ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2010
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco (came in during first application) Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Selvek and Mr. Hicks
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 143 Cottage Street
APPLICATION DENIED: 106-110 Clark Street
APPLICATIONS TABLED: 71 Holley Street, 72-74 Garrow Street
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following item: 71 Holley Street, 143 Cottage Street, 72-74 Garrow Street, 106-110 Clark Street.
If there are no errors, omissions or additions to last month’s minutes of the meeting, the minutes will stand as written.
Thank you.
____________________________________________________________
71 Holley Street. R1A zoning district. Area variance for handicapped ramp. Applicant: Doris Brown
Mr. Westlake: 71 Holley Street, please come to the podium. Is 71 Holley Street here? We will hold to the end of the meeting to see if anyone is here for this item.
No one appeared for this item, tabled until next month’s meeting.
____________________________________________________________
143 Cottage Street. R1 zoning district. Area variance for attached garage. Applicant: Richard Gray.
Mr. Westlake: 143 Cottage Street, please come to the podium state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Gray: My name is Richard Gray and I would like to add a garage on the side of 143 Cottage Street a home that I purchased in May of this year. My mother lives there and I live in Charlotte, North Carolina and I am here during the summers.
Mr. Westlake: Questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: You want to connect the garage to the house correct?
Mr. Gray: That is correct. I am hoping to make a two car garage I guess additions and property lines require a significant amount of total footage on each side of the house but there is limited footage at this point and it is a pretty significant impact on the variance as originally stated.
Mr. Westlake: There was one thing I didn’t understand about your packet here were the pictures, you have them numbered but it is meaningless to me.
Mr. Gray: I referenced the picture numbers in my list you should have a copy of it that was responding the questions that are in the variance request but I found it easier to computerize my responses and I referenced in those responses the picture numbers.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Chair, I have a question for Brian. There is a total of 14 foot in area variance how is it broken down is it all one side because it says a total variance of 14 foot.
Mr. Hicks: It states in the dimensional chart that 17 foot cumulative is required and in the proposed drawing 3 feet will be left.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, I follow you now.
Mr. Westlake: Any other questions from the board? Looks like the neighbors at 141 and 140 Cottage Street are in favor of it. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will discuss it amongst ourselves and give you a decision in a few minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Gray: Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant Richard Gray of 17123 Hedgerow Park Road, Charlotte, North Carolina for the property 143 Cottage Street an area variance of 14 cumulative feet to erect an attached garage on the east side of the home as submitted on the plan.
Mr. Darrow: I will second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
ABSTAINING: Ms. Calarco (came in middle of presentation)
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Gray: Thank you.
___________________________________________________________
72-74 Garrow Street. R1 zoning district. Area variance for non-conforming lot. Applicant: David Brooks
Mr. Westlake: 72-74 Garrow Street, please come to the podium state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Brooks: My name is David Brooks I am a local contractor here in the Auburn area and I am here in reference to building 2 ranch homes approximately 1100 square feet on the properties at 72-74 Garrow Street. The existing Code you must have 60 feet wide by 100 and at this time my properties are 57.5 feet wide so I am asking for a variance of 2.5 feet on each property. Again at the present time I dug the foundations and in the process of going forward was given a Stop Work Order so that this could be reviewed for a variance to build.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, thank you. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: Pretty cut and dried the paperwork is in here.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will discuss it amongst ourselves and let you know very shortly.
Mr. Brooks: Thank you.
Mr. Fusco: I realize there is an inclination to want to help this fellow has everybody had an opportunity to read. Approval of this prior to the completion of the SEQRA process is froth with risk.
Mr. Darrow: Could be contingent upon that.
Mr. Fusco: Well certainly making the variance contingent upon the subdivision approval is a good idea in fact it is a great idea but the problem you have is if you try to condition something upon SEQRA there is no real SEQRA approval
Mr. Darrow: Negative Declaration?
Mr. Fusco: Well a Negative Declaration could be Conditional Declaration there could be a Positive Declaration and the project still goes forward.
Mr. Darrow: Leave the SEQRA review out of it then?
Mr. Fusco: Well you can’t do that, that would be nice.
Mr. Darrow: You have to help me out here.
Mr. Fusco: It would be nice to be able to do that but the right thing to do I didn’t realize this fellow had already done the foundation the situation were he appeared he genuinely believed he bought 2 lots, I did the title work and found it was only 1, did the title search for the City, not for him he was represented by a different attorney at the closing. Really the right thing to do here is to table until the Planning Board if you wish the Planning Board to be the lead agency, the right thing to do is to table this until the Planning Board has completed the environmental review.
Mr. Darrow: I have an idea
Mr. Bartolotta: It is like putting the cart before the horse if we issue a variance before the subdivision is issued.
Mr. Baroody: What he is saying is the Planning Board should have had this first and then you would come to us for the variance, that is what he is saying. If you table it, it is ok you can come back.
Mr. Selvek: It will come before the Planning Board this coming meeting.
Mr. Fusco: On the record that we do not object to the Planning Board being lead agency.
Mr. Selvek: There are 2 things because this is not a Type I action we could proceed with an uncoordinated review, have them do a review and Planning Board do a review as well on those merits. I know it is not the preferred method.
Mr. Darrow: How about I make a motion that we make Planning Board lead agency for SEQRA review on this.
Mr. Baroody: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: All in favor to have Planning Board as lead agency on this item.
Mr. Darrow: I also would like to make a motion that we table this until we know the outcome of the Planning Review process.
Mr. Tamburrino: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: This item has been tabled until after the Planning Board has their meeting.
Mr. Darrow: Next month we should have it back on the agenda.
Mr. Brooks: Thank you.
____________________________________________________________
106-110 Clark Street. C zoning district. Area variance for conversion. Applicant: John Juhl.
Mr. Westlake: Next item is 106-110 Clark Street. Please come to the podium state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Juhl: Good evening, my name is William Juhl, I live at 14 Nelson Street I am here on behalf of my brother John Juhl regarding property on Clark Street. Our intentions are to convert the upper 2 apartments, which are now gutted into one apartment. This project was started 5 years ago, was put on hold because of a parking issue and after several discussions with Mr. Hicks we think we have come to a resolution and we request a variance to build 4 parking spaces in the front of the house including a curb cut and we request a variance for 2. The conversion makes the apartment house a 3 unit so we would need 6 parking spaces. If you have any questions we will be happy to answer them.
Mr. Westlake: Where will the 6 be?
Mr. Juhl: I have here a drawing basically there is for the record and I understand we are not allowed to use public parking spaces but there are 12 public parking spaces available across the street. I brought several pictures showing or other front yard parking situations that are in the City. We have one side basically already with a driveway and I believe at one time before they replaced the curb this use to be a driveway here and you would pull straight in and there were 3 parking spaces. The Code allows for what they call parallel parking you pull straight into the driveway and then you pull off next to the parking space of the driveway. So we would like to do 2 on each side. There is an existing one on this side (points to drawing board) we would make a curb cut here and do the same thing on the opposite side. It would still leave 24
feet of grass in the middle to provide a more curb appeal. But I would like you to take into consideration where it is located. It is in a commercial zone, every place around it all the bordering zones are either R-2 or Industrial we are not talking downtown or Pleasant Street or even Curtis Place for that matter which like I said I have numerous photographs, these are all within 2 blocks of front yard parking. There is in the Code manual it does say a vehicle may be parked in a portion of the driveway located in the front yard between the structure and the edge of the sidewalk nearest the structure if you allow to build that so there are exceptions to the rule. I understand that Codes for Brian to allow us to do that we would have to appear before you to get a variance tonight so that is basically why we are here.
Mr. Westlake: Questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: You are requesting a variance for 5 parking spaces
Mr. Juhl: Two
Mr. Baroody: Two – applicant is requesting 5 parking spaces of the required 6, the applicant is requesting 3,105 square foot variance of the required 10,200 that is what the application reads.
Mr. Juhl: There is 1 there now we need 3 other ones for a total of 4.
Mr. Westlake: Is it going to be 3 units or 2?
Mr. Juhl: Three units.
Mr. Westlake: So you will need 6.
Mr. Juhl: We need 6 total.
Mr. Tamburrino: You are planning on building 1, 2, 3, 4 right?
Mr. Juhl: Yes forgive my primitive drawing here
Mr. Tamburrino: You have 4 spaces
Mr. Juhl: Straight in pull in driveway right here and pull off at an angle
Mr. Tamburrino: You have 4 spaces you need 6.
Mr. Juhl: Right need a variance for 2.
Mr. Tamburrino: This doesn’t read right then.
Mr. Hicks: Just changed lately as far as the original submittal they had last month we were looking at a variance for 5 because 1 still existed so with the alternations and asking this evening for the 2 front yard parking spaces to be added this is how we get down to the 2 required by the applicant.
Mr. Darrow: So we have to do a separate variance for the 2 front yard parking spaces?
Mr. Hicks: We would have to add that variance to this.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Mr. Westlake: How many do you have right now 1?
Mr. Hicks: There is 1 legal.
Mr. Westlake: He needs 6.
Mr. Hicks: He needs 6 for 3 units.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, he has 1.
Mr. Hicks: He has 1 and needs approval for putting the other 3 in the front yard.
Mr. Fusco: He is adding another variance so he has 4.
Mr. Baroody: We have to change this application or he does.
Ms. Calarco: I have a question also. The whole first one is talking about converting from a 2 unit into a 3 so never mind the parking that is kind of secondary where I am concerned right now my concern is he is talking about taking a 2 family and converting into a 3 and yes I am seeing there is a hardship and what not but I would like to know what was that building when it was purchased 5 years ago was it 2 then and are we upping it to 3 just because it use to be
Mr. Baroody: And is the hardship self-imposed.
Mr. Juhl: I did see self-imposed hardship does not disqualify an area variance although I understand you take that into consideration. A use variance will disallow it but the self-imposed hardship basically what happened 5 years ago John decided to get into the real estate business, he didn’t ask enough questions. He bought 2 pieces of property this one and another one. The other one he had to tear down a house he lost a lot of money on that deal we are trying to salvage something out of this one. This for several decades has been a 4 unit, 2 on the bottom and 2 on the top
Mr. Westlake: Once it has been vacant for a year it goes back to 2. We can’t about that here tonight. It was a 2 family when he purchased it.
Mr. Juhl: There was a temporary CO for 2 on the bottom and the upper 2 he went to convert the upper 2 into 1. The upper floor is gutted currently right now and he assumed that he could go in there and just do the work to get the approval. He was not aware of all the issues with the zoning laws and what not
Mr. Westlake: That doesn’t make any difference ok.
Mr. Juhl: Yes sir. That was 5 years ago this is the first one this is a learning curve he has done several since then
Mr. Westlake: I know he just got approval last month or 2 months ago for the one on Grant Avenue.
Mr. Juhl: We didn’t buy that one until we go the variance because of this one we learned our lesson don’t buy them until you get the variance so that is why we came before you on that one we had a purchase agreement if the variance went through. Hindsight is 20/20.
Mr. Darrow: Just for clarification Mr. Hicks, it is my understanding that the only spot that doesn’t conform with zoning if it is to be a 3 unit is the parking issue correct?
Mr. Hicks: If you read the packet the first item that we have to consider is the lot size the lot size is not big enough for the 3 units so we have an area variance required for that.
Mr. Darrow: That is 3105?
Mr. Hicks: Yes.
Mr. Bartolotta: Otherwise it is zoned for a 3 unit.
Mr. Darrow: So the parking in that area is 3105?
Mr. Hicks: That is the area variance for the lot size for a 3-unit structure.
Mr. Baroody: Ok for a 2 but 3105 is for a 3 unit.
Ms. Calarco: If you are talking about the commercial zone yes I think that part of the neighborhood is struggling and part of it is infringing on the neighborhood that is struggling to get itself back into a family neighborhood again and part of it is not to be putting back in multiple housing.
Ms. Marteney: So it won’t be as dense as it has been.
Ms. Calarco: Exactly.
Mr. Juhl: I would like to add that the density study there are only 21 units in a 4 acre area around that property, 21 out of a possible 68 and also there are only 2 single family homes listed in that density study the rest are all multi-family homes in that 4 acre area there are only 2 single families.
Mr. Baroody: That 4-acre area has a lot of commercial businesses there too.
Mr. Juhl: The property as far as the lot size the building’s footprint still occupies about half of the old lot there is still a lot of yard of 4,000 square feet in the back.
Mr. Westlake: Why don’t you put the parking back there?
Mr. Juhl: We have no access to get back there it is all kind of landlocked, otherwise yes that would be a great idea. The other idea we thought of and we discussed several options with Mr. Hicks and quite frankly this was the solution that he came up with was building the side by side uniform parking in the front and asking a variance for 2. Right now the property and I understand the situation as far as that neighborhood for any investor just to want to put money in that neighborhood should be commended. It is highly crime infested, poverty stricken it is a very bad neighborhood we all know it.
Ms. Calarco: Excuse me but I think you better be careful how bad you want to call it bad I live there.
Mr. Juhl: Ok, I also handle property for Homsite so basically the situation went from Fort Street to Orchard Street and now it is coming into my neighborhood which is Nelson Street. I have lived there my whole life too; we all know pockets of crime and poverty in the City.
Mr. Westlake: If it is that bad of an area you sure you want to invest that kind of money?
Mr. Juhl: That is part of the hardship also, the assessment is only $34,000 he won’t be able to get his money back out of the property unless he finishes that top floor. I have done comparable studies that show other 3 units with the same square footage other properties are double the value of what this property is mainly because it is located and the top floor needs to be completed.
Mr. Baroody: You said the assessment is $34,000?
Mr. Juhl: Yes sir.
Mr. Baroody: You get $800 for each unit, that is $1600 a month rent.
Mr. Juhl: For the 3 bedroom on top we would like to get $800
Mr. Baroody: Three apartments for $800 a month for 5 years is what you are saying
Mr. Juhl: We lost the revenue over the last 5 years because the space has been empty upstairs.
Mr. Baroody: It has been a 2 family and you want to make it 3 where does the 3 come from upstairs?
Mr. Juhl: We are combining 2 apartment on top into 1 unit.
Mr. Darrow: It originally was 4 units.
Mr. Westlake: What did you buy it as?
Mr. Juhl: I was told it was 4 units
Mr. Westlake: Told by who?
Mr. Juhl: By the real estate agent. After I purchased that I purchased the house on Cottage Street and a house on Seymour Street that actually had 2 houses one in front and one in the rear. I purchased all 3 of them within a week then I went down to get a permit to work on my house on Seymour Street and come to find out it took me a year before I could work on that I had to demo the house out back, pay the dump bill, pay for demolition do all that and remodel the house top to bottom and needless to say I have a hundred thousand dollars tied up in a house that isn’t worth $50,000. Then I went to this one and completed that project. I went to this one thought that I could just go in there and remodel this one well found out that I couldn’t do that either. Had to bring everything up to Code on the bottom 2 floors and paint the
exterior of the house and get all that stuff done so I could keep the 2 units that I have rented rented. Then we were talking with Brian going through stuff and Billy is doing what he is doing and we are trying to get this one completed. I completed all the other ones and this is the straggling one from being completed.
Mr. Baroody: When you purchased it what did you purchase a 2, 3 or 4 unit? What did your real estate document say that you bought?
Mr. Juhl: The deed if you look in the book
Mr. Westlake: What did you sign for when you bought it? In other words you had to close on the house, did you close on a 2 family house?
Mr. Juhl: I really don’t know what it said. I have the deed here and I think you all have a copy of it in the book and it says multi family.
Mr. Westlake: What did the real estate agent, what did you sign for the day you bought the house?
Mr. Baroody: If you have a mortgage you have to have something on paper
Mr. Juhl: No mortgage, paid cash. He spent his life savings on this and the other 2 properties. He is a full time contractor in the City of Auburn, his wife worked at Auburn Spark Plug we know it was a long shot we are looking for a break. We know the rules now
Mr. Westlake: We have given quite a few breaks over the years here anyway between the one on Grant Avenue so each time he comes to us for this break we didn’t tell the real estate agent to tell him what to do.
Mr. Juhl: Yes sir, this is only the 2nd request we have made. The first request was for property – property that we wanted to purchase and do something with and we didn’t want to purchase it like we did this one and not be able to follow through on the project.
Mr. Bartolotta: Brian, sorry to interrupt what would they need for these area variances lets put that aside for a second say that he had the required parking the required lot size, what is the maximum allowed units in that area?
Mr. Hicks: According to density studies, which he mentioned earlier, the maximum would be 68. The density in that zone right now is only 21 so the density study is not an issue at this point.
Mr. Bartolotta: So in other words if he met the required parking and if he met the lot size he could do a 4 family if he wanted to.
Mr. Hicks: If he met the proper lot size and he had the off street parking he basically would not be in front of us today.
Mr. Darrow: Downstairs 2 bedrooms for each unit and upstairs how many bedrooms there?
Mr. Juhl: Three bedrooms. There is a big area up there we need to do something with the space. And that is another reason why none of the questions were asked that should have been asked because he did pay cash for the properties. Everybody was looking to get a little bit of the money and unfortunately like I said hindsight is 20/20 we now know the rules and what questions to ask. Bought 1 from the bank on Seymour Street where basically they took advantage of me being naïve and this one here from a real estate agent because I didn’t know any better when I purchased that one either. The day I came in to pull a permit to work on Seymour Street I found out about the laws after being vacant for more than 6 months it goes back to a single family unit and I really had no clue as far as that was concerned. I never owned rental
property in Auburn before that or anywhere else.
Mr. Westlake: We get a lot of these here they always come back to us.
Mr. Darrow: Where else are they going to go? That is what we handle on zoning.
Mr. Westlake: Whatever your pleasure is.
Mr. Juhl: Seems like it should be part of the obligation of the real estate to disclosure certain information and sign off on it so you guys don’t have to deal with this as much.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to discuss this amongst ourselves.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application?
Mr. Selvek: I would like to speak.
Mr. Westlake: Ok.
Mr. Selvek: Good evening my name is Steve Selvek I reside at 39 Grover Street. As you know I am a City Planner with the City the Planning Officer. There have been a couple issues that I guess I would like the board to be aware of. There are on going projects in the Orchard Street neighborhood. A lot of those efforts right now are to de-densify that neighborhood. There were 3 properties that were purchased by Homsite Headquarters on Orchard Street right next to the intersection with Washington. They have demolished a single family, a 3 family and a 5 family home. There are 2 single-family homes going back in there. There is another rehab on the corner of Washington and Orchard Street again, again a single family home. One of the issues that we do see time and time again is the dwelling unit conversion and as you are aware within our
Comprehensive Plan we have spoke at length about it in terms with the concerns with allowing multi-family homes where there is not the space for multi-family homes. The use is allowed in that district however it is not just the use there are other area considerations that have to be considered.
If the board is inclined to grant the variance for a 3rd unit the other thing that I would ask the board do is look at providing variance for the 5 parking spaces for the parking to be provided on street that is a dead end of Clark Street this is towards the end of it, it is not a high area of traffic congestion so to provide parking on street from a viewpoint of the aesthetics of someone coming into the City along the arterial looks much nicer than to go through and have a front yard taken up with parking. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you.
Mr. Darrow: I have 1 question for Mr. Hicks. If this were just say 2 units he would then need 4 parking spots and how would his area variance be with the 3105 still be needed?
Mr. Hicks: No, the area variance for the lot size would not be required but we would still be looking at parking space for the front yard parking, we would be looking at 3, he has 1 existing.
Mr. Darrow: Unless we were to allow
Mr. Hicks: Three of these would be constructed but there would be no number of spaces missing because there are 2 bedroom units on the first floor. If he was to open it up and add 1 bedroom then he would be looking at more spaces. Little confusing the biggest issue is front yard parking start there.
Mr. Darrow: What I guess I am looking at is what Steve had mentioned because I feel the same way I dislike the looks of vehicles parking right in the front yard and particularly on our main thoroughfare. It is bad enough that there are so many shoddy run down places that need to be cleaned up. I guess what you are saying it would depend on how many units they had downstairs in those apartments as to how many spots he needed.
Mr. Hicks: Right.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Ms. Calarco: I would also take question we were told that there are only 2 single-family units in that 4-acre. I am not sure how much 4 acres entails because I can come up with 6 single-family homes right now.
Mr. Baroody: My aunt’s was one of the houses taken down.
Ms. Calarco: I have a single across the street; there is single 2 houses down
Mr. Darrow: You are not in the 4-acre area.
Ms. Calarco: Not so far but it is still the neighborhood, we still are trying to do the City wide project to get it back to being single family stop so many multiple got one that was bought knowing it was 2 and now we are going to put it back to 3.
Mr. Hicks: If I may, the density study calculations are in your packet and they do show that the 210 are single family, 220 are 2 units, 230 are 3 units, so they are in your packet for your review with the addresses.
Mr. Darrow: Is this dwelling being used at all right now?
Mr. Hicks: I believe that Mr. Juhl stated that both lower units are occupied.
Mr. Darrow: The lower units. Is that correct?
Mr. Juhl: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Mr. Westlake: Any more discussion among the board?
Mr. Darrow: So even with the 2 unit 2 lower units being occupied there still is a variance needed for parking?
Mr. Hicks: No because it is a pre-existing non-conforming situation that was addressed in the Code also
Mr. Darrow: The house was never vacant then for more than 6 months.
Mr. Hicks: There was a time period but it was never completely vacant. Lost the upstairs apartment so the 2 downstairs apartments were allowed to remain and they have parking deficiencies since day one those deficiencies are allowed by Code. So we are not looking for a variance for those that still exist.
Mr. Darrow: Ok. So basically he has the second floor that is unusable right now.
Mr. Fusco: Now that I understand Brian’s explanation by granting the relief your expanding a pre-existing non-conforming you are enlarging a pre-existing non-conforming. One parking spot arguably 2 were there are 4 needed are pre-existing non-conforming and were you to allow the 3rd apartment you are now increasing the pre-existing non-conforming.
Mr. Darrow: I guess the way I am leading on maybe it is old age is making me soft or something but I can understand the dilemma that he is in having 2 units currently occupied, wanting to do something with the top unit. I completely agree with Steve that I hate to see any parking in front of the house. I would be so more inclined to maybe look at this a little further make sure the applicant knows you have to look at everything, don’t trust realtors, if they are telling you it is a 2 verify with the Assessment Office or Codes, they tell you a 4, verify it. But what I am trying to make in my mind what use would come from that 2nd floor that is being unused. I mean does he expand it and put more bedrooms for the downstairs apartments? It is truly a doubled edge sword here no matter which way we turn the sword it seems to get
sharper and sharper. Any other feelings on that?
Ms. Calarco: I rather see that happen if we have to worry about conforming more bedrooms upstairs to take care of those 2 you still have 2 families.
Mr. Darrow: Have it which way?
Ms. Calarco: Put in the bedrooms upstairs to go with each side of the downstairs maybe you are going to run into a issue with parking again if you have more bedrooms you will need more parking. I would address that.
Mr. Darrow: We have maybe 3 options that we can look at. One: Just voting against. Second: We can go look at going as submitted with the front yard parking and Third: Going with the area variance and the parking variance so that the parking would now be on the street and not the front yard.
Mr. Tamburrino: They wanted a variance for front yard parking on Franklin Street and we turned that down remember that?
Mr. Baroody: My opinion vote on the 3105 square feet first if that fails the rest is moot.
Mr. Darrow: Good point. I would like to make a motion that we grant John Juhl of 4858 Rt. 34B, Auburn, New York a 3,105 square foot area variance for the purpose of converting 106-110 Clark Street from a 2 unit to a 3 family dwelling unit.
Mr. Bartolotta: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Darrow
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Motion has been denied.
Meeting adjourned.
| 
