ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY OCTOBER 27, 2008
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Broody, Mr. Darrow , Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Member Absent: Ms. Calarco
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Selvek
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 2 Beardsley Street
20 Lexington Avenue
56-58 Frances Street
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have on the agenda:
2 Beardsley Street , 20 Lexington Avenue, 56-58 Frances 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.
_____________________________________________________________
2 Beardsley Street. R1 zoning district. Are variance for breeze way and garage over the allowed number of accessory structures and total square footage of same. Applicant: Susan and Brian Polcovich.
Mr. Westlake: 2 Beardsley Street, are you here? Please come to the podium, state name, pull the microphone to you, and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Polcovich: Brian Polcovich, a variance for 370 square foot.
Mr. Westlake: What is it that you want to do Brian?
Mr. Polcovich: I would like to add on a breeze way and a garage.
Mr. Westlake: Sounds good. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: I drove by the property; you have two sheds on the property?
Mr. Polcovich: Yes there are two sheds.
Mr. Tamburrino: Two sheds ok. What is stored in those sheds, just curious.
Mr. Polcovich: Just tools, lawn mowers.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, come back to the board for discussion. Thank you very much.
Mr. Darrow: The application is self-explanatory.
Ms. Marteney: Good drawing.
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: Doesn’t happen often! (Everyone laughs)
Mr. Tamburrino: It is a large lot. Is it a double lot Brian?
Mr. Polcovich: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant and Brian and Susan Polcovich of 2 Beardsley Street a 370 square foot variance for going over the allowable 750 square foot accessory structure allowed and for the construction as submitted in plot plan.
Mr. Baroody: Second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved. Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
20 Lexington Avenue. R1 zoning district. Area variance for an addition too close to a property line. Applicant: Dawn Gleason.
Mr. Westlake: 20 Lexington Avenue. State your name for the record.
Ms. Gleason: My name is Dawn Gleason; I want to add a bedroom and closet space to 20 Lexington Avenue and to add to the existing structure. It was built back in the 1950’s before zoning was in force and I want to go along the line of the existing building so I need a 6 foot variance, not is not really 6 foot I just want to be sure because the property line is angled it goes from like 5 ¾ down to 3 foot.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: It looks like you are just squaring off the rear of the house.
Ms. Gleason: Yes.
Mr. Baroody: There is no pool?
Ms. Gleason: The pool is emptied and we are taking it down right now.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss it amongst the board. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: Again, the application is self-explanatory. Neatness of the property, you can understand wanting to square off the house.
I would like to make a motion that we grant Dawn Gleason of 78 Perrine Street a 6 foot area variance for the purpose of constructing a 16 x 18 addition to the rear of the house as submitted in the attached plot plan.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application approved. See Code Enforcement Officer in the morning and he will take care of you.
Ms. Gleason: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
56 – 58 Frances Street. R1 zoning district. Use variance for a conversion to add an apartment. Applicant: Attilah Daniel.
Mr. Westlake: 56 – 58 Frances Street.
Mr. Pettigrass: Good evening, I am Joe Pettigrass; I am the attorney for Attilah Daniel, the property of 56 – 58 Frances Street. I am here in regards to the request for a use variance. There is a house in the front and a house in the back with an additional structure and sort of unusual circumstances she did buy this house two years ago. She purchased it from HUD. The property in back was condemned because the utilities were turned off. It is because of that reason it lost its use as a 2 unit. It was prior to this for a number of years, I would guess 30 or 40 years was a two family house in back and she is not trying to get back the full use of the property which was a 2 unit in back, she wants to a single family with use of a garage. That is what she is
requesting.
Mr. Darrow: It is going to be a one bedroom over the garage, am I understanding that correctly?
Mr. Pettigrass: The structure in back I brought some pictures, but her intent would be to make as it is my understanding a one bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, living area and on the side the garage. It was previously 2 units. She is trying to at least in regards to this the minimum necessary to meet the relief she is requesting here. It is our position without it the structure in the back, the City would otherwise deem a garage for her, she couldn’t use it for anything else, she couldn’t use it for storage, she would have no way to get income off of the property. It is a large structure for household storage and a garage. She is trying to request something that is the minimum necessary to relieve her of the problem that she has.
When she put in her purchase contract with HUD, apparently the utilities got turned off in back, Codes became aware of it, it got plaque carded, letter got sent to HUD which at the time had a Pennsylvania Management Company, that was a couple weeks after Ms. Daniels put a purchase offer on the property. She then subsequently closed on the property, however when she went to the property, HUD will not let you on the property before closing because of liability and when she finally went there the plaque card was ripped off probably by some kids, she had not idea that it had been plaque carded because had she known that at that time she would have had the utilities turned back on in the rear structure, 6 months had not passed at that time and she would have been able to use it as a 2 unit. It was in November the
plans were to try get the money over the winter and go in and do work in the spring, when she found out that it had been plaque carded, 6 months had gone by and that she had lost the use of it. She has been talking with the City for the last year to come to some sort of terms to get use of this property, which as I said is a big structure in back for her to store stuff.
Mr. Darrow: What is the square foot would the 1 unit be?
Ms. Daniel:1200 square feet.
Mr. Fusco: And the access to it is the stairway on the outside?
Ms. Daniel: There is a stairway that goes to the upstairs door, there is a door underneath that stairway and there is a door in the front.
Mr. Baroody: This is the rear property only?
Ms. Daniel: Yes. I live in the front property.
Mr. Baroody: It was a double that you want to make into a single?
Ms. Daniel: Yes.
Mr. Baroody: Has nothing to do with the front house?
Ms. Daniels: Right.
Mr. Bartolotta: Is the one bedroom going to be just on the top floor?
Ms. Daniel: The bedroom is going to be on the top floor and then the living area will be on the bottom floor.
Mr. Fusco: What was the purchase price?
Mr. Pettigrass: Purchase price was $40,000.
Mr. Fusco: And Mr. Guariglia’s appraisal doesn’t suggest the value of the property, as the second house is useless.
Mr. Pettigrass: Mr. Guariglia in regards to his appraisal that he had come up with a report on income that could be generated if it was restored back to a 2 family, second part of his report, first part is the single family and the garage. In discussing with him after turned in the report, it shows that income of approximately $2,000 single family with garage, however that takes into account of $1,000 for reserve every year, reserve would be for replacement of dishwasher, refrigerator, as a landlord she is not required to do that, kind of a good idea to do. He also put in a debt service of $7200, which he just assumed she was going to borrow money to complete the repairs.
Mr. Fusco: What I am trying to get at is determination of your client’s basis and value of the property that is used only as a single family residence just the front house for determination of hardship. In her answer at 18A she claims to have a basis of $64,000 in the property. What I would like to know absent the granting of this relief is the property worth something less than $64,000?
Mr. Pettigrass: I would believe so because all you have left is the single family home in front. The structure in back becomes more of a liability than an asset to the property because of now instead of having a couple thousand dollars minimum or $400 or $500 of rental income, she is going to have to put money into the structure in back just to maintain it as a large storage facility.
The structure in back is 1250 square feet; the front is only 1300 to 1400 square feet. The structure in back is almost as large, I would anticipate her to a certain extent maintenance costs are going to be just as large in back as far as keeping up with the roof, paint or siding or something else living in the front structure. She doesn’t want a structure in back dilapidating that is going to require a significant amount of money in order to keep it looking nice. There is a single garage back there for purposes of storage she would be better off, it would be less maintenance she also has the additional problem of with this structure back there as far as kids breaking into it as it is not occupied.
I would think that her trying to re-sell this property with a single family up front and not being able to market the rental in back without putting a lot more money into it, I don’t think she would get the $60,00 that she has in the property, that is part of the whole problem here.
Mr. Baroody: Pretty much needs the income to help maintain the property.
Mr. Pettigrass: That is true. She is not looking to put in, part of what she is trying to do, she is not looking to make as much money as possible then she would be seeking a variance to put it back to a 2 unit. She live in the front, she is trying to get the minimum necessary to keep the property in good repair.
Mr. Baroody: Makes sense.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board? Ok. Thank you.
Mr. Pettigrass: Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Pettigrass: She did go around and get signatures from the neighbors, which is attached to the application.
Mr. Westlake: We also had a letter that came in late, so I will read it as part of the record:
“City of Auburn Zoning Board Members, Re: 56- 58 Frances Street.
Dear Board: My wife and I will not be able to attend the October 27, 2008 meeting. However, I would like to voice my support for the variance at 56 – 58 Frances Street.
Here are a few reasons for my support. First and most importantly, the owner’s residence is on the same lot as the proposed rental. This means that if there is a problem I won’t have to call someone who lives outside of Auburn to settle the problem. Next, the property is presently vacant and without the variance it will remain that way. I would rather see a house “alive” in my neighborhood than a vacant one. Finally, as this house was at one time a residence, it seems moronic, not to allow it to be one now, due to a lapse in occupancy.
If you have any questions, please feel free to phone mea t 253-8401,Ext. 3400 or 252-5454. Sincerely, Michael T. Evans.” They reside at 53 Maple Street.
Mr. Darrow: I think the property speaks pretty loud for itself, you look at the rear structure you can see it wasn’t intended to be a single garage even a two story garage in some time. It certain meets the uniqueness; I feel it is not a bad thing providing we perhaps in the motion make it as long as the front is owner occupied. There was also a memo the City is looking at something along this line of creating in-law apartments or second dwellings on the same lot. She certainly has gone the gamut with the neighbors.
Mr. Tamburrino: It is a good application.
Mr. Westlake: Now, both houses are going to be single family?
Ms. Daniel: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: I think it is jut the matter of the motion being worded properly so it is held to one bedroom and that the front residence needs to be owner occupied, off street parking needs to be provided as submitted in the application.
Mr. Baroody: I think we are stepping over the line, I appreciate the one bedroom, I can appreciate that, but to tell somebody how or why they can sell or where they have to live, I don’t think that is our thing. Our thing is to grant a variance or not, we can limit the square feet for the unit.
Mr. Darrow: We can certainly are in our realm to state owner occupancy.
Mr. Baroody: Then you have to do it to the rest of the City.
Mr. Darrow: If we have one that has a number of apartments in back or second dwelling in the back, we can go ahead and make it condition upon it being owner occupied.
Mr. Baroody: It is great that Ms. Daniel lives there, I got nailed by HUD once in the 80’s, I can sympathize, however if anybody was going to tell me what I could do with m property or who I could sell it to, I would tell you where to go. I don’t know if we have the authority!
Mr. Darrow: It has been vacant for 6 months.
Mr. Baroody: The owner made an application for us to accept or reject her property to be a single family home when it was a double and that is it. If we put restrictions here you will have to do it with the whole City.
Mr. Tamburrino: We did with the Bed and Breakfast, a month or so ago and we specified owner occupancy.
Ms. Marteney: That has to be owner occupied by Code.
Mr. Westlake: We can put stipulations on a variance that we grant.
Ms. Marteney: She is asking for a one bedroom.
Mr. Tamburrino: What I am concerned about is the future of the neighborhood, that neighborhood is a little distressed, I am sure it will work out fine now, but in the future, 5 years from now it got sold to an absentee landlord, you don’t know what is going to happen to that neighborhood.
Mr. Baroody: The absentee landlord is still going to have one unit in the front and one in the back.
Mr. Tamburrino: When it is owner occupied they care, they are living there too.
Mr. Baroody: What if Ms. Daniels get transferred tomorrow to Utah for her job, you have eliminated 85% of her ability to sell her house, that is not fair!
Mr. Westlake: I respect your opinion.
Mr. Darrow: Everyone of us sit on this board to watch out for the City’s interest, watch out for the neighborhood’s interest, to watch out for the homeowner’s interest and the City in whole and by just randomly going out and giving a use variance because there are two dwellings on a property, just because of a hardship that occurred because of a few time lapses it is foolish because now we are not protecting anybody.
Mr. Bartolotta: I don’t know if they are being issued randomly we are still required to follow the criteria before we give a use variance. There are certain restrictions or conditions that we can place on those variances but they have to be reasonable conditions and if they go beyond reasonable that can be overturned by the Courts.
Mr. Darrow: Owner occupied and one bedroom are reasonable.
Mr. Westlake: Last month if you realize on S. Fulton Street, we turned a similar application down for the same exact thing, house in the rear, we turned them down.
Mr. Darrow: Everyone is unique; there was absolutely no hardship show in that one.
Mr. Westlake: Who ever makes the motion.
This is a use variance; we have to do a SEQRA first. When you have a use variance, we have to do a SEQRA first. The gentleman over here does a very fine job of it.
Mr. Selvek: Included in your packets was a memorandum with a copy of the SEQRA. The purpose of the memorandum is we have had these come before the board on a number of occasions regarding conversions and in light of the specific circumstances about this conversion I want to make sure that the board is familiar with my thought process as I reviewed it. Specifically within the application itself, the proposed use is for a one bedroom apartment and that is where my thought process goes through a one bedroom apartment, secondly within a number of places specifically within the market study that was completed in 2006 it talks about or suggests that the City look at allowing accessory or in-law apartments and again that is where it becomes a basis for SEQRA comes from.
Part II addresses answers for the board’s review, specifically within Part C that speaks about adverse effects associated with the project:
C-1: The construction activities will be limited to the rehab of an existing structure and the extension of a residential driveway; it is reasonable to assume that environmental impacts are unlikely.
C-2 as well as C –5: there are no environmental impacts.
C-4: Which is the community plans or goals as officially adopted. While the code does not permit multi-family residences in the R-1 zone, the Housing market Study (completed 11/06) indicates a need to provide accessory (or “in-law”) apartments on owner-occupied single-family properties.
C-6: With regards to long term, short term, or other effects, the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (completed 1991) indicates that conversions can cause a decrease in the City’s tax base and undesirable living conditions for residents in those neighborhoods. This is something we specifically look at when we are looking at conversions concern for the livability of the neighborhood.
C-7: Other impacts – A variance, such as the one requested, should be specific to the creation of an additional 1-bedroom accessory apartment on an owner-occupied promises. This would reduce the likeliness of potential “quality of life issues” that may be associated with an investment property.
The recommendation is for a Negative Declaration based on the answers presented. If there are questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Mr. Fusco: Motion for a Negative Declaration?
Mr. Baroody: I make a motion that we accept this Negative Declaration.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant Attilah Daniel of 56 – 58 Frances Street a use variance to make a single-family, 1 bedroom apartment on the second floor of the rear building (#58) per plans submitted to this board.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Westlake
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Darrow – due to the stipulation of lacking owner occupancy I feel it will be detrimental to the neighborhood, Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Ms. Daniel: Thank you.
Mr. Pettigrass: Thank you.
| 
