ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 2006
Members Present: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Baroody
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Brower
Mr. Darrow
Member Absent: Mr. Rejman
Staff Present: Mr. Hicks
Mr. Selvek
Staff Absent: Ms. Hussey
APPLICATION
APPROVED: 254 State Street
APPLICATION
PULLED: 138 E. Genesee Street
Mr. Darrow: Good evening, welcome to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am Vice-Chairman, Edward Darrow. Tonight we are going to be hearing:
254 State Street
138 East Genesee Street
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 2006
254 State Street, R1 zoning district. Up to 2-foot side yard area variance for deck and handicapped ramp. Francis McCandrew, applicant.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Darrow: 254 State Street please approach the podium. Good evening, could you please state your name and address for the record and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Schilling: My name is Tom Schilling; I am advocate with Options for Independence. We are an independent living center located at 75 Genesee Street. I am here because Mr. McCandrew has an extremely difficult time walking and he asked me if I would appear for him.
We would be the agency that would be through our funding source would be paying for the ramp if the variance is granted.
Mr. Darrow: Are there any questions from the board at this time?
Ms. Marteney: I just want to clarify you have a photo included with this and it is kind of a screen door that has no step, is that the door that you are going to be using?
Mr. Schilling: Yes, there is unfortunately there is no step, but the door is right there. Yes that is the door on the side we will be building a deck about a 5 ½ by 5 ½ foot square deck and then the ramp will actually hug up right up against the side of the house and goes to the City sidewalk.
Mr. Darrow: Are there any other questions from the board? Thank you. You may be seated. Is there anybody here to speak for or against this application? Is there anybody else here to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will close the public portion and discuss this amongst ourselves.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t see any problem with it.
Ms. Marteney: The neighbor included a letter.
Mr. Westlake: This is a 1-foot variance if I am reading this right.
Mr. Darrow: It is 2 foot.
Ms. Marteney: But there is still plenty of room for the neighbor to park on their property and still get in and out of their car.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Francis McCandrew of 254 State Street a two foot side yard set back variance for the installation of a handicap ramp to the house as per the packet.
Mr. Darrow: The board has a motion, do we have a second?
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second it.
Mr. Darrow: The board has a second. Roll call.
VOTING IN
FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Baroody
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Westlake
Ms. Brower
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Darrow: The application has been approved. Stop by Code Enforcement for your proper permits.
Mr. Schilling: Now that will be granted with the sunset clause in there with this?
Mr. Darrow: There was no sunset clause in the motion.
Ms. Marteney: Wait a minute; in #12 in the packet it says ramp will be temporary until no longer required. In the application.
Mr. Darrow: Which page?
Ms. Marteney: In the packet, on the third #12, please explain why the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. So there is a sunset clause.
Mr. Westlake: I will have to amend my motion.
Ms. Marteney: No, you said as per the packet.
Mr. Darrow: OK, then please have the motion show that it does have a sunset clause. Yes, it will then have a sunset clause.
Mr. Schilling: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 2006
138 E. Genesee Street. R1 zoning district. Use variance for change of use to professional and/or medical offices. Trinity United Methodist Church, applicant.
___________________________________________________________
Mr. Darrow: 138 East Genesee Street, please approach. Please state your name and address for the record and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Trutschel: My name is Greg Trutschel; I reside at 1 Evans Street. I am Chair of Trustees for Trinity United Methodist Church. Basically we are looking for a use variance of the building with the intent to sell it. We have subjects that are interested both as a Church and other subjects interested as professional offices.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Trutschel, first I would like to make you aware that this is 7-member board. It takes 4 yes votes. We are shy one member. So be it, we will offer you the opportunity to table until next month or you may proceed forward with the 6 members present.
Mr. Trutschel: We will proceed at this time.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Westlake: You say you have two offers, one could be a Church, and one could be a professional building?
Mr. Trutschel: We have turned it over to real estate three weeks ago. He has shown it 5 times. Two of the interested parties would continue to use it as a Church the other 3 are looking at office space, with one possibility of a residence.
Mr. Westlake: I think we are kind of premature here to give you a variance because you not need a variance if it goes back to a Church.
Mr. Trutschel: Our issue would be that it gives us the opportunity if the Churches are unable make any kind of a deal.
Mr. Baroody: From what I understand going through this, by the way it was put together well, your looking for the opportunity for the guaranteed buyer, should they buy it for apartments or businesses that the board will do it.
Mr. Trutschel: Not apartments or businesses, just strictly professional and/or office space or to be continued to be used as a Church. I live across the street from the Church, some of the fear in the neighborhood was when we first started discussing this we were talking commercial and I would be one of the first ones to stomp my feet, I don’t want anything commercial in that building.
Mr. Westlake: Normally with something like in front of us, they have something in mind already. You have a bunch of “ifs” here. It could be a Church, it could be a professional building, once we pass a variance, and it goes with the building forever.
Ms. Marteney: That wouldn’t matter if it remains a Church
Mr. Westlake: Once we give it a variance to be an office building, it is an office building it can no longer be a Church and then they have to come back for a variance for a Church.
Ms. Marteney: Have to design our motion to include that.
Mr. Trutschel: I thought the understanding was if it was to remain as a Church and the variance wasn’t used after 6 months or a year, it reverts back to its original condition of the building.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t know that converting back it could convert back to a single-family dwelling.
Ms. Marteney: No, it has never been a single-family dwelling
Mr. Westlake: I realize that.
Ms. Marteney: Why would it revert back to a single family?
Mr. Westlake: I don’t know, I think we need legal counsel on that.
Ms. Marteney: It is not on the tax rolls but it is not on the rolls as a single family.
Mr. Darrow: I am not sure what it is on the tax rolls, I am assuming a Church on our tax rolls is on as exempt.
Ms. Marteney: Right but it is in the hopper so to speak, but it is not listed as a single family home and it would never have been listed that way.
Mr. Darrow: I can’t believe that it is, that is something we would have to check with the Assessor’s Office, to see how it is exactly listed, but I am assuming it would be listed as a Church.
Mr. Trutschel you might want to be aware that your application currently states that you are looking for professional offices
Mr. Trutschel: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: What professional offices that are designated in our Zoning as the office of a lawyer, accountant, engineer, architect, real estate agent, insurance agent or similar professional, but not a medical office as defined by the section. You would need to amend your application to include business office. Our Zoning definition of a business office is any office used not satisfying the definition of professional office or medical office shall be considered a business office for the purpose of this chapter. So
Mr. Trutschel: Fine line. Would you or could you put professional/medical
Mr. Darrow: It would have to be business office or professional office or professional/business.
Mr. Trutschel: OK.
Mr. Darrow: That would encompass
Mr. Trutschel: Basically it is the terminology.
Mr. Darrow: Yes, medical, because if it was voted on and approved as it reads, you would not be allowed medical.
Ms. Marteney: It also can’t be something like a funeral home. Those particular definitions, it can’t be a funeral home, it can’t be a print shop
Mr. Darrow: It is explicitly limited to businesses that were just stated.
Ms. Marteney: Right. There are definitions for different types of businesses, so you have to be very specific about what you want and if there is a likelihood that it could ever become a funeral home that is a different category.
Mr. Trutschel: Right. If it was ever to get to that position whereas someone showed interest and was interested, we would come back at that point and address that specific at that time.
Ms. Marteney: It becomes very specific, these may not necessarily be common language, but they are in the zoning.
Mr. Darrow: The other problem we are facing is giving blanket areas variances to hit anything that is possible. I can understand the fact that you want to be able to market to a certain specific clientele, if you will, but yet we could take 2 or 3 or 4 different definitions and at what point would we stop encompassing.
Brian, would this have to be re-advertised to include business office? Because it was not originally stated although medical was stated on the application, but it didn’t state business office, it only stated professional office. This is something we would ask Nancy but
Mr. Hicks: The advertisement did say professional and/or medical.
Mr. Darrow: OK, then we are fine under the advertisement. So, if you just want to amend it on our application to include the definition of business office
Mr. Trutschel: Professional/business office
Mr. Darrow: As long as our advertisement stated medical that way it conforms to the Open Meeting Law.
Mr. Trutschel: Do I ask that officially then?
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Trutschel: I would like to make an amendment that the proposed use be changed to professional offices/business offices.
Mr. Darrow: OK, so noted.
Any further questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: If we change this it cannot go back to being a Church?
Mr. Darrow: I don’t believe it would lose its Church function until it takes over the characteristics of one of the definitions.
Mr. Hicks: Also the main thing is the use of the Church in that zone will always be allowed so if they wanted to go back to a Church it is allowed in a residential zone. The business is a use that is not allowed in a residential zone; business and professional use are not allowed.
Mr. Darrow: Any other questions from the board? You may be seated for the time being.
Mr. Trutschel: Thank you.
Ms. Marteney: Say if the congregation moves out of the Church building and it is vacant for a year, the building itself would remain a Church in terms of function?
Mr. Hicks: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Yes sir, please approach. Please state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Bouchard: My name is Scott Bouchard and I am at 4 Perry Street. I am not aware of the exact scope of the project but that whole medical/professional thing puts my teeth on edge to tell you the truth. As the sound of something that would reduce the property values in the neighborhood and kind of generally change the whole characteristics of the area. When we moved in it was a Church. I have no trouble with it being a Church. But I think office/professional will start creeping, we are starting to creep office buildings up from downtown now toward Hoopes Park. I just don’t like the whole idea from out standpoint, which is two doors down.
Mr. Darrow: OK, thank you. Yes sir. Please state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Perry: My name is Ken Perry, I live at 143 Genesee Street, directly across the street from the Church and I am also speaking in opposition to this motion for a variance. I don’t know any of the details of what has been submitted to you for consideration and if it is public record I would like to read it at some point in time. But that neighborhood is a residential neighborhood; the four houses directly across the street from it on the north side of Genesee Street all have children, some seniors. We don’t know what kind of business is being considered for the Church, we don’t know how many people will work there, where they will park, how people will come to the neighborhood as a result of the business.
This is the first of any information, I found out about the hearing, I don’t know if there have any community meetings going on, there should be where people in the neighborhood can come to the Church and talk to the Church owners about what is going on, what they are proposing and what they are considering.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, that you sir. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against?
Mr. Contiguglia: My name is Robert Contiguglia. I live at 3 Evans Street, which is, I look out my front door into the parking lot of the Church and Mr. Trutschel lives next door to me. I have no problem if the Church were turned into a doctor’s office. I am not really opposed to that, a dental office or doctor’s office. I have a problem understanding professional business. I haven’t looked at the Zoning Codes since I retired as a Judge, so I am not sure exactly what it states now. But I am just wondering, as I say I have no opposition to the Church being turned into a medical facility, a doctor’s office. That is what I was told it might be and I am certainly would not be
opposed to that. I think a doctor’s office within a neighborhood isn’t a bad thing. But when you start talking about other business offices now I am not sure, I don’t mean to put a damper on what you want to do. I am just wondering if maybe you are not putting the cart before the horse. In other words I am just wondering if the Church shouldn’t, if the property is for sale, fine. If someone is interested in putting a business or a doctor’s office in there, then I think they should get a hold of the real estate person, make an offer, tell them what they want to do and then come before the Zoning Board for a variance or non-conforming use, whatever is necessary there. That is the only question I have. I was listening to the statements made by these other gentlemen and I am just wondering if the cart isn’t before the horse here. I may be wrong, but this is my concern. Having a medical facility
there, fine. I have no objection to that, dental office or a doctor’s M.D.’s office, I have no problem with that. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you sir.
Are there any others wishing to speak for or against the application? Any others, any others? OK. For the purpose of the record and for the board, I will once again read the two definitions. Business office – any office not satisfying the definition of professional office or medical office shall be considered a business office for the purpose of this chapter.
The other is professional office – the office of a lawyer, accountant, engineer, architect, real estate agent, insurance agent or similar professional but not a medical office as defined by this section.
Are there any questions on the terms from the board? OK. I would like to recall Mr. Trutschel.
Mr. Trutschel: I may misunderstand the aspect of this and my fear was reading through the Codes and not knowing perfectly as if an individual was interested in purchasing the building, would they have to show hardship?
Mr. Darrow: Yes. But hardship in your case also goes along with uniqueness of building and what else the building can serve as. So you sort of have a little help there in the uniqueness of the building, uniqueness creates a hardship for you.
Mr. Trutschel: So if a doctor was to become very interested to the point he was willing to put in an offer contingent on receiving a variance, the hardship by the uniqueness of the building
Mr. Darrow: Exactly and that is why at this time it is very important to explain to you that once we close the public session and start discussing it amongst ourselves, if it is to be voted down, you would need a substantial change in your application for the board to receive it. But if you were just to pull it from the agenda and at a later date reapply with a specific use, because some to the things we have to look at are parking, are you going to have enough parking for that type of business, but without knowing the exact type of business you are trying to put in, we cannot make those calculations. So if you were to pull it from this evening and entertain a purchase offer say from a doctor, hypothetically speaking, then you would reapply
for that specific use. We would then be able to calculate situations that may occur, such as parking and other things along that line. So I just feel that you should have that option before we close the public portion.
Mr. Trutschel: At this time I would request that I withdraw the request for the variance and come back at a later date.
Mr. Darrow: OK, wonderful.
Ms. Marteney: You certainly have done a magnificent job.
Mr. Trutschel: That is why I brought those stacks of books with me. That is 5 years worth of studies.
Ms. Marteney: This is the kind of information should you need a variance that you will have to refer back to and you have it here ready to go.
Mr. Trutschel: OK. So you will hold onto them?
Mr. Darrow: Some things may change, yes we can hold onto them, depending when it is reissued and what it is reissued for, Brain may require some different information.
Mr. Baroody: Lets give them back. You did a great job.
Mr. Darrow: Probably the best. So the application for 138 E. Genesee Street has been withdrawn.
Any other business to come before the board?
Motion to adjourn?
Mr. Westlake: I make a motion we adjourn.
Mr. Baroody: I second that motion.
Mr. Darrow: All in favor. Adjourned.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
| 
