ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2005
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey, Mr. Hicks, Mrs. Hoffmann
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 5 Maple Street, 162 York Street
APPLICATION DENIED: 9 – 11 James Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have: 5 Maple Street, 162 York Street, 9 – 11 James Street
_____________________________________________________________
5 Maple Street, R-1, Side yard area variance of 22 inches for construction of an attached garage. Peter and Karen Damick.
Mr. Rejman: 5 Maple Street, are you here? Come forward please, and state your name for the record.
Mr. Damick: Peter Damick.
Mr. Rejman: OK, Peter, tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Damick: I am building a garage it is 21 x 24 feet attached to the house and I am looking for and extra 22 inches so I could put a door an entry door in the front. 22 inches would give me a little more room to play with getting in and out of the house. The foundation is high and I have to try and extend the stairs around 6 feet.
Mr. Rejman: OK, that is not unusual. Questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: The application was very well prepared.
Mr. Rejman: Brian brought up a little bit of housekeeping on this, let’s take care of it now. There is a shed/garage in the back and years ago it says garage on one item here and it says shed on the other. So this doesn’t come back and bother us later, to be legal we only need a 13.4 square foot accessory structure variance to bring him to a total of 763.4 square feet. Again, questions from the board? None.
Any one wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Well presented application and we will close and discuss and make our decision right now.
Ms. Marteney: Does not hinder any vision or block any one’s view.
Mr. Rejman: No it doesn’t.
Mr. Darrow: It is very complete in what in what his intentions are with the pictures, which are very helpful.
I would like to make a motion that we grant Peter and Karen Damick of 5 Maple Street, a 22 inch side yard variance and a 13.4 square foot accessory structure variance for the purpose of erecting at 21 x 24 single story attached garage to said dwelling as plotted on submitted plans.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Damick: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
162 York Street, C, Side yard area variance of 8’ and a 5’ side corner yard area variance for placement of new equipment building. Upstate Paving, LLC.
Mr. Rejman: Next we have another area variance, 162 York Street.
Mr. LaDouce: My name is Charles LaDouce, I work with Rizzo Construction. We would like to put up a 50 x 80 pole barn structure in the back of our lot for full storage use to store equipment and to work on the equipment out of the elements. It is for Upstate Paving, which has been in existence for this will be the third season. In 2003 we had approximately 11 employees with the company and we did about $900,000 worth of work, in 2004 we increased our employees to 16, increased our work to 1.3 million and hopefully will increase that this coming season.
Upstate Paving is a sister company to Rizzo Construction which recently completed the West Genesee Street Project in Auburn. That company employees 40 people and does roughly $6,000,000 worth of work. With that said this building is well needed for our use. Where we show that on our drawings it is probably the ideal spot where we would like to put it due to the condition of the lot that is there now.
We have a lot of equipment that we store in the wintertime and as far as ingress and egress goes in and out of the lot area that is the place we would like to put it. I don’t know if you are aware but there was a question as far as the paper street goes Cook Street and we researched that and it has come to the conclusion from the City Engineering Department that the tax map records show that Rizzo does own to center of Cook Street there and right-of-way does not exist but it does exist on the other side of the road towards Didio’s. We own right up to the center of Cook Street we would not be infringing on City property as far as a right-of-way. That building is going up in back and is not most likely visible from the street. The area borders a salvage yard, which I
believe is still Didio’s Auto Parts.
I have some pictures here, if any one would like to look at them as far as seeing the equipment and where this building is going to go.
Mr. Rejman: Sure, pass them around.
Ms. Marteney: Looks remarkably different today.
Mr. LaDouce: Yes, no snow. Looking north and south from the property lines. Like I said earlier we will store equipment and plus we have a snow removal business too so there is always equipment in and out of the yard 12 months a year.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Comments from the board? Is there any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, bring it back. Just looking at the map it looks like, you were pretty bottled up with that sewer and every thing and the way the lot jogs on you.
Mr. LaDouce: Yes, yes, that is where the building is going. We looked at a number of different options where to put the building and with the size of it that we needed, we couldn’t find a spot other than the one we show on the drawing, consistent with the buildings right there on the lot.
Mr. Darrow: Is your access going to be from the east side or the north side?
Mr. LaDouce: Actually access to the building, we are going to have an overhead door on the north and south side of the building.
Mr. Darrow: OK, so you will drive straight through.
Mr. LaDouce: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: OK.
Mr. Rejman: How many feet from the road would you think that would be?
Mr. LaDouce: Probably
Ms. Marteney: 414 at least or more than that, I am measuring this and moving it here.
Mr. LaDouce: You are reading the dimensions on the side.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, if there are no further questions, we will close the public portion. OK, close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Westlake: Seems ok.
Mr. Darrow: Absolutely fitting with the area.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Upstate Paving Company of 162 York Street, a 8’ side yard variance and a 5’ side corner yard variance for the placement of a new equipment building as on plot plan.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. LaDouce: Could you explain the side and rear.
Mr. Darrow: 8 feet to the west and 5 feet to the south.
Mr. LaDouce: OK, thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
9 – 11 James Street, R-2, Use variance for 7 units, 5 over the permitted 2; variance of 10,992.4 square feet in lot size; area variance of 13 off street parking spaces; the variance of 5 units exceeds the permitted neighborhood density limits. Steve Tardibone.
Mr. Rejman: Next we have a use variance, which is a little different. 9 – 11 James Street, are you here? Yes, come forward. State your name for the record please.
Mr. Tardibone: Steve Tardibone.
Mr. Jones: Edward Jones.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Jones: Basically I would like Steve to talk about it.
Mr. Tardibone: What I would like to do on 9 – 11 James Street, it presently, it was 7 unit purchased by Edward Jones two years ago and since we have not done anything with the building since that time occupied it, Code said it reverted back to its original use a two family house. I would like now to bring it back to a 7, when we originally bought it, when we bought the building it was a 7 and we would like to keep it a 7.
Mr. Rejman: The building has been vacant for how long?
Mr. Tardibone: Two years or so. We bought it as a vacant building, as a legal 7 unit.
Mr. Jones: But that is basically due to Code Enforcement.
Mr. Darrow: It is basically because of Code Enforcement?
Mr. Jones: Absolutely.
Mr. Rejman: Brian can you give us some history on this?
Mr. Hicks: Time line for the reversion back to an R-2, has nothing to do with the structure.
Mr. Rejman: OK.
Mr. Jones: At the time of purchase, I had a verbal commitment with Brian Hicks and Jim Moore who was still head Code Enforcement Officer at the time that if I had completed repairs on the main hallway on one side of the building and replaced the windows that they would release the apartments with temporary CO’s as I got it done so that I could repair it, that was over 2 ½ - 3 years ago and since then because of their lack of…
Mr. Rejman: Whoa, we are not going there. This is a use variance, there are some things you need to prove in a use variance, ok. We need to know economic hardship, you can talk about the uniqueness of the building, you can talk about that, impact on the neighborhood. Let’s stick to that, just that. We don’t care what the history is, we want to start with today and look forward and see if we can or can’t do anything. So tell me about the economic hardship.
Mr. Tardibone: When we bought the property it was a legal 7 unit, now it is not for technicality of he hasn’t done any thing with it for more than 6 months. The hardship on ourselves is to convert it to a two family, the hardship is the money put into the building is ridiculously for what the building could ever sell for or ever be worth again.
Mr. Rejman: You say that it will cost of $217,000 to convert from a 7 to a 2 unit.
Mr. Tardibone: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: How did you come up with that figure?
Mr. Tardibone: I had a contractor go right through the building plus I had a licensed real estate broker go through the building and appraised it as it is as it is right now, a 7 unit, as it would be a converted 2 unit and as you see as a 2 unit converted he put a price tag on it of $75,000. I don’t see how you can put $200,000 into a building and it sell for $75,000 or $90,000, that is a hardship in itself.
Mr. Darrow: Unfortunately all that you submitted are numbers.
Mr. Tardibone: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: There is no evidence to substantiate a single number, just numbers on paper. We have nothing from contractors saying that the conversion is going to be $200,000, $150,000 or a $100,000 for you to convert it back.
Ms. Marteney: We do have that, but we don’t have a comparison of income if it were a two family and income as a seven unit and without that we can’t make a comparison. What are the repairs that you have to do to get it up to Codes, be it a seven unit building, what income, what is needed to convert it into a two family and what is the income. You only paid $30,000 for the building.
Mr. Tardibone: And assumed the back taxes, we assumed a large amount of back taxes.
Mr. Darrow: That is part of your obligation you made when you bought it.
Mr. Tardibone: Right.
Mr. Darrow: That is self-created hardship, self-created hardship does not count towards showing your hardship in converting the building. Your hardship cannot be self-created.
Mr. Jones: It wasn’t.
Ms. Marteney: It is because you…
Mr. Jones: It was created by the City of Auburn. Within 30 days I had the common hallway done, then had the windows replaced on the 11 side, I had the carpets ripped out, I had people over there tearing everything out of the building, as it was going to need was carpeting, linoleum, painting on that one side and the apartments could be released for rent. Which means 2 ½ years the City has cost me over $1,500.00 in rent a month. 2 ½ years
Mr. Baroody: We didn’t ask your argument with the City, very simply a bad business decision does not dictate financial hardship.
Mr. Jones: It wasn’t a bad decision, sir, because that decision was based on an agreement that I had, a verbal agreement, that I had with two Code Enforcement Officers and the City of Auburn on which I honored another verbal commitment that Steve Tardibone had made with the City of Auburn and Tom Leone and Nancy.
Mr. Rejman: We are not going to go there.
Mr. Darrow: My biggest question is why is it 2 years, 5 months and about 15 days later after your date of purchase have you come to zoning now to get a variance, why wasn’t it done 30 days, 60 days, 2 months after that purchase? Why did you wait so long, but yet you hold the City responsible?
Mr. Tardibone: I don’t hold the City responsible, reason why I am coming now because the building is ready to be foreclosed on through me that is why I came here, assuming that it was still a 7 unit. When I went to Brian I asked how do I keep the building as a 7 unit, my whole thing is when we bought it, it was a legal 7 unit, nothing has been done, that was partly Mr. Jones’ fault, nothing has been done to it but should it lose its 7 units just because someone didn’t file for a C of O?
Mr. Darrow: So, Mr. Tardibone, you are saying it was a legal 2 unit when you bought it?
Mr. Tardibone: 7 unit.
Mr. Darrow: Oh, all right.
Mr. Tardibone: That is what I am saying, it was a legal 7 unit when I bought it and the only technicality because we waited six months, not it is not. I am here today because a month ago I may have to take it back, so I was going to rehab it and stuff like that and he said it was not a legal 7 unit.
Mr. Darrow: Was it occupied at the time of purchase?
Mr. Tardibone: No it was not.
Mr. Darrow: How long had it been vacant before you purchased it?
Mr. Jones: 1 ½ years, so the City knew.
Mr. Tardibone: If it was vacant for a 1 ½ years before you bought it, it was still vacant but it was a legal 7 unit.
Mr. Rejman: Not it wasn’t not if it was vacant.
Mr. Darrow: Once it is vacant for over six months it loses whatever standing it has.
Mr. Tardibone: When we went to the City Code Enforcement they were the ones that assured us that it was a 7 unit and they were working along with us and back in that day they were giving out temporary C of O’s, they would give a temporary for one half of the building, one half would be 3 and the other half would be 4, in no terms did they ever say not it is not a legal 7 unit.
Ms. Marteney: Now, two years later
Mr. Tardibone: No, this was at the time
Ms. Marteney: But now it is two years later. You have to prove to us financial hardship for us to even be able to look at it.
Mr. Tardibone: The financial hardship is that it cost so much money to revert that to a two unit, I have a copy
Ms. Marteney: I see that here, but I don’t see a comparison study, that it what we have to look at, it has to be black and white and what it is going to cost to make it into a two family
Mr. Tardibone: Which I have
Ms. Marteney: Right and the rent of the two family compared to fixing it as a seven unit and the rent on seven units. Simple.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Tardibone, those are the things we need to know, you are allowed what is called reasonable rate of return. Now if it is a seven unit your rate of return on your investment may be 22%. Now if it is a two unit, your rate of return may be 2% or may not even be feasible, but those are the numbers and figures that need to be in front of us so that we can make an educated decision and without that we can’t. So probably the best thing would be to ask to table it and bring back that information because we have a policy of anybody that doesn’t have a complete application allow to table it once to make it complete.
Mr. Tardibone: That is what I would like to do. But is that all you see because I wouldn’t want to come back and there be something else.
Mr. Westlake: You need 13 off street parking spaces.
Mr. Darrow: As far as I look at it that is a whole different scenario.
Mr. Rejman: You know what I would like to do for a moment, gentlemen have a seat. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? OK, let’s let these people that came out have a say.
Mrs. Ryan: Arlene Ryan, 36 Orchard Street. In 1997 I established a Neighborhood Watch encompassing all of Orchard Street, including James Street and all the streets that run from Orchard, Benton, Washington, Jefferson, McConnell and Orchard Avenue and it goes all the way down to the tracks near Alco. I have prepared a few works to the City of Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals.
“A recent poll of residents of the Orchard Street Area Neighborhood Watch showed complete agreement to deny a request by Steve Tardibone for a variance from 2 units to 7 units as well as 13 off street parking spaces for the property at 9 – 11 James Street.
It is felt that 7 units and parking to accommodate those units is excessive and would create problems for tenants, traffic and neighbors.”
Sincerely, Arlene P. Ryan, Spokesperson for the Orchard Street Area Neighborhood Watch.
I have a copy for you. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Pass that along and we will make it part of the record.
Mrs. Ryan: And on a personal note that is a very busy corner, it would create a lot of congestion for people in the building as well as for traffic and vehicles that would be needed to accommodate folks that reside in that building, it is already a congested corner. Also don’t know what caliber of people would be attracted to live in this building. We would like to see a better type of cliental to our area. We have a nice area in spite of the media notoriety and our area is better than some of the other areas in the City. I would like to see my area as well as other areas perk up. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak for or against this application?
Ms. Cramer: Jean Cramer, 13 James Street, my yard joins 9 – 11 James Street. I would be most affected by anything that is done at that house. While it is empty, I don’t like it empty, I think 7 apartments is excessive. My yard is like a little garden. I have tried to improve it, I have lived there for 23 years. First of all there are too many people. The corner just with the Post Office they don’t even come down James Street like a turn any more, they come out of the Post Office. You put seven more families there that area is going to be chaotic.
I have a pool in my back yard, I have four sons. One of my sons has chemical sensitivity. If the parking lot were put in the back, he would have to move while it was paved. I also have a yard right next to it that is terraced. The house at 9 – 11 is 1 ½ feet higher than mine. If there is a parking lot where does the run off go? I have an organic garden there, I have a berry patch. How will that affect my garden and what will I look out at instead of my garden but 13 spot parking lot. I just don’t think it is a good idea. I would like to see 3 or 4 apartments in there. It is a large building but they have to be well kept and paving the back yard is not the answer. There is room in the front for a couple of cars. Not
enough for seven families. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak for or against the application?
Ms. Bennett: I am Sandy Bennett, I live on Webster Road in the Town of Throop. I own several pieces of income property in the City of Auburn, one of which 1 Orchard Street, which like Mrs. Cramer my yard abuts to this property of Mr. Tardibone. I have to say since it has been empty, I have had peace and quiet and I can almost rent to people of a better quality. The problem we had when it was a seven unit was the parking. I go along with Mrs. Cramer, I would have no objection to a four unit, and I don’t want to make it hard on Mr. Tardibone, but 13 cars. I have had them across my driveway, in my driveway, in front of the house blocking my tenants. There is a hedge there of rose bushes over that anywhere you can think of that is where they were.
The other problem was and I am not saying that Mr. Tardibone is going to rent to people like that, I am not, have those people in that building did not work. So they partied all night and what do you think my tenants did? Moved out. They have to get up, I go letters of apology, I am sorry I have to move, I cannot live like this. So here I am. That is it in a nutshell. We don’t want to create a hardship for someone else, but 13 cars and if you think about it just in a nutshell if there were 3 people to each apartment, minimal 3 people that is 21 people, where are you going to put them? If you can make the back yard into a parking lot, where are these people going to go? Every body has children, you want to have a little BBQ in your back yard, where
would you go? I just don’t want to go through what I went through before. I thank you for your time.
Mr. Rejman: OK, any one else wishing to speak for or against? OK, will the applicants come back please.
I think you have heard the concerns from the neighbors and you have heard the concerns from the board as to the lack of financial hardship evidence.
Mr. Tardibone: I have a question.
Mr. Rejman: Yes?
Mr. Tardibone: I understand the concerns of the neighbors and the board, but when they said lesser than a unit, can you make that ruling at a later date of a lesser unit? A parking lot in the back yard that was not even a notion of mine. You do need some grassy area and I don’t want to do that. But when they were saying 4, actually 5 would be the least I would want there. I don’t know if you can do that.
Mr. Rejman: The other issue you are going to run into to be quite honest is
Mr. Tardibone: The parking?
Mr. Rejman: The neighborhood density limits. This is probably the first project that we have seen in 2 years that has exceeded that. That is going to be a pretty tall hurdle to get over.
Mr. Tardibone: Yea, but the thing is what did they do 20 yeas ago when it was a seven unit? Or 30 years ago?
Mr. Rejman: That then and this is now.
Mr. Tardibone: I know, I am just saying. The only thing is I can step back and walk away from this, but that is not what I want to do, but even if I step back and look away from this, what is that building going to become, it is going to deteriorate and no one is going to take that over. You are taking a blight of the neighborhood that is going to be more vandalized. It is a beautiful building.
Mr. Rejman: So we are at a crossroads right now, you have two options right now. You can go forward with everything you presented right now or you can ask to have it tabled and come back with better information for us.
Mr. Darrow: Could we take 5 minutes to discuss amongst ourselves so that we can come up with a shopping list of what he should come back with?
Mr. Jones: Can I make another statement?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Jones: I am sorry that I was so aggressive and every thing else, but now the thing is this. When I originally bought this building I had a plan for that building, ok. The whole situation there was when I made my commitment with Mr. Hicks and with Mr. Moore before I purchased this building as a matter of fact, I asked them what will I have to do to go through the process of getting this thing ready to rent, because I told them up front that I had to get apartments rented in order to renovate the rest of the building. OK. I told them that I made a plan for the lower apartment in the basement. I told every body, I even called the Police Department of the City of Auburn and told them what my plan was. My plan was when I bought 5 Grover Street over here next door, I was
forced to evict 4 people who sold drugs. I went through heck, I got it solvent. OK. When I bought 9 – 11 James Street my whole scenario of buying these properties or these apartments is to help clean up this area. Mrs. Cramer knows me, her husband knows me very well. I am a man of my word, I always have been. The only thing, the only reason I have not been able to keep my word is because of the agreement that was not met. OK. Number 1. I went in and I finished up the front hallway, I put windows in the one side, if they had allowed me to turn the power on for one apartment, when I asked them
Mr. Rejman: Excuse me, again
Mr. Jones: I am trying to lay out a format here
Mr. Rejman: That doesn’t matter, history has nothing, that doesn’t impact our decision at all. It really doesn’t.
Mr. Jones: Well it should. You are politically motivated and it should.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Can I assume that this has been tabled then?
Mr. Darrow: I thought we were going to do a shopping list. Considering the variances that are needed, would be in the best interest of the neighborhood and us to ask for a full SEQA review on this? When you consider we have drain problems, we have parking problems, we have density problems, and we have lot size problems. Do you think that would be wise?
Ms. Hussey: I don’t believe it is required for this type of project, however I would have to look.
Mr. Darrow: But being a use variance, at least a short form SEQRA.
Ms. Hussey: That is correct.
Mr. Darrow: So all it would take is one thing on the short form that it does not comply that would automatically generate a long form.
Mr. Rejman: Having seen what we have been through in the past 6 months with some of these use variances, we have been taken to Court and every thing else and because this is again one of the first ones that I have seen that exceed the neighborhood density, should we suggest that the applicant seek counsel?
Mr. Darrow: Might be a good idea.
Mr. Rejman: And let the counsel prepare a presentation? Touch on all the points?
Mr. Darrow: That might be a good idea.
Mr. Rejman: Because this is going to be a difficult one.
Mr. Westlake: There is no guarantee that they will get us this information.
Mr. Rejman: No.
Mr. Baroody: There are several issues that need to be addressed, it is not just the one seven units versus two units. There is a density issue, square footage not talking small, there are a lot of issues here.
Mr. Tardibone: I understand.
Ms. Marteney: There is no floor plan, how many apartments, how many bedrooms are in each apartment, the layout of things.
Mr. Rejman: Make the shopping list.
Ms. Marteney: What do we need, get an attorney
Mr. Rejman: I think counsel would be very advisable. Address all the points of the contract.
Mr. Tardibone: What I am going to do is I am going to, I know you are going to deny the application. There are a lot of issues, I am just going to leave it empty.
Mr. Rejman: OK, let me close the public portion. Steve, do you wish to withdraw this or do you wish us to vote on it?
Mr. Tardibone: It doesn’t cost me anything does it?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Mr. Tardibone: You can vote on it.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Let me explain to those sitting how a use variance works or how anything works. All motions have to be in the affirmative, we cannot say, I move that we don’t do something. We make a motion that we do do something and it has to be approved and then there have to be four affirmative votes, sometimes we get excited at this point.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Steve Tardibone of 276 Cayuga Street in Union Springs, New York, for his property located at 9 – 11 James Street, Auburn, New York a use variance to create seven dwelling units at said property, a lot square foot variance of 6,507.6 square feet and a area variance for the lot of 10,992.4 square feet and a parking space variance of 13 vehicles.
Ms. Hussey: You need to, if you are going to vote, you need to do the use variance at this point. Also your motion mentioned Mr. Tardibone as the property owner and it is a matter of record that the property owner is Mr. Jones. Mr. Tardibone is the applicant.
Mr. Darrow: OK. I would like to strike that last motion. I would like to make a motion that we approve a use variance for 7 – 11 James Street, property owned by Mr. Jones, applicant Steve Tardibone for the purpose of creating seven dwelling units.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney – due to the fact that there is no presentation of financial hardship, no discussion of the parking issues, no comparison, no floor plans for the building itself, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow – due to the fact of lack of any documentation and substantiated submitted numbers and figures, Mrs. Brower, Mr. Westlake – No due to the fact of lack of information, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman – due to lack of floor plan, I would have liked to have seen that and financial information.
Mr. Rejman: Application has been denied.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
| 
