7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
Zoning Board of Appeals January 26, 2004
January 26, 2004 (unapproved)
The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town Building, 7575 Van Buren Rd., was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
All present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Robert Cleverly present
Allen Mitts absent
James Bowes present
Ronald Abold present
John Virginia, Chairman present
Also Present: Ted Spencer, Attorney
Donna Aulds, Secretary
David Pringle, Codes Enforcement Officer
John Resseguie, Councilor
Piels Scholten, Councilor
Mr. Virginia said that Mr. Mitts called and said that he couldn’t make the meeting tonight and that he was resigning because of work conflict.
MINUTES
Mr. Bowes made a motion to accept the December meeting minutes, as typed and distributed. Mr. Abold seconded the motion, there was no further discussion; motion carried, unanimously.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – JOSEPH B. AUSTIN
2077 Downer St. Rd., Tax Parcel ID #036.-03-20.3
Special Use Permit #200-15C(9) home occupation to allow vehicle dealer license.
R-40 Zoning District.
The public hearing continued at 7:33 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Austin was present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia read the County Planning letter of recommendation, disapproving application, based on the display of a vehicle.
Mr. Virginia said the applicant amended his application last month, proposing no outdoor storage of vehicle.
Mr. Austin said he needs a special use permit to maintain his license as a dealer for motor vehicles.
Mr. Austin said he wanted to display a vehicle, but if it wasn’t possible he could obtain a wholesale license.
Mr. Austin said he would like to obtain a retail license rather that a wholesale license.
Mr. Austin said that the State requires display of a red “dealer” sign.
Mr. Bowes asked if the applicant needed a certain number of transactions per year.
Mr. Austin said he needed five transactions per year to qualify for the wholesale license or retail license.
Mr. Virginia said the applicant could obtain a four square foot sign under the home occupation regulations.
Mr. Bowes said that he agreed that no vehicles should be displayed at the proposed property.
Mr. Bowes asked the applicant why he couldn’t obtain his license with a dealership.
Mr. Austin said that only one dealership could operate from a site.
Mr. Virginia said there would be no outdoor storage or retail on the proposed site.
Mr. Austin said he understood.
Mr. Virginia asked if signage would need to go to Planning Board.
Mr. Spencer said he didn’t believe that signage alone needed site plan approval by the Planning Board in this case.
Mr. Virginia said that the board needed a “super majority” due to the fact that County Planning recommended disapproval.
Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application. No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia proposed the following resolution #Z-04-01:
Joseph B. Austin of 2077 Downer Street, Baldwinsville, NY 13027, applies for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Town of Van Buren Code Section 200-15(C)(9) to allow for a home occupation involving motor vehicle dealer activity pursuant to New York State license.
The property is zoned R-40 and is known as tax map no. 036-03-20.3. In an R-40 District, a home occupation is a use allowed upon the grant of special permit by the ZBA.
Applicant has submitted, and the ZBA has reviewed, an application, notification to surrounding property owners of pending action, survey and SEQRA short form environmental assessment form.
Notice of a public hearing on the special permit and application was duly published. Joseph Austin appeared and spoke in favor of the application at the public hearing. There was no opposition to the proposed home occupation at the public hearing.
The Onondaga County Planning Board recommended disapproval of the application by resolution dated January 6, 2004 because an exterior sign would be visible.
Based on the above referenced documents, and proof received by the ZBA at the public hearing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. That matter is subject to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The matter is unlisted. The Board appoints itself lead agency for the uncoordinated review of this matter and finds there will be no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this action. The basis for this determination is the subject property, is located in a residential zone and has an existing structure, which will not be modified. The proposed project poses no significant impacts on water, air, agricultural resources or community character and growth and there will be minimal noise associated with the proposal.
2. A special permit required pursuant to Code Section 200-13(C)(9) for the proposed use, which the Board finds is a “home occupation”.
3. Pursuant to Section 200-108 of the Code, the Board finds the proposed special use satisfies the Town standards of review as follows:
(a) As the proposed use is allowed in the zoning district by special permit, it is in compliance with the applicable intent and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance;
(b) The proposed use is consistent with the long-term development objectives of the area and the property is serviced by utilities necessary for the home occupation use;
(c) The scale and design of the use, which is of little effect on the surrounding area given it will be conducted entirely within an existing structure is in compliance with Town requirements and will be visually compatible with conditions of the site and surrounding properties;
(d) The existing design of the site provides for efficient vehicular movement given the size of the site and the fact that the proposed use will not result in any substantial change in vehicular traffic.
(e) The site is adequately served by public utilities;
(f) Drainage on the site will not be affected by the proposed use;
(g) Regarding aesthetics, there is no change to the physical layout of the property;
(h) Emissions from the site will be minimal.
(4) The Special Permit is granted pursuant to Code Section 200–13(C)(9) and all other applicable provisions of the Code, so as to allow for operation of a home occupation subject to:
(a) There is no outdoor storage, retail sales, or business conducted on the site.
(b) The Codes Officer shall approve location and landscaping of the proposed sign.
Mr. Cleverley seconded the resolution; there was no further discussion.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Abold No
Mr. Cleverley Yes
Mr. Mitts Absent
Mr. Bowes Yes
Mr. Virginia Yes
Vote: 3 yes, 1 no, 1 absent; motion denied.
Mr. Virginia said the motion is disapproved.
Mr. Virginia asked why Mr. Abold voted no.
Mr. Abold said he didn’t believe that a “motor vehicle” sign was appropriate for the residential area and that the values of the homes could be affected.
Mr. Bowes said he had no objection of the sign being displayed.
Mr. Austin said he understood and that he had the most expensive home in the area and that he received signatures from bordering property owners stating they had no objections.
Mr. Abold said that the current homeowners could change in a few years.
Mr. Virginia asked Mr. Spencer if the Board could discuss.
Mr. Spencer said yes.
Mr. Virginia said that he voted yes and that a sign is allowed with home occupations and that he didn’t believe there was a difference with this application.
Mr. Bowes said that the applicant needs a sign.
Mr. Austin said there are businesses down from him that has signs.
Mr. Virginia asked if the applicant could reapply.
Mr. Spencer said the applicant could resubmit.
Mr. Virginia suggested bringing in a copy of the sign.
Mr. Abold said he was concerned with the negative recommendation from County.
Mr. Virginia said that County recommended disapproval based on the fact that a vehicle would be displayed, and not signage.
Mr. Austin asked if he could obtain the home occupation without display of signage and then he would receive a “wholesale” license rather than “retail”.
Mr. Austin said that the disadvantage would be that he could no longer buy and resell a vehicle.
Mr. Austin said his lease was up last month and if no renewal for more than sixty days his license will be suspended.
Mr. Virginia said he didn’t want to see him being held off for another month.
Mr. Abold said he felt that the nature of the sign, a “motor vehicle” sign would throw up a red flag for the neighborhood and home occupation.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Board put in the stipulation that the Codes Officer reviews the special use permit annually, if that would be feasible.
Mr. Abold said in that case, with the review annually, he would vote yes.
Mr. Virginia proposed the following resolution amending the first resolution by adding a 4 (c) “special use review by the Codes Officer annually” #Z-04-01A:
Joseph B. Austin of 2077 Downer Street, Baldwinsville, NY 13027, applies for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Town of Van Buren Code Section 200-15(C)(9) to allow for a home occupation involving motor vehicle dealer activity pursuant to New York State license.
The property is zoned R-40 and is known as tax map no. 036-03-20.3. In an R-40 District, a home occupation is a use allowed upon the grant of special permit by the ZBA.
Applicant has submitted, and the ZBA has reviewed, an application, notification to surrounding property owners of pending action, survey and SEQRA short form environmental assessment form.
Notice of a public hearing on the special permit and application was duly published. Joseph Austin appeared and spoke in favor of the application at the public hearing. There was no opposition to the proposed home occupation at the public hearing.
The Onondaga County Planning Board recommended disapproval of the application by resolution dated January 6, 2004 because an exterior sign would be visible.
Based on the above referenced documents, and proof received by the ZBA at the public hearing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. That matter is subject to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The matter is unlisted. The Board appoints itself lead agency for the uncoordinated review of this matter and finds there will be no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this action. The basis for this determination is the subject property, is located in a residential zone and has an existing structure, which will not be modified. The proposed project poses no significant impacts on water, air, agricultural resources or community character and growth and there will be minimal noise associated with the proposal.
2. A special permit required pursuant to Code Section 200-13(C)(9) for the proposed use, which the Board finds is a “home occupation”.
3. Pursuant to Section 200-108 of the Code, the Board finds the proposed special use satisfies the Town standards of review as follows:
(a) As the proposed use is allowed in the zoning district by special permit, it is in compliance with the applicable intent and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance;
(b) The proposed use is consistent with the long-term development objectives of the area and the property is serviced by utilities necessary for the home occupation use;
(c) The scale and design of the use, which is of little effect on the surrounding area given it will be conducted entirely within an existing structure is in compliance with Town requirements and will be visually compatible with conditions of the site and surrounding properties;
(d) The existing design of the site provides for efficient vehicular movement given the size of the site and the fact that the proposed use will not result in any substantial change in vehicular traffic.
(e) The site is adequately served by public utilities;
(f) Drainage on the site will not be affected by the proposed use;
(g) Regarding aesthetics, there is no change to the physical layout of the property;
(h) Emissions from the site will be minimal.
(4) The Special Permit is granted pursuant to Code Section 200–13(C)(9) and all other applicable provisions of the Code, so as to allow for operation of a home occupation subject to:
(a) There is no outdoor storage, retail sales, or business conducted on the site.
(b) The Codes Officer shall approve location and landscaping of the proposed sign.
(c) This Special Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Codes Officer annually from this date.
Mr. Cleverley seconded the resolution; there was no further discussion.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Abold Yes
Mr. Cleverley Yes
Mr. Mitts Absent
Mr. Bowes Yes
Mr. Virginia Yes
Vote: 4 yes, 1 absent; motion carried.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – LLOYD & SUSAN ELLIS
7068 W. Dead Creek Rd., Tax Parcel ID #046.-04-01.2
Variance from Section #200-14A(3)a front yard setback for garage.
AR-80 Zoning District.
The public hearing continued at 8:02 p.m.
Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd and Susan Ellis were present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia said he received the information he asked for from the applicant showing the dimensions for the location of the temporary garage.
Mr. Virginia reviewed the calculations with the applicant.
Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application. No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
Mr. Virginia proposed the following resolution #Z-01-02:
Lloyd Ellis and Susan Ellis of 7068 West Dead Creek Road seek an area variance from Sections 200-14(A)(3)(a) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the proposed location of a garage. The property is located in an AR-80 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 046-04-01.2.
Mr. Ellis spoke in favor of the application and described the temporary garage, which is 20 feet by 12 feet. The garage is located approximately 48 feet from the road’s centerline and approximately 26 feet from the north side of the house. The front yard setback variance is required because the garage will be located in front of the house. Mr. Ellis explained in detail to the Board the physical limitations of the property based on topography and existing improvements, which include a house, private well and water line, septic tank and leach field.
There was no objection to the proposal at ZBA’s public hearing, which was held on December 15, 2003 pursuant to public notice and continued on January 26, 2004.
In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners, location sketch and survey showing the location of the house on the property.
Based on the foregoing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. This matter is Type II under SEQR as it involves an individual setback variance related to a single-family residential use.
2. It is determined the requested variance will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. There is no other apparent method to achieve the benefit applicant wishes to obtain other than a variance and the benefit to applicant outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood or community as a result of granting the variance.
3. A variance is granted to allow temporary garage measuring 20 feet long and 12 feet in width situated with the dimensions previously stated. Applicants are further hereby notified as a matter of public record for future reference that any additional structures, modifications or improvements to their property shall be subject to compliance with the Town Code and Town approval where appropriate prior to commencement of work or this variance shall terminate.
Mr. Bowes seconded the resolution; there was no further discussion.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Abold Yes
Mr. Cleverley Yes
Mr. Mitts Absent
Mr. Bowes Yes
Mr. Virginia Yes
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent, motion carried.
Mr. Pringle informed the applicant that they could now apply for a building permit for their temporary garage
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – DEBORAH WALBURGER
7668 W. Dead Creek Rd., Tax Parcel ID #043.-03-09.0
Variance from Section #200-14A(3)b side yard variance for shed.
AR-80 Zoning District.
The public hearing continued at 8:12 p.m.
There was no one present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia said that the applicant was informed to supply more information (exact dimensions) to the Board at the last meeting and that the Board had not received any more information.
The secretary informed the Board that a memo was sent to the applicant on January 16th, reminding them that more information (exact dimensions) was not received and was needed, per the Board.
Motion Mr. Virginia made a motion to close the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Mr. Bowes seconded the motion; motion carried.
Mr. Virginia said that he wanted to deny the application, since the applicant has not supplied the Board with more information, and not to tie up the agenda, if the Board tabled it continually.
Motion #Z-04-03 Mr. Virginia made a motion to deny application by Deborah Walburger for Variance from Section 200-14A3b for side yard variance for shed on property located at 7668 W. Dead Creek. Mr. Cleverley seconded the motion; there was no further discussion.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Abold Yes
Mr. Cleverley Yes
Mr. Mitts Absent
Mr. Bowes Yes
Mr. Virginia Yes
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent, motion carried.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – JAMES GAMBLE
501 Crandon Terr., Tax Parcel ID #031.7-02-10.0
Variance from Section #200-44D(1)(d) side yard setback. PUD Zoning Distr.
The public hearing continued at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. James Gamble was present to address the Board.
Mr. Gamble said that he wanted a side yard variance (of less than a foot) for his shed.
Mr. Gamble said that the shed is up and currently five feet from the property line, but that he wanted to move it so that he could get to the shed easily.
Mr. Gamble said that moving it would make it invisible to neighbors. Mr. Gamble said he did receive signature from neighboring property owner at the side of the shed.
Mr. Pringle said that a structure could be three (3) feet from the property line according to the fire code.
Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak. No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Mr. Bowes proposed the following resolution #Z-04-04:
James Gamble of 501 Crandon Terrace seeks an area variance from Sections 200-44(D)(1)(d) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the side yard setback requirements for a proposed shed. The property is located in a PUD District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 031.7-02-10.0. Applicant proposes to construct a shed on the parcel. The Zoning Code requires a total of 5 feet for the side yard setback in the PUD District. Mr. Gamble’s proposal provides for approximately 4 feet of setback on the east side of his property.
Mr. Gamble spoke in favor of the application. He described the plan and the circumstances under which the shed is to be constructed.
In support of the applicant, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners and a survey map prepared by RJ Lighton, dated December 10, 1996 showing the location of the house.
Based on the foregoing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. This matter is Type II under SEQR as it involves an individual setback variance related to a single-family residential use.
2. It is determined the requested variance will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed shed will be located 4 feet from the east side property line. Due to the lot’s topography and other physical limitations, there was no feasible method to pursue other than the area variance so that the improvements are located consistent with the site. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. The benefit to applicant outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood or community as a result of granting the variance.
3. A variance is granted to allow for the location of a shed with a east side yard setback of 4 feet.
Mr. Virginia seconded the resolution; there was no further discussion
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Abold Yes
Mr. Cleverley Yes
Mr. Mitts Absent
Mr. Bowes Yes
Mr. Virginia Yes
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent, motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – HOLLY AND WEBSTER REID
2115 Downer St. Rd., Tax Parcel ID #034.-03-17.3
Special Use Permit #200-27(C)(3) to allow for veterinary clinic. LB Zoning Distr.
The public hearing opened at 8:24 p.m. The secretary read the public notice aloud.
Mr. Webster Reid and Mrs. Holly Reid were present to address the Board.
Mr. Reid said that he was interested in obtaining a special use permit for an emergency veterinary clinic in an existing building on Downer St. and that there are no proposed changes to the exterior, only a new exit door.
Mr. Reid said that he did submit the application to the County Planning Board and talked to one of the members who saw no problem, but that the application still needs to be seen by the Board for any comments.
Mr. Reid said he was looking for a special use, contingent upon County approval, so that he could get a loan from the bank to open the proposed clinic.
Mr. Virginia asked if there would be any modifications to site, i.e. parking, fencing, lighting, additions, or signage.
Mrs. Reid said there would be no modifications to the exterior, but a sign would be erected in the place of the existing “Caryl Electric” and another businesses sign.
Mrs. Reid said that an additional door would be installed.
Mrs. Reid said that there are tenants that occupy the existing building currently.
Mr. Reid said that he would apply for a building permit for the sign and that it would be within the Code.
Mr. Virginia asked the applicant what the hours of operation would be.
Mrs. Reid said that the emergency clinic would operate from 6:30 p.m. to 8 a.m. Monday to Friday and on Saturday 12 p.m. to Monday at 8 a.m. and not regular business hours since that is when primary clinics would be available and that the proposal is for emergencies at “off hours”.
Mrs. Reid said from 6:30 p.m. to 11:30 approximately four employees and three during the night and then three from 6:00 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 6-7 employees staggered over the weekend hours.
Mrs. Reid said the employees have enough parking along Downer inside the parking lot.
Mrs. Reid said approximately 10-15 visits of small animals in the evening and 25-40 visits on the weekend.
Mrs. Reid said an animal that needs hospitalization would not be kept at the facility, but returned to the primary veterinary home.
Mrs. Reid said medical waste would be provided by “InViroTech” and stored in the freezer until picked up.
Mrs. Reid said any animals (dogs and cats) that die would be in the freezer until picked up in the morning by SPCA for cremation or picked up by the owner. Mrs. Reid said that they do not board animals during the day.
Mrs. Reid said that drugs would be secured according to the law.
Mr. Virginia said they have neighbors (a bar) on the east side of the property and neighbors on Southgate.
Mr. Reid said that they obtained signatures from their neighbors.
Mr. Reid said that they will use the existing access to the property and that no changes are planned to the parking lot.
Mr. Spencer recommended to the Board that if the applicant changes anything that the Board have the applicant return with an amended special use.
Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application.
Mr. Resseguie said that the facility would be an asset to the Town of Van Buren, Mr. Piels seconded.
Mrs. Reid thanked the councilors.
Mrs. Reid said that her emergency clinic would be the only one that exists on the west side.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
Mr. Virginia proposed the following resolution #Z-04-05:
Holly R. Reid and S. Webster Reid of 8735 Avery Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027, applies for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Town of Van Buren Code Section 200-27(C)(13) to allow for an emergency veterinary clinic at 2115 Downer Street.
The property is zoned Local Business and is known as tax map no. 034-03-17.3. In a Local Business District, a veterinary clinic is a use allowed upon the grant of special permit by the ZBA.
Applicant has submitted, and the ZBA has reviewed, an application, notification to surrounding property owners of pending action, survey and SEQRA short form environmental assessment form.
Notice of a public hearing on the special permit and application was duly published. Applicants appeared and spoke in favor of the application. There was no opposition to the proposed veterinary clinic at the public hearing.
Based on the above referenced documents, and proof received by the ZBA at the public hearing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. That matter is subject to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The matter is unlisted. The Board appoints itself lead agency for the uncoordinated review of this matter and finds there will be no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this action. The basis for this determination is the subject property is located in a local business zone involving no modifications to the existing site and facilities other than interior alterations and has adequate space to accommodate the proposed facility. As a result, the proposed project poses no significant impacts on water, air, agricultural resources or community character and growth and there will be minimal noise associated with the proposal.
2. A special permit required pursuant to Code Section 200-27(C)(13) for the proposed use, which the Board finds is a “veterinary clinic”.
3. Pursuant to Section 200-108 of the Code, the Board finds the proposed special use satisfies the Town standards of review as follows:
(a) As the proposed use is allowed in the zoning district by special permit, it is in compliance with the applicable intent and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance;
(b) The proposed use is consistent with the long term development objectives of the area and is serviced by utilities necessary for the facility;
(c) The scale and design of the use has minimal effect on the surrounding area and will be visually compatible with conditions of the site and surrounding properties;
(d) The design of the site provides for efficient vehicular movement given the size of the site and its access to Route 31.
(e) The site is adequately served by public utilities;
(f) Drainage on the site will not be affected by the proposed use;
(g) Regarding aesthetics, there is no significant change to the area as a result of the proposed structure;
(h) Emissions from the site will be minimal.
4. The Special Permit is granted pursuant to Code Section 200–27(C)(3) and all other applicable provisions of the Code, so as to allow for operation of a veterinary clinic subject to:
(a) Site plan approval for any site modifications;
(b) Special Use Permit is contingent upon approval from County Planning and Department of Transportation.
(c) Hours of Operation are 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekdays and from 12:00 a.m. Saturday to 8:00 a.m. Mondays and Holidays from 6:30 p.m. on the holiday eve to 8:00 a.m. the day after the holiday.
Mr. Cleverley seconded the resolution; there was no further discussion.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Abold Yes
Mr. Cleverley Yes
Mr. Mitts Absent
Mr. Bowes Yes
Mr. Virginia Yes
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent, motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – ALLISON PARKER
108 Rufus Circle, Tax Parcel ID #062.-02-13.0
Variance from Section #200-22A(3)(a) front yard setback. R-10 Zoning Distr.
The public hearing opened at 8:53 p.m. The secretary read the public notice aloud.
Mrs. Allison Parker and Mr. Roger Parker were present to address the Board.
Mr. Parker said that he erected a shed that extends 3’ in front of his house in the side yard and that he has a meter and window on the side and he needed to move the shed forward out of the way. Mr. Parker said he was asking for a variance to have his shed extend out from the front of his house.
Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application. No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m.
Mr. Bowes proposed the following resolution #Z-04-06:
Allison Parker and Roger Parker of 108 Rufus Circle seek an area variance from Sections 200-22(A)(3)(a) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the location of a shed. The property is located in an R-10 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 062-02-13.0.
Mr. Roger Parker spoke in favor of the application and described the shed, which is 7 feet by 7 feet. The shed is located adjacent to the garage. The front yard setback variance is required because the shed is located in front the house by approximately three feet. Mr. Parker explained in detail to the Board the physical limitations of his property based on topography and existing improvements.
There was no objection to the proposal at ZBA’s public hearing, which was held on January 26, 2004 pursuant to public notice.
In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners, location sketch and survey showing the location of the house on the property.
Based on the foregoing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. This matter is Type II under SEQR as it involves an individual setback variance related to a single-family residential use.
2. It is determined the requested variance will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. There is no other apparent method to achieve the benefit applicant wishes to obtain other than a variance and
the benefit to applicant outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood or community as a result of granting the variance.
3. A variance is granted to allow for the location of a shed measuring 7 feet long and 7 feet in width in front of the existing structure by three feet adjacent to the garage.
Any additional structures shall require additional review and approvals.
Mr. Virginia seconded the resolution; there was no further discussion.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Abold Yes
Mr. Cleverley Yes
Mr. Mitts Absent
Mr. Bowes Yes
Mr. Virginia Yes
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent, motion carried.
Other Business
Mr. Virginia informed the Board that the next meeting would be held on February 23, 2004 since a holiday falls on the normally scheduled meeting date of February 16th.
Mr. Abold asked Mr. Pringle if a porch is considered the front line of the house.
Mr. Pringle said he didn’t consider a covered unenclosed stoop as the front line of the house, but maybe an enclosed porch could be considered the front line of the house and generally it is the principal structure that dictates the front line of the house.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Abold made a motion to adjourn the meeting to February 23, due to the holiday, Mr. Cleverley seconded the motion; motion carried, unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Aulds
Zoning Secretary
|
