ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, DECEMBER 20,010
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake
Member Absent: Mr. Bartolotta
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Ms. Jensen and Mr. Hicks
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 158 Seymour Street, 3 E. Genesee Street
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following item: 158 Seymour Street, 3 E. Genesee 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.
____________________________________________________________
158 Seymour Street. R2 zoning district. Area variance for conversion from 2 to 3 units.
Mr. Westlake: Would 158 Seymour Street please come to the podium, state your name and what you would like to do. I know you were here last month.
Mr. Pettigrass: Good evening I am Joe Pettigrass I am here for Mr. Gordon and he is here. I don’t know if the members of the board received but we submitted an appraisal that was completed by Gary Guariglia of Area East Appraisal Consultants and amended answers in regards to the application. Mr. Gordon is seeking an area variance in regards to 158 Seymour Street. This property based upon a 3 unit apartment house does not have enough square footage just under 8,000 square footage pursuant to Code it requires 10,200 square feet and we are looking for an area variance in regards to that to allow this property to be legal 3 unit within the City of Auburn.
Mr. Westlake: Questions from the board?
Ms. Calarco: It is my understanding that the property was purchased as a 2 family.
Mr. Westlake: That is correct he did state that last month.
Mr. Pettigrass: The property I don’t know the full issues about it but apparently it had been at some point here in the City for a length of time a 3 unit within the City. The area which we are talking about which I am sure everyone is familiar with there are a lot of multiply family houses on that street it is zoned R2 for multi families already. It is not that far away from a commercial zone, which abuts against the R2. It would not change the character, nature or safety along these grounds as a 3 unit. We did submit an appraisal, which was done by Mr. Guariglia and he has based on his analysis difference in economic costs between a 2 unit and a 3 unit. I did have a change to look at the original application he submitted after Mr. Gordon had a chance to talk to me and the appraiser he put together some additional answers, which we
typed up and submitted. The original purchase price was $38,430.00 and Mr. Gordon has 2 out of the 3 units renovated at this point in time in and in effort to have the property Code compliant he has put in almost another $30,000 and we do have receipts, which we did submit. He is up to approximately $65,000 between the purchase price and what he has put into the property at this point in time. If we were allowed to get the area variance obviously he will complete the 3rd unit, which he is estimating to be at least another $5,000. It is my understanding from Code and talking with Mr. Hicks there is ample parking whether there is a 2 or 3 unit. There will be no impact negatively to the neighborhood for an additional unit if granted.
Mr. Westlake: Any more questions from the board? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will discuss amongst ourselves and let you know shortly.
Mr. Pettigrass: Thank you.
Mr. Tamburrino: He bought the property knowing it was a 2-unit property so this is self-created. He brought this injury on himself really when he bought the property there were 2 apartments and he knew that I don’t understand why you do that knowing the property wouldn’t turn a good investment. If I bought something looking for investment I do a financial analysis first and I would go from there and wouldn’t buy it hoping that a variance would be granted.
Mr. Darrow: Looking at what has been submitted now we now have numbers and figures to put our teeth into the one thing that comes to my mind when you look at a reasonable rate of return the definition of a reasonable rate of return is out there.
Mr. Fusco: That does not apply to area variances.
Mr. Darrow: That is what I was going for the fact that is an area variance and not a use variance and the fact that he is about 2379 square foot to me makes a difference because it is an area variance. It is not like a use variance where he wants to put 3 units where 3 units are allowed. That would seem to make the difference here for me it is just the fact that the lot is about 2300 square foot too small for a 3 unit.
Mr. Tamburrino: Is that significant or not it is 20%. 20% is significant isn’t it?
Mr. Baroody: He has ample parking in the rear nothing is going to be on the street. The only thing that he is asking for is that square footage. In this particular case density and a lot of that doesn’t come into play. The neighbors are with it and I looked at it a few times.
Mr. Westlake: He is not asking for a use variance.
Mr. Tamburrino: I understand that.
Mr. Darrow: That is the one thing that is weighing different with me now is seeing all the paperwork, seeing what was submitted, seeing the direction he is looking to go and the fact that it is an area variance. Now that we have more information it has made it easier for me than it was last moth.
Mr. Westlake: I do agree with that.
Mr. Darrow: Last month there were way way too many unanswered questions.
Mr. Baroody: Even though the real estate document said 3 units he said it was a 2 unit. We didn’t get jerked around there.
Mr. Westlake: It is not like the other cases that came to us before the real estate agent told him that it was 3 unit and they bought it as a 3 unit and actually it was a 2 unit or sometimes it went back to a single family because it was over the 6 months. So in this case all he is asking for is an area variance.
Mr. Darrow: I would truly feel different about this if it was an area variance and 2 or 3 parking spaces or something along that line but that is just my personal opinion.
Ms. Calarco: I think the only question I have is we go back to we got, we paid for it, we spend all this money to renovate it oops wait a minute we need a variance. Why weren’t they checking first as to what variances they needed before we spent the money and know we need to fix it.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t think that is the case here. He didn’t fix the other one he is coming for a variance now.
Mr. Darrow: So he can do the other apartment.
Ms. Calarco: He fixed 2 out of the 3 which means he essentially planned to go to a 3 all along. It is just the timing that bothers me. It is not the first time that we see people come in and say well I put all this money into it and now I need the area variance. I get it and I do see your point I guess I just have a problem with the timing. Every time we turn around we have somebody saying well I goofed I should have come in sooner but I spent all this money can we go forward.
Mr. Westlake: That is actually our job here this is his last recourse to come in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals and appeal to us and say this is what I would like to do. Without your permission I can’t.
Ms. Calarco: I understand that.
Mr. Baroody: Last month the package was inadequate.
Ms. Calarco: I don’t disagree it does make a difference over all. I just want to stop seeing these.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t think we ever will.
Ms. Marteney: That is why we are here.
Mr. Tamburrino: The density is going to go up because if you go with a 2,000 square foot variance you will have more people per square foot basically so it is going to increase the density.
Mr. Westlake: Again that is not the question this time because there is no density question. It is there but the density is not against that area that area could take more density. It is not like the others that have come in where the density was too much and they were asking for a variance because of the density.
Mr. Fusco: Density is the wrong word the element is it a substantial variance does it create a neighborhood detriment. Density is more of a specific term.
Mr. Tamburrino: Is it significant is what is says one of the rules we have to go by is it significant is 20% significant?
Mr. Fusco: The elements are: is it substantial, can the relief be obtained by an alternative method, is it detrimental to the neighborhood, will it produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Detriment and character of neighborhood are obviously corollaries but those are the four elements the fifth one, which you spoke to earlier self-created hardship, is something to be considered but it is not a bar in area variance cases. These are the five things that one considers in you making your decision. Character of the neighborhood whether this is a detriment whether the relief asked is substantial whether it can be obtained by another methodology and whether it was self-created or not.
Mr. Darrow: I don’t see where the relief can be obtained in another course because this is the only course to make that a 3 unit and by not looking towards granting the square footage area variance then there is no relief.
Mr. Westlake: The fact that there is no body here no neighbors here saying they are in opposition, he also did bring a letter in from some of the neighbors saying they are not against it.
Mr. Darrow: And looking at the time that it was a 3 unit before it had a period some time there.
Ms. Marteney: How many years ago did it revert?
Mr. Fusco: Six years ago in 2004 was the last time it was listed as a 3 family.
Ms. Calarco: The only other question I would have is the over all blue print of what the City is trying to establish as far as neighborhoods.
Mr. Westlake: We are not here for that tonight we have to speak to the variance that is in front of us.
Mr. Baroody: We have a very narrow window.
Mr. Fusco: Mr. Chairman that is a relevant question. For example if a member of the board thinks self-created hardship is a problem they can hang their hat on that. If a member of the board thinks that the Comprehensive Plan calls for a reduction in multi family units
Mr. Westlake: They should a stop us to even hearing these things then you can’t come here then. That is what you are telling us.
Mr. Darrow: Part of our job weighing one against the other.
Mr. Fusco: She is allowed to consider that
Mr. Westlake: I didn’t say she wasn’t’.
Mr. Fusco: I am not saying it is dis-positive I am saying exactly that she is allowed to consider that.
Mr. Westlake: I am not telling anyone on this board how to vote!
Mr. Fusco: I don’t think you are either, I am just saying if a member of this board feels that the Comprehensive Plan sends some type of message regarding the conversion of homes multiple family homes non-resident owner homes and that somehow that can be a detriment to the neighborhood that is one of the elements that people are allowed to consider. I am not saying it is dis-positive but it is something to thing about she is allowed to say that she is allowed to think it.
Mr. Westlake: I did not say that she couldn’t!
Mr. Darrow: Any other discussion?
Mr. Westlake: I don’t think so.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Michael Gordon of 5563 West Lake Road, Auburn for property located at 158 Seymour Street, Auburn a area variance of 2,379 square foot of the minimum 10,200 square foot required to convert a 2 unit dwelling into a 3 unit dwelling.
Mr. Baroody: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Westlake
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved. Good luck with your project.
Mr. Pettigrass: Thank you.
Mr. Gordon: Thank you.
____________________________________________________________
3 E. Genesee Street. C2 zoning district. Use variance for repairs/reface to billboard sign for The Citizen.
Mr. Westlake: Would 3 East Genesee Street please come to the podium. Speak into the microphone and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Reisenberg: My name is Mike Reisenberg I am with the Citizen. We are here today to ask for a variance with regards to the sign on the billboard on top of 3 Genesee Street. This summer there was a windstorm that lasted a couple of days and the windstorm tore one of the corners of one of the panels and the end of the windstorm took the panel out. We have been exploring options to repair the area and while we are doing that we thought that we would redesign and put a different message up there. The application that you have in front of you shows the new design we are asking for that we are planning on putting up there if we get the variance and that is why we are here tonight.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Darrow: I have a couple questions sir. The current sign up there is either decayed, old and putting the new graphics over it would be a waste of your graphic money is that correct?
Mr. Reisenberg: Actually a piece of the backing is missing that is a 4 x 10 piece of wood that actually came down on Genesee Street at the time of the wind storm and it needed to have some repairs and the cost of repairs is getting up there. Most of the cost is getting up there.
Mr. Darrow: Is the new sign going to be the same size as the old sign?
Mr. Reisenberg: Yes.
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.
Mr. Darrow: Considering the Genesee Beer sign that sign there is a part of Auburn. I can understand the rot and decay it needs to be replaced, they are not looking to go bigger and they are going to put up new modern graphic, I think it will fit very well. Are we going to need a short form SEQRA on this?
Mr. Fusco: A Type II.
Mr. Darrow: There is one in our packet.
Ms. Jensen: Part I. Does the action exceed any Type I threshold – No. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted action - No.
Part II. Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
C1 – Existing air quality, surface or ground/water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems – none.
C2 – Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic or other natural cultural resource; or community or neighborhood character? According to the City Comprehension Plan the City signage should be compatible in size, type and placement. Large an excessive signage can be distracting and have adverse effect on the neighborhood.
C3 – Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species – none.
C4 – A community’ existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity or use of land or other natural resources. The City Comprehensive Plan does discourage billboards within the City limits and states that billboards and does not keep in with the nature of Auburn’s urban and historic character.
C5 - Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action – none.
C6 – Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1 – C5 – none.
C7 – Other impacts – none.
Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts. No.
The determination is for a Negative Declaration.
Mr. Baroody: I make motion that we a Negative Declaration for the Short Form SEQRA for the Citizen billboard at 3 E. Genesee Street, Auburn, New York.
Ms. Calarco: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant The Citizen of 25 Dill Street a use variance for the purpose of replacing sign atop 3 E. Genesee Street to conform with current sign that is being replaced.
Mr. Baroody: I second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Westlake
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Reisenberg: Thank you.
| 
