ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JULY 26, 2010
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, and Ms. Calarco. Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino and Mr. Westlake
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Ms. Jensen and Mr. Hicks
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 55 Grant Avenue, 320 McIntosh Drive, 206 N. Hoopes Avenue, 15 Norman Avenue
APPLICATION TABLED: 345 Clark Street
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: 55 Grant Avenue, 320 McIntosh Drive, 206 N. Hoopes Avenue, 15 Norman Avenue, 345 Clark 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.
Mr. Darrow: I didn’t get the minutes from last month.
Ms. Westlake: I will check with Alicia and ask her to send them out to you again.
____________________________________________________________
55 Grant Avenue. R2 zoning district. Area variance to increase number of units. Applicant: John Juhl.
Mr. Westlake: 55 Grant Avenue please come to the podium and state your name and what you would like to do.
Mr. Juhl: My name is William Juhl I live at 14 Nelson Street. I am here tonight to speak on behalf of John Juhl. John wishes to purchase the property at 55 Grant Avenue and remodel that property into a two (2) family home. For several decades the home has a four (4)-unit apartment house, it has four (4) kitchens, four (4) baths and several bedrooms. Most recently the home was condemned and reclassified as a single family home. We have submitted plans to construction a traditional side-by-side two (2) family home and seek your permission to do so. We have met all necessary Code requirements regarding lot size, building size, and parking to accommodate this conversion.
We are here tonight to request an area variance for density, not for parking. At last month’s meeting there was opposition they were opposed because of parking so I wanted to stress that fact. A density study allows for sixty-eighty (68) units in a four (4) acre area around the property. The four (4) acre study includes the property of an elderly case facility called The Home. Everyone is familiar with The Home on the corner on Grant Avenue. The Home has sixty (60) units alone. We request to remove the sixty (60) units or beds from the study to reflect a more accurate count of the forty-six (46) units well below the sixty-eight (68) units that is allowed. The Code does allow for this removal of commercial property from the study. The Home is a not-for-profit business but a business just the same and could have been included in the
commercial district it borders. That would automatically deduct the sixty (60) units or beds from the study and allow us to proceed with the conversion without a variance. So what I am asking basically here is the property right here (points to large map) this parcel, the four (4) acre study goes out 208 feet out in each direction and then they count the units. Now the Code is you are only allowed to have sixty-eight (68) units right here are forty-six (46) that is twenty-six (26) below what is required because it barely touches this property over here they add in sixty (60) more units which we feel is unfair and that is the variance we request. There is an area in the Code that allows for the removal of those. If this line here was drawn over there (points to large map) then it would have been automatic. This is the commercial district right here (points to large map) Byrne Dairy right there, The Home. Now obviously they left that out the planners for a very good reason to help
control the density out there and forces to come before you and make a request. But without The Home involved there are only forty-six (46) units.
Most of you are familiar with John Juhl, he has a construction business in Auburn for over twenty (20) years and here are some photos (on large board). These are some pictures of the projects that he has accomplished over the last few years. Basically he bought these houses and remodeled them, this one here is on Delevan he purchased that for $2,000 it was a burned out structure and he sold it for $92,000. Obviously that was not all profit it was a full demo, new roof, siding, everything bare bones structure the same as the one out here on Rt. 326. The reason I brought that is to show that he basically is not going in there and splashing paint and put a fore sale sign on it. He is going in he is doing the work and the community is better off for it. As you can see the difference in property values from when he started these projects to what
they are now is over $750,000 and that means more tax revenue for everyone. Basically he started these construction projects over the last few years to avoid winter layoff. He began remodeling houses to provide work for his crew year around.
Mr. Westlake: That is not relevant to this.
Mr. Fusco: No one is saying Mr. Juhl is not a good person or he hasn’t done good work. The issue before the board are standards that are laid out in the law.
Mr. Juhl: Right and basically we are following those standards. We ask that you forgive that one little section of the four (4) acre study that boosts it from forty-six (46) units to one hundred and six (106).
Mr. Westlake: Ok. Are there any questions from the board? OK, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves. Actually it is an area variance not a use variance.
Mr. Darrow: Density variance and I can understand when you look at the site there is a clean clear measurement on one 40.7 feet the other by scaling it from the 230’ to about 110’ of it, actually of that property falling in the density study.
Mr. Tamburrino: Like 13%.
Mr. Darrow: When you consider the area and vastness of the property itself with this overlay on it I can understand the request. Also seeing that you are going from a four (4) to a two (2) is a big plus.
Mr. Fusco: Going from a one (1) to a two (2).
Mr. Darrow: Yes it was at one time a four (4), he would be going from a one (1) to a two (2). I consider that a plus from the way it was and I don’t think it changes the character of the neighborhood because when you look there seems to be beside peppered with commercial one (1) and two (2) families through there. One of my biggest concerns was making sure off street parking was met and it is.
Mr. Fusco: The issue that was raised last month that the people who objected of record thought there was not enough off street parking and the developer presumed that the property that he didn’t own and would allocate parking was in fact something he believed he did own. I don’t know if they were right or if the developer was right but that issued is resolved.
Mr. Tamburrino: Is there enough parking?
Mr. Darrow: There is enough parking.
Mr. Tamburrino: How do we know that?
Mr. Darrow: Otherwise it would be a variance when Codes went over it.
Mr. Tamburrino: Ok.
Mr. Darrow: I guess my next question is for either Counsel or Codes the variance to grant is it the removal of the forty-six (46) unit at The Home that are counted in the density or actually a variance of thirty-eight (38) units for the entire density study.
Mr. Westlake: I would say we have to look at this as an individual case and this is the individual house and we are either going to grant them the right to do or not we are not going to change law.
Mr. Darrow: No you completely missed what I am saying.
Mr. Westlake: Ok.
Mr. Darrow: It was spoke of that we can either remove the forty-six (46) commercial units from the density study which would then bring it below or just go with the thirty-eight (38) that are needed. That is why I am asking Counsel which way to go.
Mr. Fusco: I don’t think it is either we are going from one (1) to two (2) with a variance from the density requirement that was presently mandated.
Mr. Darrow: So we are not giving a variance for thirty-eight (38) units. I want to make sure the variance is worded properly.
Mr. Tamburrino: Looking at The Home this is interesting in that they are elderly people, they don’t have cars most of them, they don’t have children.
Mr. Darrow: I want to make sure we word the variance properly.
Mr. Baroody: Do the motion just as it is on the paper.
Mr. Darrow: So would the motion be of the thirty-eight (38) units
Mr. Fusco: The variance would be to be able to go from one (1) to two (2).
Mr. Darrow: Ok. Thank you, that is what I was looking for. I would like to make a motion that we grant John Juhl of 4858 Rt. 34B, Auburn for his property located at 55 Grant Avenue a area variance for the purpose of going from one (1) unit to a two (2) unit in an over populated density.
Mr. Tamburrino: I second the motion.
Ms. Calarco: May I ask a question?
Mr. Westlake: Certainly.
Ms. Calarco: It is stated that he is wishing to buy this property, has he already bought the property or is he looking for a variance
Mr. Juhl: We put a purchase offer in contingent on what happens here.
Mr. Fusco: So it is not a self-created hardship.
Ms. Calarco: I didn’t want it go where we give a variance to this person to get it to two (2) and the next person comes along and says we had it at two (2) but we thought it was four (4) we have seen this several times.
Mr. Westlake: I understand where you are coming from. He hasn’t purchased it yet it is contingent on approval of this board tonight. Ok, thank you.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Baroody, Ms. Calarco
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Juhl: Thank you very much.
____________________________________________________________
320 McIntosh Drive. R1 zoning district. Area variance for new house. Applicant: Ida Rooker.
Mr. Westlake: Would 320 McIntosh Drive come to the podium, state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Palmeri: My name is Mike Palmeri and I am representing Patty Rooker and I am the architect for the proposed project. Mrs. Rooker owns the property on McIntosh and she is looking to sell the property to her daughter to build a new house. We are looking to put a house on the property and we are looking at a rear set back. Right now we have laid out the building lines shown there because it is a corner site and this is a development that was done in the 60’s this subdivision and we had the thirty (30) foot set back from the right of way which I believe is a little bigger that the set backs in the City of Auburn. So it restricts us a little bit because of that we are angling the house just to fit, a legal sized house on there facing McIntosh Drive we have a really small building line to contend with. There are some homes in the area
that are on 45 degree angles so aesthetically we are trying to keep up with the rest of the neighborhood. It is a one (1)-story home, a three (3) bedroom house I think we are in the 2,200 square foot range right now on the proposal; the garage is a two (2) car garage. This is all contingent upon this approval tonight as far as the sale of the property to her daughter.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, any questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: You can’t rotate the house otherwise you wouldn’t have any back yard.
Mr. Palmeri: To Austin Drive?
Mr. Tamburrino: Yes.
Mr. Palmeri: That changed out the same way, not as much.
Mr. Baroody: Would change the lay out of everything.
Mr. Palmeri: They want to have it on an angle, just an aesthetic thing would like to do what the neighborhood has done, we could use a smaller plan could be fit on there, like I said it is a three (3) bedroom, living room, dining room, kitchen nothing too large in terms of the floor plans we haven’t chosen something that is outrageous for the site.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board? Thank you very much. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against the application? Seeing none we will close the public section and discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Darrow: I can understand if you do rotate it you have to drop it back so much and the 45 degree angle does fit in with the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
Ms. Calarco: Nice on the corner.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Ida Rooker for property at 320 McIntosh Drive a 9 ¾ foot rear yard set back for the purpose of constructing a single ranch style home as submitted on plot plan.
Mr. Baroody: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Palmeri: Thank you very much.
____________________________________________________________
206 N. Hoopes Avenue. R1 zoning district. Area variance for new garage. Applicant: Christopher Bourke.
Mr. Westlake: Would 206 N. Hoopes Avenue state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Bourke: Good evening, I am Christopher Bourke, I am the property owner at 206 N. Hoopes Avenue. I wish to replace my existing garage. I am using the same footprint that I have now but I would like to put in a two (2) story garage and looking for a variance for the height of the garage. Should have fifteen (15) feet and I am requesting twenty (20) feet.
Mr. Westlake: Nice package here. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Tamburrino: I saw your existing garage.
Mr. Bourke: It is about one hundred (100) years old no foundation and it needs to be replaced.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will close the public portion and discuss it amongst ourselves. Thank you very much.
I don’t see any problem with it.
Mr. Darrow: If you look at the height of the other dwellings in the neighborhood.
I would like to make a motion that we grant Christopher Bourke of 206 N. Hoopes Avenue a five (5) foot height variance for the purpose of erecting a new garage as submitted in the plot plan.
Mr. Tamburrino: I second the motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Bourke: Thank you very much.
____________________________________________________________
15 Norman Avenue. R1 zoning district. Area variance for above ground pool. Applicant: Christopher and Wendy Maneri.
Mr. Westlake: Would 15 Norman Avenue please come to podium, tell us who you are and what you would like to do.
Mr. Maneri: I am Chris Maneri. Trying to put an above ground pool in my back yard and my back yard is so small that I have to get a variance from my neighbors and they wrote letter giving me their blessing.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: Am I reading it correct to this side 21 feet 6 inches.
Mr. Maneri: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: You are aware you can slide the pool over.
Mr. Baroody: There is a driveway and garage.
Mr. Darrow: I apologize I see it.
Mr. Maneri: Everything was done in a day I didn’t realize I had to go through all this so Mr. Hicks was very nice enough to give me a day to get it in, I had to work and my wife had to work so my Mother and Father were very nice to help me out and do this drawing.
Mr. Baroody: I drove by and saw the garage.
Mr. Tamburrino: It is a very small lot. You have your neighbors’ approval what about 13 Norman Avenue?
Mr. Maneri: The ones on the other side?
Mr. Tamburrino: Yes.
Mr. Maneri: Have a privacy fence all the way down.
Mr. Tamburrino: I think the pool is 3 ½ feet from the property line is that 13?
Mr. Maneri: That is 17 I have their approval.
Mr. Baroody: That garage is about 18 feet of that 21 feet.
Mr. Maneri: I know.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions? Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will close the public portion and discuss it amongst ourselves. Thank you very much. I see no problem.
Mr. Darrow: Only downside is I don’t know if I would want a house with a pool 3 ½ feet next to my property line but I can sympathize with his predicament with the driveway there. Not being that it is not actually laid out on the law you really have no good judgment of how far he currently is.
Mr. Tamburrino: The equipment is not next to that to the property line buzzing of the motor and all that and new pools have safety devices on them.
Mr. Darrow: They have to have them.
Mr. Maneri: It comes with a child alarm has to be by law. I went to a different pool place will that make a difference?
Mr. Darrow: No.
Mr. Westlake: As long as you keep the same parameters.
Mr. Maneri: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Christopher and Wendy Maneri of 15 Norman Avenue a 6 ½ foot area variance of the required 10 foot set back from the side property for place an above ground pool as submitted on the plan.
Mr. Tamburrino: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Maneri: Thank you very much.
____________________________________________________________
345 Clark Street. R2 zoning district. Area variance for a wall sign. Applicant: LinCare. Inc.
Mr. Westlake: Would 345 Clark Street come forward please. Apparently they are not here tonight, did they call and cancel?
Mr. Hicks: I had no messages.
Mr. Tamburrino: I drove by the property and that sign is leaning on the building and is cracked. Maybe that is why they didn’t come.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion to table until next month?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we table 345 Clark Street until the August meeting.
Mr. Baroody: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Bartolotta, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Item has been tabled.
| 
