ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MAY 23, 2005
Members Present: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Rejman
Member Absent: Ms. Marteney (called), Ms. Aubin (called)
Staff Present: Ms. Hussey, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Selvek
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 217 Grant Avenue, 40 Lake Avenue, 20 Sherman Street, 218 Grant Avenue
APPLICATION TABLED: 210 Osborne Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have five item: 217 Grant Avenue, 40 Lake Avenue, 20 Sherman Street, 210 Osborne Street, 218 Grant Avenue
_____________________________________________________________
217 Grant Avenue. C-3, Area variance of 128 square feet more than the allowed 70 square feet for sign for Ace Hardware, metropolitan Signs, Inc.
Mr. Rejman: 217 Grant Avenue, are you here? Come forward please, and state your name for the record.
Mr. Razzante: Good evening Mr. Chairman and board members. My name is David Razzante, Metropolitan Sign Company here this evening for a variance for Noble Ace Hardware at Auburn Plaza, with me is Tim Brandstetter from Auburn Associates and Bill Kane who is the Operations Manager of Noble Ace Hardware at this location.
Mr. Rejman: OK, tell us exactly what you are looking to do there.
Mr. Razzante: Included with our paper work was a sketch and we are looking to put up some LED channel letters that say “Noble Ace Hardware”. I believe every one has a sketch of that and the frontage, we were just going over that with Brian, the frontage is 60 feet, which we are allowed 120 square feet of signage and we are asking for a variance for an additional 78 square feet. I think there is a typo in that.
Mr. Rejman: Brian, can you get us up to speed on this?
Mr. Hicks: Actually the original application as submitted, these are the figures off that. There has been some question about the linear footage for the front of that store. We did everything according to the 35 foot, right now there shows the frontage as 60 feet, without verification of that we are going to have to go with 35 looking for 198 square feet total in signage. It is up to the board whether they want to table this application at this point in time, or go ahead with this application and make your own call. Right now we have some insufficient information in front of us right now.
Mr. Rejman: OK, worst-case scenario is the application was correct when submitted and it needs 128 square feet. Best case is it needs to be reduced downward. The variance would never go higher than 128.
Mr. Hicks: Right.
Mr. Razzante: Mr. Kane is going to be opening up the store in a few weeks.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s keep going forward and see how the board reacts.
Mr. Razzante: That would be great. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Is everything going on the façade of the store or is anything going on pole signs.
Mr. Razzante: That is going on the façade right there (points to sketch) and then there are the two, that is correct, those individual letters on the building and then the pylon signs that already have the panels in them, we would vinyl signs on them.
Mr. Darrow: Everything here is going on the building?
Mr. Razzante: Yes, you see where it is exactly, in proportion and scale.
Mr. Darrow: Where on the building will these two go or is it part of that?
Mr. Razzante: Part of that (looking at sketch).
Mr. Darrow: OK, I though this was a separate sign itself.
Mr. Razzante: These are the new LED style lights, low voltage.
Mr. Rejman: Will they flash?
Mr. Razzante: No they don’t. They look like a regular neon sign.
Mr. Rejman: OK, let me ask this question. Is there any one wishing to speak for or against this application? None, we will come back to the applicant. Questions from the board? Kind of a generic things. OK, we will close the public portion.
Mr. Razzante: Thank you.
Mr. Kane: Thank you.
Mr. Brandstetter: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: It is typical anything we have given out there, maxed out on the signage, we see it every time.
Mr. Rejman: It fits right in line with the other signs that are on the building.
Mr. Westlake: We have given them 3 out there already.
Mr. Rejman: Right. So we will use this 128 square feet and if we find out that there is more building there
Mr. Darrow: Well, 128 square feet is the maximum.
Mr. Rejman: Right.
Mr. Darrow: Of the variance.
Mr. Rejman: Why don’t we speak to the 198 square feet
Mr. Darrow: Right 128 square foot the maximum amount of variance needed.
Mr. Hicks: No, because we are looking for store frontage, the application speaks for signage at 198 square feet. If you approved 198 square feet it would be for the store location. At that point in time we could adjust this application according to the 198, it may be less.
Mr. Rejman: They are looking for a total signage square footage of 198.
Mr. Darrow: Right.
Mr. Hicks: Right.
Mr. Rejman: So why don’t we just speak to that to approve the variance for signage for 198.
Mr. Darrow: Best idea and adjust it, so 198 square footage would be the maximum.
Mr. Hicks: Looking for a variance of 70 or 78 square feet.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Metropolitan Signs, Inc. a 198 square foot area sign to be installed at 217 Grant Avenue for Noble Ace Hardware, as per drawing submitted.
Mr. Baroody: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck.
Mr. Razzante: Thank you very much.
Mr. Kane: Thank you.
Mr. Kerstetter: Thank you.
40 Lake Avenue. R-1, side yard area variance of 3 feet for 8 foot x 12-foot addition to house. Peter Hlywa.
Mr. Rejman: 40 Lake Avenue, are you here?
Mr. Hlywa: Yes. Good evening, Peter Hlywa, 40 Lake Avenue. I am here for an area variance.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Hlywa: On the south side of the property we are looking to add a 8 x 12 bathroom. Currently we have I guess 5 feet available to build on, 12 feet total. Looking for a 3-foot variance.
Mr. Rejman: One of our infamous 51-foot wide lot. Questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: Is the bathroom plotted on any of these?
Mr. Hlywa: Yes, the last page.
Mr. Westlake: We had one similar to this last month.
Mr. Rejman: Let me ask this and we will come back. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? No, ok, we will come back. I am interested in this corner of the house, the north corner and the north boundary line, how many feet would think are there?
Mr. Hlywa: 18 feet.
Mr. Rejman: So there is room here to put an emergency vehicle through if they had to get to the back of the house.
Mr. Hlywa: It is a corner lot.
Mr. Rejman: Just want it on the record that there is access to the back of the house either way. Any other questions?
Mr. Darrow: My main concern was 42 Lake Avenue and there is nobody from 42 Lake Avenue here tonight.
Mr. Westlake: Is there a driveway on this side of the house, do you park in the garage?
Mr. Hlywa: No, the garage is entered from Silver Avenue.
Mr. Westlake: Silver Avenue? Ok.
Mr. Rejman: Last call for questions. Close the public portion, thank you. There is another one of those generic applications.
Mr. Darrow: I think it is tight on that side of the house, but being the neighbor isn’t opposed to it. I wouldn’t want that built that close to my property line.
Mr. Rejman: There are a lot of small lots, people are getting use to it I think. We need a motion.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Peter Hlywa of 40 Lake Avenue a 3 foot side yard variance for the purpose of an addition in the side yard for a bathroom as per plot plan submitted.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Hlywa: Thank you.
20 Sherman Street. R-1, Are variances for 16 foot by 20 foot garage: 1) 7 foot distance from the primary structure; 2) 1.2 foot rear lot line setback; 3) a variance to exceed the limit of 10% of the volume of the primary structure. Claire Marco.
Mr. Rejman: 20 Sherman Street, are you here? Come on down. State your name for the record.
Ms. Marco: Claire Marco of 20 Sherman Street. I am here for an area variance to tear down the existing garage and build a 16 foot x 24 foot, there was a typo in the letter that was sent out it said 16 foot x 20 foot, but it is 16 foot by 24 foot.
Mr. Rejman: The application says 16 foot x 24 foot.
Mr. Darrow: That is what matters.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Questions from the board? So we are dealing with 3 variances here a variance of 7 feet from the structure, 1.2 feet on the rear property line and 10% volume of primary structure. Just a question, why a 16-foot x 24 foot garage?
Ms. Marco: So I could provide for my car, storage and any future resale if any one wanted to put a little workshop out there.
Mr. Rejman: That is true, I wish I had a 16-foot x 24 foot.
Mr. Darrow: I wish I had a garage. (Everyone laughs).
Mr. Rejman: OK, any one here wishing to speak for or against the application? Any questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: You did a lot of work on the house, it looks very nice.
Ms. Marco: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: OK, we will close the public portion.
Ms. Marco: I do have a few signatures.
Mr. Rejman: Oh, do you, pass those around. It is always nice to have that. Letters from three different homeowners in the owner.
Mr. Darrow: What are the addresses on those?
Mr. Westlake: 11 Evans Street, 15 Evans Street and 18 Sherman Street.
Mr. Rejman: That will be made part of the record. OK, final questions from the board. None, close the public portion.
Mr. Darrow: Another small lot, not over generous.
Mr. Rejman: Average.
Mr. Darrow: It is barely a car and a half.
Mr. Rejman: I have the same problem on my, I only have 40 feet. Comments? Motion?
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Claire Marco of 20 Sherman Street for the purpose of erecting a 16 foot x 24 foot garage, requiring a 7 foot variance from the primary structure for distance separation, a variance of 1.2 feet from the rear lot line setback and a volume of 10% for primary structure.
Mr. Baroody: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Good luck.
Ms. Marco: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
210 Osborne Street. R-1, Use variance for consumer service business (Hair styling salon) at site. Yantch Plaster and Stucco Systems.
Mr. Rejman: Now we have use variance, a little bit different. 210 Osborne Street, are you here? State your name for the record. Questions are a little different on a use variance.
Mr. Yantch: Christopher Yantch owner of 210 Osborne Street and Jane Raichlin who will be running the beauty salon.
Mr. Rejman: OK, and tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Yantch: I have a light industrial warehouse and office space and 600 feet of the office space will be used as the beauty salon.
Mr. Rejman: Give us some history on the property. You presently have a pre-existing non-conforming use for this.
Mr. Yantch: Right.
Mr. Rejman: And that happened how long ago?
Mr. Yantch: In 1992 I believe.
Mr. Rejman: Brian, help us with this. All we are doing is we are just rearranging the pre-existing usage as a percentage or what is your take on this?
Mr. Hicks: Well the exiting variance was granted for that structure 210 Osborne Street for the light industrial use for the business that Mr. Yantch operates from that location. The addition of this new use would be for the consumer services establishment portion of this. So we actually have a different type of use than what he has been granted before but it would still be a commercial use in that structure. This is basically open for the interpretation of the board as far as whether this use would fit into that R-1 zone would acceptable by the neighbors or the residents of that zone.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, let’s see if we can work through this. Let’s pretend we have a building that has 10,000 square feet and it has a pre-existing non-conforming use variance for light industrial and then something happens where you want to take instead of having 10,000 square feet to build widgets you only want to 9,500 to build widgets, 500 to do something else but you are not increasing the variance, it is still 10,000 square feet. So I guess what Brian is saying is, do we have to deal with this?
Ms. Hussey: It is a different use and it is a non-conforming use therefore it is not allowed in that district.
Mr. Darrow: It is R-1.
Ms. Hussey: That’s right. Therefore you need a use variance to allow that use.
Mr. Darrow: Would this variance be just for 600 square foot for consumer services, that is the way I am looking at it, is that correct?
Ms. Hussey: Correct.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s say the beauty shop goes in and a year from now, for one reason or another the beauty shop leaves. Does he now lose the variance that he once upon a time had for that 600 square feet?
Ms. Hussey: As an office?
Mr. Rejman: Does it revert back to the grandfather?
Ms. Hussey: There are a number of factors, correct me if I am wrong Brian on that, it would depend on whether it was used as an office because if there was a use variance granted and it wasn’t used within a year then it would expire, so is it currently used as an office at this point or has it ever been used as an office would be the question to ask.
Mr. Yantch: Yes.
Ms. Hussey: And it is presently used as an office?
Mr. Yantch: Yes, the hair salon.
Ms. Hussey: No, I believe and I would have to really some research on this, I believe that because it was established as a use and if the beauty shop left it could be reused again as an office because it was established.
Mr. Rejman: We don’t want to put the applicant in a position where he would be losing something down the road.
Ms. Hussey: A use variance runs with the property and as long as it was effective in the first place it would be effective to reuse again.
Mr. Baroody: So what you are saying to the owner is if 600 square feet for the hair salon, should the hair salon close, it is office space.
Mr. Rejman: Revert back to.
Ms. Hussey: By granting the use variance this property forever could be used as either an office or a hair salon.
Mr. Westlake: Just that portion.
Ms. Hussey: Just the 600 square feet to be limited to that use.
Mr. Darrow: Wouldn’t that 600 square foot if the hair salon was to move or something happened be able to be used for anything that meets the classification of consumer services? Not just hair salon anything under zoning that falls under the category of consumer services that theoretically can go into that.
Ms. Hussey: You can limit it though. You can limit it in your grant your specific grant of the use variance.
Mr. Darrow: OK.
Ms. Hussey: Because you can say limited to this use.
Mr. Westlake: We have to do the SEQRA first, correct?
Mr. Darrow: We have to see if there is anyone for or against.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, we are going to do all that too. Tell us some more about the salon business you intend to put in there. How many people a day might you have, what the hours might be, that sort of thing.
Ms. Raichlin: Tuesday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. There are two stations in the salon and I use one and the other one is vacant. Possibly 6 to 10 people a day.
Mr. Rejman: With both stations running or one?
Ms. Raichlin: Just one.
Mr. Rejman: If both stations were running, maximum might be?
Ms. Raichlin: Maximum 15 to 17 people.
Mr. Rejman: Just so we can get a handle on this.
Ms. Raichlin: Of course, you can only do so many things at a time, not an excessive amount of traffic at one time. It is handicapped accessible salon. Private, beautiful.
Mr. Rejman: Let me asked this, is there any one wishing to speak for or against this application? None. OK. Questions from the board?
Mr. Westlake: Is the salon already there, sounds like it is already there.
Mr. Yantch:Yes.
Mr. Westlake: So it is already there.
Mr. Darrow: Sign it out front too.
Ms. Hussey: There is statutory considerations statutory requirements that the board needs to consider such as financial hardship, or whether it is self-created, impact on the neighborhood.
Mr. Rejman: That is true. We do need to have a financial considerations on the application somewhere, from the owner of the property saying, if we go forward with it here is my income stream if we don’t go forward with it, this is what happens. I don’t see anything.
Mr. Yantch: Before when I had it rented out to other various tenants, the traffic was tractor trailers coming in and out and a lot more traffic.
Ms. Hussey: Those are items that are needed to be given to the board.
Mr. Rejman: We really need that and we cannot and should not move forward without it, to be honest. Those are statutory requirements we just can’t bend that rule. We are going to have to table this until the next meeting. Brian can you give them some guidance, just some general guidance on that?
Ms. Hussey: What you need to do is fill out the application totally without filling non-applicable in these areas. I believe we have a work sheet that sets out the requirement information. There is certain information that is required by State Statute and by City Ordinance that reflects the State Statute and that is the criteria that is used for issuing a use variance.
Mr. Rejman: We will table this to the next meeting, which is June 27, 2005. This is tabled until June 27 at which time we will review the application for financial hardship. See you next month.
Mr. Yantch: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
218 Grant Avenue. C-3, side yard area variance of 6 feet of the required 6-foot landscaping strip along north property line. Wendcuse Realty for Wendy’s Restaurant.
Mr. Rejman: 218 Grant Avenue, are you here? State your name for the record.
Mr. Shannon: My name is Paul Shannon and I am doing the site planning for the rebuilding of the Wendy’s Restaurant at 218 Grant Avenue. The applicant would like to put up a new building in the location of the old one that burned down. There currently exists a situation where there is no 6 foot side yard set back on the north side of the property along Corporate Drive and we are here to ask, I am not sure how it happened whether there was no variance required at the time Wendy was built the last time, but there currently is no variance for lack of the side yard set back. That is what we are here for tonight, to ask for it.
Mr. Darrow: Side or rear?
Mr. Shannon: Corporate Drive, side yard.
Mr. Rejman: Do we know when that was done?
Mr. Shannon: 1978.
Mr. Darrow: Is that when Wendy’s was built?
Mr. Shannon: That was Wendy’s was built.
Mr. Rejman: Does any one know when Corporate Drive went in? About the same time?
Mr. Hicks: After.
Mr. Rejman: Corporate Drive was the one that was suppose to get the variance.
Ms. Hussey: No, it is based on the property line.
Mr. Hicks: This borders Baumes where the variance is required?
Mr. Westlake: That is not what they are saying.
Mr. Shannon: No, on Corporate Drive. There currently is a side yard set back on the south side Brian, there was none or there currently is none on the east side in the back to the ARC, but we are proposing to put one there.
Mr. Hicks: Every thing bounded around back and forth, different plans on which way we were going to go on this.
Mr. Shannon: Right.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Every one can see what we are dealing with here? The boundary line on the Corporate Drive side. Any one here wishing to speak for or against this application? None. Questions. Comments.
Mr. Darrow: The 6-foot variance is this for the buffer zone?
Mr. Shannon: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: What are you buffering it from, it is Corporate Drive.
Mr. Shannon: Right, we were hoping you would see it that way. There is an 8-foot grass strip there now.
Mr. Westlake: You have Monroe over here.
Mr. Rejman: That would be quite a hardship.
Mr. Darrow: They would lose parking and they haven’t go enough as it is.
Mr. Rejman: That lot is well used as it is right now.
Mr. Darrow: That is what I am saying. Take away this for a buffer zone.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Wendcuse Realty LLC, Jerry Gilbert of 217 Central Avenue, Cortland, New York, a 6 foot variance that is required for a 6 foot landscape strip along the north line of the property at 218 Grant Avenue.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: The application has been approved. When might it open?
Mr. Shannon: We are waiting for the Planning Board meeting. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
| 
