MINUTES OF MEETING                       

                                        August 13, 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 August 13, 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 July 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 Mrs. Liebi. Unanimously carried.

OLD BUSINESS:

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.

Chairman Fennhahn asked that the board approve the reopening of this hearing to correct an administrative error at the July meeting.

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.

Motion was made br Deputy Chairman Mangan to deny the application in Case #1264 for the following reasons: 1} denial of this variance will not result in the applicant being deprived of economic use of the property, as noted at the last meeting of this Board, the owner knew what was allowed when be bought the property; 2} the Town of Clay Planning Board at its June 27, 2007 meeting recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals uphold the Zoning Code in regards to density. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals should deny this variance request to decrease the size of apartments in order to allow for an increase from 29 two bedroom apartments to 32 or 36 two bedroom apartments. This number of 32 was put forth by the applicant at the last meeting as a reduction from the previously requested 36 apartments. 
Motion was seconded by Mr. Hess.

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

Chairman Fennhahn stated that the variance is denied.

NEW BUSINESS

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

Case #1267 - VARIANCE - Thomas Hafner, 5224 West Taft Road (Tax map #117-
02-04 & 117-02-05):

The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of an 11 foot by 4 foot vestibule to the restaurant in the Highway Overlay District front yard setback, reducing it from 140 feet required to 88 feet.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Hal Romans, surveyor/planner was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Hafner would like a vestibule on his restaurant to make it safer for customers leaving his restaurant. They could exit on either side of the addition.


Mr. Romans addressed the Standards of Proof:

1. The vestibule will be sided and be the color of the restaurant, so it will not detract
from the character of the neighborhood.
2. The vestibule will be at the existing front door, so there is no other feasible place
for it.
3. They do not feel the variance request is substantial. 
4. They don’t believe there will be an adverse environmental impact on the
neighborhood, as it is all asphalt out in the front of the restaurant.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Deputy Chairman Mangan asked if the vestibule will eliminate a couple of parking places and Mr. Romans said no. Mr. Romans was asked about the County referral comment, if the applicant had permission to park on the adjacent land not owned by him and Mr. Romans stated they have an agreement with Chuck Hafner to use some of his property for parking.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if Assistant Commissioner Heid or Planner David Balcer had any comments and they said they did not.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mrs. Liebi in case #1267 that the variance be granted with the
condition that the addition be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”, dated May 25, 2000. 
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 stated that the variance is granted.

Case #1272 - VARIANCE - Richard E. Lamb, Sr., 4228 Balboa Drive (Tax map #068-
09-14.0):

The applicant is seeking an area variance to reduce the side yard setback from 7.6 feet to 3 feet to allow for the construction of a shed.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Richard Lamb, Sr. explained that he pulled a permit for the shed in August of 2003 and built it in 2004. He has also provided the shed with underground wiring.

Mr. Lamb addressed the standards of proof:

1. He feels it shouldn’t detract from the character of the neighborhood, as it has
been there since 2004.
2. With the underground wiring it would be difficult to move, so he feels there is
no other logical feasible method than to obtain a variance.
3. He does not feel the variance request is substantial. 
4. He believes there are no adverse environmental or drainage impacts on the
neighborhood.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Chairman Fennhahn told the applicant that it is hard for the Board to determine where the
property lines are. You can’t measure from the fence because the fence may not be on the
property line, sometimes it is six inches more or less off. The applicant submitted paperwork, but the measurements don’t correspond. The Board needs to see a survey and they need to be able to measure where the shed is and that it is in compliance with the variance that is being requested.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Heid and Planner Balcer if she had any comments and she said the applicant needs to contact the surveyor and update his survey.  David Balcer stated that there may also be a problem with the State code requirements in the placement of the shed. If the shed is less than 3 feet off the property line, it will need a State variance.

As the Board needs an updated survey from the applicant, Chairman Fennhahn adjourned this case to September 10, 2007.

Case #1268 - VARIANCE - Roger L. Burdick, 5500 East Taft Road (Tax map #118-
02-02.2):

The applicant is requesting a variance to decrease lot area from the Highway Overlay Zone District lot area minimum of 381,150 to 289,065 square feet for the purpose of a subdivision and zone change, also selling part of a parcel to North Syracuse Central School District.

Hal Romas, surveyor/planner, explained that Mr. Burdick wants to subdivide his property on East Taft Road and sell a portion to the school. The second lot, the one he is retaining, will then become nonconforming, so they need a variance. They may change the zoning on this second lot at a later date.

Mr. Romans addressed the standards of proof:

1. There are two existing buildings and they don’t feel there will be an undesirable
change to the character of the neighborhood.
2. Other than seeking a zone change on the second parcel, they feel there is no
other feasible method than to obtain the variance.
3. They do feel the variance request is substantial. 
4. They believe there will not be any adverse environmental or drainage impacts on
the neighborhood.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if the school will tear down the building on the portion they may acquire and Mr. Romans replied that he did not know if they would or wouldn’t. Chairman Fennhahn noted that the County Planning Board stated that if the applicant sought a zone change to a HC-1 (Highway Commercial) on the second parcel, they would not need a variance.

Mr. Young commented that Taft Road is very busy and the lot consists of 8 acres. He feels this request should be carefully considered and he would like to know how the Town Board feels about it. He added that the subdivision bothers him.

Mr. Romans said the school will combine their parcel with the lot Mr. Burdick is selling them.

Mr. Young voiced concerns that once a variance is approved the applicant could do whatever he wanted with the property.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Assistant Commissioner Heid and Planner Balcer if they had any comments and Mr. Balcer noted that both the Town Planning Board and the County remarked that if the applicant sought a zone change to HC-1 the variance would not be needed.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if the Board or anyone in the audience had any further comments or questions and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the hearing to September 10, 2007.

Case #1269 - VARIANCE - HUB Properties c/o Reit Management & Research, LLC,
8687 Carling Road (Tax Map #021-01-06.5): 

The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the allowable perimeter landscape strip from 30 feet to 26.02 feet on the north, 12.23 feet on the south, 19.35 feet on the east, and 19.4 feet on the west property lines for the purpose of: adding a 9,690 square foot addition to the existing building, alterations to the parking lot, and to allow for the continuance of an existing nonconforming perimeter landscape strip.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

No one was at the meeting to present the request.

Chairman Fennhahn advised Assistant Commissioner Heid to have someone from their office contact the applicant and ask them if they want to withdraw their request for the variance they should send documentation or be at the next meeting.

Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the hearing to September 10, 2007.

There being no further business, Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the meeting at 8:15 P.M. 



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


                                                                   
Zoning Board Minutes Archive