ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2011
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Tamburrino
Member Absent: Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Westlake
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Ms. Jensen, and Mr. Hicks
Minutes: Lynda DeOrio, for Jane Westlake
Mr. Fusco: We do have a quorum, so we are ready to proceed. Our Chairman, Mr. Westlake, conveyed to us that he would be unavailable tonight when he was here last month. Mr. Baroody, he advised, would be the deputy who would run the meeting. Unfortunately Mr. Baroody was telephoned by Brian Hicks and I just a moment ago. He had something suddenly come up, so he is unable to be here tonight. But we do have a quorum and we can go forward.
The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the December 20, 2010 meeting. I just rhetorically asked before we went on the record whether anyone had copies of it or had seen copies, and I got a universal no.
Ms. Marteney: We have seen them, you said, “Did you have a copy?”
Mr. Fusco: Did everybody review them?
Mr. Tamburrino: Yeah.
Mr. Fusco: Okay, I didn’t get an email. Scott, our new member - that’s the first order of business. I’d like to introduce Scott Kilmer, he’s the new member of our board. He replaces Mr. Bartolotta who asked to step down, and the Mayor has appointed Scott in his place. Welcome aboard, usually we start on time and usually Mr. Westlake does a far better job of running the meetings than will I, but I’ll do the best I can.
We are going to need four votes in the affirmative for every resolution tonight, and Mr. Kilmer has indicated he hasn’t seen the minutes. So perhaps we ought to adjourn that to our February meeting, the approval of January minutes.
Ms. Marteney made a motion to table the vote on the minutes until the February meeting; second by Ms. Calarco. Unanimous approval.
Mr. Fusco: We will adjourn the approval of the minutes to the February meeting.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 30 Wright Avenue
Mr. Fusco: Next on the meeting is 30 Wright Avenue, which is an area variance for a new garage. Mr. Manna, could you step forward? Could you tell the members of the board what you are seeking and why?
Mr .Manna: I am seeking a new garage because the old garage needs too much work. The doors, it’s falling apart.
Mr. Fusco: In having reviewed your application, apparently there is a shed on the property you use for storage?
Mr. Manna: Yes
Mr. Fusco: And because you have the storage shed, having the two car garage exceeds the accessory structure limit or, you need the variance for about 140 feet?
Mr. Manna: Right.
Mr. Fusco: To be able to accommodate a two car garage.
Ms. Marteney: He wants to take down…
Mr. Fusco: You want to take the old garage…
Mr. Mann: Yes, I want to take down the old garage and the small shed behind it. The other shed - the one that I’m trying to get a variance for - I was going to put the stuff in the small shed, which is lawnmowers, snowblowers, and all that..
Mr. Fusco: Okay. So that I understand it, there is two sheds, and one one-car garage on the property?
Mr. Manna: It’s one long…
Mr. Fusco: One-car garage.
Mr. Manna: Right.
Mr. Fusco: With a shed addition on the back?
Mr. Manna: No, no, the shed I installed in the back…the long shed stays..the long shed.
Ms. Marteney: You have three sheds right now.
Mr. Tamburrino: No, there is one garage, and two sheds…he wants to remove one shed and will be replacing the garage. Just look at the map.
Mr. Manna: The garage is long, it’s one metal shed behind the garage, and that’s another one.
Mr. Fusco: And which shed comes down?
Mr. Manna: The one behind the garage.
Mr. Fusco: I understand. Thank you. Any questions from the members of the board?
Ms. Marteney: No. Nicely done packet.
Mr. Kilmer: Yes, very nice.
Mr. Fusco: Any other people who are speaking in favor or disfavor of the project? (To Mr. Manna) - Thank you; you may have a seat while we deliberate. Any questions from staff, either planning or enforcement? Economics?
Ms. Jensen: No.
Mr. Hicks: No.
Mr. Fusco: We will close that portion.
Ms. Marteney: It’s a very deep piece of property. It’s 20 feet away from anything…
Mr. Tamburrino: No, I don’t see an issue with that. He’s taking an old garage, tearing it down. He’s only asking 140 square feet variance. I don’t think it’s an issue at all.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’d like to make a motion that we grant Angelo Manna of 30 Wright Avenue a variance to construct a new 720 square foot garage (xx) existing garage, total exceeds allowed maximum square foot of 140 square feet.
Ms. Marteney: Second.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Tamburrino.
Mr. Fusco: Your application has been approved. You may go forward with the application by presenting your plans to the Code Officer, Mr. Hicks and he’ll give you a building permit. Any questions?
Mr. Manna: No.
Mr. Fusco: Thank you for your patience. And as I say, we usually do start on time but we had a bit of a glitch tonight. Thank you Mr. Manna.
1-7 State Street C2 Zoning District- SEQURA-Coordinated Review of Unlisted Action for Cayuga Community College: Center for Performing Arts and Education.
Mr. Fusco: This is the SEQRA notice for the theater which is planned at the Kalet Building. Allow me to explain exactly why this is before us tonight. As I’m sure you know from having read the newspapers, the Kalet Building is scheduled for demolition. Following the demolition, the plans are to build a community theater at the site. The reason that this matter is coming before you for consideration preliminarily tonight is that the eventual construction of the theater on the 1-7 State Street site will require site plan approval by this Board, so while it’s only the demolition being considered technically – I should say being considered – for the purposes of SEQRA, we can’t segment the eventual construction of the theater from the immediate demolition of the property.
For that reason, because we’re not allowed to segment the eventual intended use from the imminent demolition of the property, you become an involved agency - you being the planning board - become an involved agency, and because you are an involved agency, you get notice of all SEQRA provisions.
As you know from having the paperwork before you, the City Council has declared its intention to become - and it’s important that the notes reflect that we’re acknowledging - the minutes reflect that we’re acknowledging that we cannot segment the eventual construction of the theater from the imminent demolition of the property. And the reason that I mention that, and I asked Lynda to make certain the minutes show that, you’ve looked at the newspaper and you see where there’s now a lawsuit. And one of the aspects of the lawsuit is that we in fact are segmenting, that is one of the causes of action that’s been pled, that we are segmenting the demolition from the construction, which as you see in your paperwork isn’t true.
Even before this lawsuit was filed, we were bringing the full package to all of the involved agencies – not only the demolition of the Kalet Building, but the eventual planned construction of the theater at that site. So it’s important that our minutes reflect that no, we have not segmented, and no, we’re considering both the demolition and the eventual construction of the theater on the site.
Continuing with what I was saying, the City Council has declared its intention to be lead agency for the SEQRA review. Because you will be an involved agency for the site plan of the construction of the theater on the site as the demolition is approved, you are an involved agency, and therefore under SEQRA – the State Environmental Quality Review Act – you have a right to be put on notice of the City Council’s intention to be lead agency, and you can put in your two cents right now if you have any opinions, or you can pass and say we have no objection to the City Council being the lead agency.
You could choose to be lead agency yourselves. As I say, that may be something you might want to do or might not want to do, but that’s within your discretion and someone would have to break the tie…someone..well, I won’t go there. But…because it’s an unlisted action…
Ms. Marteney: No need to anyway.
Mr. Fusco: Or you can just say, “Fine and dandy with us, you be lead agency,” and I’ll write a letter to that effect tomorrow to the City Council.
Mr. Tamburrino: Do we vote on this? Counselor, do we vote on that, whether or not..
Mr. Fusco: Okay, so that explains all of your options. If it’s the proclivity of this board to not object to the City Council being lead agency, I would ask for a resolution and a second to that effect.
Ms. Calarco: I move that we allow City Council to be the lead agency.
Mr. Kilmer: I will second.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Tamburrino.
Mr. Fusco: Thank you. Any other matters before the board that anybody wishes to discuss?
Ms. Marteney: So we don’t have to do the SEQRA or anything then, because we don’t…
Mr. Tamburrino: No, we’re not the lead agency.
Ms. Marteney: But this makes it sound like other agencies might have to still approve variance things because we’re sort of involved but not as lead agency.
Mr. Fusco: There are other listed involved agencies that are in the package. For example, some funding comes from the State University Dormitory Authority. Because they are funding the project, or a portion of the project, they are involved agencies as a matter of law. Other monies come from the State Legislature, dedicated to the State University of New York, and they become an involved agency as well. Any involved agency who has any opinion, or wishes to contest lead agency status, has 30 days to do so.
Ms. Marteney: I’m not asking about lead agency. Something here about setback variance submitted…it kind of implies that we will be involved, the zoning board…
Mr. Fusco: You will be involved. You as the planning board will be involved…
Ms. Marteney: The zoning board…
Mr. Fusco: Accept my apologies…you as the zoning board will be involved because there does require a setback variance on the back border. My apologies on that.
Mr. Kilmer: The setback variance is the distance from the curb to the face of the building?
Mr. Fusco: No, I think the setback variance in this particular case is an alleyway behind, but I’m not certain.
Ms. Marteney: It says front yard setback variance.
Mr. Tamburrino: So it’s too far forward, too close to the curb line? We’ll find out.
Ms. Marteney: Well, it’s on the curb, it’s on the line, it’s what happens in a city.
Mr. Fusco: You are right. It’s the front setback on what is the new State Street. My apologies.
Mr. Kilmer: I am assuming that is to keep all of these building fronts all in one straight, continuous line…
Mr. Fusco: They are all going to be the same frontage.
Ms. Marteney: But even in neighborhoods, it’s the same kind of thing. If somebody wants to build their house on the sidewalk, and everybody else is 40 feet back, it kind of…
Mr. Kilmer: The variance would be needed to keep that from happening, correct?
Mr. Fusco: Correct, to keep all of the buildings the same distance from the sidewalk so there is a uniform face.
Mr. Tamburrino: It’s interesting, though, the lead agency – we have a bunch of agencies that all have a stake in this project so they can fight over who is lead agency or not…”nah, we believe we are the agency because of this, this and this reason,” right? That’s what’s going on tonight.
Mr. Fusco: Anybody who has a yay or nay vote to any aspect of the project can be the lead agency so in this case, because there’s fundings and variances and site plans that are required, there are a number of agencies that could be…
Mr. Tamburrino: Not that we want to, but I was saying, if you had two agencies – this is a hypothetical question – they both vie for this lead agency, how would you judge which one…
Mr. Fusco: In the case of the…it’s like a law school question. In the case of a Type 1 action, when you have that type of situation, the DEC breaks the tie. The DEC chooses which two of the vying agencies will be lead agency for the review. In the case of an unlisted action, which is what we have here, the likely outcome would be that both agencies would conduct an environmental review. There would be the potential that you could have two involved agencies conducting two environmental reviews.
The downside of that is that agency one may say, “no significance,” agency two may say, “yes, significance.” So the prudent course, even when you have an unlisted action like this, is to coordinate the review at the beginning among all of the involved agencies, have them all sign off, if you will, up front within the 30 day period, and it just streamlines the process.
Ms. Marteney: Over the years, we’ve had, I want to say not a half dozen that have been that way, and it’s either planning or zoning, and there have been more things that planning needed to be in charge of, and ours was just a simple variance.
Mr. Tamburrino: We’re not the lead agency typically.
Ms. Marteney: No. So we pass it on to them so that they could be the involved agency. It was on Grant Avenue, the whole Taco Bell thing, and the dentist behind Marshall’s…
Mr. Fusco: The Two Plus Four project on Rochester Street, I remember that.
Ms. Marteney: And we never take lead agency status.
Mr. Fusco: Well, there was some…I remember one, it might have been Rochester Street or some other – where because you were doing a use variance, I recall – I recommended that you become lead agency, so you have done it some times, but the planning staff is geared towards it, and the planning staff is assisting City Council in this case, so it seems allowing City Council to be the lead agency is the most prudent course of action.
Mr. Fusco: Motion to adjourn?
Motion made by Ms. Calarco; seconded by Mr. Kilmer, unanimous approval. Meeting adjourned 7:35 pm.
| 
