ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Member Absent: Mr. Baroody (called)
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey, Mr. Hicks
Staff Absent: Mrs. Hoffmann
APPLICATION DENIED: 158 Ross Street Ext.
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have one item: 158 Ross Street Extension
_____________________________________________________________
158 Ross Street Extension – R-1, east side yard area variance of 3 feet for addition to residence. Kevin Coleman.
Mr. Rejman: 158 Ross Street Extension, are you here? Come forward please, and state your name for the record and tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Coleman: I am Kevin Coleman, chiropractor here in Auburn, 158 Ross Street Extension. Currently I am converting my garage into an office, I have done that, I am working on building on to that right now, 13 x 19, 246 square feet. What I would like to do is extend that office straight back to increase the size from 247 to 494, so I will be doubling the size of the garage for the office,
The reason I would like to go straight back with it and not have to if I propose to go by Code, the zoning right now, I would have to put a 3 foot jog into the wall. The garage height and the house height are two different heights so when they are connected I would to have to connect three roofs together there instead of connecting two roofs, the garage roof and the addition roof. The main reason I would like to do it is appearance wise, both for myself and for the neighbors in the area. Most affected would be Routkouska next door. Jeff could not be here tonight but he did sign a letter for me saying that he approved of it.
Mr. Rejman: Looking at this aerial map, with you being the subject, the letter that we have a copy of, where is the gentleman’s house?
Mr. Coleman: That one.
Mr. Rejman: (Points to map) This one?
Mr. Coleman: Right.
Mr. Rejman: The closest neighbor?
Mr. Coleman: Yes, the closest neighbor. We will add that to our minutes in a bit.
Mr. Coleman: So basically I would like to have it extended straight backwards, it is going to be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye for both myself and the neighbors, construction time and cost would be much less. I would be able to get the job done a lot quicker if I was able to extend it straight back and it would be a lot less tear down of the existing structure that needs to be done. That is all I have for right now.
Mr. Rejman: Home Occupation? Would you address how, what you did, how that came about? Just get us up to speed on that.
Mr. Coleman: Sure, a few months ago, I applied for a variance for the Home Occupation with Planning. They approved it contingent upon the bringing up additional parking. I submitted today to Brian some parking plans; widen the driveway about 6 feet so that we can park two cars, side by side. A few months ago I applied for the Home Occupation, it wasn’t my intent to first put an office into the house. My wife and I looked at properties in commercial areas and we looked for about a year and was not able to find anything in our price range. I have looked at other leasing options and there is just nothing out there that I can afford at this time, so we decided to have the office apply to have the office in our house. So a few months ago that was approved and I started
working on the garage part for the office.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: Do you have office staff?
Mr. Coleman: No, I don’t.
Mr. Darrow: You’re the secretary
Mr. Coleman: Me, myself and I.
Mr. Darrow: How many patients could possibly be there at one time, two, three, four?
Mr. Coleman: One, two at the most.
Mr. Rejman: Ed that is not relevant. The whole use thing has been taken out of our hands by the Planning Board. So that have been approved, that is approved.
Mr. Darrow: There is still the parking.
Mr. Rejman: No. That is before Planning.
Mr. Darrow: How did Planning get involved in a parking variance?
Mr. Rejman: I don’t know.
Ms. Hussey: Planning did not get involved in a parking variance. Planning got involved in an application for a special permit for a home use, a Home Occupation. Part of the requirements for a Home Occupation is adequate parking and parking is part of that application and it was granted conditioned on limiting a certain amount of patients per day or per week, limiting the hours of operation and an acceptable parking plan.
Mr. Darrow: So we are dealing strictly with an area variance.
Mr. Rejman: All we are looking at is the variance to the side yard.
Ms. Hussey: Just the distance from the proposed addition to the property line.
Mr. Rejman: This would probably be a good spot to read this letter.
Ms. Hussey: This is a letter dated April 14, 2005. “Gentlemen: I Joseph J. Routkouska, owner of the property at 160 Ross Street Extension, give Kevin Coleman, owner of the property at 158 Ross Street Extension, permission to continue with the enlargement of his garage at this location. Whatever variances need to be changed or altered for the project, I will be in agreement with. Any questions or comments can be addressed to me in writing at 13 Highland Street, Auburn, or by phone at 253-2249. Yours truly, Joseph J. Routkouska.”
Mr. Darrow: He lives at Highland, but your address is Ross Street Extension, he is still you side neighbor?
Mr. Coleman: His mother owned that property and she died last fall.
Mr. Darrow: Does he actually occupy this house?
Mr. Coleman: His son occupies the house. The house is up for sale, so he is selling the house and he said even though he is selling the house he would go along with this.
Mr. Rejman: Any other questions from the applicant from the board at this time?
Mr. Westlake: Are you going to live in the house?
Mr. Coleman: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Home Occupation. OK. Seems to be quite a few people, so I will ask, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Now, state your name for the record please.
Mrs. Foley: I have documents that I would like to pass out. (Gives to each board member).
Mr. Rejman: Understand something, we are only concerned with the 3 foot variance to the side yard, that is all we can look at tonight.
Mrs. Foley: I understand that. If you listen to this document in its entirety you will see how it ties into that 3-foot variance.
Mr. Rejman: I don’t want to go down this road. We are only looking at the area variance, the Home Occupation has already been given. There is nothing we can do about it and we legally cannot take that into consideration.
Mrs. Foley: You asked if anyone had anything to say
Mr. Rejman: For or against the application and the application is for an east side yard area variance of 3 feet. That is the only thing we can discuss tonight.
Mrs. Foley: If you would give me the courtesy of listening to the first part of this and the conclusion which pertains to the 3 foot variance, you would see that it is all connected and as the Corporation Counsel’s secretary mentioned the special use permit was contingent upon a review and approval of the parking permit before the special use permit was granted, it was conditional on that in a document that was sent out from the Planning Office. We are going on the assumption that that parking proposal with the special use permit has not been reviewed or approved, therefore, we feel we have the right to address that aspect of it since it ties in with the remaining points that we would like to make.
Mr. Darrow: You have to address that to the board that is hearing that. That discussion would only go to the board that is hearing that part. We are not hearing that part.
Mr. Rejman: Give counsel a moment to review the document. On counsel’s recommendation, items D, E, F and G are relevant. So if you wish to hold your remarks to those, you can go ahead.
Mrs. Coleman: Can we get a copy of that so that we can follow along.
Mrs. Foley: I am going to read it and then you can request it from the board. (Board member passes a copy to Mrs. Coleman.)
Mrs. Foley: My name is Ginger Foley, I live on the corner of N. Hunter Avenue and Ross Street Extension, next door to 161 Ross Street Extension, which is across the street from the Coleman residence.
Since my presentation is somewhat shorten, there may be difficulty in following the continuity. However, in addition to the preceding three concerns which I was not allowed to read, addressing the special use permit, which are also pertinent to the consideration for an area variance, the following are brought to your attention.
We think the proposed variance is substantial in that it expands an already non-conforming set back. That was D.
E. The proposed variance would definitely have an adverse effect on the neighborhood by virtue of an increase in parking and traffic. The potential for a front yard parking space is a very serious concern.
F. We feel that the difficulty is self-created in that Kevin Coleman has not demonstrated that he has looked into other possible solutions.
G. There is no indication of a need for relief from the existing side yard requirement. The addition, if permitted, can be attached to the existing structure in compliance with all existing requirements. Kevin Coleman fails to prove that his land is such that a variance is required to meet his needs.
In your consideration, we are certain that you will find that Kevin Coleman has failed the five-pronged test required for an area variance.
This statement was signed by 21 neighbors who live on Ross Street Extension and North Hunter Avenue.
Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board at this point? Any questions for the speaker? No? OK. Thank you. Is there any one else wishing to speak for or against this application? Yes, step forward. State your name and address.
Mr. McCole: My name is Mike McCole, I live at 4 North Hunter Avenue, that is the intersection of Ross Street Extension and North Hunter Avenue. It is my understanding that I know we are here to discuss the side variance and some of the remarks that I have prepared previously may not be necessarily germane to what this board this board to do so I am going to try to abbreviate so that I only address the five- prong test that you require to use in your analysis.
One of the principle concerns that we are dealing with here is if this side yard variance is granted and this construction occurs, we will begin the slippery slope of commercialization of this neighborhood. We brought it up and opened the door by telling you that the reason he is here is because he has a permit for a specialty Home Occupation. You can call it whatever you want, it is a medical office in a residential neighborhood. My principle and primary concern with granting this and beginning the commercialization of a historic residential neighborhood in the City is the safety of the people that live in that neighborhood. On the one block from Genesee Street to Ross Street on North Hunter Avenue where I live, there are 7 children under the age of 8, who live on that
street. Three of them are riding bicycles with training wheels, one of them is riding up and down the sidewalk on a tricycle. If he is able to fulfill the goals that he has established with his home occupancy business he is going to be seeing in excess of 2000 patients a year.
Mr. Rejman: Wait a minute, excuse me, the only thing we can take into consideration is this 3-foot variance.
Mr. McCole: And one of that is the impact that this 3-foot variance has on the neighborhood
Mr. Rejman: No it doesn’t. Listen to me. If he decides not to build to the property line, he doesn’t need to come before us, he can build tomorrow. Now, there is the difference, he can stand up right now and say, “you know what, I don’t want the 3 foot variance” and it still goes in.
Mr. McCole: I am aware of that, but
Mr. Rejman: All we are talking about is to give or not to give this 3-foot variance.
Mr. McCole: I am aware of that but the reason we are here is because he wants to build it and the reason he wants to build it is because he wants to put a medical office
Mr. Rejman: No, the reason we are here tonight is not whether or not he wants the office, that has been granted. Those are Planning Board arguments
Mr. McCole: Those are not Planning Board arguments, it is an argument as to what impact this has on the neighborhood.
Mr. Rejman: That has already been done, it is out of our hands, we can’t speak to that, we can’t consider that. Understand what I said, he can go out there tomorrow morning and build this building without the 3 foot variance, build it and it is a done deal.
Mr. McCole: I am aware of that and that is one of the other issues that you have to consider here whether or not his request is one of necessity or one of convenience. He can build this and comply with the current Municipal Code.
Mr. Darrow: That is what you have to speak to.
Mr. McCole: That is one of the other issues. He can build this in compliance with the Code. It is not the best solution, but it is at least a step in the right direction and it is something we may have to fight the other issue at another date, place and time. We may end up doing that. Our concerns at this point and time are he has admitted that this is a short-term problem for him. He hopes not to continue his business there, once this variance is granted it becomes a permanent part of the structure. He hopes to be out of there in five years. He was a variance for a short term problem one of convenience, not necessity and I think you have got to consider, we will have to fight the other fights in the appropriate venues, but we need you guys to at least the
fact that this is an issue of convenience, not necessity and he can comply with the law and not violate the Municipal Code. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Is there any one else wishing to speak for or against the application?
Ms. Janus: My name is MaryAnn Janus and I live at 10 North Hunter Avenue and I guess I am at a disadvantage, I only know one person on this board. I don’t know your names. I understand your situation because we were never notified by the Planning Board. I never received a letter from them concerning a meeting concerning this business. Many of us didn’t.
Mr. Rejman: I can’t speak to that.
Ms. Janus: No, I understand, but maybe you could carry a message back. Also I am sure Mr. Routkouska does not care about this because he is not going to be living there. He is attempting to sell the house and who do you think is going to buy the house knowing that there is a business next door?
Mr. Rejman: I am sorry
Ms. Janus: I understand that
Mr. Westlake: We are here to talk about the 3-foot side yard variance, we are not here to talk about the other business.
Ms. Janus: I understand that, that is not a problem, would you carry the message back to the Planning Board, there are some unhappy neighbors because we were not notified about a meeting that we could have attended?
Mr. Darrow: We should give them the date of the next Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Rejman: I am sure they know it.
Ms. Hussey: They have to follow procedures, a decision has already been rendered by the Planning Board and they have to follow procedures.
Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak for or against this application? Yes, come down.
Mr. Sperduti: My name is David Sperduti, I live on 5 North Hunter Avenue. My back yard and is in clear view of their back yard. I just want to say that my whole life I worked awful hard to get up to the east end. I have been there 18 years, we raised our kids in it and it has been a great family environment, it has been a very peaceful neighborhood. I will be darned if I see a business being run out of my back yard every time I come out my back door I am going to see an addition added on twice the size a business being run outside my back door in a residential neighborhood.
If you look at the rules here, if you were to grant that variance of 3 feet and he adds onto his 490 square feet addition that will exceed the home occupancy requirement of 25% or less. So if you go the 490 square feet as a business to his 1800 square foot house, he is above the 25% for a home occupation.
Mr. Rejman: Again, we are here for the 3-foot side yard variance and that is it.
Mr. Sperduti: So I am telling you I don’t want it because it is going to detract from my view of my property because it is in direct line of my property and my assessment, when I go to sell my house, they are going to look at a 3 foot variance and a double sized garage in my back yard running his business out of it, so where is the value of my house going and the value of the houses of every body else around him. It is unfortunate that Mr. Routkouska never lived in that house. His mother lived in that house for 5 years, then ended up in a nursing home. The son is living there free of charge and they are selling the house so what in the hell does he care about a 3 foot variance on the house.
Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you. Any one else wishing to speak for or against this application?
Ms. Burdette: My name is Susan Burdette and I live at 12 North Hunter Avenue. I just want to say that I echo the concerns of my neighbors here. I feel is suppose to be a short-term solution. Unfortunately, once this variance, once this parking is created it becomes a permanent addition and I feel that we are subsidizing and that this is something we are going to have to live with. I am sure it will affect people how they view moving into this neighborhood. I do agree about the Routkouska residence, if you look at the photos that you have you will see that the residences are very close. Once that variance goes in there will be no separation whatsoever. I think it will become very unsightly. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: OK, any one else wishing to speak for or against this application? May I say something (Mrs. Colemen speaking)? Yes, come down here.
Mrs. Coleman: My name is Stephanie Coleman and I live at 158 Ross Street Extension. I just want to make one thing clarified, we plan on living in our residence. This variance that we were awarded four months ago, that we applied for, was a temporary for 5 years. When the variance is up, we still plan on living in this house and that addition that we are putting on to our house will become living quarters, we are going to be making it into a family room. We were granted 5 years, we may not even make the 5 years, but please keep that in mind. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak for or against this application? Yes, come down.
Mrs. Sperduti: My name is Cathy Sperduti and I just had a question on this 25%. If it exceeds 25% is that justifiable?
Ms. Hussey: The issue that this board is looking at is whether they can build this structure closer to the property line other than the 7 foot that is allowed by Code. The issue of the square footage of the residence and what is used for office or this home occupation and what is not is really up to the Codes Department to determine if there is a violation of the Code and of the Planning Board’s special use home occupation permit. It is not under the purview of this board. That is the way that our Ordinance, that is the law, New York State Statutes.
Mrs. Sperduti: If it exceeds 25% that department would have to determine that this business cannot…
Ms. Hussey: No, then the applicant or the violator would be offered an opportunity to correct that.
Mrs. Sperduti: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak for or against this application? State your name please
Mr. Clare: Joe Clare, 8 North Hunter Avenue. We got letters, I got a letter two weeks ago about this. I never got a letter on the first time.
Ms. Hussey: The list was expanded for this because it appeared there was some controversy involved in this and people were interested in it. What happens is that it is a discretionary decision to either notify more. The limit for notifying is within 200 feet of the property, those are required notices, so any body in excess or beyond that 200 foot was given an expanded notice and wouldn’t have been required under law to receive notice for the initial matter.
Mr. Clare: We are not required to receive notice.
Ms. Hussey: If you lived greater than 200 feet from the subject property.
Mr. Clare: This particular one it was how many feet? I am just curious, I thought it was all the same.
Ms. Hussey: No, this was an expanded list, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Clare: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Is there any one else wishing to speak for or against this application? Yes, come forward.
Mr. Failey: Bill Failey, 15 North Hunter Avenue. I just have a question if there would be access through the rear of this house or other houses for fire or emergency services on North Hunter Avenue if he built 3 feet closer to the fence line which I believe is the property line. I don’t know if it is 7 feet or not.
Mr. Rejman: Brian, you want to answer that?
Mr. Hicks: Requirement by the City of Auburn Zoning Code is 10 feet and in this case here it is less than 7 foot that is why he is asking for a 3 foot variance from the property line. The State Code requires a minimum of 3 foot to the property line or accessory structure for fire fighting services. In this case here where you would have 4 foot to the property line plus the distance to the next neighboring property would exceed 10 feet for fire fighting so there would be complete total access.
Mr. Failey: Even if the fence built up to the property line?
Mr. Hicks: The firefighters do not look at a fence as being a hindrance.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Any one else wishing to speak for or against this application?
Mr. Vanek: My name is David Vanek, I live at 9 N. Hunter Avenue. I am within the 200-foot range. I live on the other side of the house from the gentleman that wrote the letter that is selling his house and is acceptable supposedly to this variance.
I feel that the houses are too close together now. I am against the expansion. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Any one else wishing to speak for or against the application?
Mr. Sperduti: Can I speak again?
Mr. Rejman: Do you have something new? State your name again for the record.
Mr. Sperduti: David Sperduti. You might want to check instead of the 200 it might be 400 feet around outside the property. We checked and it was 400, if it was 400, I wasn’t notified and several others weren’t of the time. So it might be 400 feet around the property.
Ms. Hussey: Again, that is the Planning Board. It is not relevant to this here.
Mr. Sperduti: I would like to ask this board, what are the grounds, help us out, you have shot us down on several different questions or answers here, I would ask this board on what basis do you grant these variances? Is it cosmetic? Is it safety or what, what makes you determine that he is going to get this variance, so we have something to tell you rather than us fishing.
Ms. Hussey: Go by the ordinance as it is set forth, that is what you use for guidance.
Mr. Sperduti: So it has nothing to do with the appearance of the neighborhood?
Ms. Hussey: That is one of the factors, yes it is.
Mr. Sperduti: OK, I don’t like it, it is in my back yard and their back yard, if you
Mr. Rejman: Let me ask you a question. Can you pretend, remember when you were a kid you could pretend
Mr. Sperduti: I am still a kid
Mr. Rejman: OK, fine, I want you to pretend that they are not here for a Home Occupation, I want you to pretend that they are here to expand that into living space.
Mr. Sperduti: There is a difference.
Mr. Rejman: No, no, I want you to pretend
Mr. Sperduti: There is a difference
Mr. Rejman: No
Mr. Sperduti: Definitely a difference between an expansion with bay windows compared to an office
Mr. Rejman: Listen to me, not tonight, not in this particular case, we cannot look at the Home Occupation.
Mr. Sperduti: You are not addressing the cosmetic look of it.
Mr. Rejman: Do you understand the question I asked you?
Mr. Sperduti: Sure.
Mr. Rejman: If they were here with a growing family and they wanted to put in another bedroom and it was living space, that is a different story to you, right?
Mr. Sperduti: No, they wouldn’t be asking for the 3-foot
Mr. Rejman: Yes, they would because they would want the cosmetic line to be the same.
Mr. Sperduti: No it wouldn’t they would add on to the back of their house, the back of their kitchen, they want to make this one large office area, alright, it has nothing to do with.
Mr. Rejman: Alright, thank you very much.
Mr. Sperduti: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak for or against the application? Step forward.
Mr. Lent: Good evening, Chairman and members of the board. My name is James Lent. I live at E. Genesee Street and N. Hunter Avenue. I have listed many comments tonight indicating the concerns of the neighborhood, but I am going to address specifically the request for the area variance, that is what this board is looking at tonight. As I review the documents and paperwork I want you to refer yourselves very closely to the document that was handed out earlier by Mrs. Foley that addresses the five-prong test.
This variance request is substantial, but what is most important to them, to grant the variance the individuals must prove that there is no other way for him to receive relief. Obviously that is not the case because this gentleman says he can find relief if he complies with the law as it is currently written. Therefore, I see that there is no need for this variance, simply by complying with the law. Therefore, I think you position is quite clear. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Any one else wishing to speak for or against the application? Does the board wish the applicant to come back for closing statements?
Mr. Darrow: I have a question to address.
Mr. Rejman: OK, we are going to close the public portion, we will take no more input for either side, we are going to discuss this in public and more than likely take a vote on it tonight.
Something was said by Mrs. Coleman that says we are going to change it to a family room, that is what kicked off this idea, forget the part about the Home Occupation, we cannot even address that, if they were here tonight because of a growing family situation and they wanted to add on which we have seen hundreds of times before on this board, we use the same test.
Mr. Darrow: There are two things that weigh very heavily in my mind right now, Mr. Chairman.
An absentee landlord, about to sell a piece of property, giving cart blache to whatever his adjacent neighborhood wants to do. That I can’t put a lot of weight in because I honestly know if I would want to buy that house with the addition that close to my property line going back protruding that long parallel to my property line.
The other concern that I have is, is this the least amount of variance needed.
Mr. Rejman: Careful.
Mr. Darrow: No, I am not looking at
Mr. Rejman: Based on what, based on what?
Mr. Darrow: Pictures of his lot, pictures of house, this simply can be rectified by building this addition 3 foot further, as we look at the picture, to the left. Problems are gone, he is in complete compliance with our Code.
Mr. Rejman: Which makes for what size addition?
Mr. Darrow: Just simply slide it over 3 foot.
Mr. Rejman: No, you run into a roof problem.
Mr. Darrow: Not necessarily, a proper design, that valley would be able to run into the corner and then part of the roof would come pass, they would simply have to re-valley that, but then again we are not judging architectural drawings.
Mr. Rejman: You are saying just subtract 3 feet from this addition?
Mr. Darrow: No, I am not saying subtracting 3 feet, I am saying simply slide the whole addition over 3 foot.
Mr. Rejman: That would be very difficult on the roof situation.
Ms. Marteney: That is none of our business.
Mr. Darrow: We are not the architects of this. My point is that I do not believe this is the minimum amount of variance
Mr. Rejman: What, we don’t do financial information. This is an area variance. What precedence have we set in the past 15 years when anyone says I want a porch that matches this, I want something that matches this? Tell me the last one we said no to.
Ms. Marteney: Probably never.
Mr. Darrow: If I could review the records I am sure I could come up with one.
Mr. Rejman: I don’t want you clouded by this whole Home Occupancy things.
Mr. Darrow: And the other thing and any body says this has never ever weighed into one our decisions would not be truthful, is the fact of neighborhood opposition.
Mr. Rejman: I will agree with that.
Mr. Darrow: And character of the neighborhood is created by neighborhood opposition.
Mr. Rejman: I will agree with that, except that every thing that we have heard, almost every things that we have heard out here was moot.
Mr. Darrow: Yes, for the most part was not pertaining to this
Mr. Rejman: How can you weigh it?
Ms. Marteney: It is emotional and it does have to do with the neighborhood.
Mr. Rejman: We don’t vote on emotion we vote on facts.
Mr. Darrow: There were points that were made and as we know with an area variance we have our check sheet of what this met and there were 2 or 3 points that were made that would be no on our check sheet.
Mr. Rejman: Alright. We will come over to this side of the board. Any comments, concerns.
Mr. Westlake: If they came for the same variance in front of this board and asked for a bedroom, what would we do?
Mr. Rejman: No opposition.
Mr. Darrow: If there was this. That is hypothetical, we have to deal with facts.
Mr. Rejman: Facts were they don’t want a Home Occupation, you can’t look at that.
Ms. Marteney: You know what, in the application that we got, it says nothing about a Home Occupation at all.
Mr. Westlake: It shouldn’t, they are here for a 3 foot side yard variance, not here for the Home Occupation at all. All I said, if he wanted an addition to his garage and he wanted it built back straighter, what would this board do? What have we done before?
Mr. Darrow: Every one is separate, every one is individual.
Ms. Marteney: If there was opposition to it we would have greater discussion about it.
Mr. Darrow: No one decision have we ever made creates a guiding precedence.
Mr. Westlake: What I am saying is, if he came here to add that to the back of his garage, for a 3-foot side yard variance, what would we do?
Mr. Darrow: I think it would be an awfully long garage.
Mr. Rejman: The fact is 3 years down the road things work well and he opens an office downtown, this turns into a family space and no body cares at that point.
Ms. Marteney: What if they move in two years?
Mr. Rejman: Then the variance stops. The variance is for a Home Occupation Chiropractic. It sunsets.
Ms. Hussey: It sunsets automatically.
Ms. Marteney: OK.
Mr. Darrow: Is that why it is a special permit rather than a use variance?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: OK, now I understand. Planning gave it a sunset clause.
Mr. Rejman: Back to this side.
Ms. Aubin: That is the question I had about the special permit.
Ms. Brower: I am conflicted about it. I have a reason to abstain because of a personal relationship.
Mr. Rejman: OK. The way this board works is you need 4 of the members that are here to vote in the affirmative to pass any thing. The motion must be made in the affirmative, we cannot make a motion that says “I move that we do not do some thing”. Can’t do that. The motion always has to be “I move that we approve” and then some one has to second.
Mr. Darrow: May I have the floor for a motion, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Kevin G. Coleman of 158 Ross Street Extension a 3 foot side yard area variance for the purpose of erecting an addition to his dwelling as submitted in the application.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow – due to the fact that I believe this is not a variance that is needed, the addition could be built without the 3-foot side yard variance and an overwhelming disagreement of the neighborhood.
ABSTAIN: Ms. Brower
Mr. Rejman: The application did not receive the 4 affirmative votes, the application has been denied.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
| 
