ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2009
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Selvek and Mr. Hicks
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 188 Grant Avenue, 41 Steel Street, 207 N. Marvine Avenue, 34 & 36 Perrine Street, 63 – 77 State Street, 77 Metcalf Drive
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: 188 Grant Avenue, 41 Steel Street, 207 N. Marvine Avenue, 34 & 36 Perrine Street, 63 – 77 State Street, 77 Metcalf Drive
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.
_____________________________________________________________
188 Grant Avenue. C3 zoning district. Area variances for construction of 2 new buildings. Applicant: nelson Associates, LLC.
Mr. Westlake: 188 Grant Avenue. Please come to the podium, state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Scruton: Good evening my name is Ray Scruton with Zausmer – Frisch, we are representing Fox Toyota and we are here for two (2) area variances tonight. The existing building as you all know has a curved front, what we would like to do is take the points of the curve and square that off for the width of the existing profile to comply with Toyota’s new designs. The second variance that we need we are building a new service building on the east end of the lot and the ordinance calls for 30 foot set back, because of the shape of the lot we fixed the traffic flow on the property so we are asking for a 10 foot set back. We are demolishing the existing wash building, which is a little less than 10 feet, and those are the two (2) areas we are requesting variances for.
Mr. Darrow: Where is the wash building?
Mr. Scruton: It is here (points to map).
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Ms. Calarco: It says construction of two (2) buildings but I see renovation of one and construction of another, am I right?
Mr. Scruton: We are adding on to the existing sales store, we are also putting a new building in the back this property continues back and that meets all the set backs requirements so it is just the front renovation and the new building.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you.
Is there anyone here wising to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss the matter amongst ourselves.
Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant Nelson Associates, LLC for Fox Toyota, 188 Grant Avenue two (2) variances, one variance is for a 10 foot instead of a 30 foot variance for new service building and the second
Mr. Selvek: At the time this was submitted to the board the area variances weren’t clear, there is a memorandum in your packet that address the two area variances, the first is 20 foot of the required 30 foot rear yard set back for the new service building and the second is 25 foot 5 inch form the required 30 foot front yard set back for the façade changes to the existing showroom.
Mr. Baroody: As stated.
Mr. Tamburrino: I will second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: The application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Scruton: Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________________________
41 Steel Street. R1A zoning district. Area variances and use variance for the conversion to a two-unit dwelling structure. Brandon Mallory: applicant.
Mr. Westlake: 41 Steel Street, please come to the microphone, speak into it, state your name clearly and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Mallory: I am Brandon Mallory I was here last month and my item was tabled, you guys said you would feel more comfortable with some documents so I brought them for you tonight. Also the original contract to show that I put an offer on the property in good faith and it was a two-family before the City reduced it to a single family. I don’t know if you have the documents from Mike Helas Construction of $32,944 and the second one is from JFJ Builders which doesn’t include everything but his quote is $23,774. I think with those figures and what I paid for the property that I would lose a lot of money if you don’t grant the two-family status. I also have my realtor here tonight to answer any questions as far as property values as this is surrounded by multi-family, not a high demand for a single-family
residence there.
Mr. Westlake: I think the big question last month when you were here was when the Purchase Offer went in.
Mr. Mallory: I have the Purchase Offer.
Mr. Baroody: Do you have a copy of it?
Mr. Mallory: Yes, you can have that.
Mr. Gordon: I would like to explain it to you a little bit because it is confusing the way it is worded. I am Mike Gordon, Falcon Realty USA. We have two pieces of paper here what happened was initially when Brad made his offer it was around February 9 or 11, and what happened at that time there were multiply offers and his was not the one initially selected although he made that offer and they came back to us a few weeks later and it is in very small print because it is a fax was something from the lenders the previous offer had fallen through that they wanted a response by March 20 at 5:00 p.m. whether or not we wanted to pursue the offer. So at that time another offer was generated and when you generate these even though we had the initial offer that went it, that is not what they go by they have their own foreclosure
paper work that has to be filled out and submitted to them at that time. So it was an on going process, it started in February and we closed I think April or May. There were previous offers that were accepted when his was submitted. For whatever reason those two (2) offers fell through.
What I would just like to mention and suggest it really doesn’t have anything to do with this I can see that this can be an on going problem in the City and I think I have some ideas that would avoid some of this in the future.
Mr. Westlake: We are the Zoning Board of Appeals, that you should actually take up with the City Council if you want changes to the zoning law.
Mr. Fusco: So your testimony that the original offer by Brandon was on February and then that offer was either re-offered or codified or confirmed or whatever on March 20th?
Mr. Gordon: Right, on March 20th a fax that I have a copy of here with small print it was asking if we were still interested in the property. Many times when you feel these out you may or may not have your offer extended as a back up offer and on the initially paper work we said we may and as time went two (2) of these offers went bad for financing for whatever reasons so Brad was actually third in line at the beginning of this process.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: Went in February 11th.
Mr. Mallory: Before it was condemned in March so in good faith when I made the offer and when my realtor called Codes it was still a legal two-family when I made the offer.
Mr. Darrow: May we see the Offer? (Mr. Gordon shows Mr. Darrow the Purchase Offer).
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the application? Come to the microphone, state your name clearly and give us your comments.
Mr. DeBower: Gordon DeBower-my wife and I live at 35 Elizabeth Street which our back yards adjoin to this property. I am opposed to the variance, the main thing I wanted to cite is congestion, Code Enforcement said there is no, the reasons that these stipulations were there to revoke the two-family status was to ease the congestion in these old neighbors. The property only has one (1) driveway, there is not sufficient party for two (2) units and the house immediately to the south of it is a side by side that has no driveway whatsoever and they have been using the driveway at 41 while it has been empty. They have four (4) vehicles in the winter cars from Steel Street spill over to Elizabeth Street because it is congested with alternate side parking. That was my main point, congestion.
Also it was stated that it was a double since the 1970’s, my wife and I have lived in our house since 1990 and I think about 1993 both units have not been occupied. We know the last couple owners pretty much by first name and only one (1) unit has been occupied since 1993 roughly. I think this is a perfect time to help revitalize this neighborhood and ease congestion and make them more desirable for single families. I honestly think that Brandon Mallory would be doing himself a favor if he converted it to a single, if he did something to improve the curb appeal, made it into a single and sold as a single, I think he would be ahead of the game. He is obviously doing some of the work himself, I disagree with the high estimates because I actually looked at the property on April 20th with my Realtor and at
that time I wasn’t told that the house was sold, I thought actually about purchasing it and selling it myself to protect the neighborhood, but I didn’t want to gamble with the real estate market. It is a real easy conversion back to a single, move two (2) cabinets, cap a few pipes, put them in the walls, move a wall that separates the downstairs from the front entry, I disagree with these $20,000 some dollars estimates to convert it especially when Brandon is doing a lot of the work himself. That is about all I have to say. Thank you for considering my arguments.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Is there any one else wishing to speak for or against this application? Please come up and state your name clearly.
Mr. Smith: My name is Stephen Smith, I live at 33 Elizabeth, I really don’t have anything to offer but I am opposed to this. I have lived in the neighbor since 1990 that that particular home has not been a two-family since 1993, I can’t even tell you who the last tenant was because I had a friend living in that house. I bought into this neighbor because it is old, historic and beautiful. I have a beautiful Victorian there. One of the problems that we have it is a neighborhood that quite frankly teeters on edge and what makes it teeter on the edge is the fact that we do have two-families that are not being lived in by the owner and they are in effect allowed to go down hill especially, it had another owner before Mr. Mallory, came in and did nothing to it and that is why it wound up in foreclosure. The water
was turned off, even after the new ownership took over the lawn was mowed maybe three (3) all summer. What I am asking basically for the board to consider the fact that the Elizabeth Street area is a beautiful area, we do in my opinion teeter back and forth and he would want to do a favor to the City and stabilize that and make a neighborhood desirable. I would ask the board to take that into consideration. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Is there any one else wishing to speak for or against this application?
Mr. Mallory: Can I speak again?
Mr. Westlake: OK.
Mr. Mallory: Just one note, I know these guys are concerned about the neighborhood and this really isn’t something that I am doing to make enemies, just a financial matter that I bought it as a two (2) family and that is what I thought I was getting and if I don’t get the two (2) family status I don’t have the resources to put the money into it to convert it back to a single family. That is pretty wasn’t the deal that I was trying to make, it was obviously a paperwork issue. It might hurt the neighborhood because it may end up going back into foreclosure, the value is not there for somebody to pay, what I paid for it and end up putting thousands and thousands of dollars to convert it back into a single-family because it is not going to be desirable for somebody to buy a single family that is
surrounded by multi-family so it would be a hard house to sell as a single family so not only I don’t have the resources to put into it to covert back. I am not looking to make enemies it is just kind of financial hardship that is why I am here.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. The public portion is now closed and we will discus amongst ourselves.
Mr. Darrow: It is a catch 22, I can truly appreciate the neighbors, traffic, parking but then again when you look at the Purchase Offer February when he did put it in, it was a two-family, he thought he was buying a two-family and you look at the time that it takes to go through a foreclosure and get your financing and close, a lot can happen and unfortunately something in the negative happened on this one.
Mr. Baroody: We can sympathize with the neighborhood however we have a very narrow legislative issue we can look at as well.
Mr. Bartolotta: What does the Code say in regards to stopping the close on this six (6) months.
Mr. Fusco: The law as you know has a separate element of intention besides whatever is the Codes period of time, but that really would have gone to the issue of an interpretation whether there had been or had not been an intention to abandon, what we have here is something different which is a use variance request. Assuming that even if the property hadn’t been used as a double family since 1991, both neighbors have testified and I am sure they are telling the truth, the issue then goes to whether Mr. Mallory gets a reasonable return on his investment, not how long it had been abandoned, this is a little bit different than the case we had a couple months ago whether the six (6) month period did or didn’t govern the sale was determined by whether there was an intention to abandon or not. This is different, he
is saying look, I don’t get a reasonable return on my investment irrespective of whether it was or wasn’t a two (2) family from 1991 until the time I bought it therefore I am seeking relief for the use variance.
Mr. Baroody: It had nothing to do with abandonment, when he put in the offer it was legally a two (2) family residence the in between time is when it changed, abandonment didn’t come into play.
Mr. Darrow: It kind of did but not in interpretation that you are thinking of abandonment, because it was unoccupied for six (6) months the property per say may not have been abandoned but it was unoccupied not used as a two (2) family so in the eyes of our zoning it is believed well now it reverts back after six (6) months but we have to look into our interpretation of it and that is what I believe holds here that to me any time clock when they had an interested buyer was ready to buy and use as its original purpose I think it is tough for us to keep the time clock going then it makes it harder for them, they could be only 35 days hypothetically speaking on that time clock before it reverts back. Who is ever going to get financing and close within 35 days? I think to me that is what it boils down to.
Mr. Westlake: I agree with that.
Mr. Darrow: He showed satisfied proof to me. Do we need to do a SEQRA or did we do it last month?
Mr. Westlake: We did that last month.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion first motion being that we grant Brandon Mallory of 5971 East Lake Road for property located at 41 Steel Street a use variance for the purpose of keeping 41 Steel Street a legal two-family dwelling.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake. (Ms. Marteney came in late so she abstained in this vote).
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a second motion that we grant Brandon Mallory of 5971 East Lake Road for property located at 41 Steel Street we grant a 2,348 square foot area variance for the lot size being under the 8,000 square foot minimum for a two-family and granting a variance for off street parking of one (1) car.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake. (Ms. Marteney came in late so she abstained in this vote).
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
_____________________________________________________________
207 N. Marvine Avenue. R1 zoning district. Area variance for privacy fence. Applicant: John Stevens.
Mr. Westlake: 207 N. Marvine, would you please come to the podium, state your name and what you would like to do.
Mr. Stevens: My name is John Stevens I would like to request a variance to erect a fence at my home on N. Marvine Avenue. The City has a set back requirement, well because it is a corner lot, they treat it as though it is a front lot, what I am looking for is to obtain a variance so that I don’t have to put the fence so far into my yard.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: Will the fence go all the around your entire yard?
Mr. Stevens: No, just on two (2) sides.
Mr. Tamburrino: Two (2) sides, ok. (Points to map, right here and here)?
Mr. Stevens: Right.
Mr. Darrow: Being a corner lot I am not picking up where the fence is going to go on the site map, but it doesn’t interfere with the corner the clear sight triangle at all correct?
Mr. Stevens: No. (Points to map to show where fence will be erected).
Mr. Darrow: Not going to be on the corner side of the lot. Just the back yard.
Mr. Stevens: It is in the back yard and also there is a grade problem if I put it back any farther it slopes down quite a bit.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Mr. Westlake: Another questions from the board? Is there any one wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will close the public portion and discuss it amongst ourselves.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant John J. Stevens, 207 N. Marvine Avenue a area variance of 12’5” set back for the purpose of erecting a 6 foot high privacy fence as placed in submitted plot plan.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Stevens: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
34 and 36 Perrine Street. R2 zoning district. Area and use variances for commercial equipment storage. Applicant: Patrick and Diane Guerrette.
Mr. Westlake: 34 and 36 Perrine Street, would you please come to the podium, state your name and what you would like to do.
Mr. Pettigrass: Good evening, I am attorney Joe Pettigrass I am here for Patrick and Diane Guerrette who are sitting in the back. We have submitted applications for an area variance in regards to 34 Perrine Street and an area and use variance for 36 Perrine Street. The Area East appraisal is in support of the use variance for 36 Perrine Street demonstrating economic loss if the use variance is not granted. Currently the Guerrettes own 32 Perrine Street which is Shaver Brothers, they have been there for quite an extensive period of time. The neighborhood itself is the boundary between 34 and 36 Perrine Street which is owned by the Guerrettes, the Guerrettes own jointly 34 Perrine and Mrs. Guerrette owns 36 Perrine Street, it is my understanding that the boundary lines that separate 34 and 36 Perrine Street is zoned
Commercial Industrial and Residential. 36 Perrine is zoned R2, 34 is zoned Commercial Industrial thus the reason why we are only asking for an area variance for 34 zoned Commercial and it is my understanding 34 will continue to be used as the way it has been used for the last two (2) years. Mr. and Mrs. Guerrette purchased 34 Perrine Street which is a single-family house in December of 2007. That house is currently vacant a single family have rented it out in the past but they use the back portion of it, they have been using it for the past two (2) years to support their business at 32 Perrine Street. They have storage units and storage containers that are back there and also fenced off part of the backyard so that tenants that live at 34 Perrine Street would have a little bit of a backyard area. The area variance at 34 deals with the amount of square footage for a single family and they will continue to use the front of 34 for residential purposes to rent out and use the back half
of it for supplementing their commercial business at Shaver Brothers.
At 36 Perrine Street we also submitted an area variance there three units rental property all units occupied. We have letters from the residents of 36 Perrine Street. Previously there was a garage in the back yard at 36 Perrine Street the Guerrettes are using that area for storage purposes. Several years ago that garage became unsafe they removed it. It is important to the business that they run at Shaver Brothers to have the ability to load and unload materials, 36 Perrine Street has a long strip driveway that is directly across from Rock Avenue. You have Perrine Street that comes down Rock Avenue is perpendicular to Perrine Street so the driveway at 36 Perrine Street enables them to back down in a straight line. They bring in different equipment that they use without 36 Perrine Street they have no way or loading
or unloading equipment off a flatbed. 34 Perrine Street does have not have any access, has a very narrow driveway which is fine for a single family house, but not for bringing in equipment. What they would do previously when they had the garage the garage is no longer there use the back half because 36 is residential 2 the boundary line through there we submitted a use variance for commercial purposes.
The appraisal report from Area East determines an economic loss of $25,000 that is just due to not being able to use the back half of 36 with the driveway which like I said is important to the Guerrettes in being able to drive in a straight line back to unload equipment.
Mr. Darrow: These letters that we have are they tenants or the property owners?
Mr. Pettigrass: The three (3) that are for 36 Perrine Street are the three (3) tenants they currently rent from the Guerrettes, the other three (3) are property owners, the one (1) at 38 Perrine Street which is on the other side of the driveway, the one on Cottage Street Mr. Ciampi is the one in the rear of 36 Perrine Street. 34 Perrine Street the property to the rear of that is vacant. On the other side of 32 Perrine Street is Auburn Cement. The neighborhood in general I think most of you are familiar with it, Auburn Cement, Shaver Brothers, several bars, Teddy’s, Swifty’s. It is my understanding that across the street Rock Avenue I think it is the border Perrine Street commercial; go on the other side of Perrine Street that is residential. This is an older neighborhood has a long history of Industrial
Commercial use down there.
Mr. Bartolotta: How long have your clients owned the property?
Mr. Pettigrass: They owned 36 Perrine Street since 1988 approximately 21 years, two years ago they purchased 34 Perrine, the single family house.
Mr. Bartolotta: Were they aware of the zoning of the property?
Mr. Pettigrass: Well 34 is zoned commercial, 36 they bought in 1988, I am not quite sure what they were aware of back then.
Ms. Calarco: The zoning may have changed in the last 20 years since they bought it as to what it is now.
Mr. Pettigrass: That is very possible.
Mr. Darrow: Your clients I noticed have frontage on 5 & 20 in Aurelius for equipment, are they going to be renting that or do they own it?
Mr. Pettigrass: They recently purchased the property on Clark Street Road from Sylvester and it is my understanding is that they are using that for some of their equipment. I have had a discussion with the Guerrettes in regards to the contractors equipment, part of the idea of the use variance at 36 is without the ability to use that driveway and the ability to load and off load in the ramp area in the back that they can drive stuff right into an off ramp at their current business at Shaver Brothers they do not have the ability to do that. It is not simply the storage area that they are seeking for both of these properties but in regards to 36 the ability to load equipment on and off and this is the only way the can load and unload equipment.
Ms. Calarco: How many other properties are there from 38 to the corner of State Street?
Mrs. Guerrette: Both Barskis, Ted Barski and his mother own the next two houses and then there is Teddy’s bar and John Allen owns a rental property and then there is one more rental property and then Belvedere.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will discuss it amongst ourselves. I am a little confused as to what they really want to do.
Mr. Darrow: Well, join the crowd.
Mr. Westlake: I really don’t know what they are trying to do, they want to keep some residential, want to keep some commercial, they want to change some stuff.
Mr. Fusco: Maybe I can explain, you have a commercial enterprise next to an old residential home and they are seeking a use variance for the residence to be able to use it for commercial purposes, mainly storage. I assume the residence itself will continue to be used and occupied as a residence, the rear portion would be for commercial purposes and they demonstrated in the appraisal before us that if the residential property is continued to be used for strictly residential purposes and not also for commercial storage they realize a economic loss of $25,000. What we have here is a residential property which is seeking use variance to be able to be used for commercial use outdoor storage, it is directly next door to an already commercially used property and that the back of the house if you will would not be I assume
storage annexed the commercial use next door.
Mr. Baroody: So all this information on the second request for variance Bed & Breakfast all that is just why it was refused?
Mr. Hicks: That is part of the Code a portion of the Code book it is in that section that addressed the uses that are allowed in that zone.
Mr. Darrow: There are really only two (2) things I have a concern over (A) not a single neighbor showed up good or bad, not a single neighbor showed us, the other is the size of the variance being given up in buffer zone. Giving a 40-foot buffer zone variance will leave 10 foot, I believe 50 foot is needed, am I correct?
Mr. Hicks: They are asking for a 40 foot variance and I believe in that section under that portion that is what is required will be the 40 foot.
Mr. Darrow: There will be no buffer zone from the one neighbor to the west.
Ms. Marteney: Both are to the west.
Mr. Darrow: Both to the west, thank you.
Ms. Marteney: So does that mean the little house directly next to Shaver Brothers will have no backyard at all?
Mr. Westlake: Sounds like that to me.
Mr. Hicks: On your site plan you 176.22 as far as property depth, they are going to take 86.88 of that rear yard for their use which will leave the balance for the property for a backyard and structure.
Mr. Darrow: But they will be using part of the backyard of the other property as well the one is marked parcel 28, you are referring to parcel 29, the one marked 28 will also be used as part of that backyard, is that correct?
Mr. Hicks: The drawing shows that it will be all backyard.
Mr. Darrow: All backyard. Ok, because I saw a dotted line going across I was assuming that was the part.
Ms. Calarco: If it is 86.88 and then there is another parcel, not all of the backyard, states parking area but it is not it is still back area.
Mr. Darrow: 86.88 going west to where it is drawn with bushes and trees but if there is no buffer zone how are they going to put bushes and trees in?
Ms. Marteney: There is no fence, lot 29 is suppose to be a stockade fence.
Ms. Calarco: Is lot 29 already commercial?
Mr. Hicks: 29 is commercial.
Mr. Westlake: Like you said the neighbors aren’t here to complain.
Mr. Bartolotta: Maybe that area is ripe for rezoning.
Mr. Westlake: A lot of variances to grant.
Mr. Darrow: I think it is prudent that we are discussing it and we are seeing a forward step in bundling all of them into one (1) motion rather than doing four (4) different ones, but if we see difficulty then perhaps we should do them one by one.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t see any difficulty.
Ms. Calarco: I don’t either.
Mr. Darrow: Then we will bundle them. I would like to make a motion that we grant Patrick and Diane Guerrette of 1306Aurelius-Springport Townline Road, Auburn for property located at 34 Perrine Street variance of 5743 square feet of required 10,000 square feet for commercial lot size; a area variance of 40 foot of the buffer to the south boundary; a area variance of 40 foot to the buffer of residential use on the north boundary; a area variance of 545 square foot of the required 5,000 square foot for single family residential lot.
Ms. Calarco: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Diane Guerrette of 1306Aurelius-Springport Townline Road, Auburn for her property located at 36 Perrine Street a use variance for 4257 square foot for the rear yard of an R2 property for commercial storage use.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question; because of the use variance was a short form SEQRA needed for that.
Mr. Fusco: Let’s hold Eddie’s motion in abeyance and do the Negative Declaration.
Mr. Selvek: You do have in your packets a copy of the short form SEQRA Part I completed by the applicant. Part II I have drafted answers for the board’s consideration.
Under subsection C that deals with any adverse effects – C1 which deals with the physical and environmental effects and I note that the loading and unloading of construction equipment would generate noise not typically above that of a residential use, but not unlike the level of noise generated by nearby industrial uses.
Under C-2 that deals with aesthetics as well as natural or cultural resources. This is a residential district adjacent to commercial and industrial uses. This use would be similar to other nearby uses. With regards to aesthetics, consideration should be given to neighboring residential properties looking on to an equipment yard.
Finally under C-6 the long term, short term or other effects not identified. I would note that this industrial/commercial uses are likely to continue to creep into this residential district. With that said I would so recommend a Negative Declaration but keep those things in mind in consideration for the use variance.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to put forth a motion that we grant a Negative Declaration for 36 Perrine Street for purpose of use variance.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Fusco: We have Mr. Darrow’s second motion which was held in abeyance. Roll call.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to put forth a motion for Patrick and Diane Guerrette of 1306Aurelius-Springport Townline Road, Auburn for property located at 36 Perrine Street that we grant a area variance of 5743 square foot of the 10,000 square foot required for commercial lot; a area variance of 3127.5 square feet of required 7200 square foot required for multi-family residential lot; a area variance of 40 foot of the southern buffer zone; a area variance of 40 foot of the western buffer zone; a area variance of 40 foot of the northern buffer zone; and a area variance of 999 square feet for the required square footage of off street parking.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Pettigrass: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
63 – 77 State Street. C2 zoning district. Area variances for garage. Applicant: Cayuga Seneca Community Action Agency.
Mr. Westlake: 63 – 77 State Street please come to the podium. State your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Ms. Montgomery: I am Marie Montgomery I am here representing Cayuga Seneca Community Action Agency, located at 63 – 77 State Street. Basically what we would like to do is move an existing shed to a new location on our lot and then erect a new 16 x 36 foot garage on the existing footprint of the shed that we want to move. It is necessary for us to expand the amount of storage that we have. When we built the shed that is there now, 5 or 6 years ago, since that time our programs have increased and expanded in size about three fold going on four fold so we really need this on site storage to be able to store materials for the work that we do. That is what we want to do.
Mr. Tamburrino: You have a brand new parking lot there, you want to move one shed and replace it with a little bigger shed.
Ms. Montgomery: Yes. Right on the footprint of the old shed only bigger.
Mr. Westlake: You are going to keep both sheds, you are going to move the other shed and build a new one.
Ms. Montgomery: Yes we are moving the smaller one into a corner as you can see on the site map.
Mr. Westlake: Any other questions from the board? Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Thank you very much.
Mr. Darrow: Considering the property and size of the lot and location.
Mr. Tamburrino: Big parking lot.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Cayuga Seneca Community Action Agency of 63 – 77 State Street an area variance of 114 square foot for the total above 750 square foot allowable for detached storage and an area variance of one (1) foot of the allowable four (4) from the rear property line.
Mr. Tamburrino: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Ms. Montgomery: Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________________________
77 Metcalf Drive. R1 zoning district. Area variance for signs. Applicant: United Church of Auburn.
Mr. Westlake: 77 Metcalf Drive please come to the podium. State your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Bell: I am Larry Bell, Pastor of the United Church of Auburn, 77 Metcalf Drive. Situation that we find ourselves with is that people don’t know that we are there. We have a present sign our first sign which is parallel to the road, Metcalf Drive it is 47 feet I believe from the street and people that try to find us they can’t. So that is a problem for us. What we would like to do is place a sign perpendicular to Metcalf and have it 20 square feet with an area which has a changeable message area and it would be double-sided 4 x 5 sign.
We also would like to there is a Day Care provider who uses our Church and they would like to have a sandwich board sing which is 4 x 4, Early Childhood Center and also would like to have a 3 x 2 foot sandwich board sign for the clothes drop off which is in back of our Church.
Mr. Fusco: What do you mean by changeable message?
Mr. Bell: The sign itself would be the bottom part of it would have a panel and you could put events, put different events,
Mr. Fusco: Manually changing letters?
Mr. Bell: Manually change the message it would be made out of plastic.
Mr. Bartolotta: Where is the sign that they submitted?
Mr. Bell: We are going to take out the sign that is there.
Ms. Marteney: This sign that you have here doesn’t seem to have any changeable area on it.
Mr. Bell: The bottom section that would say services.
Mr. Darrow: Removable letters.
Mr. Bell: No removable letters, plastic, take one out and put one in.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, thank you. Questions from the board?
Ms. Calarco: The brick sign is no longer going to be a sign now?
Mr. Bell: There will be a sign but we expect to put a cross there.
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. Tamburrino: I drove by a very beautiful Church.
Mr. Darrow: I have no problem whatsoever with the Church changing their sign putting a sign in. On the sandwich board sign that could be up today and down tomorrow that is the only spot I run into a problem with sandwich board signs.
Mr. Tamburrino: The neighbor now you have an illuminated sign perpendicular to the street, I think you are going to set a precedence, you have Matthew House down the street, they could ask for the same type of sign.
Mr. Darrow: Sandwich board?
Mr. Tamburrino: No large illuminated sign, we want to make people aware of our mission, it is a good one, it is hospice. Then you have Auburn Indians over here they say the same thing, we want people to know about us as well, now you have all these big signs on Metcalf that is my concern.
Mr. Darrow: I completely understand your point that is why I believe we have to look at them on a case by case bases and in the back of my mind and this is how I justify it and maybe it doesn’t work for you folks but the frontage that they have between the two, if you look down the sidewalk they are so detached from the closest neighbor to where the sign is going be where like you see the Matthew House and I can understand that where their neighbors could be 50 foot either way and that truly would be a different scenario for me. I just look at how much frontage they have.
Mr. Westlake: I would go for the new sign. Just didn’t go for the deal that people don’t know that they are there. I have lived here all my life and I knew there was a Church there, they are not that hard to find.
Mr. Darrow: They applied to this board before for used clothing drive sign so they did or do have a variance for that sign but the fact that they are changing the Church sign I am not sure if it engages that variance or not Brian.
Mr. Hicks: Clothing sign was for this Church with drop box in the rear of the property.
Ms. Marteney: I do have a problem with the Day Care which has been there for many years having a free standing moveable sign. It should not be an apron sign.
Mr. Darrow: Never give temporary signs.
Ms. Marteney: This is not a temporary ordinance as used clothing is not temporary, it is a moveable building in the back of their parking lot. I am sure you can skid it off.
Mr. Darrow: In my mind a temporary sign is a political sign. I am on a job site I put my company sign out front, it is there, it is gone in 15 or 20 days, that is a temporary sign.
Ms. Marteney: I agree with you and I have a problem with the Day Care temporary apron board sign.
Mr. Fusco: Let me go one step further a sandwich board sign isn’t realty it is personality a chattel. The purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to make rulings regarding real estate and things that are affixed to real estate. We don’t know what to do with sandwich board signs in the City, it is an issue that has been brought up to Council in the past and I don’t necessarily know if granting variances for chattels, things aren’t attached to real estate is within our jurisdiction.
Mr. Darrow: So 3, 4 and 5 should be separate and we should do 1 and 2 together because they relate to the Church sign and if our Corporation Counsel feels that 3, 4 and 5 don’t belong because they are not part of the real property then we don’t have to address that issue. If we do we have to put a motion forward and vote on it as we see fit.
Mr. Fusco: Again the Zoning Board of Appeals only has jurisdiction that deals with real estate, uses, dimensions, things like that. When does a chattel become reality once it is affixed to the ground. A sandwich sign is never affixed to the ground.
Mr. Bartolotta: Do the Code allow sandwich board signs in general is this a variance because it is the second sandwich board sing?
Mr. Baroody: Someone applies for a sign and they can’t have a sign there are too many square feet and then they go to sandwich board, how do we
Mr. Fusco: This is an issue that we talked about for some time over the last couple of years and I don’t think the City Manager or City Council has come to a definitive resolution about it. My personal recommendation would be the license sandwich signs under a special and separate and distinct away from real estate and I made that recommendation.
Mr. Darrow: Tell me if I am out of line, I would like to put forth a motion that we find the sandwich board signs are not part of real property and therefore are not part of this variance.
Ms. Calarco: I’ll second that.
Mr. Baroody: Can we do this?
Mr. Fusco: I have no problem with that.
Mr. Westlake: Let me ask a question can they use sandwich board or they can’t?
Mr. Darrow: That is up to the City Manager to determine because we don’t have anything in our Code that addresses sandwich board signs. It is a gray area for now.
Mr. Westlake: Ok.
Mr. Darrow: Still have to vote on it, just saying it is not part of real property.
Mr. Westlake: I have a motion and second.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Darrow: Having gone through that, I would like to put forth a motion for United Church of Auburn, 77 Metcalf Drive a area variance of 10 square feet to allow for a 20 square foot total sign as submitted in packet and an area variance of 5 feet to allow the placement 10 foot from the nearest sidewalk.
Mr. Baroody: Five foot on two sides is that still considered 20 square feet or 40?
Mr. Hicks: 40, two-faced sign on one board so it is only considered one face.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved.
Mr. Selvek: For clarification for the board with regard to temporary signs, it states a temporary sign is a sign or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, fabric, paper, plywood or other light material and intended to be displayed for a short period of time. This I think would be a sandwich board sign by any other definition. Within our Code under section Signs strictly prohibited in all districts are #2 temporary signs except those expressly authorized in this section. Must be a point in the section that says you can have a temporary sign for instance a political sign, they can go up and in certain districts, outside of that temporary signs are prohibited by Code.
| 
