ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2010
Members Present: Mr. Darrow, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, and Mr. Westlake
Member Absent: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Bartolotta
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Selvek and Mr. LaDouce
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 34 Wright Avenue
APPLICATION TABLED: Southwest corner of Genesee Street and Dunning Avenue
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: 34 Wright Avenue, Southwest corner of Genesee Street and Dunning 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.
_____________________________________________________________
34 Wright Avenue. I zoning district. Applicant: Northstar Management. Area variance for two (2) ground signs.
Mr. Westlake: 34 Wright Avenue. Please come to the podium, speak into the microphone, state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Currier: My name is Jim Currier I am one of the owners of Northstar Business Center, 34 Wright Avenue which was the original Red Star Trucking terminal it is like 70,000 square feet and on about twelve (12) acres. We are basically renovating the building we have done about forty (40) to fifty (50) percent so far. Actually have done some demolition out back. Renovating mostly for office space and turned the focus of the entrance from the street to the back of the building. Building sits quite c lose to Wright Avenue this is the reason we are putting curbs and sidewalks in the front. Looking to replace the existing the hand signs that doesn’t require a variance, we are ok on that one. Down at the one (1) entrance to the rear of the property we are looking to put a sign up that would be our name, logo and also a directional sign to
direct traffic to the back of the property the rear of the property as the main entrance. Because of the location of the building to the road and sidewalk we are kind of limited so we submitted it to you it is between the sidewalk and the building, we will go as close to the building as we can.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: The sign is going to be between the sidewalk and the building and not the sidewalk and the street?
Mr. Currier: Right. Close to the building.
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. Thank you.
Mr. Currier: I should wait though?
Mr. Westlake: Yes, please wait.
Mr. Darrow: It is pretty much cut and dried.
Ms. Calarco: Nothing but an improvement.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Jim Currier of Northstar Management, 34 Wright Avenue a five (5) foot area variance for the purpose of placing two (2) ground signs on his property as specified in his presentation.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco and Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved. Good luck with your project.
Mr. Currier: Appreciate it thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
Southwest corner of Genesee Street & Dunning Avenue. C1 and C3 zoning districts. Applicant: 1238 Group, LLC. Area variances for signage for a proposed Rite Aid drugstore.
Mr. Westlake: Now we have southwest corner of Genesee Street and Dunning Avenue. Would you come to the podium, state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Palumbo: Anthony Palumbo representing Auburn Development Company the Rite Aid project on the corner of Genesee Street and Dunning Avenue. As you may know we were here two (2) years ago for signs and variances and the project got put on hold due to financing reasons and it recently came to fruition and we hope to get started on construction in the next two (2) weeks really make an improvement at that side of town.
Basically I think we have six (6) to nine (9) variances area variances, I kind of grouped them into three (3) categories. The first one being the number of signs allowed, per Code allows four (4) signs on site, we are having one (1) additional sign that will be the GNC logo sign about nine (9) square feet, blue backing with while lettering on it. Rite Aid has their own GNC store within the store. The other two (2) signs are two (2) pylon signs one (1) right at the intersection of Genesee Street and Dunning Avenue and the other one (1) right on the entrance on Genesee. The other two (2) signs are the Rite Aid with the shield on elevation facing Genesee and on Dunning also.
The second category is the height of our pole signs per Code only seventeen (17) feet is allowed our pole signs are twenty (20) feet in height, so we are asking for a variance of three (3) feet for those. I also believe our wall signage is twenty-four (24) feet above ground that is the standard. The third variance category is square footage of signs. I know the first time we came here we were allowed one hundred (100) square feet, we proposed something along the lines of two hundred fifty (250) above and beyond that. The sign package has changed somewhat since and Codes knows this already. Rite Aid wants a different sign package, the pylon signs I think are now ninety-nine (99) square feet as opposed to eighty-five (85) feet before. Otherwise all the signage remains the same including the eight-four (84) square feet Rite Aid shield. Nothing
else has changed at all and all those variances were approved last time.
Mr. Westlake: Reason you are here tonight is they have to be re-approved.
Mr. Palumbo: Yes we need them re-approved.
Mr. Westlake: Mr. Selvek is upstairs right now calculating those changes so we have the wording right for the square footage if we approve or disapprove. Just give him a couple minutes to do that. Maybe we can ask some questions.
Mr. Tamburrino: The twenty (20) foot height for the pylon signs is that standard?
Mr. Palumbo: Yes.
Mr. Tamburrino: So most signs we see are twenty (20) feet high?
Mr. Palumbo: In commercial districts and along highways.
Mr. Westlake: Except if you live in Skaneateles or Cazenovia then they are only about ten (10) feet high or four (4) feet or two (2) feet high. It is not a standard, it is just something that you really would like, come and say that.
Mr. Palumbo: Correct. We want to be consistent with Walgreen across the street.
Mr. Westlake: That is what I would like to hear.
Mr. Tamburrino: Why two (2) signs?
Mr. Palumbo: Get traffic coming from each direction and also with the location of the pylon on the corner we would like to have an LED reader board, get the advertising going.
Mr. Westlake: I didn’t see anything here about an LED board, did you?
Mr. Darrow: The thing about this project that I guess you could say bothers me the most is I understand and I voted in favor of everything a year and a half or two years when you came before us. But since then a lot has changed with the City and the thought of signage and it being re-looked at and studied hard by our City Manager and I am not so sure whether or not I personally feel comfortable just rubber stamping what we did last time being there is such a change in time changing our Master Plan if you will for the City and the change of the character of the neighborhoods that we are going for now so I really feel we should look at them one by one and address them that way, but I am only one voice.
Mr. Baroody: We looked at this last year and being very realistic and I don’t mean this in a pretentious manner, God forbid this fails, it is going to be a lot easier getting rid of a drugstore than another brown field site with a gas station.
Mr. Tamburrino: You are right.
Mr. Baroody: I think it would be nuts not to go forward.
Mr. Darrow: I am not talking about what they want to do, I am talking about the number of variances that they want for the amount of signage that they want. The City’s whole outlook has changed so dramatically in the past two (2) years that is what I am reiterating, I don’t want to see that the way it is now either. I want to see it cleaned up; I live on the west end of town.
There is a lot, I drive through the City and pay more attention to signage and that bothers me about what I see about some of our signs now and the fact that some people literally just adding signage without permits. The handmade signs that are popping up, the sandwich board signs, it is really an issue in this one instance, and how many times do you have to say Rite Aid. Rite Aid has been around for many years, if there is anybody that doesn’t know what Rite Aid provides or what Rite Aid is, we have a problem.
Mr. Fusco: Let me say something. Point well made but especially well made by the Chairman when he points out that the Walgreen kitty-corner, to this I think your job is to be fair and not be arbitrary and capricious which is the standard you are held to, would be to allow the Rite Aid to no greater variance than has been allowed to Walgreen. And I don’t know whether Walgreen’s sign is twenty (20) feet high or seventeen (17) feet high, but I think that would be important for me to know were I you if Walgreen’s sign is twenty (20) feet high and now you want a twenty (20) foot sign as opposed to a seventeen (17) foot high sign. We don’t want to get ourselves you all heard my spiel before we did it for one and the next guy comes, I want it the exact same that is how we have gotten to where we are at. I don’t want
us to get into a position where Walgreen now feels they are at some type of marketing disadvantage because their signage is three (3) feet smaller than the one kitty-corner to them or that they only have “X” amount of signage footage on the side of their building advertising things other than Walgreen’s for example, twenty-four (24) hours open or one (1) hour photo, or whatever signage they put on the side of the building. What I would like to know if I were in your shoes because I can’t remember what the Walgreen decision was, is what Rite Aid is asking for now the same as what was granted to Walgreen and if it is not the same you should hold Rite Aid to the same standard that you held Walgreen to when they were here so that neither side gets a greater or lesser signage in the market place that would be the fairest outcome. I think what you need to know to be able to do that is not only the data that Steve has provided to us just now, but also someone is
going to have to go back into the record and see what did for Walgreen. Someone from Codes is actually going to have to go down to the store and measure the signage.
Mr. Baroody: Look at what they applied for and if we granted what they applied for versus granting what they are applying.
Mr. Fusco: I think the key is to always try to be consistent that is a perfect defense if you are in my line of work to charge the people deciding arbitrary and capricious. If one comes to us with a request for a nineteen (19) foot variance and the other comes to us for a request for a seventeen (17) foot variance I wouldn’t be comfortable saying to the seventeen footer it is your fault you should have asked for nineteen (19) we gave the other guy a year ago. I would like to see us be consistent in our own votes.
Mr. Baroody: They submitted a plan if Walgreen just using Walgreen could be Wegmans their signs are eighteen (18) feet, theirs our twenty (20) feet and they did their demographic studies and all of that for where to put it, why is that
Mr. Darrow: We are charged with granting the least amount of variance necessary not to give them carte blanche.
Mr. Fusco: We are charged with giving the least variance, we charged with making sure whatever variance we grant is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The character of this neighborhood obviously is defined at least on two (2) of the four (4) corners by the drug store kitty-corner to this one. I am just trying to tell you the line of reasoning that I would want to use to defend this. That whole argument how we changed vendors so our Holiday Inn now has to have a forty-seven (47) foot sign well that doesn’t apply to Saratoga or Cazenovia or Skaneateles. The Holiday Inns in those communities you are going to build a Holiday Inn that is consistent with their standards don’t care who your vendor is.
Mr. Baroody: What I am saying is if Walgreen applied for five, five and five and we granted it and they apply for three, three and three or ten, ten and ten I think you are looking at apples and oranges.
Mr. Fusco: I think ten; ten and ten is a problem if you grant it.
Mr. Palumbo: May I say something?
Mr. Darrow: Are we discussing amongst ourselves or is the public still open?
Ms. Calarco: I don’t think it has been closed yet.
Mr. Westlake: I didn’t close anything as yet. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, go ahead.
Mr. Palumbo: I know you are concerned about the actual sign variance but being on the corner it is in two (2) zone districts, if it were considered a C-3 it would have no bearing at all.
Mr. Darrow: I am well aware of that you have a corner lot so you have more frontage to use your signage, but I am also concerned with lighting that corner like a Las Vegas strip. There has been a time when we seem to be very lenient in sign variances and I personally have come to see driving through the City the errors of some of my votes and I will take responsibility for of the votes and I personally feel that we need to look, I personally feel that we need to look and see what you need and what you need to get by that store within the realm of your signage package so that we can give a comprehensive sign package that is not going to detract from you or the store or more important the City.
Mr. Westlake: Let me ask this question here. We had a similar situation on Grant Avenue, we have a Walgreen on one side of the street and we have a Rite Aid on the other side of the street. Is the signage for the new Rite Aid that you are going to build in the west end any different than the signage on Grant Avenue?
Mr. Palumbo: I am not aware of that Rite Aid.
Mr. Westlake: I guess we would have to have that information to kind of make a decision that would help us out a lot.
Mr. Darrow: I would really like to compare this to the Walgreen’s package simply because my memory may be wrong I would be the first to admit it, but I only remember three (3) or four (4) variances for the Walgreen store. I remember one (1) of the big ones was the reader board which I am being to regret are the reader board because all of a sudden I saw another one pop up on Grant Avenue, I talked with Codes, the person never got a permit to put it up, it is an attention getting sign and it doesn’t belong there.
Ms. Calarco: We then it is up to us to say ok enforce the Code and it has to go bye bye. I guess my question I don’t disagree with comparing what we did in the past but the other think I am looking at is if the City is truly making changes and you are saying they are making changes or proposing changes, I want to see them. I haven’t seen any changes as far as signage is concerned other than asking for variances for anything within a commercial type lot.
Mr. Baroody: We have to use our own heads for what we believe is best for the City of Auburn.
Mr. Darrow: Absolutely we have our Senior Planner here and who better to speak about the signage plan than him?
Ms. Calarco: I want to see plan versus what has actually been adopted. I don’t care what might be proposed because proposed doesn’t mean anything until it is adopted.
Mr. Darrow: That is correct.
Mr. Selvek: What has been adopted by City Council is the new Comprehensive Plan. That new Comprehensive Plan has significant ramifications for signage within the City. There was an outcry in that plan that the signage was overboard for the City. The issue right now stands that that plan was adopted on January 21 of this year and quickly frankly I haven’t had an opportunity to come before this board and present the plan to them. I felt that it would be unfair to the applicant as well as this board to drop that in your lap this evening right before this variance. What Andy had said was with regards to let’s go on past practice that makes sense right now. With that said everything that Ed has said holds water that there is an adopted plan in place that governs the decisions that are to be made by this board.
Mr. Baroody: We don’t have a crystal ball so you are going to have to produce something.
Mr. Darrow: Let’s look at what we did for Walgreen and lets keep them in the same ballpark. That way we are using Walgreen as a guide that we are not going over board with them or perhaps less signage. Lets adjourn for one (1) month.
Mr. Palumbo: We don’t have time for that.
Mr. Westlake: You might have to have time for that. You are in the City of Auburn and that is the decision we are making tonight so whether you have time or not that is a moot point. I think you didn’t come in with a really good package for us because if you came in with a comparison since you have the same thing on Grant Avenue that you are going to have on West Genesee Street, if you had come in here tonight, with the same information saying that it is going to be the same as on Grant Avenue or we want this much more so we have something to go on. Right now we don’t have anything to go on. We have a few pictures in the back here and I can’t see what those pictures are showing. The rest of the package that you have here that you are showing me is I tired to make sense of it today I really couldn’t, there is no
picture of what the final store is going to look like.
Ms. Calarco: The package the last time was easier to comprehend.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to put forth a motion that we table this until the next meeting so that we all may review what we did for signs across the street. Is there any problem with that? Do I have a second?
Ms. Calarco: I have a question on that postponing this for one (1) more month in lieu of the fact that there is a change what does that put us in the play we are already looking at putting something in and allowing it if we did it tonight knowing that out there on paper approved are changes that we may literally be totally ignoring.
Mr. Darrow: What I am getting at is why I think we should compare to Walgreen so that we have something that is similar rather than no really worrying about what has been adopted but more concerned with what we are doing for one (1) corner to the other so that we can use that to go forward with the new sign package.
Ms. Calarco: I don’t disagree with you on that but I have a problem with saying knowing that there is an adopted policy and knowing that I am going to wait another month to over ride it.
Mr. Fusco: The general rule of law is that the Zoning Board or Planning Board should make its decisions consistent with a Comprehensive Plan. There are exceptions to that general rule however and I think a rule of reason would be one of the exceptions. If for example what results in your decision either tonight or a month from tonight, when ever you decide it is contrary to making the intent or the suggestion of the Comprehensive Plan but it is consistent with State Statute by looking at the character of the neighborhood, looking the minimum variance needed to give the applicant relief, I think in that situation the State Statute will prevail. In other words what you are doing is you are exercising reasonable discretion. You are not going to blindly turn this guy down because coincidently between the last time you saw him and today City
Council has adopted a new Comprehensive Plan. So we are not going to be arbitrary or capricious and say sorry the rules changed since you were a year ago. If you are being reasonable and saying well there is another store just like it across the street and I happen to remember that one of the things we had to with Walgreen at the other end of town try to make it consistent with the Rite Aid across the street that already existed when Walgreen came here, yes there may be different developers, different owners of buildings so in your mind as a developer you may think it is apples and oranges but we don’t because one of the arguments I recall that Walgreen made on the east side of town was we want our signage to be about what our competition has across the street. So I think that is a reasonable rationale. By the same token I can’t decide I had the same problem as the Chairman has in reading your application today, I can’t have a really good visual picture of what
your store is going to look like and if sign wise it is going to look like your competition kitty-corner from you or whether if they granted what you are asking tonight, you actually are getting a better deal. We should look at everybody fairly who comes before us and then we balance the State law with the hope of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a guide post but it doesn’t bind us or force us into a corner.
Mr. Palumbo: Rite Aid is on a very strict schedule, we have to be in the ground before April 1st or this deal is going to be done. That is why we are pushing so hard.
Mr. Darrow: Then you should have been here last month.
Mr. Palumbo: We just got our financing together.
Mr. Darrow: Your lack of proper preparedness isn’t necessarily our emergency.
Mr. Baroody: We have two (2) options, we can table this for a month so we can compare it to Walgreen or approve it on the basis of Code comparing to the variance of Walgreen and making sure that nothing is outlandish. Might take a week.
Mr. Darrow: There is also something the applicant really needs to know, we are a seven (7) member board there are five (5) people here. You have to have four (4) affirmative votes. Two (2) of us vote no for something, it is off. You can’t bring it back. You are down. So you may look at it that it is in your best interest to table it so that we have the information to feel comfortable voting on it. The vote tonight may not work out the way you want it.
Mr. Tamburrino: This diagram doesn’t look that big compared to Walgreen, the lot is long and big, I really don’t think that it would be that obnoxious.
Mr. Selvek: There is more signage proposed for this than there was for Walgreen.
Mr. Tamburrino: Is it because it is a larger lot?
Mr. Selvek: Yes, it is a larger lot.
Ms. Calarco: It is a larger building.
Mr. Selvek: It is a C-1 district there are caps regardless the size of the lot.
Ms. Calarco: So are some of the variances and more signage as requested because of the C-1 because if they were across the street they would be asking for them.
Mr. Selvek: Still a C-1 district if they were down closer to Tops they would be closer but I still don’t know for a fact that they would meet every requirement.
Mr. Tamburrino: That is an eyesore anything would be better.
Mr. Darrow: No doubt it is an eyesore.
Mr. Westlake: Mr. Darrow did bring up a point tonight there are only five (5) of us here you need four (4) affirmative votes. If two (2) of us should vote no your deal is off no matter what happens you can’t bring it back to us because it is done.
Mr. Fusco: That is not necessarily correct, you do, within sixty (60) days, have the right to bring an amended petition if you can’t get the votes. If three (3) people voted for you tonight and two (2) voted against you – you would lose tonight then the law does give you an option of going back to the drawing board and coming back to us within sixty (60) days with an amended proposal to see if you can some how get four (4) votes opposed to three (3). I have been the attorney for this board for now for three (3) years and that has never happened. So exactly what I was telling you proceeding if you don’t have four (4) votes right now would be a risk.
Ms. Calarco: I understand your need to go forward but are the signs that critical approval to actually start to put the shovel in the ground?
Mr. Palumbo: No not at all, we can’t get our building permit until we get all the approvals.
Mr. Selvek: You can pull a building permit for the building itself prior to the approval of the signs. The signs will be a separate permit if I am not mistaken. The building permit will be issued for the site work and building.
Mr. Palumbo: I didn’t realize that.
Mr. Darrow: You should request that we table until next month that will be the easiest way. We will get to review the other signage and that way next month there will be a package that we can look at.
Mr. Tamburrino: An informed decision.
Mr. Baroody: We are going to ask Code Enforcement to get the square footage of the building, square footage of the lot.
Mr. Selvek: A full comparison.
Mr. Darrow: We can get the minutes on line of the Walgreen that will have everything in it. All our minutes are on line.
Mr. Westlake: Walgreen what they asked for on Grant Avenue was the reader board sign and the extra signs their light poles.
Mr. Darrow: I am comparing it more to the Genesee Street Walgreen not the Grant Avenue Walgreen that is three (3) miles away. Compare to the Walgreen across the street on the other corner.
Ms. Calarco: He has a valid point, if we compare Rite Aid or Walgreen approval on Grant Avenue now we are looking to compare Walgreen for the Rite Aid on Genesee Street then probably should also compare what did we do for them to make it comparable what we doing for them to make it comparable.
Mr. Darrow: That is because at that time we didn’t have another comparison but now we’re looking at two (2) districts that are separated probably by three (3) miles. The Genesee Street character and the neighborhood and the district and the old time street lighting and the money put in there expanding the road and re-curbing the sidewalk that is what we need to compare, it is a totally different business district than Grant Avenue.
Mr. Baroody: We also have to make sure there is a formula there for rates and proportion, one (1) acre lot versus a twelve (12) acre lot.
Ms. Calarco: Size of building, size of lot.
Mr. Westlake: That will be your choice right now would you like to table it until next month so we can gather information and you can gather information or what would you like to do? It is your choice it is a gamble.
Mr. Palumbo: I guess my only question is you approved before why is there such a resistance now?
Mr. Darrow: I thought I made myself perfectly clear why a lot of things have changed. You have to get your iron in the fire when it is hot.
Mr. Baroody: On the other hand we want to be progressive and assist in developing the City.
Ms. Calarco: I live down there I want to see you go forward because I don’t like what is there I can’t stand it. Lets do it the best way we can if we can make it so that you can go forward get your shovels in the ground and get started and the signage could hold off a month so that everybody feels comfortable about the decision they are making I don’t think that is an unfair compromise.
Mr. Darrow: I agree with Ms. Calarco. Every time I drive by there and see that boarded up gas station and the disrepair that corner has become it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I do want to see something in there I really do.
Mr. Westlake: Another thing, you are not going to wait a whole month because we will have another meeting at the end of this month. Normally we meet the last Monday of the month some thing happened this month where they asked us to go March 1st. We will be meeting in March it will be the last Monday in March – March 29th. I am not against it. You can get your building permit but I am going to say right now you might not get all the signs that you say you want ok. If we compare apples to apples we may give you some you may get it all we don’t yet.
Mr. Palumbo: We just want what Walgreen’s has we are not asking for anything more.
Mr. Westlake: We all want to see something, I don’t want to hurt Mike’s feelings he is here now but we all want to see something than what is there now. It is up to you, do you want to table?
Mr. Palumbo: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion to table?
Mr. Baroody: I make a motion that we table until March 29th meeting per the owner’s request.
Mr. Darrow: I’ll second that.
VOTING TO TABLE: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Tabled to the March 29th meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
| 
