City of Auburn, NY - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 05/21/2007

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 05/21/2007


	ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MAY 21, 2007 Members Present: Ms. Marteney Mr. Darrow Mr. Baroody Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Staff Present: Mr. Rossi Mr. Selvek Mr. Hicks Officer Weed APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 147, 151 – 153 Pulsifer Drive 116 E. Genesee Street 22 Morris Street 64 Cayuga Street 90 North Street 8 Underwood Street 55 Barber Street Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have: 147, 151 – 153 Pulsifer Drive 116 E. Genesee Street 22 Morris Street 64 Cayuga Street 90 North Street 8 Underwood Street 55 Barber Street Any corrections to the minutes of the previous meeting? Hearing none, the minutes are accepted as typed. Before we get started, we have an application for Pulsifer Drive; use variance for increase in intensity. We have been fighting what does that mean and with Counsel and Codes we got together where the increase in intensity is coming from is the applicant wishes to take down two Quonset huts which “x” number of square feet and replace it with one building of “x” plus square feet, that is our interpretation of intensity. So that is all we are going to focus on this application is do we or do we not allow the applicant to replace those two structures and may or may not increase intensity of the business if they are moving everything inside. We will find out those answers to our questions. Hopefully that will get us along on this. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MAY 22, 2007 147, 151 – 153 Pulsifer Drive. R1 zoning district. Michael Sacco, Jr., applicant. Use variance for an increase in the intensity of the non-conforming use. ___________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 174, 151 – 153 Pulsifer Drive, are you here? Please come forward. Please use the mike and speak clearly. State your name for the record. Mr. Newcomb: My name is William Newcomb. Mr. Rejman: Did I frame that application correctly? That is where the increase is coming from? Mr. Newcomb: That is correct and I apologize to the board for having written the variance request apparently inappropriately. It was confusing to us as well and we simply came here with the idea of being transparent so every one knows what is going on and we want to do it right. Now after all the conversations that have occurred, the only issue on the table as far as we are concerned, is the building itself. Mr. Rejman: Tell us about the Quonset huts that are there and what you would like to replace them with. Mr. Newcomb: I would like to replace with a 72 x 72 steel building. Mr. Rejman: Why do you feel you need to replace those Quonset huts? Mr. Newcomb: For increased storage on the property. The property is in a position for us, as new owners to take over we need to find additional revenue. Hence the hardship problem. The current marina is not in a position where we would be able to sustain itself so we are going to need to find additional areas of revenue. Storage is a very good area of revenue and there is a great deal of desire for inside storage. Folks are starting to look all over and I have had calls from all over the place that we are going to have storage inside available. Mr. Rejman: Last month there was some concern about the previous owner and the outside storage situation that he had there. What impact will this building have on that outside storage in the future. Mr. Newcomb: It is difficult to tell this is not the answer you wanted I know. In order for us to build a building it will cost several hundred thousand dollars to put up. We are going to have to be able to have an increase storage. Last time we were here one of the members of the board I believe it was you asked me if I would consider not storing boats on the outside. After discussions with my partners and looking at the economics of that, that is not something that is viable. We are not in a position to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars to have the same income stream frankly less income stream that I would have today. Right now the property is storing 80 or 90 boats something like that on the property on a fee basis. The building proposed would hold about 50 to 55 boats, so what would happen if we were to build a building with the board’s request that we do not store boats outside we are actually decreasing our revenue stream certainly is not viable. Mr. Darrow: How many are outside now? Mr. Newcomb: Around 80 something like that. Mr. Rejman: Any storage inside the building? Mr. Newcomb: Very minor he just uses for his own purposes tools and equipment. Mr. Rejman: You also said you are considering storage across the river somewhere? Mr. Newcomb: I am. Mr. Rejman: OK. Mr. Newcomb: But again that is a matter of how big how much is there. Mr. Rejman: OK. Good, I will ask you to sit down Mr. Newcomb: Thank you. Mr. Rejman: We are going to open to discussion. A few ground rules. Is the marina allowed to be there? Yes it is. Is it allowed to run? Yes it is. The only thing we are concerned with and this application is whether or not to allow the applicant to tear down two Quonset huts and replace them with a larger building and most probably will make that business but he is allowed to have the business. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Mr. Villano: Mike Villano, 63 Fleming Street. First of all I am not against the boat yard being down there but I am not for it expanding. I have some pictures to pass out to give you a look at what we face down there. One of the residents down there took the time to do this which shows Fleming Street, Pulsifer Drive and those are cars from Auburn High School when they have an athletic program going on. Keep that in mind Mr. Rejman: What does this have to do Mr. Villano: I will tell you what it has to do if you give me a chance. This gentleman said he wants to do boat sales, boat rentals, right, is that in the application? Mr. Rejman: It is a marina; what ever is common usage of a marina. Mr. Villano: The boat launch down there, picture that with boat trailers which we do have up and down that street periodically. OK? Do you see the volume of traffic down there? Mr. Rejman: Please, understand something this has nothing to do with the building. Is there a traffic problem there? Yes. Is it the marina’s traffic problem? Probably no. Mr. Villano: It will be if they increase business. Mr. Rejman: See what you are doing here; stick with the issue at hand. Mr. Baroody: We have very narrow parameters that we work on; the only thing we can address is the size of the building. Mr. Villano: OK. He says he has 80 boats outside, build the building now there are 75 what is this building going to look like? Are the boats going to be sticking out, are they going to slip the boats inward, we are going to have a 72 x 72 by 24 foot high building. That is a residential area that we are talking about, that is R-1. Mr. Rejman: I understand what you are saying that is R-1. He has the right to run the marina. He was there before the R-1. Mr. Villano: I agree with that, but it went from this size to this size to this size and now every thing they want to get more, they go from here to here to there. So now what are you going to do? You only have so much river frontage there. Let me ask this question, did he present that 72 x 72 x 24 high building to Owasco to the land he wants to purchase across there? Mr. Rejman: That has nothing to do with it. Mr. Villano: I am trying to justify where we are going with this. He wants to do more business down there he obviously wants to do that. That is why the place grew. They went from this, to this, to this in a residential area. You have got to think of the people around that area. Do you take that into consideration? Mr. Darrow: For it to grow it appears to me that he is proposing this for indoor winter storage. Mr. Villano: What is the building going to look like? Mr. Darrow: That will go before Planning, we are only addressing Mr. Villano: I am going to put a building in my front yard, 72 x 72 - 24 feet high. Mr. Rejman: Ok, look at this. Does he have the right to take down those two buildings and replace them with a building the same size? Yes he does. You are still looking at a new building, the thing of it is, is the newer building the larger building going to decrease the congestion or the visual impacts, the blue tarps or whatever, I don’t know. Mr. Villano: We are just to talk about the building Mr. Rejman: That is the only thing we can talk about. Mr. Villano: Just talking about the building. Mr. Rejman: Gentleman #2 could you come up please? State your name please. Mr. Sacco: My name is Michael James Sacco Jr. I am President and CEO of Trade-A-Yacht Inc. and present owner of the marina in question. I failed to attend the last meeting but I thought perhaps if I could shed some light and some and I have not discussed with Mr. Newcomb his intentions and proposal on the marina. I have been in the marina business some 50 years, I own 5 marinas in Central New York, surrounded in residential areas and every one of the marinas that we own short of Auburn welcome the presence of the marina. Property values have increased from a mere $75,000 to $100,000 residences same structure to $350,000 residences. Being in the marina business I have been exposed to marinas around the country from the State of Florida to Maine and I have found that we are not adversaries of our neighbors. I want to dispel the atmosphere that we care less what they look at and how we appear. Our marina right now at this point is probably the worst time you can look at it. In the spring of the year we are trying to wash boats, move trailers, cut grass so it is not a great thing to look at but you have to admit for 12 years that we have owned it, it has always had flowers planted, lawns mowed and the value of the property around that marina has increased considerably. One residence to the north went from a mere shack to I would imagine a $350,000 home and again we are no adversaries of our neighbors. We have always presented a good appearance and we are not in the business of offending our neighbors. 99% of the people in this room and our citizens enjoy looking at a boat. We have at least 25 people that I have come to know personally elderly people who walk to our marina, we have park benches for them to sit on and they enjoy the water, enjoy the wild life, enjoy the boats and enjoy the atmosphere of the marina. We are not a tire recycling shop, we are not a landfill, marinas and R-1’s go together. People like marinas and there are a few that do not, we recognize that. One in particular does not like to look at the white shrink-wrap covers boats in our area so for 3 years we bought blue shrink-wrap. I am telling this wrong. We used the white for her but we found that the white does not absorb the heat consequently the snow would shed from the shrink-wrap and the boat would collapse, shrink-wrap would collapse, ice would form on the boat. It wouldn’t work. We would like to continue with the white shrink-wrap but we can’t. The blue shrink-wrap absorbs the heat, warms the boat, snow slips off and there is no damage to the boat. That is the reason, not to offend our neighbors, but we do bend over backwards to try keep our neighbors happy and do what is proper. Throughout 50 years in the industry, I have seen marinas improve the R-1 value in property. They seem to go hand in hand and again people seem to like the marinas and like the boats and the business climate in New York State is worst than any place in the United States. The worst business climate in the world is right here in New York State. A business if it doesn’t grow it dies. I am sure our neighbors do not want to see a dead marina next to them. Came out of being dead, it was in bankruptcy, junk, trash, complete disrepair, we repaired all that, did improvements to the building, done improvements to the wiring and continued to build the infrastructure of the marina property. With that said, I appreciate your time for allowing me to speak. Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much for the history, appreciate that. Any one else wishing to speak for or against? Mr. Chadwick: My name is Tim Chadwick I resident next door to the marina at 131 Pulsifer Drive and Mr. Newcomb stated it would be a hardship to buy the property. If it is a hardship I don’t think he should go through with it and buy the property. If anyone is going to buy something that is a hardship I would recommend them not to buy it. I think part of the sale would be contingent on exclusive use of the City’s right of way. The City owns this right of way Mr. Rejman: Excuse me, excuse me. I don’t care. All I care about is the building. The right of way issue is some body else, we can speak to the traffic but that is hear say and it is not acceptable. Mr. Chadwick: Have you looked at the property, the property, the right of way and where they want to build it? Mr. Rejman: He is building it on his own property. Mr. Chadwick: But in the middle of that is the City right of way and they would have to transport the boats from the water use that right of way and lift them up, the property borders right on the right of way. Mr. Rejman: OK. Mr. Chadwick: That is my point that it is going to be dangerous the City would be liable for that. If you look at the pictures and I have some that I want to give you, you can understand what I am talking about. There are two sections of land with the right of way in the middle, my point is to get from point A to point B they would almost exclusively use this right of way. Last year the City Council turned down the sale of the right of way. Mr. Rejman: What does that have to do with the building? Mr. Chadwick: City right of way would be right in front of it. Mr. Rejman: Every building in the City has a City right of way right in front of it, it is called a street. Mr. Chadwick: If you had a site plan showing where this building is going to be Mr. Darrow: We have it. Mr. Chadwick: I don’t know where this proposed building is going to be. (Mr. Darrow shows Mr. Chadwick where the building is proposed to be built on the site plan). Mr. Darrow: They have to meet all set backs from the City’s right of way. Mr. Chadwick: They will have to use this that is my complaint on that part of it. I did not receive a site plan on the information that we got form Code Enforcement in relation to the City property. Any building that is going to be built is going to have to be the same size as the building that is there now? Mr. Rejman: No, the application before us is to remove two 20 x 56 buildings and replace it with one 72 x 72 building. Mr. Chadwick: Doesn’t that square footage exceed what is coming down? Mr. Rejman: Yes, that is why the application is here and that is what we are speaking to tonight. Mr. Chadwick: OK, I understood when you said they could not exceed what was coming down Mr. Rejman: No, they are here for a variance Mr. Chadwick: To increase from the current size to what they are planning. Mr. Darrow: And to go from two buildings to one building. Mr. Chadwick: Do you have any architectural designs Ms. Marteney: We are not in charge of that that goes to Planning. Mr. Chadwick: Ok, thank you for your time. Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak for or against the application? Come forward. Mr. Pelc: Terry Pelc, I live at 59 Fleming Street, which is the third house from the boat yard. The crane they have down there Mr. Rejman: We are not going there. Call the Codes. Mr. Pelc: There are some Code violations down there. Mr. Rejman: We have to be focused on the application and the application is tear down two buildings and put in one bigger on, that is the application. Mr. Pelc: That is all you want to hear? Mr. Rejman: That is all we can hear. Mr. Baroody: We have very narrow parameters, we don’t do Planning. Mr. Pelc: Thank you. Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak for or against the application? Mr. Reed: I am Gordon Reed, I live on Locust Street and I have property on Fleming Street. We came here tonight because we were responding to a meeting a month ago and the construction of a new building was the last thing on their list. I think what the citizens and neighbors here tonight are concerned about is are the other things they wanted and I know that is off the table tonight and we can’t talk about it. Obviously they are here to get approval for the building and then will do the rest of it, amending the hours to match competitors with year round usage, amend current business operation to include sales, service, parts, marine goods, dry good and beverages, rentals, storage of marine products. I think why everyone is here are for those items too. Mr. Rejman: Let me address that. Let’s take another business, let’s take a restaurant that is pre-existing non-conforming that he wishes to sell. The restaurant has only been doing business you know, the people are older, they are only open Friday, Saturday and Sunday and the new owner wants to open Monday through Sunday and wants to have regular hours and all of a sudden the neighbors are upset. So are we to tell the new owner that he can only run the business like the old owner did or like Craig came up with, it is the better businessman angle, yes he has to run the business like other restaurants, so in this case he has to run his marina like other marinas. Mr. Reed: I agree with that he wants to buy a business that will grow and make money, I would do the same thing. I think this would be zoning because residents are affected by this matter. Thank you. Mr. Rejman: Is there any one else wishing to speak for or against? Sure, come up. Ms. Cunningham: I am Dell Cunningham and I live across the street from the marina a friend did some aerial views that I would like to pass around. Mr. Rejman: Sure, go ahead. Ms. Cunningham: Here is the residential area and this narrow strip is the marina. One of the four previous owners before the original owner put a fence right out there so that the boats are wall to wall from fence to fence and Mr. Sacco said there were about 80 boats, but this is what we look at and it is all boats and they are blue. With indoor and outdoor storage that is going to increase a lot of problems I think. Mr. Rejman: Define the word problems. Ms. Cunningham: Traffic is one and it will change I think the character of the neighborhood, it is really quiet, residential, taking a Mom and Pop business and making a big chain store out of it and I don’t think there is enough property there to run it the way they want to run it and I am thinking what kind of a building are they going to put up, is it going to be an open shell where they can get the boats in and out with a fork lift or is it going to be totally enclosed and we don’t have to look at it, we don’t know exactly what they have in mind. Mr. Rejman: OK, thank you. Any one else wishing to speak for or against? Ms. Pelc: My name is Sue Pelc and I live at 45 Jarvis Street, three streets away from the marina. I don’t think my property has increased in value because of the marina, I thought it was because of my assessment and home improvements. Another thing about the building, simple math here, you increase the area for boat storage, you increase traffic. You have seen many pictures, to get to my brother’s I have to back up and go around. I think safety is something that is omitted from this. With so many kids playing different sports on the fields and there are kids running in and out and between the cars and parents, it is a very dangerous situation as it is. We have a big safety concern right now and we are compounding it with this. Also it is a residential area and as my neighbors have said we want to keep it a residential area, we increase the size of it, we increase the intensity, more traffic, more people in the neighborhood. My big concern also is safety, an emergency vehicle in an emergency situation, I really think that needs to be looked. Whatever committee makes the decision because if it is not a safe environment what is the point of adding and improving our property. It is really a matter of common sense with the traffic patterns especially in the summer Mr. Rejman: Is the traffic the result of the marina or is the traffic the result of something else? Ms. Pelc: Some of it. When there is no place to park in the marina they will park on the side of the road Mr. Rejman: Where exactly is that the fault of the marina? Some one goes down there and uses the public access and then parks on the side of the road Ms. Pelc: But the marina is still the boating issue of the neighborhood Mr. Rejman: So what you are saying that the public access should be eliminated, to eliminate the traffic? Ms. Pelc: I am not saying that, but I think we need to look at residential zoning to cap or consider the size of this building and what it is going to do to the area and safety. Mr. Rejman: But then at the same time should we cap the usage allowed for the public access? Ms. Pelc: I don’t know. Mr. Rejman: If you limit business should the access to the public right of way be limited? Ms. Pelc: I think that is a good question we need to investigate it more. If you vote now on the variance knowing our concerns and oppositions it is going to be tougher down the road with the next board and the next board and the next board. Can I ask a question? Mr. Rejman: Yes. Ms. Pelc: The other tow variances that were on here, when were they pulled from the agenda and why? Mr. Rejman: After sitting with Counsel and Codes, it was determined that this application was poorly worded, the word intensity was put in there and we needed to define intensity with something that we can lay our hands on, square footage, linear feet, square feet, something to deal with so and we decided to define intensity as the taking down of those two buildings and putting up a new building. That we can get are arms around that, hard fact. Anything else is just blowing in the wind, we can’t grab it. Ms. Pelc: Safety should be an issue with anything that will be done in that neighborhood. Thank you. Ms. Marteney: Some of the pictures are of school buses down there. Mr. Pelc: Terry Pelc, 59 Fleming Street, I live 3 doors from the boat yard, I think this is a City Council problem, has anyone informed the City Council and asked City Council to hear our voices? Mr. Rejman: We are here to look at an application that says I would like to take down two buildings and replace it with one. Mr. Pelc: That is not the issue here. Mr. Rejman: Yes it is, before us tonight that is the only thing we can listen to. Mr. Pelc: Our hands are tied, you have said nothing about the Police Department, the Centro buses down there and fire trucks. Mr. Rejman: Yes, come up. Mr. Wasileski: My name is David Wasileski, Bill Newcomb’s partner. I think I know where the smoke is being blown here tonight as far as the congestion issue down on Pulsifer Drive in relation to the building. The parking down there, the Auburn fields, the City launch, none of that is related to the marina’s problems. We are just moving in there, we didn’t create any of those issues, they were there before us. So if someone wants to complain about the Auburn congestion due to the ball games, that is not our problem. Mr. Rejman: I think the board understands that. I would like to ask you a question. In your opinion, if you take down those two Quonset huts there running east and west and put in this 72 x 72 building and you tuck it in as close as you can without variances, will that give you more customer parking do you think because of the way it is laid out? Mr. Wasileski: We talk about having storage for 50 or 60 boats, I don’t truly believe that is going to increase the congestion due to the fact that a lot of those boats are going to be coming directly from the lake for storage. There is a possibility that 40 or 50 of those boats that are coming in for storage, not one of those boats is going to be coming down Fleming Street they are coming from the water from Owasco Lake. Going to go right from the outlet right to the mechanics and service area and right into the storage building. Mr. Rejman: Customers that drive to the marina to use their boats, do you think there would be more or less parking available after you rearrange the building? Mr. Wasileski: Same or little bit more, our increase for the building has nothing to do with increased parking. Mr. Rejman: I know, but to just answer some of these parking questions. Mr. Wasileski: That building is for storage only and I don’t believe it is going to increase congestion of traffic down there because the boats are going to be brought from the lake to the outlet to the building. Not going to bring an additional 50 or 60 trailers down Fleming Street. Mr. Rejman: I appreciate that. Mr. Marteney: Someone stores their boat in the winter, then you get it ready to go out, do they keep it with them during the course of the summer and pull it in and out? Mr. Wasileski: Depends where they live, once that boat is reconditioned for summer that boat goes out to Skaneateles or Owasco Lake and stays in the water all summer. Ms. Marteney: How many come and go, go back on their trailers and put back into your yard? Mr. Wasileski: No because they all are either in slips at the marina or at a private home on the lake. Mr. Westlake: You are not asking for an increase in a number of slips? Ms. Marteney: I am just trying to understand the mechanics. Mr. Wasileski: Once it is reconditioned for summer it goes unless people are using a boat slip. Ms. Marteney: I just meant in the course of the summer. Ms. Wasileski: Unless they come in for service. Mr. Rejman: OK, we appreciate that. I would like to ask Officer Weed to come up. You have heard the concerns about parking. Give us you over all view of this whole parking issue. Officer Weed: Obviously we have a major parking problem down there and it is something that we have been working on for the last year and a half trying to resolve this with the School District and so forth. If you increase the size of the building, if you increase the storage you are going to increase the amount of boats coming in. I am not an expert, they come of the lake, you increase the size you increase the amount of traffic down there, whether the marina or the School District is the biggest problem. Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Mr. Westlake: You have a boat launch that has nothing to do with the marina, traffic that parks up and down the street. You have school buses that go to the school next door going up and down the street, which has nothing to do with the marina. I wish they had brought to me tonight pictures of parking congestion from the marina. Mr. Rejman: That is almost difficult – impossible to find out. Mr. Westlake: They have school buses, they have cars, I don’t see where they can actually say it is from the marina’s property that did this. Mr. Darrow: The other thing I am looking at, let’s say half of the proposed new storage comes from Owasco Lake, the other half is filled bringing boats down, even with the high figure of 50 new clients that bring their boats, they only bring them once, they bring them in the fall, they are stored, then they come back in the spring and pick them up. It is not like those 50 vehicles are coming back and forth every time because of the storage facility. Yes those 50 vehicles may come back and forth and may be seen again but only may use the City launch. It is not because they are going in and out of the storage building 20 times during the season. Mr. Rejman: It is not like they take it out of storage, run around the lake and then put it back in storage. Mr. Darrow: Again, I have owned a boat for 10 years, you take it out of storage, you put it in the water, in the fall you put it back in storage. Officer Weed: You bring your boat down on a trailer, they put your boat in storage Mr. Rejman: Your trailer goes home with you. Mr. Darrow: May store it on your trailer to a lower level when they fill the building, but that may be something that we should address. Mr. Rejman: Is there any project a foot to do something about the traffic down there? Officer Weed; Yes. Mr. Rejman: Who is in charge, who would people talk to? Officer Weed: I am in charge. We have been attempting to address the problem for some time and probably 75% is the School District and school sports and I am not going to say that the marina hasn’t been a part of the problem. I don’t think there is much parking at all in that area. Mr. Rejman: Is there a time frame for a solution? Officer Weed: I can see probably within the next few months year around alternate parking on some of the streets and elimination completely of parking on one side. Mr. Rejman: Ok. That will help. Officer Weed: Right now toying with the idea of making alternate side parking year round in the whole City. Mr. Rejman: Good, I appreciate your input on this. Mr. Villano: Can I say one more thing? Mr. Rejman: Yes. Mr. Villano: I have lived there for 15 years, you have a boat stored down there, come spring time you want to put it in the water, they put the boats in these slips, so let’s say there are 35 or 40 of them, now you have 40 trailers that go in there lot, they have cut trees down there to make room for these trailers so now when the customers come to get their boats to go out on the lake where are they where are they going to park, they park on the road. Mr. Rejman: Let’s have the applicant come up and Mr. Sacco. State your names for the record please. Mr. Sacco: Michael J. Sacco and William Newcomb. Mr. Rejman: OK. Mr. Sacco: I would like to try to answer some of the questions that have come up. The Quonset huts are World War II vintage and they are curved and are approximately 10 feet apart so taking the Quonset huts down and utilize the space between the two buildings and the space that you can’t use because of the cost of construction, I don’t that there is very much difference in the size of the building that is being applied for and what the square footage of the Quonset huts. There are 40 slips at the marina and the people that rent those slips come directly from the marina and they drive right to the foot of their dock. They are not on the street. The people that are on the street are usually transients that come to use the City launch on they will park on the City. This is a very simple problem to solve if there is a parking issue with the school, the only time you have congestion and traffic on both sides of the street is when there is a function on the fields. The folks come in the back gate of the fields rather than park on the paved parking area at the school where you can park thousands of cars, they could park there and walk an extra 100 yards and be at the event, but they choose not to walk a 100 yards so they come down and park right in front of the marina, in the marina, up and down the streets of the marina and go in the back gate. This past function there were probably 150 cards there. I can guarantee you in the 12 years that I have owned the marina, if I have seen 20 cars that has something to do with the marina on the street, I would be shocked. Most of the people come directly to foot of their dock and that is where they park. They park on the marina property. But it could be stopped very simply by parking on school property that has the school function, not use that back gate, it would eliminate all of the congestion that these folks are complaining about, lock that back gate, end of problem. But they do park on both sides of the road, just during those functions but the marina is incidental to the parking problem. I wish I had a parking problem. Mr. Rejman: Ok, any questions from the board? Mr. Darrow: The trailers that, I should say the boats that go in your slips that are on trailers, I realize that not all owners own trailers for their boats, what happens to those trailers when the boat goes into the slips? Do the boat owners get to take the trailers home or do you store them for them, do you put them in the storage building for the summer as well as storing the boats for the winter. Mr. Newcomb: The building is sitting there empty for the summer if customers request me to hold their trailers I will put them in the building, fine I would be happy to. Most people do take their trailers home so when they come and get their boats it is ready and they have to have things inspected, trailers repaired and all those kind of things so many choose to take them home. I don’t know and I don’t know if Mr. Sacco knows what percentage do have trailers and don’t have trailers, my guess it would be fairly equal. A lot folks that use the marina use the marina because they don’t want to mess with a trailer pulling their boats and things like that. If the boat is in the water, we pull it out, we store it, we put in the water, we maintain it for them during the course of the year. Some people do have trailers. I have been in the marina business for many years and it use to be you sold a high percentage of trailers, now it has come to selling a low percentage of trailers to boats because people you know most owners want to be on the lake. We certainly could put the trailers into the building, right now we don’t have that capability so what ever are there have to sit around. Mr. Rejman: OK. There are one or two more gentleman that want to talk and then we are going into session on this. Mr. Crowley: Good evening, my name is Jim Crowley, 32 Fleming Street. I believe my neighbors here are responding to a application for a use variance dated March 29, 2007 is that correct? I arrived late. Mr. Rejman: Yes. Mr. Crowley: As I understand it the variance has been altered Mr. Rejman: No, the variance has not been altered, it has been defined. Mr. Crowley: Excuse me the application has Mr. Rejman: Defined. The word intensity was there, it was a poor choice of words, we had to define what intensity means. Mr. Crowley: And I agree. What I would ask is if it is alright with the board, table the application for a month to allow my neighbors an opportunity to respond to the redefined application. As you can tell they are heated about this issue that affects several streets. We would like an opportunity to take a lot at the redefined application and respond accordingly. Mr. Rejman: We considered here for 50 minutes taking testimony and in 50 minutes if someone can’t come up with any decent argument, I don’t think 30 days will work. Mr. Crowley: I disagree, I think we would like to take a look at it, I received it this morning. I did not have an opportunity to take a look. I am not really sure what the Zoning Board of Appeals rules are and what we may object to but I think it is worth an opportunity to take a look at it. Mr. Rejman: We can only consider in this case Mr. Crowley; I understand but there are other issues here Mr. Rejman: Not for us. For Planning or City Council, but not this board. Mr. Crowley: Excuse me this is my first time before the board here, but I do think that it is worthy of an opportunity for the neighborhood to respond. That is all I am asking and thank you for your time. Mr. Rejman: Any one else wishing to speak? Last call. Mr. Porten: Dan Porten, 52 Fleming Street. I agree with the gentleman that we could hold this off for another month, this is something I recently found out about. Have not had any opportunity to find out what exactly is going on. From what I understood looking at this application this is what we were going to be addressing tonight and now that I have shown up here trying to address all of my concerns, I find that we are talking about two buildings and not the over all realities of the increase. Mr. Rejman: He has the right to run the marina. Mr. Porten: Ok, ok, I understand that. You have to understand that we are just simple citizens, we are not businessmen, we may not be able to present our case as well as someone who is versed in that and I don’t appreciate your reaction to the fact that this feels as if this is a one sided argument. I have watched the body language that you have used when a resident has Mr. Rejman: We are in a small little box, all we can look at is this small little Mr. Porten: Please give us the courtesy Mr. Rejman: We can’t even listen to it. Mr. Porten: Why not? Mr. Rejman: Because it has nothing to do with the application. If you tell me you are against tearing down these two huts and putting up this building because of this, fine, if you are telling me Mr. Porten: What is the purpose of tearing down the old building and putting up a new building to increase the business and obviously going to increase the traffic Mr. Rejman: No Mr. Porten: How can he have more business without increasing traffic? Mr. Rejman: How can you tell me it is? Mr. Porten: Are they going to walk their boats? They have to get their boats their initially Mr. Rejman: Initially, one time in the spring and one time in the fall. Mr. Baroody: The expert witness from the City said that 75% is from the school district. Mr. Porten: So now we are going to add more to that. The parking at the school district, believe me I understand what you are saying, I agree with that, that is not the marina’s fault. But that problem exists and it is there. So that is a congested street so now add more boats, more trucks and trailers. Now wait, if you are going to increase the business down there it is obviously going to increase maybe I am wrong, but if you are going to increase, improve the conditions of the marina, then it stands to reason that the slip is a City owned launch, it stands to reason it is going to see more traffic because of the increased conditions of the marina. Mr. Rejman: Show me proof. That is your feelings Mr. Porten: I am expressing my concerns is that not allowed? Mr. Rejman: No, but show up the proof. Mr. Porten: In this list of affected neighbors/addresses, I have a copy of the residents that have signed and I am wondering as to the validity of these pieces of paper. Ms. Marteney: These are people he approached. Mr. Porten: These are home owners that were approached Ms. Marteney: Not by this board Mr. Porten: It brings me to question, just for example, Meghan Clark, who resides at 128 Pulsifer Drive, Meghan Clark is an 18 year old girl. Ms. Marteney: We questioned this at the last board meeting. Mr. Porten: Ok, I was, I am a resident of Fleming Street and I was not informed by any one other than my neighbors of this and very recently. That is why I agree with Jim, I wish that we had more time to be able to figure out how this is going to affect us. Our initial reaction is going to be no we don’t want it, but without the time to properly research it, we don’t know what to expect. Mr. Westlake: Excuse me, sir, what don’t you like? Mr. Porten: I can’t address that we can only talk about the building. Mr. Westlake: That is all that we can address here at the Zoning Board is that issue, tearing down 2 buildings and putting up 1. That is all we can hear as a Zoning Board. Mr. Porten: But isn’t that a snowball that is going to start rolling. Mr. Darrow: We are considering giving a variance for a larger square foot of area for indoor storage, exact percentage I am not sure how to calculate, but that is what we are looking at. Raising two buildings erecting one building and then we have to grant a variance for the increased square footage of the size of the building although it is still his responsibility to maintain all set backs from the City, from the School District, from neighbors and then if those aren’t met, he would have to reappear, but that should be step 2. I am sure he has already looked at that, that the building is going to fit, so that it fits in all set backs otherwise Codes would have caught that and it would be addressed tonight. Mr. Porten: OK. My concern is that if this marina grows, there is going to be more traffic. We can’t sit here and rationally say that there isn’t going to be increased traffic, I am sorry I don’t have proof. Mr. Rejman: Ok, what percent increase, is it ½% ¼%, is it 1%? Mr. Darrow: We can’t address the unknown we can only address what we know and documented proof. Mr. Bartolotta: I wonder if the marina’s owner could speak to the gentleman’s concern. Sounds to me what he is suggesting is the increase in size may generate more traffic even if it is twice a year once in the beginning of the season and once at the end. These boats have to be transported in some way, shape or form and on those two days there may be a concern with traffic and that may impair the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. I wonder if he can address that concern for us. Mr. Rejman: Are you done? Mr. Porten: If you no Fleming Street, there are no sidewalks Mr. Rejman; We know the problem, we understand Mr. Porten: It just goes beyond me that if this is approved which is going to increase traffic, no I don’t have proof of that. Mr. Darrow: If you think this is a stepping stone for more, anything that isn’t allowed for him to do, in that event he would have to come back before the board and every body would be re-notified again. Mr. Porten: What we are speaking about tonight is just the two buildings, it is going to increase the traffic. Mr. Rejman: We are beating a dead horse, tell us the numbers that will increase, will it increase 50 cars Mr. Porten: We are trying to keep this form happening. Mr. Rejman: If the application was for a drive-in and they are going to put 1,000 cars a night in there, that we can get our arms around, you are not putting 1,000 cars down there on a Friday or Saturday night. See what I am saying. Mr. Porten: You are not talking about cars, you are talking trucks pulling boats. Now granted most of the boats are going to be down in the slips, but they have to get to the boats. They don’t take their boats out once a year, a lot of people take them out every day. There are boats parked at the marina, they have to go down our street to get to the marina. More storage at the marina means more vehicles are going to be driven to the marina. Mr. Rejman: OK, I will buy that, but is it a major impact? Mr. Porten: If you had children and you lived on that street, it would be an impact. Mr. Rejman: Ok, thank you very much. Mr. Bartolotta: Can the owner speak to the impact to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood that that increase in traffic however minor it may be or major it may be, how is that going to be alleviated or how is that not going to pose a health risk to the neighborhood. Mr. Newcomb: I hope that the people sitting here are not of the opinion that all 50 people bringing that extra boat, first of all a lot of them are already customers of the marina. They are bringing their boat in, winterized already, taking it out and storing it elsewhere. The marina does not just winterize the boats that are on the property. First of all a lot of the folks that are there are already there. Secondly, the folks that are going to use the storage are not going to come all in the same day. Some one mentioned 50 cars a day that is not going to happen. People will start storing their boats late August and some store in late October and any one who is a boater understands that. You are looking at 50 boats over a two-month period. An extra car a day? Perhaps, I am assuming that every one of those people being brand new customers new being there before simply is not going to happen. People who use the storage are already their boats in. So I would question any increase in traffic. I think it would be a viable argument that there would be no increase. Are we talking a car a day, are we talking two cars a day? That would be the increase because again we are talking 50 boats over a two-month period. I did not come in here to upset the whole neighborhood, I am trying to do this properly. To say this is a huge increase in traffic, it is not. Mr. Bartolotta: Just to clarify for both the board and the individuals here tonight, to any of your patrons that are customers of yours park on the roadway, outside of the marina? Mr. Newcomb: Not to my knowledge. I am the new guy coming in. Mr. Sacco: That answer is a simple no. Most of the customers that come to patronize the marina park at the foot of the 40 docks that they rent, very few park on the street, if any. Just to digress a bit the objections appear to be traffic, congestion, parking not the marina operation because it is somewhat suttle and the problems I hear this evening are parking and congestion, health, welfare and safety of the children. It can be done with a stroke of a pen, by closing the back gate of the school facility. It is as simple as that, you would elevate 100 to 150 cars from the street. The marina is not causing the congestion. Mr. Rejman: Thank you very much. Any more questions from the board? Ms. Brower: Is the new building going to be double the height of the Quonset huts? Mr. Newcomb: Approximately. Ms. Brower: They are 12 now? Mr. Rejman: There is some concern as to what it will look as to design. Mr. Newcomb: It is going to be 4 sided, we are not doing the 3-sided thing. It will be 4 sided, closed and locked. Mr. Rejman: You spoke to the security issue. Mr. Newcomb: I spoke to the security issue last time. I meant to bring it up again. Mr. Rejman: Any more questions from the board? Ok, we will close the public portion and discuss this. Mr. Newcomb: Thank you very much. Mr. Rejman: Counsel give us a little bit of guidance. Mr. Rossi: The construction of the building on the site, the board has considered the question of whether or not they will grant a variance for the removal of the two Quonset huts and the construction of a new building on the site and whether or not the variance should be issued for the construction of the new building. Mr. Darrow: I have a question for counsel. Is it simply limited to that or will we need to address any additional square footage over what is currently there? We have not had any square footage in our packet of current square footage is, new square footage, actual amount of square footage, an use variance for “X” amount of square feet. It will be done as a use variance and we won’t have to bother with an area variance for the increase of the square footage, that is what my question was. Mr. Hicks: With the area variance that you are speaking on the use variance will control what you mentioned with that and what they would be. Mr. Darrow: In the over all size. Mr. Hicks: Allowable versus what is proposed. Mr. Darrow: OK, thank you. Mr. Rejman: Any concerns, any discussions? Mr. Darrow: One thing I looked at they said they currently have approximately 80 boats stored outside. This new building was going to be able to store 50 to 55 boats. So if we were to look at the extreme worst case scenario there would be 50 to 55 boats in the storage and what does that work out daily, weekly how significant is that number over the course of the time when people launch to when they finish bringing their boats in for the season. That is the one item I look at and the other is the fact that I really do believe that the majority of their traffic concerns are the school and the other is are people legally and properly using a City boat launch. Mr. Bartolotta: I would tend to agree with that, I think the difficulty is trying to determine and I wish we had some kind of statistical guidelines to go by to say ok, you know 98% of the traffic problem there is not due to the marina, it is due to “XYZ”. Or statistically it would show otherwise and that would help to guide our decision. Mr. Rejman: We know that 75% is the school, so that leaves 25% to be spread between the marina and the boat launch. Mr. Westlake: What clouds the issue is the boat launch there, they pull up the street with a boat trailer and all of a sudden they say boat trailer, marina, bad. Mr. Bartolotta: That trailer may be there regardless of the marina. Mr. Baroody: We are dealing with other than what we are suppose to look at. They do have legitimate issues. Mr. Rejman: You increase 50 customers we increase traffic by 50 customers over a two-month period. Ms. Marteney: That is if people don’t bring their boats in and out. Mr. Rejman: For the City launch. Mr. Westlake: I am a boat owner so I put mine in and if it runs good all summer long, I take it out and store it. Mr. Darrow: I have owned 3 boats and have yet to own a trailer for any of them. Mr. Westlake: If I have a problem, I take it to the marina, drop it off and he calls me up and says it is fixed and pick it up and put it back in the water and away I go. Mr. Rejman: If you look at the total footprint of the two buildings plus the 10 feet in between it is Mr. Baroody: Close Mr. Darrow: You can see it by looking at the area Mr. Rejman: There might be an up side to this in the summer time if the trailers are inside Mr. Darrow: Another revenue source for him which is none of our business but the fact that now he can store the trailers Mr. Rejman: He could offer that as a perk which opens up more parking for his customers so they are not on the street. Ms. Brower: We have neighbors objecting to the aesthetics of it too thought. The building could be an eye sore just like the buildings that are there now, I think that compounds the aesthetics impact on the properties there. Mr. Darrow: Is this project going to change the over all character of the neighborhood? I don’t think it will. Is it going to change the aesthetic value of the neighborhood I think it would probably improve it. Mr. Bartolotta: I think more of safety in the neighborhood. If I could be shown something to show me that this traffic is not due to the marina and this is not going to compound the problem that already exists, the rest I am not as concerned with, but for me Mr. Rejman: We are talking 50 customers over a 2-month period. Mr. Bartolotta: I don’t know how we really can put our arms around that. Mr. Darrow: He already has 50 to 55 boats stored there, so if he stores every boat there the new building will house 50 to 55 boats so then worst case scenario 50 – 55 new people driving down the street to bring their boat or driving down to get the boat for him to store, none of those boats came from the lake and went into the storage building. Mr. Rejman: If we say no to 50 do we set precedence for the next pre-existing non-conforming that owns a restaurant that all of a sudden wants to have 200 to 300 a week come in? Ms. Marteney: We are not making a limit. Mr. Darrow: No we are not. Mr. Rejman: Justification of no is traffic then we have to hold every one in the future to the same accountability. Mr. Bartolotta: Not necessarily, if you have a traffic study Mr. Rejman: For 50 people? 500 absolutely 5,000 sure! Mr. Darrow: Perhaps we should move on to SEQRA review together and see what we come up with the SEQRA review impact. Mr. Rejman: OK, let’s do that. Mr. Selvek: With regard to SEQRA review Part II, it was prepared from last month’s meeting. I did not a few changes to it in that the application has been redefined specifically the increase in footprint of the building that we are looking at and not necessarily the marina as a whole. With regards to C-1, Adverse impacts. The Auburn Police Department has raised a concern with the traffic in this area. Presently, attendees of the high school sporting events park on the streets in this area causing traffic congestion, I believe the figure that was thrown out there was 75% related to the sporting events, and mentioned 25% as a mixture of residential, the marina, the City boat launch and so forth. With regard to air quality, ground water quality, again this in the broad scheme of things are very minor physical change to the site itself and it is not anticipated that there were be adverse effects with regards to that. C-2 – Aesthetics – the community, neighborhood character things of that nature. The existing huts are deteriorating, they are unsightly, impractical for storage. The proposed 72 x 72 storage may be considered by some of a large footprint within a residential area. However, it was mentioned that the building would still be 25 foot tall, I believe that a two story house would be 24 feet tall so the height of the building not so much as the over all size of it of the footprint. Concerns came up regarding whether or not it was a enclosed shelter or if it was an open shelter and the residents seem to be opposed to the aesthetics of a 3-sided shelter where the boats would be visible. Applicant did mention that the building will be fully enclosed and locked up which goes with the aesthetics of the site. With regards to vegetation, wildlife species, significant habitats, this is a previously developed site in an urban setting much of which is either paved or mowed lawn, something of that nature. It is reasonable to assume that there is no significant vegetation or wildlife that would be affected by the construction of this 72 x 72 storage facility. With regards to the community’s existing plans , although this use is not permitted in the R1 zone, it is a long term existing use, it is allowable as being grandfathered in, has been long associated with that portion of the neighborhood. With regards to C-5 which is subsequent development, pretty straight forward – granting this variance would likely result in the future construction of this 72 x 72 storage facility. Again these are staff guidelines. I would be happy to answer any questions for further discussion by the board with regards to possible affects under SEQRA. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we find a Negative Impact on SEQRA review. Mr. Baroody: I second that. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman Mr. Rejman: Any further discussions. I am not a boater, you are (to Mr. Darrow and Mr. Westlake) Mr. Sacco said that normally marinas are a positive influence on the neighborhood and I was trying to think of the marinas that I have seen that the residential neighborhoods around them flourished, it wasn’t that way 30 years ago. Mr. Baroody: Boaters are a very polite group of people, I have never seen anyone pass a boater that has broken down, you always stop and tow them in. It is not like driving on the road. Mr. Rejman: Is that a correct statement that marinas tend to increase property values? Mr. Darrow: I looked at the marina I am at and the property around it is flourishing, incredible value. We looked at 2 houses last year that were in the area of the marina and one of them was like $230,000 for 90 front of lake frontage and this piece of property would have had to been remodeled or be condemned. That is how bad it was. So I have to say that as a matter of fact some body bought it and torn it down, it is just a lot now. Ms. Brower: Different in this case not necessarily because they are not able to see the slips from the road, I have seen the service side of it the big blue building with stored boats and now another large building, they are not getting to see the beautiful side of this marina. Ms. Marteney: Is there a possibility that this building could be tucked further south which would open up more of a vista there Mr. Darrow: It was put there to meet the set backs for the City School District property. Mr. Hicks: You need to be looking at roughly a 30 foot set back Ms. Marteney: Oh, from the chain link fence, ok. Mr. Hicks: Qualified as a side yard set back residential zone which would have to be 10 foot or 7 foot. Mr. Rejman: Other comments? I don’t think we would have an issue if that boat launch wasn’t there to be honest. Mr. Westlake: If the boat launch wasn’t there and the school wasn’t there. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Michael J. Sacco Jr. and William Newcomb for property located at 147, 151 and 153 Pulsifer Drive a use variance for the purpose of raising two Quonset huts style enclosures and erecting one 72 foot by 72 foot by 24 foot high four sided enclosed structure for the purpose of boat and trailer storage as per submitted on site plan. Mr. Westlake: I second that motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Rejman VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Bartolotta Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved. Mr. Newcomb: Thank you ladies and gentlemen. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MAY 21, 2007 116 E. Genesee Street. R1A zoning district. Gudy and Doreen Aristy, applicants. Modification of previously obtained use variance. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 116 E. Genesee Street, are you here? Mr. Crane: I am Bill Crane, attorney for Mr. And Mrs. Aristy. We are coming before you this evening to request modification of the use variance that was granted back in December by letter dated, January 3, 2007. In that January letter the variance limited the variance to allow Big T’s Pizzeria to operate a carry out pizza establishment and included in the floor plan and the modification that we are requesting is to remove the specificity of Big T’s being the tenant. Part of the reason is because Big T’s is no longer a tenant, they broke the lease and my clients took possession of the property on March 19, 2007 and are making arrangements with another tenant. Use would remain carry out/restaurant/pizzeria/groceries/deli. Mr. Rejman: OK. We were very specific when we gave the variance and it was for Big T’s and we also made note that as long as Big T’s leases from you, if he goes away and someone else wishes to bring in a pizzeria we are going to do this whole thing all over again to give the neighborhood a chance for input. Here is the question. Do we still believe in that? The variance was given for the property and Big T’s and we wanted it that way so we could control it down the road. Mr. Darrow: My first question of you Mr. Chairman, did Big T’s actually ever operate out of that building? Because if so that would give us a chance to see what type of a neighbor it was. If not, then I feel we need to move ahead with either some sense of blind faith that the next one would be as receptive as Big T’s was upon the way it was granted. Mr. Baroody: From what we understand, Big T’s reneged on it. Mr. Crane: They made some improvements and paid rent up to January of this year and then they stopped, they never moved in. Mr. Westlake: Do you have any idea who, are you going to get the variance and go out looking, is that it? Do you have some body in mind? Mr. Crane: We don’t have a tenant in mind at this point. Mr. Baroody: Were you going to take it over and run it like the store? Mr. Aristy: We had financial hardship that is why we went out and leased it. If we have to run it again that is what we will do. For us to go in there and for us to run the store it possibly can be done again it is a financial hardship. If the board would allow us to search for this tenant, as the owners we are liable and we came back to the board to have that corrected if there are any issues here. They never occupied the premises. Mr. Crane: Primary business will be carry out. Mr. Darrow: If all we are looking to do is remove the name of a specified tenant, I feel ok with that. Mr. Rejman: I think our intent was not so much the control which pizzeria was in there, it was what business went in there. Mr. Darrow: Correct and I would say that I made the motion and I probably should have specified a pizzeria instead of Big T’s. Mr. Westlake: They were here that night, if you remember and they were ready to go in there, it was a done deal. Mr. Darrow: I have no problem removing the name, while it stays a pizzeria. Ms. Brower: I would be concerned this is a very residential corner and would it depart from a reasonable hour of being closed and now it is going to be longer hours and more activity. Mr. Baroody: Same thing, just change the name. Ms. Brower: If something goes in and operates there and it is very busy and it is not good for the neighborhood, then when you go to change the business again are we going to require that they come back? Mr. Rejman: Change of business use, so instead of a pizzeria there is an ice cream store, absolutely, they come back, but from pizzeria to pizzeria and the same hours and the same footprint. Mr. Rossi: Mr. Chairman it seems to me there is no change in the use, it is simply a modification from the original application as Mr. Darrow said, it would appear to be it would be an awful hardship to bring these people back again. Simply allow them to work within the parameters of the variance that you granted them already, any change they will have to come back. Mr. Crane: I think my only concern would be leave it to be limited to pizzeria, in the application my clients stated that if they were to go back in it probably wouldn’t be a pizzeria per say, it could be a deli. Do we have to come back before you if it is a deli or sub shop? Mr. Darrow: Not as retail slicing meat, sub shop. Ms. Marteney: Also added mini grocery store. Mr. Crane: That was the original use when it was the White House. Mr. Rejman: Have you been gone for 12 months? Mr. Hicks: Has gone beyond that. Ms. Aristy: The application said carry out, restaurant, pizzeria, grocery and deli. It listed all four. Mr. Rejman: Is there any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none we will come back to the board. Mr. Rejman: Because there is no one to speak for or against, which is a good thing, counsel are we better off, just remove Big T’s. Mr. Darrow: Reaffirm the past motion and eliminate the name Big T’s as the lessee. Mr. Rejman: How do we bid to the subs and the deli part, reaffirm pizza/deli Mr. Darrow: That is what is unspoken to me. Mr. Rejman: I thought last time it was going that way any way it was going to be Ms. Marteney: After the SEQRA it says the purpose of a restaurant/carry out pizza establishment. Mr. Rejman: Here is what I am thinking we can either reaffirm or start with a new one. Mr. Darrow: I think I should create a new motion. It will be less confusing. Mr. Crane: Only thing I will mention is at the December 4, 2006 application #8 proposed use: restaurant/carry out/pizzeria/deli/grocery. Mr. Westlake: That is what they asked for at that time. Mr. Darrow: I am going to do a new motion. I would like to make a motion that we grant a use variance to Mr. and Mrs. Aristy of 114 – 116 E. Genesee Street for the purpose of operating a pizza/sub/carry out/grocery/deli establishment and to be constructed as submitted on original floor plans and to conform with previous limitations. Mr. Baroody: I second the motion. Mr. Selvek: We did do a SEQRA review. Mr. Rejman: We are just amending the motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney Mr. Baroody Mr. Darrow Ms. Brower Mr. Westlake Mr. Rejman Mr. Bartolotta: Being I was not here for the original meeting, I am abstaining. Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved, the motion has been reamended. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MAY 21, 2007 22 Morris Street. R1A zoning district. Daniel and Amy Heintz, applicants. 8-foot side yard area variance to install a pool. _________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 22 Morris Street, are you here? Mr. Heintz: My name is Dan Heintz of 22 Morris Street and we are requesting an area variance for an above ground pool. Mr. Rejman: OK and you are looking for an 8-foot side yard variance to the south because that is where the pool fits. Mr. Heintz: Our lot is 32 feet wide. Mr. Rejman: One of our famous 32-foot wide lots. Any one here wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none. Questions from the board? Mr. Darrow: What is the type of pool? Mr. Heintz: 18 feet round, small lot. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Daniel and Amy Heintz of 22 Morris Street an 8 foot side yard variance to the south to install an 18 foot round above ground pool as submitted in the application. Mr. Darrow: 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. Thank you. Mr. Heintz: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MAY 21, 2007 64 Cayuga Street/ R1 zoning district. Larry Morrell, applicant. Two side yard area variances for a rear addition. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 64 Cayuga Street, are you here? Mr. Elice: I am Anthony Elice the contractor representing the Morrell’s for the proposed addition. We are requesting a variance because the house sits back from the property lines, proposed site plan to put an addition and we have the survey map and pictures. Mr. Rejman: Nice application. Another 37-foot wide lot. You need a side yard variance. Any one wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Questions from the board? Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Larry Morrell of 64 Cayuga Street a 4 foot 6 inch area variance to the west and a 1 foot 6 inch area variance to the east for the addition to the rear of the existing structure. 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: Application has been approved. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MAY 21, 2007 90 North Street. C2 zoning district. Maurice I. Schwartz Towers, Inc., applicant. Area variance to erect a garage (pole barn) at rear of property. ____________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman; 90 North Street, are you here? Mr. Contiguglia: I am David Contiguglia, attorney for Schwatz Towers. I have with me today, Dick Baran, the superintendent and Janice Miller who is the architect. Do you have the photographs? Mr. Rejman: Yes we do. Mr. Contiguglia: They are of different views of the area, one being the top of the building. Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there. Mr. Contiguglia: We need an area variance to construct a pole barn that in the application is 1536 square feet. The reason we need to get an area variance is that although we are in a commercial district and our neighbors are like the Block Busters, the mall on the other side a Chinese Restaurant, plaza on Seminary and Tompkins County Trust, we are considered by Code Enforcement to be a residential use even though we are in a commercial district. According to the Code a residential use can’t have a pole barn that big. It is behind the building, the building is 11 stories tall. It will be visible from the street. Recyclables will be stored in the building and would also allow machinery to be stored in that building as well. Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board? Ms. Brower: I am curious about the height of this building. Mr. Contiguglia: 18 feet. Mr. Darrow: Can you show me where it is on this site plan? Mr. Baran: This is where it is going to be (points to site plan). Ms. Brower: This excavation here Mr. Rejman: It is the new footprint. Any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Questions from the board? Ms. Marteney: How much of the back of the building is going to show to the Chapel? Ms. Miller: There is a hill there 6 foot of the peak. Mr. Contiguglia: I included this last picture that shows the Chapel, you can see that the only thing visible is the very top of the doorway that goes into the Chapel and I don’t feel where cars coming in that driveway would in the sight line. The original landowner who sold the land to Schwartz Towers was the Auburn Theology Seminary so there was an understanding at that time that there was going to be an 11-story building and that is the impact. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Maurice I. Schwartz Towers, Inc., 90 North Street, the applicant is requesting 786 square foot area variance to erect a pole barn/garage. 1,536 total square foot at the rear of the property as designated on the site plan. Mr. Darrow: I 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. Contiguglia: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MAY 21, 2007 8 Underwood Street. R2 zoning district. Sean Kopper, applicant. Two area variances, size and distance to property line to erect shed. Mr. Rejman: 8 Underwood Street, are you here? Mr. Kopper: Good evening, Sean Kopper, 8 Underwood Street. I would like to put up a 12 x 24 made barn, asking for 138 square feet over the standard of the 10 x 15 and also 18 inch side yard to the east. I have a statement from the owner of 6 Underwood, John Fedyshyn who doesn’t have a problem with the building. Mr. Rejman: Can we have that for the record? Questions from the board? Mr. Baroody: Just one question, looking down your driveway is that an old garage wall that is between your two properties? Mr. Kopper: Yes it is. It is an old foundation of some factory or something. I can’t use that area at all. I did talk to Mr. Hicks and I do have an existing metal shed in my back yard and I will be taking it down as soon as I get this constructed. Mr. Rejman: Is there any one wishing to speak for or against the application? None. Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Sean Kopper of 8 Underwood Street a 138 square foot area variance for the purpose of erecting a 12 x 24 shed as submitted on attached plot plan and also a 18 inch side yard area variance for same said project. 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. Kopper: Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MAY 21, 2007 55 Barber Street. R2 zoning district. Gerald Ferguson, II, applicant. Area variance to erect deck in rear yard. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Rejman: 55 Barber Street? State your name for the record. Ms. Ferguson: Noel Ferguson. Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there. Ms. Ferguson: I am here to get a variance for my side property which is the only property I have the way my house is situated. I want to build the deck all the way back only a total of 6 feet from me to my neighbor. I want to go a foot from my property line 3 feet from the property because I don’t have enough space. Mr. Rejman: A very small lot. Ms. Ferguson: Yes. Mr. Rejman: I think it says 34 feet one way, how much is it the other? Ms. Ferguson: Not much more than that. Mr. Rejman: Any one wishing to speak for or against the application? None. We have a letter from the next-door neighbor. Ms. Ferguson: All 4 adjoining neighbors, all who touch my property, on Derby and all on Barber Street neighbors. Mr. Westlake: I would like to make a motion that we grant Gerald Ferguson II and Noel Ferguson of 55 Barber Street, a 1 foot variance of the required 4 foot rear yard set back and a 2 foot variance of the required 3 foot side yard set back. Mr. Darrow: 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. Ferguson: Thank you.