ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, and Mr. Westlake
Members Absent: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, and Mr. Bartolotta
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Selvek and Mr. LaDouce
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 1 Delevan Street, 112 Standart Avenue
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, this is a 7 member board and tonight we only have 4 members, the other 3 called and are not available tonight. They have a good excuse for not being here tonight. If any of the remaining 4 should vote no on your application you will not be able to bring it back to this board unless you have significant change in your proposal. If you would like to table until next month when we will have a full board, you may do so or you may continue tonight. Want you to know all your options before you go forward.
Both applicants said they would go forward.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: 1 Delevan Street, 112 Standart 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.
____________________________________________________________
1 Delevan Street. C1 zoning district. Use and area variances for conversion of a single-family to a two-unit dwelling. Applicant. Jonathan Cramer.
Mr. Westlake: First item is 1 Delevan Street. Would you come to the podium, state your name and tell us what you would like to do there?
Mr. Cramer: My name is Jonathan Cramer. I have some information to pass to the board. 1 Delevan Street use to be a 2 family house but the prior owner the water got shut off there the City of Auburn condemned it and it was condemned for over 6 months so it went back into a single family status. It has been a 2 family, it has separate furnaces, separate hot water meters, separate electrical panels everything there is separate. It doesn’t have a huge backyard in kind of a commercial area it is actually zoned C-1, U-Haul is directly across the street from it and it borders other commercial properties.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: Mr. Cramer when you bought the property did you realize it was condemned and its status was reverted back to a single family?
Mr. Cramer: I went the Code Enforcement to get the CO and I have a receipt, when officer came to do the CO inspection on March 15th he said there is a problem with it you have to come before this board and I thought it would be ok for 2 units that was before my application was here.
Mr. Tamburrino: This is for a 2 unit at 1 Delevan Street.
Mr. Westlake: This is from the City?
Mr. Cramer: Yes and I still have the $100 refund coming back and hopefully we can work this out tonight.
Ms. Marteney: It was listed as a 2 family?
Mr. Cramer: All the documentation on it said it was a 2 family.
Mr. Fusco: I see you have a number of comments from people who live around the area in favor of this, did anyone say they disfavored it?
Mr. Cramer: No.
Mr. Tamburrino: You have 1 from Delevan Street the rest are from Genesee Street and Sherwood. How about the rest of Delevan Street?
Mr. Cramer: The people I talked to around there or people that drove by and asked what was going on I didn’t go door to door knocking or anything like that.
Mr. Westlake: How many parking spaces do you have there?
Mr. Cramer: To the right of the property without stacking them you can pull 2 cars in.
Mr. Westlake: Side by side you can put 2 cars in there?
Mr. Cramer: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: I am bit confused of why he got a CO and now he doesn’t have a CO. I am questioning the Code Enforcement office.
Mr. Fusco: From a legal standpoint the first CO may have been issued erroneously because the person issuing it wasn’t aware that the 6 months had run doesn’t give him a vested right as a matter of law. Certainly a factor he considered he relied on but it doesn’t give him an automatic vested right to have a 2 family. Would appear that whoever issued the first CO
Mr. LaDouce: The first CO is gone.
Mr. Cramer: I applied for a CO and I paid for a 2 unit
Mr. Westlake: Oh you applied for it. I misunderstood, I thought you had a CO, you applied for a CO.
Mr. Cramer: The Code Enforcement Officer came to the property and to go over the work and walk through he walked through and said ok it is a decent place, it is not a 2 unit you have to go before the Zoning Board to get it back 6 month period.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, any more questions from the board?
Mr. Fusco: Does anyone know when it was converted?
Mr. LaDouce: It was pre-existing.
Ms. Marteney: It shows on the tax map that it is a 2 family.
Mr. Cramer: There are people around there that I talked to said they lived in their house for I think one was 42 years or 35 years or something and as long as they have lived there it was always a 2 family.
Ms. Calarco: What was the date it was condemned?
Mr. Cramer: March 18, 2009 for non-payment of water so when I first applied for the CO just shy of 1 year.
Ms. Calarco: After 6 months it has to go back into a single family.
Mr. Westlake: Which we know is difficult today just to make a Purchase Offer on house run it through lawyers and real estate it is really not enough time but that is the law.
Ms. Calarco: What I am looking at was when did he put the Purchase Offer in I see he bought it on the 12th of March which means it was just a couple days shy of a year. It was already past the 6 months commended date.
Mr. Tamburrino: Right. It was condemned 6 months after March
Mr. Westlake: I understand what you are saying, what you are saying is exactly right 6 months is the law I just don’t feel that today with the way real estate works 6 months is enough but we have to go by the law.
Mr. Tamburrino: The problem for me is you get a buyer for a property why don’t you know that it is condemned?
Mr. LaDouce: It is posted.
Mr. Tamburrino: Where is it posted?
Mr. LaDouce: Usually posted right on the door if not most realtors will call the Assessor’s Office or our office and check the status.
Mr. Tamburrino: You worked with a realtor and the realtor didn’t tell you?
Mr. Cramer: When I bought the place I was aware it was condemned but by looking at it I couldn’t see how it could be a single family it was a 2 family and still could be a 2 family.
Mr. Tamburrino: Where you aware that it reverted back to a single family?
Mr. Cramer: No I paid my $100, $50 per unit
Mr. Tamburrino: Your realtor didn’t tell you
Mr. Cramer: No.
Mr. Tamburrino: Ok.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? If you would sit down Mr. Cramer. If you would come to the podium and state your name and tell us your opinion.
Ms. Quimby: My name is Christina Quimby I live at 5 Delevan Street, which is on one side of a unit. I have been living there for 2 years and the building being condemned and my living next-door people break in and I have little children, a 4 and 2 year old that want to go outside. I use to have to pick up glass, had problems with people being in there smashing basically kicking in the door in which happened to be the one on my side. Basically I don’t have a problem with him making it a 2 family home because when I first moved into 5 Delevan there was a couple that lived upstairs on my side and there never was any problem but they ending up buying their own home and moving out. I don’t have a problem with him making it a 2 family unit something is being done with the building. It doesn’t bother me with people coming in and
out of that house no problem with privacy.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application?
Mr. Taylor: My name Norman J. Taylor 3rd, I live at 5 Delevan Street having been there for 2 years. I am definitely for it. He has done a lot of work on it, cleaned the leaves and the yard making it look clean, it makes our street look a lot better and safer for our area.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against?
Ms. Bianco: My name is Patricia Bianco I leave on 9 Sherwood Street; I am a homeowner there. I walk around the block with my dogs and over the last 2 years that place looked like nothing but a pig hole. The garbage was thrown all over the back yard. I would not be too proud to have that so close to Genesee Street with Ricky’s right there too. I noticed that the place was getting cleaned up and I saw him outside and spoke to him and found out that he had purchased it. I am amazed at the amount of work that he has done on that place by cleaning up, painting the railing and I and a neighbor of mine Chris Morabito we try to keep our neighbor clean, respectable, we all get along fine over there. When a house gets run down it brings down the whole neighborhood. We all are trying to keep the neighborhood clean and we are glad to see what he
has done, he really impressed me on how much cleaning he has done over there and I don’t see a problem with it being a 2 family home. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much I appreciate it. Any one else wishing to speak for or against? Seeing none will discuss it amongst ourselves.
Mr. Tamburrino: I owned a home on Delevan Street years ago and that street is distressed. My wife said that house was a 2 family for years. Sounds like this gentleman here is actually improving unfortunately we are back in the same situation condemned 6 months now it is back so I am thinking what is the alternative either get a guy who fixes it as a 2 family and makes it decent for the neighbor or goes back to break-ins and a place for drugs and everything else.
Ms. Marteney: And it appears that it has 2 of everything.
Mr. Tamburrino: Yes. I see this as a win for the neighborhood.
Ms. Calarco: The only concern and I do see it as a win for the neighborhood but I do see it as a concern because every time we turn around we have someone else coming to us saying well I didn’t know when I bought it and now I am being told it is, we need to fix something then.
Mr. Westlake: I think I need to approach the Mayor or write him a letter or talk to him about you do need more time today in today’s economy the way it goes through real estate to take the time between lawyers and real estate, getting a loan, securing a loan and other stuff it takes over 6 months. Maybe counsel can talk to him.
Mr. Tamburrino: Also need communication this gentleman here didn’t even know. The information is not communicated.
Mr. Westlake: It is there that is actually on him to find that out, but I feel that it would be very good to let this go through. Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Fusco: Before a motion this is a use variance requires a SEQRA so I will refer to Steve.
Mr. Westlake: Ok.
Mr. Selvek: Right now I am passing out a copy of the short form EAF with answers drafted to Part II. In reviewing I direct your attention to Part II letter “C” that talks specifically about adverse effects associated with the following issues.
C-1 refers primarily to physical environment issues including ground water quality and lake levels, traffic patterns and things of such. I noted there that the proposed 2 family home would utilize the existing building and site and not require significant new construction. He does mention in his application repairing roof, some windows and things of that nature but nothing that would be significant. The traffic and required parking for a 2 family home would be slightly greater than that of a singe family residence and this would also cause additional on street parking. As noted in the application and reviewed by Codes, Codes thought there was ample room for 1 parking space off street we typically require a minimum of 10 feet per parking space so they would be seeking a variance for 1 parking space as well. They probably could fit 2 cars or
more in that area but based on our minimum requirements they would require 1 off street parking variance.
C-2 with regards to aesthetic, historic or neighborhood character this particular parcel is on the border of C-1 and R-2 district. A 2 family home is not out of character with the R-2 district. Unlike some of the use variances that come before this board that are often seen in R-1 residential zones this is within a Commercial Zone, I am not sure specifically as to why multi-family were excluded from a C-1 zone but in any case they have been.
With regard to C-3 vegetation, fish, significant habitats, threatened or endangered species gain this is a developed site in an urban setting. It is highly unlikely that any of those exist at the site.
C-4 the community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted this notes what I said earlier that the City of Auburn Code does not permit multi-family homes in C-1 district.
Any finally there is a note under C-6 that points out in terms of cumulative or other effects not identified there is the additional requirement of 3 area variances for usable open space, the small lot size and the need for 1 additional off street parking. With that said, I will answer any questions that the board may have specific to SEQRA. Staff recommendation is for a Negative Declaration, as I do not believe any of these are significant.
Mr. Tamburrino: I would like to make a motion that we declare a Negative Declaration for the Short Environmental Assessment Form.
Ms. Calarco: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, and Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Negative Declaration has been approved. Now do I hear a motion for the
Mr. Fusco: The motion can do all in one, 1 use variance and 3 area variances which are itemized out in Steve’s presentation again small lot, lack of open space, and lack 1 parking spot plus the use variance from a single family to a 2 family.
Mr. Tamburrino: I would like to make a motion to grant Jonathan Cramer of 13 James Street, Auburn, New York, the following variances:
- Area variance of 5,980 square feet of the required 8,000 square feet in lot size 305-39.1(C)(3)(a).
- Area variance of 400 square feet of the required 400 square feet of usable open recreational space 305-78 (chart).
- Area variance of 1 parking space of the required 2 parking spaces 305-39.1(C)(5) on attached application.
- Use variance to convert a 1 family structure to a 2 family structure in a C-1 zone.
Ms. Calarco: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, and Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved good luck with your project. Thank you to everybody who came to speak up for him I appreciate that, thank you. It helps us to consider when we get positive input from the neighborhood it helps us too. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cramer: Thank you.
Mr. Calarco: I really like to reiterate that we do again need to do something with the City to stop this from continuing to happen. Every other month we have this issue coming up.
Mr. Westlake: I agree.
Mr. Fusco: I will talk to both the Mayor and the Manager. When are properties are vacant for a long period of time it is hard to bring them back.
Ms. Calarco: I am not so sure that I want the 6 months to be stopped it is that I want it to be known as a matter of fact when you are signing up this purchase of a condemned property if it has been condemned for 6 months and converts back to a single family, don’t come back to us 6 months later and say oh I didn’t know. Some where along the line we have to find a way of educating the real estate market or whoever to tell these people yes you are buying this, but don’t think you can necessarily put it back without a zoning permit.
Mr. Westlake: Let’s discuss this after the meeting. We have another application.
____________________________________________________________
112 Standart Avenue. R1 zoning district. Area variances for placement of second shed. Applicant. Thomas Diego.
Mr. Westlake: 112 Standart Avenue, Thomas Diego. Tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Diego: Tom Diego, 112 Standart Avenue. I am seeking a variance of 3 ½ feet I have 2 sheds on my property, 1 is 6 ½ feet from the house and that needs to be 10 foot so I need a 3 ½ foot variance and I also have 2 sheds and am only suppose to have 1.
Mr. Westlake: They have been there right along when you bought the house.
Mr. Diego: Right.
Mr. Tamburrino: How long have you had the house?
Mr. Diego: Ten years. I had 1 shed when I first moved in and then I put another one out about 3 years ago.
Mr. Fusco: Without a permit?
Mr. Diego: I didn’t know I needed one.
Ms. Calarco: What is the distance how much space between the shed and the house?
Mr. Diego: I had an addition put on the house and the shed is 6 ½ feet from the house.
Ms. Calarco: Looks like by this draft that we have that the addition is the shed and it is attached to the house looks more like a 1 story addition not a shed.
Mr. Tamburrino: Proposed one story addition has that been built yet?
Mr. Westlake: The proposed is done.
Mr. Diego: Yes.
Mr. Tamburrino: That is complete?
Mr. Diego: Yes.
Mr. Tamburrino: That is why you are here you are having difficulty you built this up and then all of a sudden now you are too close.
Mr. Diego: They said too close.
Mr. Westlake: How long has the addition been on there?
Mr. Diego: Finished in October.
Mr. Westlake: Did you have a permit for the addition?
Mr. Diego: Yes. Final inspection by Mr. Hicks a couple weeks ago. He is the one that told me that I had 2 sheds and 1 was too close.
Mr. Westlake: Wonder why it took so long to get here. I know you are in a tough spot (to Mr. LaDouce) as Mr. Hicks isn’t here.
Mr. LaDouce: That was existing.
Mr. Diego: They were both there and then we put the addition on and it says 10 foot from the house.
Mr. Westlake: Any other questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: Both are on poured concrete pads?
Mr. Diego: The one next to the house is on concrete.
Mr. Tamburrino: And shed #2 is on a skid?
Mr. Diego: Yes it is in the back away from the house in the back, I have a double lot.
Mr. Tamburrino: You can’t move #1 easily.
Mr. Diego: No that is the one close to the house.
Mr. Tamburrino: I hate to ask this were architectural plans submitted for your addition?
Mr. LaDouce: Yes.
Mr. Tamburrino: I am surprised that the plans
Mr. LaDouce: When the plans were submitted if the shed was there.
Mr. Tamburrino: The shed may not have been included in the architectural plans.
Mr. LaDouce: I don’t know.
Mr. Fusco: Probably because you can see the shed was hand drawn when Code got the plans the shed may not have been on there.
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 it amongst ourselves.
Mr. Tamburrino: He is not asking for a huge variance.
Mr. Westlake: His house is neat he fixed it up since he bought it.
Ms. Calarco: It is a big lot.
Mr. Westlake: Big lot, not asking for anything more just get permission to leave the 2 that he has there.
Mr. Tamburrino: I would like to make a motion that we grant Thomas Diego of 112 Standart Avenue 3 variances:
- Placement of a second shed on the property (one allowed) 305-24(D)(3).
- Area variance of 25 square feet in excess of the allowed 150 square feet (total 175 square feet) 305-24(D)(3).
- Area variance of 3 ½ feet for placement from the house (supposed to be 10 feet away, on 6 ½ feet) 305-82(J)(1)(c) as per application.
Ms. Marteney: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, and Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Application has been approved. From here on anything in the City of Auburn needs a permit it would be easier to tell you what doesn’t need a permit, I am not agreeing with it, so if you do something again you should check with Codes before, you put it on us to approve it we did it for you tonight.
Mr. Diego: Not my forte the contractor comes up puts the pad in there suppose to be 10 feet he puts it in at 6 ½ feet. Thank you I appreciate it.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you.
| 
