MINUTES OF MEETING                       

                                    March 12, 2007

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 March 12, 2007.

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
David Hess                      Member
Vivian I. Mason              Secretary
Mark Grobosky              Attorney
Cindy Heid                      Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development 

MOTION made by Deputy Chairman Mangan that the Minutes of the meeting of February 12, 2007 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. Young. Unanimously carried.

OLD BUSINESS:

Case #1252 - SPECIAL PERMIT - HGT Enterprises LLC, 7145 Henry Clay Boulevard (Tax map #115-02-17):

The applicant is seeking a Special Permit to allow a non-conforming use to be changed to another non-conforming use for the purpose of establishing an animal care dog grooming business.

Greg Tiemann of Cameo Grooming noted that he had given his standards of proof at the last meeting and had nothing else to add.

Deputy Chairman Mangan asked if the agency that had been booking both hair and nails previously and Mr. Tiemann said yes. Ms. Voss added that there were separate corporations.  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 Deputy Chairman Mangan in case #1252 that the Special Permit be granted to allow a Non-Conforming Use to be changed to another Non-Conforming Use for the purpose of establishing an animal care dog grooming business, subject to the following conditions: 1} Site Plan approval, if required, by the Town of Clay Planning Board; 2} No unattended dogs to be kept outside; 3} No parking in front of the building except for the drop off and pickup of dogs for grooming; 4} Dogs for dog care are to be dropped off and picked up at the rear of the building; 5} Business is limited to thirty (30) dogs per day, including grooming and day care; 6} No overnight boarding is allowed; 7} Any exterior modification of the building will require Site Plan approval of the Town of Clay Planning Board. 

Deputy Chairman Mangan stated his reason for supporting the granting of the Special Permit is based on the following: 1] The property, prior to June 6, 2005, was zoned C-2 (Office & Retail Store District); 2] By a determination of then Commissioner of Planning and Development David Tessier, a Modeling Agency/Hair Care and Nail Facility is a Personal Service Use; 3] A Personal Service Use was an Allowed Use in a C-2 Zone (Office & Retail Store District) prior to June 6, 2005; 4] The property was used as
a Professional Modeling Agency/Hair Care and Nail Facility (Personal Service Use) prior to June 6, 2005; 5] On June 6, 2005 the zoning classification of the property was changed to O-2 (Office District); 6] A Personal Service Use is not an Allowed Use in an O-2 (Office District); 7] The property continued to be used as a Professional Modeling Agency/Hair Care and Nail Facility, (Personal Service Use), after June 6, 2005; 8] The continued use of the Property after June 6, 2005. As a Professional Modeling Agency/Hair Care and Nail Facility, (Personal Service Use), constituted a Legal Non-Conforming Use of the property; 9] As a result of a Legal Non-Conforming Use operating in the property, another Non-Conforming Use can operate in the property, subject to the issuance of a Special Permit pursuant to Code Section 230-23 D(3); and 10] Based on the evidence at the hearings, it is clear that the proposed use of the property as an animal care grooming business will not have a greater impact on the surrounding properties than the prior Non-Conforming Use of the property as a Professional Modeling Agency/Hair Care and Nail Facility, (Personal Service Use), did. Motion was seconded by Mr. Young.

Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor 
Mr. Hess - in favor

Chairman Fennhahn stated that since the surrounding neighbors to this proposed business were unopposed was documented and important to his decision.

Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Unanimously carried.

Chairman Fennhahn confirmed that the Special Permit is granted.

NEW BUSINESS

Chairman Fennhahn asked the Board Members if they had visited the site and all answered in the affirmative.

Case #1251 - VARIANCES - Joe Janowski, 7608 Oswego Road (Bayberry Plaza) (Tax map #094-01-08.1):

The applicant is seeking a Variance to reduce the front yard setback (Blackberry Road) from 100 feet to 42 feet, the east side yard setback (186 Blackberry Road) from 75 feet to 14 feet, and the east side yard perimeter landscape strip from 30 feet to 14 feet for the purpose of building an addition to the mattress store.

Joe Janowski explained that they would like to construct an addition to the mattress store so that they can increase their warehouse facilities. Mr. Janowski said he is going to combine an additional piece of property he purchased to the northeast corner of the Bayberry Plaza to facilitate this addition. He added that the only variance he is requesting tonight is the front yard setback on Blackberry Road from 100 feet to 42 feet. He feels this addition is the only recourse to satisfy the tenants needs.

Mr. Janowski addressed the Standards of Proof:

1. He doesn’t feel this addition will be detrimental to the character neighborhood,
especially not with the additional land.
2. He believes there is no other feasible method. This addition will continue the building’s
line and blend in with the building’s appearance.
3. He stated that the area variance is substantial.
4. As the same appearance will prevail, he feels there will be no adverse effect on
neighborhood.
5. He stated that the variance is self created.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Mr. Janowski what plans they had for the trailers in back of the plaza and he said that when constructions begins in a couple of months all will be gone.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Ms. Heid if she any comments and she asked Mr. Janowski where the used mattresses that were stored in the trailer would go. Mr Janowski answered that they would be stored in the new addition.

Chairman Fennhahn asked about the power line and Mr. Janowski said they would like to have it put underground, otherwise they would have to put it around the perimiter.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further questions and there were none. He asked for those in favor and Russ Mitchell said he was in favor as the addition would keep in line with the present building and putting eliminating the trailers would clean things up. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to granting the variance and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Young in case #1251 that the variance to reduce the front yard setback (Blackberry Road) from 100 feet to 42 feet be granted, that the other two requests for variances be denied, and that there be the following conditions: 1} The lots currently owned by Blackberry Partners be combined into one parcel with an administrative reverse subdivision and thereby eliminating the need for a side yard and perimeter strip variances; 2} The two trailers be removed; and 3} The improvements be constructed in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A” dated 2/14/07 and last revised 3/7/07. Motion was seconded by Deputy Chairman Mangan

Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor 
Mr. Hess - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Unanimously carried.

Chairman Fennhahn confirmed that the variance is granted.

Case #1254 - VARIANCES - COR Development Company, LLC - 3838 State Route 31 (Tax map #053-01-23.1 and #053-01-22.1 and #053-01-21.1):

The applicant is seeking a Variance to reduce the side perimeter landscape strip from 80 feet to 30 feet, increase the building (peak) height from 35 feet to 45 feet 4 inches, and increase the free standing sign size from 64 square feet to 255 square feet for the purpose of building a shopping center (Lowe’s).

Kathryn Johnson, Legal Council for COR Development, LLC stated that she understands that the sign ordinance is being rewritten and that they are withdrawing the request for the increase of square footage for the free standing sign.

They have relocated the proposed restaurant to the western portion of the front to protect the school as advised by the Town. The relief they are seeking along the north western line of the property is for parking and the curve of the road. The trees along the property will not be taken down. They will not develop the north eastern corner of the property. With regard to the peak height they are seeking, they feel this will make the building more attractive.

Attorney Johnson addressed the Standards of Proof regarding the landscape perimeter strip:

1. They do not believe this variance will produce an undesirable change to the character
to the neighborhood. The commercial lands in the surrounding area were developed
under the previous zoning which did not require a 30 foot or 50 foot perimeter
landscaped buffer. All that was required by the majority of commercial development
in this area was a 25 foot landscaped perimeter strip.
2. As the Planning Board and Town Board requested that the restaurant be moved to the
north western corner of the parcel, there is no other feasible method than to obtain this
variance.
3. The request for this variance may seem substantial, however when you look at the
overall site it is only a small percentage, so they don’t feel it is substantial.
4. They do not believe allowing the buffer variance will have an adverse effect on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. They don’t feel the request is self created since it is a result of trying to comply with the Town and the school district.

Attorney Johnson then addressed the Standards of Proof regarding the height request for the peak:

1. The buildings in the immediate area will appear taller than the Lowe’s store, so they do
not feel the peak height for the lumber yard and the main entrance will produce an
undesirable change to the neighborhood.
2. In order to keep the building aesthetically pleasing, they feel there is no other feasible
method than to heighten the peaks. The peaks provide character to the building. A
lower overall roof will not allow Lowe’s to have the interior volume to operate there
store.
3. They don’t feel the request is substantial since only 363 square feet of the building front exceeds the height requirement while 2037 square feet, which is only 18% of the
building frontage.
4. They do not feel the proposed height request will have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. Although they feel the proposed increase in height for the two peaks will have a positive effect on the long flat building facade, the request must be considered self-created.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Ms. Heid if she any comments and she had none.  A nearby resident to this parcel voiced some concerns and Attorney Johnson said that his concerns really should be addressed at the site plan review at the Planning Board’s meeting and that he should attend it.

Russ Mitchell inquired about the heights of other Lowe’s stores and Taylor McDermott, Site Development Manger for Lowe’s stated that their standard height is 51 feet seven inches.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further questions and there were none. He asked for those in favor and Russ Mitchell said that he felt the perimeter variance request was no problem and he doesn’t like the height, but since it sets back from the road it was acceptable. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to granting the variance and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Deputy Chairman Mangan in case #1254 that the variances for the reduction of the side perimeter landscape strip from 80 feet to 30 feet, and the increase of the building peak from 35 feet to 45 feet four inches be granted, with the condition that the perimeter strip be in accordance with Exhibit “A” and the height be in substantial compliance with Exhibit C dated 10-11-06. It is also noted that the applicant has withdrawn the request for the increase of square footage for a free standing
sign. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Liebi.

Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - in favor
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor 
Mr. Hess - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Unanimously carried.
Chairman Fennhahn confirmed that the variances are granted.

There being no further business, Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the meeting at 8:40 P.M. 


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


                                                                   
Zoning Board Minutes Archive