City of Auburn, NY - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 05/30/2006

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 05/30/2006


	ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2006 Members Present: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Staff Present: Ms. Hussey Mr. Hicks Mr. Selvek APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 230 E. Genesee Street 22 Densmore Avenue 106 Grove Avenue Ext. 8 Mattie Street 52 Garrow Street APPLICATION TABLED: 102 Osborne Street Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items on the agenda: 102 Osborne Street 230 E. Genesee Street 22 Densmore Avenue 106 Grove Avenue Ext. 8 Mattie Street 52 Garrow Street Is anyone here representing 102 Osborne Street? OK, we are going to move on. That is a use variance; it is a little more complicated, the rest of you have area variances, little bit simpler. We need to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Motion. Mr. Baroody: I make a motion that we approve the minutes of the meeting of April 24, 2006. Mr. Bartolotta: I’ll second that. Mr. Rejman: All in favor. Motion carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2006 230 E. Genesee Street, R1 zoning district. Richard Meyer, applicant. Area variance for 173 square feet over the allowable 750 square feet for a garage. _____________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 230 E. Genesee Street, are you here? Step forward please. State your name for the record. Mr. Meyer: Paul Meyer. I am here representing my father. Mr. Rejman: OK, Paul, tell us what the problem is and what you would like to do there? Mr. Meyer: What we are looking to do, we have two garages, actually I have a photo here, we are looking to tear down the two garages that are there and build one garage that has is a 3 car garage. It is going to be a new garage. The new garage is going to be 35.5 across and 26 feet deep. It is about the same footprint as the 2 existing one-car garages in that the one-car garages are built approximately 3 to 4 feet apart. The problem is, why we are doing this is there are 3 cars there and the 2 one car garages with the space between them it is not very functional, they don’t look appropriate with the house. The house is a wooden structure, one of the garages is a brick garage and the house being wood and the garage the farthest from the house is made out of wood and they are different styles and they are just not very functional. They have dirt floors there is some decay so we want to build this one garage 3-car garage. We have approached several of the neighbors who have shown support; I will pass along the letter from them. We do have a couple issues that we want to address with our neighbor Mr. Burns. We have discussed a couple of these issues, he lives directly to the south of the property I believe and the garage borders his property. We are going to keep the garages, we are not going to have them built the new garage any closer to his property, utilize the same footer. There is a hedge there and there is some concern about the hedge, we share that same concern with Mr. Burns, we like that hedge and we share that. He has some other issues for the Zoning Board. The garage will not exceed the height restriction. That is basically what we are looking to do. I would also note that the yard is a double lot it is approximately 195 feet deep by 95 feet, so it is a real good size yard and again the footprint is going to be about the same as the existing garages, just a little bit bigger 3 ½ feet. Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Mr. Baroody: Do you have any drawings of the type of garage that is going to be built? Mr. Meyer: I have somewhat I like it as a scale model made out of cardboard. It is actually very simple, think of a garage with 3 garage doors 1, 2, 3 and a little 5 foot space, it is literally going to be that, gables from north to south and it is going to look just as close as we can make it look to what the house looks like. Cedar shakes on top and clapboard on the bottom. We are going to put dormers in the front, which will make it look like the house. We are also going to put a little door on the side, with little windows on it; we are going to have gutters on the front and the back. We are looking to put a dry well in the back; basically like a big 55-gallon drum shaped well it has rocks in it for all the drainage to go into. We have a little bit of a problem the yard is a little lower than the neighbors; we are going to make it look real nice. That is what it would look like, 3 doors a little space and a garage door on the side. Mr. Darrow: You have no measurements here showing how far it will be set back from the sidewalk, you have approximately 5 feet to your south boundary with the Burns’. At what point will you have an exact figure and plot placement? Mr. Meyer: We are working on utilizing the existing footer on Mr. Burns’ side, the same footer as the garage that is there and the same along the front. Mr. Darrow: My concern, one of my concerns is with the Burns’ property line approximately 5 feet and then if it ends up 3 feet or 2.6 after it is built then you may not be in compliance with the set backs. We should have exact figures of your side set back, your rear yard and front. Mr. Meyer: What was the set back, it has to be set back at least 5 feet? Mr. Darrow: Detached I believe is 3 feet. Mr. Hicks: 4 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Meyer: We knew we were over 4 feet and just to save the expense of a survey, one thing we are sensitive to we don’t want it any closer to Burns’ property because we want to get through there also with things and that is why we the wall is there, a footer in the ground of 3 feet. That is where we are coming from. Mr. Darrow: The hedge line is that on the property line, you side, their side? Mr. Meyer: I believe it is on the property line. Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Ms. Brower: The petition says 3-½ car garage, I see the 3 doors and then the distance again is another ½. Mr. Meyer: Approximately a ½, just enough room to walk around the 1 car to get to the back of the garage, I think it is approximately 5 feet. I was explaining that we need to get a variance because it is over 750 square feet and that put it over. Ms. Marteney: How close are you getting to the deck on the house? Mr. Meyer: Approximately 20 feet to the deck. Ms. Marteney: You are putting another bay in? Mr. Meyer: Yes, even though there is another bay in there, there is a space like this between the two garages so that takes up a good portion of that so it is like a car and a half in a one car garage with a space in between, not functional, but it is going to be a little closer. Mr. Baroody: You didn’t give us a lot to work with, I drove by the property I understand what you want to do, there are no dimensions, no drawings what you are going to do, you really didn’t give us a lot to work with. Mr. Meyer: I was hoping I could explain it, we are on a limited budget, we were hoping not to hire an architect an engineer, surveyor Ms. Marteney: We need measurements Mr. Meyer: I can give you the measurements of the garage Mr. Darrow: You gave us that at 35.5 x 26, but you don’t need to hire an architect to pull a tape measure from the house, let us know how far it is going to be from the house and then by figuring the garage being 35.5 and knowing where your property line is, you take just by simple subtraction you can tell us how far it is going to be off the property. Mr. Meyer: I actually took that measurement and it is approximately 22 feet from the deck. We weren’t as sensitive about that because we didn’t think there was a set back from the house to the garage. Mr. Darrow: Is the garage size 35.5 x 26 is that approximate or is that the size? Mr. Meyer: That is going to be the size, the exact size. Mr. Rejman: What about the height? Mr. Meyer: The height we have some restrictions on that, but we are going to run the roof line in a 26 foot direction so I guess it came in right at 15. Mr. Darrow: What pitch are you going to use? Mr. Meyer: The house has a two pitches to it because it is a Dutch Colonial home, which they don’t have just one pitch, little question there. It is approximately 5.12 on the first half and it increases Mr. Darrow: Are you doing a gamble roof on it? Mr. Meyer: Right. Mr. Darrow: And you are going to keep it under 15 foot? What is your height going to be inside the garage? 8-foot doors? Mr. Meyer: 8 foot door yes. Ms. Hussey: I just want to clarify to the Zoning Board, this application is just for an area variance for the square footage of the garage, any height any building issues or zoning issues would be addressed by the Code Enforcement when he applies for a permit, so I understand your frustration not knowing what the designs are but they will be scrutinized if there are any variances or if they exceed any of our current zoning. Ms. Marteney: So he may be here again? Ms. Hussey: He may adjust his building plans to comply with the ordinance, if it is up to the applicant if he wants to come back or not, but all he is asking for at this point is a square footage variance. Mr. Rejman: Let me ask this, any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Come forward. State your name for the record. Mr. Burns: My name is Mike Burns of 1 S. Marvine Avenue, I an the south side of this property and the contiguous property owner and main concern with the size is as you can see in my letter, I don’t want to reiterate it due to time restraints, but the garage is going to be approximately 8 feet longer than the existing garage which is 18 feet wide so it is going to be approximately 8 feet wider and there is low ground there, it slopes away from the garage so in order to do that I don’t understand how the existing footer is going to be used, they are going to have to build up that land there especially the garage by 8 feet to make it 920 square feet. Our main concern is as a result of that is the drainage into our yard, how that is going to be addressed and also the 920 square foot garage roof is a lot more that what is there right now it is approximately about 550 to 600 right now and the water run off from that roof where it is going to go. As you can see on the third page of my letter there is existing ponding in the property each spring, it dries up in the summer time but it is there each spring. We proposed to the Meyer’s that they put a dry well system but we never heard back from them if they are going to do that or not in writing, we asked that they put that in writing for us to se that, but we have never seen that. Our main concerns are drainage Mr. Rejman: But all we can look at is the square footage. Now drainage if you think about that for second, drainage is the size of the lot. The number of gallons of rain that fall on a lot really doesn’t depend on size of the roof. Mr. Burns: I respectively disagree with that. Mr. Rejman: It will shed a little quicker off a roof. Say you have a black top lot doesn’t matte what you put on it the rain is going to come off it the same pretty much. Mr. Baroody: An inch of rain is an inch of rain. Mr. Rejman: It really doesn’t matter what size roof it is as long as the shedding off the roof is controlled and he already spoke to the fact that he is thinking about a dry well and again, we are not here for that. Ms. Hussey: Just the square footage. Mr. Burns: The square footage affects Mr. Meyer: We would like to build that in, he has been a great neighbor. Mr. Darrow: The other thing to take into concern is now the rain is going to run east to west instead of north to south because he is actually changing the direction of the pitch of the roof so it makes it easier to recover any rain. Mr. Rejman: I understand what you are saying, but the application is for 173 square foot variance. We are getting ahead of ourselves. Mr. Burns: Like I said they are adding a pad to the back of the building adding 8 feet out, it is a larger size, we are not opposed to that, but if that land is going to be built up because of that size we feel it could create a drainage problem and we want that to be addressed. That you very much for your time folks. Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak for or against? Final questions from the board? Close the public portion and discuss this amongst ourselves. I understand what you are saying about the water again if we venture down that way then all of a sudden we can say gee you can’t extend your driveway because you are shedding on your neighbor, gee you can’t put in a patio because you will shed on your neighbor. Mr. Darrow: You are comparing apples to apples but your are comparing two different types of apples. If you have a roof hypothetically speaking with one side of the gable measuring 400 square foot and you have an opposing garage with one sided gable measuring 600 square feet, you are going to collect more rain on that 600 square foot area in projected to one location, yes, an inch of rain is an inch of rain, but the roof acts as a rain collection system. All the rain falls off the roof at the eves, so you are going to collect more rain over the 600 square foot than you are over the 400 square foot, so hence you will have 200 square foot of it on a 400 square foot lot going into soil that is not being collected by a roof. Mr. Rejman: All right, I will give you that. But are any of us here Civil Engineers? Where are we going with this? You understand? If we start down that path then we have to do it to every body. Mr. Darrow: Yea, but we have. Mr. Rejman: No, we say where is the water going and the applicant said in this case it is going into a dry well. Mr. Darrow: Right. The fact that the roof direction has been changed will greatly reduce the amount of water on the neighbor’s land because now it is all falling to his own property rather the pitch of the roofs that are currently pitching towards the south, which is projecting on the property line. Mr. Bartolotta: So what you are saying it is going to be a mitigating factor Mr. Darrow: I think it is better the way Mr. Bartolotta: That’s right Mr. Darrow: I think just changing the direction of the roof is a plus and a dry well on top of it is another plus. Mr. Rejman: I just don’t want to get all tangled up, because we do a lot of these, close to property lines, we are concerned, but as long as there is a plan, we usually accept that because it is on the record. Mr. Darrow: Which is true and just willing to put gutters up has been an acceptable plan. Mr. Darrow: The idea of the square footage, knocking down two ugly buildings and coming up Ms. Marteney: Better use of the same area. Mr. Rejman: All right. Motions? Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Richard Meyer of 230 E. Genesee Street, a 173 square foot area variance for the purpose of erecting a garage 35.5 feet x 26 feet. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman ABSTAINING: Mr. Westlake (came in middle of presentation) Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2006 22 Densmore Avenue, R1 zoning district. Robert Sloan, applicant. Area variances for 2 feet of the required 17 feet cumulative side setbacks and 98 feet of the allowed 750 square feet of accessory structures to erect attached garage and mud room. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 22 Densmore Avenue, are you here? Mr. Sloan: Hi, Bob Sloan, 22 Densmore Avenue. Mr. Rejman: OK, Bob tell us what you want to do there. Mr. Sloan: I think I gave you a pretty good package with measurements and I am asking for a similar variance, side variance and also because of the old line used when the house was originally built, the house is only 3 feet off 24 Densmore’s property line, and the existing property line is only 2 feet off on the west side. I went to Codes and discussed it with Brian and a total space of 17 feet over all side yard variance, am I correct on that Brian? Mr. Hicks: Correct. Mr. Sloan: There was a concern on that, there is not only a side variance for a little longer garage than allowed and also a side yard variance. Mr. Rejman: What is the size of the lot? Mr. Sloan: The lot is 75 x 151. Mr. Rejman: Being used up by the house and garage. Mr. Sloan: The existing house is 3 feet off the east side property line and that is where I want to go. The house was built in 1948 and that was the distance they needed then. Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board? Is there any one wishing to speak for against the application? None. Mr. Sloan: There is a letter in there from my neighbor that is directly to the west of me that is affected the most and she has no problem with that and I talked with other neighbors and they feel comfortable with it. It is the same thing that the other person asked for, tearing down a stucco garage, single car garage and putting up a 2-½-car garage. Mr. Rejman: The 98-foot variance includes the shed? Mr. Sloan: Yes there is a 10 x 12 shed in the back. Mr. Rejman: Brian, we have to count that even though it is not on a footer. Mr. Hicks: An accessory structure. Mr. Rejman: Last call for questions. Close the public portion. Thank you. Mr. Sloan: Thanks. Mr. Rejman: If we didn’t have to count temporary sheds, temporary means it is going to fall down at some point. If it is on a footer or slab you need to count it. We have to look into that. Discussions, motion? Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Robert J. Sloan of 22 Densmore Avenue, a 2 foot of the required 17 foot cumulative side setbacks. Mr. Darrow: I’ll second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Robert J. Sloan of 22 Densmore Avenue, a 98 feet of the 750 square feet of accessory structures, this includes shed at rear of property. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Mr. Sloan: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2006 106 Grove Avenue Ext., R1 zoning district. Colleen Winslow, applicant. Area variance of 42 square feet over the allowable 150 square feet for a shed. ___________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 106 Grove Avenue Extension, are you here? Mr. Winslow: I am Gary Winslow, this is my daughter’s, she couldn’t tonight so I am representing her. Would like to put up a shed in the back yard which is 42 feet over the limit of 150, the shed we want to put up is 192. Mr. Rejman: Which is standard 12 x 16, industry standard. Any questions from the board? Ms. Marteney: It is a big yard; neighbors have a shed approximately in the same place in their yard. Mr. Rejman: Eleven people have signed a petition that is attached to the application. Any one wishing to speak for or against this application? None. Final call for questions. We will close the public portion. Ms. Marteney: Standard shed. Mr. Rejman: Any one wish to make a motion? Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Colleen Winslow of 106 Grove Avenue Extension, applicant wishes to erect a 12 foot x 16 foot shed totaling 192 square feet. The current Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 150 square feet. Applicant is requesting a variance of 42 square feet. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Mr. Winslow: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2006 8 Mattie Street, R1A zoning district. Joseph Wilson, applicant. Area variance for a 3-foot setback from the north property line where a 10-foot setback is required to install aboveground pool. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 8 Mattie Street. Mrs. Wilson: Alicia Wilson. Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there. Mrs. Wilson: We would like to erect a 18-foot above ground round pool. Mr. Rejman: In here it says 16 foot, you are amending up to 18? Mrs. Wilson: That must be a mistake. 18 foot round. Mr. Rejman: 18 foot round above ground pool in the back yard. Mrs. Wilson: Yes. Mr. Rejman: And you are too close to a property line? Mrs. Wilson: Yes. There is a privacy fence up now and there is also a letter from that neighbor saying it is ok to do this. Mr. Rejman: Arthur Luke? Mrs. Wilson: Yes. Mr. Rejman: It is attached her from 6 Mattie Street. Any questions from the board. Mr. Darrow: What is your actual lot size? Mrs. Wilson: 60 x 150. Mr. Westlake: Usual skinning lot in Auburn. Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Any one wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Mr. Darrow: Have you considered relocating the pool a little further back where you wouldn’t need a variance? Mrs. Wilson: We did but aesthetically we want a deck coming off the house. I have a drawing of what we are going to put up, I didn’t attach, we didn’t have it at the time. Mr. Rejman: Can we see it. Mrs. Wilson: Yes, sure. We would erect a deck off the back of the house to lead up to a small deck around the pool. We would not be able to do that if we repositioned the pool. Mr. Darrow: I don’t understand why you wouldn’t be able to build a deck. Mrs. Wilson: We would it just wouldn’t be able to come off the back of the house. Also if we set it back I am not sure if there is enough room between the back of the garage to the back property line, we would need another variance. We have a detached garage in that area in the back of the house, if we put it further back we would have to go behind the garage and we would be very close to the back property line. Mr. Rejman: So the pool is going to be approximately 20 behind the house? Mrs. Wilson: 20 to 25, yes. Mr. Rejman: Can we keep this for the record? Mrs. Wilson: That is our only copy. We just got that. Mr. Rejman: We are going to make a copy of that. Last call for questions. OK, we will close the public portion and discuss this. Sits back 20 feet from the back of the house. Thoughts, comments, concerns. Mr. Darrow: I have difficulty only for one reason, yes it is a narrow yard but not as narrow and not seeing a real survey if you will, something with solid measurements of how far the garage is back and you know where the rear property line is and knowing that what inconveniences would be caused or what kind of expense would be caused by relocating the pool. That is the only reason I have any hesitation. Mr. Westlake: The lot is deep, she could go back even though she said she would be close to the property line, I don’t see how it could be going back Mr. Rejman: I think the concern there is the deck they want from the house to the pool. Mr. Darrow: Right. Mr. Rejman: 20 feet out. Mr. Darrow: We are looking at 4 foot from the property line. Mr. Rejman: Right. Ms. Marteney: Then it would have to move over more behind the garage. Mr. Darrow: That is my point yes. Ms. Marteney: Change the cost of the deck the square footage. Mr. Darrow: That is my point, that there is not a lot of information, there is just a quick sketch showing the pool Mr. Rejman: It is 150 feet deep. He can stick it back 120. Mr. Darrow: My point is, I don’t really know where the garage is in location to the house on the drawing. There is no real measurement there and that is the one thing that makes just gives me difficulty. I am not saying I am against it, I am just saying it is giving me some difficulty. Mr. Rejman: We know where the back of the house is so the pool is about 25 feet back from the house and it is 4 feet from the garage and 4 feet from the property line. Mr. Darrow: How far is the garage from the house? Mr. Rejman: Does the applicant happen to know that? Mrs. Wilson: I would say it is around the distance where the pool is, about 25 – 20 feet, but it is slightly kiddy-corner. Mr. Rejman: Yes kiddy-corner. 20 – 25 feet? Mrs. Wilson: Yes. Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Mr. Westlake: If you look at it, it is 4 or 5 feet from the detached garage, 4 feet from the property line. Just not drawn out professionally. Ms. Marteney: They aren’t often. Mr. Westlake: Yes. It even says not drawn to scale. Mr. Rejman: Any other comments or concerns? Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Joseph E. Wilson of 8 Mattie Street, the applicant wishes to install an above ground pool to be located 3 feet from the north property line. The current Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum distance of 10 feet from all property lines. Applicant is requesting a 7-foot variance from the side property line. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Darrow – due to the fact that I don’t think there is enough information to make an educated decision. Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Mrs. Wilson: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2006 52 Garrow Street, R1A zoning district. Frederick Hutchings, applicant. Area variance of 4 feet in the front yard of the required 25-foot set back for already constructed home. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 52 Garrow Street. Mr. Thurston: Good evening, Earle Thurston for the applicant Fred Hutchins. This is a request for a variance, we thought originally it was 2 feet is a 4 foot front yard set back for a new residence built by Mr. Hutchins at 52 Garrow Street. This was a lot that had been vacant for a substantial period of time. The property is in the area between Fitch Avenue and Chapman Avenue and the house is right across the street from the park that goes over to Wood Street in that area. I don’t know if you have been by there, but there are two new houses there. The first house was built by Mr. Hutchins which is the one we are seeking a variance for and John Bouck built the second house which sets back a little bit from the house that Mr. Hutchins built. It is my understanding there have been no new houses down there for quite some time. The house was purchased by Mr. Hutchins from BOCES under their program. He had retained an engineer to site the property. I apologize, I had some additional materials and I apologize for the delay getting these to you. Mr. Hutchins has recently had some heart by and strokes and have had some difficulty getting some of this information together. He is suppose to be at some point. He hired an engineer to site the property and I have maps to show that. There is a major City sewer trunk line that crosses diagonally on this property and the house was sited as far back as it could located to not interfere or cross into the area of the trunk line. I have packets here for every body, which has a copy of that map. I apologize for the delay; I have a tax map in there, which shows the general area of the neighborhood and original engineering map, which shows the site of the house. The original engineering map had a set back from the street of 37.9 feet. Mr. Westlake: Mr. Thurston, exactly what is he trying to do here? Mr. Thurston: The house is built, we got two building permits and built the house and now we went to get a CO and they say we can’t because the house is too close to the street. So we are here to seek a variance which we originally were told was 2 feet but now apparently it is 4 feet, Brian, is that correct? Mr. Hicks: Yes that is correct. The dimensions were taken from the street was not actually the road edge, our right of way line. Your application said 2 feet we adjusted it accordingly so we have a little fudge back here and there, we are only talking inches. Mr. Thurston: We are only talking inches. So the variance we are requesting is Mr. Hicks: 4 feet. Mr. Thurston: 4 feet. In the original application I think I asked for 2 feet, I thought at the time it was 2 feet, I was told subsequently that the variance request is 4 feet. We had the engineer line it up for us and it appears that the dimensions were taken from the street and not the right of way and I have the tax map there to show you that this house lines up with all of the other houses on that street pretty much, of course several houses were from years ago, but it doesn’t set closer to the street for the most part from any of those houses other the Bouck building house which was built subsequent to Mr. Hutchins’ and I think at that point it was picked up where the set back was. We have consents from the adjoining neighbor. Three neighbors down there have consented and I put it with this packet. Right across the street from this house is the park to the south of the house is the Bouck new residence and to the north is fairly open space of land that goes down the impression of that street and back up. My client believes he was constructing it consistent where it should be based upon the map and you will notice that it is really as far back, the house only has a depth of 26 feet and it was set back as far as we could go without encroaching on the sewer line. Again, we had two permits to build, one ran out and he renewed it when he was suppose to and then the house was built and now we need a variance and are seeking approval from the board. Mr. Westlake: Did Mr. Bouck need a variance for his house to be built? Mr. Thurston: No because he was able to take advantage of our problem I think and built his house a little back. I have some photos that I can show you that might give you an idea of how; this gives you an idea of the line up of the houses down the street. Mr. Rejman: Brian, in your opinion, what the age of the neighborhood there? When do you feel they were built, before zoning? Mr. Hicks: Probably around any where from 1918 on up. Mr. Westlake: Is this like a surveyor’s mistake? Mr. Hicks: I believe they could have had something to do with it because they were using the edge of the road versus the actual right of way line, I am not sure how that transpired. I believe because of the mud and some of the other items excavated, run over and Mr. Rejman: That would be easy to do. Mr. Westlake: Why wasn’t he stopped before the house was all the way up? Mr. Hicks: He was notified when the basement was put up when we first caught it that he was going to need a variance. This is where we are at now. That letter went out over a year ago. Mr. Thurston: There was a letter that went out, I haven’t seen the letter. Mr. Rejman: An actual stop work order on it? Mr. Hicks: No stop work order on it that I am aware of, the letter went out noting that the was encroaching into that required 25 foot set back in the front yard. Mr. Westlake: Should there have been a stop order then? Mr. Hicks: There wasn’t any work going on, every body was pulled off the job. Mr. Thurston: I think part of this was building the foundation and the contractor and then they brought the BOCES house and set it in so the contractor, Fred never heard anything from the contractor, I think they tried to accommodate again I don’t know why nothing was ever built down there, the sewer line may have been a reason, no where to build on this lot. We are here after the fact but it seems it is pretty the depth of the house is not significant it seems like they accommodated it there and they couldn’t go any farther because of the sewer lines. Mr. Rejman: Brian, can you attest to the fact that the house cannot be moved back 4 feet because of the sewer line? Mr. Hicks: Actually the way I see it we had to have our right of way to the sewer line. Mr. Hutchins had already purchased this house. This house was sitting on a trailer in Syracuse, had to be moved immediately. He was ready to go, put it in, made room for the sewer line easement, did that, get it all set for placement on the lot Mr. Rejman: That is not the question. The question is if we said no, move it back 4 feet, if you move it back 4 feet does he encroach on this sewer line? Mr. Hicks: He will, yes. He will be asking for a side yard variance to this house. Mr. Thurston: Wouldn’t be just a side yard variance Mr. Rejman: We can’t give a variance on a sewer line. Mr. Hicks: If he stays away from the sewer easement he can get a southern boundary variance, he can place the house back and south. Mr. Thurston: If you look at the map, I don’t see Ms. Marteney: 16 feet 8 inches from the south boundary line. Mr. Thurston: This was the old City Engineer who prepared this, and as you look at it this was back in 2003. This was all set up; I don’t know when the house was purchased. I think the decision was made not to get any excavation near that sewer line and the mistake may have been coming the street line as opposed to the right of way line, which varies in many cases from street to street here in the City. It seems it would be the angle of the sewer line as you go back Mr. Westlake: Brian, they were issued a letter a year ago telling them that the basement Mr. Hicks: I know we sent them a letter. Mr. Rejman: Do you have a copy of that? Mr. Hicks: Not in my file. Mr. Thurston: I am not aware of the letter, I am not saying one does not exist but I know that there were two building permits issued and we proceeded on that basis and then when the CO was necessary this came up. I think and it is hard to argue without the facts it seems to me that is someone was willing to build a house down on Garrow Street, to invest down there and he has been paying taxes on the house for the last two years that variance would have been a reasonable application at that time. It lines up with all the other houses with the exception of John Bouck’s house which was built afterwards. So it doesn’t change the character, obviously there is an economic hardship here and it doesn’t harm any of the neighbors, Bouck, his approval is here and two other neighbors on the north side it is vacant land and across the street is a park. Mr. Rejman: Let me ask this, is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Back to the board. Questions from the board? Ms. Marteney: I want to clarify; he got a permit to build this Mr. Rejman: Yes Ms. Marteney: This basement with a house to get placed on this. Mr. Rejman: Yes. Ms. Marteney: But some how Mr. Rejman: Permit #1 was the basement Ms. Hussey: It got moved, it was based on the architect’s drawings and shown 37.5 but he used the wrong origination point, he used the street instead of the actual property line Ms. Marteney: OK. Mr. Thurston: That is on the map, that is correct. Ms. Hussey: The permit as it was submitted was correct but the origination line Mr. Rejman: You mention two permits, permit #1 was for the basement, permit #2 was for? Mr. Thurston: I think the first permit ran out he had to do it within six months and I don’t know what the time frame was on the house, the second was a renewal permit, just the same permit. Mr. Rejman: OK. Mr. Darrow: Was the basement already in when the second permit was issued? Mr. Hicks: Yes, the house was on the foundation. Mr. Thurston: When the second permit was issued? Mr. Hicks: Yes. Mr. Darrow: There was no need to go down and inspect it until they were ready for a CO. That is when they found it. Mr. Rejman: Final questions? OK, we are going to close the public portion. I can see where the error can happen. If the original line was fuzzy, even though he is a professional he should have known better and if there concern about the sewer in the back Mr. Darrow: We don’t know if the actual PE laid out the basement. It just could have been the excavator. We can’t blame it on the engineer that did the site plan Mr. Rejman: Could have been BOCES. Mr. Baroody: Plan showed 37 feet only 20 Mr. Darrow: I was going by what Mr. O’Neill drew. They didn’t put it where Mr. O’Neill had it plotted. Mr. Westlake: Sure they did, they went 37, but the measured the 37 feet from the wrong point so instead of going from the point they were suppose to measure from they went to a different point. Mr. Darrow: I think you are missing my point, we don’t know that Mr. O’Neill was the one that went out with the tape measure and laid out where to dig the basement, that just could have been the excavator or somebody from BOCES Mr. Westlake: But they probably got the 37 feet the street and measured from the wrong point. When you measure from the wrong point you are still responsible. Mr. Darrow: I am not saying they are not. Mr. Rejman: The only saving grace is it lines up with the rest of the houses. Mr. Darrow: Also, there are two things that I see, the house is only 26 feet deep or wide, however you want to look at it, that is not generous, anything less than 32 – 36 these days is a small narrow house. So the fact that it is not over generous in depth and the fact that Mr. Hicks says even by removing it or by moving it, it would still need another variance. Mr. Rejman: Side yard. Mr. Darrow: Right, either way Mr. Westlake: It seems like they are able to do this and then after the fact make our responsibility to make it go away. We are not a board of that type, should have been taken care of before it got to this board and they wouldn’t need a variance. Maybe he couldn’t build a house there. Mr. Rejman: The letter bothers me, a letter was sent out saying you have a problem, that bothers me. Ms. Marteney: Maybe the house was finished by then? Mr. Rejman: No, he sent the letter out when the basement was there. Mr. Hicks: The house was sitting on the foundation. Mr. Rejman: I don’t think there was malicious intent. Mr. Darrow: I don’t either. Ms. Marteney: Driving by it doesn’t feel like it is too close to the street, especially since the house to the north the older farm looking kind of house is 10 feet from the street with a porch business going on. Mr. Rejman: I can understand your concern when we tell somebody you have a problem that they should just stop and come and get taken care of, one way or the other. Mr. Darrow: Lot less discussion if he was before us the next month. Mr. Bartolotta: Who was the notice sent to, to Mr. Hutchins? Mr. Hicks: Yes. Mr. Thurston: The letter went out after the house was on the foundation? Mr. Hicks: I believe so just because there were never any calls for any placement, no notification that I am aware of and one day it is on the foundation. Mr. Thurston: I think the building permit was filed. Mr. Hicks; The application was filed. Mr. Thurston: He submitted the plan and made the building permit application, was issued a building permit, the way this house was built it is not the normal process in the sense the guy comes down and puts in the foundation based upon the map it is 39 feet from the front, I mean we got the engineer to give us a map, push the house back as far he could go, it said 39 feet that was incorrect apparently and not that he wanted that to be, but as a practical matter the line of the house there with that sewer line otherwise the lot becomes what it has been for 30 years. Mr. Westlake: Again you are making it this board’s responsibility to correct somebody else’s mistake. Mr. Thurston: I agree with that, I am reluctant I said that in my remarks it is hard to come in here after the fact, but I tried to explain the basis for the mistake and it wasn’t as if he just went and built it although the way these houses go up, the house gets delivered one day all of a sudden, we had an engineer, he gave us dimensions, we had to be cognizant of the sewer line, we lined it up as far back as we could and we made the house as narrow Mr. Westlake: Sounds like your problem is with the engineer. Mr. Rejman: OK, let’s close the public portion. Let’s keep it here. I do understand that part. The letter bothers me a lot, if the letter had not been sent then I Mr. Westlake: Since the letter was there if he had come to the board before the house on it or even been here earlier I would have had a different opinion. Mr. Darrow: I agree, it is a true double-edged sword, we have a letter notification why not rectify immediately but also I look it is not changing the character of the neighborhood to the negative. It is not like one house is jutting out closer to the sidewalk than every other one, that is its saving grace. Mr. Baroody: I think that is the only saving grace. Mr. Rejman: I would like some other comments. Ms. Brower: It looks awkward but once it is cleaned up and landscaped and occupied that would possibly heal the problems visually. Ms. Marteney: Not out of proportion to the other houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Bartolotta: I think given that and coupled with the fact that this doesn’t sound like it was a malicious attempt to side step the Zoning Code, the letter out, the house may already have been there, I think all those things taken together. Ms. Marteney: We don’t have the sequence of time. Mr. Darrow: It is not like the letter was sent return receipt requested. Mr. Bartolotta: Exactl6y. Mr. Westlake: Mr. Hutchins is here if you want to ask him if he got the letter. Mr. Rejman: We closed the public portion. I need a motion to move forward on this. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Frederick Hutchins of 7021 Owasco Road, a 4 foot front yard set back variance at 52 Garrow Street. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman – it is keeping the character of the neighborhood. VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Westlake – due to the fact that they got a letter and did not address it. Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Mr. Thurston: Thank you very much. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2006 102 Osborne Street, R2 zoning district. Carr Magel, applicant. Use variance to legalize 4^th dwelling unit (efficiency apartment). Area variances for 2200 square feet lot size, 86 square feet for apartment size and I parking space. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 102 Osborne Street, are you here? Mr. Magel: My name is Carl Magel, I live at 171 Dunning Avenue. I own a piece of income property at 102 Osborne Street. I was just 77 the other day and I am tired. I want to get rid of all of them, I want to get out. I had a purchase offer on this property which is not included in the packet, but if some of you would like to see it, with some letters pertaining to the purchase offer. We are in the process of doing some inspections and things there, I was notified by Codes there is only suppose to be 3 family and it is a 4 family. It has been a 4 family ever since, I don’t remember doing anything to it, it has been a 4 family for over 30 years. Mr. Rejman: You have owned it for 30 years? When did you purchase it? Mr. Magel: I owned it originally then I sold it to my step-son and I carried the paper and my step-son sold it to another guy and I carried the paper. That went back and I got it back so but I have been associated with it for 30 years, but not directly under my control all that time. As far as I recall, I don’t remember that it was anything but a 4. I own 55 units so I don’t remember everything there is about all of them. Some of this material, I have to apologize for I just brought it in today and didn’t have that before. The letters from the neighbors I got on the 27^th and I thought I had taken them down to Brian and I am picking up my papers tonight and there they all are. There is another thing that I didn’t give you is a letter from Jim Cuddy, when either my step-son or I believe when my step-son transferred it or was it when I transferred it to my step-son, I have a lot of things here. Photocopy of proposed land contract agreement consented by Carl Magel pursuant to our discussion I believe that was when my step-son sold it to John McACauley and at that time the land contract, the copy he sent to him the sheet down in the corner it has got he had indicated that the contract was set up as a 4 family and the only reason I brought this other page with it, someone could say it was my handwriting and not Cuddy’s handwriting, this sheet of paper is covered with Cuddy’s handwriting which is the same handwriting on this land contract where we are discussing 4 family. He indicated that said added 4 family building that is what it was at that time. The problem that I have is that and I have given you a whole bunch of figures and things like that, I don’t know if they make any sense, but it is not economically feasible for a buyer with a mortgage payment to buy this building as a 3 family. It is not economically feasible for me as a 3 family to maintain it. I am just about breaking even. I am either making $15.00 an hour for my time and I am not doing anything on my investment, if I am making 6% on my investment, I am not getting a nickel out for my time as a 3 family. The neighbors don’t want it to go as a 3 family. They are pretty happy. At the present time I have 5 people in there, 1 apartment has 2 in it and the other has 1. There is a letter from the woman living there; she is about sick to think that anything is going to happen. I have been renting to her for $300 for 5 years, she can’t afford any more. I have my income statements in here showing what I do with 2004, as a 4 family. Actually if I take those 2 apartments and combine one up at the top, I don’t even know how it was set up before, I don’t even know how to go about making it a 3, but if I did make a 3, the apartment on the top floor, an efficiency that would be a 3 bedroom and then you are talking about families and kids and the neighbors don’t want that. Gas bills from last year, I did some comparisons in there, $400 to $500 last year jumped up into the high $700’s part of the reason for that is the surcharges, some of the surcharges went up over 50%. Really doesn’t make any sense for me if I lose that apartment to even leave the building open. I am not going to do it; I am not going to close it down. I am not asking for a variance to add something on, build a big garage or add another apartment here, I am just asking to keep it the way it is. If we keep it the way it is, I have people that are interested in purchasing it. Mr. Rejman: You say you have a purchase offer on this. Mr. Magel: I have a purchase offer, would you like to see that? Mr. Rejman: Yes. Could I. Mr. Magel: Maybe I should have made copies, I just picked up tonight. Mr. Rejman: No, this is ok. Questions from the board? Mr. Darrow: Do you have the actual receipts for the paid bills to coincide with all these figures on your paper? Mr. Magel; Yes, I have them all here if you would like to see them. I brought them all with me, the taxes, the gas bills, water bills. Mr. Rejman: I think this hasn’t bubbled to the surface before is that it has never been, it has been a land contract. Mr. Magel: One time I talked with them they wanted to know what was going on at 102 Osborne Street and they indicated that there was some question here as to whether this is a 3 or 4 family, I think that was on May 4^th, then he wrote me a letter on May something and said that the people indicated that, maybe we can work something out as a 3 family and they said they have no interest in a 3 family. Mr. Westlake: Brian, it states in this one letter here that the density study does allow this unit to be added to this structure? Mr. Hicks: The density for that whole neighborhood, yes, there is some allowable addition. We did the calculations from two different vantage points and they both came back that it would be allowable. Mr. Magel: I don’t want to prey on your sympathies here but this is the 5^th time I have been here and the other 4 times that I have been here, it was 6 each time and I got beat 3 to 3, 4 times in a row here, no way I was going to hang around tonight. Mr. Westlake: It is my opinion since the density study shows it is ok, and there is no one here to speak against it. Mr. Rejman: That does speak volumes. There is no one here to speak against it. Mr. Magel: As far as density, the City has knocked down I don’t know how many houses down in that area. I don’t think that is a problem at all density. Mr. Rejman: A variance for one parking space, a variance for 86 square feet apartment size, but 2200 square feet lot size that is a big pill to swallow, but maybe not. OK, final questions. Mr. Magel: Could I just say one thing about the parking. Mr. Rejman: Sure. Mr. Magel: I don’t know if you can park between the sidewalk and the house, I have never that I remember ever had over I can’t remember 3, the type of people that are renting there, possibility that 2 cars is the most I ever remember. I already talked to Jack, I already talked to the people with the glass, they said if worse comes to worse here can I work something out for parking. Mr. Rejman: We will close the public portion. The property is assessed for $33,000; the purchase offer is in the $60’s. It would be difficult to make ends meet. The point was brought up, is it self-created? It preceded the zoning. Mr. Darrow: Don’t have proof of that. Mr. Rejman: Pre-existing? Mr. Darrow: But we don’t know how long on paper we just have his testimony that it has been a 4 family. We don’t have anything like a City directory dating back 20 years that shows 4 different people living there. Ms. Marteney: There is a letter indicating there were 2 units from 1965 to 1975. Mr. Rejman: What is that based on? It is based on the assessment. These are the records upstairs, but we are right back into the same thing, who has the legal description of the property, the Assessor or the Codes downstairs? It is Codes. We are trying very hard to get the assessment department and code department to start talking and say hey guys see what we found. Over the years it hasn’t been done. I don’t even know if this is admissible. Ms. Hussey: Based on a physical examination. Mr. Westlake: Brian, do you know have a rough idea how long it has been a 4 unit? Mr. Hicks: Last report was in 1992 on gong from, so I don’t know how long it has been a 4. Mr. Darrow: I am curious about I believe it’s the aerial photo that Mr. Hicks gave us, it looks like there is a lot line or property line running through the back of a portion of the house. Mr. Hicks: Rear foundation is right up against the property line. Ms. Marteney: Well the line runs through the roof Mr. Hicks: The way it sits Ms. Marteney: OK. I have a little problem with the parking, that area is horrendous now Mr. Rejman: It is a difficult street. Ms. Marteney: I came down that this afternoon and you can barely make it through right at that corner. You can’t guarantee that somebody doesn’t have a car because historically you have only had 2 cars with 4 apartments. Mr. Rejman: In defense the other side says it says it has always been a 4 we don’t know if that is correct or not. Ms. Marteney: I don’t know. Mr. Rejman: This is difficult. Mr. Westlake: How long have the people lived there that are there now? Mr. Magel: One woman upstairs in the back the apartment they say is illegal, 5 years. People in front, a couple there they have been there about a year. The people downstairs they have probably been there 7 or 8 months something like that. I know I was cut off, the reason that I brought that paper in with Cuddy’s notation on the bottom, when that was sold to Innskeep from me to Innskeep, Cuddy put that notation on the bottom that paper was to be drawn as a 4 family because that it was it was at that time, that was 1977. I didn’t write that and I brought that other paper so you could see the handwriting is the same. When I turned it over to Innskeep it was a 4 family. I didn’t write that. Mr. Rejman: OK. I know it is difficult. Mr. Westlake: Are there 3 motions here? Mr. Rejman: Yes there are. Mr. Selvek: Mr. Chairman, this requires a SEQRA. Mr. Rejman: OK, will you move ahead on the SEQRA. Mr. Selvek: With regard to SEQRA and considering whether this being a negative declaration or positive declaration, I would like to point out a few possible adverse effects that granting these variances may have. First, with regards to traffic. Traffic is a concern along that portion of Osborne Street. Currently parking is prohibited on the even numbered side of the street and across the street is a No Standing or Stopping area. The property is already deficient in the required number of parking spaces, as it has been grandfathered in. Granting an additional variance for parking may worsen the traffic congestion in that area at sometime in the future. With regard to the community and neighborhood character. The increased density of the neighborhood, along with the lack of quality usable open space, may further degrade the community or neighborhood character. Mr. Rejman: Excuse me, didn’t Mr. Hicks just say it meets the density qualifications? Mr. Selvek: It does meet the density qualifications Mr. Rejman: Isn’t that irrelevant then what you just said? Mr. Selvek: However, I am referring specifically to the lack of useful quality open space. 2200 square feet of lot size. With regards to the community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan dated 1991 outlines some of the problems related to dwelling unit conversions, and states, “Continued toleration of inappropriate conversions will lead to increased diminution of tax base and poor living conditions for all residents of these neighborhoods”. The finding under long term or cumulative effects, granting this variance may set a precedent for future conversions. Mr. Rejman: All right. I want to consider this. The SEQRA is talking of taking a 3 and making it into a 4. The applicant is saying it is pre-existing non-conforming grandfathered in and there is the problem that we all are wrestling with. So, let’s move ahead. Mr. Darrow: The application is also going along with SEQRA review that it is a 3 although he says it was a 4. Mr. Rejman: Actually I am not sure exactly how this works, but you could put this around and the applicant, I am playing both sides here, the applicant could say wait a minute, this is America, I am innocent until proven guilty, it was a 4 unit, you prove it was a 3 unit! And where do we go from there? Ms. Hussey: Burden is on the applicant, this is a quasi-judicial board, you probably need to make that determination before moving forward, whether you feel the evidence presented that it should be a 4 unit or whether the evidence was presented or that there was insufficient evidence that it is still a 3. Mr. Rejman: If we take that original purchase offer back in 1977 with the notes on it, it pre-exists zoning, then it is a pre-existing non-conforming. If the note on the purchase offer is actually correct, then it was a 4 unit in 1977, we didn’t have codes for this in 1977. Ms. Marteney: According to the Assessor’s Office it was listed from 1976 to 1991 as a 2 unit. Mr. Rejman: Assessor is not the legal description of the property. If the Codes records were in error, there we go. Mr. Bartolotta: I would question as to whether or not you can bolster the record or bolster some evidence in regard to proving it is not a pre-existing use. I don’t know how he would do that. Ms. Marteney: What we usually do is people go back the City Directory and say there were 4 people listed as living there. Mr. Bartolotta: Affidavits. Ms. Marteney: Something scribbled at the bottom of this doesn’t prove it to me. Mr. Bartolotta: That may be the answer, to table this until the applicant can come up with more evidence that it is a non-conforming pre-exiting, if that is what he chooses to do. I don’t know what his position is. Ms. Brower: Would there have been a permit for the installation of the fourth? No because it preceded Mr. Rejman: Too far back. Mr. Hicks: I believe I have one itemized statement the last building permit for that property in 1992 and no permits prior to that. Ms. Marteney: It says 1987. Mr. Westlake: It says since 1992 to the present it was changed to a 3 unit. Mr. Hicks: That is Assessor’s. Mr. Rejman: I want more guidance; I am having problems with the SEQRA thing. This applicant has to have Mr. Darrow: SEQRA is the easy part. Mr. Rejman: Not the way it is framed. It was presented in the neutral. I would like to table this. All those in favor? All in favor. We are going to table this. Mr. Magel, if you can come up with anything that will help us determine when that was a 4 unit or how to prove it was a 4 unit back in 1977 other than that. Mr. Magel: Just go to Judge Cuddy and ask him if that his signature and notes. Mr. Westlake: We had one a couple months ago that it was sold as 3 unit and they were here because there was discrepancy of attorneys. We turned that one down because of that. So that actually a 2 and they sold it as a 3. If you can prove for 30 years or 25 years that people lived there and the directory shows that they lived there for all this time, I would be in favor of it, just me personally. If you can find in the City Directories that there were 4 people living there in 4 different apartments for 30 years or any where close to that, I would be in favor of it. Mr. Magel: I will try to do that. One time I had an 11 unit on the corner of Wall and some years there were 3 people in there some years 7 people in there, I never could find 11. I will make an attempt to do that. If you shot me down I don’t know what I am going to do with this thing. I really don’t. Mr. Westlake: I realize what you said about the Gas & Electric but everybody has the same problem as you, everybody’s gas and electric went up. Mr. Magel: Everybody says every time taxes go up, they say you have to raise your tenant’s rent. I have a woman who wrote you a letter, making $6.90, I am lucky to get the $300 out of her, you know what I am saying, these people just can’t afford renting. I never raised their rent for 5 years what is the sense of raising it, I am never going to get it. I would just like to be able to sell this place. Mr. Rejman: See if you can find something that will help us next month. Mr. Hicks: So what the board is looking at this point in time is just some kind of past history that Mr. Magel can come up with to support the 4 apartments. Mr. Rejman: Yes. It is going to be difficult. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.