City of Auburn, NY - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 06/26/2006

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 06/26/2006


	ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2006 Members Present: Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta (came in after meeting started) Mr. Rejman Staff Present: Ms. Hussey Mr. Hicks Mr. Selvek Member Absent: Ms. Marteney (called) APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 77 Metcalf Drive 73 Prospect Street 77 Holley Street 16 Hamilton Avenue 144 E. Genesee Street APPLICATION TABLED: 102 Osborne Street 111 E. Genesee Street Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are short two members tonight. Tonight we have the following items on the agenda: 111 E. Genesee Street 77 Metcalf Drive 73 Prospect Street 77 Holley Street 16 Hamilton Avenue 144 E. Genesee Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2006 111 E. Genesee Street, R1A zoning district. Joseph Blumrick, applicant. 3’2” are variance in height of allowed 4’ for front yard fence. _____________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: Let’s start with the first applicant. 111 E. Genesee Street, are you here? Step forward please. State your name for the record. Mr. Blumrick: My name is Joe Blumrick. Mr. Darrow: Just so the board knows, I will be abstaining on this one, Mr. Blumrick’s wife is a blood relative of mine, so that leaves 4. Mr. Rejman: OK thanks. This is a 6-person board and any application that comes before us needs to get 4 affirmative votes. Now being short it puts you at a disadvantage. Now because Ed is in that situation backing out that puts you in an even worse situation. You need all 4 of us to say yes. If you feel more comfortable you can table this until next month when we have a full board. If it goes forward and one of us decides to say no, you will not be able to bring this back before us. Mr. Blumrick: I would prefer to go next month. Mr. Rejman: Always best to have a full board. Mr. Blumrick: Play safe. Mr. Rejman: Usually on an area variance it is not difficult, use variance is very important. We will see you next month. Mr. Blumrick: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2006 77 Metcalf Drive. R1 zoning district. United Church of Auburn, applicant. Area variances for the placement of second shed and allowance of portable A-frame sign. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 77 Metcalf Drive. Mr. Colby: Good evening. Mr. Rejman: Good evening. Mr. Colby: My name is Phil Colby; I represent the United Church of Auburn. Mr. Rejman: You understand the situation? Mr. Colby: Yes I do. Mr. Rejman: Go ahead. Mr. Colby: We are requesting a variance to allow a second shed on our property as well as a tent sign. It is for the purpose of collecting drop off donation clothing. I have past references here from other users of the same organization stating their ability to maintain and work with whoever the host is to be able to make certain that the site stays appropriate, don’t see any impact as stated in my application that would be adverse to the local area. We are obviously a not for profit and we are looking for some way to benefit the community. Should not be any adverse affect to the local area and we hope that you will consider our application. Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board? Mr. Colby: I have a representative from the actual working company, we are the host. Mr. Callerame: Paul Callerame. Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Mr. Baroody: Is this another organization placing this for you and your are just maintaining? Mr. Callerame: Well it is a cooperative effort similar to the one that is at Sacred Heart, in fact, it is the same and they provide the containment building and pick up service and we provide the facility to have the incoming materials brought in, clothing exclusively and we remove it on a weekly basis. Yes there is another company involved. Mr. Darrow: Mr. Colby, on your drawing the bottom of the page would that be Metcalf, is there where Metcalf is as there is no point Mr. Colby: Yes that is correct. So it sits back from the front of the building, sits back probably 200 feet Mr. Darrow: Completely behind the Church. Mr. Colby: Completely across the parking lot and not in line with the back of the Church. Mr. Darrow: This is where the shed is? Mr. Colby: That is where the exiting shed is, the additional shed you see it right there in the corner, both will be behind the rear of the Church. Mr. Darrow: It will be sitting in the parking lot and a clear view from the street? Mr. Colby: Correct. Mr. Rejman: Let’s speak about the A-frame sign. Tell us how you would us that. Mr. Colby: It would be kept essentially on a day to day basis to advise any of the passing public that might have an interest in making a donation of used clothing that there is a pick up point here. My guess is from the dimensions that I have seen it stands this high. Mr. Callerame: It is a 2 x 4 foot plastic sign weighted with sand and it is to steer the public in so that they know the box is there. Mr. Rejman: But the reality is it a permanent sign, it says portable, allows for a portable A-frame sign, it is portable but the use is permanent. Mr. Colby: That would be our intention yes. I didn’t realize that wasn’t affixed to the real property would be considered anything other than portable. Mr. Rejman: Brian, do you have any input on that? Mr. Hicks: This A-frame sign is designed to show the events that they have and for the clothes drop off, would not be run on a daily basis Mr. Colby: It would be open to the public on a daily basis; we are hoping to have people drop off clothing every day. Mr. Darrow: 7 days a week? Mr. Colby: 7 days a week. There is no monitoring necessary for the process, similar to a Salvation Army drop box type thing. Mr. Darrow: But a lot neater. Mr. Colby: Yes. Mr. Callerame: That is why we have always worked with non-profit organizations; work with Churches and Fire Departments and American Legions. The key to having this work well is that we partner ourselves with a sponsoring organization; they use the drop off as a fundraiser. The trade off is the sponsoring organization goes in once a day about 10 or 15 minutes job to make sure the clothes are tied up and stacked against the double doors and keep a clean and very presentable location. We have over a hundred of these out at this time and very fortunate that we have had no problems, no vandalism, and the sponsoring organization have benefited well from the clothes drop off. Mr. Rejman: Any idea how many are in this area? Mr. Callerame: In this area, we have one other in town that is as far as we are now. Ms. Brower: What the sign for the Childhood Center? Mr. Colby: The Early Childhood Learning Center is its own entity, they occupy space from us, if there is a issue from this board in regard to them, you need to talk to the current owners. We haven’t necessarily always been thrilled that the sign is there because we don’t to detract from our entity as a Church; however, we do feel as a Church they serve a viable and useable community service. We virtually donate our building to them in terms of cost for the size of the facility that they have, so we have never required them to cease and desist. Ms. Brower: I was just hoping that their sign would still be there. Mr. Colby: We have no intention of removing, we have a great relationship with them, and they have been a great asset I think to the community. They bring a lot of real people, younger people and their parents to a facility which is always a good thing as far as being able to make positive exposure for our Church and we have a great relationship. We have no intention of removing of their sign at all. Mr. Rejman: Anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, come back to the board. Final questions? Mr. Westlake: The word portable, do you have to have a variance for a portable sign? Mr. Rejman: I am confused on the sign thing. We are going to straighten that out. Mr. Darrow: My guess it is not being taken down each night. Portable but it is permanent. If it was something taken down each night and put up each day I could see the word portable Mr. Rejman: Maybe this will help us, you said you have entered into an agreement here with your organization, tell me more about that, is it just a hand shake, is Mr. Colby: Handshake. Mr. Rejman: Handshake agreement Mr. Colby: There is nothing permanent about this; there is no contractual agreement here. We supply the facility for them do a benefit that we as a Church cannot do on our own, we just don’t have the membership, the time or ability to do it and they have the infrastructure and means of properly applying those contributions out to the community and possibly the world that we just wouldn’t have the ability to do. Mr. Baroody: I am just curious, I don’t mean no disrespect, how does it, how do you come out of it? You give “X” amount of clothes, whatever your agreement as a donation to the Church, how do you Mr. Callerame: We compensate the Church $40 for every 1,000 tons of clothing. This is how it works. The reason we have never put permanent signs is that we give the organization we ask them to give it a year to see how it will work for them. If anything were to happen if the organization decided they didn’t want to do this, we can pull everything out. The building is not permanent. Mr. Colby: And I suppose even in that matter if this board should decide at a later date that there has become an issue that becomes a problem with the neighborhood or whatever, we would be happy to hear from and we would terminate the operation. Mr. Darrow: My only concern and I am not even sure if it is legitimate because of it is an area variance and not a use variance perhaps counsel can advice, the build up of bagged clothes in front of shed and what the neighbors they are going to have to look at. Mr. Callerame: Non-existent. Mr. Colby: There is a daily pick up that Paul mentioned earlier so if there is time to orchestrate a pick up we have that kind of contributions, the it would be removed. Mr. Callerame: The reason we don’t have buildings, the building is 8 x 16 will hold 2 to 3 thousand pounds of clothing. I use an aluminum shoot on it with the Church’s sign as the sponsoring organization, what we take what we don’t take. We have been very fortunate over the years; my company has been in existence for 10 years now. In 10 years I have gotten one chair that was not appropriate. People have a lot of respect first of all we link ourselves with a respected organization in town and we don’t go in to Mall parking lots, places that are unsupervised, where messes can happen. Mr. Darrow: This is always supervised then is what you are saying? Mr. Callerame: Being in a Church parking lot and it is used very day by the Church, it is not a big deal to do a 10 – 15 minute once people actually know that it is there. We have never had anything out in front. Mr. Darrow: I know for a fact that the Salvation Army on Grant Avenue, their whole reason for pulling their box from outside because so much clutter, debris, unwanted and unusable items were being dropped off there. That is the other concern that happening up there in such a residential neighborhood. Mr. Callerame: That has never happened with us and that is why the design of the box and how we work with the different organizations. I was very afraid of working with drop off locations when we first went into business and linking ourselves with the non-profits and working with them as the caretakers has eliminated that problem and that was a biggie, absolutely, I wouldn’t want to see those messes in my town. Mr. Darrow: Question for counsel. Being an area variance can a sunset clause be put on it to see how it works and if it does create a nuisance. Ms. Hussey: What the application doesn’t disclose is that it is more or less a business enterprise being conducted at the Church in a residential zone. Mr. Darrow: That is why I was surprised that piece of property being a C. Mr. Colby: If you would look at maybe with a perspective of for instance a special missions collection, for instance our Church does the One Great Hour of Sharing, they do Salvation Army, there are a number of specific commissions that our Church undertakes. We understand as a Church that every dollar that is put into that contribution is going to laundered through some sort of an organization that is going to distribute those funds so we know that not every dollar collected is going to be generated direct intact because we as a Church do not have the ability to specifically to target ear mark visibly identify that each of these dollar funds generated have gone to exactly to who we said they should because we don’t know all the people are, many are outside the country. In that sense this will be a similar distribution effort because St. Paul has the ability to make certain that the donation goes to and has certainly they can’t do it for nothing either, they have a lot of infrastructure, we get a benefit, because they give us a token fee for the amount of clothing generated. On the other hand, public also had a spot to go where they know it is going to be generating moneys for a mission project through St. Paul. Unfortunately nothing is 100%. Mr. Darrow: Counsel, being this in a R-1 there is no type of use variance needed to go along with this, being money is exchanging hands? Mr. Rejman: But it is minimal. Mr. Darrow: It is minimal but it is still, I mean whether you are selling one candy bar out of your house a week or selling 50 a day, still a business. Ms. Hussey: I understand your concern I don’t think it quite rises to that level. What I am looking at, I want to check with Brian what about a special permit. (Talks to Brain Hicks). Mr. Rejman: While that is going on Mr. Darrow: I think this is a good thing Mr. Rejman: Are there any more questions for the applicant? None. We are going to close the public portion, you can have a seat. We are going to discuss. Mr. Darrow: I think it is a positive thing, I think there is a lot of good that is going to come from this but I am afraid of what might happen with extra traffic in an R-1, the clothes, I just have some concern that is why I was hoping maybe it could be something that had a sunset clause. Mr. Rejman: I was thinking along the lines of a special permit. Mr. Darrow: That works. Mr. Hicks: The Church is the allowed use and with this drop off or donations whether there is a exchange between the Church and the collecting party is not really affecting the residential area. I am not seeing anything other than a charitable organization some how maintaining a shed there so it can be used as a drop off. Ms. Hussey: The sign? Mr. Hicks: The sign is an issue for the simple fact that it is a portable sign, they are only allowed in a festival, bazaar, temporary sales, special occasions anything like that type of function. The issue is that it plans on being there day in and day out. This will be the third sign on this property I believe, you have the Church sign, the A-frame sign and the child care sign. That is the issue because now the signage needs to be more of a commercial quality in a residential zone. This is what we have to maintain is that it is a residential zone even though the Church is a quasi public use are allowed in a R-1 residential zone, we don’t want to commercialize it signage. Mr. Darrow: Would the combination multi-message sign be more the way to go where it would get the message across for all 4 at one fixed professionally done unit? If they could get the message on the same square footage they currently have, but be fixed. I really didn’t how much square footage they have in sign line Mr. Rejman: So you are saying they have to decrease the square footage on the existing sign to have this sign. Mr. Darrow: So that they could get the day care, to get them all on to one you don’t end up with sandwich board signs for the whole front of the property. Ms. Hussey: The issue is the day care sign wasn’t disclosed in the application or mentioned in the application, so we don’t have any dimensions for that. When zoning looks at properties you look at the entire property so we don’t distinguish between tenants. I don’t believe the board has the information. Ms. Brower: Is this sign really necessary on the sidewalk because it looks as if once it is established and known people wouldn’t need a constant reminder on the sidewalk. Put this by the shed for a while or make it truly temporary removable sign. Mr. Colby: It that will make a different we can make arrangements to have removed daily or whatever. Mr. Rejman: I don’t think time is of the essence here and I believe that we could things right instead of having to come back. Is anyone is opposed to having this tabled until next month so that all parties involved get together and come up with a plan. Ms. Hussey: There are two separate variances they are requesting, one is an area variance for the shed and the other is for the sign, do you want to table both? Mr. Darrow: I am comfortable to vote on the shed, but I too hesitate on the sign. Ms. Hussey: It is up to the board. Mr. Rejman: Like to have a motion on variance #1 the square footage. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant United Church of Auburn 192 square foot over the allowed 150 square foot for accessory structure. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that. Mr. Rejman: Should we mention a use for this? Ms. Hussey: Not necessary. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Motion approved. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant United Church of Auburn a variance for the placement of the second shed on the property. Mr. Darrow: I’ll second the motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Motion approved. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we table the placement of a A-frame advertising sign until we get more information to be able to act on. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Get together with Planning and Codes see what you can come up with. Mr. Colby: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2006 73 Prospect Street, R1 zoning district, Patrick and Loretta Malone, applicants. Area variances for home occupation sign: 9 square feet over allowed 2 square foot and placement of sign in front yard. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 73 Prospect Street. State your name for the record. Mr. Malone: Patrick Malone. Mr. Rejman: OK, Patrick, tell us what you would like to do there. Mr. Malone: We would like to have installed a free standing wooden sign, double sided, to advertise our day care business. The sign would be done by Signature Signs & Designs and we have a diagram of what they are proposing. Mr. Rejman: Yes, we have a copy. Mr. Malone: The sign would not illuminated, it would be located on our property approximately 30 feet back from the street, 60 feet on one side of the property. We are on an acre of land; our house sits quite a distance back from the street. The sign would advertise our business I don’t believe the sign would in any way change the nature of the neighborhood. Being on Prospect Street, it is zoned residential, it is a very busy street. Directly across the street is a Church with a sign and a commercial property Sunnycrest that also has a sign. The neighbors that would see the sign from their house are our two next door neighbors on either side and while I didn’t include it in your package, I can give you now, letters in support and signatures from the neighbors on either side of us, Mike and Patty Luksa on one side and Carl and Charlene Squires on the other side. The sign is not intended in any way to change the size or operation of our business. We are a licensed day care facility. We have been in existence for 6 years. Nothing is going to change in terms of the size of the group; nothing is going to change in any way in terms of what we are asking you. The purpose of the sign what it will do is let the community better know that we are there. I believe there is a great benefit to the community knowing that we are there. I believe we have a very exemplary day care and that is not just my opinion I can get a lot of testimony. We have never had a violation. What has happened over the years of us in being in operation over the years brought the need for is fact that: 1. The advent of all day kindergarten has the reduced the number of people that we are now catering to and 2. In the past number of years there has been an increase in day care centers, which kind of have an unfair advantage over us. That is what we are attempting to address. Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Mr. Baroody: Nice job with the application. Mr. Rejman: Very nice job. Any one wishing to speak for or against this application? None. We will close the public portion and discuss this. Mr. Westlake: I live in the area, I drive through there every day, and there are two signs across the street. I find no problem with it. Mr. Darrow: I think the sign is overwhelming in size for a residential area. Yes it is great inexpensive front yard advertising but if you want to advertise, that is why we have the yellow pages, the paper, I just Mr. Rejman: But is it out of line with the size of the lot? Mr. Darrow: It is too big, yes, I am looking at what the size is required for a home office, you are allowed 2 square foot for home occupation. Mr. Rejman: That is based on, if you think about it, they came up with that based on the average City lot. Mr. Baroody: I have been there when the kids come in and out and they have cones in the driveway Mr. Darrow: It is not how it is run, I just think the sign the overall size of the sign is just not fitting the character of that neighborhood. Mr. Westlake: Wait a minute now, I would agree with you except right across the street there are two signs Mr. Darrow: That is a slice of commercial property. Mr. Westlake: The Church Mr. Darrow: The Church is allowed in residential, but not Sunnycrest. Mr. Westlake: I see no problem with it. Mr. Darrow: OK. Ms. Brower: I think the 90 square feet is going to look proportionally, I don’t think it will be overwhelming, it is a big area. Mr. Rejman: That is why they put so many of us on the board, we all have different ideas. Moving forward, I need a motion. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Patrick and Loretta Malone of 73 Prospect Street a 9 foot of the allowable 2 foot for a total of 11 square foot sign in their front yard. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman VOTING AGAINST: No, due to the fact that the sign does not fit the characteristics of the neighborhood. Mr. Rejman: Motion approved. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a second motion that we grant Patrick and Loretta Malone of 73 Prospect Street for the placement of the sign in their front yard, 30 feet from the street line. Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman VOTING AGAINST: No Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Mrs. Malone: Thank you so much. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2006 77 Holley Street, R1A zoning district, Larry Hemans, applicant. Area variances for accessory structure at rear of house: 22.5 feet of required 25 rear yard setback and 10 feet for separation from pre-existing garage. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 77 Holley Street. Mr. Hemans: Good evening, my name is Larry Hemans. I think I will come back since you are missing numbers. Mr. Rejman: We are missing one, that is your prerogative. Mr. Hemans: You are only missing one? Mr. Rejman: We are only missing one now, so you need 4 out of 6 of us. Mr. Hemans: OK. Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there. Mr. Hemans: I have already done it basically. There were about 12 maple trees in my back yard and like 30 stalks about 30 feet high and my neighborhoods wanted them out of there and I wanted them out of there so I took them out. After that I had a big mud hole so I poured a pad a concrete pad and then I put a roof over it and I put a fence back up where the other fence was and it looks beautiful and every one is happy with it now and I am happy with it, but I need a variance. Mr. Rejman: All right. Questions from the board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against? None. Tell us these two letters that you have here that you attached. Mr. Hemans: One is from a lady that lives right behind me and the other is from the guy that lives on the other side of me and there is an abandoned house on my other side, so these are the only two neighbors that will be affected. They are all for it. Mr. Darrow: I am a little confused it says in the rear of your property Mr. Hemans: Right Mr. Darrow: 25 rear yard set back, is that because it actually becomes physically part of the house? Is that why it is encroached upon? Ms. Hussey: Fence is the property line. Mr. Rejman: The fence is the property line. Mr. Darrow: Oh! Mr. Rejman: There is no rear yard. Mr. Darrow: I was thinking all the grass was still his property. Ms. Hussey: No the fence is the rear of the property. Mr. Darrow: Ok. Mr. Hemans: Years ago there was a porch on the back of the house that had a roof on it, that got torn down, that was long before I was there. Mr. Rejman: What is your lot size? Do you know? Ms. Hussey: 67 x 50. Mr. Rejman: Very small lot. Mr. Hemans: If you read the one letter from the lady next door she describes how she is really happy with it and that it is much nicer than it was before, nothing but a mud hole. Mr. Rejman: Final call for questions. None. Have a seat and we will discuss this. Mr. Darrow: Small lot, it looks nice. Mr. Rejman: Improving the neighborhood. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Larry Hemans of 77 Holley Street a 22 ½ foot rear yard set back variance for the purpose of erecting a covered patio at the rear of his residence as so submitted in attached photos. Mr. Westlake: I second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: We also have to adjust the 10-foot separation. Mr. Darrow: Yes, I was assuming we wanted separate motions. I would like to make a motion that we grant Larry Hemans of 77 Holley Street a 10-foot separation variance from the pre-existing garage for the purpose of erecting a covered accessory to the house as submitted in attached photos. Mr. Westlake: I second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Mr. Hemans: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2006 16 Hamilton Avenue, R1 A zoning district. Peter Maneri, applicant. Area variances for 8’ x 22’ shed: 2’ of 4’ required distance from back property line and 26 square feet over the allowed 150 square feet. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 16 Hamilton Avenue, are you here. Mr. Maneri: Hi, my name is Peter Maneri; I live at 16 Hamilton Avenue. I want to build a tool shed. Mr. Rejman: You need a shed to put things in. So the 8 x 22 foot shed is 26 square feet over the allowable. Mr. Maneri: Correct. I was using it to hide my neighbor’s garage as you can see in that one photo it is a eye sore. Mr. Rejman: I enjoy the photos with the application. Mr. Darrow: It makes it a lot easier. Mr. Maneri: I do have a letter from the neighbor with the garage; he has no problem with it. Mr. Westlake: He has a very neat house. Mr. Rejman: Letter dated June 26, 2006. I will make it a part of the record. “To the City of Auburn Zoning Board. My name is Fred Dean and I reside at 17 Burt Avenue, Auburn, New York. My residence is directly south of Peter M. Maneri’s residence at 16 Hamilton Avenue. My understanding is Mr. Maneri would like to build a tool shed. Mr. Maneri would like my permission to build his shed 1’ of the 4’ required distance from my property line. I have no problems with this at all and give Mr. Maneri my permission to build it at the 2’ distance. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 315 255-1020. Thank you. Mr. Fred Dean.” Questions from the board? Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? We will close the public portion, have a seat. Mr. Maneri: Thank you. Mr. Darrow: I personally felt that 150 square foot maximum that we have just doesn’t fit the current standards of today when you consider what you have around the house these days and maybe should be looked at when we do the next revision. I see no problem with this. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Peter Maneri of 16 Hamilton Avenue, a 2 foot rear yard variance of the required 4 foot. Mr. Darrow: I second the motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a second motion that we grant Peter Maneri a 26 foot variance of the allowable 150 square foot for a shed that is going to by 8 feet x 22 feet for a total of 176 square foot. Mr. Bartolotta: I second the motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Mr. Maneri: Thank you very much, I appreciate it. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2006 144 E. Genesee Street, R1 zoning district, James and Maureen Jarvis, applicants. Use variance to convert single family dwelling to two-family dwelling. _________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 144 E. Genesee Street please. Mr. Bergan: Good evening members of the board. My name is Bob Bergan, I am an attorney with the Boyle & Anderson office and I here with Jim and Maureen Jarvis. We have an application before you. If I could I would like to make a few comments about the application and Jim and Maureen will certainly be able to answer any specific questions. One of the reasons I am here with them is I am their attorney and I did represent them, I have represented the Jarvis’ for many years and I represented them when they purchased this property on E. Genesee Street from the City of Auburn. The property itself had been taken over by the City for failure to pay taxes and it was sold at auction in August of 2003 and it actually closed in November of 2003. This property had become I believe a troubled property. It had been owned by a number of landlords in the City of Auburn for many years, Mr. Kerstetter was in the chain of title, Soules & Dunn and the last owner was Mr. Paul Meyer. They collectively or the last owner did not treat the property well. It had originally been a single family home obviously it is in a R1 district, however, it had become a 4 family unit or it had been a 4 family unit for decades. Obviously the current zoning ordinance was in effect because it was recognized by the City as non-conforming use as a 4-unit property. It was under that status that Mr. & Mrs. Jarvis purchased the property in November of 2003. As I said the property at that time was in a state of grave disrepair. Mr. & Mrs. Jarvis had what I believe then and still do a very good plan to improve this property for the benefit of themselves but for the neighborhood and for the City of Auburn. Their plan was to remodel and repair the building and then be in a position to lease it to responsible adults. Basically make it a good place to live. To that end they contributed or made significant investments in the property. I don’t believe that we attached photographs to our package that was submitted which would be my fault, I would be happy to supply before and after pictures if you would like, but it was in dreadful shape. Mr. Jarvis and his wife Maureen when they originally purchased it they did do themselves or hire out for structural repairs to the building to make it more stable. They put on an entirely new roof, tore off the old roof completely and they had the property painted by commercial painters. They contributed $17,000 towards this. I should mention that the purchase price was $34,200 which they paid to the City for title. The next step in the renovation process was to renovate and remodel the apartments, again working under the status of this building as a 4-unit structure as it was when the City of Auburn owned it. This work was to be done by Mr. Jarvis, he is in charge of all the buildings owned by Eberhart over in Skaneateles, he is a very handy skilled person. He had intended to work on this himself and where need to be hire contractors to assist him. He had applied for a building permit which I believe was issued in August of 2003 even though the City did not transfer title until November, but there was a building permit issued and again as I said the purpose was to greatly improve this property. However, as outlined in the application, Mr. Jarvis encountered very serious medical problem during the time that he was working on this property. He was diagnosed in October of 2004 with inoperable liver cancer, you can see he is standing here and the reason he is standing here is that he and wife went to physicians throughout the northeast, ultimately in March of 2005 Mr. Jarvis underwent a liver transplant, a living donor transplant which is a fairly new procedure. Their 18-year-old son was the donor. Following the operation which was obviously very serious and significant there was a long period of extended convalesce. During this time as you also might imagine it imposed a really significant financial burden to the Jarvis family, they have 3 children, 1 child in college. So they were in a pickle at that point because they did not the finances to hire outside contractors to complete the job and Mr. Jarvis was unable to do that himself. They did decide at a point during the convalesce that perhaps what they should do is try to sell the property because of the burdens and problems they have encountered. I believe it was after the property had been listed, Mr. & Mrs. Jarvis received a letter from the City indicating that the non-conforming use had expired, it had been abandoned because it had been more than one year since they took title to the property. So at this point this property is now in a R-1 a single family home. The interior has not been remodeled despite some effort Mr. & Mrs. Jarvis and the realtor have determined that it is really at this point un-saleable as a single family home. There was attached to the packet a letter from their real estate broker indicating the problems that they have with this. I have been in the house again I think Mr. & Mrs. Jarvis did the proper thing as far as the City is concerned by putting their resources and their effort into improving the way the house looks, which looks really good now, if you have driven by, looks very nice with the new roof and painting. The inside is a different matter, it needs a lot of work. Mr. Jarvis spent quite a bit of time talking with Mr. Hicks, he, I and Maureen have discussed this and the plan we felt was the most fair for them and best preserve the character of neighborhood for that neighborhood would be to seek a use variance so that it converted to a two family home. Our idea would be that, again, if this board is kind enough to draft this variance, that work would be completed whether or not the property would be sold, that we do not know what the future will hold, but their intent has not changed since the time they bought the property from the City and that is to make it into a decent structure much different from what it was, back on the tax role, it is now assessed for $72,000 as result of the City reassessment. What I did in preparation for coming tonight is I did review the sections that you look at in regard to use variances under 305.14 of the Code and I don’t do this every day so if I am telling you things that what you already know, but if you indulge me I would like to just go through the four factors that would seem to apply in granting a use variance. The first is that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return from the property and that this lack of return is substantial. Well I think that the packet does show that at this point with the property being in the condition that it is as a single family that it is un-saleable, that Jarvis’ are unable to utilize a return from this despite their investment of there own hard earned dollars. I think that what they intend to do is break the mold of shoddy apartments that is some times a real blight, by doing quality work and in order to do that it takes significant investment. They are willing to do that without it they don’t see that they receive any return. Second factor is that the hardship must be unique and does not apply to a substantial part of the neighborhood. Well, I think it is unique because this is in an R-1 although there are other properties in the area that are not single family homes, this has for all intents and purposes always been a 4 family home. Again the reason they purchased it originally was because the fact that it was a 4 family structure. I think the hardship is unique in that through the significant medical problems Mr. Jarvis experienced through the passage of too many months in complying with the building permit that 4 unit status was lost, we are not seeking that, we are seeking that it be re-established as a 4 unit or 3 unit. So I do believe the hardship that this property has is unique, maybe 50 or 60 years ago it was a fine single-family home, it isn’t now. The third factor is the use variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Again, I think already the work that has been done has improved the character of the neighborhood in that it is a much better structure than it was. Again, with the history of this property being not only a 4 unit, but being filled with tenants in a dilapidating and deteriorating building. I think that allowing this to be done but allowing a variance for this as a 2-unit structure will not only not alter the essential character of the neighborhood but also will solidify it, improve it. Finally the factor that the hardship not be self-created. I thought about this because you know if you get cancer no one would self-create that. It was a set back that did befall the applicant but it was certainly obviously nothing intentional or anything that he could do anything about. If he had not gotten sick, I would say that we wouldn’t be standing here this evening, because the work would have been done, it would be a 4 unit apartment on 144 E. Genesee Street and it would be a very good place. Because of the illness because of the time it took to get over it that has caused the loss of the grandfather status for this. This was not in any stretch any way could be looked as a self-created hardship. In closing at least for my comments, in regard to the use variance, this is a good project, I think it will benefit the City and it would be very much appreciated if you would consider granting the use variance and in regard to the area variance I know that there is a, perhaps Mr. Jarvis would be better suited to speak to this. I know that there is an application for a slight area variance for a two family structure. I just don’t have any particular comments on that. Thank you. Mr. Rejman: We don’t have that area variance. Mr. Hicks: The application for the area variance was put in but it didn’t requirements to apply for an area variance. We couldn’t do the calculations until the application was turned in, at that point we calculated everything and we found that it fit the Code. Mr. Rejman: Yes, everything is all right. Mr. Bergan thank you for reviewing the use definitions with us, that was helpful. Mr. Darrow: I have one question perhaps I am missing it, this is a very well put together packet, what would the year to date expenses of Mr. & Mrs. Jarvis be including the cost of the house, but excluding taxes paid with all the renovations? Mr. Jarvis: (Shows Mr. Darrow where the information is on the application). Mr. Darrow: That includes the purchase of the house? Mr. Jarvis: Yes. Mr. Darrow: OK, thank you. Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? State your name for the record. Mr. Perry: Ken Perry, I live at 143 E. Genesee Street, I actually support this project. Mr. Rejman: Did you have a chance to see any of the drawings or anything? Mr. Perry: No, I actually thought it was another house. Mr. Rejman: Appreciate your comment. Mr. Westlake: The only thing we are doing is just the use variance so we have to do a SEQR. Mr. Darrow: SEQR review has to go first. Mr. Rejman: Is everyone comfortable, no more questions? Mr. Darrow: As far as SEQR review Mr. Rejman: OK, we are going to close the public portion, have a seat. Mr. Darrow: Has everybody had time to read it? If that is the case I would like to put forth a motion that we adopt the short form SEQR review to have a negative impact. Mr. Westlake: I second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Darrow: Is there any other discussion on this application? I will put a motion forward. I would like to make a motion that we grant James and Maureen Jarvis of 3665 Melrose Road a use variance for the property at 144 E. Genesee Street, Auburn, for the purpose of creating a two family dwelling as per all floor plans and plot plans submitted in this packet. Mr. Baroody: I second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: This is the first use variance that we have granted for conversion in a few years. Mr. Darrow: All the information was here. He had every question per answered. Mr. Bergan: Thank you.