ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MAY 24, 2010
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake
Members Absent: Ms. Calarco
Staff Present: Mr. Rossi, Mr. Selvek and Mr. Hicks
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 102 Tyler Drive, 22 Densmore Avenue, 135 Osborne Street
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: 102 Tyler Drive, 22 Densmore Avenue, 135 Osborne Street.
If there are no errors, omissions or additions to last month’s minutes of the meeting, the minutes will stand as written. All in favor.
_______________________________________________________
102 Tyler Drive. R1 zoning district. Area variance to install shed. Applicant: Angelo Falcone.
Mr. Westlake: 102 Tyler Drive are you here. Please come to the podium state your name and tell us what you want to do.
Mr. Falcone: My name is Angelo Falcone, I live at 102 Tyler Drive and I want to put up a shed 12 x 16.
Mr. Westlake: I see we have a letter here from your neighbor saying she doesn’t mind. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: This is replacing your old shed with this new one?
Mr. Falcone: Yes they are taking my old shed away.
Mr. Tamburrino: OK.
Mr. Westlake: Any other questions from the board? Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will discuss amongst ourselves and let you know in a few minutes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Darrow: I personally think this is just another instance of 150 square foot shed being out of date when you consider what people have these days and we also looked at his plot plan meets the other setbacks, so simply the size.
Mr. Westlake: Sure. Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Angelo Falcon of 102 Tyler Drive a 42 square foot area variance for the purpose of erecting and placing a 12 x 16 foot shed as submitted in plot plan.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved good luck with your project.
Mr. Falcone: Thank you.
_______________________________________________________
22 Densmore Avenue. R1 zoning district. Area variance to erect front porch. Applicants: Robert and Ann Sloan.
Mr. Westlake: 22 Densmore Avenue please come to the podium and speak into the microphone, tell us your name and what you would like to do.
Mr. Sloan: Hi I am Bob Sloan from 22 Densmore Avenue. I put an application in to go with a variance for a front yard variance from the street setback for tearing down a small porch vestibule and replacing with a full porch on the front of the house. We did an addition over the last 2 years a big garage project and it increased the value of the house quite a bit and with that I found that the old part of the house doesn’t look quite right and I would like to up date it to make more like the new addition and I included some pictures of some of the neighbors across the street that have full porches on their homes. The whole vestibule is kind of dated and with a Cape Cod look and the new addition it doesn’t look as well as it could be and with the new front porch I think it would make the house look that much more
better. The existing porch that is there now I think it was built in probably 1948 or so and it is inside that zone which needs a variance the house itself sits right on the line I think it is 49.75 from the center of the street plus 25 feet from that and that brings us right up to the end of the house. So even if I was to put a 1 foot wide porch there it would need a variance because the house is right on that line. I would like to tear down what is there a 6 x 6 foot porch and put up a 26 x 8 foot open front porch.
Mr. Westlake: Sounds good. Any questions from the board?
Ms. Marteney: Your addition is lovely.
Mr. Sloan: It came out great I had a little help from Brian too on some of things it needs to like I said the rest of the house look small the garage will help balance things out.
Mr. Darrow: I have a question for Corporation Counsel. Is it within our power to give a variance when it goes towards the City’s right of way? Because in the past I remember a couple came up years back and we were told we weren’t allowed because it was a City right of way something that had to go before Council.
Mr. Rossi: I don’t see this impeding the City’s right of way at all. If it were closer and you didn’t have there is a sidewalk there?
Mr. Sloan: There is a curb cut on that section of the street there is only one sidewalk on the beginning of Densmore on the other block and then there are 3 parts that don’t have sidewalks yet, I am assuming that is why the City has such a big setback anyway in case they were to put a sidewalk there.
Mr. Rossi: It is sort of a standard right of way even though the street is smaller and even if you were to put a sidewalk in I think you have plenty of room without impeding the right of way or traffic.
Mr. Sloan: Thank you.
Mr. Hicks: It is 24.75 from the center of the road to the edge of the City right of way 25 foot setback is just a zoning requirement from standard front yard. He will not be encroaching the City’s right of way.
Mr. Sloan: Thank you Brian.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board? ? Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will discuss amongst ourselves and let you know in a few minutes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Westlake: He has a beautiful house.
Mr. Darrow: When you consider the scope of it and currently there is a 6 x 6 he is looking to gain 2 more feet which a porch 24 x 6 you haven’t got room if you are sitting to go around somebody. Only makes sense 8 foot is not outlandish.
Mr. Tamburrino: You look at the rest of the houses on the street his house is forward towards the street I don’t think it is an issue.
Ms. Marteney: Current porch is way too small for the house.
Mr. Tamburrino: He is investing in the neighborhood that is a good thing.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I can but I need the width again I know it is 8 x something.
Mr. Hicks: 8 x 26.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Robert and Ann Sloan of 22 Densmore Avenue a 8 foot front yard area variance setback for the purpose of erecting an 8 foot by 26 foot wide front porch not to be enclosed.
Mr. Tamburrino: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved good luck with your project.
Mr. Sloan: Thank you very much.
____________________________________________________________
135 Osborne Street. R1A zoning district. Area and use variances to add a second apartment. Applicants: Sherri and Joseph Salemi.
Mr. Westlake: 135 Osborne Street please come to the podium speak right into the microphone and tell us your name and what you would like to do.
Ms. Salemi: My name is Sherri Salemi and we would like to re-establish our two (2) unit for 135 Osborne Street.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: My question is, when you purchased the property, did you realize that this was a single-family dwelling?
Ms. Salemi: No, it was a double dwelling.
Mr. Tamburrino: That was the status of the dwelling?
Ms. Salemi: Yes, it has been since 1976 and the Assessor could go back possibly farther than that.
Mr. Westlake: How long was it vacant, do you know?
Ms. Salemi: It needed a lot of work when we bought it we have nice properties and we wanted it to be really nice. All the neighbors are telling us how good it looks and how much they appreciate us cleaning it up.
Mr. Salemi: Only one (1) apartment is vacant the other apartment was renovated quickly and as soon as we rented that out then we started renovating the upstairs that took longer to do as at the same time we were renovating the outside of the house so it took a long time.
Mr. Darrow: How long would you say it took you to renovate the second apartment?
Ms. Salemi: Three (3) years. That is with working outside painting the house and we had a wet basement it is now a dry basement.
Mr. Bartolotta: Is this a use or area variance?
Mr. Rossi: Both.
Mr. Salemi: In December we put in a second driveway in front because there was just one long driveway thought it would be nice to have another driveway for the other people on the other side.
Mr. Tamburrino: You took three (3) years renovating the upstairs did you realize at that time that this had reverted back to a single-family dwelling?
Mr. Salemi: We had no idea,
Ms. Salemi: We didn’t get a letter until the end of 2009 that we had a problem. We didn’t realize that there was a problem with anybody that it was taking so long, we had electrical inspections
Mr. Westlake: Didn’t you have to get permits.
Mr. Hicks: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: If they pulled permits were they told at that time that it would revert back to a single-family dwelling?
Mr. Hicks: Not at that time no. What happened is we had permits that lapsed over the three (3) year period and the fact that the apartment was vacant at that time that is what started the clock ticking.
Mr. Westlake: Every month we seem to be giving, giving it seems it is a Zoning Board of Appeals problem.
Mr. Tamburrino: When you look at this it is a two family and has been a two family forever there is a driveway with a side entrance and then there is a front entrance. So it is the same thing that has happened again. It is like a lack of communication or something people don’t realize what is going on.
Mr. Baroody: And in the mean time you are putting money in and equity.
Ms. Salemi: $17,000.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t understand even if it took them a year and we know that after six (6) months of not being occupied it reverts back but still as long as a permit was pulled and they went through the proper channeling it seems they wanted to do a nice job or if they are doing it themselves and they can only work on it on weekends or something they should be given more than the six (6) months if they are literally working on it. I mean if they are not doing anything then the house is just failing in disrepair that is a complete different story but this obviously is not the case.
Mr. Rossi: On a similar level recently we have had two (2) family homes revert back because of the vacancy situation. What we have found in a couple of these circumstances is that the property was in a foreclosure the bank foreclosed and I don’t know if you are familiar with the length of time it takes a lender to complete a foreclosure they will start the proceeding and it might go for a year or so and I spoke to Brian about it and what we are attempting to do is to give waivers under circumstances where it is beyond someone’s control. Here is it not the same thing but I guess economically they had some issues and that is what the board should consider.
Mr. Darrow: I guess the way I look at it perhaps this is wrong but they are working on it and if it was a single family dwelling and they pulled the permit there would be no clock ticking for them to do the work but because it is a two (2) family dwelling and it is grandfathered in the clock ticks on them doing the work and not being and not having adapted themselves to the Zoning Laws and requirements like that and not being advised of it I hate to say that ignorance of the law is an excuse but in some cases if you are not told what kind of person would know you have six (6) months or it is going to revert back unless they are told by somebody.
Mr. Westlake: This is a little different situation too than what we are use to because they did purchase it as a two (2) family it was two (2) family and it is just the matter that they took their time they went for the proper permits it was a two (2) family at the time so this is a little different than what we are use to.
Mr. Darrow: They are not trying to slip something by us.
Mr. Bartolotta: Did the permits lapse is that why they find themselves here? How long Brian?
Mr. Hicks: I don’t have that in front of me but I think there were two (2) lapses during the course of three (3) years.
Ms. Salemi: I don’t want to make any excuses but I was getting cancer treatment last year and he was being pulled in a lot of directions, we have other properties that we have to take care of in case something breaks where someone lives it has to be a priority.
Mr. Westlake: We understand that and we look at each case individually and that is the way we are going to look at this one as an individual. I would be in favor to go ahead with this.
Mr. Darrow: There is more than enough information to satisfy me.
Mr. Tamburrino: We SEQRA so we have to make a motion on the SEQRA before we move on.
Mr. Bartolotta: I have one more question is there a section in the Code at all if the structure was completed and advertised for rent but just not occupied because the market did not have a demand at that time?
Mr. Rossi: I don’t think there is but there is something that we have been discussing because it comes it, as you know. It has come up on other instances which have not come before the board and the Code is undergoing a revision now I don’t know when it is going to be enacted but that is certainly a consideration that we should look at because it is a tough requirement and to say that someone knows ignorance of the law you can’t plea that by the same token. You have a long-standing two (2) family home and for some reason the unit is not rented six (6) months is an awfully short period. I know the Codes Office does their best but they can’t track everything either.
Mr. Baroody: We have to use common sense.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? Seeing none we will discuss this amongst ourselves and we will get back to you. Thank you.
Mr. Sloan: Thank you.
Mr. Selvek: Mr. Chairman for the process sake I will go through the SEQRA. The staff recommendation is for a Negative Declaration but I would like to for due diligence and have the board look at Part II Letter C, which looks at each of the potential adverse impacts.
With regard to C-1 – staff has indicated that there are not any outdoor construction plans that would effect water quality, erosion, drainage or create flooding problems.
C-2 – which refers to aesthetic, cultural resources or community character – staff noted that 135 Osborne Street is located in a single-family neighborhood. Residents should expect that it will remain a single-family or move toward relatively lower density.
C-3 – this site is a developed site in an urban setting. It is reasonable to assume that there is no significant vegetation or wildlife.
C-4 – refers to the community’s existing plans – the Comprehensive Plan does raise concerns with increasing the density of the City’s single-family neighborhoods. However this home is configured as a two (2) family unit and is not looking to add additional units.
C-6 – Staff did know that granting this variance may set future expectations regarding residential conversions.
Finally under C-7 – other impacts – it is important to note that the proposal does require an area variance as well as the lot size than the lot size required for a two (2) dwelling unit.
Again with that said it doesn’t appear that any of these impacts are significant and staff recommendation is for a Negative Declaration. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer those.
Mr. Tamburrino: I would like to make a motion to grant a Negative Declaration.
Mr. Darrow: I second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Now we have two (2) variances; one is for the use variance and one is for a variance. I don’t care which goes first or you could do both together.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant an area variance to Sherri and Joseph Salemi for property located at 135 Osborne Street for a area variance of 3,477 square feet of the 8,000 square foot that is required for the purpose of a two (2) family dwelling at said address.
Mr. Baroody: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant a use variance to Sherri and Joseph Salemi for property located at 135 Osborne Street for the purpose of a two (2) family dwelling in a R-1A zone.
Mr. Baroody: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved good luck with your project.
Mr. Salemi: Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: You are doing a fine job.
____________________________________________________________
Other Matters:
Mr. Selvek: If I may take just a moment first off I would like to introduce Renee Jensen who is the new Senior Planner with our office. Renee will be taking over the SEQRA responsibility for the Zoning Board as I have been promoted to Crystal Purcell’s old job so I will be transiting with her over the next few meetings.
The other note that I would like to quickly make is with regards to the shed size and the comments that Mr. Darrow made with regards to the old that come before the board and the number of times I guess one of the things that I would keep in mind is looking at the over all lot size and what can be allowed so. We can do as small a lot as 60 feet wide by 90 feet deep and so 150 square feet on a allowable City lot is quite a bit. When you look at tonight’s where this is a double lot 130 wide by 98 or deeper than that so in that particular case it makes a lot of sense but we try to go through and keep those numbers in proportion to what would be the allowable. We upped those and now we have 200 – 300 square foot sheds that are going onto postage stamp
Mr. Darrow: It should be a percentage of the lot.
Mr. Tamburrino: Ratio variance is what you are talking about.
Mr. Selvek: That is what we should look at as we are going through the Code revision how do we better adjust that. A 15-foot by 10 foot shed
Mr. Darrow: This was 12 x 16 foot common size is 10 x 16.
Mr. Selvek: Those are the kind of things to keep in mind although those that come before the board time and time again our concern is that what happens when you have your 60 foot wide lot and suddenly we have a 24 x 24 foot shed.
Mr. Darrow: Could we address that if you have the minimum lot size so the minimum shed is 150 now you have a lot size of an acre and a quarter now you are allowed 150 plus a percentage.
Mr. Selvek: I think that makes a lot of sense and that is a good idea. Thank you all so much and you will be seeing me around for a couple more months.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm.
| 
