MINUTES OF MEETING                       

                                     March 10, 2008


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
10, 2008.

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
                     Robert Germain           Attorney
                     David Balcer                Town Planner

MOTION made by Deputy Chairman Mangan that the Minutes of the meeting of
February 11, 2008 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. Hess. Unanimously carried.

OLD BUSINESS:

Case #1285 - Special Permit - Edward Hyne, 4269 Orion Path (Tax map #081-
06-18.0):

The applicant is seeking a Special Permit to allow a home occupation at the residence
for a dealer in firearms. (Adjourned to this date at the February 11, 2008 meeting)

Deputy Chairman Mangan noted that Mr. Hyne had told the Board that he had made
sixty wholesale sales. What type of sales were they? Mr. Hyne said that they were
mailings to other dealers. Deputy Chairman Mangan asked about signage and sales
of ammunition and Mr. Hyne said he would not put up a sign nor sell any ammunition.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there
were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those in favor and there were fourteen in
favor of issuing the Special Permit. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed and
there was one.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Deputy Chairman Mangan in Case #1285 that Mr. Hyne is
granted a Special Permit for an in home occupation to primarily transfer guns and
occasionally sell a weapon per the rules and regulations of the Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms Commission, with the conditions that there be no sign and no sale of
ammunition. 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.

The Special Permit is granted. (Final resolution attached)

NEW BUSINESS:

Chairman Fennhahn asked the board members if they had visited the site and all said
they had.

Case #1286 - Interpretation - Eldan Homes, Ver Plank Road (tax map #043-01-
13.1):

The applicant is seeking an interpretation to allow Lots 2 and 3 to be considered lots
without access, because of the common private driveway.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Dan Barnaba explained that Mr. Saucier owns a twelve acre parcel of land and would
like to subdivide it into three lots and retain five acres for himself, because to be any
smaller than five acres would limit his uses. He would build on lot number one, have his
own driveway, and then lot #2 and #3 would share a driveway. In taking the five acres,
the Commissioner of Planning and Development advised that proposed lot #2 requires
a three-hundred seventy-five feet minimum lot width and only two-hundred eighty-two
feet are proposed. Dan Barnaba feels that with a shared driveway access to Ver Plank
this lot would not have access and therefore could be narrower.

Town Planner David Balcer stated that in simplest terms, the Commissioner ruled that
lot #2 has access to Ver Plank Road and grants access through an easement to lot #3.

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

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Chairman Fennhahn in Case #1286 that they agree with the
Commissioner of Planning and Development, Mark Territo’s interpretation of the
zoning ordinance regulations (Section 230-19 A. (4) (a) [2]), that Lot #2 has access and
therefore would need an area variance for lot #2. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Leibi.

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

The Commissioner of Planning and Development’s interpretation is upheld.

Case #1287 - Variance - Eldan Homes, Ver Plank Road (tax map #043-01-13.1):

The applicant is seeking a variance for relief from the Highway Overlay Zone District
Type B designated road, “Lot frontage, minimum” from 375 feet to 250 feet on lot 3 and
from 375 feet to 282 feet on lot 2 for the purpose of subdividing one parcel into three
parcels.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Dan Barnaba explained that according to the Commissioner of Planning and
Development that without shared access, lot #2 and #3 need to be larger lot widths. 
With shared access through an easement on lot #2, only lot #2 needed the “lot frontage,
minimum requirement” of the highway overlay zone district.

Mr. Young suggested building a town road through the parcel instead of a shared
driveway and the Town Planner, David Balcer, said that it would require too much land
and Mr. Barnaba agreed and added that it would also be too costly.

Mr. Barnaba said the Planning Board suggested one driveway shared by all three lots,
but Mr. Saucier would like his own driveway.

Mr. Barnaba withdrew his request for a variance for lot #3 as it was determined by the
Board that lot #3 would not need one, because of the shared driveway easement on lot
#2, lot #3 has no direct access on Ver Plank Road.

Mr. Baranaba addressed the standards of proof for lot #2:

1. There will be three new houses, and he doesn’t feel they will detract from
the character of the neighborhood.
2. He will shift some of the property lines, but still there would not be enough
property to get enough width for lot #2. 
3. He doesn’t feel the variance request is substantial. 
4. He believes there will be no adverse environmental or drainage impacts
on the neighborhood.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Mr. Barnaba stated that the shared driveway for lot #2 and #3 would share its upkeep
also. Lot #1 would have its own driveway.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner David Balcer if he had any comments and
he had none.

Mike Gasiorowski of 4781 Ver Plank Road voiced concerns regarding drainage and
Chairman Fennhahn said he needs to direct those concerns to the Planning Board.

Justin Henrich also voiced concern with regard to drainage.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there
were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those in favor of granting the variance and
there was one, the property owner Mr. Saucier. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those
opposed to granting the variance and there was one, Mr. Gasiorowski.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Young in Case #1287 that the variance be granted for the
reduction of the lot frontage for Lot #2 with the condition that it be laid out with a
building line with a minimum of 282 feet as shown on Exhibit “A”. Motion was seconded
by Mrs. Liebi

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

The variance is granted.

Case #1288 - Variance - Theresa A. Arcuri, 8142 Maple Road (tax map #075-01-
20.0):

The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 75 feet to 65
feet and the east side yard setback from 25 feet to 18.5 feet for the purpose of
constructing a residence.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Hal Romans, Surveyor for the applicant, explained that the applicant would like to
construct a house on a RA-100 Residential Agricultural lot. To the left of this lot is a
drainage easement nearly 60 feet wide for which the applicant is trying to get a zone
change for so that the two parcels can be combined. If the zone change request is
approved then the two lots will be combined under the RA-100 zoning. Their new house
will be built further back from the road than the other houses along that stretch of
Maple Road. Ms. Arcuri would like to put a pool in the back yard. She doesn’t want the
house close to the drainage easement so a reduction variance is needed on the other
side.

Mr. Romans addressed the standards of proof::

1. They don’t feel it will detract from the character of the neighborhood. 
With the house farther back there will also be room for widening of the
road if necessary.
2. They feel there is no other feasible method without moving the house
further back, which would be too far back.
3. They don’t feel the variance request is substantial. 
4. They believe there will be no adverse environmental or drainage impacts
on the neighborhood, as they are staying away from the flood route.
5. Because they want to build on this lot, the need for the variance is self-
created.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner David Balcer if he had any comments and
he had none.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were 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 were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Young in Case #1288 to grant the variance as requested
with the condition that it be built in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A” dated 
January 24, 2008. 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.

The variance is granted.

Case #1289 - Variance - Rosita Juul, 3780-3782 Haverstraw Court (tax map
#122-01-20.0):

The applicant is seeking a variance (on a corner lot) to reduce the front yard setback
from 25 feet to 20.5 feet for the purpose of constructing a shed and a fence attached to
the existing building.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Hal Romans, Surveyor stated that Ms. Juul is renovating the townhouses she owns on
Haverstraw Court and Holdborn Court and is replacing sheds. They are now being
attached to the house rather than stand alone, and unbeknown to her, they are
considered new construction and require a building permit. Thus, variances are needed.

Mr. Romans addressed the standards of proof::

1. They don’t feel it will detract from the character of the neighborhood. 
They will all look the same, much better than what was there and will line
up with the driveway.
2. The Townhouses have no basement nor garage and so this is the only
feasible method to give people storage.
3. Since they are only asking for four and one-half feet, they don’t feel the
variance request is substantial. 
4. They believe there will be no impeding of traffic nor have any
environmental impact.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Deputy Chairman Mangan noted that the work being done is a substantial
improvement and the townhouses look much better.

Chairman Fennhahn said he agrees with Deputy Chairman Mangan.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner David Balcer if he had any comments and
he had none.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there
were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those in favor of granting the variance and
there were four. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to granting the variance
and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Hess in Case #1289 that the variance be granted as
requested with the condition that it be built in substantial compliance with Exhibit “2”, 
dated September 12, 2007. 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 - in favor Unanimously carried.

The variance is granted.

Case #1290 - Variance - Rosita Juul, 3796-3798 Haverstraw Court (tax map
#122-01-16.0):

The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20.5
feet (on a corner lot) for the purpose of constructing a shed and a fence attached to the
existing building.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Hal Romans, Surveyor stated that Ms. Juul is renovating the townhouses she owns on
Haverstraw Court and Holdborn Court and is replacing sheds. They are now being
attached to the house rather than stand alone, and unbeknown to her, they are
considered new construction and require a building permit. Thus, variances are needed.

Mr. Romans addressed the standards of proof::

1. They don’t feel it will detract from the character of the neighborhood. 
They will all look the same, much better than what was there and will line
up with the driveway.
2. The Townhouses have no basement nor garage and so this is the only
feasible method to give people storage.
3. Since they are only asking for four and one-half feet, they don’t feel the
variance request is substantial. 
4. They believe there will be no impeding of traffic nor have any
environmental impact.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Deputy Chairman Mangan noted that the work being done is a substantial
improvement and the townhouses look much better.

Chairman Fennhahn said he agrees with Deputy Chairman Mangan.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner David Balcer if he had any comments and
he had none.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there
were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those in favor of granting the variance and
there were four. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to granting the variance
and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Hess in Case #1290 that the variance be granted as
requested with the condition that it be built in substantial compliance with Exhibit “2”, 
dated September 12, 2007. 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.

The variance is granted.

Case #1291 - Variance - Rosita Juul, 3800-3802 Holdborn Court (tax map #122-
01-15.0):

The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20.5
feet for the purpose of constructing a shed and a fence attached to the existing building.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Hal Romans, Surveyor stated that Ms. Juul is renovating the townhouses she owns on
Haverstraw Court and Holdborn Court and is replacing sheds. They are now being
attached to the house rather than stand alone, and unbeknown to her, they are
considered new construction and require a building permit. Thus, variances are needed.

Mr. Romans addressed the standards of proof::

1. They don’t feel it will detract from the character of the neighborhood. 
They will all look the same, much better than what was there and will line
up with the driveway.
2. The Townhouses have no basement nor garage and so this is the only
feasible method to give people storage.
3. Since they are only asking for four and one-half feet, they don’t feel the
variance request is substantial. 
4. They believe there will be no impeding of traffic nor have any
environmental impact.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Deputy Chairman Mangan noted that the work being done is a substantial
improvement and the townhouses look much better.

Chairman Fennhahn said he agrees with Deputy Chairman Mangan.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner David Balcer if he had any comments and
he had none.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there
were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those in favor of granting the variance and
there were four. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to granting the variance
and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Hess in Case #1291 that the variance be granted as
requested with the condition that it be built in substantial compliance with Exhibit “2”, 
dated September 12, 2007. 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 - in favor Unanimously carried.

The variance is granted.

Case #1292 - Variance - Rosita Juul, 3816-3818 Holdborn Court (tax map #122-
01-11.0):

The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20.5
feet (on a corner lot) for the purpose of constructing a shed and a fence attached to the
existing building.

The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.

Hal Romans, Surveyor stated that Ms. Juul is renovating the townhouses she owns on
Haverstraw Court and Holdborn Court and is replacing sheds. They are now being
attached to the house rather than stand alone, and unbeknown to her, they are
considered new construction and require a building permit. Thus, variances are needed.

Mr. Romans addressed the standards of proof::

1. They don’t feel it will detract from the character of the neighborhood. 
They will all look the same, much better than what was there and will line
up with the driveway.
2. The Townhouses have no basement nor garage and so this is the only
feasible method to give people storage.
3. Since they are only asking for four and one-half feet, they don’t feel the
variance request is substantial. 
4. They believe there will be no impeding of traffic nor have any
environmental impact.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.

Deputy Chairman Mangan noted that the work being done is a substantial
improvement and the townhouses look much better.

Chairman Fennhahn said he agrees with Deputy Chairman Mangan.

Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner David Balcer if he had any comments and
he had none.

Chairman Fennhahn asked if there were any further comments or questions and there
were none. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those in favor of granting the variance and
there were four. Chairman Fennhahn asked for those opposed to granting the variance
and there were none.

Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.

MOTION was made by Mr. Hess in Case #1292 that the variance be granted as
requested with the condition that it be built in substantial compliance with Exhibit “2”, 
dated September 12, 2007. 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 - in favor Unanimously carried.

The variance is granted.

There being no further business, Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the meeting at 9:10
P.M. 


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