ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Broody, Mr. Darrow , Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino,
Mr. Westlake
Member Absent: Mr. Bartolotta
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Selvek (came in late)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 12 Pearce Avenue
32 Gaylord Street
7 Augustus Street
29 Hoffman Street
123-125 Osborne Street
117 Genesee Street
APPLICATION DENIED: 150-152 S. Fulton Street
APPLICATIONS PULLED: 53 Wall Street
254 North Street
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have on the agenda: 12 Pearce Avenue, 32 Gaylord Street, 150-152 S. Fulton Street, 7 Augustus Street,
29 Hoffman Street, 53 Wall Street – Has been pulled from tonight’s meeting, 123-125 Osborne Street, 117 Genesee Street, 254 North Street – Has also been pulled.
If there are no errors or omissions from last month’s minutes of the meeting, the minutes will stand as written. All in favor.
12 Pearce Avenue. Use variance for expanding storage facility, non-conforming use by expanding footprint. Applicant is Jim Salva.
Mr. Westlake: Will 12 Pearce Avenue. please come up. Tell us what you want to do.
Mr. Salva: Hi, I am Jim Salva, I presented last month an application for a zoning variance and it was tabled.
Mr. Westlake: Did you go before the Planning Board?
Mr. Salva: We are scheduled for October 7, 2008.
Mr. Westlake: You have to go before Planning before we can do anything.
Mr. Salva: Steve Selvek said to appear tonight.
Mr. Fusco: Why don’t we hold this until Steve arrives, he will be here a little late, he going to a class right now, but he will be here so why don’t we take a couple other agenda items and then we will come back to yours.
Mr. Salva: Ok.
Mr. Westlake: We are back to this item. Please state your name for the record.
Mr. Giacona: Sam Giacona, I am here on behalf of Jim Salva.
Mr. Westlake: What I would like to do first before you continue, did they go in front of the Planning Board, everything is taken care of there?
Mr. Selvek: They were before the Planning Board by request of lead agency. The Planning Board did pass a resolution allowing the Zoning Board to establish lead agency and therefore review on the SEQRA form.
Mr. Westlake: Ok! Thank you. Ok, tell us what you want to do now.
Mr. Fusco: The Planning Board had no input?
Mr. Selvek: The Planning Board did not have comments at that time.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Is there a short form SEQRA in our packet?
Mr. Fusco: Yes there is, I have one.
Mr. Selvek: There was a copy of a short form SEQRA that was submitted prior to this meeting, I believe it was in your packet, if not there was a copy provided to you tonight when you first came in on your desk.
Mr. Westlake: No we don’t have a copy.
Mr. Selvek: I have prepared a short form SEQRA, unfortunately I did have a meeting tonight as I was late and I apologize for that. The question to the short form SEQRA, we can go through it once we get to that point, I will have a copy for everyone.
Mr. Darrow: I assume the first thing we are going to do is review the SEQRA and then move on a positive declaration.
Mr. Westlake: Sounds good to me. (Mr. Selvek goes to get copies of the SEQRA form).
Mr. Giacona: It is my understanding tonight we will be approved pending Planning Board’s final approval.
Mr. Fusco: Let us do the Negative Declaration first.
Mr. Selvek: I apologize that they were not here when you came in. With regards to the SEQRA form, Part I is completed by the applicant, an outline of the proposed project. Part II I have drafted suggested answers for impact assessment.
C-1 deals with the environment effects. This is a construction of a 3000 square foot addition that could change the drainage patterns on the site. It would be unlikely that the continuation of use would have any other environmental effects. With regards to the drainage patterns on the site as far as site plan review they will be required to indicate how those proposed drains will occur on the site.
The second portion with regards to the aesthetics, cultural resources; community or neighborhood character, although this use which is storage which is not permitted in the R2 district, it is a continuation of an existing commercial use which generally fits with the other commercial uses in the site. There is the Verizon garage, Bouley Company, Westside Auto all within this particular area this R2 district happens to occur right on the edge of a general commercial zone. In driving down there you will notice that it has largely gone to a commercial character versus an R2 character.
The granting of the use of course would allow and encourage a non-conforming use to continue there. Long term impacts. The proposed expansion will require site plan approval and the site plan approval would go before the Planning Board to insure that landscaping and buffers are all in compliance.
With that if there are any questions regarding any of the possible impacts or concerns about the impacts, I would be happy to answer those.
Mr. Fusco: It is staff’s recommendation for a Negative Declaration?
Mr. Selvek: Correct.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we find a Negative Declaration for James T. Salva for property at 12 Pearce Avenue for the purpose of a expansion to the building.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Fusco: Now onto the merits of the project, Mr. Giacona we may have members here tonight that weren’t here when you made the presentation last time, could you just briefly talk about the merits of the project and why you think a use/area variances are warranted in this case.
Mr. Giacona: Sure. Basically it is a one story concrete block commercial building that was converted from an automotive repair shop by my client years ago and now he wishes to store his electrical supplies off site form is main business on State Street. What he wants to do is expand the storage facility for storage of a couple of vehicles there, maybe a day or week to drop off supplies and pick up supplies, not a high volume of traffic. The building size is going to be approximately 3000 square feet, larger than it is. Again, basically it is going to be built to match the existing structure, pole barn type construction, strictly for storage only.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. All set?
Mr. Giacona: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss it. Thank you.
Mr. Giacona: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: I personally don’t see a problem considering what the neighborhood what it has been, how the neighborhood changed, I remember when it was Andy’s Garage there. There are no neighbors, there is an apartment house to the south of the property and they obviously are not concerned, they are not here. Plus in reviewing what he submitted as far as what going rates were to rent other places how much more it would cost and he owns that place and what he could put the addition on for per square foot as opposed to what he would have to shell extra to rent a place for just storage.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Jim Salva of 174 State Street a use variance for 12 Pearce Avenue for the purpose of constructing a 3000 square foot addition to the east and/or rear of the current property building, pending Planning Board review as submitted on site plan.
Mrs. Calarco: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved. Thank you for your cooperation.
Mr. Giacona: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
32 Gaylord Street. R1A zoning district. Applicant: Jason Tyminski. Area variance for non-conforming lot.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, 32 Gaylord Street, are you here tonight? Come up to the mike and state your name clearly.
Mr. Tyminski: My name is Jason Tyminski and I own a rental property at 32 Gaylord Street. My property is “L’ shaped and part of the lot goes behind my neighbor’s house and I own what would be like their back yard and she has children and she wants to purchase this piece of property, a small piece so she can have a place for her kids to play. It does me no good only a small piece and I don’t see any problem in me selling it to her. Just a small little piece of property, it does me no good.
Mr. Westlake: Why is this on the agenda?
Mr. Fusco: Property is landlocked, there is no access.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: My first question is were you advised by somebody in Code Enforcement when you filed this that some of these questions were not applicable because they don’t have answers.
Mr. Tyminski: They said I had to fill it out, when I read it, it didn’t seem applicable, didn’t see the point in a lot of those questions.
Ms. Marteney: Parcel B is what you want to sell to your neighbor?
Mr. Tamburrino: My understand is you want to take Parcel B and sell it.
Mr. Tyminski: No I think it is the piece right there (points to map), they are going to give me the little triangle and I am going to give them the piece adjacent to it, right where you have your finger.
Mr. Darrow: Because of the lot size, that is why it is a zoning problem.
Mr. Tyminski: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: End up being about a little over 1000 square foot shy of the required minimum lot size of 5000, he is only going to have 1958 square foot of the required 5000.
Mr. Tamburrino: Saying he is transferring Parcel B, Parcel B on the map, to Steve Taylor right, that is the way I read it.
Mr. Darrow: He is going to be short on square footage for lot size.
Mr. Tyminski: That is why I am here it is going to be under 5000 square feet.
Mr. Darrow: Right.
Ms. Marteney: For your rental house, the one that sits back.
Mr. Westlake: Let’s ask Brian, he is the one that had to deny it. Can you explain this Brian?
Mr. Hicks: If you read the denial letter there it says that the area variance creates a non-conforming lot of 3958.25 square feet of the required 5000.
Mr. Baroody: About 1100 short.
Mr. Hicks: Yes.
Mr. Hicks: Doesn’t show what he is short just what he is going to create after this subdivision and merger. The dimension of the lot is given on the blueprint.
Mr. Baroody: We didn’t get the letter.
Ms. Marteney: That is the problem, we didn’t get the letter.
Mr. Hicks: The denial letter it is not on top of your packet?
Ms. Marteney: No.
Mr. Westlake: If he rearranges this, he would not have to come in front of us.
Mr. Fusco: Let’s say for example if we drew the subdividing line where the fold is in this paper and then this section stays with the parent parcel which is his house and this section went to the next door neighbor’s house to give the kids a back yard, in that circumstances neither would be non-conforming. Now there may be some requirements where this is joined to his and that B be joined with “1”, there would be no need to create a non-conforming, his property would be non-conforming.
Mr. Hicks: Parcel A is non-conforming.
Mr. Baroody: This is what he wants to do and is applying for.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board? Ok, if you would like to sit down. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application?
Mr. Hunter: My name is Bob Hunter, I live across the street at 33 Gaylord Street. Brian, did you notify the owner? The property he refers to is owned by one of the Moore boys.
Mrs. Taylor: No, it is owned by me now.
Mr. Hunter: Ok. She doesn’t live there.
Mrs. Taylor: Yes, I do!
Mr. Hunter: Did you buy the house?
Mrs. Taylor: Yes!
Mr. Westlake: Let’s go one at a time here ok. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application that is the question that was asked. Speak in the mike and give your name clearly.
Mrs. Taylor: My name is Katherine Taylor, I am Stephen Taylor’s wife, he had to work tonight. My kids want to play in the yard, I am the one purchasing the property. The rear parcel why it is so confusing is the guy who did the survey he wanted to do it to make more sense, originally the people owned both properties, so the little parcel gives him a little more property to divide the property more smoothly and the other property will make it so that we have a full back yard.
Mr. Fusco: Understand what I am trying to say, by lopping off this entire part known as Parcel B and give to you, his Parcel A then becomes substandard. One of the things that this board shouldn’t do is to create non-conformity. I am suggesting that maybe and I may be wrong, I am not a surveyor, but if this dividing line was placed somewhere else
Mrs. Taylor: If you saw the property you would not there is nowhere else.
Mr. Fusco: I can see the difficulty but if the line was to be say here where the fold on this paper is, then your house would remain in conformity and is house could in conformity.
Mrs. Taylor We divided it that way because the surveyor did it. All three of us were back there trying to find a way to put the lines and it makes it nice and square and getting to the property.
Mr. Westlake: The reason for getting to the property is you are going to do something with it other than for a place for your children?
Mrs. Taylor: A place for the children to place.
Mr. Fusco: The application says by joining B to this house it gives her kids a back yard to place in.
Mr. Westlake: One and B are going to her and 2 and A are going to him.
Mr. Fusco: His will be substandard.
Mr. Westlake: If he took B and split it, then you wouldn’t have to worry about it.
Mrs. Taylor: That is the problem and you wouldn’t get to it, this is the only way.
Mr. Baroody: This is what they want, what they are applying for.
Mrs. Taylor: We have been working on it all summer. The neighbor on the other side lets their dog crap all over the yard.
Mr. Darrow: Your children are unable to play in your yard Parcel 1 that is over 24 foot wide b6 75.5 long.
Mrs. Taylor: They could if the other neighbor kept the dog out if so we didn’t have to constantly scoop dog poop every time we wanted to use it. If we fenced that little part we wouldn’t be able to get to it.
Mr. Darrow: What you are saying the only reason you don’t use this is because some neighbor’s dog is not on our leash law and he wanders into your yard
Mrs. Taylor: Constantly.
Mr. Darrow: Sounds like a neighbor problem.
Mr. Baroody: Excuse me, the applicant applied for a variance, they are not asking to put a swimming pool or sauna there is not our concern, we vote on what they are applying for.
Mr. Darrow: But we don’t create a non-conforming use, you need to look at what the alternatives are.
Mr. Baroody: You have 12 feet, all you got.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, but this property would be under 5000 if this line was moved down say 12 more feet.
Mrs. Taylor: That is our back porch you wouldn’t be able to if you did that you wouldn’t be able to
Mr. Darrow: I am talking about Parcel B
Mrs. Taylor: But our back porch
Mr. Darrow: Your back porch is here
Mrs. Taylor: No right here (points to map)
Mr. Darrow: You can’t get to your yard through here?
Mrs. Taylor: No, because this is another house.
Mr. Fusco: There is a house on what you say is Parcel 1?
Mrs. Taylor: No, it is here (points to map). Our back porch door is here and that is it.
Mr. Darrow: This line here pick it up and move it here (points to map).
Mr. Westlake: That wouldn’t change your backyard what so ever.
Mrs. Taylor: Fences are already there, I don’t think it would work, had it surveyed, that is the only way.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, thank you very much appreciate it. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Hunter: I appreciate Mrs. Taylor cleaning up the property considering since they moved in there. I thought the people in the back, 3 houses on what appears to be one lot, it is only about 60 feet wide and another house to the north. I refer to the map here, in the right side lower that is a double house, up and down and the property line goes back to where I believe that line is 10 feet from there, but it doesn’t show on the map this double house next to Tyminski’s, I thought what was happening was that the house in the rear left there was selling the lot to this double house in the front which would make a great deal of sense but they are going to get to the same problem, either way going to have a problem with lot size, lot sizes there are ridiculously small. If you take this double
house and sell the lots behind them, which isn’t theirs by the way, all you are doing is chopping up this piece of land behind the double house and the house to the rear. I can appreciate them wanting more space as they do have some lovely children, but I don’t know what is getting resolved here really as far as space other than just taking another non-conforming lot or compounding the non-conforming lot.
Mr. Fusco: Are these lots non-conforming presently?
Mr. Hunter: Because there is not enough square footage.
Mr. Westlake: Question was asked are either of these lots non-conforming at this time.
Mr. Hunter: You could not put a house on any of those 3 lots right now.
Mr. Westlake: So much square feet of land per house. So it looks like they are both conforming right now.
Mr. Hicks: They are both non-conforming at this time.
Mr. Hunter: Brian did you talk to Moore about this, did he get a letter, was he invited to this thing?
Mr. Hicks: Everybody was notified within the perimeter of this property.
Mr. Hunter: If I were Moore I would want to extend my lot.
Mr. Westlake: (Everyone talking at once) Ok, let’s get back to where we were before.
Mr. Fusco: Brian, are both of these lots, Tyminski and Taylor, are both of them non-conforming presently?
Mr. Hicks: No. Parcel A is conforming, it is presently right now 6233.25 feet, now Parcel 1 the original measurement on that is 3206.52 I believe.
Mr. Fusco: So my question to you is there a way to divide if you will Parcel B so that both properties could be conforming? Divide the line which is Parcel B where the northerly part of it would go along with a and the southerly part would go along with “1”.
Mr. Hicks: Right now if you take the overage of the 5000, you have 1200 square feet for Parcel A, if you add that to Parcel 1, you are only going to come up to 4400, you are still going to be under.
Mr. Fusco: By granting this we will be going from one non-conforming lot to 2 non-conforming lots.
Mr. Hicks: No, one non-conforming and one conforming.
Mr. Hunter: I guess you understand it better than I did when I came in. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, we will discuss amongst ourselves. This is what they are coming before us tonight, so this is what we have to vote on. If we vote on it tonight and it goes down, then they can’t come back without considerable change. If there is no considerable change that they can do then it is gone.
Mr. Darrow: My initial concern I feel has satisfactorily been addressed. There is not a way to divide these to make two conforming lots so basically what we are looking to do is taking one out of conformity and putting the other one into it. I guess the only good side is we are not creating two non-conforming lots.
Mr. Tamburrino: Giving a variance with a benefit.
Mr. Darrow: You have to look at why they are requesting and is that really a hardship. I can understand wanting a safe place for your kids to play, I understand that completely and like I said that factor has been addressed that we can’t divide them so they both can conform.
Mr. Tamburrino: I agree.
Mrs. Calarco: Are both of these single family?
Mr. Westlake: No. Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Jason Tyminski of 32 Gaylord Street a area variance to create a 3958.25 square foot area of non-conforming lot, as submitted in subdivision plan drafted by Mr. Richard Wheeling on July 2, 2008.
Mr. Baroody: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Mr. Selvek: If I may make a comment in regards to this application. This does have to come to the Office of Planning now for formal subdivision.
_____________________________________________________________
150-152 S. Fulton Street. R2 zoning district. Applicant. William Sautter. Use/area variances for conversion.
Mr. Westlake: 150-152 S. Fulton Street. Please come to the mike and state your name clearly and what you would like to do.
Ms. Bahr: My name is Lucille Bahr, I am representing Mr. William Sautter who owns the subject property. When he purchased the property 2 years ago it had a building in the back of it at 152 S. Fulton it was 2 separate individual one bedroom apartments. He allowed it to be vacant for more than 6 months and it reverted back to garage status and we w ant to revert it back to apartment status. We will do whatever Codes wants us to do, we would just like to be able to use this property as he thought he could when he bought it.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: He bought it as a double?
Ms. Bahr: He bought 146, 150 and 152, he bought all of them from a gentleman by the name of Bob Hogan. We thought we were going to have 8 apartments but we ended up with 6, we have tenants lined up, and I get calls everyday from Social Services and Homsite looking for decent apartments and that is what Mr. Sautter is looking to do is to keep his apartments decent.
Mr. Baroody: Why did it revert back?
Ms. Bahr: Apparently the regulations are that if it is vacant for 6 months it reverts back to its previous status and at one point it was a garage that was converted to two one bedroom apartments.
Ms. Marteney: Why did it take him 2 years to come before us?
Ms. Bahr: Have been busy trying to upgrade our other buildings and apartments.
Mr. Darrow: So you are saying at time of purchase each of those dwellings had a Certificate of Occupancy?
Ms. Bahr: No, I don’t think 152 did, 150 did.
Mr. Darrow: Is 152 the front or the back?
Ms. Bahr: Back.
Mrs. Calarco: So there was no Certificate of Occupancy when the property was purchased?
Ms. Bahr: I don’t think so.
Mr. Baroody: So it was a garage?
Ms. Bahr: Two separate apartments. When 150 was built, 152 was a garage for 150.
Mr. Westlake: Brian, how long has it been since it has been a dwelling?
Mr. Hicks: Over 2 ½ years.
Ms. Bahr: If we don’t do something it is going to deteriorate and we are going to end up tearing it down in 3 or 4 years, it would be a shame.
Mr. Westlake: Wish he had done something long before now.
Ms. Bahr: We started to and then we didn’t get to it.
Mr. Fusco: Are both of these buildings on the same lot?
Ms. Bahr: Yes I think so. We have a vacant lot on Hoffman Street that was also bought as part of the package. Tenants who have kids can use as a playground because it is now a non-conforming lot.
Mr. Fusco: For those that were on the board, you will recall that you were instructed that there was a difference between an area variance and a use variance from a proof standpoint. Matter of proof for a use variance is hardship and proof for an area variance is practical difficulty. I ask you without telling you how to decide this case to review the application for use variance before you and see if that meets the standard of hardship as defined by New York State Law. May I remind you that the definition of hardship is the applicant is required to show that the entire parcel which sounds like it has 3 buildings on it would result in the loss of money proof that they will lose money were not this use variance granted for one of the three building on the property. It is hard for me from reading the
application to determine what the basis is, hard for me from reading the application for the use variance to determine what the value of the property is for legitimate use if this use variance isn’t granted, all of which are required elements of proof in a use variance case. In fact my notes in reviewing ahead of time, the application for the use variance and the area variance, used almost the same wording on both of them.
Ms. Bahr: I really don’t know what I am doing here, I am just trying to get these apartments back on line. Every month we lose money on these two properties.
Mr. Fusco: No standard proof. I am sure it is true.
Mr. Baroody: Also isn’t there something that says it can’t be self-created hardship as well?
Mr. Fusco: What I listen to and I heard an answer as to whether they thought it a 8 or 6 units so I don’t know if the record is clear on that, whether this is or is not self-created. We have none of the listing data before us. Obviously relevant question as to whether there was or was not an occupancy permit for those other 2 apartments when they bought it. In listening to the testimony on what are 3 very relevant questions I can’t see the answers, but I remind you that the requirements of the applicant is to prove their case. Not suppose to guess, not suppose to assume, the applicant has to prove all of those 3 elements that have been raised.
Mr. Westlake: If you would like to sit down. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application?
Ms. Marteney: There is no one physically here but I received a phone call today from Dan Schuster, who is the legislator for that neighborhood. On behalf of a Mrs. Giacolone of 41 Hoffman Street, their yard is immediately behind this back property and she had voiced concerns to Dan that she was not in favor of this becoming an apartment building again.
Mr. Westlake: Ok.
Mr. Fusco: In answer in perhaps the 3 at least 2 or the 3 questions that were asked, Brian provided me with what is the proper description of this property prior to the purchase, where in the back property is listed as a garage.
Ms. Bahr: Really!
Mr. Hicks: Should be in the packet.
Mr. Darrow: Not in mine. My first concern is proof of hardship. My other concern is the laundry list of 7 other variances that would be needed and personally I think those speak louder than words.
Mr. Selvek: Excuse me, this use variance does require a SEQRA review before you decide on the use variance. I can go through the form very quickly before voting on the merits.
Mr. Fusco: To speed the process Steve, it appears your recommended answers to Part II are all no, I take that back, C-7,
Mr. Selvek: C-4 which talks about the community character and C-7 also refers to the Comprehensive Plan. C-4 states the Code specifically outlines the requirements for multi-family housing in this zoning district with the intent of protecting neighbors from undesirable conditions often associated with overcrowded neighborhoods. The conversion or addition of units above those allowed may result in a neighborhood that becomes non-desirable over time.
Again when looking at these if the board is going to determine whether or not these have a significant impact, I am trying to list which potential negatives could be.
Finally under C-7 it refers to other neighborhood impacts. Again the Comprehensive Plan outlines some of the problems related to dwelling unit conversions and indicates that the toleration of conversions will lead to decrease tax base and poor living conditions for all residents in this area. Note that the Comprehensive Plan is from 1991 and we are in the process of revising that. With that I can answer any questions. In terms of a Negative or Positive Declaration the board must consider the likeliness of these impacts on this neighborhood. Just because they are potential for negative impacts does not necessarily mean that it shouldn’t be a positive declaration.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we find a Negative Declaration for William Sautter of 152 S. Fulton Street for the purpose of reconverting rear structure into 2 apartments.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Ms. Calarco
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Ms. Westlake: It is a tie.
Mr. Fusco: There has not been a Negative Declaration so you can’t move forward.
Mr. Baroody: Mr. Chairman, without a Negative Declaration there is no way you can move forward and vote on this.
Mr. Westlake: Let’ have another roll call.
Ms. Marteney: That is a good idea.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney. Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Ok, now we do have a Negative Declaration, now we can move on.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant 7 variances for 150 – 152 S. Fulton Street for the purpose of reconverting a rear structure into 2 apartments as outline in application.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow – given the fact lack of hardship proven, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Fusco: I believe that moots the area variance as well.
_____________________________________________________________
7 Augustus Street. R1 zoning district. Applicant. Clara Justman. Area variance for a shed.
Mr. Westlake: 7 Augustus Street. Speak into the mike and state your name please.
Mrs. Justman: Clara Justman, 7 Augustus Street.
Mr. Westlake: Tell us a little about what you want to do there.
Mrs. Justman: I would like to put a structure in my back yard. A year ago there was a garage there but it deteriorated and was torn down and now I would like to replace it.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Ms. Marteney: Can you clarify is it going to be covering the 3 trucks that were there this afternoon, does it run that way?
Mrs. Justman: No.
Ms. Marteney: It is going to run north and south the long way not east to west.
Mrs. Justman: Right.
Ms. Marteney: Ok.
Mrs. Calarco: What is the existing shed used for?
Mrs. Justman: Stuff (everyone laughs).
Mrs. Calarco: Ok.
Ms. Marteney: Everyone has one of those!
Mr. Westlake: Are there any other questions from the board? Hearing none, please sit down. Excuse me, go ahead.
Mr. Darrow: I have one question. Approximately how big is the current existing shed?
Mrs. Justman: 6 x 8.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Darrow: Personally when we consider how much stuff we do have stored these days and the other shed is so small.
Mr. Tamburrino: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: And it is a large enough back yard.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant a area variance for second shed on the existing property to Clara Justman (fka Rumpf) of 7 Augustus Street.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Clara Justman (fka Rumpf) of 7 Augustus Street a area variance to allow 250 square foot accessory structure over the allowable 150 limit.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved.
Mrs. Justman: Thank you.
____________________________________________________________
29 Hoffman Street. R2 zoning district. Applicant: Nicola Nervina. Area variance for a deck.
Mr. Westlake: 29 Hoffman Street. Please state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Ms. Nervina: I am Nicola Nervina and I am here for a deck variance. I want to build a deck that is 12 x 16 in my back yard and we need to be 4 feet from the rear and there is a white picket fence and on the other side is a parking lot for an apartment so if I build my deck between 18” and 2’ from the fence so that is why I am here. Otherwise the deck will be 4 feet small. Would not be wide enough.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Ms. Marteney: No, but how are you going to get into your basement now?
Ms. Nervina: I don’t want to get into it! (Everyone laughs)
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will discus amongst ourselves.
Ms. Nervina: I did have a letter from the people behind us.
Mr. Westlake: Yes, James and Janie Hutchinson.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Nicola Nervina of 29 Hoffman Street a 14’ 4” area variance for the purpose of constructing a deck at the rear of her property as submitted in plot plan.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Ms. Nervina: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
123 – 125 Osborne Street. C zoning district. Applicant: Timothy Kerstetter. Area variances for property signage.
Mr. Westlake: 123 – 125 Osborne Street. Please state your name and tell us what you want to do there.
Mr. Kerstetter: Good evening, my name is Tim Kerstetter. I am here for 123 – 125 Osborne Street, that is the launder mat at that location. What we are looking to do is seek approval from the board tonight to get approval for sign permit for a neon illuminated Open sign as well as sandwich board for the summer season. It would be placed outside on the sidewalk out front, I believe you have pictures. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Ms. Marteney: This is for the sign that is already there?
Mr. Kerstetter: Yes, I would also like to put one in back or the front on Elizabeth Street, it has two fronts, two lots. I only have 1 on Osborne and would like one on Elizabeth Street as well.
Mr. Darrow: Now the permit for the flag, is it on a pole?
Mr. Kerstetter: No it is on the fence that is on the property line there.
Mr. Darrow: An American Flag?
Mr. Kerstetter: No it is a 3 x 5 foot “Open” flag. I did seek a permit for the “Open” flag, I need to move it from the front to the side of the fence so when people walk on the sidewalk they don’t get hit and also when I bought the property I was under the understanding that I owned that fence, however according to the survey map it appears the fence is owned by the neighbor and they gave me permit to place the flag there.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board?
Mrs. Calarco: The sandwich sign will not be any higher that the one on Osborne?
Mr. Kerstetter: Correct, that is what we would put out during the summer months, or when the weather is nice.
Mrs. Calarco Concerned about the visibility for cars.
Mr. Fusco: What is the purpose to have a sign that says you are open?
Mr. Kerstetter: We don’t have a pylon sign but I would just place that sign on the Osborne Street we have a pylon sign by the road but on Elizabeth Street side the building is set back in and there are no signs on the down the road stating that there is a launder mat there. So we will place it there during the hours that we are open to let people know the facility is there. I don’t think it will be detrimental to the property or the neighborhood in any way.
Mr. Fusco: Has this recently been reopened?
Mr. Kerstetter: Yes, it was closed for 4 years. We bought the building and just had a grand opening.
Mr. Fusco: Is this the purpose of having flags and sandwich signs to say you are open is to create an impression that you are open to create business, get business going through and once the business is up and running shouldn’t those types of signs be removed?
Mr. Kerstetter: Yes could do that definitely.
Mr. Fusco: So wouldn’t the proper relief be some type of temporary permit as opposed to something that runs with the land where an open could be something else later on. I am not trying to give you a hard time, you end up with the possibility of 6 signs for one business, 3 on each side. I can understand and I would expect the board to work with you here to create in the market that this business has now been reopened, but what if every business had a sandwich sign or had 6 signs.
Mr. Kerstetter: I understand.
Mr. Westlake: We can put a time constraints on it.
Mr. Tamburrino: That is a good idea.
Mr. Kerstetter: I put the flag out this weekend, but we had the sandwich board out all week long and the weekend as well. I would be willing to make an agreement for some sort of time frame.
Mr. Westlake: A temporary sign that you take in every night does it come under the same
Mr. Fusco: We talked about that, that is an issue in the City these temporary signs, these sandwich signs. Here is a little bit of a different situation, here is a sandwich sign strictly for the purpose of creating awareness in the market that this business that had been closed for a number of years, it is hard to see. If you go down either of these two streets, it is hard to see, there is an uniqueness here that probably warrants relief.
Mr. Darrow: That is my thought with the business being closed, it is sitting back but I am also at a crossroads it is portable, it is not permanent and how do you, yes we can make a motion to create a variance for something that is portable but being that it is portable doesn’t really require one.
Mr. Fusco: Yes it does, because it is a sign. Perhaps it ought to be a type of sign that is exempted out of our current regulations and dealt with otherwise and Brian, Mr. Palesh and I have talked about that, coming up with a fee schedule to do that.
Mr. Darrow: I agree.
Mr. Fusco: We don’t have that yet.
Mr. Darrow: If they are taking it in at night I don’t think of it to myself in my mind as a permanent fixture and I think that is a capital idea.
Mr. Fusco: It does create potential or issues that aren’t coming with this property. For example, sandwich signs are usually on sidewalks, they potentially block pedestrian traffic so that is a concern. There are a number of concerns that we have talked about, we may will have that addressed in the relatively near future because Ed you make a great point a little bit different than the neon sign that he wants to put in the building. But nonetheless it would seem to me given the possibility that we have here one building one business asking for 6 signs, some type of sunset provision whatever relief you feel should be given.
Mr. Darrow: Are they before us these signs because of the fact he is over the square footage just because it is a portable sign or is it because there are or would be a total of 6 sign? I am asking why they are looking at it?
Mr. Hicks: Over on the square footage and over on the number of signs per street footage.
Mr. Darrow: Code says one per street front right?
Mr. Hicks: One per street frontage unless it is perpendicular then it would be two per street frontage.
Mr. Fusco: This situation we are talking about it fronts two streets.
Mr. Darrow; I think our best avenue is to look at with a sunset clause and at the end of that, Mr. Kerstetter could always come back and say could you revisit this, if nothing has changed in our Code and Ordinances then perhaps give me like another year of it. That way if we get any neighbor complaints about it or any problems with the signs being there.
Mr. Baroody: Is it necessary for a sign that can come in every night?
Mr. Darrow: That is what I asked.
Mr. Fusco: The Code does not distinguish between portable and non-portable signs.
Mr. Darrow: I would say the proof to me is the fact that he wants to take them in because he doesn’t want them damaged or stolen because they are portable. That is why I feel personally if we address it perhaps with a 1 year sunset clause that will expire, give him a year to get people in the neighborhood that this is back open again, up and running and at that point he feels he still needs it, it gives up the option to revisit it.
Mr. Tamburrino: I agree.
Mrs. Calarco: It is the type of business, which within a course of a year may not need the signs any more.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, back to the board. Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Timothy Kerstetter of Super Clean Laundry the placement of one additional sign in the window on Osborne Street to be in the size of 12 x 24.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Darrow: I would also like to make a motion that we grant Timothy Kerstetter of Super Clean Laundry, 123 – 125 Osborne Street placement of a portable “A” framed sandwich board sign on City right of way on the Elizabeth Street side of the property, with a sunset clause that expires on September 29, 2009.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second it.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Timothy Kerstetter of Super Clean Laundry, 123 – 125 Osborne Street placement of a flag on the Elizabeth Street side that says “Open” which will have a sunset clause that expires on September 29, 2009.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Westlake – I vote no only because the fence is not his.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Timothy Kerstetter of Super Clean Laundry, 123 – 125 Osborne Street a variance to place one additional “Open” sign on the Elizabeth Street side of the property.
Ms. Marteney: Is that another “Open” sign?
Mr. Darrow: That is the one there.
Ms. Marteney: Like on the Osborne side?
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Mr. Kerstetter: Thank for your time.
_____________________________________________________________
117 Genesee Street. C2 zoning district. Applicant: JBJ Real Property, LLC. Area variance for parking.
Mr. Westlake: 117 Genesee Street.
Mr. Ramsgard: Good evening, my name is Adam Ramsgard, architect for JBJ Real Property and Stardust Foundation. Tonight what we are going to talk about is the cornerstone project, the revitalization of State Street lead by JBJ and Stardust Foundation the downtown area C-2 district. What we are going to do is what we call a “Creative Corridor” as with any successful revitalization effort it is important to make commercial and residential uses. What we are proposing with the 117 what is commonly known to most people is the “green building”, complete restoration of that building, restoring the façade. If you are familiar with the Liberty Store which is across from Dunkin Donut, the façade above the Liberty Store
Mr. Westlake: Ok, but that is not what you are here for.
Mr. Ramsgard: No, trying to give an example
Mr. Westlake: Stick to what you have for tonight.
Mr. Ramsgard: Ok. The proposal is to be it is a 2 story building, the upper 2 stories will be each a 1 bedroom apartment and the first floor will be a commercial use. As you know this project located at 117 Genesee Street, the first floor commercial use with the apartments above the variance that we are requesting is the distance to parking. The commercial use does not require parking the residential use does require parking within 300 feet. This property has a hardship the building completely covers the property area there is no parking on site and we are proposing requesting approximately a 125 foot distance area variance for parking for this building for 2 residential occupancies.
Mr. Westlake: My question would be that is a City owned parking garage.
Mr. Ramsgard: That is correct.
Mr. Westlake: Have you entered into an agreement with the City that you can use that for your apartments?
Mr. Ramsgard: We have not entered into an agreement with the City, we have contacted the City Treasurer. The parking fees for parking are available for residential occupancy from $240 to $350 per year if the residential occupancy so chose to use that parking.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: I think it is a great idea to get people back downtown.
Mr. Darrow: I thought because it was downtown there wasn’t a parking requirement, I thought we had addressed this in another building a while back.
Mr. Selvek: Let me clarify that for the board. That exemption applied to everything other than residential use downtown. The residential use downtown does require parking and that requirement is within 300 feet. In this particular case parking is available at a public facility which permitting is available for residents downtown available to anyone that wishes to park on full time basis.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, I would like to remind the board that we had another request behind the Post Office and we turned him down because he didn’t have any parking.
Mr. Darrow: There were other factors why he was turned down for parking.
Mr. Westlake: It was one of them.
Mr. Tamburrino: Are spaces available at the parking garage?
Mr. Selvek: There are ample spaces available.
Mrs. Calarco: It is not that he doesn’t have parking available, parking is there, just how many more steps are you going to take to get to the parking garage. That is the issue.
Mr. Baroody: If the residents chose to take public transportation they can.
Mr. Tamburrino: How do you get to the second and third floor of the building?
Mr. Ramsgard: There is a staircase to walk up.
Mr. Fusco: The property use 2 residences upstairs and a store downstairs, is that a matter of right that they have a right to do that, there are no other permits needed?
Mr. Selvek: No, there are no other permits needed, the building permit of course.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, back to the board.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant JBJ Real Property LLC, of 250 S. Clinton Street, Room 200, Syracuse, New York, a variance for their property at 117 Genesee Street which would be a 125 foot variance above the maximum distance of 300 feet to a parking space.
Mrs. Calarco: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mrs. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Mr. Ramsgard: Thank you very much.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
| 
