MINUTES OF MEETING                       

                                    May 14, 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 May 14, 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
                     James Condon                  Code Enforcement Officer
                     Mark Territo                    Commissioner of Planning and Development

MOTION made by Deputy Chairman Mangan that the Minutes of the meeting of April 9, 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 Deputy Chairman 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 feet to 90 square feet, 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. (Readvertisement)

David Razzante of Metropolitan Signs and David Essig, Hickory Hill Golf Club were present.  Chairman Fennhahn informed the applicant that the new sign ordinance is not in place yet, and will not be until it is approved by the Town Board. He asked Mr. Essig to wait until then.

Mr. Essig addressed the standards of proof for all the variances requested:

1. He does not feel the placement and size of the sign will be undesirable to the
neighborhood. The golf course is on a five lane commercial highway and is in
a commercial area. Because they have several businesses, some of which the
public is not aware of, they feel a larger sign is needed to advertise all of them.
2. Mr. Essig feels that there are too many businesses at his golf course that there is
no other way to advertize all of them without a large sign that would be more
visible.
3. The restaurant, that many people do not know is there, is blocked by the ice
cream stand, and many people do not know that they also sell propane, so he
doesn’t believe the variance requests are substantial.

Chairman Fennhahn noted that the applicant did not have a site plan by a surveyor, as
requested, which would also have the location of the sign on it.

Deputy Chairman Mangan stated that he thought going from 25 feet to 2 feet was rather
substantial. Mr. Essig replied that to move the sign back would put it in the drainage swale or parking lot. Chairman Fennhahn suggested that the sign could be moved so it wouldn’t be in the swale. Deputy Chairman Mangan asked Mr. Essig just why he didn’t want to move the sign back further and Mr. Essig explained that if it is too near the parking lot, people hit them. Also he wants the sign closer to the road so that it is seen.

Deputy Chairman Mangan asked Mr. Essig if he was aware of the public hearing regarding the sign ordinance at the May 21st Town Board meeting and was he planning on attending it. Mr. Essig said he was aware of it and planned to attend. Deputy Chairman Mangan stated that he felt Mr. Essig should make comments at that time.

Mr. Essig said he thinks the set up of his business is unique because there are several other businesses there also.

4. Mr. Essig said he doesn’t feel there will be any adverse environmental impact on
the neighborhood.

Chairman Fennhahn commented that safety has to be considered.

Deputy Chairman Mangan noted a letter from the New York State Department of
Transportation and that they are concerned with the reduction of 25 feet to 2 feet, and that there could be a safety hazard with the sign being so close to the road. Mr. Essig stated that he had not seen that letter. Deputy Chairman Mangan handed it to him to read.

Mr. Essig said that anyone leaving his business would be able to see traffic even with the sign there.

Mr. Young told the applicant that the Board needs to see a survey which shows the location of the proposed sign.

5. Mr. Essig does not feel the need for variances is self-created. They had to work
with drainage issues and the placement of the businesses. After he had contracted to buy the property, the State took some of his land. The Town required the swale for drainage and the State controlled where the driveway
went.

Mr. Essig concluded by saying they need the top sign and they need a message sign to show the specials. Since their initial request they have reshaped the sign so that they are only requesting a square footage increase of 32 feet to 74 feet instead of 90 feet. The restaurants have not done well there and he feels it is because there is no signage, which the free standing sign would provide.

Chairman Fennhahn pointed out that because they want a message center, the request needs to be readvertized. He added that he wants to see what the new ordinance will be and that the Board doesn’t want to make legislation and compromise the new ordinance with a decision at this time. The Town Board needs to make their decision first.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Mr. Condon if he had any comments and he said no.

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 variance and those opposed and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn advised Mr. Essig that the Board wants to see a survey with the requested variances marked.

Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the hearing to thirty days after the approval of the new sign ordinance by the Town Board.

Case #1255 - VARIANCES - Mark Emmi, 7907 Morgan Road (Tax map #081-29-
11.0):

The applicant is seeking a variances to reduce the lot area from 26,250 square feet to 15,000 square feet, to reduce lot frontage from 140 feet to 105 feet, and to reduce the designated highway setback from 140 feet to 71.75 feet for the purpose of creating a three lot subdivision.  This variance is for lot #1, an existing framed house, proposed lots #2 and #3 will conform.

Hal Romans, surveyor and representative to the applicant, noted that they had addressed the Standards of Proof at a previous meeting.

Deputy Chairman Mangan asked if the applicant had shown the one lot as a non-conforming lot when they went before the Town Board in February for a zone change. Mr. Romans felt that he had and that the Town Board’s concerns concerned the build out and the zone change.

Mrs. Liebi asked is the applicant planned on sub-dividing the property into lots. Mr. Romans stated that they had been before the Planning Board and were awaiting the approval for the variances.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Mr. Condon if he had any comments and he said no.

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 variance and those opposed and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION made by Mr. Hess to deny the applicant’s request based on the following: The
property commonly know as 7907 Morgan Road is located in an R-15 zoning district. On
February 5, 2007, the applicant had the entire property re-zoned from R-100 to R-15. Now
the applicant seeks an area variance to the lot area from 26,250 square feet, to reduce the lot frontage from 140 feet to 105 feet and to reduce the designated highway setback from 140 feet to 71.75 feet. The current and proposed use of the premised is and will remain single family residential dwelling and agriculture uses. The Onondaga County Planning Board has recommended that the requested variances be denied. The Town of Clay Planning Board has recommended that the size of proposed lot #1 be expanded. If this was done the need for several of the variances could be eliminated. During the questioning, the applicant agreed that the driving force for this variance request was to build a new house on proposed lot #2 while maintaining the income level from agricultural usage of lot #3. Therefore, the applicant’s situation is self-created. Town Law Section 267-B(3)(b) provides that this Board shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance were granted as weighed against the detriment to the health and welfare of the community. The benefit to the applicant is outweighed by the detriment to the community which is intended to maintain if not improve the visual aesthetics of the area. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other means. For example, if you were to expand Lot #1 and reduce Lot #2 and Lot #3, several variances could be eliminated. Also, if you were to build at another location and/or discontinue a small portion of your agriculture business.

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 application is denied.

NEW BUSINESS:

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

Case #1262 - VARIANCE - Alberici General Contractors, Inc., 4826 Lighthouse
Village Circle (Tax Map #106.-05-27.0):

The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the rear yard highway setback from 115 feet to 106 feet.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Hal Romans, surveyor and representative of the applicant explained that this is a new house and the lot backs up to Bear Road. The applicant would like to add a 12 foot by 16 foot sunroom.

Mr. Romans addressed the standards of proof:

1. They do not feel it will detract from the character of the neighborhood as
conditions are similar on neighboring lots. There is a highway overlay that
allows existing houses to add on after they are built. Thus a variance would not
be needed, but they were advised by the Planning Department to seek a variance.
2. Since the highway overlay would allow the sunroom on the back of the house
after it is built, there really is no other feasible method unless they wait until the
house is built.
3. They do not feel the variance request is substantial as a 9 foot by 16 foot addition
is already allowed and in essence they are only asking for 3 feet.
4. They believe there will be no adverse environmental or drainage impacts on the
neighborhood.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.
Chairman Fennhahn asked Code Enforcement Condon if he had any comments and he 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 variance and those opposed and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mrs. Liebi in case #1262 that variance be granted with the condition that it be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “B”, and that the variance applies only to the area shown as the 16 foot wide extension on the east side of the property as shown on Exhibit “B”. Motion was seconded by Mr. Hess.

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 noted that the variance is granted.

There being no further business, Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the meeting at 8:35 P.M. 



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

                                                                   
Zoning Board Minutes Archive