ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2009
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Members Absent: Mr. Bartolotta (called and said he could not make meeting) and Ms. Calarco
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Selvek
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 105 Grant Avenue, 54 South Street, 191 Hardenbergh Avenue, 17 Swift Street
APPLICATIONS DENIED: 217 Grant Avenue, 6 Parker Street
APPLICATIONS TABLED: 161 Genesee Street
Application regarding 355-357 Clark Street and 63-65 Belmont Avenue motion made to have applicant do long form environmental assessment form.
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: 105 Grant Avenue, 335-357 Clark Street, 54 South Street, 62-64 Locust Street, 191 Hardenbergh Avenue, 17 Swift Street, 217 Grant Avenue, 6 Parker Street and 161 Genesee 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.
This is a seven-member board and there are two members not present, so you will need four affirmative votes for your application to pass.
_____________________________________________________________
62-64 Locust Street. R1 zoning district. Hearing for appeal of permit issued. Applicant: James Dunster.
Mr. Westlake: Is 62-64 Locust Street here? Mr. Fusco, our Council will handle this matter so Mr. Dunster doesn’t have to sit through the other items. Could you please come to the podium?
Mr. Fusco: The matter you have brought before us tonight is not within our jurisdiction. We do not have the authority to second guess or call the Code Enforcement Officer when you happen to disagree with a decision he has made. Our jurisdiction by law is limited to area variances, use variances and interpretations brought by the applicant. As I understand this particular case you are a neighbor and you disagree with what the Code Enforcement Officer decided and you filed for a hearing to this board for appeal of the permit issued. Your application does not fall into any of the three particular sections, area variances, use variances or interpretations. According to Section 305-14C(1) – Any person aggrieved by any order or determination of the Code Enforce Officer shall have the right to appeal before this board.
You being a neighbor, you don’t have the right to appeal the decision the Code Enforcement Officer made in favor of another neighbor. The language in the Code is somewhat confusing but the aggrieved person would be the person issued the permit and that person would be the only one that could request a hearing. Being that you are a neighbor we do not have jurisdiction in this matter.
Mr. Dunster: What recourse do I have in this situation?
Mr. Fusco: You can file an Article 78 proceeding against the Code Enforcement Officer in Supreme Court.
Mr. Dunster: This was the information that I received from the Code Enforcement Office.
Mr. Fusco: Allow me to apologize on behalf of the City regarding the information about coming here tonight. The Code Enforcement Officer discussed this with me before tonight’s proceedings and it was decided that we couldn’t hear this matter because we do not have jurisdiction.
Mr. Dunster: OK.
Mr. Fusco: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
105 Grant Avenue. C3 zoning district. Area variances for an addition. Applicant: Kosta’s Bar & Grill.
Mr. Westlake: If you were at the last meeting and spoke in regards to this application, your comments are already in the minutes and we ask that only persons who haven’t spoken to speak tonight.
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 were here a month ago and presented a plan to add on an addition to the north side of the building, extending out the bar section of the restaurant and included in this extension will be new toilet facilities and storage for the kitchen which we explained last month.
Mr. Westlake: I believe you were to bring information regarding buffers?
Mr. Palmieri: What we have proposed for buffer is there is an existing 6 foot chain link fence with wooden slats which some of the slats need to be repaired and will run from the north side of the building to Catlin Street and 45 foot section of new fence in that area. There is a small wooden fence that will be replaced with a new wooden fence. The fences will be wooden to help absorb the noise from the bar. These are the improvements to be made for the buffering.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board? If you are allowed this addition, there will be no more parties outside?
Mr. Palmieri: That is correct.
Mr. Darrow: The addition is 764 square feet and 342 square feet is for the bathrooms and that 422 square feet will be for the barroom or common area?
Mr. Palmieri: That is correct.
Mr. Darrow: Can we condition the approval on the placement of the fence?
Mr. Fusco: Last month there was some confusion about the granting of an area variance, so I have passed out to the board members the criteria they need to look at in making a determination. In making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or the community by such granting. In making such a determination the board shall also consider: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment will be produced to nearby properties by granting the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area
variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. So those are the rules that we are to consider and some of the instructions that we might have heard last time as what it is we can or cannot do should be tempered by that piece of paper, that is actual law of the State of New York. That is what must govern your situation tonight.
Now to answer the question that is on the floor, you can condition your approval if you are to consider approval based upon consideration, particularly as to the question raised can I continue it upon the erection and the maintenance of this fence, there are two issues, there is some fence there, some slats need to be maintained and that there are other sections with it that the fence is insubstantial. Yes could condition it on approval upon that. I am also hearing a question from the Chair to the applicant’s representative, if we were to grant this can we have assurance that there will be no more out parties. In other words that the outside patio won’t be moved somewhere else, won’t be moved to the front, won’t be moved along side of the addition, won’t be moved to the other side, the
westerly side. That would also be the proper area for a condition, if the applicant agrees, he is here in the room tonight, that he not apply for any further outdoor concerts that another appropriate condition. Does that answer every body’s questions?
Mr. Westlake: It does mine. Any other questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to discuss it amongst ourselves for a matter of record.
Mr. Westlake: Sounds good. Thank you very much Mike.
Mr. Darrow: I think personally looking at what our counsel has addressed tonight as far as the State law, the perimeters, what we can and cannot do are definitely addressed in this being getting the commotion inside, creating handicapped accessible bathrooms and the surrendering of the outdoor permit so that we can address this along with sound buffers in the means of wooden fencing and slats to try and create more of a absorbing atmosphere behind the establishment.
Mr. Westlake: Anyone else? Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Fusco: I think before we do that, it might behooves up to hear from the applicant himself as to what might likely be the conditions of the approval if that is where you are inclined to go with your motion and to see if that is acceptable.
Mr. Darrow: I assumed it was because his representative put it forth.
Mr. Fusco: I have said a lot of things that my clients don’t do. (Everyone laughs)
Mr. Westlake: Mr. Gotsis, would you come to the podium please?
Mr. Gotsis: Sure, hi guys!
Mr. Westlake: Do you understand what was just said by Mr. Darrow?
Mr. Gotsis: Yes, but one question. How can I stop the cars from going up the street to park?
Mr. Fusco: Can I be heard on this?
Mr. Westlake: Yes.
Mr. Fusco: As far as trying to come up with a better parking plan for that area, that is something that we are contemplating right now, that is not within this board’s jurisdiction. You have a popular establishment and that you may attract more people than you have parking spaces for, is something we are looking to address through a parking plan on neighboring streets and counsel, the Police and the City Manager’s and that is not the issue that is before us right now. The issue before us right now is that were we to allow this use to go in doors by the expansion of your building that you are seeking with this area variance, do you understand that were are looking for conditions that the outdoor music will stop period. No further application and expiration of whatever rights you have once the new addition goes
up. Do you understand and agree with it?
Mr. Gotsis: I agree with it, there is no problem.
Mr. Fusco: As far as parking, we are working on it.
Mr. Gotsis: I have been told the music outside makes too much noise and too much confusion up there, but like you said it happens to be a popular place you know.
Mr. Baroody: It is a good thing.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much.
Mr. Gotsis: You are welcome.
Ms. Marteney: I think moving everything inside may make the neighbors happier, traffic wise it may not. Not having the music outside should help with some of the situation.
Mr. Westlake: At least move it indoors, that is a plus.
Ms. Marteney: Right.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion for Mr. John Gotsis of Kosta’s Bar and Grill, 105 Grant Avenue for a two (2) area variances for the purpose of the erection of a 764 square foot addition to the north end of the building to entail new restrooms in tavern area; variance one (1) being a 30 foot of the required 50 foot setback and the variance two (2) the buffer zone and a variance of the 140 planting units that are required. This is contingent upon completion of the job that the outdoor permit is surrendered and the fence upgrade and repairs as have been stipulated this evening and as in submitted plot plan.
Mr. Baroody: Do we have to vote on each of them or as one?
Mr. Fusco: It can all be done in one.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second the motion.
ALL IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Gotsis: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
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: 355-357 Clark Street and 63-65 Belmont Avenue, please come to the podium and state your name and what you would like to do.
Mr. Fusco: Just as a point of order, did we close the public hearing portion of this the last time we were here and we are now proceeding on the SEQR portion?
Mr. Westlake: This was on two months ago.
Mr. Lane: I will state my name for the record which you are waiting, my name is Gregory Lane, I am the principle with D-E-V Consulting which is the consultant working on behalf of the applicant, Two Plus Four Companies.
Mr. Fusco: Before we have Mr. Lane proceed on the SEQR issues, let ask whether there are any people who are here to speak or against this that didn’t get the opportunity to speak the last time they were here and let them have a say for the benefit of the record. We don’t want people to have two says, but we don’t want to exclude people from having their one say.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here that didn’t speak the last time? OK. Please come to the podium and state your name.
Ms. Kopp: My name is Dorothy Kopp, I am a resident of Mullen Drive and thank you for the opportunity to speak here. I did speak at the Planning Board meeting, I was not here at the last public hearing because I was not notified of it. I did express my concerns to the Planning Board and did state that I was opposed to this project. I have many concerns but most of the neighbors their concerned about the buffer zone that we need, the green space that would be taken away, once it is gone it is gone forever. There are very few green spaces in that end of town. I am concerned about the Police, the Fire coverage, buses that the school district would provide in that area. Other neighbors that could not be here tonight expressed concerned about the sewers and lack of water pressure in that area, the storm sewers. At the Planning
Board meeting they said it was tabled because there would be a traffic study, has there been a traffic study?
Mr. Fusco: I don’t know if traffic study was the word used, but the Design & Review Committee has studied the traffic situation at three different meetings that I have been at.
Ms. Kopp: Has the DEC report come in?
Mr. Fusco: The purpose of the public hearing is for you to make statements, not ask questions. Statements in favor or against, articulate that for the record now.
Ms. Kopp: I am against it, I would like to know who exactly owns the land because isn’t it the owner, it is a question, sorry but the owners according to the City Code would be the one to apply for the variance correct and I would like to know who the owners are.
Mr. Fusco: I can answer that one if you like, that is not necessarily the case, some body who has a contract on property has an equitable interest has the ability to come before this board and ask for relief as a contingency of their contract.
Ms. Kopp: Ok. I know that the rules that you mentioned a little bit earlier are the laws of the State of New York and you talked about undesirable change in the neighborhood, I have a petition here of 130 names where to feel that this is an undesirable change in the neighborhood. We are talking about Clark Street, Belmont, Mullen and Canoga Road area, we do feel that this is going to greatly affect the wild life that is there, the lighting, the noise every thing is going to be affected by that and I really do wish that they would consider the affect on these property owners that have lived there for a long, long time. The negative effect that this development will on this.
Mr. Fusco: Do you have a copy of your petition?
Ms. Kopp: Yes I do. I have an original, I don’t have a copy, if you could make a copy that would be great. But I have concerns with Auburn in general if you saw in the paper last week, it was very revealing, owner occupied homes in Auburn 5,923, renter occupied 5,488, there is only a 435 difference between renter occupied homes and owner occupied and if you are adding 30 more renter occupied homes, then you have knocked down the difference to just over 400 and that is a very sad picture for Auburn to think that the number of owner occupied home and the number of renter occupied homes is practically even. I would like to have the board consider that the fact that adding new housing, new lower income housing is not the answer. Do we have access to getting the DEC report and all that?
Mr. Fusco: We are going to be handling the DEC issues as soon as those you haven’t spoken yet have an opportunity to speak, that is why I asked Mr. Lane to have a seat so we can hear them.
Ms. Kopp: Ok. Do we get to speak again after that?
Mr. Fusco: No, we closed it before but out of fairness since there were people who weren’t here before, we want to have you and the others have the opportunity to make your concerns a matter of record, if I could so speak for the Chair.
Mr. Westlake: That is correct.
Ms. Kopp: I have another question, if minor changes are made to these plans, are we notified of them?
Mr. Fusco: Minor changes, no.
Ms. Kopp: Don’t know exactly what the definition of that is, I appreciate you letting me speak. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Please come to the podium, state your name and tell us your concerns.
Ms. Wasilenko: Leann Wasilenko. I live on Canoga Road, this will almost be touching my backyard and my neighbors too. My neighbors whose backyards will be touching this have no more information that I. They got invited to a neighborhood meeting where they were going to wine and dine us, no information. We absolutely know nothing about this whole project. No one was notified, I tried to get a petition from our area, we are just not organized, we don’t know what is going on and we are just against it for many reasons. It was originally suppose to be single-family homes and now you are talking about apartment complexes. They were turned down for single family homes originally when it was in Aurelius and now the City of Auburn annexed it, Aurelius wouldn’t allow it, we didn’t like it when Aurelius was going
to do it, we don’t want the City of Auburn to do it. So many people coming in, cars, the noise and the people that are going to be living there are not owners, they don’t have the same concerns, there will be transients and even if they are screened, I heard some thing about screening them for background check, you can do that but they can still bring in their friends, boyfriends, whatever even girlfriends. We are very quiet people, we are people that don’t speak out, we don’t bother any body and we like it that way and wish that it would stay that way. This is very upsetting. All this is done, no notification, a lot of people won’t get up and say anything, they don’t want to be overlooked. We are dead set against this.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Gentleman right in the front here, please state your name.
Mr. Siracusa: Tony Siracusa, I live at 61 Belmont Avenue. I wasn’t here at the last meeting because I was in Florida. I would like to ask a few questions about what this is all about. Number 1: They had this project going up on Rochester Street and N. Fulton Street is that correct?
Mr. Fusco: Not this exact project but something similar with the same developers.
Mr. Siracusa: With the same kind of housing?
Mr. Fusco: Some differences and some similarities, yes.
Mr. Siracusa: Why was that turned down?
Mr. Baroody: What does that have to do with this application?
Mr. Westlake: That has nothing to do with what is front of us tonight.
Mr. Siracusa: She made statement in here of why, why was it turned down?
Mr. Westlake: We are not here to ask questions
Mr. Siracusa: Why was it turned down?
Mr. Westlake: It didn’t come before us.
Mr. Fusco: Sir, this is your opportunity to make a statement and those usually end with periods or exclamations, not question marks.
Mr. Siracusa: So we can’t ask questions at this meeting? I was in Florida for three months and I would like to know, she made a statement here in the last minutes, I got them off the computer. This is suppose to be affordable housing for families with annual incomes that fall between $28,000 and $40,000. Now I went to the last meeting of the Planning Board and I asked the question what the income was, for a two bedroom home $12,000 something and three bedroom home $18,000 – $19,000. Now why are they coming up to you and telling you guys it is $40,000 income people. There is one discrepancy.
The City went around and checked about the need for this housing, this is what she is telling us. Did the City go around, I can’t ask a question right? Ok. She states here the project we are proposing is not new to the City, project that came before the Planning Board for a different site on Rochester and N. Fulton Streets, ok, there was difficulty with that site both Rochester and N. Fulton Streets were very narrow and there were concerns by the neighbors about the amount of traffic, that is more or less the reason why it was turned down, is it?
Mr. Fusco: It wasn’t turned down sir.
Mr. Siracusa: That is what I said, I don’t know, no one answered the question why they didn’t get it, why it didn’t go through. So I don’t know.
Mr. Baroody: We have a very narrow legislative thing that we can look at, what happened somewhere else or other project, number one we wouldn’t have knowledge of it and number two we couldn’t answer, in regard to this project for or against, I have no idea what happened on Rochester Street, it didn’t come before us. I understand your frustration.
Mr. Siracusa: The City, one department doesn’t talk to the other departments?
Mr. Fusco: I happen to be at both Planning Board meetings and this, so I will tell you what I believe happened. The Planning Board made an environmental determination which may or may not have required the applicants to make changes in their plans that they couldn’t do in the Rochester Street area, that is up to them, that is not me talking, that is what I observed the Planning Board’s decision, affected the Planning Board’s decision. But the perception that you have sir that the Planning Board turned down this project, not this project, the sister project that was called for off of Rochester Street is incorrect, it was never turned down.
Mr. Siracusa: It says here it was because the road wasn’t wide enough, one reason, and I looked at Clark Street Road and it is 57.7 feet wide, Fulton Street is 60 feet wide, another discrepancy. It is right in the minutes March 30th meeting. You are telling me there is nothing going on at the end of 63 Belmont Avenue, I know in my heart and in my head that there is something either in their plan in the future to make a road going through there like the other company wanted to do ten years ago or so. They have plans and they are coming to you people for variances and in the back of their heads, why do they need that 63 Belmont Avenue property. It has nothing to do with the project where they are right now, nothing to do with it, they want 8 ½ acres of that from Clark Street back. 355 that is only one
acre, the lot next to me is 120 x 130, why do they want that so bad?
Mr. Fusco: Here is the problem with questions they tend to end up in a debate. This board has been presented with issues on this property a couple of times in the last couple of years and what I recall and I am not going to substitute my own recollection from the memory of my members, but my recollection is both in this application and the other application that came before us involving this property is that the one little slice on Belmont and the larger slice between Belmont and Mullen went together, was sold together. To say that because the seller wants to sell the two pieces together as a contingency of the deal, that some how the buyer had something up his sleeve that he is not letting us know about, I don’t necessarily know that that is a fair conclusion to draw.
Mr. Siracusa: You mean if they didn’t really want that property I am sure the seller wouldn’t make that little piece
Mr. Fusco: That is what I was talking about debate before.
Mr. Siracusa: Ok, maybe you can asked them why they are making statements about $40,000. They came up at the last meeting and they said they are low income and they give you 60% of the State so they come up they are trying not to let the public know everything, they come up and say it is $12,500 for a certain amount of money. I asked that question, $12,500 for a two bedroom, $18,000 for a three bedroom, I have a lot of questions, but I guess I can’t ask them.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Anyone else who hasn’t spoken before? Ok, come to the podium and state your name.
Mr. Baran: Tom Baran and I live at 41-43 Belmont Avenue, I am the property owner. I have lived there since 1982 and before that it wasn’t annexed by the City yet. Most people that go down these dead end streets are the property owners because we like the isolation and quietness that is why we live there. Now the other thing I want to say if this project does go through and under construction, they are going to have a hell of a mess there once one rainfall starts when that construction starts. My whole yard it is like a flood plane there, it will be all mud and it will go right into the outlet because there is a natural grade, an old creek bed use to be back there. It is going to be a hell of a mess and it is going to contaminate the outlet and it will go right across Belmont Avenue and so on.
Mr. Westlake: That is something this board
Mr. Baran: I know the DEC
Mr. Westlake: We are only here tonight to grant the use variance or not. That would be a DEC decision.
Mr. Baran: I was in the hospital at the time of the last meeting, like I said I am against it, I am a property owner of two parcels there. I thought I would make my opinion known.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, and I am glad you did. Thank you very much, sir, we appreciate that.
Mr. Gregory: Tom Gregory, Mullen Drive. I just would like to voice my the fact that I am against this project. I fell it will have a bigger impact in the area. There is an awful lot of commercial real estate down Clark Street right now, most of them are used car dealerships and I think putting something like that in will make it very congested in the area. There is an awful lot of traffic that goes on Clark Street every day back and forth to the Mall and I think this will just all to it all. The word today is about going green and I don’t think this is heading in that direction. Some people are complaining about the water lines in the area and I agree with that, there should be less, ideally there should be less. I also understand too that the owners of the property have a right to do what they want with what they
own. But I just wanted to say that I am against this project. It is just too congested. Belmont Avenue has a lot of houses on it and to put up a whole other tract in between us, between Belmont and Mullen, it just makes it very congested. There is also tractor-trailer traffic down through there all the time, nobody lives in the west end except us and they don’t see it.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who hasn’t spoken yet? Pull the microphone down and speak right into and tell us your name.
Ms. Rigby: My name is Dorothy Rigby, I also live on Mullen Drive. I spoke at the March meeting and one of my reasons for
Mr. Westlake: Well if you already spoke ma’m we can’t let you speak tonight because you have already spoken.
Ms. Rigby: Oh really?
Mr. Westlake: You already had your opportunity to speak, this is for people who haven’t had the opportunity, and you had your opportunity in March.
Ms. Rigby: There is one thing I would like to say, Mr. Lane said he notified just about every body this property abutted the property, I am one person that he didn’t notify and he spoke to me after the meeting and gave me his card. I had questions and I called him, however I spoke to four other neighbors right down the street from me, not one of them had been spoken to either so that is just for your records.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much.
Mr. Tardibone: Steve Tardibone, I have property on Belmont and Clark Street. I never got notified either. I am against it, we have too many apartments in town and I think this would just be an overflow. Just against it.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much.
Mr. Kopp: David Kopp, I live on Mullen Drive, I am also against the project. I live on the other side of Mullen so therefore I didn’t get notified. I guess the City’s rules are within 400 feet then they notify you, but if you live in Aurelius you are an exception to the rule, you don’t get notified. The way this whole thing was handled I think is very disgusting and it is my first time getting involved with politics and policies how they contact people, I work for so and so and they might get upset or I don’t really own this but I don’t want to make waves. First thing I want to say there was a comment about assessments and everything, I feel this development if it goes through, I hope it doesn’t, it should be assessed for full assessment. My reason for that is the fact that it
isn’t going to create jobs, it is a private company that is going to hire their own people to do this, so as far as I am concerned they should pay full assessment.
The other thing is I feel if this goes through the back of these houses or whatever you want to call them, they all should be fenced in so where their land ends there is a buffer zone. The other thing is traffic, Mullen Drive is a dead end street, the traffic is very, very minimal on Clark Street and then Bass Pro came in and traffic increased. The next Mall came in traffic increased. I could always stop in my street, make a left or right hand turn, never hardly had to look, now we have to wait. I guess the question I have for you people regarding some of the comments about the west end is the fact that have you been down to the area, do you know where it is? Do you know what we are talking about? The other question is do you know that the driveway will be directly across Cheche Funeral Home’s driveway?
Interesting!
The other thing is isn’t really far for somebody to come in and do something like that, everyone here has spoken against it, and no one has spoken for it. I think the information we have received has be lax and I will guarantee you they will show a set of plans this is what we are going to build and then they are going to say oh, by the way, we have to change this, oh there is more land down there we want this because we want to run sewers and drains down there, oh by the way we want to put another exit
Mr. Westlake: Sir, you are talking about things that we don’t know.
Mr. Kopp: I know you don’t know and we don’t know either so I want it on record, who is suppose to be checking this out?
Mr. Westlake: The Code Enforcement Office will be there to make sure everything is done according
Mr. Kopp: I was ready to sit down there one day and count cars based upon the time of day, it is amazing how much traffic goes down through there at different points of time. You can go down there at 1:00 p.m. no traffic at all, go down at 2:30 p.m. there are tractor-trailers coming in to deliver
Mr. Westlake: Excuse sir, what does that have to do with what we are talking about tonight?
Mr. Kopp: What we are talking about is the over all impact in that area. If this thing goes in, it is going to create all kinds of chaos, you are going to have more traffic, more police calls, fire trucks, not sure they can even get in the place. There are a whole lot of detrimental why this should not be done. If they want to do this take another parcel of land in this area that is vacant like on Washington Street. There is a lot of acreage in this town that is vacant, why destroy the environment, a dream, it is only 15 acres the whole thing, it is a beautiful piece of property, why destroy it because someone wants to make money.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, thank you very much sir. Is there anyone else? Seeing we will now close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Fusco: We had Mr. Lane wanting to speak.
Mr. Westlake: Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Lane: Again, my name is Greg Lane, D-E-V Consulting, 1173 Pittsford –Victor Road, Suite 160, Pittsford, New York 14534. I just have a couple points, I don’t mean to short change the board in terms in describing the project but I assume that everyone is pretty well aware of what the proposed use is.
Two things were mentioned in the last comments that I would like to address to clear up any confusion. First had to do to address something that Mr. Siracusa was saying and his concern about the involvement of the Belmont Street parcel as part of the project application. The reason why that parcel is included even though there is no intention for that parcel as it currently exists is to be touched by the project, is that the land that is going to be used that is going to be purchased by my client and used for the project is currently three (3) tax parcels and part of the re-subdivision process to create the project site those three (3) parcels are going to be turned into two (2) parcels, one (1) being the 8.5 acres that will be used for the project and the other parcel being the remainder, that remainder parcel is going
to include the Belmont parcel and this request for a variance is totally specifically for the front portion of the site, the southerly portion of the site, that is going to be between 8 and 8 ½ acres after we get done with configuring the lot lines to give some neighbors some extra buffer room.
The second was a point raised by incomes and numbers, I believe and my client could speak to this because she is much more knowledgeable about the regulations, but the low numbers that were given that is the minimum income required to qualify for inclusion in the project and the higher number is the maximum that an applicant may make in order to be considered as a resident of the project. So that is the reason for the discrepancy, these are set forth in administration regulations.
And lastly again just to address contacts with the neighbors, we have made ourselves from day available, I have said that at this podium or that podium, I have handed out numerous business cards to people and have invited everyone and any one who wishes to talk about the project, to talk about moving their lot line to give them some extra land for buffering, maintain vegetation, etc., etc. consistently and if we haven’t picked everybody up I apologize, the door is still open to talk, we are still in the planning process regarding site planning and moving lot lines and we are doing everything we can within the realm of possibility that still allows our project to go, to accommodate the neighbors. We met with neighbors before this meeting tonight and reached agreement on some lot line changes. We are ready, willing
and enable to the extent we can to work out whatever we can to be as good a neighbor as we can and to bring this project only to the 8.5 acres of this 33 acre parcel to be bring a quality home product to the segment of our population that deserves and needs it and will be well served by it.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. We do have the Police Chief here, does anyone have any questions from him?
Mr. Fusco: I think Mr. Giannotta was here to attract questions, that was my understanding of his presence, because one or two of the residents raised issues about traffic so if there are any members of the board have questions about traffic I believe that is why the Chief is here, which is a terrific segue into what we should next be addressing which are the SEQR issues, Mr. Selvek is here on that as well.
Mr. Westlake: Does anyone have any questions of the Police Chief?
Lady in Audience: I do.
Mr. Westlake: Ma’m you already spoke ok, the public portion has been closed.
Lady in Audience: Ok. It is just that we don’t get to say our say and they say they will talk to us and nobody will talk to us!
Ms. Marteney: Could there be some clarification about who gets notified in a matter like this?
Mr. Westlake: I believe it is just City residents.
Mr. Selvek: That is not correct.
Mr. Westlake: Not correct, ok, could you tell us then?
Mr. Selvek: The notification for this as well as all use variances is specifically outlined in the Code, what it is, is a point in the center of the front property line 400 feet out, as well as all the adjoining parcels to this particular parcel. So everyone from the east side of Mullen Drive although they are Aurelius residents were notified by mail, I do have a record of notifications that went out and that is based on the information that we receive from the County Real Property survey. There are neighbors that mentioned tonight that they were not notified, they are outside of that required notification area that is set up in the Code.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much.
Mr. Baroody: Chief, are there any direct impacts of the traffic study that will be a detriment to the project?
Chief Giannotta: I apologize for the way I am dressed tonight. I am really not that familiar with this project, Officer Weed, our Traffic Officer handles all that. He would be more verse to speak about that. Our concerns would be the addition of that many more vehicles in those narrow streets. We have a concern over that. As far as the emergency vehicles up and down the streets, those streets were engineered for that anyway.
Mr. Baroody: Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much.
Chief Giannotta: Thank you.
Mr. Fusco: Mr. Selvek is here, he Chairs the Design and Review Committee, he and Mr. Weed have spoken at least three (3) times in my presence about the configuration of the street, that fact that it is across from Cheche Funeral Home, I heard that tonight and if there are any questions I think Steve could give us some further detail on the thought process that went into locating the entrance drive where it presently is.
Mr. Westlake: Should we discuss this amongst ourselves?
Mr. Fusco: Yes.
Mr. Baroody: I understand the concerns of the property owners and I also understand the owners right to buy or sell the property as they wish. There are a lot of things that we cannot address and I think that basically we cannot address 99% of what the public wants us to address.
Mr. Darrow: Adverse affect to the neighborhood is addressable by us.
Mr. Fusco: That is the area variance but there are similar rules.
Mr. Baroody: They are talking 8 ½ out of 30 acres, lot to consider.
Mr. Darrow: My biggest concern is the adverse affect to the neighborhood and hearing from Chief Giannotta also that APD has a concern over on street traffic
Ms. Marteney: No he said side street
Mr. Darrow: His report to us is the side street traffic, he thought there might be side street traffic problem, but I would interpret that to include Belmont and Mullen Drive, but Mullen Drive is out of the City
Mr. Westlake: But the only entrance to this site is on Clark Street there is no other entrance from Mullen or from Belmont, so that traffic should not go down those streets at all, if the only way is off of Clark Street.
Mr. Tamburrino: Will increase the traffic on Clark Street.
Mr. Darrow: Maybe the Chief can clarify his concern of us.
Chief Giannotta: You are adding another side street to Clark Street, adding that much more traffic to the entire traffic pattern.
Ms. Marteney: I understand that, I interpreted you were saying they would be coming and going off Belmont and Mullen.
Chief Giannotta: Absolutely not.
Mr. Baroody: If each unit had a car, with 30 cars going in and out twice a day affect the traffic on Clark Street?
Mr. Darrow: You don’t know if they are only going in and out twice a day.
Mr. Tamburrino: My concern is you are changing the character of the neighborhood by putting this low-income housing project in there. There is a petition that 119 people signed saying they don’t want it. They are afraid of this development.
Mr. Darrow: Landowners do have the right to market their property, to develop their property, that is their right, they are the property owners, but I also feel that they need to in that particular area what would hold true, is that a R-2 area?
Mr. Selvek: That is currently zoned R-1.
Mr. Darrow: R-1, that is single family residential.
Mr. Westlake: That is why they are here tonight.
Mr. Baroody: At the first meeting, the question was asked, if not this, then what? I understand the concern of green spacing right there, if there were 200 people put in $500 they wouldn’t be here, they would have bought the damn thing from the owner, but that didn’t happen. We are here to address it.
Ms. Marteney: I think this is the third time that someone has come before us looking at that property. The price has gone down and we have seen that, they have marketed it, and has seen the price drop as it goes down and down, so the owner is not realizing any kind of gain on this property and that is not that person’s duty to keep a green space for his neighbor, while it is a lovely idea, the property doesn’t own a piece of property to be a park for his neighbors.
Mr. Tamburrino: You have to consider long-term benefits of the neighbors too and the character of the neighborhood as well.
Ms. Marteney: When did those duplexes go in on Belmont, why didn’t they say anything about that? This is essentially the same thing.
Mr. Westlake: The owner himself that owns the property is trying to sell it. Ok, he has brought three people before us with ideas to develop it, each time his property value is going down, if he isn’t able to sell it, it keeps going down because he wants to sell it.
Mr. Darrow: Why is his property value being assumed to go down every time he comes back to us just because the property is not being sold. That doesn’t mean the property value is going down, there are houses in Auburn that go month after month without being sold, that year after year, that doesn’t mean the value of that house went down because it wasn’t sold.
Mr. Westlake: Each purchase offer has been less.
Mr. Baroody: John Bouck came to the last meeting, John has 30 years experience, I am not a realtor nor do I pretend to be, and I assume that John is an honorable man, this has gone continually down and like I said I can understand the concerns of the neighbors, but the owner does not have to make a park for the neighbors.
Mr. Darrow: I agree that the owner has the right to develop it, but do something that is permitted within an R-1, or apply to Council for a zoning change.
Mr. Westlake: We are getting off on a tangent. What we have to do
Mr. Darrow: This isn’t a tangent, this has to do with our topic. If someone would like to go forward with the SEQR
Mr. Fusco: Weren’t you all in favor just a year ago for a use variance on this property that wasn’t R-1?
Mr. Darrow: No I did not. You may want to check that.
Mr. Fusco: No, I trust you.
Mr. Westlake: I understand where Ed is coming from. I still think that both sides have good and bad points, but the landowner still can’t sell is property. Can’t suggest what to do to the landowners around but they have the opportunity between the last purchase offer and this purchase offer to do something, but I am not allowed to say what they could do, then they can keep it green forever. But what is before us tonight is an applicant that wants to put in and they brought all the information to us.
Mr. Darrow: I am well aware what is before us, maybe we should just move on.
Mr. Westlake: First thing we need to do is the SEQR. Mr. Selvek?
Mr. Selvek: In your packets there was a short form EAF first part was completed by the applicant which outlines the project information and I have drafted answers for the board’s consideration Part II. Specifically 2C which deals with the action and any adverse effects associated with that action.
Under C1 with regards to existing air quality, surface to groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste. I have noted there that the permitted development is in a R-1 single-family site is for 7 units per acre, the proposed development is less at 3.75 units per acre. The effects of the proposed on environment issues list above have been addressed through the design and layout of the site, the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plant and providing appropriate connections to the existing infrastructure, meaning storm water, water and also sanitary sewer.
With regards to aesthetics for natural or cultural features, community or neighborhood character – the buildings have been designed, located and buffered in such a manner to complement the existing neighborhoods. This will minimize impacts to community and neighborhood character as shown on plans this is 30 residential units, however, instead of one building they have designed it to a series of duplexes within that area and ultimately create a neighborhood of itself.
With regards to the vegetation, fish, wildlife species, significant habitats or endangered species – this review has been coordinated with the DEC who has not indicated any concerns with effects to significant habitats, endangered species. Additionally the DEC online resource mapper didn’t indicate the presence of any significant habitats or species.
Under C4 with regards to community’s existing plans as officially adopted, although this use is not permitted in the R-1 zone, the density of the proposed use is less than that which is allowable as single-family detached homes. The City’s market study into the housing market study has indicated the need for providing diverse housing stock and this would include the housing that the applicant is proposing.
Also note that granting this use variance will allow the review of the Site Plan before the Planning Board and of course would likely result in the construction of the 30 housing units.
Finally under long-term impacts, the use variance be granted contingent upon Site Plan approval to ensure that any possible adverse effects are minimized or mitigated. This would afford an additional level of protection to the neighboring properties. I will answer any questions that the board may have. Staff recommendation is for a Negative Declaration specific to SEQR.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions? Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I make a motion that we accept the Negative Declaration specific to SEQR as presented.
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, and Mr. Westlake
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Darrow, due to the fact that I feel that it will have an impact on C2 which is the aesthetic and characteristics of the neighborhood, Mr. Tamburrino.
Mr. Westlake: There weren’t four affirmative votes so the SEQR has been voted down. We are a seven (7) member board and I did say that at the beginning of the meeting, there are two (2) members missing tonight, the SEQR was denied so that is that.
Mr. Fusco: I think we could now ask the flip side, is there a Positive Declaration, we couldn’t get a four vote majority on a motion for a Negative Declaration so that we can give the developer direction on how to proceed. Is there majority on a Positive Declaration? They would have recourse then to file an environment impact statement and proceed.
Mr. Baroody: I make a motion that we take a vote on a Positive Declaration.
Mr. Tamburrino: When you say Positive SEQR you mean does it still direct to C2, how is that
Mr. Fusco: I am hearing Mr. Darrow that he is concerned about the issue with C2 what environmental issues you would want to addressed in a Positive or if there was to be an environmental impact statement you could formulate or frame I should say in the form of your motion. It may be C2 it may be other things the additional concerns that you have, it is not by the way the applicant’s purpose of having to eliminate the environmental concerns that you may have but to address them and mitigate them.
Mr. Darrow: I thought it was now their option to do a long form to either prove or disapprove any findings of the short form and we did not need to put forth a vote of specifics.
Mr. Fusco: That is not necessarily true. You can at this juncture issue a Positive Declaration, you can also, you have that option, if that is what you wish to do, you can ask the applicant to not come forward with a full environmental impact statement but also make a motion to come back with a long form environmental assessment form whereby the concerns that you have in C2 could be addressed in Part III of the EAF.
Mr. Darrow: That would be something between them and their counsel, not me.
Mr. Westlake: There is a motion on the floor for a Positive Declaration. Do I hear a second for that?
Mr. Darrow: I am not sure what we are voting on.
Mr. Fusco: You are also allowed the option that Ed has suggested. I will try to explain. You can issue a Positive Declaration, at this juncture and force the applicants into an environmental impact statement. You could also do something which is less complicated for the sake of argument, which is to ask them to submit a long form environmental assessment form and then the mitigation that would be mitigation of issues in C2 could be addressed by this board in Part III of that. In other words, what are your concerns in C2 Ed?
Mr. Darrow: The aesthetics, character of the neighborhood and the fact that I think there are options that are allowed under R-1 that may not have been explored only because they may not return the greatest profit margin
Mr. Fusco: That wouldn’t be addressed but as far as ways to buffer, aesthetics things like that, that could be addressed in Part III.
Mr. Darrow: Also, I see added traffic as a change in the character of the neighborhood, it is a broad scope
Mr. Fusco: I don’t know if you heard Mr. Selvek say it, but the density that is called by this particular project is less than that which would be allowable in an R-1.
Mr. Tamburrino: Are we compelled to make those two (2) choices.
Mr. Fusco: You can say, no we have not reached a majority on the Negative Declaration.
Mr. Westlake: Do you want to take back the motion you put on the floor?
Mr. Baroody: I will pull my motion. What can we do from here?
Mr. Westlake: I guess that is between their lawyer and them.
Mr. Selvek: The way that the SEQR process is set up, it has to be concluded, the SEQR process must be concluded and right now the SEQR process is not concluded. It concludes with either a Positive Declaration or a Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration would state that there is not likely the impact but there is no likely impact, the Positive Declaration would state that there are potential impacts. In making the Positive Declaration the board needs to provide direction to the applicant as to what those specific concerns are and I heard Mr. Darrow state that the impacts of the development on the character of the neighborhood, as well as the added traffic for that area. At this point the board because they did not pass a Negative Declaration really needs to move on a Positive Declaration to see if there is
consensus for that in order to conclude the
Mr. Westlake: Actually there are two (2) choices there, one would be a Positive Declaration or a full EAF, they can either vote tonight on a Positive Declaration or they can come back with a full impact study, those are the two choices they have. So we can tell them to go ahead with a full impact study or we can vote on a Positive Declaration tonight.
Mr. Fusco: I may not have made myself clear, does everybody here understand the difference between the long form and the short form and what the environmental impact statement attempts to do?
Mr. Tamburrino: The amount of labor involved.
Mr. Fusco: The amount of labor involved in the short form is not much, the amount of labor involved in the long form is a pretty good amount and the amount of labor involved with the environmental impact statement is a huge amount. I think that is a fair characterization of the three. The purpose of the environmental impact statement and the purpose of the long form are both to identify specific problems that you all may think would occur and to mitigate them. Now you can mitigate, now you understand that doesn’t mean eliminate, you can mitigate environmental concerns by having certain conditions if you will in the Part III of the long form which is something that you would come up with, ideas that you might have or may not have, you may not think is a good idea and then you would complete Part III, we want you to
do this that and some other things. For example we heard Mr. Lane talk about certain pieces of property they are going to buffer, ask him to fence, I heard mention things like that, you can make those specifically conditioned upon approval were you to approve it in Part III of the environmental assessment form, which I have been calling EAF. So you do have that choice, you have got to do one of two things, as the Chairman has said
Mr. Tamburrino: It is my understanding that we would actually list or delineate our concerns and then they would address them. Is that right?
Mr. Fusco: What we will do if you decide tonight that they should come back with the long form EAF, and at our next meeting, we will present twenty (20) in the long form EAF that are of an environmental nature. We will go over each of those twenty (20) questions, one at a time, and determine you as a majority have, which is going to be a problem, because the same amount of people are here next time that are here tonight, but that is something else again, but we will go down each of these twenty (20) questions and make a determination whether there is a majority that thinks of doesn’t think that they are significant or not.
Mr. Tamburrino: We need to do a Positive Declaration, is that true?
Mr. Fusco: You don’t have to do that, you can ask the applicant to do a long form environmental assessment form which is less costly and which gives you the ability to mitigating the concerns in Part III.
Mr. Westlake: What counsel is trying to say to us, we are a seven (7) member board, there are only five (5) of us here tonight. There are two negative votes and three positive votes, if there was another member here, and there was one more positive vote, this would have passed, but seeing how there are two members missing, we needed four positive votes, which we didn’t have. That is what part of that is about.
Mr. Fusco: From a practical stand point, I think that asking the applicant to do a full environmental assessment form, the long form, is probably the more prudent course to do, because if you are still not satisfied and still have concerns after that has been done, then you still have a full environmental impact statement, in other words, you have not eliminated your alternate options by going to the middle ground that Ed suggested.
Mr. Tamburrino: I make a motion to ask the applicant to make up a long form?
Mr. Fusco: Yes you can do that. You have to do one of two things. My recommendation
Mr. Tamburrino: I make the motion for a long form by the applicant.
Mr. Baroody: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: So that is your option right now to do a long form. Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________________________
54 South Street. C-4 zoning district. Area variances for the placement and setback of a garage on the Logan Street side front yard. Applicant: Linda and Randal Guinn.
Mr. Westlake: 54 South Street. State your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Ms. Fudo: My name is Jill Fudo, I represent Linda and Randal Guinn, the owners of 54 South Street. We are asking for a variance based on the front lot line setback. This house is situated in the back corner of the property and it is impossible to put a garage any other place on the property given the fact that the property was subdivided sometime in the past and the current owners are, they are not aging, but their parents are aging and this would be a place for them to park so they don’t have to wipe off their car to get in and out, not that is the reason for hardship, but that is the reason for the garage.
Mr. Fusco: The lot line you are seeking relief from is which line>
Ms. Fudo: The Logan Street lot line. The entrance from the garage is from the east side of the property, they have a right of way that is shared with the people who now own the carriage house, and a chiropractor is back there. Currently there is a parking area that runs east/west along where the proposed fence and where the proposed garage is on the site plan and they currently park in that area (points to plan) and so this would just be a turning and drive then for two (2) vehicles.
Mr. Fusco: It would be on the lawn.
Ms. Fudo: A portion were there are half grown trees kind of wild and out of control, will use the current birdbath area and side lawn a center point for the location.
Mr. Tamburrino: There is a parking lot here. I drove by the other day; there is a side yard.
Ms. Fudo: They would like to use it as a kind of a back up to the garden that they are planting in that lawn area to south of the residence and kind of an area that kind of anchors the corner of the property.
Mr. Fusco: I see it in the picture, but I don’t see any map.
Ms. Fudo: There is a map at S-1; there were two sets that were attached to the application.
Mr. Tamburrino: The architecture matches the house.
Ms. Fudo: It was approved by HRRB.
Ms. Marteney: That was one of my questions.
Ms. Fudo: We went through the process, kind of an oversight that we had two site lot lines, we talked about it and we talked about the height and everything, but we kind of missed the two front yards.
Mr. Selvek: For clarification for the board, this had gone before the Historic Resource Review Board and in the review with the Historic Resource Review Board they approved the overall aesthetic and character of the garage itself as well as felt that was the most appropriate location for the garage on that particular site given constraints of the site. The issue actually came up, it was an oversight on my part when I brought it to the Historic Resource Review Board that being a corner lot, that is considered a secondary front yard for that property and the placement of the garage while the setbacks are met occurs within the “front yard” that is why it is before the board tonight.
Mr. Fusco: Normally an 8-foot setback from Logan Street would be appropriate, but in this case, Logan Street is also a front yard.
Mr. Selvek: That is correct.
Mr. Westlake: Very nice drawing.
Ms. Marteney: They have done a great deal of work.
Ms. Fudo: They take great pride in their property, they owned property previously on Main Street in Elbridge and it was one of the best maintained properties and the new owners are not keeping it up and Randal said he has half a mind to tell them they are putting his name to shame!
Mr. Tamburrino: Yes, it is very well maintained.
Ms. Fudo: They have planting for this summer as well as scheduled for this fall so it will be very nice. As a side the owner along with his parents had a landscaping business.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Any questions from the board of Ms. Fudo? Ok. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? Seeing none, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Tamburrino: They did a fantastic job renovating that mansion and this is beautiful.
Ms. Marteney: Appropriate design.
Mr. Tamburrino: Yes it matches the design perfectly, it is beautiful.
Mr. Darrow: My question is, I am missing my front page of this application. What is the actual variance? (Mr. Baroody hands Mr. Darrow his front page). Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Area variance for placement of garage in secondary front yard.
Mr. Darrow: Is there any figure that is actually needed? 25 foot?
Mr. Selvek: There is no actual figure that we felt appropriate, it is the actual placement of the garage. Garages are restricted from being placed any where but the rear lot.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Tamburrino: I would like to make a motion that we grant an area for Mr. and Mrs. Randal Guinn for a garage in the secondary front yard as shown on submitted plot plan.
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
_____________________________________________________________
191 Hardenbergh Avenue. C zoning district. Area variance for an addition. Applicant: Paul Lynch.
Mr. Westlake: Next we have 191 Hardenbergh Avenue.
Mr. Lynch: My name is Paul Lynch; I have been in business in the west end of town for approximately 15 years. I am running out of room and I want to put an addition on the back of my shop. The addition would be 12 x 53 feet.
Mr. Fusco: So you will be encroaching on the 30-foot setback by 8 feet?
Mr. Lynch: I believe that is correct. I have letters from all of my neighbors; they seem to be ok with that. The biggest neighbor is Cayuga County and Steve Lynch wrote a letter, it is in the packet.
Mr. Westlake: You are just squaring off the building.
Mr. Lynch: Yes, you will see in the pictures there is a storage container there now, that will come out. Exterior of the building is going to be block as it is now, as you said, just squaring the building off.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Hicks: Excuse me Mr. Chair, the encroachment would be 22 feet, he is only 8 feet off the property line now, required setback would be 30 feet, they require 22 feet.
Mr. Fusco: If that is true he is already non-conforming. This one picture shows behind the dumpster a 12 foot addition that would already be about 7 feet from the lot line.
Mr. Hicks: It is 8 feet from the lot line. It is a non-conforming structure for that zone at this point in time.
Mr. Fusco: Current setback is also non-conforming.
Mr. Westlake: But I think the variance he is seeking is 22 linear feet of the required 30-foot. Questions from the board for this gentleman?
Mr. Lynch: Not exactly sure on the footage on that.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will close the public portion and discuss this amongst ourselves.
Mr. Tamburrino: Where the dumpster is, he is filling that in.
Mr. Westlake: Make the building a rectangle.
Mr. Fusco: Just for the benefit of the record, do we have any knowledge of how the already existing non-conformity came into be?
Mr. Westlake: I would figure it came here.
Mr. Lynch: As far as where the actual property line is, couple feet back from the existing fence. Dave Farrell he was in charge of the old Singer building.
Mr. Baroody: When you bought the building, it was there?
Mr. Lynch: Yes.
Mr. Fusco: We have no record of how that got approved?
Mr. Hicks: Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Lynch: I have been there 15 years and it has always been there.
Mr. Fusco: The only reason I bring that up is if somebody comes along in the next 30 days and doesn’t like what we have done, I would like the record to show that we considered that this may be a expansion of a situation that was self-created, in the past by somebody who put that 12 foot thing on there and never got any approval and now he is squaring it off.
Mr. Lynch: That is like a whole other building attached to it, that 12 foot sticks out.
Mr. Baroody: Make sure it is covered now.
Mr. Fusco: Less than 30 feet from the rear fence, 8 feet as Brian said.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much, any other questions?
Mr. Darrow: I am just addressing what our counsel brought up, I am looking and it is hard to tell from the angle but do we actually know that that when this went up that it wasn’t originally put on there and then at some time when our setback changed it fell into it, which could also be an alternative why it is there.
Mr. Fusco: Let me put it to you this way, just for the benefit of the record. Let’s assume that some where along the line somebody stuck that thing on there and never got any permit or any approval, so this is truly a self-created situation, does that change your mind in voting in favor of an area variance?
Mr. Baroody: Can we include that in the area variance to make sure.
Mr. Darrow: It wasn’t advertised as part of it.
Mr. Tamburrino: I have a question for Steve. It would be good to have a database where you can look up every property in this City and the history of the variances, that would be helpful.
Mr. Selvek: It would be beautiful but unfortunately we don’t have one.
Ms. Marteney: Who knows when this building was actually built? Look at all the parcels that surround it.
Mr. Darrow: So industrial back to the time of Singer, Climate Control in there, the telephone company was huge.
Ms. Marteney: Look at that one piece of property that runs like a long pencil all the way to Columbus Street. Who knows the answer.
Mr. Lynch: They originally built shuffleboards in there.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant Paul Lynch, 191 Hardenbergh Avenue an area variance of 22 linear feet of the required 30 foot setback to the rear of the building for the construction of a 12 x 53 foot addition as shown on plot plan.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
_____________________________________________________________
17 Swift Street. R1A zoning district. Area variance for garage. Applicant. Scott and Nicole Hulik.
Mr. Westlake: 17 Swift Street, please come to the podium, state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Hulik: My name is Scott Hulik; I live at 17 Swift Street. I am here to apply for an area variance; I would like to place a garage on the side of our home.
Mr. Fusco: Is there not presently a garage there?
Mr. Hulik: Correct.
Mr. Westlake: It will be a freestanding structure?
Mr. Hulik: Yes, it will be a freestanding structure. You also have in your packet the approval of several neighbors as well as a kind of an aerial depiction of what the garage will be.
Mr. Baroody: Your house is on a double lot, you have plenty of room.
Mr. Hulik: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: Show me the garage here.
Mr. Hulik: This is the existing home and the garage is to the left of that box (points to drawing).
Mr. Tamburrino: This box right here, ok.
Mr. Darrow: Being there is no actual plot plan submitted with measurements off the property line from the house and that, is the front façade of your garage going to be in front of, even with or behind the actual front façade of your house?
Mr. Hulik: It will be behind, the back of the garage will fairly even with the back of the house.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Ms. Marteney: The curb cut has been approved?
Mr. Hulik: Yes it has.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Darrow: On one of the variances, the height of 4 foot that in of its self is antiquated with the size of the vehicles now.
Mr. Westlake: Anyone else? Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Scott and Nicole Hulik a 4 foot height variance to allow them to erect a 24 x 32 foot garage with a height of 19 feet to the ridge cap and an area variance of 158 square feet over the allowed 750 square feet for accessory structures with 18 square foot variance for the garage, and that the rear of the garage is going to be even with the rear of the house, and 140 square foot variance for the existing shed.
Mr. Hicks: Excuse me Mr. Chair, we noticed on this application the one variance was the placement in the side yard, he has addressed now it is going to be placed in the side yard, with the drawing that we saw we weren’t quite sure of the footage so it was addressed and in your packet is a current letter of denial that one section 305.82 dimensional requirement it does state that there is no place for the accessory structure in the side yard, it must be in the rear yard so that could be an item that you mention in one of your proposals.
Mr. Darrow: I wish to amend that the structure will be erected in the side yard as discussed.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Hulik: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
217 Grant Avenue. C3 zoning district. Area variance for sign. Applicant. Metropolitan Signs.
Mr. Westlake: 217 Grant Avenue. You are here every month. You said ten years.
Mr. Razzante: I remember that too!
Mr. Kerstetter: Tim Kerstetter, G & A Group. We have a tenant moving into the corner of the Auburn Plaza at 217 Grant Avenue and we are seeking approval for a additional signage facing McIntosh Drive, being that they are located so far and tucked in the corner and they don’t have very much frontage on store front, we are seeking your approval tonight for more signage on that store.
Mr. Fusco: This would be behind Bed, Bath and Beyond?
Mr. Kerstetter: No this would be directly in the corner of the Plaza between Total Tan and Nail Masters, in the elbow of the shopping plaza.
Mr. Fusco: Ok, what is wrong with coming up with a sign that is the right size within the Charter?
Mr. Kerstetter: Well because in the corner of the building, their square footage is approximately 3,000 square foot on the side of the store but because of the corner and Total Tan and Nail Masters abut to the building, they only have approximately 15 foot of frontage of glass because of the way the construction was built and that allows us 2 square footage of linear foot which would only allow them a smaller sign.
Mr. Baroody: If you look at the last page there is a sign that says Aldo’s Pizza or whatever they are looking to put that sign here which would actually face Grant Avenue, this faces the parking lot.
Mr. Westlake: The part that bothers me there are a bunch of stores down through there, there is Radio Shack, Hong Kong restaurant, there is a shoe store, they are all going to want the same kind of sign once we allow this one, that is my only objection to that.
Mr. Fusco: I think in fairness the board ought to be aware of the fact that the City Manager, my boss, Corporation Counsel’s Office is very concerned about the proliferation of sign variances that this board has granted over the last couple of years. I understand that especially with the drugstores, the first one occurred before I your counsel and then the next one happened because the last one got it and then the next one had to because the last one got it and it becomes a snowball. There has been some concern from the City Manager about that proliferation and I think we run the risk here exactly as the Chairman says is if your grant relief to this particular store, what will amount to be two signs, one sign that faces Grant Avenue and apparently another sign that already according to what Mr. Baroody has
described faces McIntosh, it is a good long ways from McIntosh, you are going to get other stores they are going to say, gee, you did that for them I want two directions, and you give it to them and that is how this thing gets going down the hill out of control.
Mr. Kerstetter: If I may address the board again. I do see the board’s concern about that but because this is a local entrepreneur starting a business he does not have the advantage of the other merchants in the plaza to have the national marketing to his advantage, i.e., Subway, A.C. Moore, so the only reason why we would allow the tenant to do this in the corner is because he is a local merchant coming to town from Seneca Falls and because of his location in the elbow of the shopping center, normally we would not permit this.
Mr. Fusco: There are a number of stores in that particular elbow since I have lived in this town that didn’t ask for this particular relief and their owners and proprietors have been locals as well.
Mr. Kerstetter: The last one that was in there for 17 years, the Rescue Mission out of Syracuse, just moved 112 feet down the sidewalk into a store, their sales have doubled. Many customers come in and saying when did you come in and open a store because we didn’t know you were here. Just by their moving down the sidewalk less than 200 feet their sales have doubled.
Mr. Fusco: Then why not eliminate the sign that faces McIntosh since nobody apparently sees that and just put the sign on the little ledge that faces Grant Avenue?
Ms. Marteney: Are they also going to be on the standing pylon sign?
Mr. Kerstetter: I don’t know if they have room on the sign. Unfortunately because of the number of stores in the shopping plaza, there are currently two pylon signs by the road that you gave approval for.
Mr. Razzante: David Razzante, Metropolitan Signs, Inc. maybe I can address some of these concerns you might have. This unique situation only one within the plaza, most of their square footage like Tim mentioned is buried which gives us less square footage than they would normally be allowed. That frontage like Tim said is 15 feet here but goes straight down behind along side adjacent to Total Tan so a lot of their square footage is buried within the plaza which gives less square footage up front.
Mr. Fusco: But I just want to tell you in the relatively short time that I have sat in this seat where one person will say well I happen to be on a corner so I want a sign facing Street A and sign facing Street B, they grant it and just down the road some guy puts a donut shop with a laneway and says I face a laneway and I face Street B so I want Tim Horton signs on both sides of my thing and these are a bunch of fair people, who say well yea we ought to do that and pretty soon we have more signs that people in Auburn and if we don’t start following the rules on this board, the City Council is going to be asked to put the kibosh on it. I mean it has gotten out of hand. This is a real big concern and inevitably what happens is somebody who has a sympathetic situation like yours gets relief and then the fair people
on this board feel like we did it for A so we have got to do it for B, do it for C, do if for D and that is exactly what has happened in this City with these drugstores. I can’t take blame for one because the first one occurred before I sat in this seat, but I sure have seen drugstore, after drugstore, after drugstore, after drugstore come in here over the last several years and say well you did it for them you have to do it for us too and we all go ok and the next guy comes in well you did it for them on the east end you are not going to stop us on the west end, ok and on and on and on, it is a problem.
Mr. Kerstetter: I have a question, if additional square footage is left over from that small sign that is up there now, if the boot is done, there is a lot of square footage there, if just the letters are built up there, it will encompass
Mr. Fusco: Maybe in some way he could have a 90 degree sign with some of it facing Grant Avenue and some of it faces McIntosh, I will let Brian Hicks decide that, I am not going to tell him how to do his job as to whether that is permissible or not. All I am trying to do is to alert the board as to what was perceived as a legitimate problem in this City by the management of this City and I was specifically asked how did this happen and I said this is what I have witnessed in my couple of years on this job. It has always been the same situation, doing something for one guy and then you feel compelled to do it for the next guy and the next guy and the next guy and because you have a number of uses in your plaza, if I happened to own the store next to the pizza, I would want a bigger sign.
Mr. Razzante: I would like to ask a question, could we just put the letters “pizza” which would encompass the remaining square footage that this person is allowed.
Mr. Fusco: That question you have to take up with Brian.
Mr. Tamburrino: You have some photographs, you drew in some struts or something in the corner of the building, here is the corner of the building your sign of the boot is going to be like this (points to photo)?
Mr. Kerstetter: Yes. The previous tenant had two illuminated box signs 4 x 8 foot apiece that is what those angle iron supports were for.
Mr. Tamburrino: You are proposing to put the boot
Mr. Kerstetter: Towards the sky, above the roof.
Mr. Tamburrino: Above the roof?
Mr. Kerstetter: Above the roof approximately 6 feet.
Mr. Tamburrino: Same plane as these struts?
Mr. Kerstetter: No, it would be starting from the bottom going up.
Mr. Tamburrino: See it from both directions, Grant Avenue and from the plaza.
Mr. Westlake: Then the store in front of them puts it front of them so now they want to go higher, but that is just my opinion. Any other questions from the board? Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against? Seeing none, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Ms. Marteney: The sign is going to project above the top edge of the building?
Mr. Darrow: That is one problem that I we have a picture of two different signs that I really, I am a little confused on which sign is it like an alternative?
Mr. Fusco: He has given us two choices.
Ms. Marteney: The boot is on a rectangle?
Mr. Darrow: It is not that they want a set.
Mr. Westlake: They want one or the other, but they are still going to protrude above the roof.
Mr. Fusco: Either option requires a variance.
Mr. Tamburrino: I am trying to think if there are other stores there that signs protrude above the roof line.
Mr. Darrow: I think uniformity is the most paramount. I agree 100% that this sign above the roofline, well gees I have to redo my sign above the roofline, I agree with that. That is a problem for the mall owners to address, but it is up to us the amount they are going to go, 6 foot above, 10 foot above, that is our concern.
Mr. Westlake: I would like a flat sign against the building; he also is going to have a sign in their new 50-foot sign
Mr. Darrow: I may be wrong, but I think every other tenant up there has a façade-mounted sign. As much times I voted to allow for some sign variances because we are suppose to do it on a one by one basis and they make the argument but you are right I have always felt that we do go a little too far to accommodate everybody’s little tiny nitch.
Mr. Westlake: If he makes the best pizza, they are going to go there anyway. Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant Metropolitan Signs Inc. of 3760 Patchett Road, Baldwinsville, New York & G & A Group, 215 W. Church Street, King of Prussia, PA an area variance of 66.5 square feet for a second sign on the façade on the building at Aldo’s pizzeria.
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that motion.
Mr. Darrow: May I ask counsel one question before roll call? Being that the variance has nothing to do with the height, can the height be a mitigating factor in the placement, not really?
Mr. Fusco: I understand the question, what I would like to do, we have a motion, we have a second so now the time for discussion and I think all of us can articulate our concerns pro and against in the discussion portion so that the record is complete if there is an Article 78.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you, ok.
Mr. Westlake: We talked about we didn’t want it 10 foot above the roofline, the height
Ms. Marteney: The two signs
Mr. Westlake: Plus they are going to have a little sign in the pylon sign.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has not been approved.
Mr. Kerstetter: Thank you for your time.
____________________________________________________________
6 Parker Street. R2 zoning district. Area variance for front porch. Applicant: Jennifer Wilkes.
Mr. Westlake: 6 Parker Street. When you come to the podium, pull down the mike; give us your name and what you would like to do.
Ms. Wilkes: My name is Jennifer Wilkes, 6 Parker Street. I would like to put a deck on the front of my house and I need to get a variance because the house is 15 feet from the sidewalk in the front.
Mr. Westlake: You want to bring it all the way out to the sidewalk?
Ms. Wilkes: No, it is going to be 4 or 5 feet from the sidewalk.
Mr. Darrow: Do you plan on having a cover or roof over this?
Mr. Wilkes: No.
Mr. Darrow: It is going to be open?
Ms. Wilkes: Yes.
Mr. Tamburrino: This concert patio?
Ms. Wilkes: It is in back and I don’t have much room in the back.
Mr. Tamburrino: Yes, I see that.
Mr. Darrow: It is my understanding, Mr. Hicks, the fact that this does not have a roof over it make it a deck rather than a porch, a front porch, am I correct there?
Mr. Hicks: Yes you are.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Ms. Wilkes: I did go to my neighbors and there is a statement in there from my neighbors.
Mr. Darrow: What is the setback if it was a porch is it still 25 foot?
Mr. Hicks: 25 foot from the primary structure, encroaching by 10 feet.
Mr. Darrow: That is what I was looking for, if it was a porch.
Mr. Hicks: Depending on how the other structures are on that street.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, I understand, thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Any other questions from the board? Is there anyone wishing to speak or against this application?
Mr. Selvek: Mr. Chair, if I may, Brian just pointed out to me that the legal notice that went out did state front porch. I don’t know if that has a bearing on whether or not people are here or not here to speak were aware of that, there was a mistake in that legal notice.
Ms. Wilkes: I did go around to all of my surrounding neighbors and got signatures and it stated a deck.
Mr. Darrow: Yes, she has signatures.
Mr. Fusco: You say the reason you are doing this is so your children have a place to play?
Ms. Wilkes: Well not just that.
Mr. Fusco: That is what you answered to question 14.
Ms. Wilkes: Not only just that, I have a 5 year old twins and I have a 10 year old son and it would be more ideal for us to be able to eat out on the front deck and to sit in the evening, it is a help, it is a big help.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions? We already asked if anyone wished to speak and no one came up. Close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Darrow: My only point being is if they did put a roof over it they wouldn’t even need this, I think I am correct on that, aesthetics of a deck out front.
Mr. Tamburrino: I drove by the property in my opinion the aesthetics would be very bad.
Ms. Marteney: They have a side yard, large enough for what they want to put in the front yard. Just put a fence up to keep the children out of the street or something.
Mr. Tamburrino: I don’t recall another house on that street that have a yard 4 feet away from the sidewalk.
Ms. Marteney: Inappropriate place for a deck.
Mr. Tamburrino: Should be in the back.
Mr. Fusco: They are saying they only have 6 feet in the back yard.
Ms. Marteney: They have 12 feet on the side. It changes the dynamics and aesthetics of that area.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion? Or more discussion?
Mr. Tamburrino: I would like to make a motion that we grant an area variances, two of them, for 6 Parker Street, for Jennifer Wilkes; (1) variance is 17 feet of the required front yard setback; and (2) a variance of the 7 foot projection into the front yard as shown on plot plan.
Ms. Marteney: I’ll second that.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow – no due to the fact that have other unexplored options, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has not been approved. Maybe you can look at something different.
_____________________________________________________________
161 Genesee Street. C2 zoning district. Use variance for taxi office. Applicant: JMJ Taxi, c/o Richard Bracy.
Mr. Westlake: 161 Genesee Street.
Mr. Fusco: The Chairman has asked me to speak on this before the applicant speaks, I have had an opportunity to review the material, I am certainly going to welcome your opportunity to speak and perhaps recommend that the matter be tabled so that you can flush out your application. You have before the board a very different thing than anything you have heard tonight. You have an application for a use variance, the proof for which is very different than all of the things that you have heard tonight sitting in the audience. One of the differences between what you have heard tonight and what you are asking for is that in the case of a use variance, a self-created hardship is absolutely fatal. Unlike an area variance where something to think about but it is not disponsative on face. I don’t know whether your situation
is a self-created hardship or not, but I would advise the board to be on the lookout for something like that based upon what I have seen.
Also you will be required to show as a matter of dollars and cents proof for a use variance that all legitimate uses for this property for something other than the use you propose which is a taxi dispatch service for all other legitimate uses of the property would not render a reasonable return on whatever the owners bases is. That is a especially I think difficult standard of proof in the realm area where you renting about 600 square feet attached to some other building that has some other use. Those are two things that I will tell the board to be on the lookout for in this particular case before we go forward today is whether the hardship that alleged is self-created and whether in fact hardship is proved by dollars and cents which would show no reasonable return on the property put to a legitimate use.
Mr. Baroody: What he is asking you to do is table it for a month, get the proper information in order to present to have us look at it.
Mr. Bracy: My income?
Mr. Baroody: You have to prove hardship, I am not in the position to give you instructions, do you have an attorney, call your attorney, he will explain what has to be done. You have to put it in a certain form and certain order to get this. There is not enough information here for us.
Mr. Bracy: I am so confused. I have been sitting here all night watching and listening to you.
Mr. Fusco: It is hard stuff; I will be the first to admit that Mr. Bracy, it is difficult for layman to understand. But I am trying to help you; I don’t the board to turn you down tonight. What I would recommend that you do is to listen to the recommendation of Mr. Baroody and get an expert to help you on this. This is tough stuff.
Mr. Bracy: So you will give me time?
Mr. Fusco: Yes and my recommendation to the board would be to table the matter, give the applicant the opportunity to more flush out the application.
Mr. Bracy: I appreciate it.
Mr. Baroody: I make a motion that we table 161 Genesee Street, Richard Bracy for a month to allow the applicant ample time to re-examine his application.
Mr. Darrow: I’ll second that.
VOTING TO TABLE: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: This item has been tabled until the next meeting. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
| 
