ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JULY 25, 2005
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Staff Present: s. Hussey, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Selvek
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 235 State Street, 128 N. Division Street, 251 Genesee Street, 171 Grant Avenue
APPLICATIONS DENIED: 82 Owasco Street, 48-52 Washington Street
APPLICATION TABLED: 210 Osborne Street
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: 210 Osborne Street, 235 State Street, 82 Owasco Street, 48 – 52 Washington Street, 128 N. Division Street, 251 Genesee Street, 171 Grant Avenue
_____________________________________________________________
210 Osborne Street, R-1, Use variance for consumer service business (hair styling) at site. Yantch Plaster and Stucco Systems.
Mr. Rejman: If there is anyone here for 210 Osborne Street that has been tabled until the August 29th meeting.
_____________________________________________________________
235 State Street, R-1, Michael Nicpon. Three area variances for addition to funeral parlor: 1) 2 foot southeast side yard variance; 2) 3 foot 9 inch northwest side yard variance; 3) 4 foot 10 inch front yard variance and one use variance. Use variance for non-conforming use.
Mr. Rejman: 235 State Street, are you here? Come to the podium please. State your name for the record.
Mr. Nicpon: Good evening, my name is Michael Nicpon, I reside at 235 State Street where I own the Nicpon Funeral Home and have for the past 31 years.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there?
Mr. Nicpon: I am here before the board tonight to request four variances; three are distance to extend towards the front and towards the northeast and southeast sides. What I am planning on doing is demolishing the existing front port and erect a new enclosed structure, which will house handicap accessible ramp and also a handicap accessible restroom. The fourth variance is for non-conforming use because I am grandfathered in as a funeral home and it is my understanding from Brian that because there is an increase in area I also have to have a variance for non-conforming.
Mr. Rejman: Brian, it is not a new variance, just a continuance?
Mr. Hicks: Actually basically it is what we classify as pre-existing non-conforming use. No such thing as a variance for grandfathering, it is pre-existing non-conforming.
Mr. Rejman: So we have to do through use variance on this?
Mr. Hicks: For the extension, he is going for more lot coverage and the area variances also, he is expanding a non-conforming use.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, questions from the board? None?
Mr. Westlake: He runs a nice business there.
Mr. Rejman: Let me do this first, is there any one wishing to speak for or against this application? None. Come back. Do we have an economic hardship involved, any numbers?
Mr. Westlake: I don’t see any.
Mr. Darrow: So were looking at three area variances
Mr. Rejman: Three areas and a use for the addition.
Mr. Westlake: Not enough information for the use variance.
Mr. Rejman: OK. For the use variance we do require different
Mr. Westlake: Actually his application is only asking for three area variance, so there is no use variance on his application.
Mr. Rejman: On his application, why don’t we just deal with that first and then we will come back and deal with the use issue.
Ms. Hussey: No, because you have to have the use variance first before you give you an area variances.
Mr. Darrow: We have to do a short form SEQRA on the use.
Mr. Hicks: Last month we tabled this because the use variance was not properly advertised. At this time the advertisement has gone through for the use variance, so yes we are looking at area variances but it is the use variance for the expansion of non-conforming use that we have to handle first and that advertisement has been done, that packets should be in your hands now for the use variance. Please check your packets, as every body should have it.
Ms. Marteney: We don’t have it.
Mr. Rejman: Nope, don’t have it.
Mr. Hicks: It was in your last month’s packets not in your new packets. Use variance will be added to the application for area variances.
Mr. Rejman: We really don’t have much here in dollars and cents that is the problem.
Mr. Westlake: It does say how much it would cost him to move, to relocate.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: Not at this time.
Mr. Rejman: Not at this time? Last call any one wishing to speak for or against this application? None. We will close the public portion, have a seat and we will discuss this. Let’s do the use variance first.
Ms. Marteney: He implied but he doesn’t have figures putting up the addition and he kind of breaks down the cost are for replacement of the building which we would assume is a great more than, that is the only economic hardship that he shows #17, from the hand written, if I had to relocate and build an entire new structure versus the addition, the whole thing is $35,000 versus a whole new building.
Mr. Westlake: His economic hardship is he is trying to make this place more handicap accessible plus a handicap accessible bathroom that would be a hardship right there, he wants to have it for his people.
Ms. Marteney: The hardship is X versus Y.
Mr. Darrow: I think it would be fair for us to surmise that moving to another building would far exceed $35,000 because you are not going to get another building in a commercial district for any where near that amount of money, so I look at that as a common sense judgment call. Should we do the SEQRA?
Mr. Selvek: What I just passed out is a copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form for SEQRA and the front page is pretty much just a description of the over all project. If you turn to the rear this is the impact assessment itself and I will go through this quickly with you under C which deals with any adverse effects associated with any of the following:
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential erosion, drainage or flooding problems.
The proposed use is not a new use, rather it is the continuation of a pre-existing non=conforming use as a funeral home. The site has been used as a funeral home for the past 57 yeas and will continue to be used in the same capacity. Proposed changes are to conform with ADA requirements. No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character.
Assuming that the proposed façade changes are residential in character there is no reason to anticipate any adverse effects to community or neighborhood character.
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endanger species.
This is an existing use on a develop site. It can be assumed that no significant habitats exist on the site.
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.
Although the existing use is not permitted in the residential zone, it is reasonable to determine that it is compatible with the residential area.
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action.
Granting the use variance is needed to allow this business to meet ADA requirements. The existing structure will be enlarged and renovated in connection to meet the ADA requirements.
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 –
C5.
N/A.
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy).
N/A
Overall staff recommendations are that this will not have any large impacts associated with it and that this be declared a negative declaration. Do you have any questions?
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put forth that we accept Appendix C short form Environmental Assessment Form as a negative declaration for Michael J. Nicpon of Nicpon Funeral Home.
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: How would you like the use variance to be framed (asking Ms. Hussey, Assistant Corporation Counsel)?
Ms. Hussey: To expand the use as a funeral home and limited it to the new addition.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that grant Michael J. Nicpon of 235 State Street of Nicpon Funeral Home a use variance for the purpose of expansion at his funeral home at said address to create handicap accessibility as per plans submitted.
Mr. Baroody: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Motion has been carried. Now we are down to the three area variances and we will discuss them one at a time. Two-foot southeast side yard variance, a three foot nine inch northwest side yards variance and a four foot ten inch front yard variance. Now, any comments on any of these three variances or concerns?
Ms. Marteney: There is great variance in positioning of houses and buildings on the block, some are right up to the sidewalk in that general neighborhood, it zig zags back and forth so I don’t think there is not a clear sight line that you would want a nice set back there.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question for Counsel, Mr. Chairman. Can we give the property line set back because it is City owned property or does City Council do that?
Ms. Hussey: I don’t understand your question.
Mr. Darrow: One of the variances that we are granting a four foot ten inch area variance from the front yard property line set back, that is from the City’s right of way, correct?
Ms. Hussey: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: We are able to give from the City’s right of way or is that something Council has to do?
Ms. Hussey: No, you can do it.
Mr. Rejman: Now, we are starting to get multiple variances per application. Would it be best to do each one?
Ms. Hussey: Yes it would.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Michael J. Nicpon of 235 State Street a two foot area variance for the southeast property line set back for the purpose of expansion to funeral home at said address, specific with plot plan submitted.
Ms. Brower: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Darrow: I would like to propose that we grant Michael J. Nicpon of 235 State Street a three foot nine inch area variance for the northwest property line set back for the purpose of funeral home expansion as plot plan submitted.
Ms. Brower: I will second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Michael J. Nicpon of 235 State Street a four foot ten inch area variance for the east front yard property line set back for proposed addition as plot plan submitted.
Ms. Brower: I will second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: The application in total has been approved.
Mr. Nicpon: Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________________________
82 Owasco Street. R-1, John Allen. 5 area variances: 4 foot height variance for fence along south property line; 7 foot property line setback for attached garage; 10 foot of required 25 foot rear yard; 125 square feet of required 250 square feet usable open space; 803.5 square feet of overage of allowed 35% maximum building coverage.
Mr. Rejman: 82 Owasco Street, are you here? Please state your name for the record.
Mr. Allen: My name is John Allen, I live at 82 Owasco Street.
Mr. Rejman: This was tabled from last month, it is a multiple area variance, there are five area variances involved. For the record, are you still considering asking for all five?
Mr. Allen: Yes I am.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, and you are submitting some additional information to us, go ahead.
Mr. Allen: If I am not mistaken, I was asked to, I should have gotten it here in advance, but I have a survey plans.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, pass those out please. Let’s discuss the, let’s take them in order, let’s take the four foot height variance for the fence on the south property line. Why do you need a four-foot variance?
Mr. Allen: As I said before there is a neighbor problem, they holler and go back and forth across the lot, but they are on a three foot deck and I was thinking today I could get away with nine feet, but if I don’t make it nine feet it won’t do any good.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mr. Allen: I did re-measure it.
Mr. Darrow: Are you changing your request to nine foot?
Mr. Allen: Yes, I am.
Mr. Rejman: So we are looking for a three-foot variance? Ok. We will amend the application. Fences and neighbors and variances, the problem with that giving a variance to a fence like that, somebody comes in here and says I have a bad neighbor I need a ten foot fence and we gave a variance for a ten foot fence, sooner or later, one of the two properties are going to move and you are stuck with an ugly fence that no body really needs.
Mr. Allen: Ugly fence, I don’t intend to make an ugly fence.
Mr. Rejman: We are just a little careful about fences because we don’t want to end up with a whole lot of Fort Apaches in the City, you know what I mean, we don’t want people slamming up fences.
Mr. Allen: My intention was to have a vertical support for the one bys ever other one, one bys in back and every other see through one facing the one in the back, zig-zagged.
Mr. Westlake: What neighbor do you have the problem with? This one (pointing to survey map) or this one?
Mr. Allen: This one, none owner occupied and there is a subsidized tenant in there.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, let’s move on to the seven-foot property line set back for the attached garage. You are proposing to put, is it a garage or a carport?
Mr. Allen: You asked me last week if I was willing to leave it open and I have given that some thought and it is not intended to house automobiles.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mr. Allen: But it is intended to sit on in the summer and house snow blower, I don’t want to call it a storage area because it is not going to be a full storage area either, but it will not house cars, but I would like to have the overhead door.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. And because of the distance between the two properties that is the part with the set back.
Mr. Allen: Let me review this 14 x 19 space would require only one solid wall and one wall for the overhead, it would leave a six foot space between the two buildings. The property line falls about 14 inches away from the opposite building. The slab would go the extra three feet on the left side there, but it would be the same elevation as the garage slab but the garage itself will only be 19 x 14.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mr. Allen: Storing 266 feet there. Some body mentioned they were worried about the greenery, Mr. DiNonno. There is still 1525 square feet of greenery, 300 in the front, 325 on the Francis Street side. It is kind of a triangle and I am using the triangle area formula and it comes out to that eliminating the 30 x 20 stone drive, you still have 900 feet there.
Mr. Darrow: 900 square feet of green space?
Mr. Allen: 900 square feet is where it comes out using that formula
Mr. Darrow: On your property?
Mr. Allen: On my property. You see there the fence, the existing fence on the left side there, some of it is on my property, the greenery goes up to that fence.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board?
Mr. Allen: I would like to pass around a picture
Mr. Rejman: Pass around every thing you have.
Mr. Allen: This is a picture I took about three years ago when I was before the Zoning Board before, the matter was tabled and I just let it go because I didn’t feel very positive about what the results would be. All you are doing it taking up that little corner of the building, which is already indented.
Mr. Westlake: What is the building being used for right now?
Mr. Allen: Single family home.
Mr. Westlake: Single family home.
Mr. Darrow: Do you reside there?
Mr. Allen: As a matter of fact, yes, as a matter of fact I have had a request which I will probably be approaching the board about, some one wants to buy it contingent upon using the old store area as an office and acquiring the units that were there. I have not bothered doing that. I anticipate that some body is going, if I do put it on the market, some body is going to want to put those units back. Any way that is another matter.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, let me go forward with this. Is there any one wishing to speak for or against this application? John have a seat.
Mrs. Bennett: I am Sandra Bennett and I own the rental property next door to the 82 Owasco Street, I own 84 Owasco Street and on my paper that I receive the other day, it says your meeting started at 7:30 p.m. and I didn’t hear what Mr. Allen had to say, but we are still going on and on about the ten foot fence?
Mr. Darrow: He has reduced it to a nine-foot fence.
Mrs. Bennett: Ok. I am against any fence. If you have pictures of that area which I don’t have, my husband did go to the Housing Code Office this morning and they said there was no new papers turned in so I am going from there. Any way, if you can see through there, there is about six feet from Mr. Allen’s property to my property. You put a fence up there those are my tenants’ living room windows that face his house. They will be in a fortress.
My other concern is if there were, God forbid, a fire and the Fire Department needed to get into another area between the two houses, how could they get there? They wouldn’t. They absolutely wouldn’t.
Mr. Rejman: Understand that he has the right to put up a fence, he just does not have the right to put up a nine-foot fence. That is the issue here.
Mrs. Bennett: Right. On this fence issue he has a right to put up a fence, but there is no set back from my property?
Mr. Rejman: It cannot be on your property that is correct.
Mrs. Bennett: But there is a certain amount of feet he can have it just right on his property. Also if we are going to go with this garage/storage unit, I am not privy to all the information you gentlemen and ladies have. I have to ask you this the seven foot property line set back to the attached garage, did that mean I have to give him a seven foot variance?
Mr. Westlake: No, it doesn’t.
Mrs. Bennett: It doesn’t, ok, what does that mean?
Mr. Rejman: The Building Codes were created for new construction. Where the problem comes in and why we are here is new construction and the existing buildings sometimes they are not in face. So say if you wanted to say take your home and you wanted to do something different to it, you wanted to add on to it, but you were right next to a property line, you would have to come before us to get that variance for us to say ok, do it. What we look at is aesthetics, look neighborhood input and items like that.
Mrs. Bennett: Ok. Now as far as the fence goes and he puts it in his back yard, that is one thing, but putting it between the two houses
Mr. Rejman: He has the right to do that.
Mrs. Bennett: He has the right to do that.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, he does.
Mr. Darrow: Up to six foot.
Mr. Rejman: So we can’t argue that, we can argue height of the fence.
Mrs. Bennett: Ok. Well I guess that is the end of my argument over why he shouldn’t do that. I don’t know how you people would feel about having your neighbor put up a fence smack dab in your windows. I mean that is ridiculous. My tenants may come and go, but that fence is always going to be there no matter who lives there right smack dab in their living room window. That is what they are going to see, not even two feet, right there.
Ms. Marteney: May I have clarification about where the fence is going to go, it shows it running what I would say is parallel to your house but not going between the houses, am I correct.
Mr. Allen: You are correct, she is mistaken, and I have no intention of putting a fence in that alleyway.
Ms. Marteney: And it is going to come up against the 36-inch wide pad that goes to the little stoop.
Mr. Allen: The existing steps there to the door goes to that.
Ms. Marteney: I am just clarifying where the fence is going.
Mr. Darrow: Did you see this (to Mrs. Bennett)?
Mrs. Bennett: No, and what I am saying is this stoop that he is talking about is in the middle between his house and my house, so if he connects it is going to be the same thing.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mrs. Bennett: Is that his intention to connect it to the stoop?
Ms. Marteney: No, not by the drawing.
Mrs. Bennett: Where will the fence start?
Mr. Rejman: At his property line.
Ms. Marteney: Sort of to the south going north towards the house.
Mr. Rejman: Southeast and northwest.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me, I think I could clear this up.
Mr. Rejman: Go ahead, yes.
Mr. Allen: The fence is only on the far end of the lawn and will abut to the corner of the garage, that is the only fence.
Mr. Rejman: He can have a fence, the height is the issue.
Mrs. Bennett: The height limit on the fence is six foot, am I correct?
Mr. Westlake: That is what he is here for tonight a variance on the height of the fence.
Mrs. Bennett: Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Rejman: Is there any one else wishing to speak for or against the application? Yes?
Mr. DiNonno: My name is Pat DiNonno, 4 Francis Street. I was here last month and gave a few concerns that we had within the neighborhood. At that time, the board requested Mr. Allen to submit more information. As of a little after 4:00 o’clock this afternoon, I talked with the Building Department and earlier talked with Planning Office and they had nothing on file, but they did say that Mr. Allen was on the agenda for tonight, which is why I am here. I don’t know what he is proposing again at this point, the last time the question came up that the map was hard to read because he didn’t have any figures in it and you requested actually what property lines he was referring to.
Again, for all the same reasons I am against what he is trying to do unless I have a better understanding, but at this point I don’t know what he is proposing also. As I look at this, what was sent the last time that fence is going up to I believe maybe the property line at 86 Owasco Street and I am wondering if those people are aware of what is going on here also.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mr. DiNonno: I would also like to say if this gets adjourned or tabled for tonight, I would like to be on the mailing list. I did not receive anything in the mail for this property. I talked with Steve and for whatever reason being he said that I don’t fall within the boundary lines.
Mr. Rejman: Right.
Mr. DiNonno: I don’t know where he is taking his measurements from he is using a one hundred foot figure, the best that I can tell you is that there is no property frontage in that block at least up to my house and a couple beyond that are one hundred feet. So I don’t know where this figure is coming from.
Mr. Darrow: We did receive a plot survey tonight that he handed out and there are a couple things on this I want to clarify so maybe that will answer some of your questions.
Mr. DiNonno: Ok.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, thank you. Any one else wishing to speak for or against this application?
Mr. Davis: I am Lou Davis, 2 Francis Street, I am here with my wife. I was also given 7:30 p.m. I could kick myself I was here at 6:40 p.m. and I didn’t see any cars and I looked at my paper and it said 7:30 p.m. I was not here either, I just got here.
My concerns are the same as before, I don’t know what has changed. I really don’t understand where this is going. Maybe after you get done with your questions, I would like to come back up if that is possible, if it has changed from last month. Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. Any one else wishing to speak for or against this application? Ok. Will the applicant come back.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Allen, according to the lot survey, I just want to make sure, is this the fence line or is that your property line?
Mr. Allen: Property line.
Mr. Darrow: Is this showing where you want it?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: That is showing where you want to put the fence over in the corner of this concrete slab.
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: And this is the concrete slab that will be on the side of the area you wan to put two walls up for storage and sitting area.
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: All right. This is the current chain link fence that is there, is that correct?
Mr. Allen: That is the neighbor’s fence as far as I know.
Mr. Darrow: Now 84 Owasco this is their property line here?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mr. Allen: I have a difficult time understanding the opposition to this proposal from a neighbor that is two doors away and one that is next door, I invited them to come and talk to me and I haven’t been honored with their presence. A simple little job like this shouldn’t raise that much opposition.
Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Westlake: Just the height of the fence, you started giving out nine foot fences they will be in here all the time.
Mr. Rejman: We will close the public portion, have a seat and we will discuss this. There are two matters here, there is the fence and there is the proposed, I don’t want to use the word garage
Ms. Marteney: It says garage on here, you are changing it, it says garage.
Mr. Rejman: He said he is not going to park in there.
Ms. Marteney: It says garage on his application.
Mr. Rejman: It really doesn’t matter.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t think it matters if we call it a garage or not, due to the fact that you have fourteen foot and I don’t know what car you are going to park in a fourteen foot long
Mr. Rejman: Let’s take care of the fence first and then we will discuss the squaring off of the building. Concerns on the fence? You heard mine.
Mr. Westlake: Starting ten feet high and nine foot high
Mr. Darrow: I think even our current Zoning law allows eight foot next to commercial property in some place it is too high. So nine foot is just going down the wrong path.
Mr. Westlake: I totally agree.
Mr. Rejman: Motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant John L. Allen of 82 Owasco Street a three foot height variance for the purpose of erecting a nine foot high fence as submitted in plot plan on property line.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: The application for the height variance for fence on the south property line has been denied. Now we get into this 82 Owasco Street, that property is probably one of the worst conceived properties in the City.
Mr. Darrow: It was originally a storefront, I remember a paint store in there.
Mr. Rejman: There is not a square angle on the lot. There is no 90 degrees there at all. So that is why we are having all this trouble on trying to square it off. You think about it, if that property was down the road at 86 there wouldn’t be any issues with this, we might have the percentage thing, but we wouldn’t have the other variances. I don’t know, it is a small lot and the building does eat up a lot of the usable space. What are your comments, concerns, questions?
Mr. Westlake: I think there is too much there now and to add more is just too much there already.
Mr. Rejman: And you know if that does get sold contingent upon store front, it is going to be back before us again. This has been before us three of four times I think.
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: If we do allow that to be closed in, that would take away the parking area so if someone does want to try to go for a two family, they would be shut out. If they want to go for a storefront they will be shut out because there is no parking.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Hicks what is required for the property line set back is that seven foot that is required there?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, it is, it is an odd lot.
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: Gilda, comments?
Ms. Brower: I think he has the right to privacy and keep people off his lawn and make the house more useful for himself. However, it is his decision too if he fills that space in then it does preclude a parking area and limits further use and further sale ability too so and I don’t even know if it is in his best interest.
Mr. Rejman: Ok. Let me ask counsel some questions. (Talks to Nancy Hussey). Are we ready?
Mr. Westlake: Gilda wants to know if he can still do his six-foot fence?
Mr. Rejman: Absolutely he can do a six-foot fence.
Mr. Darrow: Any other discussions on these variances?
Mr. Rejman: I feel there is more building than property. It will probably hurt us down the road I am thinking because there is no room. If a new owner comes before us we will have a bigger issue before us.
Mr. Darrow: We deal with many, many tight lots, but I don’t think we have ever had a deal with one this irregular, this confined. I would like to make a motion that we grant John L. Allen of 82 Owasco Street a seven-foot property line set back for the purpose of an attached garage as per plot plan submitted.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
Mr. Hicks: If you look at your drawings, the required set back is seven foot, what he has from the existing property line now to the new wall line so he has five foot two inches.
Mr. Darrow: He has or he needs five foot two inches?
Mr. Hicks: Actually what he has is five foot one inch. He needs a variance of one foot eleven inches.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, I would like to amend that shows a variance of one foot eleven inches.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: The application for a variance for south property line has been denied.
Mr. Darrow: I would still like to make a motion on the rear yard as the last motion if you entertain that. I would like to make a motion that we grant John L. Allen of 82 Owasco Street a ten-foot rear yard area variance for the purpose of erecting a attached garage as per plot plan submitted.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant John L. Allen of 82 Owasco Street a 125 square foot area variance for the purpose of erecting an attached garage as per plot plan submitted.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Exceeds 35% Ed.
Mr. Hicks: We have in there 803.5 with the change in the w all line for the garage we have now dropped 42 square feet so his overage is 761.5 square feet over the allowable.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant John L. Allen of 82 Owasco Street a 761.5 square foot variance of overage of the maximum allowed 35% of building space coverage for the purpose of erecting an attached garage per plot plan submitted.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Area variances have been denied.
_____________________________________________________________
48 – 52 Washington Street. C. John Allen. 15 foot front yard area variance for storage building; variance of 50 plant units in buffer area.
Mr. Rejman: 48 – 52 Washington Street, please.
Mr. Allen: My name is John Allen and I am asking for approval for a 15 foot front yard variance for a storage building at 48 – 52 Washington Street, for the purpose of erecting a for now a concrete block decorative concrete block wall. Last month I believe you asked me for what the hardship was and I have an estimate for $9850 to remove all that concrete, unacceptable for me. I would use the existing footers and erect that wall.
Mr. Rejman: Decorative concrete wall, how high?
Mr. Allen: I believe ten feet.
Mr. Darrow: I have eight foot for the block wall.
Mr. Rejman: I think you were saying you were going to put in some storage buildings or a storage building behind the wall.
Mr. Allen: Yes, the insides are going to be erected as needed, there will be a roof and partitions will be erected as needed as they are rented out.
Mr. Rejman: All right. Build as you go sort of business.
Mr. Allen: You get a request for a certain space, it will be erected accordingly.
Mr. Darrow:Do you need a permit every time you put up a wall?
Mr. Rejman: Brian, is that correct? If he puts the wall of the building
Mr. Darrow: The four perimeters and partitions as he goes, every time he puts a partition up is that going to require a permit?
Mr. Hicks: Permits are for six months. If has created this every time there is a change if it is an expansion it may come under the Auburn Planning Board.
Mr. Darrow: Say on the inside of the building he wants to put four more partitions to create four more spaces
Mr. Hicks: If he is going to divide underneath the roof, he will need
Mr. Darrow: He will need a building permit.
Mr. Rejman: This is an unusual site it has been sitting there, when did it burn down?
Mr. Allen: 1993.
Mr. Rejman: If you look at it there is water underneath that, it is a difficult piece of property to deal with.
Mr. Darrow: The one thing I am having a great difficulty on this is understanding where on that vast piece of property this wall is going to go. Because there are spots where it is already elevated two foot and you put an eight-foot wall on it and you have ten foot there.
Mr. Rejman: No, he can’t exceed eight foot, use the existing footer
Mr. Allen: It is two foot above the sidewalk, ground level on my side.
Mr. Darrow: So he could end up with ten foot of wall because you have the two foot above the sidewalk, he puts eight foot of wall on top of it, now you have a ten foot wall.
Mr. Baroody: Have you thought of building a box 218 feet and adding doors that you need
Mr. Allen: Three sided wall at this point, I am going to build roof in the front as needed in other words the roof will go, there is a concrete slab there already to certain point. Each portion is going to have to be slabed at least 2 inches over the existing concrete so take one portion of it, you are going to have to pour a slab for that area. There are two different elevations on there existing, lower slab and upper slab so at some point I am going to have to make that partition wall and that upper elevation.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t see enough information here, I know he has tried hard with the pictures and everything, what actually are you asking for tonight?
Mr. Allen: I am asking to use the existing footers to build a wall.
Mr. Westlake: Where does this roof come into play?
Mr. Rejman: He wants to build the building and use the existing footers
Mr. Allen: It is my understanding that I need a 15-foot variance
Mr. Darrow: Depending on the pitch of the roof, it could drain right on the sidewalk.
Mr. Allen: There will be gutters.
Mr. Rejman: The application is can he start the building, the old building burned down, can he start his building on that footprint, yes or no.
Mr. Darrow: With an 8 footwall above what is already there.
Mr. Baroody: Your decorative brick wall is going to face Washington Street?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Does that go in front of the Planning Board for that for that portion of it, as far as the building itself does that go before the Planning Board?
Mr. Hicks: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: So we don’t have to worry about that. The variance is because so close to the sidewalk.
Mr. Hicks: He is looking for a 15-foot front yard variance, because he can’t get the set back.
Mr. Westlake: 50 plant units are required buffer.
Mr. Hicks: Right.
Mr. Allen: Another thing is if I give up that 15 foot that is a lot of area to give up that won’t be used, it will be used for greenery which will either be destroyed and have to be re-maintained in front of that building.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Seeing none, we will come back. Pass this around. Questions from the board? None.
Mr. Baroody: You have an estimate from Paul Vitale?
Mr. Allen: No this was from Mark Podfigurny.
Mr. Rejman: To tear out 15 feet of concrete across the whole front that is the estimate?
Mr. Allen: Yes, it shows the prices by the truck load $10,000 at $600 a load. There is over 100 yards there.
Mr. Westlake: From this picture here the yellow line that goes all the way around
Mr. Allen: I don’t have a copy of that picture. What was your question?
Mr. Westlake: You own the whole thing?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Is that where you intend to build the building?
Mr. Allen: Actually 20 feet, all the way down through here into this slab and goes in 20 feet and 20 feet here. That is all.
Mr. Westlake: You own the whole thing?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: If you are going 20 feet, why don’t you move it back?
Mr. Allen: Because eventually there are going to be more buildings and I want to do this one step at a time, build one building and rent it out, build another building and rent it out as storage area, I am not going to get in over my head.
Mr. Westlake: Why don’t you build in the middle first?
Mr. Allen: With the discussions that I have had this seems to be the most logical way to approach it.
Mr. Westlake: Seems to me you want to do the front first and then the back, just my opinion.
Mr. Allen: I guess it is a matter of opinion, we have had several discussions and we are trying to approach it that way I guess.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, final questions. OK, we will close the public portion and discuss this.
Mr. Allen: I have some pictures and other materials from the last meeting.
Ms. Hussey: Need it for the record.
Mr. Rejman: I think if he builds any where on this property some body is going to come along and say put 15 feet of lawn out there, green space, and that is where the issue is.
Mr. Darrow: Is it bad having 15 feet of green space. I can see maybe the planting units because of the area so they are not destroyed or something, I don’t think 15 feet of green space is bad.
Mr. Rejman: Look how much he loses.
Mr. Westlake: 15 feet, he has all the land behind it. If I understand it right he just wants 15 feet right here and a build the storage areas right here in front, take a little bit at a time and eventually build storage areas here and here, if they take off, here and here (points to plant). Build in the center see if it takes off.
Mr. Darrow: That is a very good point.
Mr. Rejman: If he builds one in the center and he gets tangled up in this 15 feet of greenery in front
Mr. Westlake: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Rejman: The cost of removing all that concrete and if he does it wrong now he, ok, whatever
Mr. Westlake: If Eckerd’s Drug Store or some one else built there, what would they have to do?
Mr. Selvek: I would like to point out that the property across the street is currently owned by the City and we have had in the Planning Department companies looking at purchasing that lot and the most recent company, which I will not name, we pretty much sat down and went through the stuff with them and say hey, there is a residential neighborhood right across West Street, there is a redevelopment for this area and if you want to come into this area you are going to have meet these required buffers, meet the green space and you can’t come and just expect to use that paved parking lot right now.
Mr. Westlake: So there you go, can’t make these people have the buffer zone and not have a buffer zone right here.
Mr. Darrow: I agree completely because with proper planning if the first building is put up far enough back so that he fills everything up from there back and now he needs that 15 foot front, with proper planning then at that point in time. But the variance isn’t truly needed. It is self-created and that is one of the keys that we need to look at, is it being self-created.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, if we are ready, some one make a motion.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant John L. Allen for 48 – 52 Washington Street, a 15 foot front yard variance of the required 15 foot needed.
Mr. Darrow: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Rejman,
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman: Application has not been approved.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant John L. Allen for 48 –52 Washington Street, variance of not having the 50 plant units in the buffer area.
Mr. Darrow: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Rejman,
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin
Mr. Rejman: Application has been denied.
Mr. Allen: Can I get my materials back?
Ms. Hussey: John, they are part of the record, we keep them as they are submitted for explanation, they are part of the record.
Mr. Allen: I didn’t know that, otherwise I wouldn’t have submitted them.
_____________________________________________________________
128 N. Division Street, R1, Theresa Roche-McKeen. 2-foot height area variance to install 8-foot fence.
Mr. Rejman: Hi, state your name for the record, please, use the mike.
Mr. McKeen: McKeen family 128 N. Division Street.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, tell us what you would like to do there,
Mr. McKeen: We border the ball park, Falcon Park and they have an existing 8 foot chain link fence and we went through proper channels and got a 6 foot privacy fence, but people hang on the fence and look in our yard and we just want to know if could have a fence that matches their fence. We have some pictures to help you out.
Mrs. McKeen: Every body just looks right in and we have no privacy when there is a ball game.
Mr. Rejman: How long have you lived there?
Mrs. McKeen: I grew up there.
Mr. Rejman: Ok.
Mr. McKeen: Her father was born in the house. They were there before the ballpark.
Mr. Rejman: We have pictures of people looking over the fence here. Ok. Any one here wishing to speak for or against the application?
Mr. Hicks: I have a letter from the neighbor.
Mr. Rejman: Yes, use the microphone.
Mr. Hicks: This is from a neighbor, Charlene Henry. I am unable to come to the meeting Monday. There’s not much of an issue with the fence at 128 N. Division Street. I have had many people tell me that he should not be directly on the property line. Would like to know if this is true, in case I have to sell property due to husband’s health.
Mr. Rejman: Thank you, can we have the letter for the record?
Mr. McKeen: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: The side where you want the two foot variance to put your fence up to eight foot only be shared property line with Falcon Park or are you looking or did you want to do the south side of your property and the east side of your property or just strictly the north side that you share the property line with Falcon Park?
Mr. McKeen: The north side shares the property line, but if we could we would go for it all because if Mrs. Henry was here you might ask her why they stand on step ladders and look over our fence into the ball park. If we could just have the fence along the ballpark.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, further questions from the board? None. We will close the public portion. We have copies of these.
Mr. Darrow: I am curious is a variance required just through the side of Falcon Park which I am assuming is commercial, isn’t he allowed there?
Mr. Rejman: Lot is R-1
Mr. Hicks: They are not in a commercial zone.
Mr. Darrow: All right, that is explains that.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Teresa Roche-McKeen of 128 N. Division Street, a two foot height variance to install a eight foot high privacy fence, the maximum allowed in a R-1 area is six foot, only on the shared property line with Falcon Park.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to 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.
Mrs. McKeen: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
251 Genesee Street, C1, Candace Duprey. 1 foot 3 inches area variance from City R-O-W and 6 foot variance from side property line to install a pole sign.
Mr. Rejman: 251 Genesee Street, are you here?
Ms. Duprey: Good evening, my name is Candy Duprey, 251 Genesee Street, Jreck Subs.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Ms. Duprey: I would like to put a pole sign in the existing light by the sidewalk. You should have a picture of that.
Mr. Rejman: Yes.
Ms. Duprey: In the place of the old gas station. I don’t believe it blocks any body’s view.
Ms. Marteney: How tall is that going to be?
Ms. Duprey: Sixteen feet.
Mr. Darrow: This is 11 feet here, just the red portion or does it include the green?
Ms. Duprey: Includes the green.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Is there any one wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Nice application, we really appreciate when the photos are like this. Questions. Close the public portion.
Ms. Marteney: It certainly doesn’t block any body’s sight line or stop any body’s business from being seen.
Mr. Darrow: Since they moved make them stand out a little better, they are trying to redevelop West Genesee Street.
Mr. Rejman: Logical place to put it. Motion.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Candace Duprey, 251 Genesee Street, a one foot three inch variance of the City’s front R-O-W for the purpose of erecting a 16 foot high sign as submitted in plot plan.
Mr. Westlake: I 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. Darrow: I would like to make a second motion that we grant Candace Duprey, 251 Genesee Street, a 6 foot side property line variance for the purpose of erecting a 16 foot high Jreck Sub sign as submitted in plot plan.
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.
Ms. Duprey: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
171 Grant Avenue, C3, marc Murphy, 4-bay car wash. Maximum 50-foot rear yard area variance and maximum 10-foot south side variance.
Mr. Rejman: 171 Grant Avenue, are you here?
Mr. Buhel: My name is Timothy Buhel, I am representing Marc Murphy in his application.
Mr. Rejman: Ok, Timothy, tell us what you would like us to consider on this.
Mr. Buhel: This property is little under an acre in size and just north of Cameron’s Bakery. It is the Superior Countertop property and my client wants to build a car wash in the center. Originally he was going to use the existing structure that is there, reduce the size of it, go about half of what is presently there and open up garage doors and renovate the building. After looking at the requirements for the equipment and circulation of the lot, he decided to tear it down and build a new structure that is a little better in appearance and will use the lot and make things flow little better in the center. When he told the Code Officer he wanted to tear down the structure and start new, it lost its non-conforming use and if he put up a new structure he is going to have to get
variances on the south property line I guess he is 5 feet too close to the property line of the existing structure which he wants to maintain that lot line and also in your ordinance you are required for a rear buffer between commercial and residential property, which he is asking for relief from that. I think he has 33 feet now to the edge of the existing parking lot, which he is going to maintain and I think he is looking for relief from that as well.
Bottom line here what Marc is trying to do is change the use of the building but every thing else that is there now in terms of the rear parking, it is a gravel parking lot, he is not going to expand it any closer to the property line, just going to use what is there. He is actually reducing the size of the building and increasing the rear yard between the rear yard and the new rear of the building. The building that is on the property now is about 5700 square feet, he is going to reduce it down to about 2900 square feet. He is going to increase the side yard on the north slightly to help vehicular circulation on the north side.
I think it is a good use that he is proposing here and I think trying to work with the old structure is going to be cumbersome and by doing a new building I think it is going to much improve the appearance of the property. So I think it is those two things if I interpret your ordinance correctly, if I haven’t, I am sure you will tell me.
Mr. Westlake: What kind of a car wash is it going to be?
Mr. Buhel: Two self-service bays and two automatic touchless bays.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pole to see if any of the other members are missing the site plan.
Mr. Rejman: It says see site plan.
Ms. Marteney: There is nothing attached.
Mr. Buhel: I have some here.
Mr. Rejman: Two would be nice.
Mr. Buhel: The proposed building is in solid outline and the existing building is dashes. If you look what we are doing we are using the existing pavement in the front and the existing gravel drive and parking area in back will be paved. We are not going to encroach any further to the west. We need to keep the non-conforming side yard to the south because we have to have enough room to bring the cars around to the north side. DOT has an easement there which we have to maintain, we have to bring the cars in off of Grant Avenue and back around to enter the car wash from the west side. So if we move the building to the north to be conforming, we cut down on our driveway, which makes it difficult to get in.
Mr. Rejman: Then you are dealing with curb cuts again.
Mr. Buhel: We are dealing with that any ways so it part of the issue. We are currently before the Planning Board we have preliminary approval for the circulation and the curb cuts are shown, we have another meeting next month, but this came up when we decided to tear the building down instead of trying to reuse it. We are making it less non-conforming because we are reducing the size, cutting it almost in half.
If you look at the left side seeking relief from the 50 foot property line, we have about 33 feet from the property line to the edge of parking lot and beyond that property is a brook there that acts as a further buffer and there is wooded vegetation on the west side of the property, we have almost 80 feet of buffer existing there now we are not proposing to change that in any way, it is just not all on our property.
Mr. Rejman: There is a nice aerial that is coming around, aerial of the building.
Mr. Darrow: We saw that.
Mr. Rejman: That helps a lot.
Mr. Buhel: None of the residential buildings on the west actually directly face this it is on a 30 to 45 degree angle, not anticipating any real visual impact on any body.
Mr. Rejman: Is there any one wising to speak for or against the application?
Mrs. Procino: Hi, I am Cheryl Procino and this is my husband Tony Procino, we own Cameron’s Bakery. We have not yet seen a site plan.
Mr. Rejman: You haven’t seen it yet?
Mrs. Procino: Marc was going to drop one off, but he hasn’t yet.
Mr. Rejman: Let’s take a 3 minute break and go over the site plan and tell them what is going on. Ok, we are back.
Mrs. Procino: We are satisfied with the site plan. My concern was that he was asking for a larger variance than what is existing. As long as he doesn’t come any closer to our property it is ok.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you.
Mr. Rejman: Final questions from the board. None. Close the public portion.
Ms. Marteney: Will be an improvement.
Mr. Darrow: A tremendous improvement.
Ms. Marteney: And they are going back to Planning .
Ms. Hussey: They have a preliminary approval, they had a couple changes, which they have accommodated.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Marc Murphy, 171 Grant Avenue, a 4 ½ foot side yard variance of the required 60 foot to the south.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Brower, Mr. Westlake, Ms. Aubin, Mr. Rejman
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Marc Murphy, 171 Grant Avenue a 17 foot rear buffer area variance.
Mr. Darrow: 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. Buhel: Thank you very much.
Mr. Rejman: Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m
| 
