ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2009
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Members Absent: Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco
Staff Present: Mr. Hicks, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Selvek
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 113 Curtis Place, 72 Metcalf Drive
APPLICATIONS TABLED: 13 Morris Street, 355-357 Clark Street and 63-65 Belmont Avenue
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: 113 Curtis Place, 13 Morris Street, 72 Metcalf Drive, 355-357 Clark Street and 63-65 Belmont Avenue
This is a seven-member board, two members are absent, and you need four affirmative votes for your application to pass. If two members voted no you would not be able to bring your item back unless there is a significant change. If you would rather wait until next month for a full board you may do so.
If there are no errors, omissions or additions to last month’s minutes of the meeting, the minutes will stand as written. All in favor.
_____________________________________________________________
113 Curtis Place. R1A zoning district. Use and area variances for additional dwelling unit. Applicants; Sandra Janke and Judith Langtry.
Mr. Westlake: 113 Curtis Place. It is your choice to go forward or table until next month.
Mr. Zwirn: I think we would like to proceed Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Zwirn; I am an attorney in Moravia, New York. I would like to put the proof into evidence. Where would you like Ms. Langtry to sit in order to answer the questions or would you like her to just stand here.
Mr. Westlake: She can stand there.
Mr. Fusco: You can do the questions and answers right there.
Mr. Zwirn: That will be fine. I wasn’t sure how many people would be here tonight, I have a number of copies of the evaluation letter from the realtor, which I believe you may have seen and another one which is the appraisal for the construction. Are you ready for me to begin?
Mr. Westlake: Go right ahead.
Mr. Zwirn: As I stated my name is Richard Zwirn, I am the attorney for the buyer, both buyers of 113 Curtis Place, in Auburn, New York. One of the buyers is Judy Langtry, who is standing to my left and I am going to ask her a series of questions in order to establish what I believe is the necessary proof in order to satisfy the requirement of economic hardship.
Would you please state your name for the record.
Ms. Langtry: Judy Langtry.
Mr. Zwirn: And where do you live Judy?
Ms. Langtry: I live at
Mr. Fusco: You know what would be better, Judy if you were over on that microphone, right over there. People will be able to hear you better.
Ms. Langtry: I live at 3241 Rockefeller Road and that is in Moravia.
Mr. Zwirn: Your marital status?
Ms. Langtry: I am separated.
Mr. Zwirn: Do you have children?
Ms. Langtry: Yes, I do, two boys.
Mr. Zwirn: Two boys. And are you presently employed?
Ms. Langtry: Yes, I am at Auburn Memorial Hospital, I am a nurse.
Mr. Zwirn: And you are with your mother trying to purchase 113 Curtis Place in Auburn, New York? Is that correct?
Ms. Langtry: That is correct.
Mr. Zwirn: And what is the purchase price?
Ms. Langtry: $88,000.00.
Mr. Zwirn: Now did there come a time that you were advised that you needed to have the property valued?
Ms. Langtry: Yes.
Mr. Zwirn: And whom did you have do an appraisal of the property?
Ms. Langtry: Mary Ellen Casper, she is a realtor for Emmi Realty.
Mr. Zwirn: And she cauterized it in two ways, didn’t she?
Ms. Langtry: Yes.
Mr. Zwirn: What was her evaluation of it as a one family house?
Ms. Langtry: She valued it at $90,000.00 to $ 95,000.00.
Mr. Zwirn: And what was her evaluation of it as a two family house?
Ms. Langtry: $125,000.00 to $130,000.00.
Mr. Zwirn: Did she explain to you how she valued it the $90,000.00 to $95,000.00 range?
Ms. Langtry: Yes, she thought given realtor’s fees, my $88,000.00 was a fair price, that would be about what would be given after realtor fees.
Mr. Zwirn: So if it was purchased for $95,000,00 after paying 7% realtor’s commission, one would arrive at a $88,000.00 figure, is that correct?
Ms. Langtry: Correct.
Mr. Zwirn: Is a realtor involved in your proposed purchase of 113 Curtis Place?
Ms. Langtry: No, there is not.
Mr. Zwirn: Now in addition to having the home valued both as a one unit and two unit home, did there come a time that you were advised that you needed obtain an estimate on the cost of removing the kitchen from the home?
Ms. Langtry: Yes. I had to remove the upstairs kitchen in order for it to be considered a single family, so we received our contractor’s appraisal for the work needed to be done and there also needs to be some sort of access from one unit to the other to use it as a single family.
Mr. Zwirn: And that appraisal is, I will go over and show it to her, that is the appraisal from Dana Bontindari?
Ms. Langtry: Yes.
Mr. Zwirn: And what is his estimate of the cost for the renovation?
Ms. Langtry: $17,650.00.
Mr. Zwirn: Now the reason you would remove the second kitchen should you not be granted a variance is because, it is your understanding that a one family house that was formally a two unit house cannot continue to have both kitchens, is that correct?
Ms. Langtry: That is correct.
Mr. Zwirn: And what did you say earlier about the actual physical layout of the house that is presently two units?
Ms. Langtry: There is no direct access from one unit to the other. You have to go out an exterior door to like a hallway area to go up the stairs into the second unit.
Mr. Zwirn: So physically separated into two units as well, is that correct?
Ms. Langtry: Yes.
Mr. Zwirn: So in other words if you were to purchase for $88,000.00 and you weren’t granted the variance, you would have to put another $17,650.00 for a total amount of
Ms. Langtry: $105,650.00
Mr. Zwirn: Do any of the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals have any questions you would like to ask Ms. Langtry?
Mr. Westlake: One question, (to Mr. Hicks), is it true you can’t have a kitchen, she would have to take the kitchen out?
Mr. Hicks: The second kitchen has to be removed for the status to become a single family. That room can be used as a laundry room.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Any other questions?
Mr. Zwirn: If I may, a couple more questions.
Would you be able to go forward and purchase the house if this were a single-family home, with these figures?
Ms. Langtry: Well without potential income of rent, I can’t afford the house that is why I am asking for a variance. I would not be going forward with the purchase if I don’t get the variance.
Mr. Zwirn: Thank you very much.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. We will discuss amongst ourselves. No discussion.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Please come to the mike, state your name and address.
Mr. Blackwell: My name is Fran Blackwell, 123 Curtis Place. I have been there for about 35 years. Parking has always been a problem on the street. Unfortunately the street was subdivided in 50-foot wide lots, the lots have just enough room for a single-family house. Right at the moment there are probably half as many parking spots on the street as there are families that live on the street. It is worse when Dr. Ryan when he is in practice, it is pretty well plugged up his whole end of the street. I just would like to say that parking is a problem.
Ms. Marteney: May I ask, in your experience how many families were in that house over the years, with your 35 years of living there?
Mr. Blackwell: When I first moved there it was a two family and when it was purchased back, I have to guess, 6 or 7 years ago they decided they wanted the whole house. As far as I know the last few years, several years, only one family there and all they have is that one parking spot in the front yard there.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much.
Mr. Blackwell: Thank you.
Ms. Marteney: Why are they applying rather than Dr. Ryan they don’t own the house?
Mr. Fusco: They have a contract, they can ask for this, assuming that their contract is contingent.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Fusco: One thing, Mr. Chairman, as you recall last month when we were here there were two people, because we tabled this, who did not get to speak, they were personally here, Al and Rose Leja. Apparently they have written a letter to Mr. Hicks that you may want to read to the fellow members and put into the record.
Mr. Westlake: “To Brian Hicks Sr., Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Hicks: I, Rose Leja and my husband Al, live a t117 Curtis Place. In regards to the dwelling unit at 113 Curtis Place, I would like to let you know that I lived at 113 Curtis Place and it was a one family house, with one half driveway for one car. We cannot accept any more cars on Curtis Place. I have trouble getting out of my driveway because people park across the street of my driveway and my neighbors have the same problem. We definitely need a sign across the street of my drive. So not to park there. Therefore, because we cannot attend tonight’s meeting, I am enclosing this note. Please think very carefully about this on going problem, nothing against the applicants.
Sincerely, Al and Rose Leja, 117 Curtis Place.
There are 11 driveways in our area alone”.
Ms. Marteney: But until Dr. Ryan bought it, it was a one or two family house?
Mr. Zwirn: May I respond to that Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Westlake: Yes, you may.
Mr. Zwirn: It is my understanding that since records were kept going back to the 1960’s, this has been a two family house. Through the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s it was only when Dr. Ryan bought it, a portion of it was not rented out as Dr. Ryan considered a different option for developing the property. At fact at one time he was considering applying to have the house torn down and add to his parking lot but the neighbors preferred to have him not do so and to continue it in its present use. He unfortunately was unaware that if it went more than six months without being rented that it would lose its classification as a two family home.
Ms. Marteney: I am rereading the letter from Dr. Ryan, I had forgotten that.
Mr. Tamburrino: Look at the sketch you have a driveway here, one driveway. If you have a tenant upstairs they can park on the street. It is more congestion, if you go back ten years ago, this was a two family dwelling.
Ms. Marteney: If there is separate every thing to get up to it.
Mr. Tamburrino: Yes, this is a very nice house.
Ms. Marteney: It is lovely, the whole neighborhood is nice.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: Do we have to make one motion or two, one for the square footage and one for the off street parking?
Mr. Fusco: Before we do this, we have to consider the SEQR aspects of this. Is there a recommendation from staff on the use variance. I think the off street parking would be an area variance, but that does not require SEQR consideration.
Mr. Selvek: With regard to SEQR, there was a SEQR application enclosed in last month’s packet for your consideration.
Under Part II, letter C, which discusses the possible adverse effects associated with the action, I call your attention to four of the subsections that are C2, C4, C6 and C7.
C2 – Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources. Staff has drafted an answer, which indicates that 113 Curtis Place is located at the edge of a single-family neighborhood adjacent to a commercial district. While residents should expect that the neighborhood will remain or continue to move toward relatively lower density, it is also reasonable to assume that commercial activities will have an impact on the property regardless of its use.
With regards to C4- community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted. The Comprehensive Plan in 1991 raised numerous concerns with increasing the density of the City’s single-family neighborhoods and the Code outlines the intent for addressing non-conformities and gradually eliminating those non-conformities.
With regards to C6 – long term, short term or other effects. Granting this variance may set future expectations regarding residential conversions.
And finally C7 – other impacts – The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan outlines some of the problems related to dwelling unit conversions and indicates that the toleration of conversions will lead to increased decrease of tax base and poor living conditions for all residents in these areas.
Staff feels that these are potential impacts, however, in of themselves, does not feel any one impact is significant. Staff recommendation is for a Negative Declaration. However, these impacts should still be considered under the consideration for the use variance.
Mr. Baroody: I make a motion that we accept the Negative Declaration for this application.
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: We will move on to the variances needed.
Mr. Fusco: Probably make more sense to address the use variance first since the other is mooted by the decision made on the use variance.
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant Sandra Janke and Judith Langtry of Moravia, New York a use variance for application of 3,200 square feet in lot size of the required 8,000 square feet per the packet submitted.
Mr. Bartolotta: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a second motion based on the same application for Sandra Janke and Judith Langtry of Moravia, New York, 3 off street parking spaces of the 4 required per submitted packet.
Mr. Bartolotta: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved. Good luck with your project.
_____________________________________________________________
13 Morris Street. R1A zoning district. Use variance for addition of dwelling unit. Applicant: Christopher and Daniella Steinbacher.
Mr. Westlake: 13 Morris Street. Are you here?
Mr. Yates: Good evening, my name is Dale Yates, I am an attorney in Weedsport, New York. I am representing Mr. Steinbacher in reference to 13 Morris Street.
He was here last month, I wasn’t. One of the issues that came up was whether this property was abandoned. What I would like to do is make a brief statement on that and adjourn for a month until the full board is here.
Couple issues on abandonment, I was reading your statute on abandoned property and I don’t see anything in here and language in the minutes that that kept coming up – condemned – and that starts the period running. I don’t see that in the statute, it says it is abandoned for six months. Be that as it may, apparently it was condemned back in 2007 for a bad furnace. The landlord at that time, before my client bought it, I believe resided in California. The furnace was subsequently fixed we were told a day or two later and the occupants continued to reside there. Like I said I didn’t see anything as far as condemnation in the statute as far as starting the period to establish abandonment.
Secondly once condemnation occurs it is referred to the City of Auburn Fire Department. I took the liberty of going there and I saw some records, it is my understanding that the Fire Department is suppose to drive by the respective premises every week or two weeks and I did see the records and I would like to subpoena them so that you can see. I know it is not scientific evidence as far as that goes, but I saw the records in the Fire Department and some of the records thereafter show that no body was living there, it shows that somebody was living there, it shows that the utilities were on, it shows that the utilities were off. All of that in a month or two period after the supposed condemnation.
My client contacted NYSEG to see if the utilities had been turned off and he indicated that someone told him that they didn’t want to get involved, but the utilities hadn’t been off during any of that period.
Mr. Fusco: Is there one or two services?
Mr. Yates: There is one service for this unit I believe.
Mr. Fusco: On separate services?
Mr. Yates: Right. Our position before we even get to the use variance that there was no abandonment in this case. If a tenant’s furnace should go off and they call the City and the City condemns it and never goes up there again, does that actually constitute abandonment if the furnace is fixed in a day or two. The statute does not refer to condemnation it refers to abandonment. I don’t feel that is a good starting point as far as saying it was abandoned, in fact it is our position that it was never abandoned it was always occupied. I would like to get some records before you so that we can establish that fact for you and for ourselves to go further because this is causing a hardship.
Mr. Steinbacher has just recently purchased rental property on McMaster Street and he put thousands and thousands of dollars in it and he has also purchased this property and put thousands and thousands of dollars into this to this point. Before we get into the fairness of making a return on his investment, I would like to establish that there was no abandonment and that would make that moot.
I would like to have a full board because we had some consternation before as to the status of the property but I believe we can show with the Fire records showing that somebody was there at some point during the six months and NYSEG showing that the utilities were on that it wasn’t abandoned. I think we can establish a record in this case. That is where we are tonight.
Mr. Westlake: So what you are going to do you are going to table it again for month.
Mr. Yates: I would like to, NYSEG doesn’t want to help us out here they don’t want to get involved, the utilities were on in this unit during those six months and I think if we can get the records from the Fire Department
Mr. Westlake: Sometimes the utilities are set up if the person has it shut off it automatically gets turned back on in the landlord’s name so in the winter time the house won’t freeze. So I don’t know if that would proof if anybody lived there or not. You would have to see what name the bill actually was in during that period of time. But you are going to table until next month.
Mr. Steinbacher: We may not have to table because I brought my real estate agent along too and he went to the property several times before we bought the property, plus I had letters in the packet from the tenants that had to sign saying that they lived there and paid rent in order to get the mortgage. I felt that was proof right there, I don’t know what more we could provide you.
Mr. Yates: I think we are looking at the period from November 2007 until the early summer of 2008. First of all I don’t know how the City came up with condemnation starting point for abandonment. Not in the statue maybe it is policy, but it is not in the statute. The fact that it is condemned because the tenant called the City and said my heat is off for the night, to me doesn’t establish abandonment.
Mr. Baroody: If we can, I would like to allow them the extra month for a couple reasons. Number 1, if they can prove that the abandonment was not an issue and in that case the issue is moot. Secondly, we have a very narrow legislative ability to do things, the fact that your attorney and your realtor did not do a good job prior to, is tough for us to overturn, but if he could come in on his end, I suggest we wait the month. Get what he needs, we will look at it.
Mr. Yates: I think the Fire Department actually
Mr. Fusco: Sounds like the Fire records may be very relevant as to whether there was an actual abandonment. And perhaps what your client has dovetails that not only was there some one living there but that they were actually paying rent which I think is relevant as well because the issue, Mr. Yates that we wrestled with last month is the potential that some one who is actually occupying is a squatter, not paying rent. Does that no give the owner some type of right that they wouldn’t otherwise have and that creates an obvious question of law that this board found difficult. If in fact there is somebody there within the so-called six-month abandonment period and they are in fact paying rent, I think that goes a long way to relevance.
Mr. Yates: I would just question that if there are tenants there and rightfully there and not squatters, the fact that they are not paying rent I don’t know if that has an effect because they are there, the property is not being abandoned.
Mr. Fusco: Let’s assume that it was condemned and they were suppose to leave and they don’t leave, they continue to live there but they don’t pay any rent, they shouldn’t even be there, the place has been placarded, is that now not an abandonment? I don’t know the answer to that, that is a great question and I don’t know the answer.
Mr. Steinbacher: If somebody shouldn’t pay rent for six months before your evict them does that mean that place has been abandoned?
Mr. Fusco: Another good rhetorical question, that is what this board has to decide, so obviously if you can produce records that show that there people living there and they in fact paying rent, they were rightfully there that is relevant to this board. If on the other hand there are people living there but they shouldn’t be there at all and they are in fact not paying rent and that was raised by a notation on the closing statement
Mr. Steinbacher: In my packet I included letters showing people were paying rent there, they didn’t pay us rent, we legally had to remove them, I believe that information was in the packet. She lives in California, basically is not existent now, there is no way I can go back to 2007 and even figure out who was living there.
Mr. Fusco: Your closing statement however raised the possibility, the notation on the closing statement raises the possibility that the people were in fact not paying rent, they weren’t legally there, because (a) those rents weren’t adjusted and the notation on the closing statement something along the line of a disclaimer.
Mr. Yates: I can explain that, the people hadn’t paid the rent for that month, but there are more issues there, the opportunity to collect it
Mr. Fusco: If someone pays the month before.
Mr. Yates: Not in the six month time period.
Mr. Baroody: I would suggest to get the information, there is no question in my mind that he got hosed, not saying that, we are saying we have a very narrow way we can look at it, get the information from the Fire Department and come back.
Mr. Yates: I will. When is the next meeting.
Mrs. Westlake: The last Monday of April, I don’t know the exact date. I don’t have a calendar, I am sorry.
Mr. Yates: Thank you.
Mr. Baroody: I make a motion that we table the application for 13 Morris Street, until the April meeting.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been tabled.
_____________________________________________________________
72 Metcalf Drive. R1 zoning district. Area variance for driveway width. Applicant: Brian and Wendy Hutchings.
Mr. Westlake: 72 Metcalf Drive, are you here? Come to the mike, state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Hutchings: My name is Brian Hutchings, I reside at 72 Metcalf Drive with my wife Wendy. I put a driveway in, in 2007. I didn’t do the approach or the sidewalk until 2008 and I waited so I could do the sidewalk too. I when ahead and did it and Mr. Hicks sent me a letter and I sent the proper paper work in asking for a variance.
Mr. Fusco: Can you explain what you are asking to do?
Mr. Hutchings: A driveway apparently can only be 8 feet wide, the existing driveway is 16 feet wide, the owner before that got the variance or grandfathered in. So when I bought the property it was my understanding that I didn’t need any permit for the driveway so I went in and put in driveway and the reason I did a double driveway not actually a double driveway, it is a little bigger than 8 feet.
Ms. Marteney: You are taking about the one that goes to the house?
Mr. Hutchings: No, the other one going to the shed. It is 15 feet wide with access to the shed and also for off street parking. Metcalf Drive is a speedway, it is very hard to park your car without an accident. I wanted my family to be able to park somewhere, I wanted the public to continue the flow of traffic and it is easier for me to get to the shed and do all the things I needed. I went ahead and did that and in 2008 I needed to redo the sidewalk because we have a lot of people that walk and use that Metcalf off South Street and Lake Avenue. It is access to the lake, Westlake Road, Eastlake Road and traffic is pretty busy. Also Seward School is there, I have the Church across the street which has day care all day, cars coming in and out of there. I went ahead in 2008 and did
the sidewalk and the approach at the same time. I didn’t think anything of it then Mr. Hicks sent me a letter, my other thought on this is I have motor home that is 31 feet long and I have to back it into my driveway and I also have a boat. To back that stuff in on a busy street is very hard. It is convenient and easy to get the vehicles in and off the road without backing over the lawn and everything else. That is pretty much why I am here.
Mr. Tamburrino: I am trying to understand it says here the applicant is seeking a 1’ area variance for the allowed width of driveway. There is a photograph here I see 15 feet over here on the new driveway and I see 21, where is the variance on the 21 or 15?
Mr. Hutchings: On the 15.
Mr. Tamburrino: You are saying 14 is allowed.
Mr. Hicks: This application came to my desk via the Engineering Department and the Engineering Department stated that the original driveway was over the 1 foot allowed. This is the 1-foot area variance for it. Secondary driveway is 15 feet is within the allowable . The Engineering Departm3nt suggested and requested that a 5-foot area variance to allow the curb cut even though it doesn’t exceed the 30% of the allowable lot width percentage but they wanted to make sure that this driveway becomes a legal driveway.
Mr. Tamburrino: The variance is for the old driveway then?
Mr. Hicks: Right, 21 foot wide only allowed to have 20 feet.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss amongst ourselves. Thank you sir.
Ms. Marteney: The area is very nice.
Mr. Tamburrino: What he is saying is all true, that is dangerous. I can understand why you need that driveway.
Ms. Marteney: Both driveways look good.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant Brian and Wendy Hutchings of 72 Metcalf Drive a 1 foot area variance for the allowed width of the driveway as per submitted application.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved.
Mr. Hutchings: Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________________________
355-357 Clark Street and 63-65 Belmont Avenue. R1 zoning district. Use variance of the requirements of the R1 single-family residential district.
Mr. Westlake: Now we have 355-357 Clark Street and 63-65 Belmont Avenue. Would you please come to the mike, state your name and what you would like to do.
Mr. Lane: Good evening member of the board, my name is Greg Lane, I am a consultant representing the applicant for the requested variance tonight, the applicant’s name is Pearce Tract Development LP. What I would like to do is just to introduce the project briefly, give basis for which we are asking for the use variance tonight and then turn it over to Susan Kimall who is the president of 2 + 4 Companies which is the project sponsor, construction project to build the project. Pete Wilson of the 2 + 4 Construction .
As set forth in our application for the variance we are seeking a use variance to permit the construction of 30 semi-attached units in an R-1 zone and the construction of the 30 semi-detached units is a use permitted in an R2 zone. There are no other variances that would be required. I will come back to the podium after I let Ms. Kimall discuss in detail the project, which is proposed, and I will speak to the legal basis on which we are asking for the variance if that is ok.
Mr. Westlake: Sure.
Ms. Kimall: I am Sue Kimall and I am the president of 2 + 4 Construction and 2 + 4 Management. We are a affordable housing developer across New York State, we have been doing this for about 30 years now, currently we have 2 projects that we have built and currently manage in the City of Auburn, the Northbrook Court over on Murray Street and Auburn Heights on Austin Drive.
The project we are proposing is not new to the City, it was a project that came before the Planning Board for a different site over on Rochester and North Fulton Streets. There was difficulty with that site in the entrance road, both Rochester and North Fulton Streets are very narrow and there were concerns by the neighbors about the amount of traffic. At that time this particular property was under option with the DePaul Group so we did not have access to this Clark Street property. Since then we have been able to obtain the option, so we now do have the right to this property, it is a much better site for what we were proposing.
I will very briefly give you an outline. In 2006 the City of Auburn had commissioned a housing study to find out what their needs were in the City and they thought that 71% of the low-income households within the City had housing difficulties, they couldn’t find it, they couldn’t afford it. One of their objectives was to provide additional units available to the extremely low-income and that is what we are proposing. Affordable housing to families whose annual income falls between $28,000.00 for two person up to $40,000.00 for a six-person home. So as Mr. Lang mentioned to you there are 30 semi-detached single-family homes. Each will have their own driveway, their own front entrance, they will not have garages because the State of New York with is our funding source will not
allow garages. We have entered into housing services agreements, that means we will provide housing and the agency will provide the services for three units we have an agreement with Seneca Cayuga ARC to house their clients who have a household member who is disabled and we also have two units that we have an agreement with Cayuga Seneca Community Action to help them place families who have been displaced. Those are both things that have been identified in the City’s study as difficulty for the City finding appropriate homes for these people.
We have received our funding, we have $2.2 million dollars from the New York State Housing Trust Fund, in the form of a 1% interest mortgage, we also will be raising $4.4 million in equity through sale of Federal Tax credits, so it is about $6.6 million dollars project.
I believe you should have plans, I can briefly go through it and take any questions. The entrance will be off of Clark Street, we did meet with the Planning Department and we kind of tapped out some general concepts of what we felt would be the best use of this site. We are coming off of Clark Street, it is a one-way road that will loop through the entire project. The center section is all green space with a community building, it will have a playground, will have a little garden area so that the deer can continue to feed back there and a ball field for the kids with a community space in the center. When we laid it out we listened to the concerns that had come up with DePaul when they came before the Zoning Board and what the neighbors concerns were. So we made sure that in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood and the surrounding neighbors on Belmont and Mullen, we made sure that the backyards of the neighbors is backyard to backyard. Those properties will not only have their own buffer that they have on their properties but they will have at least 50 feet between our property line and the back of our building as well.
The properties are laid out so that they totally meet the R2 requirements. The individual properties are also laid out so that sometime in the very distant future, if a tenant was interested in purchasing they will be able to be subdivided. Currently they are only going to be rentals units. We have a 30-year mortgage, but we have a 51-year rental agreement for the tax credits. For the next 30 years we will own that for the next 51 years it will remain under the supervision of the State of New York, they come in and inspect annually. Our management company will manage and continue to maintain the property such as grass cutting, snow removal and all the capital needs. Any questions about the details of the project that I can answer for you?
Mr. Tamburrino: Term here I am trying to understand – semi-detached, what does that mean?
Ms. Kimall: It is two units with a common wall.
Mr. Tamburrino: Ok. These are wood frame structures?
Ms. Kimall: Correct.
Mr. Tamburrino: Basements?
Ms. Kimall: On slab.
Ms. Marteney: When you are working with Seneca Cayuga ARC the housing has to be handicap accessible.
Ms. Kimall: Right, the three end units will be fully handicap accessible, however under the new New York State criteria that they have, all the units will be what they call visitable, which means if someone in a wheelchair comes in and visits you in your home, they can not only navigate, they can use the bathroom, it has all the turning ranges. These building are all going to be built under the New York State green standards, all energy efficient and they all have central air conditioning.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions for Ms. Kimall?
Mr. Lane: I notice that there are quite a few members of the board here who on the board last year when the DePaul Group requested a similar use variance. Obviously one of the aspects or features of getting the use variance is whether the hardship is self-created. I hope it is fairly clear that as optionee for this site has no other interest other than that as an optionee and similar to the facts that were laid in front of the board last year this is a parcel that at one time had been zoned commercial and I believe had a number of greenhouses on it and used primarily for the growing and cultivation of clematis, and I think actually if you go a little further east on Clark Street there are some more greenhouses are actually still standing.
In 1986 the land which was originally in the Town of Aurelius was annexed by the City and pursuant to that annexation and statute which was passed with that which is attached in the application, it was automatically zoned R1. Pretty much immediately after the annexation it was marketed by the owners the Berry family as a parcel of land that was subject to development for single family uses. The original listing for the property in 1998 was $250,000.00. The contract purchase price currently is $140,000.00. It was dropped to $149,000.00 in 2003, we believe that goes to showing how the value has not been there in terms of use of development of an R1 parcel.
The current project is to be built under green building standards, I am not sure whether what the designation is but as part of the project it is intended to be as green a project as possible which I believe is important because that will help enhance the minimization of the transformation of the parcel which is now a wooded overgrown parcel of land to one that will try to preserve as much vegetation as possible both for environmental friendly purposes and for buffers to the neighbors also. We are going to be developing 8.5 acres that is the amount that will be used for the development and there is also a subdivision application pending before the City to take the existing three lots which comprise the site and turn them into two lots, it will be the one 8.5 acre lot tat will be subject of the development and the
remaining said lots will for the time being at least be undeveloped and remain in its current state. The properties to the left which are homes which are located on Mullen Drive in the Town of Aurelius and the property to the right which are homes on Belmont Avenue, they are in an R1 district, there are some doubles already on Belmont Avenue near other rental properties just to the east of Belmont and Clark Street of course is a mixed use of residential to commercial and industrial uses also.
We believe that this project will provide a very good transition from the commercialism, further to the west obviously over by where the Mall is and a transition as close to single family as I would like to think you could get and still do a project that is going to make the land developable. We met with some of the neighbors and we listened to some of the concerns as when we did DePaul. We answered questions about how the lots will be laid out now and how roads will be laid out. The plan you see attached to the application will probably change a bit as we go over those conversations and we are hoping to met in front of the Planning Board a week from this Wednesday for site plan approval and the plan will be to amend slightly to take into account some of the changes to the plan that we are hoping to
make to address some of the concerns and desires of the neighbors. From the uniqueness of the situation, we feel it is a fairly unique situation where we have land that was once commercial, annexed automatically being R1 and has just been in a situation where no body could the numbers work on paper and again this is going to be property which is developed with a use which is somewhat other than R1. We hope that this is a project that will be a win-win for the developer, for the residents and for the neighborhood also. Any questions?
Mr. Baroody: The only reason I am asking this is that everyone says green this and green that, do you have certified lead engineers on staff, with exception of energy star equipment why are you calling it green? Just curious.
Ms. Kimall: Part of our application with the State of New York we had to work with a green certified architect to make recommendations, other than just landscape wise, green space, there is also the material that we use within the building, the paint, it is the air conditioning system the quality of air within the buildings is greater, all those things in making a green building other than there is physically green space around it, it is also the type of material, there is a whole plan, you have to go through your whole design criteria and submit it to the State. There is also training fro the renters when they move in, how to recycle, how to products that aren’t hazardous, how to use stuff that doesn’t create as much pollution in the air, and so forth. That is all part of the green plan put out
by the State of New York.
Ms. Marteney: What school district will the children go to from this area?
Ms. Kimall: The City of Auburn.
Ms. Marteney: Ok, what school.
Ms. Kimall: That I don’t know.
Mr. Selvek: I believe it is Casey Park.
Ms. Kimall: Another thing that concerns us the size of the population of another project, we do have two people per bedroom so in a two bedroom unit you can have four and in a three bedroom you can six.
Mr. Tamburrino: How many will be rentals?
Ms. Kimall: All 30 will be rentals.
Mr. Tamburrino: All 30.
Ms. Kimall: Yes.
Mr. Tamburrino: With the option to buy you said.
Ms. Kimall: We cannot do anything for at least the first 15 years under the tax credits, we cannot sell them, it is not our intention. Right now we our management company, we have a portfolio of 2700 units across New York State and 95% of the portfolio we own ourselves. It is not intention to sell them, but should a tenant approach us because one of our partners is Cayuga County Homsite, a local non-for-profit, do some counseling, some credit counseling, if indeed someone wanted to say can I use this as my starter like my springboard that brings on a host of other issues when you separate one. We just as soon keep them all 30 rental, with our landscaping and our cutting the grass.
Mr. Lane: We do have some elevations where us too which we can make available to the board and the audience. One is the architectural features will not be cookie cutter type deigns but different facades, different porch configuration, different roof lines to make it look non-institutional or mass produced but rather to kind of replicate that single family home neighborhood look.
Mr. Tamburrino: I would like to see it.
Mr. Lane: While Sue is getting the elevations out, this is another project these are very similar to what the product will look like.
Ms. Kimall: That was built in the Village of Arcade, they are actually three and four bedroom units. They were built a few years ago so they have garages that the State of New York, with all the cutbacks and so forth, disallowed the garages.
There are actually going to be three different elevations for each of the two and three bedrooms, as you can see the rooflines are a little different. The porches do have some that are open and there are some variations to this so again these will be staggered the two and three will be staggered to give, so it is not like there is one, there is one, there is one, there is one. May change the color scheme a little bit. One thing too is with the funding source we are required to put money aside for capital improvements, so when capital improvements need to be done, be it a roof, be it windows, the money is already sitting there for our use to make these improvements, that is regulated by the State of New York for 51 years.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you.
Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Please come to microphone, and state your name and tell us your comments.
Ms. Cotler: My name is Linda Cotler, and I live at 11 Belmont Avenue. This is a very bad idea for the neighborhood. This is a residential neighborhood, we have a lot of senior citizens living on the street and it would knock our property values right down. Unfortunately Mullen Avenue has not even been notified, they did not get letters because they are not in the City of Auburn. I started a petition and it got rained on yesterday but this is a list of some of the people who are against this project. We are very attached to our wildlife, we have everything back there and they have been living there for years. It is a landlocked piece of property. The traffic on Belmont Avenue and Mullen Avenue would be terrible. This is a very bad idea.
Ms. Marteney: Why do you think the traffic will be bad, there is only one exit in and out of this development.
Ms. Colter: We have a lot of traffic from the Mall on Clark Street
Mr. Tamburrino: So getting in and out of Belmont is going to be difficult?
Ms. Colter: Yes.
Ms. Marteney: No egress from those streets.
Ms. Colter: It is going to be much more difficult to get in and out of the street. Unfortunately I had many more people coming with me, some were not able to get here and some are quite ill, everybody in the neighborhood is against it. If you want to give me a little extension on this, I can get the rest of the neighbors to sign it.
Mr. Westlake: I am going to play the devil’s advocate here, this piece of property belongs to someone who would like to sell it.
Ms. Colter: I understand that.
Mr. Westlake: This is the second proposal that they have brought to us
Ms. Colter: I understand that.
Ms. Marteney: The price of the property has diminished and diminished
Ms. Colter: Yes because the other person was not able to get a grant.
Mr. Baroody: If not this project, what?
Ms. Marteney: I think it was 10 years ago
Mr. Tamburrino: There is a question of property values, I think she may have a point, I don’t know. You take a residential neighborhood R1 and plop in thirty rental units, low income, now all of a sudden how does it affect your property values? I don’t know what the answer is, but
Ms. Marteney: Aren’t some of the properties on Belmont Avenue also rentals?
Mr. Baroody: Some are.
Ms. Colter: A lot of them own homes
Ms. Marteney: But aren’t some of them rentals?
Ms. Colter: Some of them are but some are privately owned.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Please state your name, address and give us your comments.
Mr. Siracusa: My name is Phil Siracusa, my parents reside at 61 Belmont Avenue, and I am also the owner of this property. My question is, is there going to be an entrance on Belmont at the end of Belmont to get into this project?
Mr. Westlake: Just an entrance from Clark Street.
Mr. Siracusa: What is your intention for 63-65 Belmont Avenue? My concern is my parents’ house is assessed for $100,000.00, what are the assessments of these houses. Will they decrease the value of my house at 61 Belmont Avenue if these low-income houses are assessed at $30,000.00. My house is going to go down, down, down. Have you ever been at the end of Belmont Avenue, there is no other house there except the house my parents live in now. It is secluded, it is a brick house, and it has been there for the past 40 years. We have no objection to neighbors, however, putting low-income families there it is just going to decrease it. In my line of work I have been in these houses, who is going to control the fact you said there is two per bedroom, what happens nine months
down the road when a little baby comes along, now there is five.
Ms. Kimall: They are not eligible.
Mr. Siracusa: You control that? Who controls that?
Ms. Kimall: We do, I have a professional management company I am the owner for the property and I manage the property. Just like you want to protect your property values, I want to protect my property values and the State of New York wants to protect their property values because they are holding the mortgage on the property. I am not an appraiser, I am not a real estate agent so I can’t speak to property values, but if you take a look at the other projects that we have done similar to this that are families in the neighborhood, I have every intention of being a good neighbor because that is what the State of New York expects. The entrance is off of Clark Street, we are developing this part, (points to elevation), we are not developing the back, this is the subdivision that Mr. Lane referred to,
we are subdividing here and this is what we are using for the development of the property.
Mr. Fusco: One question that Mr. Siracusa asked that has not been answered yet, what is your intention for 63-65 Belmont Avenue?
Ms. Kimall: At this time it will remain vacant.
Mr. Lane: It is going to be combined with a much larger parcel to form the remainder parcel after the parcel that is subdivided off this project.
Mr. Fusco: Say that again.
Mr. Lane: The parcel you are talking about is the last parcel on Belmont at the end.
Mr. Siracusa: You know where the turn around is?
Mr. Lane: Yes.
Ms. Kimall: There are three parcels there, this parcel (points to elevation) the large parcel and the end parcel that are all part of the option that we currently hold so that is three parcels, one, two and three and this is the parcel that Mr. Siracusa is talking about. When we end up subdividing this and this parcel all become one parcel and becomes part of this development and then this and that one small piece at the end of Belmont that becomes a second parcel and it is our intention at this point we have no intention of developing it.
Mr. Baroody: Just combining the land.
Ms. Kimall: Right.
Mr. Siracusa: One of the issues that the lady mentioned was the decrease in property values, some of those properties I have been in them, people don’t take care of them. Ok, those properties are dumps.
Ms. Kimall: I can’t speak to the properties you are speaking of, but what I can tell you again
Mr. Siracusa: These will be the same as those.
Ms. Kimall: They may look like that but they are regulated, I can only guarantee mine because I have annual inspections from the State of New York, they go through each unit. As I said I have an operation reserve, replacement reserve, I understand your concern, a problem with landlords is a big need comes up, they don’t have the money, they won’t do it. Our money is sitting there, we are required to do it.
Mr. Siracusa: Opposition noted.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you sir, appreciate it. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Come to the microphone, state your name and address and state your comments.
Ms. Brown: My name is Carol Brown. I have a few questions. You don’t plan on living in the area correct?
Ms. Kimall: No.
Ms. Brown: So you don’t know its long term affects of this type of housing in this area. I would like to say a couple years ago the school was redistricted, if I am correct, West High they redistricted the school so the low income children were sent to East High instead of going to West or Casey. Now we have another low income to me that is going to separate East from West. Right now we have Northbrook, we have Murray, the one down by York Street, Olympia Terrace, we have Melone Village, now we are going to have this one. They are all low income. Why not build it up on the east end. There is plenty of property up there.
I am very leery about and I know Mr. Siracusa is also, we work in the same type of environment, it is very difficult, thirty years ago prisoners were not let out in this area, now they are and with this kind of housing in the west end, ten years, fifteen years down the road, this is what is going to be happening again. You have East against the West and it is bad enough now that those people, I mean all the people cannot come together as one and to me you are separating further from the East and the West. I am not for this at all.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much.
Mr. Lane: Can I make a point. The term being used in here, low income, this is not Section 8 housing, it is low income because it is a low rental rate and will let Sue speak to the specific rental because of the relatively low cost of building the project due to a 1% interest mortgage loan and the sale of Federal Housing Tax Credits through the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal. So these are not going to be subsidized apartments. They are just going to be apartments that are at a rate probably market rate in a lot of places but we are just using the term low income because it is a new project with units that are going to be available for a large segment of the population.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Please state your name and address and state your comments.
Mr. Kushaney: My name is George Kushaney and I live at 353 Clark Street, right next to the property. I am worried about the drainage. When it rains real bad how are they going to drain with the sewage pump we have now when our basements start to back up when it rains real hard, what are they doing about that? And is there a possible way of a dividing line to a property at an angle is there a way to square it off?
Mr. Westlake: You may be able to talk to the new owner, we as a board can’t.
Mr. Fusco: You may want to address staff on that.
Mr. Lane: We can answer that. First in the terms of drainage, the site drainage control plant, Sue why don’t you do the talking.
Ms. Kimall: We have to do a storm water pollution prevention plan, we have to show that we are going to take care of our water, a lot of times we improve the drainage situations in a neighborhood, so what is happening is everything is draining to the back of our property, everything is being graded to drain back here, drainage in the roadway, detention ponds corrects the water and only lets the outflow controlling how much is coming out. Because we do all of that on the property we are using that for drainage so we can bring the water from the front half of this to drain off in the back. This has been engineered through our Storm Water Pollution Plan.
Mr. Kushaney: Location of the property, on an angle.
Ms. Kimall: Which property is yours?
Mr. Kushaney: Here (points to elevation). If you look at the plan it is off on an angle.
Ms. Kimall: We have spoken with the other neighbors in the back who may be interested in maybe picking up some more in green space behind their property line, that is something that we will consider and be willing to take a look at.
Mr. Lane: We are planning on meeting with neighbors prior to the Planning Board meeting to have kind of a sketch plan session if they would like to alter their property line, I will exchange contact information with this gentleman here.
Mr. Kushaney: Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss amongst the board.
It is a nice project.
Ms. Marteney: In my experience I think this is the third time that someone has come to us with a proposal for it. Each time the value of the property has gone down and down, so that the landowner’s property isn’t realizing a benefit, that is certainly one of the things that we have to look at.
Mr. Westlake: Anyone else?
Mr. Fusco: Since this a use variance, we do need to do a SEQR and I would like to hear from staff on that issue.
Mr. Selvek: With regards to SEQR this project will require the approval of all City boards, as well as the State funding source and the DEC approval. Not to necessarily slow down the project but definitely to go through the right channels, staff recommendation is that we do coordinate this particular SEQR review with the Planning Board, with the DEC, as well as the funding agency, which is the Department of Housing and Community Renewal. In your packets there is a memorandum and a draft resolution that requests that for tonight you pass a resolution declaring the Zoning Board intent to be lead agency, this is primary because this particular board’s approval being the use variance is for lack of better description most critical approval. Without a use variance the project does not move forward and
therefore the Zoning Board does have kind of the biggest hand in the pot right now with regards to consider SEQR as well as ultimately the use variance.
I would ask that you consider the lead agency resolution tonight, following that, table the discussion with regards to the use variance itself so that we can kick off SEQR process that will allow staff to circulate all the necessary documents to the involved agencies being Planning Board, DEC, HCR, get comment back from them and that will allow this board to move forward on the use variance application before them.
Mr. Fusco: When we have more than one involved agency you run a risk if you go and act before what amounts to a thirty day waiting period for the other involved agencies to defer to you action, that they will come to a different conclusion regarding SEQR. So were you tonight to (a) determine to be lead agency and then do a Negative Declaration thereafter you run the risk that one of the other two involved agencies because not given the thirty days statutory period to respond would disagree with you and say no we are going to Positive Declaration, then we have a problem.
Mr. Westlake: So what you need from the board tonight is we declare lead agency.
Mr. Fusco: Correct.
Mr. Westlake: Then table for a month. Can I have a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby declares its intent to act as lead agency for the coordinated SEQR as submitted.
Mr. Bartolotta: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we table 355-357 Clark Street and 63-65 Belmont Avenue for thirty days to give the other agencies time to respond.
Mr. Bartolotta: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: This has been tabled for thirty days to allow the other agencies to give us their feedback. Thank you very much.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
| 
