7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
Zoning Board September 2004
September 20, 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. Abold made a motion to accept the minutes, as typed and distributed, Mrs. McBurney seconded the resolution, there was no further discussion; motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – DEREK TAROLLI
Herman rd. Tax Parcel ID #055.-01-05.3
Special Use Permit #200-35(C)(5) Contractors Yard. IndB Zoning Distr.
The public hearing opened at 7:33 p.m. The secretary read the notice aloud.
Mr. Joe Durand of TDK Engineering, representing Mr. Tarolli, was present to address the Board.
Mr. Durand informed the Board that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) granted the applicant a special use permit on September 20th.
Mr. Durand informed the Board that the lines were redrawn and that they were awaiting approval for site plan.
Mr. Spencer informed Mr. Durand of the necessity to file at the County Clerk’s office a conveyance (a document that describes, in narrative form, the access rights over the driveway) along with the subdivision map and the deed from the neighbor, Mr. Rotella.
Mr. Virginia stated that County Planning had no further comments for the application and that there was no inter-community or countywide adverse impact.
Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application.
Mr. Kempisty, property owner in the Town, disagreed with the Board’s Attorney regarding the filing of a narrative granting access and that only a map would be sufficient.
Mr. Spencer said that was incorrect and that a narrative needs to be filed along with the map and deed.
Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak. No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia proposed the following resolution #Z-04-38:
Derek Tarolli on behalf of Derek Tarolli, Inc., applies for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Town of Van Buren Code Section 200-33(C)(5) to allow for a contractors yard and office to be located at Herman Road.
The property is zoned IND-B and is known as tax map no. 055-01-05.2 and 055-01-05.3. In an IND-B District, a contractors yard 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, preliminary site plan prepared by TDK Engineering Associates, P.C., dated September 3, 2004 and SEQRA long form environmental assessment form.
The Town Planning Board has recommended approval of the proposed special permit by resolution dated August 2, 2004. Notice of a public hearing on the special permit and application was duly published. Joseph Durand of TDK Engineering appeared and spoke in favor of the application. There was no opposition to the proposed contractors yard at the public hearing. The Onondaga County Planning Board, by resolution dated August 24, 2004, determined that there would be no significant adverse inter-community or countywide implications in the event this application was approved.
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 an IND-B zone and measures approximately 9 acres. While portions of the property include DEC designated wetlands, the development provides for the construction of dry swales to prevent an adverse effect on the wetlands. Improvements are to be located well outside the 100’ wetland setback. The property is to be serviced by a septic system and the soil is suitable to
accommodate that system. 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 200-35(C)(5) for the proposed use, which the Board finds is a contractors yard.
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 contractors yard;
(c) The scale and design of the use includes a structure measuring 6800 square feet surrounded by gravel and concrete parking areas; the site is adequate to accommodate the improvements;
(d) The design of the site provides for efficient vehicular movement given the size of the site and the proposed entrance off Herman Road.
(e) The site is adequately served by public utilities to sustain the facility;
(f) Drainage on the site will not be adversely affected by the proposed use in that measures are being taken that include the installation of a drainage swale around the property;
(g) Regarding aesthetics, the physical improvements will be compatible with the area and include landscaping along the front;
(h) Emissions from the site will be minimal.
(4) The Special Permit is granted pursuant to Code Section 200–33(C)(5) and all other applicable provisions of the Code, so as to allow for operation of a contractors yard subject to:
(a) Final site plan approval is granted by the Planning Board.
(b) Applicant providing sufficient documentation to verify legal access rights over adjoining property as reflected on the site plan in a form acceptable to Planning Board Chairman.
Mr. Abold 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, Chairman yes
Vote: 5 yes, 0 no; motion carried, unanimously.
The public hearing closed at 7:54 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING – PETER ALWYN, SR.
208 Commane Rd. W., Tax Parcel ID #037.-01-31.0
Variance from Section #200-16(A)(3)(b) side yard setback. R-40 Zoning.
The public hearing opened at 7:55 p.m. The secretary read the public notice aloud.
Mr. Peter Alwyn of Commane Rd. W. was present to address the Board.
Mr. Alwyn said he wanted to build a detached shed and that the shape of his lot would make it impossible to conform to the required 40’. Mr. Alwyn requested a reduction in setback due to topography of his property to 10’.
Mr. Virginia discussed with the applicant the shape of his property and building placement to be sure the applicant placed his proposed shed correctly.
Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application. No one spoke.
Mrs. McBurney proposed the following resolution #Z-04-39:
Peter G. Alwyn of 208 Commane Road West seeks an area variance from Sections 200-16(A)(3)(B) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the side yard setback requirements for a proposed shed. The property is located in an R-40 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 037-01-31.0. Applicant proposes to construct a storage shed on the parcel. The Zoning Code requires a total of 15 feet for the side yard setbacks in an R-40 District. Mr. Alwyn’s proposal provides for a total of 10 feet setback on the south side of his house.
Mr. Alwyn spoke in favor of the application. He described the plan and the circumstances under which the storage shed is to be constructed.
In support of the applicant, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners, Short Environmental Assessment Form and a survey map prepared by Ovid White, dated August 1995, 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 storage shed will be located 10 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 storage shed with a south side yard setback of 10 feet.
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, Chairman yes
Vote: 5 yes, 0 no; motion carried, unanimously.
The public hearing closed at 8:03 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING – MICHAEL KEMPISTY
Herman Road, Tax Parcel ID #054.-03-10.0. Ind-B Zoning District.
Special Use Permit #200-35(C)(4) and (7) outdoor sales, storage and display and reclamation facility #200-54(D)(3) machinery wrecking yard. Interpretation of #200-54D(2) and (3). Ind-B Zoning.
The public hearing opened at 8:04 p.m. The secretary read the public notice aloud.
Mr. Michael Kempisty of 1187 State Fair Blvd. was present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia asked the applicant if the Board could table his application to the end of the meeting.
Mr. Kempisty agreed.
Application is tabled.
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 public hearing opened at 8:05 p.m. The secretary read the public notice aloud.
Mr. James Phelps of Ellsworth Rd. was present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia informed the applicant that the application is incomplete and that the Board needs to see a survey, or sketch, showing what currently exists and placement of the proposed detached garage.
Mr. Virginia asked the applicant if he already had an attached garage and requesting a detached garage located in the front yard.
Mr. Phelps said that was correct.
Mr. Phelps said he would supply the Board with more information at the next meeting.
Mr. Virginia tabled the application, due to being incomplete.
INTERPRETATION – DAVID KLUKIEWICZ
1395 Daboll Rd., Tax ID #045.-02-10.3
Interpretation provision of Zoning Ordinance #200-16(A)(3)(d) “maximum height” and #200-13(C)(12) “enclosed storage”.
Mr. David and Midge Klukiewicz of 1397 Daboll Rd. were present to address the Board.
Mr. Klukiewicz said that a neighbor was allowed to erect a garage for “enclosure” and shy wasn’t he requested to complete a special use permit from the Board.
Mr. Virginia said the building was allowed through a building permit and the Codes Officer issued a building permit based upon the request of the homeowner to build an accessory structure not the use of “enclosed storage”. Mr. Virginia said the permit is used to enclose personal items, when applying for the accessory structure like a garage.
Mr. Virginia said when a resident wants to erect a shed or garage the Codes Officer doesn’t make them complete an enclosed storage special use since that special use pertains to commercial, it is obvious an individual homeowner wants to store their personal items, i.e. lawnmower, car, bikes.
Mr. Klukiewicz said the neighbor is using the allowed structure, issued by the Codes Officer for commercial use.
Mr. Virginia said there is no proof that there is commercial activity, but the complainant could file a formal complaint with the Codes Officer and that commercial activity is not allowed on 1395 Daboll Rd.
Mr. Klukiewicz asked for the definition of “maximum height”.
Mr. Virginia read section #200-16A(3)(d) and explained that it was an average measurement from the highest and lowest point for an average height.
Mr. Klukiewicz thanked the Board and agreed to go to the Codes Officer for a complaint.
APPEAL – DOMENICK LOSURDO
7249 State Fair Blvd., Tax ID#059.-01-01.0
Appeal Decision by Codes Officer that multiple dwellings are not allowed in a local business district.
Mr. Domenick Losurdo of Chapel Dr. in Syracuse was present to address the Board.
Mr. Losurdo explained to the Board that the Codes Officer declined him a building permit based on Code Section #200-27 that apartments are not allowed in Local Business District.
Mr. Losurdo said that the existing apartments were built in 1946 and added to an existing building used for a restaurant and Laundromat. Mr. Losurdo said there was fire damage to the apartments in May 2004 and that he applied for a new building permit to erect new apartments, but was denied the permit by the Codes Officer.
Mr. Pringle did inform the Board that the previous Codes Officer in 1996 granted the applicant a building permit to convert one of the kitchens into an apartment, but no inspections were done or certificate of occupancy issued.
Mr. Virginia said he thought that the a grandfather clause would be appropriate in this case since the apartments were erected before the Town Codes, as supplied by the Codes Officer showing the earliest dates of 1955.
Mr. Virginia informed the applicant that he would need to comply with today’s building code requirements for the new apartments replacing the ones damaged in fire.
Mr. Cleverley said that he agreed with the grandfather clause in this case and that the use is not hurting the neighborhood.
Mr. Virginia informed the applicant that if the use were discontinued six months in a three-year period then the use could not be reestablished.
Mr. Spencer asked the Board if they are determining this as an “active non-conforming use” Section 200-57.
Mr. Virginia said yes the Board is deciding the applicant falls under the “active non-conforming use” provision.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Board agreed. The Board agreed.
Mr. Virginia proposed the following resolution #Z-04-40:
Domenick Losurdo of 305 Chapel Dr., Syracuse, seeks an appeal from the decision of the Codes Officer, denying him a building permit based on an application submitted August 2, 2004 (#7309) to rebuild apartments in a Local Business District. The Codes Officer denied the building permit, since apartments are not a permitted use according to the Town’s current code (Section 200-27). The property in question is located at 7249 State Fair Blvd. and is identified as tax map no. 059-01-01.0.
Mr. Losurdo appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals and described for the Board the circumstances under which the apartments had been previously established. He testified as to the original apartments dating back to 1946, prior to any zoning restrictions and to the continuous utilization of the apartments until June, 2004 when they were damaged by fire. Mr. Losurdo said that his apartments existed before the Town Codes went into effect and that a previous Code Officer did issue him a building permit with respect to the apartments in 1996.
Mr. Pringle spoke regarding his decision to deny the applicant a building permit pursuant to the application dated August 2, 2004. Mr. Pringle stated that apartments are not allowed and have never been allowed in the Local Business district. Mr. Pringle stated that Town records contain a permit issued in 1996 regarding the apartment building but there is no further record of any inspections done and no record that Certificate of Occupancy was issued.
Based on the foregoing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. This matter is Type II under SEQR and there is no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of this proposed project.
2. The Codes Officer produced Town Of Van Buren zoning laws that dated as early as 1955. Since there was no written documentation that any codes existed before that date the Board agreed that the subject apartments then fall under the grandfather rule. Therefore, The Board finds that the use of the property for apartment units is a valid nonconforming use and that the applicant is entitled to a building to permit for the property to
restore the fire damaged apartments that existed prior to the June, 2004 fire.
Any additional changes will be subject to the requirements of the Town’s zoning ordinances.
Mr. Bowes 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, Chairman yes
Vote: 5 yes, 0 no; motion carried, unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – MICHAEL KEMPISTY
Herman Road, Tax Parcel ID #054.-03-10.0. Ind-B Zoning District.
Special Use Permit #200-35(C)(4) and (7) outdoor sales, storage and display and reclamation facility #200-54(D)(3) machinery wrecking yard. Interpretation of #200-54D(2) and (3). Ind-B Zoning.
The public hearing continued at 8:49 p.m. Mr. Michael Kempisty of 1187 State Fair Blvd. was present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia said the County Planning had a lot of comments.
Mr. Kempisty asked why A. Duie Pyle and Meyers didn’t get as many comments for their application.
Mr. Virginia said he thought the applicant was preparing incorrect and incomplete site plan information, where the other applicants were complete in their application.
Mr. Virginia read the comments from County Planning.
Mr. Virginia asked about access to the proposed property.
Mr. Spencer said Pinnacle Hill Dev. (owner of the adjoining property) can grant a right-of-way agreement and it filed with the County Clerk, usually a stand-alone one-page document.
Mr. Kempisty said there is no impact to traffic regarding his application.
Mr. Kempisty said there is a letter on file from Mr. Stelter, Department of Transportation, regarding traffic with the LG Enterprise application.
Mr. Kempisty said the comments from County Planning seem to be a carryover from LG Enterprise.
Mr. Virginia said the property line is not defined on the map.
Mr. Bowes said the line in not defined as anything.
Mr. Virginia said based on the contours the water would drain off the property.
Mr. Kempisty said the water goes to the drainage basin.
Mr. Virginia said no, the contours show (in the SE corner) on the map that the water would go off the property not to the drainage basin.
Mr. Kempisty said he didn’t want to do major grading.
Mr. Virginia said the map might be wrong.
Mr. Virginia said the County Planning asked the Environmental issues be addressed.
Mr. Virginia said that the Planning Board asked that SEQR review be done in coordination with DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation).
Mr. Kempisty said DEC does not need to review and that only a SPEDES is necessary.
Mr. Virginia said he wanted to ask the Planning Board to help with review of SEQR for the ZBA.
Mr. Kempisty said DEC requires testing every year.
Mr. Kempisty said he would be reaching a point of diminishing returns and that the project would not be worth it.
Mr. Virginia said that the Planning Board could address the environmental issues for the application so that the ZBA could then address the issues by the Planning Board and comfortably grant a special use permit.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Board agreed. The Board agreed.
Mr. Spencer said the Board should have a record to base their decision for the applicant and the Board is allowed to address the SEQR issues, per Section #200-108.
Mr. Virginia said he didn’t have enough information for SEQR issues the issues that concern the Planning Board is what the ZBA would ask for from the applicant.
Mr. Virginia suggested that Mr. Kempisty’s Engineer come in to talk to the Planning Board.
Mr. Abold suggested the applicant meet with the Town Engineer, Mr. Billings.
Mr. Virginia said he was concerned with the environment and those issues weren’t addressed.
Mr. Kempisty said he wanted paperwork of what is required to prepare a drainage report.
Mr. Virginia said the Town hires a professional engineer to address environmental issues and Mr. Virginia suggested the applicant’s engineer contact the Town Engineer.
Mr. Kempisty said that if the land were a prime piece he would understand spending the money on a drainage report, but that this property is not worth anything.
Mr. Kempisty said he thought the land was in a good location and the use wouldn’t bother anyone.
Mr. Kempisty said the County Planning wanted wetland delineation, but the wetlands were over 100’ off the site and didn’t understand why the wetland would be a factor that far away.
Mr. Cleverley informed the applicant that water does travel off the site and environmental issues need to be addressed.
Mr. Kempisty said that his site would be similar to Mr. Tarolli’s application and that Mr. Tarolli wasn’t given a hard time.
Mr. Cleverley informed the applicant there is a difference between a contractor’s yard, applied for by Mr. Tarolli, and a reclamation facility, the applicant is applying for. Mr. Cleverley said antifreeze and oil have to be addressed by the Board and ensure there is no polluting the environment with the applicant’s proposal.
Mr. Virginia said the traffic needs to be addressed.
Mr. Kempisty said that Mr. Stelter of DOT addressed the traffic under the LG Enterprise application.
Mr. Virginia asked the applicant how many parking spots were proposed.
Mr. Kempisty said about 250 parking spots.
Mr. Virginia asked if the proposal would be similar to a “pick and pull” for the cars.
Mr. Kempisty said no and that there are more machinery than cars proposed.
Mr. Kempisty said he didn’t want Codes Enforcement to tell him he can’t have vehicles without wheels or similar to that.
Mr. Virginia informed the applicant that he filled out number 20, of the Full Environmental Assessment Form, as a positive to the question, was the site ever used for the disposal of solid waste.
Mr. Kempisty said he removed all noticeable junk.
Mr. Kempisty asked if he needed to spend a million dollars just to see if something might have been dumped there on the proposed site.
Mr. Virginia asked if the applicant would have a well.
Mr. Kempisty said there is a well on the property, but he doesn’t know if it is drinkable.
Mr. Spencer asked if the Board wanted input from Mr. Billings.
Mr. Virginia said he wanted Mr. Billings input.
Mr. Virginia said he was unsure of what he was looking for, but said that he would need help from the Planning Board and the Town Engineer, Mr. Billings.
Mr. Spencer said the Board should be looking at comments made from County Planning.
Mr. Kempisty said he was extremely frustrated with the Board and County Planning.
Mr. Cleverley said the Board should list what the applicant needs to supply to the Board.
The Board listed issues to be addressed by the applicant:
1. traffic;
2. drainage;
3. reclamation facility and environmental issues as a result of;
4. lighting; (Mr. Kempisty replies none);
5. All issues in Section 200-108 of the Town Code;
6. ponds and possible pollution;
7. thruway authority drainage; (Mr. Kempisty replies that it is ludicrous and that the thruway drains onto his proposed property);
8. legal access to the property;
9. no long term storage of trash;
10. DMV (Department of Motor Vehicle) requirements;
11. Wetland boundaries noted on the map (how far away from site).
Mr. Virginia said the above issues need to be addressed in writing and submitted as part of the application.
Mr. Spencer said the permission for access to the proposed property needs to be filed.
Mr. Virginia asked if the members could go onto the applicant’s property.
Mr. Kempisty said no the members were not welcome onto his property.
Mr. Abold said that runoff is going to change with what the applicant is proposing, so it needs to be addressed.
Mr. Virginia tabled application for incompleteness at 9:50 p.m. to the October 18th meeting.
SET 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.
Mr. Michael Kempisty of 1187 State Fair Blvd. was present to address the Board.
Mr. Kempisty said there is a provision in the code to allow “outdoor display” in a LB (Local Business) Zoning District.
Mr. Kempisty said he would like a special use permit for “outdoor display” on Mann Dr. and State Fair Blvd.
Mr. Virginia asked what the applicant wanted to display.
Mr. Kempisty said he wanted to display trailers, lawn mowers, jungle gym.
Mr. Virginia asked if the property was vacant.
Mr. Kempisty said yes it is currently vacant.
Mr. Virginia set the public hearing for October 18th at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Virginia said the applicant should show what is being displayed and a buffer area.
Mr. Virginia said the Board would be addressing issues in Section 200-108.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Kempisty said he wanted to discuss legal/engineering fees with the Board and that he was upset with how the lawyers charged him for an enormous amount of time spent on LG Enterprises, especially the ZBA Attorney.
Mr. Kempisty listed the legal/engineering fees from other applicants.
Mr. Virginia said that the Board looks at each application individually, it’s uniqueness and that depending on the application some issues need to be further addressed.
Mr. Kempisty said there were mistakes on his bill.
Mr. Kempisty said that he should not of been charged for the items he was charged for, i.e. the ZBA sending him back to the Planning Board, thereby extending the approval process.
Mr. Abold informed the applicant that the ZBA is a “civilian board” and that they do not discuss legal/engineering fees or each applicant’s bill by the Attorney and Engineer, and that he needs to see the Supervisor, who handles legal/engineering fees charged by the Attorney’s and Engineer.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Virginia made a motion to adjourn the meeting to October 18th, 7:30 pm, Mr. Abold seconded the motion; motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Aulds, Zoning Secretary
|
