ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDDAY JANUARY 28, 2008
Members Present: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Calarco
Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Westlake
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco
Mr. Hicks
Mr. Selvek
APPLICATIONS
APPROVED: 189 Van Anden Street
304-218 Genesee Street
9 Union Street
11 Richardson Avenue
339 State Street
114-116 E. Genesee Street
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight on the agenda:
189 Van Anden Street
304-218 Genesee Street
9 Union Street
11 Richardson Avenue
339 State Street
114-116 E. Genesee Street
Last month’s minutes, any additions or deletions? If not stand as written.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008
189 Van Anden Street, R1 zoning district, Robert Ogonowski, applicant. Area variance to create a parking area in the front yard. Tabled from December 26, 2007.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: 189 Van Anden Street are you here, please come to the podium, state your name and speak into the microphone as this is being recorded.
Mr. Ogonowski: Robert Ogonowski, 189 Van Anden Street.
Mr. Westlake: Tell us what you want to do.
Mr. Ogonowski: Basically a small driveway for my tenants upstairs to get a car off the road off the street parking on Van Anden Street is pretty tough.
Mr. Westlake: Anything else? Anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? See none, if you would like to sit down the board will discuss.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question of the applicant.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, go ahead.
Mr. Darrow: On your drawing you are saying the driveway you want to put in is gong to be 8 feet wide, approximately how many feet of that will be in front of the house?
Mr. Ogonowski: Whole 8 feet will be in the front of the house but it is a big grass pad.
Mr. Darrow: The entire 8 feet will be across?
Mr. Ogonowski: No, there will be grass on both sides of the driveway.
Mr. Darrow: Here on this drawing it shows your house from this point to this point and the driveway that you are going to put in goes from here to here? (Points to drawing).
Mr. Ogonowski: No it is actually 6 feet from the house.
Mr. Westlake: Do you still have the pictures (to Mr. Tamburrino).
Mrs. Ogonowski: Excuse me, I am Carol Ogonowski, I am his wife. If you look at the picture here is 187 Van Anden Street if you are looking at the far right side, right here is the grassy area 10 foot so we have the driveway here, then there is area in there, this is the side of the house, this over here is a grassy area too and this is where our driveway is that goes to the garage.
Mr. Darrow: So where are you proposing to put the new driveway?
Mrs. Ogonowski: The driveway is already in.
Mr. Westlake: It is parallel to the road is where they have their driveway; it is not diagonal to the road.
Mrs. Ogonowski: It is right here.
Mr. Westlake: We had a picture last month.
Mr. Darrow: So you actually made a driveway in the front yard or in the right of way between the curb and sidewalk?
Mr. Ogonowski: In the front yard.
Mr. Darrow: So you are between the sidewalk and your house?
Mr. Ogonowski: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: And it parallels the road.
Mr. Ogonowski: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Mrs. Ogonowski: No, parallel is like this
Mr. Darrow: Parallel runs with the road
Mrs. Ogonowski: It is perpendicular.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Ms. Marteney: Why was there a car parked parallel in the front yard on Sunday afternoon? There was a car parked parallel to Van Anden Street on Sunday afternoon.
Mrs. Ogonowski: That might have been when I pulled my van out
Ms. Marteney: No, it was a car and it was there, it was not being pulled in or out, it was parked in your front yard on Sunday afternoon at 3:30 p.m.
Mr. Ogonowski: Maybe we were moving cars in and out.
Ms. Marteney: There were no people out at all.
Mr. Ogonowski: I don’t know.
Mr. Westlake: It was actually parallel when we looked at it too.
Mr. Tamburrino: When I drove by and I noticed that there was a car parked in the front yard parallel to the road on the grassy surface. I took a picture of it.
Mrs. Ogonowski: Can I say something?
Mr. Westlake: Sure.
Mrs. Ogonowski: We have 3 vehicles, if I leave my van in the driveway and he is behind me, there are times we pull his car on the front so I can get my van out, that is the only think I can think of that is reason why it was there.
Mr. Westlake: I guess I am still confused as to where this
Mrs. Ogonowski: It is not a driveway, the driveway if you are looking at the house from the street, there is 185 Van Anden Street, there is a fence line there is 10 foot then there is this right of way, then there a grassy area there, there is our sidewalk that leads up to the front of the house and a sidewalk that leads to the side apartment, patch of grassy area and then the driveway it is actually by the property line at 191 Van Anden Street.
Mr. Darrow: This is the driveway in question and your sidewalks are here now you said it is in front of the house but the house is not shown in front of this driveway in question.
Mrs. Ogonowski: Because see where the driveway is right there, there is like we have a bush there and trees there in that area, do you know what I mean?
Mr. Darrow: Ok, my question is if you can answer it, on the 10 foot width of this proposed driveway how many feet of that is in front of your house? 10 foot, 9 foot, 8, 7 so on.
Mrs. Ogonowski: Technically it would be 10.
Mr. Ogonowski: The whole thing is not in front of the house; it is off to the side of the house.
Mr. Baroody: But you are showing a 16 foot parking area between the end of the parking and the front of the house, 4 or 5 feet?
Mr. Ogonowski: 5 feet before you hit the sidewalk.
Mr. Darrow: Of this 10 foot width is any of this 10 foot actually in front of your house?
Mr. Ogonowski: Not directly in front, no.
Mr. Darrow: So if you kept driving on this driveway you would go right down the side of your house?
Mr. Ogonowski: Yes, basically yes.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Is this your driveway?
Mrs. Ogonowski: No, the driveway, if you look at this
Mr. Westlake: What is this car doing here?
Mrs. Ogonowski: That is probably when I pulled my car out. That is not a driveway.
Mr. Westlake: You are confusing me, this is the picture that was taken, the car was parked there when the person took the picture, and they do park there
Mr. Darrow: Is this blacktop where this is parked?
Mrs. Ogonowski: No it is grass. If you look at this picture where the archway goes across on the sidewalk on the other side of it where the snow bank is, that is where the driveway is.
Mr. Darrow: So you are saying to the right of your house or the east side of your house where the proposed driveway is.
Mrs. Ogonowski: Actually if you at your picture where the 14 foot thing is this picture is actually showing one section of our house it is not showing, where the arch way is it is on the other side 14 foot there plus the 10 foot driveway plus the 10 foot of grass, so technically you have 34 feet.
Mr. Darrow: So your proposed driveway is going to go the fence representing the east side of your house
Mrs. Ogonowski: 14 feet after that.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, now if you pull in your driveway and kept driving forward you would go between the two houses, you would not hit your house you would not hit your neighbors.
Mrs. Ogonowski: If you went down
Mr. Ogonowski: You would hit the steps of the upstairs apartment.
Mr. Darrow: If it is not in front of the house at all why is a variance needed, I can understand where that other car is parked absolutely because that is completely against zoning.
Mr. Westlake: Can you enlighten us on that (to Mr. Hicks).
Mr. Hicks: In the Zoning Code as far as front yard is determined by the front frame of the house, from property line to property line
Mr. Darrow: Ok, I got it. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: What confused me was this picture because I thought that was where you asking for the driveway. But it seems like there is a car parking there quite often in this spot.
Mr. Ogonowski: We move a car, put a car there, back a car out because we have 3 vehicles.
Mrs. Ogonowski: From 185 Van Anden Street just on our side to 191 which is two houses up from us and two house down from us, we have two income properties, across the street from us from 194 to 192 there are another 4 income properties. Reason why we put this driveway in was just to get some of the cars off the street. There have been plenty of times that Auburn Fire Department has come down the street and not been able to get through, we just thought it would make it easier, that is the only reason why we put it in.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much.
Mrs. Ogonowski: Thank you.
Mr. Bartolotta: Is this a carry over from last month?
Mr. Westlake: Yes. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: My only comment is I guess I am more bothered by the use of the front of house, which was what you saw
Ms. Marteney: And what I saw
Mr. Darrow: Exactly then what they are looking to do, now I understand that you can’t always get the vehicles the second driveway past the front point and it is not exactly in front of the house which I think aesthetically makes some difference unlike the Jeep parked right in front of the house.
Mr. Westlake: That is the part that confuses me because it seems to be in front of the house quite often.
Mr. Darrow: When I looked at it I could see clearly that it looked like something was in front of that window although I just couldn’t and that is where I thought it was going. Well used.
Mr. Tamburrino: This driveway is perpendicular to the street on the east side of the house right in front of the structure.
Ms. Marteney: I think it is a little bit in front of the house, I certainly understand the need to have parking, it is wonderful to have a parking place there, I have a problem with parking in the physical front yard of the house. Three of us on three different occasions saw the car there and it was parked parallel with Van Anden Street.
Mr. Baroody: I can sympathize, we have 4 cars, it is pretty much you gets in the driveway first, I can understand.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board? Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Robert Ogonowski, excuse me if it is mispronounced, of 189 Van Anden Street a front yard area variance for the purpose of creating a 10 foot wide by 16 foot long driveway as submitted with plot plan.
Mrs. Calarco: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Calarco
Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Westlake – But I would rather that the car not be parked in front of the house even when you it. If you are going to move it, fine move it, and put it right back. Because we have been there numerous times and the car has been parked in front of the house.
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Baroody
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been granted. See the Code Enforcement Officer tomorrow.
Mrs. Ogonowski: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008
304-118 Genesee Street, C1/C3 zoning district, 1093 Group, LLC (Ellicott Development Co.) applicant. Multiple area variances to erect 3 wall signs and 2 pole signs in conjunction with the development of a Rite Aid Pharmacy.
-------_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: State your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Bonsignore: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I am James Bonsignore and I represent the applicant. This is an application for an area variances associated with signage of the new proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy Store at the southwest corner of Dunning Avenue and Genesee Street.
This is an odd application for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason because the property is actually split right through the middle of the proposed building as to the commercial uses that are permitted. One corner of the property is zoned C3 commercial and on the other southern half basically seven and three-quarters is C1 commercial and discussing with City staff and I believe with the Corporation Counsel here in the City it was decided that the entire application even though it is actually split into 2 different zoning designation would be considered under the more restrictive zoning designation for the entire. So right off the bat we are in a strange situation just because of the split zoning.
The signage that is being proposed if the properties were to be considered in accordance with the actual zoning would be fully compliant with the Code but because the interpretation under City has been to consider the entire property as C1 a couple variances are going to be required. The first variance that is being required is to have an additional façade sign under the interpretation of the C1 zoning, should façade signs have a brand name would be permitted. What is being proposed I hope the board can see this board; there is a standard Rite Aid store designation that has the Rite Aid shield and the white lettering, white letters with Rite Aid designation. So if you are looking at the building from Genesee
Street this would be at the northeast corner of the building and likewise if you are looking the building from Dunning Avenue this sign here pointing to the exterior elevation of the middle of the drawing would be the northern side of the building. Those two signs would be permitted, the additional sign that is being requested is the GNC Live Well sign which appears on a blue band right in the middle of the front awing if you will of the store. Front entrance of the store, which is a blue background with additional signage and lettering on it. The GNC brand is specific to Rite Aid because Rite Aid to the best of my knowledge has an exclusive agreement with the GNC organization. Typically you see GNC products either in the stand-alone stores, usually in a shopping mall occasionally you will see a stand-alone store. As I said to the best of my knowledge Rite Aid has an exclusive agreement with GNC to market the GNC health products outside of the
stand-alone GNC store. So what this creates basically is a store within a store and the only way for people who would be looking for those types of products to even know it was there is by the designation of the GNC on the exterior of the building. This sign in the grand scheme of things is minimal compared to what you see on some of the other locations. It is 10 square feet in size; it is incorporated into an architectural feature in the building so it is not going to be overly obtrusive. That GNC sign is the third façade sign that is being requested as far as the variance request.
The second area variance request is for the height of the pole signs and again this is kind of where the dual zoning designation property comes into play. The two pylon signs or pole signs are being proposed for the main entrances of the property, one at the western most entrance and one at the eastern corner of Genesee and Dunning. The sign to the west otherwise would be permitted both in height and square footage but because the application is interpretated to have the entire property designated as C1 a variance is going to be required in order to have that sign rise to the 20 foot height that normally would be permitted under the Code. For consistency purposes because the sign would otherwise be permitted the
request is to have the pole sign at the eastern corner of the property also be 20 feet in height. That accomplishes a couple of things it would be consistent obviously between the two signs you don’t have two signs at varying heights, and consistency along Genesee Street. Genesee Street is a major commercial corridor; you are going to see a lot of similar businesses in nature all of which if they have permitted signs will have 20 pole signs. So for consistency and aesthetic purposes we are requesting that both of those signs be permitted at the 20-foot height.
The third request for over all square footage. Again because the property has been interpreted to be zoned as C1 due to the dual designation of the underlying zoning, the maximum square footage is 50 feet or 2 square feet per linear street frontage which ever is greater. Unfortunately if you have a sign that is 50 square feet and you calculate that in accordance with the 2 square feet per linear frontage it has a linear frontage of 25 feet which any commercial business you need you can’t even get a curb cut or entrance of 25 feet so that gives you a little bit of perspective of how small of a sign area would otherwise be permitted in a C1 district.
The signage that is being proposed including the pole signs and all the façade signs that we discussed is approximately 325 feet based on the discussions and interpretations with the City Planner.
As I go through these next criteria I will discuss the substantiality of that request but just very briefly you take into account the size of the signage that is proposed for this building, even taking into account the pole signs it is completely comparable and in character with other businesses along Genesee Street. It is maintaining the character of Genesee Street as that commercial corridor. These are smaller sized signs that Rite Aid typically uses and they have reduced the size of all the signs for this location, it is also a slightly smaller store than they usually propose. Again for the purposes of minimizing the variance requests. We feel that even though it exceeds the C1 requirements for square footage
the signage that is being proposed fits perfectly with the surrounding community.
As you know this is an area variance so the primary statutory criteria benefits the applicant versus any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community, benefit to the applicant for an area variance is always going to be clear. It is going to allow the applicant to do what it is they want to do, in this case it is a little bit different because Genesee Street is highly traveled commercial corridor, visibility is key both for viability of the business to compete with other businesses adding additional signs along Genesee Street and also from traffic safety perspective because this property is located on a corner, the entrances for this property are slightly different than most because of the configuration
of the site. Visibility of the entrances and exits for the site is going to be clear and the identification. Those are the benefits to the applicant. There really isn’t a detriment to the general health, safety and welfare of the community that we can see. As I said it is going help promote visibility and safety concerns and if you take a look at the configuration of the property, directly to the south are other C1 commercial properties, which include a Simplex manufacturing site and a public storage facility. So the signage that is going to be visible from the site directly to the south really the only sign that is going to be visible from the neighboring property is going to be the only pylon sign at the eastern most corner of the property. Actually it would be permitted to have some kind of a sign there not necessarily the same height, but the variance request is not going to affect that, the sign is going to be there regardless. It isn’t going to be any detriment other
than any thing that would otherwise be permitted.
In making that determination there are several statutory factors supporting this that we will take a look at. First is whether or not there will be an undesirable change in the character of the surrounding community, detriment to the neighboring properties. I just kind of touched on that a little bit. Genesee Street is a commercial corridor in the City of Auburn, the neighboring properties directly adjacent to the subject property are commercial in nature, there really isn’t going to be any real change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to any surrounding properties.
The second criteria is whether the benefit sought to be achieved can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue. Again we are dealing with a couple of different things here. You have a property that has two different commercial designations, we have got the general commercial nature of Genesee Street, the desire of the applicant to maintain a competitiveness with the other businesses in a similarly situation and which have also received variance for their signage. As I mentioned because of the nature of the dual zoning designation Rite Aid had done what they can to try reduce the size of the number of signage so that they can still compete but bring it as close to the zoning designation as the
property is situated as it possibly can. So the request is really minimum to achieve the goal of the applicant and maintain visibility and traffic safety.
The third again is whether the area variance is substantial. The only real substantial of this admittedly is the square footage and as I noted before the requirements for the C1 district are very very strict as far as the square footage and signage. When you take into account the size of the building that would otherwise be permitted in a C1 district you would have a very tiny sign on a big building otherwise wouldn’t be able to designate various façade of the building or in this case the additional store within a store as I mentioned. Again taking into account the fact that the property is dually zoned and the fact that a portion of those signs would otherwise be permissible and taking into account
the character of the Genesee Street corridor and bringing all those things together and examining them all together the area variance being requested as far as the square footage really can’t be determined as substantial.
Again, I have touched on the fact that this is the minimal relief necessary to achieve the applicant’s goals.
Next criteria is the proposed variance will have an adverse affect impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The signage that is going to be permitted, the permitted two pole signs, there would be a sign there regardless, and the façade signs are just signs on the wall and really wouldn’t be any physical or environmental impact as a result of the signage whatsoever.
The last criteria is one that the board can consider but isn’t necessarily the end all deal here and that is that the difficulty was self-created. Difficulty that I advocate on behalf of the applicant, almost every area variance you have is going to have something self-creation because you are making a request to the board to do something that is not permitted. In this instance though we are handcuffed to some extent by the interpretation of the entire property being considered as a C1 even though a portion of it actually is C3. Because of the interpretation by the City I think to some extent the difficulty is not self-created because even though we would otherwise be permitted to construct the signage as
proposed at least for a portion of the property we are being told that we can’t because the desire to keep the entire property under one zoning designation. So we don’t feel that it is self-created and even though there are greater requests than what is allowed again the purpose of the package in its entirety is to maintain the characteristic of the surrounding area, to maintain that kind of consistency in the aesthetic quality of signage on this building and in conjunction with the surrounding area. So we think given that any element of self-creation will hopefully be discounted in your consideration.
If the board has any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Baroody: Two quick questions. With the exception of the area variance for the size of the signs, if the entire property was C3 not C1 would you need any of these variances?
Mr. Bonsignore: I don’t believe so, perhaps Steve could answer that question better than I.
Mr. Hicks: I don’t believe the variances would be required if it was all C3 there may be some small square footage for a sign on the building, but as far as the pole signs no.
Mr. Darrow: The height of the pole signs as well?
Mr. Hicks: I believe that would be roughly 20 foot 25 with landscaping at the bottom, different criteria for the C2.
Mr. Baroody: The second question is are they typical of all your Rite Aid stores?
Mr. Bonsignore: Yes. The signage varies usually with the architectural style of the building. The signs that are being proposed for this building are going to be a series of pole signage. What Rite Aid has done and what you are seeing in surrounding municipalities now days is they are moving to new architectural design standards. These signs have been designed in accordance with the changes that they are being requested to make throughout other municipalities. Even though there may be slight architectural differences this is the smaller sign package that is being designed with the new stores, incorporate the architectural, the blue banner to dress up the front of the store and things like that. It is their relatively new sign package that has
shifted away from what you might see, if any body is familiar with Canandaigua, the best example I can point is the Rite Aid store located just outside the City which has a gigantic white channel letter sign on the two façade which says Rite Aid Pharmacy, One Hour Photo, Drive-thru and it is just a massive massive big white channel letters.
Mr. Baroody: Nice job on the package.
Mr. Tamburrino: Do you have an architectural rendering of the pylon signs?
Mr. Bonsignore: There was a rendering in your package.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t have it in mine.
Mr. Bonsignore: I do have one rendering that I can pass along. The pole signs consist of singular pole blue in color, you have the red and black LED reader board which is going to have typical – Gallon of Milk $2.99 type of advertising. Not going to be a flashing sign, you are not going to have the flashing, you are not going to have scrolling, scrolling message across the screen. The top portion is a white background with dark blue lettering indicating Rite Aid Pharmacy.
Mr. Bartolotta: How large a portion of the property falls within the C3 district if you had to put a percentage for the property?
Mr. Bonsignore: Based on the site plan I’d probably guess maybe a third and that is the western most portion of the property which is where the prime entry frontage of the store is located. If I had to guess the front of the store is angled and C3 and C1 line basically touched from northeast to southwest across the building at the western point where the building begins to angle.
Mr. Darrow: I can picture where the eastern most pole signs are going to go, that is an easy job or easy task, but the western most, how far down is it going? Is it going to be on the property of where the Coffee Host is now or at the corner of Arlington, where that wooden two-story house stands now.
Mr. Bonsignore: I am not entirely sure where the sign actually will be located.
Mr. Darrow: Are you acquiring all the from Dunning Avenue to Arlington Avenue?
Mr. Bonsignore: Just the three.
Mr. Darrow: So that one wooden house would still remain there and the property where the Coffee Host sits would be that property then next that two story house.
Ms. Marteney: Goes behind Steigerwalds.
Mr. Darrow: They have a land contract with Coffee Host so therefore that pole is going to be right next to a two story dwelling or house.
Mr. Hicks: If you leave the P&C Plaza where the light is there, the entrance to the west of this new store will be lined up with that light. The pole that you are talking about will be to the east or heading towards the City, so it will not be in front of the existing Coffee Host building at all.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, all right.
Mr. Tamburrino: Is there a plan view of this.
Mr. Bonsignore: You should have one in your packets, if you do not I do have a site plan that I can pass around. Again that sign that we are talking about is actually located within the C3 district. (Look at site plan)
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Please step up one at a time. No one wishes to speak for or against? Ok. Seeing none we will discuss the matter amongst ourselves.
Mr. Bonsignore: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: The plot plan answered a lot of questions.
Mr. Baroody: Do you want one or six separate motions?
Mr. Darrow: I would think you would do them one at a time, if one is voted down the whole bundle is voted down.
Ms. Marteney: Came to us for 9 area variances.
Mr. Darrow: Counsel should we do one or separate them?
Mr. Fusco: Try and do them one at a time.
Mr. Darrow: I do have one question, what was the height that we allowed Walgreens to go for their corner pole signs?
Mr. Selvek: 22 feet.
Mr. Darrow: 22? Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Only question I have is we had to give Walgreens a variance for the reader board
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Westlake We had to give one for the one on State Street also.
Ms. Marteney: Because it is flashing.
Mr. Darrow: This isn’t going to flash so it is not an attention getting device I guess.
Mr. Westlake: I will entertain a motion now.
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant 1238 Group, LLC, 295 Main Street, Suite 210, Buffalo, New York, James Bonsignore, Esq., an area variance 1 sing over the allowed per street frontage (allowed 4, actual 5) with the 3 additions per item #1 of this application.
I would also like to make a motion that we grant an area variance of the orientation of the street corner pole sign (neither parallel or perpendicular) for item #2 of the application.
#3 – an area variance of 249.77 square feet over the allowed 100 square feet for total lot (50 square feet maximum per street frontage) 305 & 327 square feet.
#4 – two area variances surface area of pole sign exceeding 3 times the height of the sign – Genesee Street sign 27.84 square foot over the allowed 60 square feet (3 x 20’ high) corner sign (5) is 17.81 square feet over the allowed 60 square feet.
#5 – two area variances for each pole sign of 3’ over the allowed 17 feet height (signs #45 and #5)
#6 – two area variances for the wall signs of 6 feet over the allowed 17 foot height (signs #1 & #2) per the application drawings.
Mr. Darrow: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Mrs. Calarco
Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Mr. Bonsignore: Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008
9 Union Street, R1 zoning district. Rachel Drennen and Omar Bailey, applicants. Area variance to create a parking area in the front yard.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: Is 9 Union Street here? Please step forward, speak into the mike, and tell us your name.
Ms. Drennen: Hi, my name is Rachel Drennen and I own the house at 9 Union Street and we would like to put in a driveway in the front there in front of our house. We are looking for maybe 20 x 20 two vehicles to park in and I guess that is it. The way the house is set up is there are actually two trees, which are between the sidewalk and actual road so we were hoping to center it in between that. I the trees are about 23 – 24 feet apart.
Mr. Westlake: Questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: There is no location to the east or west of your house where you can put parking?
Ms. Drennen: No.
Mr. Darrow: Your property lines are that tight?
Ms. Drennen: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: What is the actual width of your property?
Ms. Drennen: It is about 55.
Mr. Baroody: The house is wide and set back?
Ms. Drennen: Yes, correct.
Mr. Darrow: Would you be able to give me an approximate how many feet from the sidewalk to the front of the house?
Ms. Drennen: At least 80 feet from the sidewalk.
Mr. Darrow: 80 feet from the sidewalk to the front of your house?
Ms. Drennen: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: You don’t have much of a back yard.
Ms. Drennen: There is no back yard.
Mr. Darrow: How far does your property line go over to here? (Points to drawing).
Ms. Drennen: Not that far, actually you see where the tree stumps are that is the actual line, actually it is kind of slanted so it is kind of sloping hill.
Mr. Darrow: Have you applied for your curb cut yet?
Ms. Drennen: There is no curb.
Mr. Darrow: Do they have to apply though?
Mr. Hicks: If there is a variance granted.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Ms. Calarco: Would it be possible to remove the trees and put the driveway over so it is not directly in front of the house?
Ms. Drennen: Any way it will be in front of the house, it could be the right where the sidewalk is the ground actually starts to go up kind of at an angle and the tree line goes right down the sidewalk, so we were kind of hoping if there is an issue with that we would have to tear it all up.
Mr. Westlake: Those are City trees too so that comes into issue, we can’t tell them to tear down the tree.
Ms. Marteney: The property on the west you would have to fill in about 6 feet to make it level with the sidewalk.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board? Anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none.
Mr. Baroody: Unique situation there.
Mr. Tamburrino: Why is it unique?
Mr. Baroody: You have a 50 foot house and a 50 foot lot, it is all the way back there, there is no driveway, they are looking for a variance. I hate front yard parking but this is unique.
Mr. Westlake: Let’s make a motion.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Rachel Drennen and Omar Bailey of 9 Union Street an area variance for the installation of a front yard parking area per their application.
Mr. Bartolotta: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney – with the codicil that they could move it one way or the other so it is not completely in the front – front right in the middle of the yard, but as close tree wise as they can because the hand draw drawing doesn’t distinguish the best.
Mr. Baroody
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Westlake
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Darrow – due to the fact that an inadequate plot plan was submitted to make a decision.
Ms. Calarco – same bases as Mr. Darrow.
Mr. Tamburrino – I agree we need a plot plan.
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved 4 to 3.
Ms. Drennen: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008
11 Richardson Avenue, R1 zoning district. Kevin Gleason, applicant. Area variance of 3 ½ feet for addition.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: 22 Richardson Avenue. State your name.
Mr. Gleason: Kevin Gleason, I live 11 Richardson Avenue and I am asking for a 3 ½ foot variance to put an addition to enlarge the kitchen in the back of my house.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board? I have one, I don’t see any kind of, maybe it is here. Sorry about that. Questions from the board.
Mr. Tamburrino: I had a question of Mr. Hicks, this is an attached structure I am looking at accessory structures, I am thinking that the pool, is the pool considered an accessory structure?
Mr. Hicks: Yes it is. Separate from the primary structure to the accessory structure you need to maintain 10 feet this is where we need the variance for.
Mr. Tamburrino: I see, so it is a pool.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board?
Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application?
Seeing none. Is there a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Kevin Gleason, 11 Richardson Avenue a 3 ½ foot area variance as a separation from the proposed addition as submitted in the plot plan from the existing pool.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Calarco
Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Mr. Gleason: Thank you very much.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008
339 State Street, C zoning district, Timothy Sincebaugh. Area variance of 10 feet for addition.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: 339 State Street. Please come forward and state your name.
Mr. Sincebaugh: My name is Tim Sincebaugh I own Sincebaugh Automotives at the corner of State and York Street. I would like to put an addition on the building to add another work bay so that I can increase my business and add additional services. In order to do that I am going to need an area variance, as I will be too close to the property line at Callahan Masonry Supply. I do have a short letter here from Francis Callahan that I didn’t have available at the time I put in my paperwork, I just got it and made copies. (Passes copies around to members.)
Mr. Westlake: Is this the old Diego gas station?
Mr. Sincebaugh: Yes. I think there is a drawing there to that I had made up.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, come back to the board.
Mr. Darrow: I think the drawing speaks volumes to the fact that it is an irregular shape of the lot. The addition is not obtrusive because it conforms to the size of the building. If there is no other discussion I would have to the floor for a motion.
Mr. Westlake: Go right ahead.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Timothy Sincebaugh, 339 State Street, Auburn, a 10 foot area variance for the purpose of constructing an addition to the current dwelling as submitted in plot plan.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Calarco
Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Mr. Sincebaugh: Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008
114-116 E. Genesee Street, R1A zoning district, Gudy and Doreen Aristy, applicants. Area variances to subdivide an existing lot with two structures.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: 114-116 E. Genesee Street. Please state your name for the record.
Mr. Aristy: Good evening, my name is Gudy Aristy.
Mrs. Aristy: I am Doreen Aristy.
Mr. Aristy: What we are looking to do is have the board approve on several area variances for an application I have already submitted to the Planning Board for minor subdivision of the property.
Mr. Westlake: Questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: You just need these variances you are just separating the pizza shop from the house, correct?
Mr. Aristy: Correct.
Mr. Bartolotta: Is there a copy of the subdivision map?
Mr. Aristy: Yes, it is in there.
Mrs. Aristy: It is folded.
Mr. Tamburrino: You have an irregular lot.
Mrs. Aristy: It will be divided along the building, it will be irregular. Only divisions will be between the two buildings.
Mr. Westlake: Reason for the subdivision?
Mr. Aristy: We are finding that the people that you are coming to us with interest in the property are not interested in buying both, they want to buy one or the other.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Ms. Marteney: Do the two buildings actually touch or is there a space between them?
Mr. Aristy: They are not touching, no. Very close.
Mr. Darrow: Could a body squeeze between?
Mrs. Aristy: Maybe a child.
Mr. Westlake: Any other questions from the board?
Mr. Bartolotta: Is there any parking at all on the property now?
Mr. Aristy: The house has the driveway for 3 cars, the store has a driveway and a garage.
Mr. Darrow: Is the store parking still behind where the chain link fence is in the area of chain link fence.
Mr. Aristy: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: It is behind, south of the chain link fence.
Mr. Aristy: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, back to the board.
Mr. Darrow: I think that this couple is like our textbook example of hardship. They have tried so many different things with this property, no body can they haven’t tried other venues and I seem to think that after listening to what he is saying about some people wanting the business but not the house, I can understand that. I guess one is enough to maintain. I really don’t see any problem with this.
Mr. Baroody: You have worked hard on this.
Mr. Westlake: I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make motions on behalf of Gudy and Doreen Aristy, 29 West Street, Homer, New York:
First being proposed lot A (#114) an area variance of 1580 square feet of the required 5,000 square feet and
Second a variance of 7 feet of the required 7 feet for the back yard set from the east property line and
Third a variance of 1 foot of the required 17 feet combined yards.
Mr. Westlake: Is there a second on the first motion?
Mr. Darrow: I will second it.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Calarco
Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: First item approved. Do I hear a motion for the second?
Mr. Baroody: Proposed Lot B:
Item #1 a variance of 2,625 square feet of the required 5,000 square feet;
Item #2 proposed lot B a variance of 21% over the allowed 40% maximum building coverage;
Item #3 proposed lot B a variance of 7 feet of the required 7 feet side yard set back to the west.
Mr. Darrow: One question before we second that. Should we list lot A and lot B as 114 and 116 because the variance goes with the property? So we know which one they are attached to so I am assuming lot A would be 114 and lot B would be 116.
Mr. Fusco: Probably not a bad idea.
Mr. Darrow: If we could amend that motion so that proposed lot A is shown as 114 E. Genesee Street and 116 is lot B. I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Calarco
Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application is approved.
Mr. Aristy: Thank you very much.
Mr. Westlake: I have a letter from Brian Hicks, which says “as the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer I respectfully request an interpretation of Section 305-24(15)(d) of the City Zoning known as Home Occupation for the attached special permit application submitted to the Auburn Planning Board. The Planning Board has raised a question as to whether the proposed use meets the intention of this Section as allowed home occupation by the Code”.
First of all none of us know anything about this asking for an interpretation of something I know nothing about. I didn’t get that in my packet. I can give an interpretation because I just got the information for what I am suppose to interpret.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to hear it and then perhaps table it if all are in favor of that.
Mr. Westlake: It wasn’t advertised.
Mr. Darrow: Does it have to be?
Mr. Fusco: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Because it is not a variance.
Mr. Hicks: Interpretation would be an action.
Ms. Marteney: Could it be #8 on our agenda? Any other matters that may be brought before the board?
Mr. Darrow: Under open meeting law.
Mr. Baroody: We will get the information and table it for a month and then vote on it after the advertising is done.
Mr. Bartolotta: We don’t need to take an action tonight.
Mr. Westlake: Is that why the public is here because I asked if anyone wished to speak for or against and nobody did.
Ms. Gasparro: That is why we are here.
Mr. Westlake: That is what you are here for.
Ms. Gasparro: My name is Jennifer Gasparro, I live at 12 Lake Avenue, I have been there 13 years. My Mother and Stepfather are Richard and Marie Paulino are the owners of the house, they hold the mortgage. My husband and I own Reliable Movers. We have been operating, it is not really out of the house, it is not in the house, it is a moving business. Basically I rent property from Mark (did not hear last name) for my trucks, I have a storage bay for shipment because we do Home Depot deliveries, stuff like that. Basically I drive 1150 miles a week and I have one truck, a van that can reach from 10 foot to 16 foot, which I bring home with me. Because I leave at 6:00 in the morning, this morning I did 600 miles, I just came off the
road to come here.
What we are asking for is home occupation and also a variance for a 30 x 30 garage in the back of the property. The property next to us is Cayuga Home for Children which is a parking lot. The garage will be located at the back of the lot, if you are standing in front of the house near the basketball hoop which is a 12 foot plastic fence from the home. The property would maintain a residential look because the lot is large enough. The other plan would be to put the white plastic 6-foot fencing around the remaining pieces of property. The Home has a wooden fence already; we would run some of that to the other side. My neighbors have been living in the area for 20 plus years, one property over here
(points to drawing) right in back she has been there 5 years and she has no problem with the garage. We want to put 2 moving trucks inside of the garage. As it stands now one moving truck because I drive it daily is on the side of the property. What I am looking to do if we put them in a garage so they won’t be seen at all. Phones are answered in the house, I have 2 employees, one has a vehicle, one doesn’t. The garage is far back and the driveway will go along the fence of the parking lot of Cayuga Home and there would be two bays for the employees to park.
What usually happens is someone calls me with an address, my guys come in at 8:00 a.m. in the morning, they park their vehicles, we have 5 trucks and they all are parked at Mark’s, they will bring it to the house, run in, get directions and gas money and leave. They are at the house for approximately 10 to 15 minutes in the morning when the come in with the paperwork they are in the house 10 to 15 minutes in the afternoon. There are times that they will stop between or during lunch 20 or 30 minutes if the have jobs between, if they waiting for if they have one job in the morning and one job in the afternoon other than that, I haven’t had any problems other than my father’s soon to be ex-wife she has made 20
complaints in 2 weeks Mr. Hicks can verify it besides stalking, harassment, vandalism to my vehicles. She follows me from one meeting to another. She is the only one opposing this. My neighbors thrilled, happy, I have spent a lot of money on this property. We care about our property; we have put a lot of money in this house. Any questions?
Mr. Darrow: We need a packet and a plot plan now that the garage has been introduced.
Ms. Marteney: We are suppose to be talking about (d) on this form, did I hear that?
Mr. Westlake: Yes (d).
Mr. Darrow: Is a moving business considered a home occupation.
Mr. Fusco: Correct.
Ms. Marteney: It says, “shall not alter the exterior appearance of the structure or be visible form the street”.
Mr. Fusco: We have copies of the Home Occupation provisions from City Code in there, your decision, you won’t make it tonight, because we haven’t advertised this, that is what you will essentially be deciding next month is this a home occupation within the intent of the entire Section 15.
Ms. Marteney: I thought I heard (d).
Mr. Fusco: You will consider 15.
Mr. Westlake: There is (a) through (k).
Ms. Marteney: Ok.
Mr. Westlake: First of all it has to be turned down by Brian Hicks to come in front of the board.
Mr. Fusco: Brian has given an opinion already.
Mr. Hicks: Application came in and this went to the Planning Board first for the issuance of a special permit. The Planning Board referred it the Zoning Board of Appeals for the interpretation of the Home Occupation clause of the Code. That is why this section was placed in front you this evening. In your packets you should have had an application. I will apologize for that because my packet did have it, so I assumed everyone else had it. So once again I apologize for you not having yours but the interpretation letter you did receive I believe.
Mr. Westlake: Yes.
Mr. Hicks: The information that it was needed to be in the advertised portion of the interpretation because it was not linked of any actual item as far as the address it was just for interpretation whether or not a moving business fell under a Home Occupation. It was told to me that it was not needed to be advertised. So once again I apologize for the lack of proper information at that point. We will make sure that this board does have the proper information for the next month.
Mr. Fusco: Not only advertised but we are going to have to do a SEQRA review. That will have to be included in the packet too.
Mr. Hicks: If a variance is required.
Mr. Fusco: Interpretation itself is an action.
Mr. Westlake: I am confused if he doesn’t turn it down for a variance we don’t need an interpretation.
Mr. Selvek: The Planning Board is requesting an interpretation of the Code.
Mr. Hicks: I did turn it down.
Mr. Westlake: I didn’t realize that, that is an entirely different situation.
Mr. Darrow: In looking at a moving business I sort of am looking at it as independent contractor no different than building contractors, roofing contractors that are working out of their houses, they are just simply contracting with individuals to move their possessions rather than contracting with individuals to put a kitchen on their house or re-roof it. I am just putting that out to think about until our next meeting.
Mr. Baroody: I know the need to consolidation, a small business have everything in one spot.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion to table this until our next regularly scheduled meeting.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney
Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Calarco
Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Tabled until next month.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
| 
