is 155 square feet according to Code Enforcement.
Mr. Rejman: 155 is the correct number?
Mrs. Hoffman: Yes. I think I mailed you that sheet.
Mr. Darrow: Yes, I got it.
Mr. Rejman: There is a question on the Post Office sign. We know where the old one is, where will the new one be going?
Mr. Corcoran: That will go immediately to the right of the large Hallmark sign, approximately 3 feet x 6 feet also an illuminated sign. We have always had hanging signs since 1979, and to see it you had to be close up, but this again would be a way to attract customers because we are a full service Post Office, we don’t have lock boxes, we provide same service as downtown.
Mr. Rejman: So the area variance in question covers two signs?
Mr. Corcoran: Side by side.
Mr. Darrow: For 155 square foot.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? There is no one in the audience to speak for or against. Any questions? Does the applicant wish to go forward?
Mr. Corcoran: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Auburn Associates LLC, 217 Grant Avenue, a variance for 155 square foot of more signage for their store.
Mr. Darrow: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
| 
