City of Auburn, NY - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 08/28/2006

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 08/28/2006


	ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 Members Present: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Staff Present: Mr. Leone Mr. LaDouce Mr. Selvek APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 196 State Street 107 N. Herman Avenue 23 Crescent Avenue 48 E. Genesee Street APPLICATION TABLED: 150 Grant Avenue 26 Bradley Street Mr. Rejman: Good evening. This is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight there are six members we are short one. We are going to work on the area variances first they are normally less problematic and we do have a request from 107 S. Herman Avenue to come first, they have an issue with time tonight, so we will do that. Tonight on our agenda we have: 150 Grant Avenue 196 State Street 107 S. Herman Avenue 23 Crescent Avenue 26 Bradley Street 48 E. Genesee Street Before we move on, any corrections to the minutes of last. Mr. Darrow thank you very much I had a senior moment and couldn’t make it. No correction, stand as printed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 107 S. Herman Avenue, R1 Zoning district. Ralph & Mary Estrich, applicants. Area variance for placement of a garage closer to property lines than allowed. ____________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 107 S. Herman Avenue, are you here tonight? Yes, step forward to the podium. State your name for the record. Speak clearly. Mrs. Estrich: Mary Estrich. Mr. Estrich: Ralph Estrich. Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there. Mrs. Estrich: We want to make our garage useful. Some how when they first built the garage they put it behind the house. When we first moved into the house years ago, 30 years ago, I did try to use the garage a few times, but I also hit the end of the house when I came out of the garage. So for that many years we have never used the garage and now that we are retired we would like to be able to use the garage, so we want to move it or expand it which ever works the best cost effective way to do it. We called a couple of contractors and a few said they would come and never showed and others said get a variance and then talk to them. That is what we are asking for a variance so we can make our garage useful. Mr. Rejman: OK, and for the record we are now at full status for members. So you are thinking about moving the whole structure or just adding to the structure? Mrs. Estrich: We are really not sure because we don’t know if we can just pop open one side and extend that side over towards the neighbors or if we can just pick up the whole thing and move it over, which ever is the least costly. Mr. Rejman: In any case you are looking for a 1 foot side yard variance to get a little closer to the property line. Mr. Estrich: I am not sure I heard you right, you said a one what? Mr. Rejman: You are looking for a 1-foot side yard variance. Mr. Estrich: OK, between his yard and my yard. The maximum. Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board? Mr. Westlake: There is a letter here from Dr. Speck and his wife saying they are in favor of it. Ms. Marteney: An additional one from the Shaylers. Mr. Rejman: Any one here wishing to speak for or against the application? Seeing none, come back to the board. Seems fairly routine. Ms. Marteney: Something that will look nice. Mr. Rejman: It would be nice to be able to use your garage. Mr. Westlake: Actually all we are doing is giving them a variance, whatever way they want to do it, that is up to them. Mr. Rejman: Right. Mr. Estrich: Either way. Mr. Rejman: We are going to close the public portion. You have a seat. Do you have a questions (to Mr. Darrow)? Mr. Darrow: Yes. I just want to make sure I understand this completely; you are looking to either move the garage 5 feet to the south or reconstruct the garage so that it is 1 foot from the property line. Mr. Estrich: That would be the maximum that we would go. Mr. Darrow: So it could be 2 foot from the property line? Mr. Estrich: Yes. Mr. Darrow: OK. But initially what you would like to do is take the garage, have building movers move it 5 foot to the south so it lines up better with your driveway. Mr. Estrich: That is correct, yes. Mr. Darrow: Thank you. Mrs. Estrich: Thank you. Mr. Rejman: Do you have an idea how to frame that? Mr. Darrow: No. Mr. Westlake: Just give them a 1-foot side yard variance. Mr. Rejman: For the construction or movement? Mr. Darrow: We give them a 2 foot variance that allows them to be 1 foot from the property or up to 1 foot from the property line if we give them a 2 foot variance. Nothing says they have to use the entire 2-foot. Mr. Leone: It should read that the applicants are requesting a 2-foot variance. Mr. Rejman: We are changing the application. Let’s amend that per recommendation of counsel. Mr. Darrow: Any other discussion? I would like to make a motion that we grant Ralph and Mary Estrich of 107 S. Herman Avenue, a 2-foot side yard variance for the purpose of relocating a usable garage to 1 foot off their south property line or expanding. Mr. Baroody: I will second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: The application has been approved. Good luck with your project. Mr. Estrich: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 150 Grant Avenue. C3 Zoning district. Walgreens/Andrew Wright, applicants. Area variances for attention getting devices (signs). __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 150 Grant Avenue. Mr. Wright: Hello, I am Andrew Wright and this is Gina Frisicano, we both work for Walgreens Company. Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you are seeking here. Mr. Wright: You probably see it in the package there, I actually left my copy at home, not home, but in the office there. On one of the sheets of the property, there are light poles on the property and there should be 6 of them. From what I understand from talking with the gentleman in the Codes Office there are only 3 that we can go for because of how the property is done. What we are trying to do here is our company at the stores has poles that are very high up almost to the light themselves, we have banners one on each side, that say, they talk about our 1 hour photo development and the other will say open 24 hours, one on each side. I bought an actual size that we can roll out so that you can see it. Mr. Rejman: Can we see that? Mr. Wright: Pole by pole, one on each side, they sit way up high near the light. Mr. Rejman: What is the life expectancy of that particular sign? Mr. Wright: According to how the wind blows here in New York, usually you will get about a good 24 months or 3 years because of what it is made out of. Mr. Rejman: They are replaced on a Mr. Wright: That is what each store manager is responsible for making sure the property stays, store looks good on a continual basis. After they are installed we will usually contract with a company that usually does are lighting as far the light poles, they usually take care of that for us. Mr. Rejman: The theme doesn’t change until the sign wears out, is that it? Mr. Wright: I have been with the company 15 years and these are the only ones we have ever had. They say the same thing over the 48 states; they all say the same thing. Mr. Rejman: Just trying to understand the concept here. Mr. Wright: Haven’t seen any others. Mr. Rejman: I have a question for Codes. Does this come into the grant square footage required? Mr. LaDouce: It should. Mr. Rejman: Would this application need to also have a square footage assigned to it? Just checking I don’t know. Mr. LaDouce: You may be correct. Mr. Baroody: Seems he would have to apply for additional square footage. Mr. Rejman: Andrew, how far away do you live? Mr. Wright: My house is in Cayuga. Mr. Rejman: I was thinking of two different options here. We can table until next month or we could put it toward the end, we could go downstairs and go into executive session here and give us the square footage that is necessary to make the project work. Mr. Darrow: The only thing with that is if we have questions for Codes or something on another matter and they are tied up calculating the square footage on this. I would rather see it tabled and that way it can be thorough and we are not missing anything when we are calculating how many square feet there are. Mr. Rejman: Am I correct in assuming that is an important thing? Mr. Darrow: Absolutely. Mr. Rejman: Because we don’t want some one coming back to us for other business. Mr. Leone: There are two ways of doing this, either table like you said make sure we have the exact square footage that we will need or we could just have Ed LaDouce from Codes calculate what the additional square footage would be. I don’t know what the wishes of the board is, certainly if you are inclined on such short notice we should just take care of it this evening if not then have them come back next month. It would be my impression that Walgreens is looking to get these banners up yesterday. Mr. Wright: Yes, something that was missed when they applied for it. Mr. Darrow: This was on our agenda two weeks and it was a no show. Mr. Baroody: I think we should table it for the month to make the proper adjustments to the application and then put it through. Mr. Rejman: If we rush it and miss something again, then we are back here a third time. Mr. Wright: OK. Mr. Darrow: Plus it will help us so this time when we do the lot survey or drive by we can physically imagine what is going to be there and what it is going to do to the character of the area. Mr. Rejman: Those are 2 x 3 or 2 x 4? Mr. Wright: 2 x 4. Mr. Rejman: 16 square feet. Those are 2 x 4, two on each pole that is 16 and there are 3 poles Ms. Marteney: They are doubled sided 32 x 3 – 96 square feet of additional signage. You already had approval to have additional signage above what you were allowed to have. Mr. Wright: I think so because of the reader board. Ms. Marteney: The reader board and your big sign. Mr. Wright: Right. Ms. Marteney: You need 96 additional feet. Mr. Westlake: I make a motion that we table this until next month. Mr. Wright: OK. Mr. Darrow: I second the motion. Mr. Rejman: All in favor? All in favor – no one opposed. See you next month. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 196 State Street. C1 Zoning district. Lee Gauthier, applicant. Area variance for 6’ privacy fence along frontage of State Street. Variance required for solid fence & height. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 196 State Street please. Mr. Gauthier: My name is Lee Gauthier. Mr. Rejman: Ok, Lee and what would you like to do there? Mr. Gauthier: I was working back and forth with Brian and I think what was allowable was a 4 foot fence out front and 6 or 8 feet down the side rear, what I would like to do is put a 6 foot along the whole property and that partial fence isn’t going to keep any body out, a 6 foot fence at least will be high enough to keep people out of that area. Pretty nasty house next door, had a lot of crime, you may have read about it in the paper a few times. Want to put a 6-foot fence along the whole property instead of a 4-foot in the front and 6 or 8 in the back. Mr. Rejman: Ok. Fences are kind of like locks they only keep honest people out. So a difference between a 4-foot and a 6-foot to a burglar really isn’t much of a deterrent. Mr. Gauthier: Part of the reason being when you have a BBQ and things like that I don’t want a 4 foot fence in that area. I believe the rear is 8 foot high any way and the sides will be 6 and the front would be 4. Rather than going with a 4 foot I rather do this with a 6-foot and 8 foot around the whole lot. Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Mr. Baroody: You are just fencing in the parking lot so to speak; you are still going to have one entrance for the restaurant part? Mr. Gauthier: They can only access it from the bar, right. Mr. Baroody: No parking at all? Mr. Gauthier: No, no parking at all. Mr. Darrow: This is the lot where the house was that burned down then the garage which was recently leveled. Mr. Gauthier: No, the garage is still there, we are going to reside it and kept that for storage and we will have a pavilion over the back top area. Mr. Darrow: Can you explain where you want the fence to run again because there is nothing on the drawing. Mr. Gauthier: Around the whole property on State Street you have to keep it 3 feet from the sidewalk, so I have to go 3 foot back from the sidewalk on State Street and run the property line on the north and east sides. Mr. Darrow: What kind of fence is it? Mr. Gauthier: I want to put a wood scallop. Mr. Darrow: Closed? Mr. Westlake: This is going right to the back of the building? Mr. Gauthier: Going north, east and on State Street. Mr. Baroody: Only way to access this is through the bar. Mr. Gauthier: There will be a gate for the apartment upstairs. Mr. Darrow: You are not using this for any parking strictly Mr. Gauthier: No it is going to be closed in totally there is going to be a pavilion in the middle of the lot. Mr. Westlake: Going to be used for outdoor parties? Mr. Gauthier: Yes, used for BBQ’s, outdoor parties, Mr. Darrow: Similar to the Scoreboard on Washington Street. Mr. Gauthier: Like the S-K Post with a pavilion. Mr. Rejman: Exactly like the Scoreboard, years ago. Mr. Gauthier: Right next door, Swifty’s, there is a 6 foot stockade fence around their property, it is 6 foot on Perrine Street and down their property line. Mr. Rejman: Ok, any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, we will come back. Final questions. Ok, close the public portion. Have a seat. Great analogy, exactly what this is. Mr. Darrow: Except no point of that was on the street. It was all in the back and on the side. The 6-foot right next t the walk Ms. Marteney: It is not going to obstruct any one vision. Mr. Darrow: Oh, no, no, not going to obstruct that. Mr. Bartolotta: If there was parking, it would be a problem. Actually it would be more of a problem if it was parking. Mr. Westlake: I guess we have to do a short environmental assessment form first. Mr. Rejman: We do. Mr. Selvek: SEQRA is required for this because it is an area variance that is not specific to a side yard type act nor is it a single family or two family property, so area variances that are merging properties or are not side yard set backs require a SEQRA as well. Mr. Rejman: All right, will you read us through that then, please. Mr. Selvek: With regards to SEQRA I would call your attention to C-2 under any adverse effects associated with the following and this deals specifically with aesthetic, agricultural, historical or neighborhood character. The only adverse effect that could be potential is just the aesthetic impact for a 6-foot tall chain link fence in a neighborhood setting. Other than that I don’t feel that there is any adverse effect. Ms. Marteney: You said chain link, he said solid wood scallop. Mr. Selvek: The application said chain link. Ms. Marteney: The SEQRA says chain link fence Mr. Rejman: Would the applicant come back for a second please. Can you clarify what type of fence you are going to use. Mr. Gauthier: I do want to put a scalloped wood fence around the whole property. Ms. Marteney: On the SEQRA that you signed it said chain link. Mr. Selvek: No. 13 on the application it says installing a chain link fence. Mr. Rejman: Can we amend that? Mr. Gauthier: We were allowed on the rear but not in the front Mr. Baroody: Six-foot wooden tall fence. Mr. Selvek: Given that the aesthetic value of a wood fence I think is much greater than that of a chain link fence. Mr. Rejman: I would agree with that in this situation. Mr. Westlake Will look better than what was there. Mr. Rejman: It is an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we find no negative impacts of the short form SEQRA review for 196 State Street for the purpose of erecting 6 foot scalloped wooden fence as submitted on plot plan. Mr. Westlake: I second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Ok. With that behind us. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Lee Gauthier a 2 foot high variance that allows him to put up a 6 foot scalloped wood fence around the perimeter of his property located at 196 State Street. 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. Leone: Can I make one more change to the application? I would suggest put it along the perimeter of State Street lot. Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 23 Crescent Avenue. R1 Zoning district. Robert Usowski and Pat Galbally, applicants. Area variance for addition to garage closer to property lines than allowed. ___________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 23 Crescent Avenue, please. State your names. Mr. Usowski Robert Usowski. Ms. Galbally Pat Galbally. Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there at 23 Crescent Avenue. Ms. Galbally: I would like to put a building on the end of a deck, put in a Jacuzzi. Mr. Rejman: You want to put an addition to the rear of the existing attached garage. Ms. Galbally: Yes. Mr. Darrow: Is it an enclosed addition or just a deck. Ms. Galbally: Little confused on that – not an exactly an add on 3 feet from the garage. Mr. Darrow: Is it going to be enclosed on 4 sides? Mr. Usowski: Our garage is 4 feet from the property line. Mr. Darrow: I thought I noticed that when I looked at the property. Mr. Westlake: So it is already done. Ms. Galbally: Just a little bit. Mr. Westlake: Is this the neighbor’s? Mr. Usowski: Yes that is the neighbor’s. Mr. Westlake: Something similar to that. MS. Galbally: No, it will be nicer than that. Mr. Usowski: There is a tarp over the top so it wouldn’t get wet. Mr. Rejman: Let me see if I have this straight. This addition is connected the existing garage that is attached to the house. Yes? Ms. Galbally: Not connected. Mr. Darrow: An accessory structure. Ms. Galbally: I would like to leave it the way it is and if it needs to be connected, we will connected it. Ms. Marteney: Where is the door? Ms. Galbally: Across from my garage door. Mr. Westlake: If they did attach it, they wouldn’t need a variance, is that correct? Mr. LaDouce: An accessory structure Mr. Westlake: If they did attach it to the house Mr. LaDouce: They don’t need one Mr. Westlake: Then they don’t need a variance at all. Keep it in line with the house. Mr. Darrow: All that they actually need then, they don’t need to attach it to the garage just the 3 foot side yard variance, treated as an accessory structure, correct? Has to be attached! Ms. Marteney: Other wise it would have to be 10 feet from the house. Mr. Darrow: So attaching to the breeze way would be sufficient. Mr. LaDouce: No. Mr. Darrow: No? Mr. Leone: 10 feet on an accessory structure, that would be the cleanest way. Mr. Darrow: Exactly. Mr. Leone: How far is it from the house? Ms. Galbally: 3 feet. Mr. Darrow: So they need a 7-foot variance then and treated as an accessory structure, would that be correct? Mr. Leone: Yes. Mr. Darrow: So then would you like to amend your application that you are requesting a 7 foot side yard variance for your accessory structure? Mr. Leone: No, they need a 3-foot side yard variance and 7-foot rear. Mr. Darrow: Ok. Mr. Rejman: Is there any one wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Questions from the board. Ms. Marteney: No, but I would say this is a nice packet with lovely photos. Mr. Rejman: Photos are very helpful. Go ahead have a seat; we will close the public portion. Any questions, comments, or concerns. Mr. Darrow; I would like to make a motion that we grant Robert Usowski and Pat Galbally of 23 Crescent Avenue a 7 foot rear property area variance for the purpose of erecting a accessory structure, 10 x 10 as submitted in packet. Mr. Westlake: I 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. Ms. Galbally: Thank you. Mr. Usowski: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 26 Bradley Street, R1 Zoning district. Jason Barry, applicant. Use variance for building an accessory structure (pole barn) on an unimproved lot. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 26 Bradley Street please. Mr. Driscoll: My name is Jim Driscoll, I am here on behalf of Mr. Barry, who couldn’t make it because of his work schedule. Mr. Rejman: Ok, tell us what you would like to do there. Mr. Driscoll: The property currently is a vacant piece of land. There are NYSEG lines crisscrossing the property and you cannot construct a house on this piece of land. He was hoping to construct a 36’ by 36’ pole barn to use for storage. There is a 15-foot easement in the front of the property and the back of the property the power lines cross, you should have a copy of the survey map there. Mr. Rejman: You said that he is unable to put a structure, a residence, why is that? Mr. Driscoll: Something about NYSEG not being able to use the lines. He wants to clean the lot up and put a storage building there to store his toys. Mr. Rejman: Questions? Mr. Westlake: If you can’t put a residence there why could you put a garage there? What is the difference? Mr. Driscoll: The garage wouldn’t be up to the power line. Mr. Rejman: There is something about our residences and proximity to high voltage but I think it has something to do because you are in there 24/7 sort of thing. That is once instance where a storage building is considered a ok use, you know. I ran into this years ago, but NYSEG had all the footages. There is a footage requirement, you can’t put a residence but you can put a storage building. I am not even sure if the SPCA would let you put a kennel. Any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Have a seat for a moment (to Mr. Driscoll). Sure come up and state your name. Mr. Carbarry: Joe Carbarry. The thing is it could be 12,000 or 30,000 volts; you have to have a buffer 30 feet maybe 75 feet. It is a residence 1 there. I can’t see a barn, it is going to have clapboard on it, is it going to have a black top driveway or is he going to use the lot for garbage. Is he going to pile wood on it? Mr. Rejman: Ok, good questions. Mr. Carbarry: This was dated the 17^th and we didn’t get it until the 26^th, Saturday. The woman across the street she just bought the house off of Mr. Barry and she didn’t get a letter on it. She didn’t get a letter and she is going to be looking at that thing. I was wondering if it was going to be on Bradley Street or Case Avenue. DeOrio was suppose to when he had disposal plant designed, he was to landscape with bushes and everything. I have pictures here; it really is not a bad lot. I have lived there with the disposal plant and Taurus. These are the poles (referring to pictures) these poles have been there for 50 years, they come out of the substation on State Street so they have high voltage. Here is a picture from my house. I just had my assessment raised pretty high and I went squawked about it and they told me to move, my family has lived there since 1880. We use to own that lot, we grew raspberries on it, we had it for quite a few years. Not a bad looking place, people take care of it down there. I just wondered what the barn is, is it a two car garage, is it a two story thing, is it going to have plasterboard on the outside of it. Mr. Darrow: The application stated it is 36 feet x 36 feet pole barn construction. Mr. Carbarry: 36 feet x 36 feet? What is going to be on the outside of it? The Gas & Electric told me to have them hold off until they find out just how Mr. Darrow: It would be 23 feet to the north and to the south of the building Mr. Carbarry: What about the buffer zone? Mr. Darrow: I am just telling you what he included in the package to try to help you out. Mr. Carbarry: They moved those wires about 10 or 15 years ago, they moved them 20 feet west. They put the pole across because it was in our yard my old homestead and they moved it across the street so the wires 20 foot to the west which would give him more room to put the garage up you know. Mr. Rejman: The wires are one concern that says this R1 property cannot have a residential structure, runs to the hardship case. You have property that you can’t put a residential structure on, so what do you do with it? Mr. Darrow: The thing that makes me uncomfortable about that is we don’t have anything in our packet from him with something from NYSEG stating that, we are taking his word for it that you can not have a residential structure, that there is no spot on there that it could be plotted, miss it and come within whatever distances. Mr. Rejman: That is true, just his word and my word. Mr. Carbarry: I called NYSEG today we aren’t sure we couldn’t get a hold of any body to tell how big the buffer is, it is either 30 feet or 75 feet depending on how much voltage is in the wires. Mr. Rejman: OK. Thank you very much. Have a seat. Mr. Carbarry: Thank you. Mr. Rejman: Question for Codes. Do you have any input on this for us? Mr. LaDouce: They showed the right of ways. Mr. Westlake: What is an unimproved lot? Mr. Rejman: Unimproved lot is just a wooded lot, scrub brush. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against the application? All right let’s come back to the board. Mr. Westlake: I still don’t know what Jason Barry is asking for. Mr. Rejman: He is asking to build a structure on the plot. Mr. Westlake: What is holding him up for doing that? Mr. Darrow: Because it is an R1 and you can’t have an accessory structure on an R1 property without having a residence on it. Mr. Westlake: OK. Mr. Rejman: And he can’t have the residence because of the high voltage. Mr. Darrow: That is where it bothers me to put yourself and the neighbors, if he erects a 36 foot by 36 foot pole barn construction type building, yes he has an accessory structure in an R1 neighborhood, what is the outside of the building going to look like? Is it going to be used for business, is it going to be used for agricultural, is it going to be used for commercial. Is this stuff just going to start littering the lot? When you have some body living there you tend to keep it a little cleaner because it is a residential neighborhood. In my belief it really wasn’t intended for a stand-alone accessory structure building. Mr. Rejman: Let me play devil’s advocate. Somebody comes along and pays $28,000 for the property and say gee, let’s go build a house and NYSEG comes and says “no” you can’t build a house there. Mr. Bartolotta: Is it pre-existing the voltage lines or is it something that came in to be Ms. Marteney: Been there for 50 years. Mr. Bartolotta: So it was there when he purchased the property. Mr. Rejman: Yes. Mr. Baroody: I don’t think the voltage is a concern Mr. Rejman: Oh, yes, voltage is a concern. Mr. Westlake: We really don’t have anything from NYSEG or who ever owns the power lines saying they can’t build a house on it. We are just taking his word for it saying they can’t build a house. Mr. Rejman: Because this is a use permit it all comes into play. Mr. Westlake: Maybe we should table it tonight to get that information Mr. Darrow: Not to mention being a use permit it is also going to need a SEQRA review and there are a couple of points on the SEQRA review where it could end up with a positive impact. Mr. Bartolotta: I think some more detail on the aesthetic and architectural vantage points would be helpful as well. Mr. Darrow: I think his concern is what would clutter around outside. I have one of those properties by me and it is in an R2. Mr. Rejman: How do we ties its hands so that it stays a storage shed. Mr. Darrow: We can’t. Mr. Rejman: Next thing it turns into a commercial. Mr. Leone: I am going to refer to Mr. LaDouce in regards to this. The corner of Logan and Steel there was constructed a 3 bay accessory structure similar to what this gentleman is suggesting. We had a problem at one time someone was using an office out of there and we had to stop it. Mr. LaDouce: Yes. Mr. Leone: So realistically if this gentleman were given this variance this evening he wouldn’t be restricted to anything that you can do in your own personal garage. Mr. LaDouce: Yes. Mr. Baroody: You can grant a variance with restrictions. Mr. Leone: You wouldn’t have to go with restrictions because it would only be for personal use. But I think Mr. Carbarry makes a very good point too, probably would like to see what kind of construction because it is in an R-1 district. Mr. Baroody: Can we afford him the opportunity to table it and get the plans for what he is going to build there? Mr. Rejman: Yes, I think we would like to do that. There are 14 different neighbors that have approved the project; I would have more comfort with voting with more information. Mr. Darrow: We need something from NYSEG; this is a hardship that is not self-created to a point. If he bought the property and those lines have been there for 50 years Mr. Rejman: He is restricted in use. Mr. Darrow: He knew what he bought. He knew the wires were there, he didn’t know that he couldn’t build. Mr. Rejman: Motion to table. Mr. Baroody: Mr. Driscoll should get with Mr. Barry and get the additional information needed on what type of structure he plans on building and some information from NYSEG and bring it to the board next month. Mr. Rejman: I would like to see some more comments from Codes from that other structure on Steel Street. All in favor of tabling. Application tabled. Mr. Leone: Also if he could come up with a survey map. The map that is included in the packet is not a true survey map. So it would be helpful to see where the easements are and the like. Thank you. Mr. Driscoll: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 48 E. Genesee Street, C2 and R2 zoning districts. Family Video Movie Club, applicant. Use variance for commercial use on rear of lot (commercial use in R2 area). Area variances for setbacks and buffering for construction of new commercial building. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 48 E. Genesee Street. Mr. Sciarabba: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is John Sciarabba, I am with Land Tech, we are an engineering firm representing Family Video this evening. With me is Todd Bezenah who is the regional manager of Family Video, who can answer any questions after a short presentation this evening, and also Phil Walker, who is the broker on the project. This project is located at the southwest of Fulton and Genesee Street, it is approximately .6 tens of an acre in size and split zoned. It is kind of unique. We met with the City earlier this spring, we came down to go over planning issues and realized that we had two zones on this parcel, although it is just one tax parcel, so that is basically why we are here this evening, giving us two challenges: one is the area variance and also the other is the use variance. What we are proposing is a 5,000 square foot Family Video Store, located on the south portion of the property. Associated with the building are 33 parking spaces and this site has access to all public utilities. Proposing extensive landscaping, beautify the corner with a rendering; show you a typical building that Family Video puts up. I can tell you more about Family Video but will stop now and have Mr. Bezenah tell you a little bit about the company. Mr. Bezenah: Thanks John. My name is Todd Bezenah; I am the regional director of the State of New York for the Family Video. Our company is actually the third largest video chain in the United States, but we are new to the State of New York. We currently right now, I moved here actually two weeks ago into my house from Detroit, but I have been working in this state for about 10 months and we actually have a location in Geneva that just opened up two weeks ago and is doing very well. Similar old gas station, corner, needs some beautifying and we did that in Geneva. We currently also have stores open in Chili, Brockport, Olean, Jamestown and I have one under full construction in the Buffalo area and are expanding out all the way to Albany. Our company is the third largest video chain, but we are privately owned. We specialize in going into residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods kind of where we would fit in. What makes us unique a little bit, kind of how we fit in with the community, we offer very very low prices, we actually just gave away over a million and half dollars of free movies for kids for their report cards with “A’s”. They come in with their report cards and they get a free movie or game and they really like that. We sponsor a little league team and in Chili we just had an opportunity to sponsor a drive in movie for ChiliFest, we did that for a couple thousand dollars, we showed the Wizard of Oz and all that good stuff and kids came out to the park. That tells you a little bit about how we are as a business coming into a new community. We also had an opportunity to send letters to 50+ neighbors in the neighborhood and we are going to be at the VFW Post on August 24^th to get a little input from them. We feel that is important. We usually do that in all communities that we go, we want their input and we talk about it. Talked with Tom Bryant the owner of the property to the south and looked at his driveway and the fences and what we would do. Really a nice opportunity to talk to some of the residents there. If you have any questions about the video store in general, I can answer anything that you have. I have been with them for 13 years when we had 8 store and during the growth to up to over 470 and we hope to develop another 60 in the State of New York. Any questions about our operation, I would be more than happy to answer any questions about not only the store operations but the business of video in general. John can talk more about the lot and what we are doing there. Mr. Sciarabba: Again why we are here this evening is two reasons; the first one is the area variance. We are requesting a setback of less than the 60-foot buffer associated with it in a residential district. Any body buying this lot and that store, would think they have full use of that building, but you are not with that split zoning it makes a lot harder to sell, I think it would be a hardship on the owner of the property. We did meet with the neighbors about the south property line and got negative feed back at that time and what that allows us to do why we are pushing so far to the south is we understand that Genesee Street is getting renovation, meeting with the Planning staff, this would be a good way to have a set back, well landscaped, good looking entrance to the City and that is what it is pushed back there. Also the parking, 33 cars we have shown on the site plan, although it sounds like a lot it is pretty tight for Family Video, we usually have around 43 and try to accommodate that with a good traffic flow taking into account the one way road and because of that you really can’t put that building any where else. I think the most important thing is what is going on at this site currently and historically with that gas station. Sunoco and every one of these places that I represent them it is always an old gas station so we know what we are going to find there, we are going to have tanks, oil offsets, separators, contaminated soils and every time these guys go in and clean it all up. So what you are going to have is a good company that is willing to come in and spend a lot of money cleaning this corner up, not only for their use while they are here but in the future you are in a clean site. The benefit is for the community as well. That kind of rolls into the use variance, I think any one coming here has the same hurdles and hope that you look at this application, and any questions, we will be happy to answer them. Mr. Bezenah: When we looked at this site, the building in talking with Steve Lynch, the building another hardship is the remediation that is going to have to on there, it is a non-conforming use right now. If we had zoning where it is at, there would be no gas stations allowed there, service stations too. In talking to the owners of the company the only people that that building could go to would be a service station and that is a non-conforming use, they couldn’t use it for a service station so it would be very difficult for them to sell to another service station person because you can’t use it as that sale. The remediation wells would have to be put in there also, can’t put a building on top of those, because you have to have access to them for the gas tanks and for the DEC, so that is another hurdle that we had. Also the curb cut to the north on Genesee Street the building up there might require a little shift in that and the only entrance that we would have would be on Fulton Street, which is a one way street, so to get back in you go all the way around and come up Fulton to access the site. Also on Fulton Street that is one big exit right now, there are no curbs, just comes down the sidewalk so you can line up 10 cars down there and go all at the same time if they wanted to. What we are proposing is curbing that, landscaping that, actually 27 feet of landscaping down the S. Fulton Street side, right now it is concrete, closing it off into one exit, pretty much one entrance from S. Fulton Street, it will be a lot safer and 4 or 5 cars can do whatever they want. I also think it stops people from going the wrong way on a one way, that Do Not Enter sign is kind of buried back in that tree right and I think that will make it a little bit safer for our community. I also talked with the VFW and they were really happy that we would have a parking lot like that because currently they tend to use. We talked a little bit about if they had something that is the great thing about us is that we are accommodating. Mr. Westlake: So you are going to let the VFW park there for their functions? Mr. Bezenah: Yes, we talked about with Joe at our meeting and we are very much like that. We understand that it is a very unique lot but we also have to do what we can to make it fit the neighborhood. Mr. Westlake: What bothers me most is that you are only 5 feet from the rear of your building to the residential area. We require 60 foot. There is 5 foot, you are asking for quite a bit. Mr. Sciarabba: Right a 60 foot buffer for a commercial use for any building set back 25 minimum we are asking 5 which is still substantial. Mr. Westlake: Yes. Mr. Sciarabba: We tried various scenarios but Family Video had an option on this piece, took this building, moved it around. Smallest building that we have done, usually it is 6,000 square feet. They really want to here so it is obvious to me as a representative of them, try to figure a way, looking at this evening, we did have an opportunity to go out to the site again, that is where we have been, that is an issue for us, how to get more room over there and I think if he got another 5 feet by moving that landscape island in the middle shifting some parking down, again having that one way road is really impact on this corner. Mr. Rejman: What is the measurement of the depth of the building if you will, the width going from Mr. Bezenah: 50 feet Mr. Rejman: That is 50 feet there. Mr. Bezenah: 100 x 50. Mr. Rejman: You won’t be utilizing any of the side or Mr. Bezenah: There will be no access; there generally might be a man door for building code. Mr. Bartolotta: A majority of the activity will occur on the front. Mr. Bezenah: Another thing is we wanted to be sensitive to the neighbors to the rear, any body that develops the front for cars, parking Mr. Bartolotta: That is where all the activity is going to take place. Mr. Bezenah: And that is the kind of building in a residential neighborhood that we tend to do on commercial lots. You put the parking in the back of the fence, car doors shutting, lights, radios Mr. Bartolotta: What about lighting in the rear? Mr. Bezenah: Just soft lights, down lights. We have a concern about the proximity of the building as well, the lighting we discussed with him; he was kind of happy with it, keep a little security in the area. It was kind of a counter balance, do we put the building in front, have the parking in the rear and then that is even more of a nuisance that we found to the neighborhood. Kind of like Rite Aid out in front across the street. Mr. Rejman: The building is actually acting as a buffer zone. Mr. Bezenah: We will decorate, we will do what ever we need to in the back of the building, we are putting a 6 foot high fence there, we talked to Mr. Bryant about re-graveling the lot because his driveway comes a little on our property so we are going to shift that over. He has a wooden fence there, we were looking at a privacy type of vinyl fence in the back, little maintenance it works, plant some trees if he wanted. We talked tonight because we also met at the VFW a little bit about the view. Mr. Rejman: OK, let’s go to that. Any one wishing to speak for or against this application? Mr. Bryant: I am Tom Bryant. I am the neighbor to the south. Mr. Rejman: Ok, Tom. Mr. Bryant: My biggest concern and my wife and I we did met with Todd last Thursday and after we got home we got talking and my biggest problem is I have lived in this house for 29 years and I am use to having Pete’s fence there. Right now Pete’s fence is 15 foot inside his property line which by City Code, 20, 30 years ago that is what they had for a gas station, their fence had to be 15 foot inside the property line, that is what I was told years ago. I was down to City Codes Friday to find out some rules, I was concerned again they told me that the properties had to be 25, 25, 10, 7. Basically they are going to put their building 5 foot inside where their fence is now. To me, I want them there, I don’t, I would like to see them there but I just as soon see the building a little further north. This is a building 23 feet high and my kitchen window is right there. If I lived in New York City in a tenement building I could accept it. I am not in New York City I am in Auburn in a two story Victorian. I have no qualms with them. I wish they would take the pine trees down. I do not have that much of a problem with them except for the fact the proximity to the property line. Mr. Rejman: You said you would like the building a little further Mr. Bryant: North Mr. Rejman: A little bit meaning Mr. Bryant: 5 or 10 feet. Basically what we are talking about, I don’t know if you are familiar with Pet’s Mobil where the back of his property there is a wooden fence, that is basically where they want to put the back of the building. It is 15 foot inside the property line as it exists that is from me to your sir. Mr. Rejman: Ok. Mr. Bryant: Basically that is what I am talking about. I am use to something else; if they can go back 5 or 10 feet further away from it I would appreciate it. Whether they can do it or not, I don’t know. Mr. Darrow: Mr. Bryant to the north of your property or your kitchen window, how many feet would you say it is now to your property line. House to property line. Mr. Bryant: You are talking if this is a window, the living room; you are talking about 10 feet. Kitchen is here maybe 12 or 15. Mr. Darrow: Ok. Mr. Baroody: So the fence that is there now is 15 Mr. Bryant: 15 foot inside Mr. Baroody: So they are closer behind the fence the building. Mr. Bryant: Basically yes. Mr. Baroody: You are going to be looking at a wall and not be able to see Genesee Street. Mr. Bryant: Right. I don’t want to scare them away, I don’t want to chase them away, I want to work with them. That is all I have to say. Thank you. Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Any one else wishing to speak for or against the application? Mr. Sciarabba: I would address Mr. Bryant’s concern. Looking at the plan again you have in front of you and the short amount of time as I explained earlier move that island out of the middle, I think we can gain 5 feet for him. If we can get 5or 6 feet, move the building 10 or 11 feet Mr. Rejman: I kind of like that, emergency vehicles, do we have to be concerned about fitting an emergency vehicle between the building and Mr. Darrow: Just personnel. Mr. Rejman: Just personnel, it would be nice to have 10 feet. Mr. Selvek: This is also going to the Planning Board so I am somewhat familiar with it and I spoke with Gary Winslow of the Fire Department regarding that specific question and given that the building going 50 feet deep the Fire Department is comfortable fighting a fire from the front of the building. If it was 60 or 70 feet deep then they want access to the back of the building. Mr. Sciarabba: We will modify that and also work with Mr. Bryant on the type of fence, color. Mr. Rejman: So we want to modify this 55-foot rear variance to 50? Mr. Darrow: Sure. Mr. Rejman: Because we have a split zoned lot which Mr. Darrow: That is a hardship here. Mr. Rejman: I don’t think we have seen that before, have we? Mr. Darrow: R2 and C2. Mr. Leone: I have quick question, this came up before, it was on Grant Avenue the old Don Martino’s property it was split and I am looking at Section 305.96 subsection C(4) which when a lot held in one ownership on the effective date of this chapter is divided by a district boundary line, the entire lot shall be construed to be within the less restrictive district, and I have know Mr. Petrosino for years, I think this is going to Planning correct? Mr. Selvek: May I clarify that for your Tom? Mr. Leone: Yes. Mr. Selvek: The property referred to on Brookside Drive and Grant Avenue, that is what is referred to as split zoned. That basically means that it was one property that in 1993 the City decided to put up a zoning line through and call half of it commercial and the other half residential. This property on the other hand was two separate properties that was merged together crossing these zoning lines so the rear half is zoned residential and the front half is zoned commercial. Mr. Leone: That was going to be my question, so the research has been one on this. Mr. Rejman: The two properties are merged into a single property should we go back to this for the less restrictive? Mr. Leone: No, property has to be after original ownership. Mr. Rejman: From looking at this what do we have? 805 commercial and 20% residential? Who has the jurisdiction to fix these errors? Does it go to council? Mr. Selvek: The council would have to in a case of being re-zoned commercial the property line that would have to go before council. The likeliness of that happening because of it being spot zoning to some extent, is far less than the ability for an applicant to come forward and get a use variance for that portion of the lot to make it a viable commercial lot in its entirety. Mr. Westlake: Why when the City rezoned why didn’t they rezone that whole thing commercial when they did that? You are saying that Brookside Drive was Mr. Leone: This is a different situation. Mr. Westlake: Ok, but why wasn’t that rezoned totally commercial? Mr. Selvek: Quite honestly, it was probably over looked at the time. Mr. Rejman: Stay with the application. Questions from the board? Comfortable? Mr. Darrow: If you remove this 5 foot medium which you have proposed, do you feel that that will cause you more parking, ingress or egress congestion or do you feel it will have no impact? Mr. Sciarabba: It is a challenge to do the one way road of N. Fulton Street, maybe a curb stop instead of a island, a section of concrete. We will take a hard look at it and see what we can do. Mr. Darrow: So you can accept 5 foot further from the property line, you don’t have a problem with that? Mr. Sciarabba: It is a challenge but I think we can work it out with Planning Board and City staff, we can look at that. Mr. Leone: I am not a voting member of this board, but I have a question. Just to make sure that Mr. Bryant is up to speed as well. It is my understanding that the fence that Mr. Bryant referred to is 15 feet inside the property line. Mr. Sciarabba: Currently that is the approximate distance. Mr. Bezenah: Show on our demolition plan on page 2, will give you a better idea. Mr. Bryant: When the father owned the place, I went over and I was told at that time they have to maintain a fence 15 foot inside their property line. Mr. Leone: My concern is when I heard you at the podium sounded like you said the fence 15 feet inside your property line. Mr. Bryant: Right. Mr. Leone: I thought you said you would be happy if they moved this building 5 feet further in from that. Mr. Bryant: Basically the way they are talking, they are basically going to put the fence 5 foot inside where the fence is now. Mr. Sciarabba: The building as proposed is 5 feet off the boundary line, we are willing to move that another 5 feet away so it will be 10 feet from the property line. Is that something you can live with? Mr. Bryant: That is close. Ms. Marteney: The fence is going to be on the property line. Mr. Baroody: Why don’t we afford them the opportunity to table it for a month, put a quick drawing together to satisfy Mr. Bryant. Mr. Darrow: The building is just going to be 5 foot further on page, if any body cares to check, it shows the existing fence line. Mr. Baroody: I want an opportunity for Mr. Bryant to be comfortable. Mr. Darrow: I want to look out for Mr. Bryant as well, but just so the other board members can see exactly where the current fence line is in relationship to the property line. The property line being the heavy dark, the bright dark being the existing fence line, you can see the difference where the new fence Ms. Marteney: The building is going to run parallel to the property line, the real property line, the building is going to run parallel to that. The fence is not parallel to that. Mr. Darrow: Some of his driveway is actually on their property. Ms. Marteney: Correct, but the building is going to be parallel to the property line and the new fence. Mr. Darrow: Mr. Bryant, I just want to make sure you understand what I am trying to say, that the new fence line will be right down here, down your property line. Mr. Bryant: Right. Mr. Darrow: What they are proposing to do is from the fence to the rear of the building rather than having 5 foot have 10 foot, so they are going to shove this whole building this way, 5 more feet to give you 10 foot from the fence although the fence will still be on your true property line. Mr. Bezenah: So where the fence is now will be the back of our building Mr. Bryant: Basically Mr. Bezenah: Basically and that there will be another fence between Mr. Bryant: The fence is not a problem, my concern is looking out the window Ms. Marteney: But that would be a better solution. Mr. Darrow: So what in essence will actually transpire is if they do that the new fence line would actually be where it show the rear of the building on here, the building would be 5 foot north of that new fence line and they would actually own 5 feet of green area behind the fence on your side of the fence. Mr. Bryant: I have been doing it for 29 years with Pet’s Mobil and who ever owns it now. Mr. Darrow: What is happening here I don’t think really affects us that is going to affect Planning because they are going to see the site plan. All that we are going to be acting on is the variance of 50 feet now so Planning will still have to approve the new site plan. Plus we also have to do a SEQRA review. Mr. Rejman: Let’s move forward on the SEQRA review. One or two SEQRAs? One for area and one for use? Mr. Selvek: I combined both into one SEQRA review for the entire project including the use and the area variances. Again with respect to any adverse affects associated with the following. With regards to the environmental C1. It is not anticipated that this development will generate significant noise levels above the ambient noise levels, and that it may, by the placement of the building, buffer the surrounding residential neighborhood from the noise and visual impact of commercial uses and traffic on E. Genesee Street. With regards aesthetic, historical and neighborhood character C2. Consideration should be given to the impact of the proposed use on the residence to the south. The proposed project has made an effort to design the building and site plan so that it has the minimal impact on the residential neighborhood to the south and directs access/egress and vehicular circulation toward the northern and western edges of the site. C4 with regards to community’s existing plans. Although a portion of the site is zoned for residential use, it has long been used as part of the commercial activity on the site. The use variance will provide the opportunity for the site’s continuation as a viable commercial site in the downtown area. Finally under C7 – other impacts. I felt it was important to include the possibility of granting these variances contingent on Planning Board approval. This is because if for some reason that this special plan is not approved, it would behoove the City, the boards to not allow another plan that may not be as suitable for the neighborhood to come in and just take over from where they left off. Mr. Rejman: Good, thank you. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we find that the short form SEQRA review shows that there is negative impact for Family Video Movie Club for the purpose of constructing a center at 48 E. Genesee Street. Mrs. Brower: I’ll second that. VOTING IN FAVOR OF SEQRA: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Westlake: Can I say something before we go any farther. We don’t seem to have the same problem, we have to put on ours that the Planning Board approves their so we approve ours. In other words if we approve tonight, but the Planning Board doesn’t all of a sudden ours is null and void. Why don’t they go to Planning Board first and say the plan was ok. Does it have to be approved by zoning first before Planning Mr. Rejman: There is a use variance here Mr. Westlake: Zoning variance is the most important before it goes to Planning right? Mr. Rejman: The zoning variance is. Mr. Westlake: OK, I understand. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make one of two more motions: No. 1 being that we grant a 15 foot area variance for rear yard set back for Family Video Movie Club for 48 E. Genesee Street for the purpose of constructing a store as per approved Planning site plan. Mr. Selvek: That 15 should be modified to 10 given they are willing to go 5 feet, I would say it is on both of them because of the 20 yard set back also had to be modified at the time otherwise you are giving them permission to build the building 5 feet from the property based on that variance and 10 feet based on the other variance. Mr. Leone: Rear variance an extra 5 feet change 55 to 50, the 15 I don’t understand how that was affected. Mr. Selvek: The 50 foot set back is for the buffer requirement, for the building itself, you still need to give an extra 5 Mr. Darrow: So it will be a 10 foot area variance for the rear yard building set back, please show that amended. Mr. Rejman: Add the other one to it. Mr. Darrow: And a 50 foot area variance for the required rear yard buffer set back contingent upon Planning approval. Mr. Bartolotta: I’ll second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Baroody Mr. Westlake Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Family Video Movie Club a use variance for 48 E. Genesee Street rear parcel for the purpose of constructing a movie video club consumer use services establishment contingent upon Planning Board approval site plans. Mr. Bartolotta: I’ll second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Applications have been approved contingent upon Planning approval. Good luck with that project. Mr. Sciarabba: Thank you.