ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2008
Members Present: Mr. Broody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Member Absent: Ms. Marteney (Called), Ms. Calarco
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Selvek
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 213 State Street, 38 - 40 York Street – Zoning Board SEQR Lead Agency Declaration
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have on the agenda:
213 State Street, 38 – 40 York 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.
***********************************************************************
213 State Street. C1 zoning district. Sandro Mironti, applicant. Public Hearing: Area variance for proposed sign on the front of Wilson Farms.
Mr. Westlake: 213 State 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. Mironti: My name is Sandro Mironti, I am with Wilson Farms.
Mr. Westlake: Ok.
Mr. Mironti: We are proposing to install a sign in the front of our building that will highlight that we are carrying Tim Horton’s coffee products now.
Mr. Westlake: Ok. Questions from the board? I have to ask this question, is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss this amongst the board and will give you a decision in just a minute.
Mr. Mironti: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Tamburrino: I have a question.
Mr. Westlake: Ok.
Mr. Tamburrino: Is the sign going to be facing on Perrine Street?
Mr. Mironti: It is going to be on the front of the building facing the westbound traffic, facing State Street.
Mr. Tamburrino: State Street, ok.
Mr. Darrow: One sign?
Mr. Mironti: Yes, one sign.
Mr. Tamburrino: One sign, ok.
Mr. Fusco: That would be north bound?
Mr. Mironti: Facing State Street.
Mr. Westlake: Very good laid out package.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Sandro Mironti of Wilson Farms for their property at 213 State Street an area variance of 12. 25 square feet for the purpose of directing and placing a Tim Horton’s Express Sign as submitted in packet drawing.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved.
Mr. Mironti: Thank you.
*******************************************************************
38 – 40 York Street. I zoning district. Dion Mulvaney, applicant. SEQR Lead Agency Declaration for a proposed minor subdivision and associated area variances.
Mr. Westlake: Doesn’t look like 38 – 40 York Street showed up.
Mr. Fusco: They wouldn’t need to be here for this.
Mr. Darrow: What is it? I was confused.
Mr. Fusco: They are asking for subdivision approval of a kind of a landlocked parcel which is next to Pete Petrosino’s Pet’s Garage
Mr. Bartolotta: To the rear of it?
Mr. Fusco: To the east and rear so southeast
Mr. Bartolotta: Ok.
Mr. Fusco: While subdivision approval would be in the providence of the Planning Board, the memo that you have before you by Steve recommends that this particular case that the SEQR lead agent be us because the more difficult I guess or thorny issue in this case, is the area variance that is required for the, at least 2 of the reasons laid out in Steve’s memo, there may be others as well.
The applicant has come to the Planning Board first so that is usually what would happen is that the action is triggered by that original application, we have not yet had an action come to us to ask for a variance, but I don’t disagree with streamlining it and doing it this way instead of them declaring their intent to be lead agency, that being the Planning Board, and then having us say well we really should be lead agency because we have the bigger dog in the fight, and having them defer to us, I don’t think any one would object and legally I don’t think it is improper to do it this way for us to assume lead agency status. The risk we run and you might want to tell Bob Germaine this because it is technically a problem, because the application has gone to the Planning Board there is not really an
action before this board to trigger our binding attempt to be lead agent but we certainly can make that declaration tonight, coordinate it between the Planning Board and the applicant and be ready to do some type of review a month from now.
Mr. Darrow: So this isn’t actually asking for the area variances that would be the action required for us to take lead agency, but being no actual variance request has been submitted, strictly this, that is why it is a gray area.
Mr. Fusco: Correct.
Mr. Bartolotta: Do we know what they plan to do with this subdivision?
Mr. Fusco: That is a good question too because they are talking about over flow parking for what, when I read the proposal I have more questions than answers but to begin the process and declare our intention to be lead agency, I don’t think that is a problem doing that tonight.
Mr. Darrow: Strictly putting a motion before us that we request that we are going to become lead agency?
Mr. Fusco: There is a proposed resolution on the back of Steve’s memo to that effect.
Mr. Selvek: Because of the timing of the boards and the fact that the area variances required prior to any decision by the Planning Board, I ask that the Zoning Board declare their intent to be lead agency this basically allows the Zoning Board to be lead agency declare that tonight, come the January meeting which is January 6, my recommendation as staff to the Planning Board will be to allow the Zoning Board to be lead agency. Then at the end of January we will have a full area variance application in front of you, you will go through the SERQ process, the area variances as you see fit.
Mr. Darrow: So this entire draft is to be read.
Mr. Baroody: We are not granting the variance.
Mr. Darrow: Declaring lead agency.
Mr. Selvek: You are declaring lead agency.
Mr. Darrow: That is it.
Mr. Westlake: The difference between us being the lead agency and the Planning Board being lead agency is what?
Mr. Fusco: Well I think the reason Steve recommends that we be lead agency is because our function in deciding this is more quasi judicial; the Planning Board is more of administrative.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, I have to say it again, what I said last month, without the information, we are the Zoning Board of Appeals, if something is turned down, what are we doing?
Mr. Fusco: Good point, good question Craig, except that for SEQR doesn’t matter if something has been turned down or not. All Steve is trying to do right here is to speed the process up by one month. When we come back in January we will have an application for an area variance and we will have already declared our intention to desire to be lead agency, if we want to be, we don’t have to be and then we will have coordinated that with the other involved agency.
Mr. Westlake: Then I am going to say this to Mr. Hicks then, I would like more than a 3 day, get there 3 days before the meeting, I want all the information 2 weeks before the meeting, would that be too much to ask?
Mr. Selvek: I don’t see having it two weeks before the meeting
Mr. Westlake: We would like to have more than 3 days. It sounds like they are doing quite a bit down there; we would like to know what they are doing.
Mr. Selvek: Before any decision is made you will have all the information that need in front of you.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t want 3 days, I want at least a week to look over the materials.
Mr. Selvek: We try to get the information to you as early as we can.
Mr. Westlake: Usually 3 days.
Mr. Selvek: I am surprised it is 3 days because the stuff was sent out at the very latest last Monday.
Mr. Darrow: I got mine on the 23rd.
Mr. Fusco: I looked at this situation with the Planning people it would be very difficult to do it any more quickly and I understand what you are saying but believe me everybody has to move as fast as they can.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, whatever. Who ever wants to make a motion, do what you have to do and we will go from there.
Mr. Darrow: I would motion that:
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has received an application for Minor Subdivision Review and part 1 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form for the subdivision of an existing real property parcel located at 38 York Street; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision does not comply with the dimensional standards of the City of Auburn Zoning Code; and therefore, will require the City of Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals (ABA) to grant variances prior to action by the City of Auburn Planning Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an Unlisted Action that the City of Auburn ZBA will review in compliance with Article 8 of the New York Conservation Law and the New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act, and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn Planning Board is considered an Involved Agency in such review with respect to the required minor Subdivision Approval; now
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Auburn ZBA that the Board hereby declares its intent to act as Lead Agency for the Coordinated SEQR of this Unlisted Action, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board that staff is directed to provide all Involved Agencies with pertinent project materials and seek comment about the project in compliance with applicable SEQR regulations.
Mr. Baroody: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
| 
