|
|
|
ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS
APPROVED
MINUTES OF MEETING
October 9, 2006
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clay, County of Onondaga, State
of New York was held at the Town Hall of Clay, New York on October 9, 2006.
Chairman Fennhahn called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. and upon the roll being called the
following were:
PRESENT: Arthur Fennhahn Chairman
Charles V. Mangan Deputy Chairman
Eugene Young Member
Karen Liebi Member
Harold Henty Member
Vivian I. Mason Secretary
Mark Grobosky Attorney
James Condon Code Enforcement Officer, Planning and
Development
ABSENT: None
MOTION made by Deputy Chairman Mangan that the Minutes of the meeting of September 11, 2006
be accepted. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Liebi. Unanimously carried.
MOTION made by Chairman Fennhahn that for the purpose of the New York State Environmental
Quality Review (SEQR) all new actions tonight will be determined to be Type II actions, and will be
given a negative declaration, unless otherwise advised by our attorney. Motion was seconded by Mr.
Henty. Unanimously carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
Case #1235 - INTERPRETATION & SPECIAL PERMIT - Scott Duerr, 3958 Maider Road:
The applicant is seeking an interpretation of Section 230-23 of the zoning ordinance of the Town of
Clay to determine if the current nonconforming use is a legal nonconforming use and for a Special
Permit for a home occupation to allow subject premises to be used for firewood processing and sales.
The applicant had withdrawn the Special Permit request at the previous meeting.
Attorney Steve Primo said he looked at the code provisions over the years starting in1944, when there
were only two districts, residential and Industrial. In 1955 it was called open land (farm use, farm
structures), in 1962 an agricultural district and throughout it was farming and related uses. Mr. Primo
feels farming related uses go many ways and believe this is a permitted use.
Code Enforcement Officer, James Condon submitted aeriel photos dated 2002 and 2006 of the
business, showing it has been cleaned up substantially.
Jim Knight of 3797 Maider Road argued that business ceased and he feels the business has
expanded. He further stated that a building was built without a permit.
Chairman Fennhahn stated the position of the Zoning Board is to determine if it’s a legal non
conforming use.
Jim Hart who owns lots next to Mr. Duerr asked if there would be a cap on the business so it
couldn’t grow.
Mr. Young stated that they can’t expand a legal non conforming use.
Mr. Henty asked Mr. Hart how long he has owned the property and Mr. Hart said a year. Mr.
Henty asked if he had known the business was there and Mr. Hart said yes.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there were
none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those in favor and those opposed and there were none.
Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.
Deputy Chairman Mangan stated that in case #1235 the current nonconforming use is a legal
nonconforming use. He continued by saying this use to process and sell firewood preexisted
the current Zoning Code. There was conflicting testimony at the Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting of September 11, 2006 and tonight. The applicant supported by several neighbors,
testified that the firewood business started in 1955 or before. Two others testified that the
business was interrupted at some point. However, the applicant and others disputed this.
Based on all the testimony, it is apparent that the business has been in continuous operation
since at least 1955. At that time the land in question was zoned as “Open Land” district. The
processing and sale of firewood was an allowed agricultural use in this “Open Land” district.
While the method of processing has changed to some degree, the business itself does not appear
to have been expanded.
MOTION was made by Deputy Mangan that this Board determine that the current use of the
property as a firewood processing and sales facility is a Legal and Allowable Nonconforming
Use. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henty.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor
Mr. Henty - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Unanimously carried.
Chairman Fennhahn confirmed that the Board has made the interpretation that this is a legal
nonconforming use.
Case #1242 - VARIANCE - Niagara Car Wash, LLC. 3567 and 3571 State Route 31
(Tax map #019-02-28.1 & 019-02-29.1):
The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the following: Lot One area from 160,000 square
feet to 81,968 square feet, building line width from 400 feet to 161 feet, one side yard from 50
feet to 31 feet, and total side yard from 100 feet to 96 feet and Lot Two area from 160,000
square feet to 63,452 square feet, building line width from 400 feet to 136 feet, one side yard
from 50 feet to 26 feet, one side setback from 50 feet to 37 feet, total side yards from 100 feet
to 63 feet, accessory structure front yard from 115 feet to 98 feet, and west side perimeter
landscape strip from 20 feet to 0 feet, for the purpose of building an automatic self serve car
wash.
(Standards of Proof given at the September 11, 2006 meeting)
Deputy Chairman Mangan asked if they were committing to putting in the sewer and Mr.
Munch of Niagara Car Wash said yes, from Route 57 to this site and businesses along there
could tie in.
Mr. Romans said it would be a public sewer, and there will be an easement across the property
to the west.
Mr. Munch added that Mr. Erickson will do a matching no cost easement across his property.
Attorney Grobosky asked Mr. Munch if they would allow the property east of them to hook up
and Mr. Munch said yes.
Attorney Grobosky asked Mr. Erickson if Meineke will hook up. Mr. Erickson said yes.
Attorney Grobosky then asked if he would be covenanting an easement at no cost if the
property to the west (Maurer’s Funeral Home) wanted to also tie into the sewer and Mr.
Erickson said yes. Attorney Grobosky stated that from a legal point they are making the offer
to the Board to do this.
Chairman Fennhahn asked Code Enforcement Officer Condon if he had any comments, and
he said no.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there were
none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to the variance and those opposed and
there were none.
Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.
For clarification, Deputy Chairman Mangan asked if they did commit to eliminating the curb
cut and eliminating the driveway and Mr. Erickson said yes.
Deputy Chairman Mangan proposed that the variance be granted as requested. He continued,
saying that there are many variances being requested and some are substantial in his view.
However, the applicant has shown a need to reconfigure the property lines in order for the
applicant to own the land for the car wash and obtain financing. Because the business involves
vehicles, it will be consistent with other uses in the neighborhood. Since the lot is currently
nonstandard, there is no other way to accommodate the proposed car wash. The applicant has
committed to remove the current curb cut and driveway on the eastern side of the properties
and use a combined driveway with the current Meineke Car Care. In addition, the applicant has
committed to install public sewers that will extend approximately 900 feet allowing connections
for neighboring lots. Both of these actions are of great benefit to the Town of Clay and offset
any concern about substandard lots.
MOTION was made by Deputy Chairman Mangan granting the variances as requested in Case
#1242, with the following conditions: 1} The car wash shall be constructed in substantial
compliance with Exhibit “A”; 2} The curb cut and driveway for the house currently on the east
side shall be removed; 3} The car wash shall share the current driveway with the Meineke Car
Care center; 4} The applicant, by covenant, shall install public sewers from his property to
Route 57; 5} Obtaining the necessary zone change from the Town of Clay Town Board; 6}
Obtaining the necessary site plan and/or subdivision approval from the Town of Clay Planning
Board, and 7} The applicant and/or Mr. Erickson, by covenant, shall allow an easement across
the Meineke property for the property owner to the west for a sewer connection. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Young
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor
Mr. Henty - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Unanimously carried.
Chairman Fennhahn confirmed that the variances are granted.
NEW BUSINESS:
Case #1243 - VARIANCE - L. Robert Temple, 8265 Maple Road (Tax map #073-01-
03.0:
The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 75 feet to 28 feet and
the side yard setback from 25 feet to 7.5 feet, for the purpose of building a porch and rear
addition to the house.
Chairman Fennhahn noted that the applicant started construction without a permit.
Mr. Temple explained that he continued what the previous owner had started. The porch
(entrance overhang) was added and he would like to put in a bathroom and mudroom.
Mr. Henty asked if he had any other plans and Mr. Temple said a temporary shed.
Mr. Temple addressed standards of proof:
1. He feels it will be a desirable change to the neighborhood.
2. Because the lot is small there isn’t any other feasible method without the
variances.
3. He does feel the variance is substantial.
4. He doesn’t believe there will be any adverse impact on drainage.
5. The applicant explained that he had assumed the former owner had a building
permit, but the need for the variance is self-created.
Chairman Fennhahn asked Code Enforcement Condon if he had any comments and he said
the applicant needs to submit drawings before a building permit will be issued.
Ruth Dattler said she lives next door and does not object to the granting of the variances.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further questions and there were none. He asked
for those in favor of granting the variance and Mrs. Dattler was in favor. Chairman Fennhahn
asked for those opposed to granting the variance and there were none.
Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.
MOTION was made by Mrs. Liebi in case #1243 that the variance be granted, with the
condition construction be in substantial compliance with exhibit “A”, and that the variance be
limited to the addition of the porch and rear addition. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henty.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor
Mr. Henty - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Unanimously carried.
Chairman Fennhahn confirmed that the variance is granted.
Case #1245 - SPECIAL PERMIT - Paul Dedrich, 4984 Woodmark Drive (Tax map
#096-28-02.0):
The applicant is seeking a Special Permit to allow an inhome occupation for chocolate sales
production to sell over the Internet.
Mr. Dedrich gave an overview of his intent to convert a portion of his garage into a commercial
kitchen to make chocolate candy and possibly some scones. His intent is to wholesale them on
the Internet and sell them to florists, spas, etc. There will be no retail sales from their home, nor
will they advertize in home sales.
Mr. Henty asked what he intended to do with the rest of the garage and Mr. Dedrich said
personal storage. Mr. Henty asked if there was any way to get into the house from the garage.
Mr. Dedrich said he would like access from the house into the business area, but he didn’t
include it in his drawing because he didn’t know that detail was needed.
Chairman Fennhahn stated that the Board would not want the possibility of it turning into an
apartment.
Mr. Young asked what experience he had and Mr. Dedrich said he had previously been taught
how to make truffles and other candy, and he had also worked for Nestle. Mr. Young asked if
he intended that it be a full time business and Mr. Dedrich said yes, and that he could produce
720 or more pieces of candy a week.
Chairman Fennhahn noted that there cannot be any employees, that the only people that can
help are ones residing in the house. Mr. Dedrich said only his wife and son will be helping him.
Mr. Young commented that Mr. Dedrich could not advertise, that he couldn’t sell retail out of
his home.
Mr. Dedrich said he would not advertise. Chairman Fennhahn told him that he’s allowed to
have a two square foot sign for identification purposes only. Mr. Dedrich said supplies would
be delivered and pick-up would be made once a day. Chairman Fennhahn said that would be
fine.
Russ Mitchell asked if he could produce more than 720 pieces a week and Mr. Dedrich said yes.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further questions and there were none. He asked
for those in favor and those opposed to granting the Special Permit and there were none.
Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.
MOTION was made by Mr. Young in case #1245 that the Special Permit be granted to allow
an inhome occupation for chocolate sales production as requested. Motion was seconded by
Mrs. Leibi.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor
Mr. Henty - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Unanimously carried.
Chairman Fennhahn confirmed that the Special Permit is approved.
Case #1246 - VARIANCE - Salvatore Casale, 7984 & 7990 Oswego Road (Suburban
Hardware) (Tx map #081-01-05.0):
The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the north side perimeter strip from 80 feet to 10
feet for the purpose of constructing a storage building for the shopping center.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if it would be a warehouse and Salvatore Casale said a mini one, on
site only. It will be 20 feet by 150 feet, with a ten foot clearance, the building about 15 feet
high to the peak.
Mr. Casale addressed standards of proof:
1. Because he believes it fits in with the neighborhood and that it is secluded in back
of Suburban Hardware, he feels it will not be an undesirable change to the
character of the neighborhood.
2. To move the building over would encroach on the parking for the restaurant, so
there isn’t any other feasible method.
3. He does feel the variance is substantial.
4. He doesn’t believe there will be any adverse environmental impact on the
neighborhood.
5. The applicant stated that the need for the variance is self-created
Code Enforcement Officer James Condon voiced concern for the power lines and whether there
was an easement for them. Chairman Fennhahn commented that an easement could effect the
building.
Ernest Casale, father of the applicant, said there was no easement.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further questions and there were none. He asked
for those in favor of granting the variance and Russ Mitchell said he though it’s better to have
the storage behind the business. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to granting the
variance and there were two, Elaine Szatanek and Don Stoddard who live on Steppingstone
Lane. They are concerned about drainage, as they already have a drainage problem in back of
them.
Mr. Henty said he believes the drainage problem started after Byrne Manor was completed.
Chairman Fennhahn advised Ms. Szatanek and Mr. Stoddard to go to the Planning Board
meeting and address their drainage concerns when the applicant appears before them for site
plan approval.
Chairman Fennhahn asked where drainage from the roof would go and Mr. Casale said to the
swale.
Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.
MOTION was made by Mr. Henty in case #1246 that the variance be granted, with the
condition construction be in substantial compliance with exhibits “A” and “B”. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Young.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor
Mr. Henty - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Unanimously carried.
MOTION was made by Mr. Henty to amend the granting of the variance by adding the
condition that the applicant receive site plan approval from the Town Planning Board. Motion
was seconded by Mrs. Liebi.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor
Mr. Henty - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Unanimously carried.
Chairman Fennhahn confirmed that the variance is granted.
There being no further business, Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the meeting at 9:20 P.M.
________________________________
Vivian I. Mason, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Clay
Zoning Board Minutes Archive
|
