|
|
|
ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS
APPROVED
MINUTES OF MEETING
August
11,
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 August
11, 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
David Hess
Member
Vivian I. Mason
Secretary
Robert Germain
Attorney
Mark Territo
Commissioner of Planning & Development
ABSENT:
Karen Liebi
Member
MOTION made by Deputy Chairman Mangan that the Minutes of the meeting of July
14, 2008 be accepted. Motion was seconded by Mr. Young. 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. Carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
Case #1299 -VARIANCE - Group One Development, LLC, corner of State Route
31 and Henry Clay Boulevard (Tax map #045-01-02.1:
As the applicant’s attorney was not present so Chairman Fennhahn adjourned this
hearing to later in the evening.
Case #1308 - AREA VARIANCE - Kenneth & Donna Schue, 7681 Bay Circle
(Tax map #085-05-15.0):
The applicant is seeking an area variance for a side yard setback; 10% lot width.
Applicant is seeking relief from 8 feet to 3 feet for the purpose of construction of a
detached garage in the rear of the property.
(Standards of Proof given and hearing adjourned at the July 14, 2008 meeting.)
Chairman Fennhahn noted that the applicant has submitted a new survey.
Town Planner Balcer noted that a shed is visible past his property and is not on the
survey. Mr. Schue said it wasn’t his shed.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if the applicant had any additional information.
Mark Young, 7685 Bay Circle, residing to the right of the applicant, said this detached
garage would be close to his property but he didn’t consider it an eyesore, and has no
objection to it.
Deputy Chairman Mangan pointed out that it will be only three feet from his property
line and Mr. Young said he knew that, but it would be on the other side of the fence.
Deputy Chairman Mangan asked the applicant why he couldn’t put it on the other side
of the lot. Mr. Schue said he probably could but the proposed side made it more
accessible and advantageous and his wife didn’t want it on the other side.
Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner David Balcer if he had any comments, and
he said 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 Deputy Chairman Mangan in Case #1308 that the variance be
denied as he feels there are alternatives and that the request is substantial. Motion
was seconded by Mr. Hess.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - absent
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor
Mr. Hess - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Carried.
The variance is denied.
NEW BUSINESS:
Chairman Fennhahn asked the board members if they had visited the sites and all said
they had.
Case #1304 - VARIANCE - Rocky Scarcella, 108 Woodspath Road (Tax map
#093-05-07):
The applicant is seeking a variance for relief from the allowable side yard setback for an
attached accessory structure from 15 feet to 8.8 feet.
The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.
Rocky Scarcella addressed the standards of proof:
1. He doesn’t believe the carport detracts from the character of the
neighborhood as his neighbors say it looks good. Also the neighbor’s
property is a distance away.
2. Utilizing the driveway as an access, the carport’s best location is next to
the garage, so he feels there is no other feasible method.
3. He feels the variance request is substantial.
4. There has been no noticeable effect or environmental impact on the
neighborhood.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.
Mr. Young noted that the shape of the lot is odd, and actually only a third of the carport
is in violation.
Mr. Scarcella said it is only the back corner and the neighbors can’t even see it.
Mr. Hess commented that the applicant has done a good job tying it into the house.
Mr. Balcer commented that it is not invasive and agreed with Mr. Young.
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. Hess in Case #1304 that the variance be granted as
requested and be in accordance with a survey dated June 30, 2008. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Young.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - absent
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor
Mr. Hess - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Carried.
The variance is granted.
Case #1310 - VARIANCE - Catherine Flagg and Dianna Warner, 5442 Lucknow
Drive (Tax map #077-31-06.0):
The applicant is seeking an area variance to construct a fence beyond the existing
principal structure front line and the proposed fence is six feet in height when only 2 ½
feet is allowed in a front yard or side yard between the street line and the setback line.
The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.
Catherine Flagg presented pictures and letters to the Board from neighbors voicing no
objections. She said the fence can only go fifteen feet from the building line because of
a ten foot easement. They want the six foot fence because of the dogs.
Ms. Flagg addressed the standards of proof:
1. She doesn’t believe the height will detract from the character of the
neighborhood as it is a vinyl fence and will not deteriorate.
2. There is no other feasible method.
Mr. Young asked why they couldn’t move the fence. Ms. Flagg explained
that the shed would stick out beyond the fence. Mr. Mangan suggested
they put the fence back a bit more and Ms. Flagg said they wanted the
Bilco doors to be inside the fence area Mr. Young asked if the fence that is
there now is in violation and Mr. Balcer said it appears not to be, that if
they followed the building line it would be alright.
3. She feels the variance request is substantial.
4. She believes there will be no noticeable effect or environmental impact on
the neighborhood. She said they would be willing to move the fence out
only twelve feet from the building line. They want the six foot fence so the
dogs can’t get out.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.
Deputy Chairman Mangan noted that if the fence is built where they want it it wouldn’t
line up with the other neighbors front yards.
Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner David Balcer if he had any comments, and
he said 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 #1310 that the variance be denied as two
and one half feet is as high as you can go to protect the line of sight of the houses. The
applicant needs a compelling reason and there is none. He feels it will harm the look of
the neighborhood and that the fence can be built on the building line. Motion was
seconded by Deputy Chairman Mangan.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - absent
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor
Mr. Hess - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Carried.
The variance is denied.
Case #1311 - VARIANCE - Victor D. MacCue, 15 Waterbury Drive (Tax map
#111-10-32):
The applicant is seeking a variance for a six foot relief from the 25 foot front yard
setback to 19 feet.
The public hearing notice was read by the secretary.
Robert Mahaney,the builder, addressed the standards of proof:
1. They don’t believe the addition will detract from the character of the
neighborhood. They have no objections from the neighbors.
2. There is no other feasible method, as the sewer line is in the back and
would be in the way. It runs from the back around to the left side of the
house.
3. They feel the variance request is substantial.
4. They believe there will be no noticeable effect or environmental impact on
the neighborhood.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.
Mr. Young said he feels the addition would destroy the character of the neighborhood
if built in the front of the house.
Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner David Balcer if he had any comments, and
he said 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. Hess in Case #1311 that the variance be denied as he has
issues with the proposal. He feels there are options available and that the line of sight
would be destroyed in the neighborhood. Motion was seconded by Mr. Young.
Roll call: Mrs. Liebi - absent
Deputy Chairman Mangan - in favor
Mr. Young - in favor
Mr. Hess - in favor
Chairman Fennhahn - in favor Carried.
The variance is denied.
OLD BUSINESS:
Case #1299 -VARIANCE - Group One Development, LLC, corner of State
Route 31 and Henry Clay Boulevard (Tax map #045-01-02.1:
The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the required additional site perimeter
landscape strip abutting residential districts. Seeking to reduce the rear from fifty (50)
feet to zero (0) feet, and the east side from fifty (50) feet to thirty-five (35) feet for the
purpose of constructing four 12,000 square feet retail tenant buildings and three future
retail out parcels.
(Adjourned at the July 14, 2008 meeting.)
Attorney Robert Ventre stated that the property is on the northeast corner of Henry
Clay Boulevard and State Route 31. They would like to construct four 12,000 square
foot retail buildings, plus three future parcels. The property to the north and the east
of this parcel is zoned Residential Agricultural, RA-100. Pine Plains Cemetery, which
is behind this proposed development, acquired a 100 foot strip of property that borders
the applicant’s property. This was acquired from the owner of the property. Attorney
Ventre noted that there will be a road and the Planning Board will probably require a
fence along the rear of their parcel.
Deputy Chairman Mangan asked if they didn’t get the variance where would the
perimeter landscape strip setback be. Attorney Ventre said where the back of the
buildings is shown on the plan. He added that they feel that because there are no
residences behind this parcel it wouldn’t affect anyone financially.
Chairman Fennhahn asked if someone would be apt to buy a plot so close to this
proposed project.
Referring to the 100 foot strip Attorney Ventre noted that under an RA-100, which
requires a 250 foot frontage, that a house could not be built there.
Town Planner, David Balcer, explained that it is already zoned RA-100 so it would be
an existing non-conforming lot and a house could possibly be built there. He also noted
that the proposed northeast corner and east side of the property are all retention pond
and swale, so how could the applicant put in the required trees, shrubs and foliage
required for a landscape perimeter strip.
Mr. Young asked the applicant to put in stakes in the field where the backs of the
building would be on the portion backing up to the cemetery.
Deputy Chairman Mangan asked if it was feasible to do a different layout so that a
variance would not be needed.
Attorney Ventre said doing that would impact the other three out parcels and it would
make it difficult for them to landscape creatively.
Mr. Hess suggested less buildings, three instead of four.
Mr. Young suggested moving the buildings 50 feet to the south and asked if it would
make a difference.
Mr. Balcer stated that the Planning Board felt their layout could be more creative, that
it was not pedestrian friendly, that it needs to be more aesthetically pleasing, and that
it could be redesigned. If redesigned, it might require less of a variance.
Russ Mitchell asked why they couldn’t build 8,000 square foot buildings instead of
12,000 square foot buildings.
John Russo, the applicant, said that they want to make the maximum use of the land
and the 12,000 square foot works better, since they will be portioned off inside.
Steven Kempisty, attorney and trustee for Pine Plains Cemetery, explained that the
New York State Cemetery Association controls the prices for the grave plots, and selling
the plots 100 feet from the proposed structures would be difficult, which makes it a huge
issue for them. There is a state cemetery law that does not allow graves 100 feet closer
to neighboring buildings.
Chairman Fennhahn commented that if the variance is granted the cemetery could lose
use of some of their property.
Mary Desrosiers said many relatives are buried there and it is up to the trustees to
maintain the integrity of the cemetery. It is their sacred duty to maintain nice spots for
people to bury their loved ones, not near a road. Also, if the variance is granted it will
affect them financially. Sales of plots give them the capital to maintain the cemetery
and staff. Loss of sales would make a huge financial impact. They paid at least $60,000
for the 100 foot strip. Location does not allow them to reduce the cost of the plots.
Mr. Young asked if the price of them is controlled by law and Ms. Desrosiers said yes.
Glenn Sotherden voiced concern for water runoff from their road and tractor trailers
making deliveries to the retail stores when perhaps a burial may be taking place.
Chairman Fennhahn explained that water runoff would be a Planning Board issue.
Deputy Chairman Mangan said he agreed that more land in between the cemetery and
the proposed development would help in water runoff.
Attorney Ventre stated that no more water can leave the property than at present. Also
there would be a fence along the property and there would be no loading docks in back.
Chairman Fennhahn reiterated that the Board would like to see stakes placed where
the corners of the buildings would be.
Mary Derosiers asked how they would empty the dumpsters and Mr. Russo said they
could move them to another area
Attorney Ventre basically addressed the standards of proof throughout his commentary
as follows:
1. They don’t believe it will be undesirable to the character of the
neighborhood as they do not know what will go in to the east of this parcel
and there are no residents to the rear portion.
2. They feel there is no other feasible method, because they wouldn’t be able
to make the buildings as large as they want them to be in order to get
maximum use of the property.
3. They feel the variance request is substantial.
4. They don’t believe there will be any noticeable effect or environmental
impact on the neighborhood.
5. The need for the variance is self-created.
Chairman Fennhahn asked Town Planner David Balcer if he had any further
comments, and he said 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 there were none. He
asked for those opposed to granting the variance and there was one, Russ Mitchell, who
said he was opposed to a variance from 50 to zero, and that he felt there would be an
impact on sales of cemetery plots.
Chairman Fennhahn closed the hearing.
There being no further business, Chairman Fennhahn adjourned the meeting at 9:35
P.M.
________________________________
Vivian I. Mason, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Clay
Zoning Board Minutes Archive
|
