MINUTES OF MEETING                       

                                        July 9, 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 July 9, 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
                     David Balcer               Planner

MOTION made by Deputy Chairman Mangan that the Minutes of the meeting of June 11, 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:

None.

NEW BUSINESS

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

Case #1264 - VARIANCE - ABC Estates, a New York Partnership, 7274 Henry Clay Boulevard (Tax Map #106-04-10):

The applicant is seeking a variance to allow for the increase from maximum allowable density of 29 two bedroom apartments to 36 two bedroom apartments for the purpose of construction of 36 two bedroom apartments in three buildings.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Hal Romans, Surveyor/Planner is representing the applicant.

Chairman Fennhahn explained that what the applicant really wants is to decrease the square footage of the apartments, so that they can build smaller apartments. The present code requires 6750 square feet.

Mr. Romans said yes, which amounts to a 10% decrease. They are amending their request to reduce the number of two bedroom units per building to 32 instead of 36. He identified the location of the proposed apartments on Henry Clay Boulevard, north of Uncle Bob’s Self Storage. The parking will stay consistent. He noted that the Onondaga County Planning Board recommended disapproval because 1.} the variance increases the allowed density by 25%, whereas Mr. Romans stated that it really was only 10%, and 2.} the referral did not include a drainage study, a lighting plan, or a landscaping plan, whereas Mr. Romans assured the board that those issues would be taken care of.

Mr. Romans addressed the Standards of Proof:

1. They don’t feel it will detract from the character of the neighborhood as the
footprint of the buildings would not increase, but would stay the same.
2. Since the code dictates the allowed square footage there is no other feasible
method than to obtain a variance.
3. They are only seeking a 10% decrease in size of the apartment, which they feel
is not substantial as the 25% decrease would be.
4. They believe there will be no adverse environmental or drainage impacts on the
neighborhood. They will secure an agreement for safety access with the
adjoining property for fire and police. They will still have the required parking
spaces and two storm water facilities.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Chairman Fennhan commented that the benefit is to the developer, but what is the benefit to the Town. Mr. Romans said it would be of additional value and additional taxes to the town. 

Deputy Chairman Mangan noted that the owner must have known what was allowed when he bought the property.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if Assistant Commissioner Heid if she had any comments and she read an excerpt from Commissioner Territo’s letter to the Zoning Board. He said: “I hope to see the Town use principles of Smart Growth to allow for a more efficient use of our land. One of the key principles is to promote density where logical to take the fullest advantage of existing infrastructure, and this proposal would do just that.”

Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner, David Balcer, if he had any comments and he said he agreed with the Commissioner.

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 none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

Chairman Fennhahn commented that he couldn’t see the benefit to the Town and doesn’t see why it is necessary to decrease the square footage.

Mr. Young said he didn’t think that 10% was a big request.

MOTION was made by Mr. Young in case #1264 that variance be granted with the following conditions: 
1.} reduction of square footage be 6750 to 6152; 2.} access for fire and police to the neighboring property be secured; and 3.} the apartments be built in substantial compliance with Exhibit 
2. There was no second to the motion.

Chairman Fennhahn stated that the motion failed and the application is therefore denied.

Case #1265 - VARIANCE - Aluzzo Ent, Inc., 3567 State Route 31 (Tax map #019-02-
29.1):

The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 50 feet to 31.3 feet and total side yard setback from 100 feet to 96.3 feet for the purpose of expansion on existing Meineke repair facility from 3465± square feet to a 5000± square feet building with additional parking to code.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Hal Romans, Surveyor/Planner, represents the applicant. The property in question is located on the north side of State Route 31, adjacent to Maurers Funeral Home. They have sought and received a variance before on this property, but now they would like to make an expansion, a 22.7 foot addition.

Deputy Chairman Mangan stated that he had concerns when the previous variance was issued, but is glad the applicant had done what the Board asked them to do to the property (planting trees etc.).

Mr. Romans addressed the Standards of Proof:

1. Since the addition is straight off the back, and will match the existing building,
they don’t feel it will detract from the character of the neighborhood.
2. They feel there is no other feasible method, because to put the addition elsewhere
would not be appropriate.
3. They do not feel the variance request is substantial. 
4. They are retaining the landscaping and sufficient room for drainage storm water
so they believe there will be no adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Deputy Chairman Mangan asked if the applicant was aware of the Onondaga County Planning Board comments.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if Assistant Commissioner Heid if she had any comments and she asked if the expansion was for NAPA. Mr. Romans said yes. They are mostly a supplier though; there isn’t much retail business.

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 Russ Mitchell said that initially he had opposed the Meineke going there, but they have done such a nice job on the property, as they had been asked to do, that he is in favor of granting this variance. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to granting the variance and there none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Deputy Chairman Mangan in case #1265 that variance be granted with the condition that the addition be in substantial compliance with Exhibit 2 and that the expansion be limited to 26.7 feet. 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 noted that the variance is granted.

Case #1266 - VARIANCE - Christopher Olson, 8191 Rizzo Drive (Tax map #075-07-09):

The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 7.3 feet to 3 feet for the purpose of building a shed.

Chris Olson, of 5263 Medasano Circle, is the previous owner of the property. He said the new owner is willing to accept the decision of the Board.

Mr. Olson addressed the standards of proof:

1. He doesn’t feel it will detract from the character of the neighborhood, since it
has been there for eight years.
2. It would be difficult to relocate it; he feels the most feasible method is to obtain
the variance.
3. He does not feel the variance request is substantial. 
4. There has not nor will there be any adverse environmental or drainage impacts
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 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, there was one, and those opposed and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mrs. Liebi in case #1266 that the variance be granted as requested for the purpose of a shed to remain there in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”. 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.

Case #1271 - VARIANCE - David N. Charron, 4339 Oak Orchard Road (Tax Map
#031-01-05):

The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 7 feet for the purpose of installing a pool.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Mr. Charron presented pictures of his back yard where the pool is supposed to be installed.

Chairman Fennhahn asked about the stakes he had seen in the yard and Mr. Charron said they were put there to show where the pool would go, and then he realized he would have to get a variance.

Mr. Charron addressed the standards of proof:

1. People won’t even be able to see it, so it shouldn’t detract from the character of
the neighborhood.
2. Without the variance the pool would be too close to the back of the house, so he
feels there is no other logical feasible method.
3. He does not feel the variance request is substantial. 
4. There are no adverse environmental or drainage impacts on the neighborhood.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Mr. Hess asked if the concrete exterior was wider that three feet and Mr. Charron said no.

Chairman Fennhahn commented that Mr. Charron can only put in an inground pool and could not put in an above ground pool.

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 variance and there was one, Russ Mitchell. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Hess in case #1271 that variance be granted with the condition that it be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”. 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 noted that the variance is granted.

There being no further business, Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the meeting at 8:30 P.M. 



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

                                                                   
Zoning Board Minutes Archive