ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 2009
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake
Members Absent: Mr. Darrow, and Mr. Bartolotta
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Selvek and Mr. LaDouce
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 44 Capitol Street
APPLICATIONS DENIED: 62 Locust Street
Mr. Westlake: This is a seven (7) member board and there are only four (4) of us here, so we will give it a couple of more minutes to see if any other members will show up. If you go forward tonight, you need four (4) affirmative votes, if there are four (4) of us here tonight it means all four (4) of us have to vote yes on the application in order for it to pass. If one (1) of us were to vote no you would have to have a significant difference in the application to have it come before this board again. Let’s give them a few more minutes to get here.
Mr. Fusco: What we have customarily done in the last few months when we are short of a full board is those people feel as if you won’t get four (4) affirmative votes, we do give you the privilege of asking us to table it for a month or so to give you the opportunity to have a larger number of people here. So that may or may not be something you wish to consider when your time is to make a presentation.
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: 62 Locust Street, 44 Capitol Street, 188 Grant Avenue
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.
_____________________________________________________________
62 Locust Street. R1 zoning district. Area variance to increase the area of a non-conforming structure by 476 square feet. Applicant: William Wildner.
Mr. Westlake: 62 Locust Street, please come to the podium and tell us what you would like to do. State your name and speak into the microphone.
Mr. Wildner: Bill Wildner, 62 Locust Street, Auburn.
Mr. Westlake: Tell us what you would like to do here.
Mr. Wildner: When I went to get the original permit for the concrete and the ceiling I requested a patio area to eat in and without the flies and mosquitoes and stuff, I have a problem with rain water splashing up on the concrete and when you try to eat out there you have the flies and mosquitoes and the main thing is the water I get a lot of water from every body’s backyard, I put drainage tile in and my neighbor gets flooded on the other side of me, I went and put the drainage in but it still doesn’t help my problem with the water coming off the roof. So I put up a thirty (30) inch wall up, I didn’t know that it was called a closed area if I screened the top part in and Brian called me up and told me that I needed an area variance. So I went around the neighborhood and every body in the
vicinity of me, every one I asked said they don’t have a problem with it, they said they would like to see me put windows all the way around because I put a big bay window in the back of it to act as a wind breaker from the south wind coming from the lake and my neighbors said why don’t you put widows all the way around instead of screening the top and I said right now I can’t do anything I got a Stop Work Order and I have to go and get an area variance. I proceeded to go through the proper procedure, went around the neighborhood to see if I had any complaints and every single person I asked said we don’t have any problem so far and they would like me to continue and finish it off. They said what is the problem why can’t you do it and I said well I can’t do because I have a Stop Work Order. Basically that is about it. It would enhance my property and the neighborhood, it would look better, I painted the area and right now
I am at a dead still until get this decision.
Mr. Westlake: Ok. Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: This is a work in progress; this addition has been there for a while?
Mr. Wildner: The project I started back in May I believe and I had the roof done and all tied into the existing building, the posts are up, had it inspected everything is fine. I did the interior the roof, ceiling going up, concrete is all in and basically every time it rains I get mud on the concrete and it is not a very good place to eat
Mr. Tamburrino: So you are using it as a picnic – eating area?
Mr. Wildner: Yes, outside eating area to entertain our guests, watch TV out there, just eat out there and enjoy our meals.
Mr. Tamburrino: So you plan on doing what, enclosing the whole
Mr. Wildner: I didn’t know it was against the rules to I built up a wall about three (3) foot or thirty (30) inches high and I wanted to screen in the rest and my neighbors suggested it would look better if I put windows like I got it the back to break the wind from coming in if I did it all the way around and I kind of agree with them.
Mr. Tamburrino: What are your long terms wall it up and windows?
Mr. Wildner: Well just enclose it and yes with crank out windows or whatever for screening just so I get a breeze through there.
Ms. Marteney: So what is going to happen in this picture with the 2 x 4’s are?
Mr. Wildner: Supposedly that is where the window is now and that is where I got the Stop Work Order, but my neighbors said they would like to see windows all the way around.
Ms. Marteney: What is going to happen here then (pointing to picture)?
Mr. Wildner: I was going to put windows there too.
Mr. Baroody: Like an indoor/outdoor summer room?
Mr. Wildner: Yes some windows that you can crack out basically open to have a breeze going through.
Mr. Westlake: More windows where the 2 x 4’s are now.
Ms. Calarco: This is adjacent to the garage? Does the garage have any plumbing in it?
Mr. Wildner: No, no plumbing.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions? Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? State your name clearly and pull up the microphone and speak into it.
Mr. Dunster: James Dunster. I live adjacent to this property. I came before the board back in May voicing my concerns about what he is doing at the present home. In my view this should not be allowed to enclose because at the present moment his yard looks like a construction warehouse and basically what he is looking to do is enclose this area to create more storage space for warehouse. I don’t know if you folks had the opportunity to drive by we are in a R-1 situation there. It is relatively open, to the best of my knowledge he is the only one between Fleming and Swift, Lake Avenue and Pulsifer that has any structure that size with a number of construction vehicles in front of it.
My understanding within an R-1 is that you are trying to maintain the density of population as well as character of the neighborhood, so I feel that this project as it is going forth right now and as it has been in the past, which is a larger construction warehouse with the disguise of patio enclosure. For all my years that I have been there, I moved there about nine (9) years ago, I have never seen him in his backyard enjoying it and it could be of the mosquitoes, I don’t have that much of a problem in my backyard. My concern is if you allow this to go forward what he is looking to do is increase the storage capability on a non-conforming structure that already exceeds the square footage of what the stated laws you have is 750 square feet unless you have another variance granted to you, that is my
understanding of storage capability. Based on my calculations to include the number of out buildings that he has he is exceeding that probably 2 to 3 times. That is with a non-permitted shed behind the pole barn, one behind the garage and the pole bar structure which I believe is 20 x 40 structure. I guess what I am looking for is remedy right now saying I don’t want to live next to a construction warehouse. I am in the construction business and I store my equipment off site. I don’t have as much as he has but it doesn’t mean he can do it in R-1. I am not sure that we are going forward here with all of the facts in front of us. My gut feeling is it is going to be used for storage for construction trailers, etc. It will fit his trailer as it was parked in there previously to the construction process.
I would the board not to grant him a permit to enclose it any further. Let him use it as a patio enclosure, he has a roof over it, he doesn’t need sidewalls that is my opinion.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: I drove by that property and I noticed that it is a clutter, lot of construction equipment around there, hodge podge of sheds and is not in character with the neighborhood. From my standpoint it is really an eyesore. You are increasing area of non-conforming structure, adding onto a non-conformance.
Ms. Marteney: In May or June he came for the roof and walls.
Mr. Tamburrino: There is a deck behind the house.
Mr. Baroody: We have to look at what is in front of us.
Mr. Tamburrino: You have to drive by the property and look at that as well.
Mr. Westlake: What is before us is an area variance of 476 square feet.
Mr. Baroody: Everyone’s opinion is of value, we can vote on what is in front of us, no body has a crystal ball saying what someone is going to do or not do with their own property.
Ms. Marteney: That is why we have zoning laws.
Mr. Baroody: Let me say, what you may do with your property, you can’t predict the future.
Ms. Marteney: Someone wants to build perhaps a bigger garage, they have antique cars and I want to put them in the garage, we do allow them sometimes. People who have two little sheds and want to get rid of both and get a bigger shed.
Mr. Baroody: If it is going to be enclosed, are there going to be overhead doors, how is he going to use it for storage if it has a “man” door.
Ms. Marteney: We don’t know if he is going to have a “man” door.
Mr. Baroody: We don’t know.
Mr. Westlake: Mr. Wildner, could you come back to the podium to ask you a few questions? What kind of door are you going to put on this, is it a “man” door Mr. Wildner?
Mr. Wildner: I wasn’t going to put a door on it at all except for an entrance door, like I said I just wanted to enclose it all with windows or screen and basically right now it looks a construction zone because I got a Stop Work Order on it and all my equipment is in there that I was working on the building with. I just left it as is and when on, it has been like that for about two (2) months now, I haven’t done any work at all to it.
Mr. Westlake: What is your intention for this, not for storage?
Mr. Wildner: No, just a picnic area and a place to go and relax in the summer time, enjoy eating with a nice little breeze without flies and mosquitoes. All my neighbors signed the petition nobody has ever had a problem, no body has ever had a beef, we all seem to get along pretty good and they just feel this whole thing is too bad because they can see I am trying to enhance the property and make it look a lot nicer. Because that one area looks like a construction zone it has been for the last two (2) months, it has since I started working on it, but I got a Stop Work Order, I got to stop what I am doing, that is just what I did, I walked away from it and left it like that.
Mr. Westlake: Are you running a business out of your house?
Mr. Wildner: No.
Mr. Westlake: Only question I have, any other questions?
Mr. Wildner: I got a permit legally years ago, 18 or 19 years ago and the City granted me that and originally it was like 62 – 64 – 66 Locust Street and when I talked with Brian about this building, he told me I don’t have a problem with it if you combined all three (3) lots and in between the two (2) buildings, he said he didn’t have a problem with that and issued the permit to do the patio because I was telling him when I enclosed it with the 30” wall and screens I really didn’t know I was breaking the permit and in violation but he said even putting screen on it, it is considered an enclosed area, that is why I am here today.
Mr. Fusco: What do you do for an occupation?
Mr. Wildner: I am contractor. I have a 1949 Ford tractor sitting in my yard, which they all told me it is an antique, it is a classic, all painted up it looks nice. Seems everyone likes the way I have the flowers and that is what I wanted to do with the building too put shrubs all along the side too.
Mr. Fusco: Where is your office?
Mr. Wildner: I don’t have an office. I have a home computer and work out of my office right there, but that is just to do like billing that is about it. I don’t solicit or advertise.
Mr. Fusco: Do you have any commercial vehicles, van or trailers as part of your occupation?
Mr. Wildner: Yes I do.
Mr. Fusco: Where do you keep those?
Mr. Wildner: 90% of the time they are on the job site.
Mr. Fusco: The other 10% when they are not on the job site, where are they?
Mr. Wildner: They are probably on my residence.
Ms. Calarco: The permit is asking for south side and the other wall, how are you closing off the north side?
Mr. Wildner: The north side would be windows with an entrance door.
Ms. Calarco: That is not spelled out in the application. Could be garage doors or whatever the case may be.
Mr. Wildner: No garage doors.
Mr. Baroody: Would you like to amend the application to say windows and a “man” entrance door.
Mr. Wildner: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Sir you wanted to come back up?
Mr. Dunster: Back in March is when this project started and he was cited by the Code Enforcement Officer for having multiple construction and I have that citation here with me
Mr. Westlake: That is another issue, we can’t
Mr. Dunster: I understand
Mr. Westlake: We are only here tonight
Mr. Fusco: I don’t necessarily know if that is not relevant because one of the things you have to find is whether the requested variance is substantial or not. I think perhaps the use of the building goes to the issue of whether it is substantial. One of the matters that he has to fine is whether there is another way to achieve the relief requested, I am difficulty because the map I don’t quite understand and the pictures are all cut off but I think it is safe to say that most of us who have screen porches or what not are attached to our houses. I am not sure that is the case here.
Mr. Tamburrino: There is a deck behind the house.
Mr. Baroody: A month ago you were telling us not to look to pay attention to the papers, what are we doing here?
Mr. Fusco: Well I am reading from the papers.
Mr. Westlake: All the papers say is an area variance. Doesn’t say anything about the construction vehicles or anything else. It is an area variance, we can do a motion on that and either accept or deny it.
Mr. Fusco: Again read what are the elements that you have to make a finding on. Have to make a finding whether the requested variance will produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. You have to find whether the area variance will create a detriment to nearby property. You have to make a finding whether there is another feasible method to accomplish what the applicant is wishing to accomplish and you have to make a finding as to whether the variance sought is substantial or insubstantial. So all I am doing is reading you the standards of law. If you wish not to consider the allegation that there is something other than residential use going on in this
Mr. Westlake: He is not asking for a use variance.
Mr. Baroody: You told us that was not our call one meeting ago. We have to look at what is here. If you are going to change the rules then you have to clarify that and please do so on the record.
Mr. Fusco: I will clarify it. Even though it is an area variance it is enhancing or extending a different type of use that is legitimate because it is pre-existing non-conforming, then you are allowed to consider that as a possibly undesirable. Now you are also allowed not to consider it, if you wish, I am not going to tell you as a manner of law that the proposal from this applicant is or is not undesirable, but I am going to say that I think some of the questions we have heard are irreverent. It is something you can consider you may wish not to consider it, but I think you could consider it. I don’t know exactly I am having a lot of difficulty with getting my hands around the proposal just because the pictures are cut off and I don’t know exactly what we are looking at.
Mr. Baroody: Why don’t we afford the applicant the opportunity to get some better photos put them in a package and come next month.
Ms. Marteney: I think other members have visited the site.
Ms. Calarco: I have seen it too. I think my only concern is we are now talking about the whole thing being windows and walled off and what not. Now is it really a picnic shelter for lack of better term, or has it become a room addition? It is two (2) different scenarios, one we are talking about rehab a new wall with the whole top of it screened and nothing on the north wall according to the permit or the request, then yes it is a screened patio. When we start enclosing it with walls and windows and doors now we have a full sized room. That is my question is where are we going with this, what kind of permit are we giving.
Mr. Baroody: It is an area variance, whatever as far as enclosure, man doors no garage doors you can do a lot of restrictions like that.
Ms. Calarco: And that is where my question is, just where are we going with it, what are we giving a variance for? Are we enclosing it, is it a room or approving as outdoor.
Ms. Marteney: He has a variance for the space.
Mr. Westlake: He got that the last time he was here.
Ms. Marteney: How is this different from what he applied for in March?
Mr. Fusco: Mr. Hicks thought it was different. He wouldn’t have cited him.
Mr. Dunster: May I speak?
Mr. Westlake: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Dunster: Brian informed me that the permit process he went through was originally going to be for a pole barn addition when he started off and then it changed to a patio enclosure which was granted to him in February as patio enclosure to include concrete floor and roof.
Ms. Marteney: And no walls.
Mr. Dunster: No walls. I voiced my concern to Brian because when I asked him about that if he starts using it as a pole barn addition as was originally proposed on first permit back in December, what is the remedy and that is when it went to the Stop Work Order and then it comes here for an area variance. By granting the area variance I don’t know if you are changing it from an enclosed patio or making it a 3-season room or a 4-season room. My question is the permit already granted for patio and roof, is he here for the area variance to enclose that area? The structure already exists
Mr. Selvek: Excuse me, if I may clarify for the board Brian and I had discussed this over the past few months the permit was originally issued for the patio/slab as well as the roof because those two (2) things for Brian did not constitute additional square footage. Once he went ahead and decided to enclose the area now we have square footage that “counts” as part of that particular structure. He had a permit in place for slab as well as the roof structure once that goes to enclosure now it is actually part of that enclosed structure and therefore needed the area variance.
Mr. Fusco: What was the relief that was already granted? I am hearing some relief was already granted.
Ms. Marteney: Variance for the roof and slab.
Mr. Dunster: He was granted a permit to build a roof and the concrete. At which time period I asked Brian if it increased the square footage to a non-conforming structure, he said not by doing that alone, but if he enclosed any part of the side walls it becomes
Mr. Westlake: Let me ask you, what is your question, do you want to know what the room is?
Mr. Dunster: What I want to know is, well I might not have that crystal ball but I know the neighborhood pretty good. What I see happening I can’t stop but we do have laws in place to correct the situation. I am telling you right now I am not happy living next door to a construction warehouse. This has not just started since this process started with the building of this pole barn addition, this has been an ongoing matter, he was cited a issued a violation through the Building Department. If you grant him this variance to build a sidewall or increase his use of the non-conforming use so he can maintain either store his equipment or construction related business by just granting him, I mean I don’t know where we are going with this. Is this circumventing the law because if
he wanted a pole barn addition he could very easily asked for that variance to begin with.
Mr. Baroody: The area variance would be for the area in question, you can limit the size of the door going in and out, however, whether he wishes to play cards or breed doves we have nothing to say about that, providing it is within the limits of the law.
Mr. Westlake: If he runs a business out of there, you have the Code Enforcement Office to stop him from doing that.
Mr. Dunster: I don’t have a problem with him running a business, his business is his livelihood. My issue is when it becomes a warehouse for his business, myself and a number of other contractors we run businesses out of our houses but we have storage trailers right on our own property, we rent places off site in a commercial area. My question is if you grant him this variance for the area, you was already granted the patio, New York State law says that you cannot use a patio enclosure to store equipment, machinery or trailers so what do I do if that occurs go back to Code?
Mr. Westlake: Sounds like it.
Mr. Dunster: I have a number of photos here.
Mr. Westlake: Send them around.
Mr. Dunster: Would you like the Citation because the City took this photograph and the reason they took the photograph is because of the trailers
Mr. Westlake: That is a whole other different thing right there so you will have to take that up with the Code Office. Tonight we have an area variance whether we grant it or deny it; it is up to the five (5) members here tonight. As far as the Citation, I don’t think this is the right venue to bring it up that would be the Code Enforcement Office.
We will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Thank you very much.
Ok, Mr. Wildner and then we close it completely.
Mr. Wildner: I just want to say the reason why the pictures are cut off was to show with the original permit the ceiling approved and the concrete slab and the poles I was trying to just show you what it looks like with all the poles and it looks like a car port not a patio and that is the reason why the pictures like that.
Mr. Westlake: I think the issue right now – I will ask this – are you doing to use this for any kind of construction storage?
Mr. Wildner: No I am not, absolutely not. I got a permit to build the pole barn for that reason for storage. I can pull my boat out of that storage age and put my trailers in and leave my boat outside all the time with a blue cover on it.
Mr. Westlake: Just ask the question, this is not going to be used for construction storage at all.
Mr. Wildner: Absolutely not. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Any more questions of the board?
Ms. Calarco: I would like to see it spelled out how it is going to be used.
Mr. Baroody: Amend his application per your request.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant William Wildner, 62 Locust Street, Auburn, New York an area variance per the application to enclose on the south side and the north side with windows and siding and one (1) new “man” door or entry door on the north side.
Ms. Marteney: What about the west?
Mr. Baroody: Windows will be on the south and west and the front. Building is on the east side.
Ms. Calarco: So west side would be windows and or screen.
Mr. Baroody: South and west will have windows with one “man” door, one entry door.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a second?
Ms. Calarco: I will second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Ms. Calarco, and Mr. Westlake
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney and Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Westlake: Application has not been approved. You did not have enough affirmative votes to pass. You would have to come back with a substantial change in your application.
Mr. Fusco: At this time it has been turned down, I counsel the board, not the public, he only has a permit for roof and floor and no permit for the sides, so at this juncture the sides are illegal.
Mr. Baroody: Code Enforcement will take care of that.
_____________________________________________________________
44 Capitol Street. R1A zoning district. Use variance for a business office. Applicant: Samual Schoonmaker.
Mr. Westlake: 44 Capitol Street are you here?
Mr. Schoonmaker: I am Samual Schoonmaker and this is a variance for 44 Capitol Street and I am representing my sister, Dawn. As you have probably seen the building it is in pretty rough shape. Dawn bought the building put a new roof on, new furnace, electrical, actually it was used by my nephew he was going to college last year and it was changed from commercial to R-1. My nephew now is in the Marines. We have since decided and talked to a lot of the neighbors, no body liked it as an apartment house. It is an old 1850’s – 1870’s commercial building, makes a terrible apartment house, there is no yard, nowhere to park. I am sure you have all driven by it. I have a real estate office and I want to use one section for my office which has very little traffic once in
a while you might have a client but other than that very little traffic. It will still have two (2) bedrooms in it. Dawn is an artist but there are not sales there. We are basically trying to find a use for the building, room for a real estate office, will only have a sign. There are pictures showing before and after the renovations. It was in really bad shape when she bought it, got it at tax auction for about $4,000.
Ms. Jordan: Dawn Jordan and a year ago I bought this building so that my son could go to school. I had a new roof put on, new furnace installed and all new electrical. My son has decided to be a Marine and I have been using it for my artwork. I have a regular job but I go there and do my art, I really would like to have my studio here. I love the neighbors, it is a nice neighborhood, a lot of people renting though it is not completely all owner residing there. I really like it there and unfortunately it would be hard to afford it as a studio and my brother Sam is in the same situation we are both trying to make a living by combining our things that we do on the side, we can make this happen.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: Curious, what kind of art?
Ms. Jordan: I am an artist; most of my painting is mostly murals so they are done on site.
Mr. Schoonmaker: If you have been to Port Byron downtown, she did the 4 x 8 mural there. All the neighbors have been very positive. There is a change in the traffic, they like that. Lot of real estate offices in the City are in residential areas, Mickey Gower, Post Realty, Lynn Wilson is in Sennett she is in her house. Not a lot of traffic there.
Ms. Calarco: Isn’t real estate no different than other home based businesses? What is the difference between say a real estate office and what I have, my sewing business?
Mr. Westlake: Usually real estate they are selling houses, they take the people to the house so they make appointments and take them to the houses. May come back to the office for a short time to fill out paperwork to make a Purchase Offer.
Ms. Calarco: That is where I am going so really where is the difference in that being a home based business?
Ms. Marteney: He doesn’t live there I guess.
Ms. Calarco: I am trying to figure it out.
Mr. Baroody: That use to be Post’s Grocery, I live around the corner from there.
Mr. Schoonmaker: You would be surprised how many people drive by and say oh you are opening up the store again.
Ms. Marteney: So are you going to put a rest room in your office?
Ms. Schoonmaker: It is going to be just us. There are so many apartment houses in the area, don’t need another on the corner, there is no yard.
Ms. Jordan: The bathroom is there and his office
Ms. Marteney: If you rented it out
Ms. Jordan: I don’t want to rent it out. Just want to keep it as a studio.
Mr. Fusco: One of the elements that we have to find in this matter is that this hardship is not self-created. The applicant didn’t obviously understand the legal term hardship, if you looked at his and her response to question #16 on the application, the term hardship is a matter of law in this case, situation, means you can’t get a reasonable return on your property if this variance is not granted. Towards the end it appears you acquired the building for $8,000 and have made over $30,000 in improvements to date, without having permits first. My question is why would you spend $30,000 on something when you might not get the approval of the board?
Ms. Jordan: When I bought it my son wanted to go away to college, but he went to Cayuga Community College in Auburn and I made an investment, fixed it up, he could get away from home and save money by not going away to college and then I was hoping to use it as a studio somewhere down the road. He stayed there for the first year, but then he went into the Marines and I don’t want to rent it out. It is a hard sell because of its appearance and there is no yard. When I originally bought this was to use it as a single-family dwelling.
Mr. Schoonmaker: I think it was vacant for ten (10) years.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much.
Ms. Jordan: Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Is there any one here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will discuss amongst ourselves. I don’t see any problem.
Mr. Tamburrino: I drove by and saw that it was a store; it was a commercial property years ago.
Ms. Calarco: I guess what I am looking at is what they are looking to do, they are not looking to change anything within the building, not looking to put neon signs, just looking to put an office.
Mr. Baroody: They could have done it without coming here and not make any noise.
Ms. Calarco: In reality yes. With real estate might have been might not have been because he can you do it as a cottage industry business, you put a shingle up, 2 x 4 foot just like I can do in front of my house without ever coming here.
Mr. Westlake: We have a SEQRA first?
Mr. Selvek: Right. You have in your packet a draft short form EAF filled out by the applicant and I have drafted answers for the boards’ consideration. I guess without going through each particular question, just highlight the thought process behind it. With regards to environment impact as mentioned this is an existing site with an existing building on it. The construction activities are limited to rehabbing that building. It is reasonable to assume because of limited construction that there are no physical and environmental impacts. Also stated that this is in an urban setting it is unlikely that any significant habitats or endangered species. One thing for the board to keep in mind in considering this SEQRA form is the issue of traffic. A real estate office is
likely to generate traffic beyond that of a single family home however, it is my opinion as staff that the traffic generated by a single person real estate office is limited to the point that it would not be a significant impact. As such my recommendation would for a Negative Declaration as this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. If there are questions I will be happy to answer them.
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we declare a Negative Declaration in regards to this application.
Ms. Calarco: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Negative Declaration is ok. Any more questions? Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant Samual Schoonmaker, 44 Capitol Street a use variance per the application to use this residential structure for business office in an R1A.
Ms. Marteney: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved.
Ms. Jordan: Thank you so much.
_____________________________________________________________
188 Grant Avenue – Fox Toyota. C3 zoning district. SEQRA Lead Agency concurrence for potential area variances associated with Planning Board site plan review.
Mr. Westlake: We have another item, but no one is here for it.
Mr. Fusco: We are an involved agency for this particular project and there is an aspect of this project, which will eventually before us for approval. As an involved agency we are required to be put on notice by any other involved agency that wishes to be the lead agency for SEQRA review. In this particular case the Planning Board, the first action has been presented to the Planning Board and the Planning Board has resolved to be lead agency. Within thirty (30) days we have to either object, consent or give input.
Mr. Westlake: We have never had to do this before.
Mr. Fusco: We have.
Mr. Westlake: Ok. Do we have to make a motion?
Mr. Fusco: You can do nothing or make a motion to say we don’t mind the Planning Board being lead agency.
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that this board has no objection to the City of Auburn Planning Board acting as lead agency for the project at 188 Grant Avenue.
Mr. Tamburrino: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Approved.
| 
