ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY AUGUST 25, 2008
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Westlake
Member Absent: Mr. Baroody, Ms. Calarco
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. LaDouce, Mr. Selvek
APPLICATIONS
APPROVED: 40 Grover Street, 173 South Street, 154 Garrow Street Ext., 74 Lansing Street, 61
Perrine Street
APPLICATION
TABLED: 12 Pearce Avenue
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have on the agenda: 40 Grover Street, 173 South Street, 12 Pearce Avenue, 154 Garrow Street Ext., 74 Lansing Street, 61 Perrine Street
If there are no errors or omissions from last month’s minutes of the meeting, the minutes will stand as written. All in favor.
*****
40 Grover Street. Area variance for installation of a pool too close to the house. Applicant is Robert and Gilda Brower.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: 40 Grover Street, please come to the podium, state your name and tell us what you want to do there.
Mr. Brower: My name is Bob Brower and my wife Gilda Brower, we live at 40 Grover Street and we are requesting an area variance that will allow us to put in a above ground pool closer to the house than otherwise allowed. I could walk you through it if that would be helpful. There are photos and diagrams; I guess the main point is that it is probably going to come out to a 5-foot variance. There is only one neighbor who could see it once it is installed and he is fine with it. About 135 feet back from the road so what would otherwise be visible will be screened as I have been advised to do by the Historic Resources Review Board. They will be finalizing approval of that gate, other than that they were fine with it. That is pretty much it I think.
Mr. Westlake: Ok. Any questions from the board? Anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will come back to the board and discuss it amongst ourselves and vote.
Mr. Brower: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: The application was very well prepared and when you consider you want to give the minimum variance they couldn’t go much smaller when you consider the way they are laying it out.
Ms. Marteney: If they go further back they will have to take out a mature tree.
Mr. Darrow: The Historic Review Board is fine with it.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Robert and Gilda Brower of 40 Grover Street a 5 foot area variance for the purpose of constructing a 12 foot above ground swimming pool as plotted on submitted plot plan.
Mr. Bartolotta: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved. Enjoy your pool.
Mr. Brower: Thank you very much.
*****
173 South Street. Use variance for increase of non-conforming use by expanding footprint. Applicant is Nino’s Pizzeria.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: Would 173 South Street please come to the podium. State your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Bartolotta: Good evening my name Mateo Bartolotta and I am representing Nino’s Pizzeria on South Street.
Mr. Palmeri: I am Mike Palmeri.
Mr. Bartolotta: We are here tonight for a use variance for our pre-existing non-conforming use. Mike you go ahead and give the details.
Mr. Palmeri: You have a copy of the site plan?
Mr. Westlake: Yes we do.
Mr. Palmeri: Planning to add 460 square feet to the building, we are taking down, there are 2 portions of the building, a newer structure which houses the actual pizza shop and an older section for storage area. Take this down and replace it with a new structure. The old building is basically has some structural issues with it, need to be replaced and at the same time would like to add some to square it off for additional space. Staying with the same design as the existing building, will match what is there right now.
Mr. Westlake: Sounds good. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: It is the intention that this remain a pizza shop after the reconstruction?
Mr. Bartolotta: Yes.
Mr. Palmeri: Some will be for storage, they don’t have the space.
Mr. Bartolotta: Originally the building was built as two separate buildings and then it was attached in between before we purchased it. So what you have is basically a miss match of different pieces of, our floor space isn’t one open are, it has walls and is all divided up and not enough storage space, we have 6 or 7 foot ceilings. The summer time heating and air conditioning in such a small place so much heat in the kitchen has become a problem for us.
Mr. Darrow: So do you foresee having to close down while do this or are you going to erect the building and do the demo of the interior existing around it.
Mr. Bartolotta: Best scenario is to stay open, we might have a short shut down but that all depends on the logistics, architectural structuring and planning and everything else.
Mr. Tamburrino: The dotted line does that represent the building to be demo?
Mr. Palmeri: Yes.
Mr. Bartolotta: The block building we are leaving that. We are updating the kitchen and modernizing a number of things.
Mr. Fusco: I am confused, help me on this drawing, what portion of the drawing will be a portion of the building or footprint that doesn’t presently exist.
Mr. Bartolotta: The dotted line, that is the existing.
Mr. Palmeri: We will be adding about 460 square feet around the, this will all be new (pointing to drawing).
Mr. Fusco: That will be added that doesn’t exist now.
Mr. Palmeri: Right.
Ms. Marteney: New porch on front.
Mr. Fusco: The new porch will also be new to the footprint?
Mr. Bartolotta: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions of the board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, we will come back to the board and discuss.
Mr. Bartolotta: Thank you.
Mr. Palmeri: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Only question I have is if they are adding after the demo is the net gain going to be 460 square foot? Here he is asking for 740 square foot, are they going to lose when they currently have when they demo, do we have to re-variance it?
Mr. Fusco: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Because of the pre-existing non-conforming, goes down, it is lost so that is why it is 740 square foot for the entire new portion.
Mr. Fusco: I am assuming that the part in the back that they are squaring off and the new porch if you add those two up it is 740 square feet. They currently have a pre-existing non-conforming use.
Mr. Darrow: So the variance does have to be for what is being created or rebuilt, the total square footage not the square footage of what is currently there.
Mr. Fusco: It is an expansion of a non-conforming use, that is the reason they are seeking relief.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, so 740 is the right number then?
Mr. Fusco: Would look that way.
Mr. Palmeri: 460 was something I did real quick, 740 is the square footage.
Mr. Westlake: 740 is the number we need.
Mr. Darrow: I think we are also going to need a short form SEQRA.
Mr. Fusco: It is there.
Mr. J. Bartolotta: For obvious reasons, I am going to abstain.
Mr. Westlake: Mr. Selvek will you go over the SEQRA?
Mr. Selvek: The proposed addition requires a use variance and a use variance requires that we go through SEQRA. In this particular case the proposed addition is less than 25%, which wouldn’t trigger site plan review therefore the Zoning Board is the only involved agency for SEQRA. Part II portion C, which deals specifically with possible adverse effects.
C-1 which primarily environmental effects, as noted presently the site has a commercial use with a relative high turn over. The proposed reconstruction and addition, although slightly larger in scale is unlikely to cause any adverse environmental effects above and beyond those presently there.
C-2 with regards to the aesthetics and community character, I don’t know if you are aware this particular portion of South Street although zoned R-1 has a number of commercial or what would be considered quazi-commercial uses and that particular commercial use generally fits into with the other existing uses in that location.
C-3 with regards to vegetation, wildlife species, endangered species, the site is a large vacant portion field along with a commercial building and gravel parking lot. It is unlikely that significant habitats or species existing that location. The proposed development appears not to interfere with the small creek on the site.
C-5 that deals with the growth of subsequent development, as you are aware granting the use variance would allow and encourage this non-conforming use to continue in the R1 zone.
And as I mentioned previously under C-6 although the proposed reconstruction and addition will not require Site Plan approval (less than25% increase in square footage), the site will likely need to be brought into compliance with the code. This would, at a minimum, would require landscaping and buffering that is currently required by code.
The recommendation is for a Negative Declaration. If there are any questions, I would be happy to address those.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we find a Negative Declaration for Mateo Bartolotta for Nino’s Pizza, 173 South Street for the purpose of a new addition.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Bartolotta Abstaining
Mr. Westlake: Negative Declaration approved.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Mateo Bartolotta of Nino’s Pizzeria at 173 South Street a 740 square foot use variance for the purpose of constructing an addition to current premises as laid out and submitted on site plan.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Bartolotta Abstaining
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
*****
12 Pearce Avenue. Use variance for expanding storage facility, non-conforming use by expanding footprint. Applicant is Jim Salva.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: Next we have 12 Pearce Avenue.
Mr. Giacona: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, Sam Giacona on behalf of Jim Salva. I have some photographs for you and more documentation confirming the financial hardship. Basically as stated in the application he would like to increase the space at 12 Pearce Avenue. It was formerly an automobile repair shop and he acquired the property in January of 2000. He put substantial improvements into the building to the tune of $35,000, and as set forth in the additional documents since 1983 Salva Electric has grown and currently employs 21 people in the Auburn area. Due to the growth of the business he needs more storage and the most cost effective way to do that would be to increase the size of the current storage building, which is shown on the attached plot plan.
In the event he is not able to do that he will have to seek commercial storage elsewhere and I submitted some information on purchasing or renting that would be substantially higher than expanding is his business and storage area. He has plenty of room on the lot. Character of the neighborhood is pretty much all commercial, except for a couple rental units as shown in the pictures. Any questions?
Mr. Darrow: When did you say he purchased the property?
Mr. Giacona: January of 2000 he bought it for $21,000 and he has invested about $35,000.
Mr. Darrow: It looks very nice.
Mr. Giacona: I don’t know if you remember the automobile repair shop, it was dilapidated and abandoned vehicles.
Mr. Westlake: What percentage of increase would the new building be compared to the old building – 100%?
Mr. Giacona: It would be 100% increase.
Mr. Fusco: That creates somewhat of a problem in that it involves another agency, for an enlargement that large it does trigger mandatory site plan review under the charger which means the SEQRA review would have to be coordinated with our City Planning Board.
Mr. Giacona: Is that going to be a problem?
Mr. Fusco: I don’t see that as being a problem but I want to alert your client to that, lot of people come here expecting they are going to get relief tonight and it may take another month, it will take another month. Planning Board meets next Tuesday and I don’t know how quickly this could be brought before them. I am doing the math here it looks like there is a lack of reasonable return so that hardship he is proving and another concern that I have is just an observation is that when you have got a neighborhood it said in the application residential neighborhood with more commercial uses than non-commercial uses, Bruno is there, Verizon is there, Westside Auto is there and Bouley is there, so the remedy under law when we have that type of situation when we have
more non-conforming than conforming uses is a zone change. That is something that has to be contemplated as well. Because what that does it goes to the uniqueness issue not really unique any more with all those non-conforming properties. Problem is all these non-conforming down there the laws says the real remedies is not to give out so many variances – re-zone the whole thing so everybody now conforms, because the neighborhood has evolved over the years.
Mr. Giacona: Would it be possible to get a conditional approval here tonight?
Mr. Fusco: We can’t approve the merits without completing the SEQRA. What I would recommend you do is that you declare lead agency status see if we can fast track it to Planning Board and have them take a look at it next Tuesday so we don’t have to wait that full 30 days. Could have the other involved agency heard in 8 days and come back and approve it at our next meeting.
Mr. Salva: Does the Planning Board require any more information that we have given here?
Mr. Fusco: I hope not, it is hard to speak for them sometimes. Your application is complete, your proof is good, your attorney has done a nice job. It is just that it is not – like the last one your heard because of the size of the addition, called for a single agency action. Because of the size of your addition is not under our laws, a single agency action, there is another involved agency which has the right to be heard on both the SEQRA issues and the site plan, triggers a mandatory site plan which makes them an involved agency.
Mr. Darrow: They have to have a site plan drawing correct?
Mr. Fusco: You are a good amount of the ways already, now that you employ many more people where will they park.
Mr. Salva: This is a secondary location. This is not the primary location. This is storage. No business operated out of here.
Mr. Fusco: So then questions I would think if I was a planner, how many trucks come in and out of there in a day, you store parts there right.
Mr. Salva: Store equipment, store vehicles
Mr. Fusco: How they get in and out, what are the routes to access the new addition, how many truck trips a day come through there, are you closer to houses in the back, are you going to screen that, those kinds of questions that is what a site plan would discuss. If you can address those kind of questions next Tuesday, Steve and staff would fast track it and we will try and move it as quickly as we can.
Mr. Salva: So you think it will require an architect site plan?
Mr. Selvek: Given the size it will require a drawing prepared by a licensed professional whether it be an architect, civil engineer, whatever you prefer for a detailed site plan so that the Planning Board can understand what your overall intention for the site is and how you what to design the site. With that said, the Planning Board can move forward based on the information it has with review of the SEQRA in order to put this back here at the end of September for consideration by the Zoning Board for the use variance. The use variance is the key to move it forward at which time move forward with the Planning Board, next week, we can fast track it.
Mr. Salva: If I could have a site plan by next week.
Mr. Selvek: A site plan by next week would be a definite help to look at.
Mr. Fusco: We should declare ourselves lead agency, do coordination letter to the Planning Board; I will see you next Tuesday.
Mr. Giacona: When is the next ZBA meeting?
Mr. Darrow: September 29, 2008.
Mr. Giacona: Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we declare ourselves lead agency for 12 Peace Avenue, expansion project.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Westlake
*****
154 Garrow Street Extension. Area variance for an addition. Applicant Bill and Terri Gleason.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: 154 Garrow Street Extenstion.
Mr. Palmeri: My name is Mike Palmeri and I represent Bill and Terri Gleason, the architect for the project. What we are proposing is a family room on the back of the house an addition and a mud room on the south side coming within 4 feet of a existing above ground pool. So we are asking for a variance of 4 or 6 feet, actually require 10 feet from the line.
Mr. Westlake: Just between the house and the pool.
Mr. Palmeri: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board? Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Seeing none, we will discuss it amongst ourselves.
Mr. Palmeri: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Only solution to this is moving the pool and deck, which is absurd, it is already there. When you consider it is only infringing on their house and no other property.
I would like to make a motion that we grant Bill and Terri Gleason, 154 Garrow Street Extension, Auburn, a 6 foot area variance for the purpose of constructing a proposed addition as submitted in submitted in packet site plan.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
*****
74 Lansing Street. Area variance to construct a shed. Applicant Bernard and Sharon Condes.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: Next is 74 Lansing Street. Please come to the podium, state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Condes: My name is Bernard Condes, 74 Lansing Street. I would to obtain a variance to put a pre-built shed at the end of my property on an existing concrete slab that is already there for storage. I have a numerous pieces of equipment I would like to store in there.
Mr. Fusco: So this is a second detached building?
Mr. Westlake: Yes and the side set back. Had a large garage there already total size is 750 feet and he has more than that. Any questions from the board?
Have letters from the neighbors stating they don’t seem to mind. Any questions from the board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against? Seeing none we will discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Condes: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: No neighbors that are concerned I take it. Will require 3 different variances I think some of them are to clean and make current other. I think the only one that is truly related is item #1, over 750 and then perhaps #3. Do you want them one at a time or all rolled into one?
Mr. Westlake: All into one.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make motion that we grant Bernard and Sharon Condes of 74 Lansing Street three separate variances for the purpose of constructing a 10 x 20 foot shed on their property as submitted in plot plan. Area variance 1 is 650 feet over the allowed 750 feet, variance 2 is 50 square foot over the 150 allowed square foot for accessory structure and 3 is for 1240 square foot over the allowable 10% of the principal structure square footage.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Mr. Condes: Thank you.
*****
61 Perrine Street. Area variance to erect a carport. Applicant Lucien Lombardo.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Westlake: Now we have 61 Perrine Street.
Mr. Lombardo: Good evening everyone my name is John Lombardo, I reside at 61 Perrine, I am here on behalf of my brother Lucien and myself. We would like to remove our old carport; there is a picture there in our application and construct a new carport. The width would be as proposed by Mr. Thurston of the construction company would 14 feet instead of 13 feet so there would be a 4 foot set back instead of 5, that is the only change. We also have a letter from our neighbor Ann Sikora on our behalf approving the replacement of the existing carport.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions of the board?
Mr. Darrow: The plantings that are there would they stay?
Mr. Lombardo: That would stay, there is an old tree stump on the left that will be taken out, big old pine tree that we count down and Mr. Thurston is going to take the old stump out.
Mr. Darrow: Is this current carport only open one side or both sides?
Mr. Lombardo: One side.
Mr. Darrow: Still considered a carport as long as the front is open or no?
Mr. Lombardo: The existing one is open on one side, I think John said he is going to leave the back open, we did that ourselves a long time ago, snow blowing through it.
Mr. Darrow: So what you are proposing will you have two of the sides open or one side?
Mr. Lombardo: Two open to be an existing carport.
Mr. Darrow: So it will have 2 sides open.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against? Seeing none, we will discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Lombardo: Thank you.
Ms. Marteney: Neighbor approved.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Lucien Lombardo 61 Perrine Street a 3 foot area variance for the purpose of constructing a carport 14 foot in width to have two open sides as submitted on plot plan.
Mr. Bartolotta: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Mr. Lombardo: Thank you.
| 
