ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2009
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Members Absent: Mr. Bartolotta (called and said he could not make meeting).
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Selvek
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 13 Morris Street, 162 N. Fulton Street, 217 Grant Avenue and 131 Osborne Street.
APPLICATION TABLED: 217 Grant Avenue.
Mr. Westlake: We would like to have counsel present for 13 Morris Street, so what we would like to do tonight is start with the second item. They just went out to call him and we will go from there.
Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: 13 Morris Street, 162 N. Fulton Street, 105 Grant Avenue, 217 Grant Avenue and 131 Osborne Street.
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.
_____________________________________________________________
162 N. Fulton Street. R1A zoning district. Area variance for fence height. Applicant: Patrick and Jennifer Furnia.
Mr. Westlake: 162 N. Fulton Street, are you here? Come forward, give us your name and tell us what you would like to do. Pull up the mike so we can hear.
Mr. Furnia: Patrick Furnia. I would like to put up a 6-foot privacy fence; I need the variance as I am on a corner lot.
Mr. Westlake: The fence will be in the back of your place or in towards the front?
Mr. Furnia: It is in the back of the house.
Ms. Marteney: Is it going to start where your house, if you are facing your house from Fulton, N. Fulton, is it going to start at the corner?
Mr. Furnia: No at the back.
Ms. Marteney: At the back. Where are you going to park your cars?
Mr. Furnia: Currently our driveway is on the side of the house on the Benham side.
Mr. Tamburrino: It shows on the map, on Benham Avenue side.
Ms. Marteney: That is what I am trying to
Mr. Tamburrino: It says driveway right here, Benham Avenue.
Ms. Marteney: Mine does not say driveway.
Mr. Furnia: What she is looking at is the driveway to the old driveway to 4 Benham Avenue.
Mr. Tamburrino: OK, I see.
Ms. Marteney: They really don’t have a driveway; they would park in their yard and on the sidewalk.
Mr. Tamburrino: I see a garage here.
Mr. Westlake: Any other questions from the board?
Ms. Marteney: The fence is going to go where your driveway currently is or just where the bushes are.
Mr. Furnia: The driveway at 4 Benham we purchased the property
Ms. Marteney: No on the side of your house, on the north side of your house on Benham Avenue, your parking spots there, kind of against the house, so where is the fence going to go?
Mr. Furnia: The fence goes in the back of the house, from the back corner of the house.
Mr. Tamburrino: On the drawing back of the house it is 60 feet back, you say a 6-foot privacy fence right?
Mr. Furnia: Right.
Mr. Tamburrino: You have an arrow showing the 6-foot privacy fence, is that
Mr. Furnia: That is where we want to have the fence.
Mr. Tamburrino: I was concerned about it going to the corner, it is not going to the corner, just going from the back of your house.
Mr. Furnia: Back of the house towards the hedges.
Mr. Tamburrino: There is a 4-foot fence at 160 N. Fulton Street?
Mr. Furnia: Currently there is a hedge right there, want to remove it and put up a 4 foot fence.
Mr. Tamburrino: Ok.
Mr. Westlake: Any other questions from the board? Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, we will discuss this item amongst ourselves. The neighbor doesn’t seem to mind.
Ms. Marteney: I just need to see it on the map.
Mr. Tamburrino: You know what is great is going to Google maps and you can see the satellite and you can zoom right in, you can see exactly what the house
Ms. Marteney: I did drive by, but it is the northeast corner of the house, not the northwest corner.
Mr. Furnia: Right. It will not interfere with the corner.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Patrick and Jennifer Furnia of 162 N. Fulton Street, an area variance for the express purpose of erecting a 6 foot solid privacy fence which will be 2 foot over the allowed limit as submitted on plot plan.
Mr. Tamburrino: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake.
ABSTAINING: Ms. Calarco
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved. Good luck with your project.
Mr. Furnia: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
217 Grant Avenue. C3 zoning district. Area variances for signs. Applicant: Metropolitan Signs.
Mr. Westlake: 217 Grant Avenue, are you here? Please come forward, state your name and tell us what you would like to do. Didn’t we already give them a variance for the one sign on McIntosh?
Ms. Marteney: Right.
Mr. Razzante: Good evening Mr. Chairman and board members, my name is David Razzante of Metropolitan Signs, Inc. and with me is Tim Kerstetter of G & A Group, representing Michael Wachs. You did give us one variance for the other side.
Mr. Westlake: McIntosh and Grant Avenue. So what you are here for is just the Hess Gas Station side.
Mr. Razzante: Well, no, what we are here for is the expansion of this, both signs to go higher in addition to the signs; we came up with a five (5) year plan that we would be able to alleviate problems for five (5) years with the new tenants. The overall height was increased and added some signs but it gives you more height underneath the signs at the ground. We added that in, that part of the height there so especially on the Hess side where there is not a lot of clearance to the ground, we increased that another two (2) feet, we have another two (2) feet of clearance underneath that sign for better visibility up and down the road. What we want to do is combine the additional signs in there; I think you have all the drawings, side by side and individually showing the square footage.
Mr. Baroody: Yes we do.
Mr. Tamburrino: You raised the bottom of the signs higher.
Mr. Razzante: Yes, it was a safety hazard.
Mr. Baroody: So you added square footage and raised it to 39 feet 9 inches?
Mr. Razzante: Correct. We wanted to make sure; we didn’t want to go lower to the ground. Even with the one you granted at the last meeting that was added to the existing height so that would have been closer to the ground creating a problem there.
Mr. Tamburrino: How did you determine the height?
Mr. Razzante: What we did is figured normal pole length, 40 foot length, we added in The Plant Fitness Center that is going around back and then room enough on the bottom half here, the two (2) tier section and the bottom four (4) tier section, so that when people, when major tenants close they then divide the sections into two (2) or three (3) which would create shortage on the sign. This has only eight (8) tenants that are on both signs out of a possible thirty-seven (37) tenants in the plaza. The remainder of the tenants are to be on one side. This may help a little bit filling up some spaces that people don’t have at that end of the plaza, like Subway, there was no room for that, that is what we came in for last meeting and we couldn’t that due to the fact that it would be too close to
the ground, creating a traffic hazard.
Mr. Tamburrino: Thank you for that information, but what I really wanted to say is the bottom you raised that 7 feet 4 inches, how did you come up with that figure?
Mr. Razzante: Like I said we took the pole
Mr. Tamburrino: Safety and visual thing. Is it standard
Mr. Razzante: We took the size of the signs, brought everything up, added what we had to have on we just happened to come up with that figure.
Mr. Tamburrino: Your experience this is a safe clearance?
Mr. Razzante: Yes we do shopping centers all over the sate and we wanted to make sure especially at that Hess side, that safety feature was addressed.
Mr. Westlake: Did you do the signs in Cazenovia for McDonald’s and the P & C?
Mr. Razzante: No. We just finished Black River Boulevard. We took into consideration the safety features, hazards and try to alleviate those problems, we figured by adding the signs at the bottom this Planet Fitness sign here is new and then we have this two (2) section larger section and four (4) tier smaller section and even with all that we are an additional couple of feet higher than we are off the ground now. I mentioned that at the last meeting to making it safer.
Mr. Tamburrino: The safety of the signs, how is that done?
Mr. Razzante: They are all engineered, going to be larger poles going, heavy duty. Not safe to weld onto a pole, it has to be safe.
Mr. Westlake: Any other questions from the board?
Ms. Calarco: I think he has addressed all the issues.
Mr. Razzante: There is one in there for square footage even though we were granted the one over on the other side of the plaza.
Mr. Baroody: Adding square footage and raising the lowest sign up and adding height.
Mr. Razzante: That is correct.
Mr. Darrow: Variance is for the height and square footage for each sign.
Mr. Westlake: Any other questions?
Mr. Razzante: Do you have any questions for Mr. Brandstetter?
Mr. Westlake: No, we are all set. Thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss amongst ourselves. Thank you.
Mr. Razzante: Thank you.
Mr. Tamburrino: Making it safer.
Mr. Darrow: My only concern is that I have become aware that current government is wanting to minimize signage and actually wants to take down that are already there as it fits into our capitol plan. I am concerned that if we allow this, this is something that may fall into that criteria that they are looking at.
Ms. Marteney: My impression of that was smaller signs, not large signs like this.
Mr. Darrow: My impression was all signs.
Ms. Calarco: I think they have taken care of the safety issues already existing with that height.
Ms. Marteney: People are not going to move into if they can’t have a sign.
Mr. Darrow: Who wants to rent there if you can’t have a signage? Because of the way the plaza is an “L” shape and their signage is calculated on road frontage and you compare it to an “L” shaped plaza you probably have 50% more store frontage than they do road frontage.
Mr. Baroody: You have to exercise common sense.
Mr. Tamburrino: I think the safety factor in raising the sign give motorists more vision.
Mr. Westlake: I haven’t been on the board as long as some of you people have but this is about the third or fourth time they have been back to us. He says he won’t be back for five (5) years, I have to say that is as far as we can go, I don’t want 50 or 100 foot in there. Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Michael Wachs of G & A Group, 215 W. Church Street, King of Prussia, PA., for property located at 217 Grant Avenue, a 10 foot height variance that exceeds the 30 foot allowable for signage at the McIntosh entrance and signage at the Hess entrance.
Mr. Baroody: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Michael Wachs of G & A Group, 215 W. Church Street, King of Prussia, PA., for property located at 217 Grant Avenue, a 55 square foot signage allowed variance for the McIntosh/Grant Avenue entrance sign.
Mr. Baroody: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Michael Wachs of G & A Group, 215 W. Church Street, King of Prussia, PA., for property located at 217 Grant Avenue, a 85 square foot over signage area variance for the Hess entrance sign.
Ms. Calarco: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck; see you in ten (10) years.
Mr. Razzante: Thank you for your consideration.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Darrow: I am not sure, I don’t see it on our agenda, but if there is not business involving that Clark Street housing, you may note, I see some people in the audience who may be here for that, we are not going to be working on that so that way they don’t have to sit through our whole agenda.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, we took the lead agency for SEQRA on the Clark Street project. It went in to be approved and it hasn’t come back to us yet, so we can’t hear it until we get approval from the New York State DEC, they have a few more days that they can work on it and they take every minute that they can take. You will be notified when it comes in front of us again. Thank you, appreciate it.
Mr. Fusco: My apologies to the members of the board and public, I got my times mixed up.
_____________________________________________________________
13 Morris Street. R1A zoning district. Use variance for addition of dwelling unit. Applicant: Christopher and Daniella Steinbacher.
Mr. Westlake:If you would come to the podium, last month we asked you to bring more proof of whether that apartment was abandoned or not abandoned. If you would explain what is going on that would be great.
Mr. Yates: My name is Dale Yates; I am an attorney in Weedsport. What we are dealing with is a real apartment at 13 Morris Street, which was grandfathered in as an apartment. There has been some contention that it has been abandoned over the course of time. Now what I have brought is proof from the Auburn Fire Department and NYSEG which I will go through kind of quickly here just to show you our position, something happened to that property on or about November 30, 2007. Now it is our position if there was an abandonment period it started to run at that time which would put it to May 30, 2008, six-month period. I think if you look at the NYSEG on the first page it shows that some utilities were turned on – on February 14. But it also shoes that it was billed to a Barbara
Genopolos, who moved in at that time and resided there until this last year, my client evicted her. So there was some question here as to whether she was a squatter or not, she was a tenant, she had to be evicted, she was a rent-paying tenant. So it is our position that the abandonment ceased in March of that year.
Now the Code Enforcement Officer, I guess the procedure is and I found this out going through this is that once they find the violation of heating or whatever they turned it over to the Auburn Fire Department, so I contacted Jack Netti at the Fire Department and under Freedom of Information requested the records and other papers that you have there and it shows from November of 2007 through May of 2008 and I believe if you look through there, apparently what happens is the Fire Department goes out on Saturdays and looks at these properties and make notations which these forms are which you have in front of you. I believe that in March or February of that your it shows that the apartment being 13 Morris Street rear was occupied and utilities turned on so again it shows that this tenancy occurred in March of
2008 about three months after the supposedly abandonment period started. Since this property was grandfathered in it has certain rights and I am not sure where the burden of proof is to show that it was terminated. What we did is we got proof that it wasn’t abandoned, we took that upon ourselves to get that proof and in fact I have got, not sure what I have here, but apparently a Code Enforcement Officer cited violations in May so they were there too. My client wants to fix this up, put money into it, he has other apartments here in Auburn that he does put money into. This is causing a hardship, we are not looking for a variance, we are just looking for a finding I guess if there was an abandonment of this property. I think we have submitted proof; there was a tenant in there in March within that six-month period, so that should stop the abandonment. If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to try to answer them. The Fire
Department was very cooperative.
Mr. Westlake: What is the original reason for this being here?
Mr. Hicks: Problem with the furnace whether the pilot went out, received a call that there was lack of heat in that apartment.
Mr. Darrow: Question for counsel, if there is no abandonment is there still just cause for them to be before us?
Mr. Fusco: You can make a finding or interpretation if you will that is was not abandoned and therefore it would be the issue before us would be moot and whether the question, I had a legal question as we articulated last month whether an abandonment how it started, exactly what it is. A greater question if you will whether in this particular situation there was an abandonment or not. It would seem to me that the Code needs to be a little more specific on what triggers an abandonment and then when the time starts if we are going to lose our pre-existing non-conforming use if it is abandoned for a six-month period. Here quite frankly looking at the proof that has been supplied tonight, we have weekly Saturday inspections, by the way right after our meeting last month, I know Brian went down to the Fire
Station and went over these records, he and I talked about this and he may have some insight or recommendations on what he thinks the board should do. I won’t speak for him. But I will say that the records are a little bit confusing as to whether this apartment was occupied or not in three (3) successive inspections, going from yes it is occupied, to no it is not, to yes it is vacant and to unknown. These are the records that Mr. Yates gave us tonight. So that is three (3) different answers over roughly a four (4) week period of Saturday inspections. So the facts here are somewhat confusing, that is probably why he said who has the burden of proof here, whether we do or whether he does.
Mr. Darrow: Time limit is still six-months right?
Mr. Fusco: Right.
Mr. Darrow: It doesn’t change the abandonment, doesn’t become shorter for a pre-existing non-conforming use after six months it reverts back.
Mr. Fusco: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Mr. Baroody: In that six-month time frame, we have from the Fire Department which says yes it was on one occasion and not sure on another. We have documentation from NYSEG where they sent the bill to a person occupying it. If we were to assume that, I think we can make a motion based on what is before us.
Mr. Yates: May I clarify something on the last page of the Fire Department there is a notation by the Fire Department this is in April well within the period, says occupied - owner states he has contacted Codes.
Mr. Fusco: I noticed that, I was talking about basically the four-week period that runs through the next through the last three pages on your handout, where we go from it being vacant no, to yes vacant a week and a half later.
Mr. Baroody: My question to counsel was it occupied according to NYSEG and the Fire Department in March within the six-month period? If it was then this is moot. If it wasn’t then we can discuss it. If everything was done within that six-month period my opinion is we don’t have a right to do anything, if you are saying it was abandoned during that six-month period then we will discuss.
Mr. Tamburrino: The Fire Department has it listed as 13 Morris Street, what apartment is it?
Ms. Marteney: That is what I was wondering.
Mr. Steinbacher: 13 is in the rear. 11 is in the front.
Mr. Yates: Apparently what they do and I didn’t know this, when I talked with Jack Netti, he says they go out every Saturday and they go around to these different places, it is not an exact science, but I guess it is clear along with the NYSEG documents, that person was there, just evicted this year.
Mr. Baroody: We have a very narrow legislative window, if it was occupied that is going to put everything on the table or it will be moot.
Mr. Yates: As I said before I don’t know what the burden of proof is, certainly has the right to have this apartment are we obligated to prove that it was occupied or are you obligated to prove that it wasn’t. We are trying to comply.
Mr. Fusco: Let me say this, I think that possibly once you suggest that it is not abandoned for a period of six-months, I think the burden was on the City to say oh yes it was abandoned and here is the proof. In this particular case it looks like the proof is not convincing at least to me on the issue of abandonment and that is consistent with what I think Brian discovered.
Mr. Darrow: My question is should we put a motion forward on whether or not we feel on what has been submitted whether it was abandoned or not. If we all feel that it was, if the majority feels that it was, we will know which direction to go. If it wasn’t abandoned we can’t go any further.
Mr. Yates: We complied with the Code to pursue this.
Mr. Fusco: If it is not abandoned your vested rights to the pre-existing non-conforming has not been lost and the question whether you should get a variance to allow this falls to the wayside.
Mr. Darrow: We need to call for or against whether it was abandoned or not.
Mr. Fusco: You can make a motion
Mr. Darrow: Without calling for anyone to speak for or against according to the Open Meeting Law.
Mr. Fusco: We are subject to the Open Meeting Law and we held this meeting now over for three months, two with Mr. Yates here and one with Mr. Steinbacher, so I think that everyone who wanted to speak has gotten an opportunity to speak, not an illegal meeting, we are not denying anybody the opportunity to be heard. We did have some people who spoke at the first meeting saying that the street is already crowded, not a lot of parking there, I recall that two months ago. So that is on the record. If there is anyone else who wants to be heard on this issue let them be heard.
Mr. Westlake: Let’s get back to the original reason, Brian, why did you bring this before us?
Mr. Hicks: Reason is was brought in front of the board was the abandonment discontinuance of the apartment in the rear of 13 Morris Street. The issue was the apartment was condemned, the Fire Department did the Saturday inspections and a couple of times it seemed that there was somebody there, then there was nobody there, then in April at that point in time the Steinbachers took possession of property by deed transfer and they had a tenant in there. Tried to explain that it has lost its use, pretty much why we are here and the abandonment discontinuance is part of the fact that the property was condemned, it was never corrected after the furnace was corrected, they never notified the violation was corrected and a tenant had moved in. What I can see from the NYSEG billing here none of it is billed to 13
Morris Street for a tenant of that property, very hard for me to track that. Also the issue with the Fire Department inspection list if we had the next two months after that maybe we could track how this followed through afterwards. These are some of the items that the board should be concerned with and I would classify as pertinent information, we can only go by the information that we have in our office.
Mr. Baroody: Specific clarification is between November 2007 and May 2008, there was a violation, it was condemned, it was fixed, it was never reported it was fixed, people moved in, the house was sold, lot of issues about the City had to assume that it was abandoned. Mr. Yates has brought proof showing that there were people there in that amount of time.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t see the proof.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question for Mr. Hicks. If in fact the property was condemned at one point, before any tenant could move back in, would they or would they not need another Certificate of Occupancy?
Mr. Hicks: When the property was condemned we placard the building, now the placard don’t always stay, it specifically states that they can only be removed unless one of the officers removed it. They are removed all the time; we try to re-placard them when we are notified that they are removed. These become issues for us all the time where we condemn properties and we notify the Fire Department that this has been done so they can inspect the property.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, but legally that tenant had to have a CO?
Mr. Hicks: Not a full CO, just the correction of all the safety
Mr. Darrow: But they would have had to call for an inspection?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, we would have to verify that is was done.
Ms. Calarco: And that did not take place?
Mr. Steinbacher: Yes it did. Mr. Paulsey was there in September and still no placards on the building, when we went there no placards on the building. As far as the electric goes it shows that Barbara Genopolos had electric and gas turned on from March 4th 2008 to December 9, 2008, so that is proof right there that she was there for that entire period and Mr. Paulsey was there in between that time.
Mr. Hicks: You are stating September of what year?
Mr. Steinbacher: March 4th 2008, December 9th, 2008.
Mr. Yates: The billing was transferred to Mary Steel who owned the property, actually if you look at the first page, it shows that somebody named Adams was there prior to November, the utilities then turned into the name of Mary Steel until March and then put in the name of Barbara Genopolos, who was a tenant until this year when she was evicted for not paying the rent.
Mr. Steinbacher: I believe I have some records here that shows that Mr. Paulsey was there on May 145h and August 18th of 2008 and nothing was mentioned about the furnace at that time, just the violations, or it being condemned.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chair, I would like to put forth a motion that we find for Christopher Steinbacher of 37 Catlin Street for property at 13 Morris Street that it was never abandoned.
Mr. Baroody: I will second that.
VOTING THAT IT WAS NOT ABANDONED: Ms. Marteney – based on findings of the Fire Department. Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Since we have this finding, we are done.
Mr. Yates: Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________________________
105 Grant Avenue. C3 zoning district. Area variances for an addition. Applicant: Kosta’s Bar & Grill.
Mr. Westlake: 105 Grant Avenue, come to the microphone, state your name and what you would like to do.
Mr. Palmieri: My name is Mike Palmieri, an architect, representing Kosta’s Restaurant. We have submitted drawings and basically we are trying to add on an addition to the north side of the building, approximately 12 x 60 feet, about 764 square feet, adding to the bar room. The building is separated the north side is the bar and tavern and the south side is the restaurant. We are trying to do this addition, the way the bar is set up on the north side it is kind of a tight spot the way it is laid out, a curve and we are trying to improve that on the north side for safety reasons. Also we would like to add toilets that will be separate from the dining room. The toilets right now don’t meet the requirements for handicap accessibility, so the new toilets will be accessible and that is
part of the addition.
Our issue I think is the parking space. The parking we have right now is about 56 spaces and by Code we are required to have 72. The parking that is there is as the building was built in the 70’s mid 70’s it was built and we do have drawings on file, got them from the Building Inspector’s Office and what you see there right now is the way it was built in the 70’s. I am not sure what zoning requirements were at that time, but no changes have been made. The addition right now, we have an existing patio that is on the north side, that is twelve (12) feet, what we are doing is right now we have a permit for outdoor music and activities in the summer months and what the owner would like to do is kind of take this and bring that inside and the twelve (12) feet would be used.
We are not taking any parking spaces. Any questions?
Mr. Westlake: The owner doesn’t have any intention of putting another patio on?
Mr. Palmieri: No. The existing parking will stay as it is now, no intention of doing outdoor music that will be brought inside.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Palmieri, is it far to say in reading this drawing that between 40 and 45% of the new square footage is going to be used up to update the facility, as far as rest rooms?
Mr. Palmieri: Yes, for bar room, toilets and storage.
Mr. Darrow: 13’ 8” is going to be the new facility?
Mr. Palmieri: There is a jog in the back, parallel with the west property line.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: Taking the patio out.
Mr. Westlake: Taking the ice cream area out.
Mr. Palmieri: There is an ice cream area that is going to be removed and enclosed with toilets facilities and back storage for the kitchen.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, thanks Mike. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Come to the microphone and state your name.
Mr. Smith: My name is Dave Smith and I live at 15 Catlin Street and it has been interesting listening to the history and in 1975 I understand they were grandfathered in buffers and so on and it seems like since they started changing from a family restaurant to a bar they have had a hard time shoe horning I guess is the word a bar into place they had for an ice cream stand. The neighbors have stated their opinions about the parking issues, little better with the odd and even side parking. There is an awful lot of litter, I know that is not the restaurant’s immediate responsibility, there is a greater amount of litter than there use to be before it was turned into a bar. You have people leaving the restaurant and speeding down Catlin Street and I can’t say they are capable of driving or not. Beyond the noise, the noise issue would be addressed by moving the patio in doors; I can’t say anything about that. It is not a good fit, not big property to do what they want to do with it
and were you to approve there application for an area variance does that include they don’t have to add more buffer which they were grandfathered in, because the buffering as I understand it gets bigger as the incapability gets worse.
My concern is beyond on Catlin Street, it will set precedence and everybody that has this small of a place in a commercial area to do what they want to do, to expand, come to you for a zoning variance. If you grant Kosta’s a variance you know that everyone will hear Kosta’s name on any appeal. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Come to the microphone; state your name and what you want to say.
Ms. VanDyke: My name is Debbie VanDyke, I live at 3 Catlin Street and we have started a petition and so far we have 21 names on it and I would like to give it to you and I would like to read it to you:
“We the undersigned, residents of Catlin Street strongly object to any addition/construction to Kosta’s Bar & Grill at 105 Grant Avenue. In the past year since the bar has opened we have seen a dramatic increase of traffic on Catlin Street from hundreds of motorcycles, beer delivery trucks, to cars and trucks at times blocking both sides of the street. This has become a very dangerous safety issue to our families. Also it has become a huge hazard in preventing emergency equipment responding to our neighborhood. The increase of noise, music, vulgar language, traffic, outside smoking, outside drinking, litter in our yards, loud cars and trucks, reviving of motorcycle engines till the bar closes has disturbed and does annoy the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood.
With our concerns and issues as stated above, we deeply hope you deny the request for any further addition and construction at Kosta’s. Thank you.”
We have contacted Matt Smith, we have talked with the Chief of Police, we have talked with the Fire Chief, which they are all at a County meeting right now, we have issues with traffic, we have had people call numerous times, I do not know who to ask as to how many parking tickets have been issued or how many times the Police have been called. This is his business, yes it is, but it is personal for us, it is our personal lives, our safety, we have family there, we have elderly people and we have babies around there. It is personal for us.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Please state your name and what you would like to say.
Mr. Carter: My name is Raymond Carter; I live at 113 Lansing Street, first house on Lansing Street, directly behind Kosta’s. He talked about history, my family has lived in this house for over 57 years, it was a nice quiet residential area up to the time the bar went it. Talking about the laws and restrictions that they have had grandfathered all that was done at the restaurant. Now we are dealing with a little different animal, the bar. My concern is the noise, fights, and problems with garbage. I have called the Health Department constantly with issues with the dumpsters and garbage. I really find it hard to believe that this is a convenience and safety issue and I think there is going to be more because of increased business with the expansion. With that you are going to
have increased traffic there, increase in parking problems which is a problem now, what that is going to do is fall over on Lansing Street area and further up Catlin Street. I think that is something that really needs to be addressed. They cannot handle the parking now, they are parking over in private lots and parking on the street. You see motorcycles come between our fence and driveway many times. I am very concerned because this was a very nice quiet residential area, unfortunately now that has changed. Take a look at that whole area, that small area, that really is the only area in that strip that has problems. You really need to think about this. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. If they take away the outside portion of the bar that may lessen the noise, we can’t do anything about the bar, the bar is there.
Mr. Carter: The noise would come afterwards, the yelling and screaming, the cars and lights. I real before that there was an issue with Mattie Street, the dairy store up there I think it was an issue with lights and fencing, we have a wire fence there are not slats in it and my Mother addressed this with Mr. Gotsis many times and it has been like that since he owned it. That is a big issue to us.
Mr. Westlake: We have a very small window here, the bar is there, this board right here, there is nothing we can do about that, ok. Would this addition playing devil’s advocate here, would make more noise for you or less since it is not outside. I am not trying to say one way or the other, I am just wondering since the outside portion of it will be gone, no more loud music outside, will that change anything for you?
Mr. Carter: He has spent a lot of money renovating that is a big part of his business that outdoor, when they have the most people there is when he has outdoor events.
Mr. Westlake: We can’t do about the bar business, we can’t do anything about that.
Mr. Carter: Issue is with the expansion.
Mr. Westlake: I wonder if you think it will make less noise, make it the same, just your opinion.
Mr. Carter: My opinion? Increase the noise as there is going to be more business.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much sir, I appreciate it. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Please state your name and what you would like to say.
Mr. Colella: My name is Chris Colella, I am a local contractor, I am a patron of the bar and I am also a friend of John’s. The issue I fell that these people are complaining, the bar is there, like the board has said, he wants to surrender his outside permit, he wants to take the party inside. Now saying he is going to increase the bathroom space, two bathrooms in, move the bar, I built the bar and it is very tight from the bar to the north wall, you can’t sit there and have somebody get through. What our intentions were, I would be the contractor there, is blow it out to the existing patio and give us more table space and put the bathrooms, he definitely needs new bathrooms and I can’t remodel his bathrooms, if I do it will shut the entire restaurant down. So if we can get this
addition on with the new bathrooms, we can then remodel the existing bathrooms, he definitely needs more bathroom space. As far as the noise and stuff, I am there a lot, he is friend of mine, I go up there for dinner all the time, I think it is a little blown out of proportion, but you guys said the bar is there. If you were to deny this permit nothing is going to change, he is going to keep his parties going on outside, his parking is not going to change, his business is growing, people like to go there for dinner
Mr. Westlake: Chris that would be another portion of City government to take care of that. All we can take care of tonight is his asking for a variance for the addition, so as far as the noise or anything like that, as a resident I would be unhappy too but
Mr. Colella: The place is there, what we want to bring up is all these complaints, all this loud music and all these cars racing up and down the street and now motorcycles, then I think they need to bring in the Police, have a Police report brought in, show all the calls
Mr. Westlake: Again Chris, we can’t
Mr. Baroody: We can focus on just his application, the parking the noise, all those other issues are very real, we have no way to deal with them.
Mr. Colella: Just wanted to give some positive comments on the place.
Mr. Westlake: I understand Chris; I do appreciate your speaking. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Please state your name and what you would like to say.
Ms. Sikora: My name is Judy Sikora and I live at 24 Catlin Street, as for the noise, there is a lot of it. It is crazy, I have small children, the cars go speeding up through, motorcycles go speeding up through, the kids can’t sleep at night because of the noise. There is litter everywhere, there are men urinating on the sidewalk or on the side of the road where the children can see it, this is totally out of control. On Friday night if the Police are called due to parking on both sides of the road, it is really bad, if there was a fire, there is no way they would get through.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, again, like I told Chris, we can’t speak to that issue, only thing we can speak to tonight is the addition itself, whether we grant or don’t grant the addition to the place. As far as the bar and the noise, there is nothing this board can do about; I am not saying that there isn’t another City
Ms. Sikora: I am saying if you grant this it is going to make it worse.
Mr. Westlake: That is what I like to hear.
Ms. Sikora: It is going to make a bigger issue with the parking, there is going to be more people going there, so it is going to be more congested on Lansing Street and Catlin. Sooner or later a kid it going to get hit. I don’t let my kids outside any more after 7:00 p.m. because I am afraid, not only of the speeding but what could happen, you don’t know who is drunk, you know, it is just a safety hazard.
Mr. Westlake: All we can speak to is the addition. I apologize to you. All we can speak to is the addition portion. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Please state your name and what you would like to say.
Mr. Smith: May I ask a question?
Mr. Westlake: Yes, you may.
Mr. Smith: I am still Dave Smith (everyone laughs). All the things that we can’t speak to tonight, I just don’t, I think if they actually construct or increase the size of the property, they need to grandfather on the buffers, is that true?
Mr. Westlake: The only thing they came to us for tonight
Mr. Darrow: There is a variance for 140 plant units.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, there is, you are right. We would have to vote on that tonight that is so they wouldn’t have to put in 140 plants. That is something we would have to vote on.
Mr. Smith: That is something that you need to look at very carefully. That is something that you can talk about because the bar is already there as far as trying to expand buffering.
Mr. Westlake: That is true. Thank you very much again. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Please state your name and what you would like to say.
Ms. Capeling: I guess I will get up and beat the dead horse too. My name is Kathy Capeling. The thing that is very, very sad about this, I wish we could have addressed this a year ago before this bar was even started, because as far I am concerned, I have always known it as a non-conforming use because that was a restaurant for 30 – 40 years and many of us have lived there for many years, never had a problem with parking, never had a problem with noise, never had a problem period. I wish we had know ahead of time when the bar first was going in that perhaps we had a right to fight, I am not sure we even did, but I wish we had a right at that time to fight it before it even started because once it started now we feel we are in a place where there is nothing that we can do, except trying, I know you
can’t control all of the problems we have addressed and the noise. On Thursday nights the noise is unbelievable and I am deaf in one ear, when I can sit in my house in the summer time with the windows shut and the air conditioner on, my TV full blast and my walls are rattling and I can barely hear the TV, that is loud music! That is loud music! That is on Thursday night, when he has his patio, that is another issue to address, he can’t have that outdoor entertainment without a permit, so if you don’t give him a permit, there wouldn’t be outdoor entertainment. They have the right to deny a permit.
Mr. Baroody: We don’t do that.
Ms. Capeling: I am not talking to you, but I am saying our government, has the right to deny it and I have spoken to the Police and I have spoken to the Mayor about this, you don’t have to give them a permit. You can say the neighbors are complaining about the traffic and the noise, you don’t have to give them a permit. If he put a building on and put all the music inside, it would be much better, that would be on Thursday nights, but we would have the traffic, the noise, the motorcycles race down, Catlin Street is a one block area, it is not the interstate, you think it was. This goes on until all hours. I use to be a night worker, I use to sleep from 7:00 to 10:00, there is no way a night worker could be sleeping through this. In fact, last year I took up mowing my lawn on
Thursday nights because at least it would noise against noise. Brian Hicks told me last year that Kosta’s was not allowed to add any square footage to that building but apparently that is why we are here without a variance. You told me that at the meeting we had about adding space with the patio, said patio is fine, but he cannot add any square footage to the building, is what I was told, I am not sure if it is true.
Mr. Westlake: That is true, that is why we are here tonight. We are the Zoning Board of Appeals
Ms. Capeling: I had a question on the blueprints that you have, said you need parking like 56 spaces and before you can put an addition on the building and somehow create 72 parking spaces?
Mr. Westlake: No, he can’t get any more parking.
Ms. Capeling: It says existing and proposed on the ones that we have and I thought how do put on an addition on and add parking. I would also be in favor with Mr. Smith on the buffering and fencing, trees, bushes anything like that, that would help.
Mr. Westlake: That all has to be spoken to tonight. But all we can do is speak to the issue.
Ms. Capeling: I know. I realize that is all you can do. I wish we had nipped this in the bud a year ago before it happened, it just destroyed our neighborhood, absolutely destroyed a nice quiet neighborhood where the only traffic on that street where you neighbors coming in and the kids could play, you could let your kids out there. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss amongst ourselves.
It is very difficult tonight because every issue they spoke to is a valid issue, but it is not something that this board can deal with, all we can deal with tonight
Mr. Gotsis: Can I say something?
Mr. Westlake: I did ask
Mr. Gotsis: It will be short.
Mr. Westlak: Ok, come up and speak.
Mr. Gotsis: I wasn’t going to come up but you know I heard a lot of lies. My name is John Gotsis, I own Kosta’s Bar & Grill. I bought it 14 years a go, my business was going bad I decided to put a bar and grill, now I am doing too good there but they don’t understand how it pays bills. I would add more employees on and want to make the neighborhood better. I put a sign last year on the telephone pool so they called NYSEG and they said to take the sign down, the sign said alternate parking, do not park at Ann’s Restaurant because she has signs up that you will be towed away so they can park Catlin Street one way. I had a guy clean the street after nothing going on. Some body called NYSEG to take the sign down I put it on my light; it is going up tomorrow the
sign again for alternate parking. I paid a guy last year $50 a night for 5 hours to control it.
There are no fights in my bar. Mr. Hicks can find out from the Police Department almost two years going on now, nothing. Thank you very much.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Come to the microphone, state your name and tell us what you would like to say.
Mr. Giltner: Hi, Marcus Giltner, I don’t live near there, my uncle and my great grandma and grandpa, he just died, but there are rats. They have a raspberry bush I went to get some for my great grandma; I see rats and they are over on her property. There is like glass everywhere. Parking on the street and all around and no one is suppose to be parking there.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Seeing none, let’s discuss amongst ourselves. Again the issues keep coming up and I understand their pain, but we can’t deal with those issues.
Mr. Darrow: My personal feeling is when you look at the addition of 764 square foot, approximately give or take a square foot 342 square foot is going to be ate up by the restrooms which leaves approximately 422 square feet for common area or bar area if you will. I also believe that getting rid of the patio is going to get rid of a lot of the problem because I think a lot of the problem is outdoor noise. I think at that point in time if the patio is gone and there isn’t an outdoor permit the Police Department’s hands are no longer tied to issue summons for noise complaints and other complaints outside. Like I said only 422 square feet is going to be added to the bar room, but I think as small as that is it is got to help by keeping any noise inside and I can sympathize with the
neighbors, no body wants to live by that. The other issue we truly need to address is 140 plant units. Now that is something that we honestly have to see if he is willing to work with because if not I am not going to work with it because it is something that needs to be addressed, buffering the neighborhood.
Mr. Westlake: I agree.
Mr. Baroody: Grant Avenue is a commercial area. I go to Kosta’s, I have known John and I am sure everyone here as well. I grew up on Washington Street between two restaurants so I am familiar with what is happening. If we have to find a balance between running a business, we pay taxes in the City and address the concerns of the people. I agree you take the patio area outside in I think it is just going to enhance the neighborhood, going to make it much quieter, as far as traffic, we have no control over that, never had, never will. As far as actual noise coming from the restaurant proper without outside seating and everything else, it is going to help minimize or eliminate, that is my feeling.
Ms. Calarco: I can speak the same way and I have lived across the street from a bar most of my adult life and it has not always been a good bar. Yes, when everything is inside and doors are closed and windows are closed, it is bearable. When you let it outside, they get what they are getting and I just think that yes, it is difficult, and it is difficult to live next door to bar, but I think enclosing that can actually make life a little bit better, not going to make it great, and it is not going to make it go away, but it can get better.
Mr. Tamburrino: We use to live years ago at Genesee Garden Apartments, The Thirsty Owl was on State Street and it was all inside but still loud on the outside motorcycles, fights, it was pretty bad, if a bar is very successful, if this addition is successful, that means there are more patrons, if more patrons, may be more problems possibly.
Ms. Marteney: They are 20 parking spaces below what they need
Ms. Calarco: You actually have more patrons with an open patio then you are going to have with it enclosed. You are going to have twice as many patrons for an outside than you are for an inside.
Mr. Westlake: I think what the board is fighting with right now is the fact we can’t do anything about the bar, it is there, we can’t do a thing about it. Again, just looking at it do you think as the neighbors, you people live there, this would be helpful to get rid of the outside and get it inside, it is not going to change because remember we can’t change the bar, that is not part of it, but the patio would be gone and it would move things inside. Like I said we can’t do any thing about the bar, it is there.
Ms. Calarco: They can’t smoke inside all that changes. You have a couple people going outside to smoke, not all so when you have an outside patio.
Mr. Baroody: I agree containing it will help it work. Like I said, we go there when we can on Friday nights, John runs a clean show.
Mr. Darrow: I wouldn’t have a problem making a motion for item one if Mr. Gotsis was to table item two to met say with Steve or Brian to come up with a buffer plan that perhaps that they and Mr. Palmieri could design for some planting units.
Mr. Baroody: Even if it wasn’t 140 plants.
Mr. Darrow: Yes, for some sort of buffering for the neighborhood, I would have no problem putting a motion forward if the tabled the second one and then we could address the second one
Mr. Westlake: But once you grant the first one
Mr. Darrow: He can’t go forward unless the second is granted as well.
Mr. Westlake: Ok.
Mr. Darrow: They cannot go forward they have to two motions.
Ms. Marteney: One of the things that we heard was the fencing along the rear side is not like solid fence, stockade fence that might cut down some of the noise as well if that were one of the conditions
Mr. Darrow: Would the Chair consider recalling Mr. Gotsis just so that I may ask him on that?
Mr. Westlake: Yes. Mr. Gotsis could you come up please?
Mr. Darrow: Would you consider adding some buffers to the rear of your restaurant either in noise barrier or living shrubs or something like that because in here you are requesting a variance of 140 planting units.
Mr. Baroody: Even if it wasn’t 140. You and Mike could work something out.
Mr. Gotsis: I don’t know how you are going to put them, there are trees back there
Mr. Darrow: That is something that you and Mr. Palmieri could come up with
Mr. Gotsis: I couldn’t put a tree because my property is tight with the other property, the white fence is already on my yard, I just had it surveyed the other day so we could put something. My fence has probably been there since Mr. Ruston had it back in 1972. I will see what we can do, consider it. Got to spend more money that is all.
Mr. Darrow: With that are you willing to table item two your request for 140 planting units of buffer area?
Mr. Gotsis: If we can put it, I don’t think I can do between the neighborhood and Mr. Carter, I can’t put it in my parking lot, how can I do it, with wire fence or wood fence up, will it cut the noise, I don’t think so.
Mr. Darrow: If it is 6 feet.
Mr. Gotsis: Will it cut the noise, no.
Ms. Calarco It does.
Mr. Gotsis: If it will help, I will put it up.
Mr. Baroody: What we are asking get with Mike and see what you can do, everyone knows there is no room for 140 anyway, but would you be willing to try and work something out for a buffer.
Mr. Gotsis: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: We will table item two until the next meeting; come back with a plan with some buffer.
Mr. Westlake: Mr. Fusco, can we also add that they cannot have outside entertainment?
Mr. Fusco: No, that is the City Manager’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Westlake: Ok. Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: May the record show that buffer requirement for “C” 50 140 planting units has to be tabled until our next meeting and saying that I would like to make a motion that we grant a 30 foot rear yard set back variance of 50 foot needed for the purpose of a 764 square foot addition to include new handicap bathrooms at Kosta’s Bar & Grill, 105 Grant Avenue as submitted on architectural plans by Michael Palmieri.
Mr. Baroody: I second that.
Ms. Marteney: I am wondering why we are not tabling the whole thing, I am not comfortable voting on one section of it, I would rather table the whole matter.
Ms. Calarco: I agree.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to withdraw my motion.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, withdrawn. I would like to table this until next month so that you can come with some kind of buffering plan. We have to look at that before we make our decision. If we give the first variance, the other is moot.
Mr. Darrow: They can’t because they can’t do unless they have both variances. Am I right counsel, without both variances they can’t move forward?
Mr. Fusco: I think we have a majority that wants the entire matter tabled.
Mr. Darrow: Next month we still have to vote on them separately.
Mr. Westlake: Agreed, agreed. At least we will know what they are going to do and I could make my decision at that time.
Mr. Baroody: So you want to table both?
Mr. Darrow: We will have to ask Mr. Gotsis or Mr. Palmieri if they wish to table. That is not our call.
Mr. Westlake: I would like to table it until next month when you come and show us what you are going to do for a buffer, is that agreeable?
Mr. Palmieri: Yes, table until next month. Also, a woman mentioned the proposed 72 spaces, that is a mistake on my part, that is what is required, not proposed.
Mr. Hicks: Mike we did notice that you had an error there, but it had nothing to do with an area variance, we did the calculations of the square footage of the assembly area that is required for parking, we removed the kitchens, the prep area, all of that which does not fall under the assembly area, we came up with the parking spaces that are required that is why you don’t see an area variance for the required parking. So there is no parking that is needed to be asked for in an area variance. The property right now has sufficient parking under the City of Auburn Zoning Code for the parking standards at this point in time.
Mr. Westlake: Are we going to table?
Mr. Baroody: I make a motion that we table 105 Grant Avenue to next month’s meeting.
Mr. Tamburrino: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Tabled until next month’s meeting. Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
131 Osborne Street. C zoning district. Area variance for required parking. Applicant: Michael Ruiz.
Mr. Westlake: 131 Osborne Street, are you here. Please come to the microphone, state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Ruiz: Good evening, my name is Michael Ruiz. What we would like to is have a variance for parking because there is no off street parking for that property. We made attempts to lease some off street parking but it didn’t meet your requirements because there a two family home with four parking spots so we couldn’t use that as adequate off street parking.
Mr. Westlake: What are your intentions for this building?
Mr. Ruiz: What our intentions are is to build a better community, unite people, to met the needs first hand as they come
Mr. Westlake: The building itself is going to have apartments upstairs?
Mr. Ruiz: There are apartments there already.
Mr. Westlake: Where do they park?
Mr. Ruiz: They park on off street; out of the four (4) units there are only three (3) vehicles.
Mr. Westlake: Ok.
Mr. Baroody: Where are they looking to put parking?
Mr. Westlake: They are not.
Mr. Tamburrino: Off street parking.
Mr. Baroody: I didn’t understand it.
Mr. Ruiz: It is an outreach center, just to give you an idea of some of the things that will be going on there, some mentoring, counseling, referral services, like myself I work with investors, I rehab properties, I don’t qualify for insurance but I have a doctor, Dr. David Denelo who is willing to do things such as volunteer his time to help people that don’t have insurance, would be maybe one (1) day a month where there would be an open clinic where people could come in that don’t have the means that could be seen the doctor. Other things would be some consulting, some Church services currently happening three (3) days out of the week, where people get inspirational services. We want to be an outreach center. In my life I have experienced a lot of things that people who have
experienced some things don’t make it to where I have made it in life and I see a big need here in the City where, we have agencies in place, but the people aren’t drawn to these agencies, so being there and being able to access the people, we are right there to meet their needs, as we can and as we are equipped to do, we are still in the beginning stages, but the vision is to be a resource center to unite people to meet the needs first hand.
To give an idea of some of the things that we do I have some young kids that pop up on these jobs that if I can give them something to do they wouldn’t have money for school clothes, so I give them a task, they make $20 - $30, they have a couple dollars to go buy a shirt, a pair of pants. This gentleman works with the migrant workers that you see in the area, does translation services, and gives them rides to their doctors’ appointments. A lot of people that would be attracted to this area wouldn’t have vehicles. On a Sunday service you may see 4 or 5 vehicles there and there will be maybe 20 – 25 people, we have two (2) 15 passenger vans, people that need rides we go and pick up, so there really is not cars coming, people driving there, it is foot traffic.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: As I look at this it says you want an area variance 11 off street parking spaces, there are 44 seats and it is 4 seats per parking space right according to this.
Mr. Ruiz: We have about 30 chairs there.
Mr. Tamburrino: So you are going to have some sort of inspirational services.
Mr. Ruiz: Three (3) days a week, two (2) hours tops, it really is a faith based out reach and it is our faith that call us to do more in the community and that is what we are really trying to establish. We are using our resources, which are hard enough for us to pay rent for the Church, utilize it for more good and do more good during the day, we need you folks to help us do that.
Mr. Tamburrino: Sounds like it is going on right now, are you having services now?
Mr. Ruiz: Correct. Let me give you some history, I work with an operating investor, I started rehabbing the property for him last April. I apologize for not being more organized and structured, as we were doing the work there, people come around, hey you got something for us to do, I would deny no body any kind of work, even if I had to come home a little bit short for day. If some body comes asks me for something to do, absolutely, because I know what it feels like to really want to do good and to better yourself and then to be rejected and what that does to the spirit, so I don’t do that, so that is what was happening along June and July, the mentoring, it is informal, not an advertised service but that is just what we do.
Mr. Tamburrino: If you drive down Osborne Street, you see your building, then there is a laundermat there, there is a bar, and so I am thinking of all the congestion.
Mr. Darrow: My personal opinion is the 11 off street parking spots, I am trying to picture who he is dealing with and whether or not they have means of transportation so at that point I am wondering is this something perhaps maybe we would like to allow him to do for a year and after a year put a sunset clause in, he would have to come back so that we evaluate and see if there is a big problem, can we use a sunset clause on this?
Mr. Baroody: There was a store there before, people were in and out, that area always has had traffic
Mr. Tamburrino: Store people are in and out. This is a Church
Mr. Baroody: These gentlemen are providing the transportation.
Ms. Marteney: On a Sunday morning perhaps I would hope the bar would not be frequented people parking along that area. If kids were coming in for mentoring or job training or other services they mentioned, I drive that way to the high school in the evening
Mr. Tamburrino: There is a sharp turn there by Generous Jacks and if it is busy
Mr. Westlake: I am concerned about the future, if we grant this variance and say they move out, does it stay with the building?
Mr. Fusco: Assuming the people that next come they are doing mentoring. You can make it contingent upon limited us.
Mr. Ruiz: We believe there should be more places of mentoring for people today. When I was a kid and I was soul searching I would have loved a place like that to come and really talk to people that have experienced different situations in life, they can give first hand accounts, just some good advice. We are not there to make money; we are there to do some good will, not just Church services.
Ms. Calarco: If you are saying you have 30 seats and we are looking at 1 spot for 4 seats then is 11 necessary?
Mr. Hicks: Can I add a little clarity to this, when I was up there taking pictures of the property, I did a chair count through the front window and what I came up with was 44. I had to have a numeric for the application, that was not supplied by the applicant, I counted the chairs that were set up and ready to go and I came up with 44.
Ms. Calarco: Ok, thanks.
Mr. Westlake: Can we legally as the Zoning Board of Appeals grant 11 off street parking spots?
Mr. Fusco: What you would do is grant an area variance to waive the mathematical calculation
Mr. Westlake: We are not giving 11 off street parking spaces?
Mr. Fusco: You are not giving them 11 spots off site; you are giving an area variance not imposing 11 spots on site.
Mr. Baroody: Do we need to alter the application for waiving for off street.
Mr. Darrow: That is what it says, area variance of 11 off street parking spaces.
Mr. Fusco: Contingent upon it being used as mentoring services
Mr. Baroody: Ok. I would like to make a motion providing that the property remains a mentoring and outreach program that we grant Michael A. Ruiz, 53 Arterial West, Auburn, New York, an area variance of eleven (11) off street parking spots for the lack of required on site parking at 113 Osborne Street, per the application.
Mr. Darrow: I second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved. Good luck with your programs.
| 
