|
|
|
ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS
APPROVED
MINUTES OF MEETING
April 10, 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 April 10, 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
Karen Liebi Member
Harold Henty Member
Vivian I. Mason Secretary
Mark Grobosky Attorney
Cindy Heid Assistant Commissioner of Planning and
Development
ABSENT: Eugene Young Member
MOTION made by Deputy Chairman Mangan that the Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2006 be
accepted. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Leibi. 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 Mrs.
Liebi. Carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
Case #1223 - VARIANCE - Eric C. Knaub, 7982 Morgan Road (Tax Map #082-01-42.1:
The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the construction of a barn for residential purposes in an
industrial zone.
Chairman Fennhahn stated that the applicant has asked for an adjournment. The hearing is therefore
adjourned to May 8, 2006.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Fennhahn asked the Board Members if they had visited the sites and all answered in the
affirmative.
Case #1222 - VARIANCE - Jon Burdick, 8481 Oswego Road (Tax Map #019-02-
22.1):
The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the lot width from 350 feet to 160 feet and
reducing the lot area from 140,000 square feet (3.22 acres) to 107,158 square feet (2.46 acres)
for the purpose of subdivision and zone change for the sale of motor vehicles
The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.
Brian Mantley, the architect representing Jon Burdick, explained that the property adjacent to
his dealership is owned by Moyers Corners Fire Department, Inc. Mr. Burdick would like to
purchase it to expand his business.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if the applicant had any documentation from Moyers Corners Fire
Department to support his right to seek the variance. Mr. Mantley gave the Board a copy of
the documentation that was included in their request for a zone change.
Mr. Mantley further noted that Moyers Corners Fire Department, Inc. has more land than they
need, but they do not have enough land to sell Mr. Burdick a larger piece that would comply
with the required lot width. Mr. Burdick wants to use the parcel for truck sales, and keep it as
a stand alone parcel from the rest of the dealership.
Mr. Mantley addressed the standards of proof:
1. They don’t feel it will detract from the character of the neighborhood.
2. Moyers Corners Fire Department does not have enough land to sell them, so
there is no other feasible method.
3. They feel the variance for the width of the lot is substantial but feel the request
for the size of the lot is not substantial.
4. They believe there will be no adverse environmental or drainage impacts on the
neighborhood that cannot be mitigated.
5. They do feel the need for the variance is self-created
Deputy Chairman Mangan noted that the Onondaga County Planning Board’s
recommendation of disapproval has to do with Town codes, not the County’s codes.
Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Heid if she had any comments and she had
none.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if the Board or anyone in the audience had any further comments
or questions and there were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those in favor of granting the
variances and David Essig who owns the golf course on State Route 31 was in favor. He
stated that Mr. Burdick runs a clean business. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to the
variances and there were none.
Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.
The Zoning Board Attorney, Mark Grobosky, noted that because of the County Planning
Board’s recommendation for disapproval, there must be a majority plus one vote to grant the
variances.
MOTION was made by Mrs. Liebi in case #1222 that the variances be granted with the
following conditions: 1} Improvements to be built in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”;
2} Approval of required zone change by the Town of Clay Town Board, and 3} Approval of
the site plan by the Town of Clay Planning Board. Motion was seconded by Deputy Chairman
Mangan.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - absent
Mr. Henty - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Carried.
Chairman Fennhahn noted that the variance is granted.
Case #1224 - VARIANCE - Starbucks Coffee Co., 5380 West Taft Road (US Route
11) (Tax map #117-10-20.1 & #117-10-20-22.2:
The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 75 feet to 33 feet, the
side yard perimeter landscape strip from 30 feet to 4 feet and the front yard perimeter landscape
strip from 30 feet to 22 feet for the purpose of constructing a Starbucks restaurant.
The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.
Dennis Baldwin, the attorney representing the applicant, introduced Kevin Petru, the
Development Manager of land acquisition and Angelo Santabarbara, the Engineer.
Mr. Santabarbara stated that they plan to lease the property. He gave a brief overview of the
configuration.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if there would be a right only sign at the exit/entrance and Mr.
Santabarbara said there was no decision yet. Chairman Fennhahn voiced concerns regarding
cars stacking up and that a right turn only at the exit would help, and advised them to include
it in their plan when they go for site plan approval before the Planning Board. Mr. Petru said
they would do that. Chairman Fennhahn reiterated that he feels traffic could be a problem,
especially where the drive through narrows down to only 14 feet near the patio area.
Mr. Henty queried as to whether a portion of the patio could be cut back to accommodate a
widening of the drive thru. Mr. Petru said they could make the adjustment.
Mr. Santabarbara stated that they could redesign the drive thru to a 24 foot minimum width.
There would also be curbing. Mr. Henty asked what its height would be and Mr. Santabarbara
said 6 inches.
Attorney Baldwin addressed the standards of proof:
1. They feel it would enhance the lot and be in character with the neighborhood
and not detract from it.
2. They feel there is no other feasible method. They looked at fourteen different
layouts. The owner of the property, Mr. Gelsomin had planned to have an out
building on the lot when the Eckerd Drug Store was built, but the zoning
ordinance changed the setback requirements, thus the need for variances.
3. The ordinance is meant to protect the residential neighborhood, but because
they are next to a dentist office they don’t feel the variance request is substantial.
4. The SEQR is a Type II which means there will be no adverse impact on the
neighborhood.
5. They do not feel the need for the variance is self-created because the ordinance
changed after Mr. Gelsomin had accommodated for an out building when the
drug store was built.
Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Heid if she had any comments and she
advised the applicant to be sure to show vehicle barriers in the patio area on the site plan.
Donald Cerio asked what their hours of operation would be as he is concerned with noise and
that there is only a vacant lot between them. Chairman Fennhahn commented that Mr. Cerio
is still quite a distance away. Mr. Petru answered that the hours would be 6:00 A.M. to 10:00
or 11:00 P.M. with Saturday to 12:00 A.M. perhaps. Mr. Cerio said he was not pleased with
that.
Dr. Forth stated that he approves of Starbucks going in, but is concerned with drainage. In the
past, snow has been pushed towards his property, and the construction of this new store would
result in less room to put the snow. Chairman Fennhahn noted that this is really a Planning
Board issue at site plan review, and he encouraged Mr. Cerio to attend the meeting and voice
his concern.
Attorney Baldwin assured everyone that Starbucks wants to be a good neighbor and they would
make an effort to take care of the snow.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if the Board or anyone in the audience had any further comments
or questions and there were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those in favor and those
opposed to granting the variance and there were none.
Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.
MOTION was made by Deputy Chairman Mangan in case #1224 that variance be granted
with the condition that improvements will be built in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”
as modified, and that there will be 24 foot minimum width for the drive thru. Motion was
seconded by Mrs. Liebi.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - absent
Mr. Henty - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Carried.
Chairman Fennhahn noted that the variance is granted.
Case #1225 - Metropolitan Signs, Inc., 3451 Route 31 (Tax map #019-02-33.1):
The applicant is seeking a variance to change the following: 1.} Reducing the front setback
from 25 feet to 2 feet, 2.} Increasing the square footage from 32 to 90; 3.} Changing from a
monument sign to a free standing sign, and 4.} Increasing the height from 10 feet to 21 feet
for the purpose of installing a free standing sign.
The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.
Attorney Steve Primo, who is representing the applicant, explained that the 75 acre site has six
different businesses. They would like to advertise for all six and propose a twenty-one foot 90
square feet sign so the businesses names would be visible to vehicles passing by. The sign
would be just over 50 feet from the pavement.
David Razzante, of Metropolitan Signs, commented that they wanted a sign to match the area
that was attractive and as compact as possible, yet could be easily read by potential customers.
Deputy Chairman Mangan asked why they couldn’t leave the sign at the 25 foot setback and
Mr. Razzante said it would be harder to see. They want people to be able to see it soon enough
to make the turn into the golf course.
Deputy Chairman Mangan commented that he wondered how important the larger sign really
is, as he feels the golf course is very visible already.
Razzante reiterated that they wanted more visibility.
Mrs. Liebi agreed with the Deputy Chairman. She didn’t see the need for a larger sign, and feels
the smaller sign would be easy to read.
David Essig, the owner of the golf course explained that advertising via radio or television is
expensive. He keeps the grounds up and the structures in good condition and feels that
economically he needs more visible signage. He wants to attract customers and believes he
needs the larger sign and that it has to be closer to the road.
Attorney Primo addressed the standards of proof:
1. They feel other signage in the area is close to the road, and they don’t believe the
larger sign will detract from the character of the neighborhood.
Chairman Fennhahn referred to the neighboring signs and asked how close to the road they
actually were. He noted that no dimensions were being given.
Attorney Primo said he felt the six businesses in the golf course made it sort of like a shopping
center, where bigger signs are allowed.
2. They feel the only alternative would be to have individual signs for each business
and they believe this is not a viable solution, so they see no other feasible method
to accomplish their need to further business.
3. They feel the variance request is substantial, but not if you look at shopping
center signs.
4. They believe the sign would be unobtrusive and would not have an adverse
impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Razzante added that they would have
subdued lighting.
5. They do feel the need for the variance is self-created
Chairman Fennhahn commented that if they were that close to the road they would only need
a ten foot sign.
Mr. Razzante said they believe the names would be too close to the ground and would not be
visible enough.
Mr. Henty stated that he felt the names closer to the ground would be very visible.
Mr. Essig disagreed, stating that he feels the lower signs would not be visible enough and that
it was a safety issue and it was better for the signs to be higher.
Chairman Fennhahn commented that the golf course is zoned recreational, and some of the
businesses are a stretch to be classified as recreational use.
Attorney Primo argued that they are not a shopping center, but they have multiple uses and
they have the same needs to be seen as a stores in a shopping center.
Deputy Chairman Mangan noted that the new ordinance is less than a year old and that their
variance request is so massive that he’s not sure where to make the compromise.
Attorney Primo asked if they could have the hearing adjourned to a later date so they could
have more time.
Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Heid if she had any comments and she said
she had none.
Russ Mitchell asked if the applicant was granted the variance for the two foot setback, how far
would they actually be from the road. Attorney Primo answered 52 feet.
Janet Rathburn asked if the variance was granted would they be setting a precedent and
Chairman Fennhahn explained that the Board deals with each individual case and that there
would be no precedent set.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if the Board or anyone in the audience had any further comments
or questions and there were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those in favor of granting the
variances and there were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to granting the
variance and Russ Mitchell said he was opposed to such a massive request. He said he felt that
since it was a golf course people would expect the normal uses, with the exception of the
propane and ice cream, and he didn’t feel the need to put signs up for those uses.
Chairman Fennhahn noted that it was a complex situation.
Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the hearing to May 8, 2006.
There being no further business, Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the meeting at 9:38 P.M.
________________________________
Vivian I. Mason, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Clay
Zoning Board Minutes Archive
|
