Van Buren, NY - October 18, 2004

October 18, 2004

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 Cleverley present

Laura McBurney present

James Bowes present

Ronald Abold present

John Virginia, Chairman present

Also Present: Ted Spencer, Attorney

Donna Aulds, Secretary

David Pringle, Codes Officer

MINUTES

Motion Mr. Virginia asked that the minutes from September’s meeting be corrected on page 4 to read “McBurney” not “McBurned” and on page 9 to read “basin” not “basing”. Mr. Abold made a motion to accept the minutes, as corrected, Mrs. McBurney seconded the resolution, there was no further discussion; motion carried unanimously.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – JAMES PHELPS

2667 Ellsworth Rd., Tax Parcel ID #030-01-20.0

Variance from Section #200-16(A)(3)(a) front yard setback; existing bldg line.

R-40 Zoning Distr.

The Board continued the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.

Mr. James Phelps of 2667 Ellsworth Rd. was present to address the Board.

Mr. Phelps said he wanted to build another garage, but detached in front of his home by 17 feet. Mr. Phelps said that was the only place he could put the garage because it was the only place dry and level on his property.

Mr. Virginia asked where the septic field was.

Mr. Phelps said in the back.

Mr. Phelps said he would build the proposed garage parallel to the house. Mr. Phelps said the garage door would be located on the west side of the building.

Mr. Abold asked if the applicant would put in another driveway.

Mr. Phelps said no that he would use the existing driveway and extend that to the proposed garage.

Mr. Virginia asked the applicant what he would put in the proposed garage.

Mr. Phelps said his tools and car.

Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application. No one spoke.

The public hearing closed at 7:42 p.m.

Mrs. McBurney proposed the following resolution #Z-04-41:

James D. Phelps of 2667 Ellsworth Road seeks an area variance from Section 200-16(A)(3)(a) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the proposed location of a garage. The property is located in a R-40 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 030-01-20.0.

Mr. Phelps spoke in favor of the application and described his plan to construct a garage, which will be approximately 30 feet by 40 feet. The proposed garage will be located a minimum of approximately 30 feet from the road’s right of way line. The front yard setback variance is required because the garage will be located in front of his house by approximately 22 feet. Mr. Phelps explained in detail to the Board the physical limitations of his property based on topography and existing improvements that include his 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 September 20, 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 because the garage will be located approximately 30 feet from the front lot line and the front yard requirements for principal structures in R-40 districts is 50 feet. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. Given the unusual shape of the lot and the principal structure location, 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 the construction of a garage measuring 40 feet long and 30 feet in width with a minimum setback of 30 feet from the southern side yard property line. The garage will have solid walls and no doors at either end; the garage will be parallel to the residence with doors on the western side of the garage. Any additional structures or modifications to existing 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. Bowes yes

Mrs. McBurney yes

Mr. Virginia yes

Vote: 5 yes, 0 no; motion carried, unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING – MICHAEL KEMPISTY

State Fair Blvd. and Mann Dr., Tax Parcel ID #059.-03-06.0

Special Use Permit #200-27(C)(5) Outdoor commercial displays. LB Zoning.

The public hearing opened at 7:48 p.m.

Mr. Virginia made a motion to waive the reading of the public notice, Mr. Bowes seconded the motion; motion carried, unanimously.

Mr. Michael Kempisty of 1187 State Fair Blvd. was present to address the Board.

Mr. Virginia said that he wanted to know what the applicant planned on displaying on the proposed property.

Mr. Kempisty said he was unsure of what he would be displaying.

Mr. Kempisty said he wanted a special use for “outdoor commercial display” and that is what he wanted to use the proposed property for.

Mr. Virginia said he wanted it to look neat and not display junk.

Mr. Kempisty said it would look nice.

Mr. Kempisty said that Terpening was around the corner of the proposed property.

Mr. Kempisty said he didn’t believe he would be impacting the neighbors.

Mr. Kempisty said a trailer park was across the street.

Mr. Virginia said the buffer shown is 60 feet.

Mrs. McBurney asked the applicant how customers would approach the display area.

Mr. Kempisty said he would have a sign with parking.

Mr. Kempisty said he was unsure of how to stop traffic on the road from stopping along the road, but that Lou Cannata at Lou’s Car Care has traffic stopping along Route 48 to look at his cars.

Mr. Bowes asked if anyone would be present on the proposed property.

Mr. Kempisty said no.

Mr. Spencer informed the Board that they could agree what is displayed.

Mr. Spencer said depending on what is displayed that it could trigger other provisions or requirements in the Town Code.

Mr. Virginia said he didn’t want used cars.

Mr. Kempisty said he wanted used equipment displayed.

Mr. Kempisty said there is no building proposed, just displaying.

Mr. Virginia said that the Board would also like to see the proposed location of a sign.

Mr. Spencer informed the Board that according to Section 200-108 of the Town Code the Board could decide on safety, aesthetics, etc. for the proposal.

Mr. Virginia asked the applicant to supply:

1. What items would be displayed;

2. Setbacks from the road, front, side and rear;

3. Sign design;

4. Any lighting;

5. Scale of development 200-108A(3)(b);

6. and all other applicable concerns in Section 200-108.

Mr. Abold said he wanted to know the scale and design of the proposal according to Section 200-108A(3)(b) and determine if it is physically and visually compatible with the conditions of the site and surrounding properties.

Mr. Kempisty said that it is visually compatible because the property is zoned LB (Local Business).

Mr. Spencer informed the applicant that the Board needs to see the end result of the proposal to determine if the proposal is compatible to the surrounding area.

Mr. Abold said there are residents in the area.

Mr. Abold told the applicant to supply the Board with what will be displayed on the proposed property and to inform the Board with the intended uses proposed.

Mr. Virginia said he has a problem with motor vehicle displays, trailers, and backhoe displays.

Mr. Kempisty said there is no definition of commercial display and that the Board cannot tell him what he can display.

Mr. Abold informed the applicant that under the Special Use Regulations the Board does have a say of what is proposed for the property.

Mr. Kempisty said that a property owner should be able to get answers from reading the Code for the Town. Mr. Kempisty said he thought the Board was going beyond it’s authority.

Mr. Spencer said that the proposed use, commercial display, is listed as a special use and that it has to be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals and that it is in the Code Book.

Mr. Spencer informed the applicant that there are subjective and objective elements in the system and when applying for a Special Use Permit the Board functions under Section 200-108.

Mr. Kempisty said if it is allowed then the Board has to give him a Special Use.

Mr. Cleverley said the proposal is more visible and surrounded by residential areas and that the Board wasn’t allowing “carte blanche” for what would be displayed on the property.

Mr. Spencer asked the applicant to show a drawing of what the property would look at when it is done.

Mr. Kempisty said that it wouldn’t be just “done” and that he wanted to display different items at different times.

Mr. Kempisty said the Town Board was negligent without defining the definition for commercial display.

Mr. Virginia asked the applicant what he wished to displayed.

Mr. Kempisty said the Board could not involve itself with the “inner workings” of a business.

Mr. Kempisty said the neighbor had a bus and bulldozer on their property.

Mr. Abold said that the Board has to look at certain requirements for a special use.

Mr. Kempisty said that “aesthetics” was not a serious issue, unlike safety.

Mr. Virginia asked the applicant to submit a list of display items to the Codes Office by Friday, November 5^th.

Mr. Virginia said that the Board is still waiting to hear from County Planning regarding the application.

Mr. Kempisty said that the Board could not limit a permit.

Mr. Abold said the Board has the right to require information from the applicant per 200-108 section.

Mr. Spencer informed the applicant to submit additional information asked by the Board.

Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application.

Mr. James Daley of State Fair Blvd. said that there are children in the neighborhood near the proposed property, not commercial, and that the items displayed may act as an “attractive nuisance” for the children in the area and be unsafe on the open lot, such as a jungle gym, which the applicant listed as an item he might display.

Mr. Virginia asked if anyone else wanted to speak in regard to the application. No one spoke.

Mr. Virginia asked that the application be tabled to November 18^th, at 7:35 p.m., for further information submitted by the applicant, Mr. Abold seconded the motion; motion carried, unanimously.

Application was tabled at 8:20 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING – SANFORD JAMES TAYLOR

7838 E. Dead Creek Road., Tax Parcel ID #033-03-06.0

Special Use Permit #200-15C(9) Home Occupation to allow a “car dealership sign”. R-40 Zoning District.

The public hearing opened at 8:21 p.m.

Mr. Virginia made a motion to waive the reading of the public notice, Mr. Bowes seconded the motion; motion carried, unanimously.

Mr. Sanford Taylor of 7838 E. Dead Creek Rd. was present to address the Board.

Mr. Taylor said that he runs a car business, primarily wholesale, and occasionally sells a car, and New York State requires that he display a sign.

Mr. Taylor gave pictures of his neighbor’s motor vehicle sign to the Board for them to view.

Mr. Taylor said he is requesting the same sign as his neighbor’s motor vehicle sign.

Mr. Virginia said the neighbor couldn’t sell cars from his property, as a condition of his special use, where his sign is located.

Mr. Taylor said he is allowed to park one car and the car would be in front of the sign and most neighbors wouldn’t see anything and won’t know.

Mr. Virginia said home occupation has to be done within the principal structure or a detached accessory structure, with nothing visible on the outside that a business is being conducted.

Mr. Pringle said one unlicensed vehicle on the property is allowed, owned privately by the resident.

Mr. Virginia said that the applicant couldn’t sell vehicles from the property.

Mr. Virginia said if the Town finds out that the applicant is selling vehicles from his property the special use permit would be rescinded.

Mr. Taylor said that it was fine.

Mr. Virginia informed the Board that they were in receipt of a nearby property owner to the applicant and that the neighbor was unsure about agreeing to the request to display a motor vehicle sign for fear of a car dealership going up in his neighborhood.

Mr. Taylor said the neighbor feared a car dealership and that the neighbor is upset with the existing fence company nearby and a possible car dealership, if the home occupation is granted.

Mr. Abold said he had seen, on several occasions, Mr. Taylor sell cars from his residential property.

Mr. Pringle said he did go to Mr. Taylor’s property and all the vehicles for sale were removed.

Mr. Abold told Mr. Taylor that he drives by the property regularly and if he sees any cars for sale then he would be sure to report it and see that the illegal use gets taken care of.

Mr. Pringle defined the home occupation as not using more than 25% of residence for the business, no employees, no outside traffic, no sales, business is inside not outside.

Mr. Spencer said that Section 200-108(B)(4) lists the requirements of a home occupation and 200-108(B)(4)(d) subsection 1-5 and 200-108(B)(4)(e) – (k) list what is prohibited for home occupations.

Mr. Bowes asked why the applicant wanted to do this in his home and not locate to where he would be able to sell cars.

Mr. Taylor said because it has been successful doing wholesale from his house and that a car comes from Evans to his home and then to an auction.

Mr. Virginia said that the application needs to be sent to County Planning for referral and that the Board could not make a decision until next month after they hear from County Planning.

Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application.

Mr. Kempisty, in the audience, said he wanted to talk.

Mr. Virginia informed Mr. Kempisty that he could talk regarding the application.

Mr. Kempisty said he wanted to talk about his property and that it relates to the application.

Mr. Spencer said that Mr. Kempisty could talk regarding the current application by Mr. Taylor for home occupation.

Mr. Kempisty did not talk regarding the application.

Mr. Virginia made a motion to table application by Mr. Sanford Taylor, 7838 E. Dead Creek Rd., to November 15^th at 7:32 p.m., being an incomplete application. Mr. Bowes seconded the motion, there was no further discussion; motion carried, unanimously.

Application tabled at 8:34 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING – JAMES W. DALEY

7182 State Fair Blvd., Tax Parcel ID #059.-02-17.0

Variance from Section #200-16A(3)(a) front yard setback for garage. R-40 Zone

The public hearing opened at 8:35 p.m.

Mr. Virginia made a motion to waive the reading of the public notice, Mr. Abold seconded the motion; motion carried, unanimously.

Mr. James Daley of 7182 State Fair Blvd. was present to address the Board.

Mr. Daley said he wanted to build a detached garage on an existing foundation that was a residence at one time and burned down long ago and another residence was built since then on the property. Mr. Daley said the existing foundation does extend beyond the front line of his home.

Mr. Virginia said the applicant’s proposal is 78 feet off the road and 12 feet in front of the house.

Mr. Daley said he wouldn’t be applying for a new road cut.

Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak. No one spoke.

Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m.

Mrs. McBurney proposed the following resolution #Z-04-42:

James W. Daley of 7182 State Fair Boulevard seeks an area variance from Section 200_16(A)(3)(a) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the proposed location of a garage. The property is located in an R-40 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 059-02-17.

Mr. Daley spoke in favor of the application and described his plan to construct a garage, which will be approximately 24 feet by 32 feet. The proposed garage will be located a minimum of approximately 78 feet from the road’s right of way line. The front yard setback variance is required because the garage will be located approximately 12 feet in front of his house. Mr. Daley explained in detail to the Board the physical limitations of his property based on topography and existing improvements, which include his 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 October 18, 2004 pursuant to public notice.

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 because the garage will be located over 78’ from the front lot line and the front yard requirements for principal structures in an R-40 district is only 50 feet. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. Given the unusual shape of the lot and the principal structure location, 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 the construction of a garage measuring 24 feet long and 32 feet in width with a minimum setback of 78 feet from the front yard property line. Any additional structures or modifications to existing 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. Bowes yes

Mrs. McBurney yes

Mr. Virginia yes

Vote: 5 yes, 0 no; motion carried, unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING – LOREN PATTERSON

7725 Van Buren Rd., Tax Parcel ID #030.-01-03.0

Variance from Section #200-16A(2)(b) side yard setback for deck. R-40 Zone

Mr. Abold asked to be abstained from the discussion.

The public hearing opened at 8:45 p.m.

Mr. Virginia made a motion to waive the reading of the public notice, Mr. Abold seconded the motion; motion carried, unanimously.

Mr. Loren Patterson was present to address the Board.

Mr. Patterson asked that a side yard variance be granted for his new garage for a small entry porch so that he would be able to step out of his garage that would include an overhang.

Mr. Pringle said the garage is an attached accessory structure.

Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application. No one spoke.

Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m.

Mrs. McBurney proposed the following resolution #Z-04-43:

Loren Patterson of 7715 Van Buren Road seeks an area variance from Sections 200_16(A)(2)(b) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the side yard setback requirements for a proposed porch. The property is located in an R-40 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 030-01-03. Applicant proposes to construct a porch off an existing building. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 20 feet for each side yard setback in an R-40 District. Mr. Patterson’s proposal provides for a 15 feet setback on the south side of his house.

Mr. Patterson spoke in favor of the application. He described the plan and the circumstances under which the porch is to be constructed.

In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners and a survey map prepared by R.J. Lighton, dated November 10, 1991, showing the location of the house and frame building.

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 porch will be located 15 feet from the south 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 porch with a south side yard setback of 15 feet.

Mr. Virginia seconded the resolution; there was no further discussion.

Roll Call Vote:

Mr. Abold abstain

Mr. Cleverley yes

Mr. Bowes yes

Mrs. McBurney yes

Mr. Virginia yes

Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention; motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING – JOEY TSE

12 Commodore Cir., Tax Parcel ID #036.-01-11.0

Variance from Section #200-20A(2)(c) rear yard setback for addition. R-15 Zone.

The public hearing opened at 8:51 p.m.

Mr. Virginia made a motion to waive the reading of the public notice, Mr. Abold seconded the motion; motion carried, unanimously.

Mr. Joey Tse of 12 Commodore Circle was present to address the Board.

Mr. Tse said he wanted a rear yard variance for a new addition to his existing home for a new bedroom and that his property is an odd shape and the addition encroaches the rear yard setback. Mr. Tse said he obtained neighbor signatures.

Mr. Virginia informed the applicant that there might be covenances on his property in Harbour Heights.

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. Virginia proposed the following resolution #Z-04-44:

Joey Tse of 12 Commodore Circle, Baldwinsville, NY 13027 seeks an area variance from Section 200-20A(2)(c) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the rear yard setback requirements for a proposed addition to be located at his property. The property is located in an R-15 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 036-01-11.0. Applicant proposes to construct an addition at the rear of the existing improvements. The Zoning Code requires 40 feet for the rear yard setbacks in an R-15 District. Mr. Tse’s proposal provides for a total of 27 feet from the rear yard lines.

Mr. Tse spoke in favor of the application. He described the plan and the circumstances under which the addition is to be constructed.

In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners and a survey map prepared by J. Stephen Sehnert showing the location of the house and proposed addition.

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 addition will be located 27 feet from the west property line. Due to the lot’s size and 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 an addition (measuring approximately 16’ x 48’) with a rear yard setback of 27 feet.

Mrs. McBurney seconded the resolution; there was no further discussion.

Roll Call Vote:

Mr. Abold yes

Mr. Cleverley yes

Mr. Bowes yes

Mrs. McBurney yes

Mr. Virginia yes

Vote: 5 yes, 0 no; motion carried, unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING – JAMES LAMIRANDE for JAMES MCKENNA

203 Daywood Dr., Tax Parcel ID #031.2-09-11.0

Variance from Section #200-22A(2)(a) front yard setback for deck. R-10 Zoning.

The public hearing opened at 8:58 p.m.

Mr. Virginia made a motion to waive the reading of the public notice, Mr. Bowes seconded the motion; motion carried, unanimously.

Mr. James Lamirande of Baldwinsville, representing Mr. McKenna of 203 Daywood Dr., was present to address the Board.

Mr. Lamirande said that he would like to build a 6’ x 11’deck for the homeowners at 203 Daywood, but it will encroach on the front yard setback. Mr. Lamirande said that there are similar decks that exist in the neighborhood.

Mr. Lamirande showed pictures of the existing front house.

Mr. Lamirande said the proposal will not have a roof.

Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application. No one spoke.

Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m.

Mrs. McBurney proposed the following resolution #Z-04-45:

James McKenna 203 Daywood Drive, Baldwinsville, NY 13027 seeks an area variance from Section 200 22(A)(2)(a) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the proposed location of a deck. The property is located in an R-10 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 031.2_09_11.

Mr. Lamirande, applicant representing Mr. McKenna, owner, spoke in favor of the application and described his plan to construct a new porch at the site. The deck is located approximately 29 feet from the road’s right of way line. The front yard setback variance is required because the deck is located closer than the 30 feet minimum required by the Code. Mr. Lamirande explained in detail to the Board the physical limitations of the property based on topography and existing improvements.

There was no objection to the proposal at ZBA’s public hearing, which was held on October 18, 2004 pursuant to public notice.

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 at the ZBA’s public hearing. Given the shape of the lot and the principal structure location, 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 the construction of a deck, located 29 feet from the front line of the property. Any additional structures or modifications to existing 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. Bowes yes

Mrs. McBurney yes

Mr. Virginia yes

Vote: 5 yes, 0 no; motion carried, unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING – JEFFREY MCCULLAR (MAURICE HAY, OWNER)

W. Sorrell Hill Rd., Tax Parcel ID #050.-02-01.0

Variance from Section #200-14(A)(1)(b) maximum lot area. AR-80 Zoning.

The public hearing opened at 9:09 p.m.

Mr. Virginia made a motion to waive the reading of the public notice, Mr. Bowes seconded the motion; motion carried, unanimously.

There was no one present to address the Board.

Mr. Virginia said that the applicant, Mr. McCullar, called and notified the Codes Office that he needed to work and couldn’t be present at the meeting, but that the Board would discuss his application

Mr. Virginia said that a variance for maximum lot area was needed from the requirement of five acres to eight acres.

Mr. Virginia said that the Board could not make a decision, since the application needs to be referred to County Planning for recommendation.

Mr. Virginia said that the property belongs to Mr. Maury Hay and that he was willing to subdivide off eight acres, between the hedgerows to the applicant.

Mr. Pringle said the proposed property is in the Agricultural Overlay District, Section #200-39.

Mr. Virginia tabled the application at 9:12 p.m., as incomplete, to November 15, 2004.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Virginia made a motion to adjourn the meeting to November 15th, 7:30 pm, Mr. Abold seconded the motion; motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Donna Aulds, Zoning Secretary