City of Auburn, NY - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 10/30/2006

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 10/30/2006


	ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2006 Members Present: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Member Absent: Ms. Brower (called had another meeting) Staff Present: Ms. Hussey Mr. Hicks Mr. Selvek APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 200 McIntosh Drive 230 E. Genesee Street APPLICATION DENIED: 102 Osborne Street Mr. Rejman: Good evening. This is the Zoning Board of Appeals Tonight on our agenda we have: 102 Osborne Street 200 McIntosh Drive 230 E. Genesee Street We are short one member she is at a conflicting meeting. Any additions or corrections to the minutes? Hearing none, stand as posted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2006 102 Osborne Street, R2 zoning district. Carr Magel, applicant. Use variance to legalize 4^th dwelling unit (efficiency apartment), area variances for 220 square feet, 86 square feet for apartment size and 1 parking space. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 102 Osborne Street, are you here please? Mr. Magel: Last time I was here I was asked to see if I could come up with some old rental records, I am very surprised that I found these. The yellow ones are the ones from 102 Osborne and when you look at those, what I do, each month I do a yellow and at the end of the year I would take these yellows and I would incorporate into the book. This yellow goes on the side, but these are all my properties. The last of one of these yellows I go back to 1992, I don’t have anything before that, my stack from 1992 is about this high (motions with hand) and some where along the line I think I just chucked them. This is from 1992 to date in this form. Just an old book that I am even surprised that I found it, it was in the bottom of a file drawer. I think there are 4 from 102 Osborne Street. Mr. Rejman: The Polk Directory, it doesn’t look like there is much help there. Ms. Marteney: I don’t see people’s names. Mr. Darrow: Polk Directory goes back to 1976 with people living there. Mr. Rejman: Issue is are there 4 people living there in 4 units? Ms. Hussey: In 1995 the Polk shows 3 units. Mr. Baroody: Nothing shoes 4. Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Mr. Westlake: You have a whole bunch for figures on a piece of paper here, you have nothing substantiating, only thing I see here is your water bill. Mr. Magel: Are you talking about 3 or 4 months ago? Mr. Westlake: The figures here expenses, you say supplies and repairs, you need copies of receipts for this. Mr. Magel: This was taken off my income tax, these are figures for my income tax, in order words this $672 there is an envelope that thick of stuck that add up to $672. I have all those bills in my individual income tax returns, that is where these figures are from the income tax returns and I have an envelope to go along with it. Mr. Baroody: Do you have a simple rent receipt book that says Apartment 1, 2, 3 and 4? Mr. Rejman: The names are there. Mr. Magel: Rent receipts for the people? Mr. Baroody: Like a rent receipt book for apartment 1, 2, 3 and 4? Mr. Magel: I have some going back 2 or 3 years. From 1991 on I have a whole stack of these but I don’t go back any further than that. Mr. Rejman: When did you purchase this property? Mr. Magel: I don’t know, early 70’s some place. Mr. Rejman: Date purchased property 1970, but the zoning laws were in effect in 1964, so some place along the line this was an illegal conversion. Just because you bought it as a 4 doesn’t make it a legal 4. Mr. Magel: It could be I don’t know. I am just asking you to leave something there it has been there for years and years and years. The neighbors don’t want me to convert it. I have 5 people in there at the present time; I have one person in 3 apartments and 2 people in the other apartment. Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Just because there are physically 4 apartments there doesn’t mean there should legally be 4 apartments. Mr. Magel: That was the way I bought it. Mr. Rejman: It was common back then actually common until a few years ago. Let me ask this; is there any one wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, we will come back. Mr. Darrow: The 4^th unit that you are requesting, you want this to be an efficiency apartment? Mr. Magel: That is what it is. Mr. Darrow: How much square footage? Mr. Magel: I don’t know, I gave you a lay out, I am not sure, it has a bathroom, it has like a living room/bedroom and a kitchen. There was a layout of the first floor and second floor. Mr. Rejman: Which apartment are we discussing? Mr. Magel: This one, it is a little less than 18 x 22. Mr. Darrow: My question is answered further on in the application, he is required 420 square foot for efficiency, he has only 334 that is why he is requesting 86 square feet of apartment size. Mr. Rejman: Brian, I would like to talk about this point that you made back in your letter of May 2006. Density study did not allow this unit to be added to the structure. You have done a lot of density studies, correct me if I am wrong, but this is the first one that has failed isn’t it, maybe the second. Mr. Hicks: I am not sure I understand your question. Mr. Rejman: I want you to speak to that the density study does not allow this unit to be added to this structure. Are you talking neighborhood density or are you talking structure density? Mr. Hicks: I believe the density study allowed the apartment. Mr. Rejman: Not talking neighborhood, talking structure. Mr. Hicks: The density study does allow the apartment; the efficiency apartment lacks square footage. Mr. Rejman: Thanks for straightening that out. Further questions. OK, we will close the public portion and we will discuss this. Comments, concerns, questions. Mr. Darrow: Being there are three variances that are needed; 1 being 2200 square foot of lot size, the other being 86 square foot apartment size and then throw in 1 parking spot and no really conclusive paper work to show that it had a 4 unit for many years as said, I just feel between the 2200 and the apartment size, very overbearing in the neighborhood and the size of the lot. Mr. Rejman: Good comment. Any one else? Mr. Westlake: I think we asked Carr the last time to bring us proof, rent receipts, that there actually 4 apartments there since he owned it, I can make heads or tails out of this book. Mr. Rejman: The ledger did show 4 different names and 4 different rents. Ms. Marteney: It did? Mr. Baroody: Going back how far? Mr. Rejman: It did on the first page. Mr. Darrow: He bought it as a legal 3 unit, correct? Mr. Rejman: It would have been nice to see the Assessor’s card because we could see if the Assessor actually got in the building. It would have shown on the card if they entered the building. Mr. Westlake: The person in the 4^th apartment says she pays $300 a month, which includes utilities. Mr. Rejman: Should we proceed with the short SEQR? Mr. Westlake: The reason Carr wants to leave this as 4 units, he wants to sell it? Ms. Hussey: He has a Purchase Offer for 4 units. Mr. Westlake: If we give this, it follows the property no matter what. Mr. Bartolotta: At this point we are dealing with two different things, if he was able to show us evidence that it was a 4 unit prior to the zone change then it is grandfathered and all this become irrelevant. Without that we have to evaluate the criteria for use. Ms. Hussey: Correct. Mr. Bartolotta: I believe that is where we are, right? Ms. Hussey: Correct. Mr. Rejman: We need to move ahead one-way or the other. Should we move ahead with the SEQR on this? Let’s do that. Mr. Selvek: Regarding the SEQR it is a short form. Part II Section C I listed any and all adverse effects that may be associated with this type of conversion. I would like to bring the board’s attention to two of them. The first being traffic being a concern along Osborne Street. The property is on the even numbered side and across the street this property 102 Osborne Street is a no stopping or standing area. The property is already deficient in the required parking spaces have been grandfathered in and the granting of an additional parking space may worsen the traffic congestion in this area. The other issue that I feel is relevant that I would like to bring to the Board’s attention under C4 and this is specific to the Auburn Comprehensive Plan done in 1991 and it states some of the problems related to dwelling unit conversions two of them being lessen tax base and increase in poor living conditions in the neighborhood. I want to make sure the board is aware of the comprehensive plan on this issue. If there are any questions, I will be glad to answer them. Ms. Hussey: The board has two choices on the SEQR declaration. You can declare a negative declaration, which states that the board finds no significant impact on any of the criteria listed. If the board finds that there are significant impacts then the board would declare a positive declaration and the applicant would have to do more studying and provide more information or mitigate those areas. Mr. Rejman: Assuming that they did believe that the 4 units were there since day one, if the 4 units were there from day one, then probably most likely there is a negative declaration. If we make a negative declaration then we are saying yes there are 4 units, no 4 units it would be positive. Ms. Hussey: No. First you have to make a determination if there is sufficient evidence submitted to show that it has been a 4 unit all along. A yes vote would be that you agree that applicant proved sufficiently that it has been a 4 unit forever since his ownership. A no vote would mean that there was insufficient evidence to show that it was a legal existing 4 unit. Mr. Rejman: Do it one at a time. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we put forth for Carr Magel, property at 102 Osborne Street that proper proof has been put forth that the dwelling has been a legal existing 4 unit. Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that. Ms. Hussey: Let me repeat the motion that to accept the findings that 102 Osborne Street is a pre-existing non-conforming 4 unit dwelling. Mr. Baroody: Yes mean it was, not means it wasn’t. VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney – based on the information from the Polk Directory that it wasn’t a 4 unit dwelling. Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow – based on over all lack of information of prior residence. Mr. Westlake – no same reason lack of information. Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: We have agreed it is not a pre-existing non-conforming unit. Ms. Hussey: At this time in order to keep the 4 units or to have 4 units you have to decide whether a use variance is appropriate. Prior to voting on the use variance a SERQ declaration has to be done. Mr. Rejman: If it is a negative declaration is on the up and down? Ms. Hussey: Correct. Mr. Darrow: Impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Hussey: Then it goes back to the applicant to address the area of significant impact to mitigate it before you consideration with additional information. Mr. Darrow: Like a long form SERQ review. Ms. Hussey: Correct. Mr. Selvek: I would like to clarify the board that with regard to the negative versus positive declaration all though I have listed impacts or potential impacts it is the board’s discretion to decide whether or not those are significant in large or if they would be considered minor. If the board believes they would be minor impacts or less likely to occur, they can still proceed with a negative declaration. If the board feels that those impacts are likely to occur and there will be significant then the board may want to proceed with a positive declaration. Mr. Rejman: Easiest way to word that is efficiency versus 4 bedrooms. Need a motion. Mr. Darrow: Do we want to review the SERQ or has everyone reviewed it? Everyone is comfortable with it. I would like to put a motion forth that we find a negative declaration for Carr Magel, 102 Osborne Street for the purpose of establishing a legal 4 dwelling unit. Mr. Baroody: I second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Having gone through first two now we are down to the final whether or not to legalize the 4^th efficiency unit. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Carr Magel for property at 102 Osborne Street, that we recognize and legalize said building as a legal four unit. Mr. Westlake: I second that motion. VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: The application has been denied. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2006 200 McIntosh Drive. C Zoning district. North Brook Development, applicants. Use variance for dental office/physician office; to construct a dental office and also additional office space for 2 or 3 physicians. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman 200 McIntosh Drive, are you here? State your name for the record. Mr. Yoensky: Carl Yoensky. Mr. Rejman: OK, Carl, tell us what you would like to do there. Mr. Yoensky: What we need is a use variance. We are looking for a medical office building to be built in a C-4 zone. Mr. Rejman: Brian do you have any additional paperwork on this? Mr. Hicks: I have a letter that I have given out to the board from Hemisphere Holdings Corp. Mr. Rejman: Do you have an application? Mr. Hicks: It was tabled from last month. Mr. Rejman: I see a letter from Mr. Bouck. Mr. Bouck could you come up for just a moment. Give us your input on this. Mr. Bouck: I did give you a letter, I reviewed the property for Dr. Nangle as well as Mr. Yoensky. It is hard for me to believe that medical uses were precluded from this type of commercial use area which otherwise allows other commercial uses. Number 1, the property for commercial use as I indicted in the letter has minimal highway exposure, it is on a secondary road, city street, exposure for commercial use doesn’t necessarily mean that commercial uses won’t go there, retail businesses are not. Secondly, medical uses are going to be a far better neighbor than some heavy commercial uses which could be allowed which would be heavy retail, automotive, so this would be an excellent neighbor for the people that are there. Thirdly the property itself has been on the market for probably over 2 maybe 3 years. We had several deals on the property that we worked with Mr. Yoensky that have fallen through. Commercial people that I have worked with have no interest at all in this site because of its location on a secondary road. Frankly what it boils down to unable to be used for type of quasi-office or medical use, Mr. Yoensky is certainly going to be subjected to a hardship that he did not create in terms of selling this property. It is going to be difficult to find a normal commercial use and frankly this use of Dr. Nangle’s is certainly going to be a much better neighbor than some heavy commercial use. Mr. Rejman: Ok. Questions from the board? I was interested in the flood plan map once you add that into the parcel there is not a lot there that is usable. Mr. Yoensky: That was created 10 years after we purchased the property. The flood plan was designed in the early 80’s. Mr. Rejman: Looks like 20% of the parcel. Mr. Bouck: We had one transaction that fell through specifically because of that. Mr. Rejman: Brian can you speak to the Hemisphere Holdings? Let’s take a few minutes to read the letter. Any one wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Close the public portion and discuss this out. Mr. Darrow: I agree with Mr. Bouck having a neighbor like that of a dentist office would be better than some of the other commercial businesses that would be permitted in there. Mr. Rejman: Actually increase the property value, low impact neighbor. It meets the uniqueness test just by the flood plan. Mr. Bartolotta: Clean that it was not a self-created hardship. Mr. Darrow: Very clear. Mr. Rejman: How do we wish to frame this? Mr. Westlake: We need to do a SEQR first. Mr. Selvek: With regard to SEQR short form, I would like to bring the board’s attention to Part II, specifically C-1. The site at 200 McIntosh Drive is zoned C: General Commercial, which allows a multitude of high intensity commercial uses. A use variance for a medical/dental office is unlikely to cause any additional impacts that wouldn’t already be associated with a permitted commercial use. Any and impacts associated with a commercial development, regardless of type, would be considered upon site plan review. Therefore I would also ask this board to grant this variance contingent upon Planning Board Approval of the site plan. Mr. Rejman: Thank you. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we find a negative declaration for the SEQR. Mr. Baroody: I second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Carl Yoensky of 200 McIntosh Drive a variance to create a medical/dental office at 200 McIntosh contingent upon Planning Board site review. Mr. Westlake: I will second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2006 230 E. Genesee Street. R1 zoning district. Richard & Kathryn Meyer, applicants. Area variance for height of garage. 1’6” above the allowed 15’ peak. ___________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 230 E. Genesee Street. State your name for the board please. Mr. Ray: My name is David Ray and I am a law clerk with the Sugarman Law Firm, I am here on behalf of the applicants. This is a request for a height variance for a garage, an accessory structure next to the house. In April of 2066 an application was made to the Zoning Board for increase in the footprint from 750 square feet to 871 square feet. This was in order to accommodate two cars. This structure is to replace a one-car garage, which was 16 feet in height, which is currently the height of the two-car garage that is under construction. On May 31^st a demolition permit was issued to remove both 1-car garages. On June 16 a building permit was issued based on hand drawings and on September 27 a stop work order was issued pending violation of Zoning Section 305.24(d) accessory structure height. The current structure is at 16 feet 1 ¼” the new will be 16 feet 6 inches upon completion. Section 305.24(d) provides that all accessory structures shall not be higher than 15 feet or 1-½ stories . We are requesting a height variance of 1-½ feet. This will accommodate the garage for a total of 16 ½ feet. The reason for this is that the garage features the same truss style, which is in the pictures that have been passed around as is the house. In order to accommodate that would be to increase the size of the two-car garage, it would be a matching style and would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. I would also like to make one additional point to the board’s attention. Section 305-77, definition section building height – vertical distance of building measured from the curb level to the ceiling of the structure. There is no separate definition mentioned for accessory structure height. We are requesting a 1’ 6” variance and thank you very much. Mr. Rejman: A contractor is doing this? Mr. Ray: I am not sure. Mr. Rejman: Is this a kit? State your name for the record. Mrs. Meyer: Kathryn Meyer. Mr. Rejman: This is stick built by a contractor? Mrs. Meyer: Our son is doing it. Mr. Rejman: OK, normally a contractor would have been here before the fact rather than after the fact. Being that it is being done by a homeowner it is easy to see how you lose track of this. Ms. Marteney: It will match the house. Mr. Rejman: Any questions from the board? Is there any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Mr. Morabito: Andy Morabito, 226 E. Genesee Street, I am the house right next to the Meyers house. I would hate to see the top of that roof flattened to meet these requirements. This is something that the neighbors and I would have to look at. I don’t think it is in the interest of any neighbors to make Mr. Meyer to cut the top off. I am in favor of this. Mr. Rejman: Thank you for your input. Any one else wishing to speak for or against? Any questions from the board? Ms. Marteney: There were concerns about the drainage. Mr. Rejman: We went through that the last time. Ms. Hussey: The issue was that you had approved the variances with respect to the footprint, looked at the drainage and those issues and the applicant at that time did not have the dimensions of it. Mrs. Meyer: We did put in a dry well. The contractor did not think it was necessary but we want to be sure that there were no drainage problems. Mr. Rejman: Oh, good. Thank you very much. Close the public portion and discuss it. Ms. Marteney: Nice garage, looks better than the two sheds. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Richard and Kathryn Meyer of 230 E. Genesee Street, a variance for l foot 6 inches in height for their new garage. Ms. Marteney: I second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Any other business? Mr. Darrow: I have correspondence from Joseph Blumrick regarding the July meeting. Is this within Codes ability to allow chain link being installed, does this need to be discussed by us? Mr. Hicks: The letter came to my office addressed to Mr. Darrow as Chairman of the board at that meeting. He knows there is difficulty with neighbors and wants to make sure that this will be acceptable. Mr. Westlake: That would be your choice. Mr. Hicks: The letter was addressed to the board. I passed the letter along and make the board aware of it. Mr. Darrow: It is my understanding that when ever chain link approaches upon those areas that Code Enforcement has been able to allow chain link because there is no obstruction with it. Mr. Hicks: Because of the height issue there towards the rear of the property, one section the ground level up the bearm to tie into a wooden fence. Mr. Westlake: If I remember right the objection to the whole deal was he wanted a 6 foot fence and he have had a 4 foot fence. Mr. Darrow: It is built up there is a retaining wall which was built up which created a new property line which is no where near I got to say 24 inches difference from the sidewalk. Mr. Hicks: From the neighbor’s side if you measured it is 86 inches high. Mr. Westlake: I thought we told him that chain link was ok. We told him he couldn’t have a wooden fence, but if he had chain link it was fine. Mr. Hicks: I can respond to him that he can have a chain link fence. All in favor to chain link fence.