MINUTES OF MEETING                       

                                             August 14, 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 August 14, 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
                     Cindy Heid                    Assistant Commissioner of Planning and 
                                                            Development

MOTION made by Mr. Mangan that the Minutes of the meeting of July 10, 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. Mangan. Unanimously carried.

OLD BUSINESS:

Case #1225 - VARIANCES - Metropolitan Signs, Inc., 3451 Route 31 (Tax map #019-02-33.1):

The applicant is seeking variances 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. (Adjourned from April 10, 2006, May 8, June 12, and July 10 meeting)

(Standards of proof given at the April 10, 2006 meeting)

Chairman Fennhahn noted that this has been delayed three times and the applicant has asked for an indefinite delay. The Board will not do that, however Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the hearing to November 13, 2006 and said we’ll continue the hearing at that time.

Case #1229 - VARIANCE - Joe Janowski, 7608 Oswego Road (Tax map #094-01-08.1:

The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 100 feet to 61 feet for the purpose of building a Kinney Drug Store.

(Standard of proof were given at the June 12, 2006 meeting)

Joe Janowski gave a brief overview of the updated proposal. After considering parking and traffic, they have moved the building further to the south and are now asking for a reduction of the front yard setback to 81 feet. (Because the relief being sought is less, there is no need for a new application) They are also proposing to have the entrance to the plaza moved an entrance width to the south. That will have to be approved by the Onondaga County Department of Transportation since Route 57 (Oswego Road) is a County road.

Assistant Commissioner Heid questioned the addition included on the plan which has been drawn on the northern rear portion of a plaza store and Mr. Janowski said it was not a part of this request. Assistant Commissioner Heid also noted that the applicant is to appear before the Town Board for a special permit for a drive-thru.

Joyce Ciritto questioned safety for pedestrians crossing over to the store and Mr. Janowski pointed out that it would be no different than pedestrians crossing from the parking lot to the plaza’s stores.

Assistant Commissioner Heid asked Mr. Janowski if the Board granted a reduction to 80 feet instead of the 61 feet he requested, would it be acceptable, and he said that it would.

June Baycura of the Bayberry Community Association, questioned the drive-thru traffic and their approach from different directions. 

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there were none. He asked for those in favor of granting the variance and there were none. He asked for those opposed to granting the variance and there was one, Phyllis Raster, who said some residents don’t like the idea of more traffic.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if she had any substantiation that there would be more traffic and she said no.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Young in case #1229 that variance be granted to reduce the front yard setback from 100 feet to 80 feet with the condition that the location of the building be as shown on Exhibit “D” and its construction be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “D”. 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.

NEW BUSINESS:

Chairman Fennhahn announced that he had asked the Board members if they have visited the sites for each case and they all said they had.


Case #1236 - VARIANCES - Russell & Jennifer Widener, 4476 Riverview Road (Tax Map #038-01-43.0: 

The applicant is seeking variances to reduce the west side yard setback from 25 feet to 11 feet and the east side yard setback from 25 feet to 8 feet for the purpose of adding additions to the existing home.

Russell Widener’s father-in-law, Eric Gaines explained that the property is narrow and when the new zoning was enacted it created further restrictions for building any additions. This residence is considered legal non-conforming.

Mr. Gaines addressed standards of proof:

1. The home is in much need of updating and they feel the additions will therefore enhance the character of the neighborhood. 
2. Because the lot is non-conforming structure and because of the septic system and power lines, expansion is limited, so there is no other feasible method. 
3. They do not feel the variance is substantial, because of the non-conforming classification and that the west side reduction is actually only 13.24 feet to 11 feet. 
4. They do not believe there will be any adverse environmental impact. The owner hopes to revise the site grading to help eliminate the minor amount of standing water.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Heid if she had any comment and she said she feel these additions will be an improvement.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there were none. He asked for those in favor of granting the variances and there were two, Cheryl White and J. J. Maderos. He asked for those opposed and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Henty in case #1236 that the variances be granted, with the condition that the construction be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”, dated 8-14-06. Motion was seconded by Mr. Mangan.

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.

Case #1237 - VARIANCES - Harold F. Hemingway, Jr., 9618 Horseshoe Island Road (Tax map #013-01-24.0:

The applicant is seeking variances to reduce the west side yard setback from 25 feet to 21 feet, the east side yard setback from 25 feet to 8 feet and the rear yard (river side) setback from 25 feet to 0 feet for the purpose of constructing a deck and reconstruction of the existing house. 

Harold Hemingway explained that the roof is about to collapse and they want to reconstruct and improve their residence.

He addressed standards of proof:

1. Since the cottage has structural problems he feels the proposed construction will be a desirable change to the character of the neighborhood. 
2. There is no other feasible method to build the deck without a variance.
3. The structure will basically be the same, and believes the variance is substantial.
4. He believes there will be no adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood.
5. The applicant stated that the need for the variance is self-created

Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Heid if she had any comments and she said that before they will issue a building permit the property needs to be cleaned up.

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 variance and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mrs. Liebi in case #1237 that the variance be granted, with the condition that construction be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”, a map by Stephen Sehnert dated 10-16-98, and modified by the applicant, in connection with the application. 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 #1238 - VARIANCE - Stephen Valentine, 4347 Loveland Drive (Tax map #069-21-12.0):

The applicant is seeking variances to reduce the side yard setback from 10.5 feet to 6 feet for the purpose of installing an inground swimming pool.

Stephen Valentine informed the Board that he would like to put in an inground swimming pool and the variance will allow them to put more than three feet of concrete around it, which they feel will be a safer walking area.

Mr. Henty asked him what size pool he intended to have built, and Mr. Valentine said 18' by 36'.

Mr. Valentine addressed standards of proof:

1. The applicant also feels there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, as it will be similar to his neighbors.

Chairman Fennhahn asked why the proposed location for the pool was chosen. Mr. Valentine stated because an easement was in the way, whereas Chairman Fennhahn asked why they couldn’t place the pool farther back on the property. Mr. Valentine said because it would take up more of the property and they want room for the children to play. Also there is a drainage area at the back of the property. 

Chairman Fennhahn suggested a smaller pool. The Board’s concern is the closeness to the neighbors and the noise impact on them. Mr. Valentine said they plan on putting up a 6 foot fence, with the good side out.

1. There is no other feasible method to build it the way he wants to. Because the property is pie shaped, to put it elsewhere would destroy the functionality of the back yard.
2. They feel the variance is substantial.
3. They do not believe the proposed variance would cause any adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
4. They feel the alleged difficulty was self-created.

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 variance and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

A brief discussion followed concerning the placement of the pool. Chairman Fennhahn voiced concerns about the closeness to the neighbors and Mr. Mangan noted that the four feet of concrete around the pool meant it wasn’t quite as close, and the six foot wooden scalloped fence would help.

MOTION was made by Mr. Mangan in case #1238 that the variance be granted with the condition that a six foot scalloped wood fence be erected along the west side of the property. 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 variance is granted.

Case #1239 - VARIANCES - Donna M. Aupperle and Karl W. Aupperle, 4428 Riverview Road (Tax Map #038-01-32.0):

The applicant is seeking variances to reduce the front yard setback from 75 feet to 60 feet, the east side yard setback from 25 feet to 5 feet and the west side setback from 25 feet to 21 feet for the purpose of adding an addition to the existing garage.

Donna & Karl Aupperle said they have done a lot of repairs to their home and now want to add to their garage, as they need more storage room.

They addressed standards of proof:

1. They feel there will be no change to the character of the neighborhood. The addition will be behind the garage and will not be seen.
2. They feel there is no other feasible method. To tear down and rebuild would be expensive.
3. They feel the variance is not substantial as they are adding to the existing structure.
4. No trees are being removed; there will be no elevation changes or fill, so they believe there will be no adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood.
5. The zoning setbacks have changed, but the need for the variance is self-created.

Mr. Mangan noted that he was impressed with the improvements they had already made.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Heid if she had any comments and she had none.

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 variance and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Young in case #1239 that a variance be granted with the condition the construction be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”. 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 #1240 - VARIANCE - Cheryl D. White, 9591 Black Creek Road (Tax Map #036-02-05.0:

The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 75 feet to 50 feet and increasing the height of a detached accessory structure from 25 feet to 32 feet for the purpose of building a pole barn for an indoor riding arena and horse stall for personal use.

Chairman Fennhahn told the applicant that if her request is approved it can not be used for business purposes.

Cheryl White said that basically they are taking up an out door riding area with this structure. There will be roll up curtains on the sides so that in good weather the barn could be open to the air.

Ms. White addressed standards of proof:

1. She feels that with the structure being closer to the road, it will line up better with the house. She feels it won’t be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood as there is only one neighbor. Building it closer to the road will allow that neighbor a better view.
2. She has arthritis and wants the indoor riding arena closer to the house, so there is less walking. Also there is a slope to the back of the property that would need to be filled and digging out front would create drainage problems so she feels there is no other feasible method without a variance.
3. She feels the variance is substantial
4. She feels there will be no adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood.
5. The need for the variance is self-created .

Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Heid if she had any comments and she asked if the sides would be wood and Ms. White said that four feet of the sides would be wood.

Muriel Prianti asked if the building size was 150 feet by 62 feet and Ms. White said yes.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further questions and there were none. He asked for those in favor and there were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to granting the variance and Muriel Prianti said she was opposed. She said the building was more than an accessory. She objects to a 9,300 square foot, 32 feet high building being so close to the road and feels it’s out of character with the neighborhood.

Mr. Young felt the building could be built back further, that it was only a 25 foot difference.

Chairman Fennhahn said he felt drainage needs to be addressed and that the neighbors view is not a contributing factor to granting the variance. He also did not feel 25 feet farther away would be a problem and that he wasn’t in favor of granting the variance.

Mr. Henty said he felt the same. He feels there is plenty of land and that the indoor riding arena could be built elsewhere without a variance.

Mr. Mangan asked the applicant if the proposed building could be moved ten feet back from the road without beigh adversely affected by the slope. Ms. White concurred.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Mangan in case #1240 that a variance be granted to reduce the front yard setback from 75 feet to 60 feet and to increase the height of a detached accessory structure from 25 feet to 32 feet, with the condition that construction be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A” dated 8-14-06, that the Town Engineer approve the drainage and that the pole barn be for personal use only. Motion was seconded by Mr. Young.

Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor 
Mr. Henty - against
Chairman Fennhahn - against Carried.

Chairman Fennhahn confirmed the variance is granted.

There being no further business, Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the meeting at 9:50 P.M. 


________________________________
Vivian I. Mason, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Clay  

                                                                   
Zoning Board Minutes Archive