January 24, 2005 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:   Donna Aulds, Secretary                         David Pringle, Codes Officer                         Mr. Bill Rathbun, Attorney MINUTES Motion  Mrs. McBurney asked that the December minutes regarding Moose Lodge resolution be corrected to show a use for a private restaurant not a home occupation.  Mr. Abold made a motion to accept the minutes, as amended, Mr. Bowes seconded the motion, there was no further discussion; motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED 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 continued at 7:33 p.m.  The applicant was not present and informed the Board last month that he would not be present for this month’s meeting. Mr. Virginia tabled the application to next month February 22, 2005 at 7:33 p.m., due to applicant absence. Application was tabled at 7:34 p.m. CONTINUED 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”.  R40 Zoning District. The public hearing continued at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Sam Taylor of 7838 E. Dead Creek Rd., was present to address the Board. Mr. Virginia informed the Board and the applicant that he received a copy of the notice of violation from the Codes Officer last week issued to the applicant, for keeping more than one unlicensed vehicles on his property. Mr. Pringle informed the Board that it was now removed. Mr. Taylor said that he did not know there was another car on his property and that a friend of his dropped off on his property and Mr. Taylor showed the Chairman a note from the person who dropped off a car on Mr. Taylor’s property stating it was unknowingly dropped off onto the applicant’s property. Mr. Pringle said two notices of violations have been issued to the applicant since his application. Mr. Virginia said that the Board received a negative recommendation from County Planning. Mr. Virginia said that the Board could condition the special use permit that no further violations could be issued to the applicant or be rescinded. Mr. Rathbun said that the Board could attach conditions to the special use permit. Mr. Virginia read conditions stating that if a violation is issued to the applicant for unlicensed vehicles the special use permit would then become null and void. Mr. Virginia asked if the applicant would agree. Mr. Taylor said yes. Mrs. McBurney asked the applicant why he needed a special use permit for a DMV sign. Mr. Taylor said DMV requires that he put a sign on his property. Mr. Taylor said he had a plan to put a pole barn on his property and that anything he had “lingering” he would put inside the pole barn. Mr. Pringle said that Mr. Taylor could get a permit for a pole barn since it is a residential property and that he could use it for his personal items, but that he could not regulate what was going inside the pole barn, since it is residential and not commercial. Mr. Virginia said that they would include a condition that the applicant see the Planning Board if necessary. Mr. Abold said that the applicant couldn’t use a barn for a business on the residential property. Mr. Abold said that the applicant is on residential property and that it sounds like the applicant wants to use a garage for his business.  Mr. Abold said that it makes the job more difficult for the Codes Officer trying to determine if the applicant is running a business. Mr. Pringle said he couldn’t deny the applicant an application to erect a pole barn on his residential property. Mr. Taylor said if he has more storage than he would have a place to put the cars. Mr. Virginia said that the applicant could transport a car and put it in the garage until he takes it to the destination Mr. Virginia said the applicant could not do sales on his property. Mr. Rathbun said if the applicant is storing cars for his business then it is a business use. Mr. Rathbun said the special use permit request is intended for paperwork only and one sign, per code. Mr. Taylor said that the Codes Officer would only see one car on his property that would be unlicensed. Mr. Pringle said that he sometimes does see more than one unlicensed vehicle on the applicant’s property. Mr. Abold said that the applicant is in a residential area and commercial use is not allowed. Mr. Bowes asked the applicant who has ownership of the cars when they are on the applicant’s lot. Mr. Taylor said that his business owns the cars. Mr. Abold said the Board is setting a precedent. Mr. Rathbun said the application isn’t requesting a commercial use to store and sell cars. Mr. Abold said he thought the Board was opening up a “can of worms”. Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application.  No one spoke. Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Mrs. McBurney proposed the following resolution #Z-05-01: Sanford James Taylor of 7838 E. Dead Creek Road, 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 for motor vehicle signage, involving the processing of paperwork for wholesale motor vehicle transaction pursuant to New York State license. The property is zoned R-40 (Residential-40) and is known as Tax Map ID #033-03-06.0.  In a R-40 district, a home occupation is allowed upon the grant of a special use permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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.  The Onondaga County Planning Board, by resolution dated November 16, 2004, recommended the application be disapproved, so as not to encourage commercial use along NYS Route 31. Notice of a public hearing on the special permit and application was duly published.  Sanford James Taylor appeared and spoke in favor of the application.  There was opposition to the proposed home occupation at the public hearing in the form of a letter submitted by Fred Z. Neff, which was made part of the record 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.      The matter is subject t o 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 environmental impact 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 impact on water, air, agricultural resources or community character and growth.  There will be minimal noise associated with the proposal. 2.      A special use permit required pursuant to Code Section 200-15(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 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 design of the site provides for efficient vehicular movement given the size of the site and the fact that there will be minimal additional vehicular movement on site as a result of the special use. 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 use permit is granted pursuant to Code Section 200-15(C)(9) and all other applicable provisions of the Code, so as to allow for operation of a home occupation for motor vehicle dealer activity subject to: a.      Possible site plan approval, if necessary; b.      No outdoor storage or outdoor business conducted on the site; c.      Applicant shall abide by all rules, regulations and ordinance regarding the on-site storage of unlicensed motor vehicles. d.      Applicant will not conduct motor vehicle sales on the property, involving on site inventory of vehicles. e.      Failure to adhere to these requirements will result in an automatic termination of this special use permit. Mr. Virginia seconded the resolution; there was no further discussion. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Abold                       yes Mr. Bowes                       yes Mrs. McBurney           yes Mr. Cleverley                   yes Mr. Virginia, Chair             yes Vote:  5 yes, 0 no, motion carried, unanimously. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – PHILIP M. ARTESE 2115 Warners Rd., Tax Parcel ID #046.-06-01.1 Use Variance from Section #200-144(A) “No trailer in residential district for storage”  R-40 Zoning distr. The public hearing continued at 8:00 p.m.   Mr. Philip Artese of  2115 Warners Rd. was present to address the Board. Mr. Virginia said the County Planning letter recommended denial of the application since it undermines the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Artese said that the Codes Officer told him that he could have trailers with a permit. Mr. Virginia said that if the Board allows the trailers then it would open the Town up to more trailers used as storage. Mr. Virginia said the Board could give the applicant some time to remove the trailers. Mr. Artese said he needed time to remove the trailers while he repaired his home. Mr. Artese said he wanted to keep the trailers and that the Board is being unreasonable. The Board agreed to give Mr. Artese time to remove the trailers and that he could work with the Codes Officer as to the time needed. Mr. Virginia said he found it hard to believe that Mr. Pringle told the applicant he could use trailers. Mr. Rathbun said that the application is a use variance and that the applicant has not proved the four criteria for a use variance – a. unable to realize a reasonable return; b.  the situation has to be unique; c.  not alter character of neighborhood; d.  not self-created. Mr. Abold informed the applicant that the use variance standards are difficult to meet.  Mr. Abold said it took a previous applicant 18 months with the help of lawyers to prove his use variance. Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the application. Mr. William Slatery of 2099 Warners Rd. said that Mr. Artese, the applicant, informed him that the trailers would only be temporary for 30 days and Mr. Slatery said he didn’t think the trailers were for a permanent use.  Mr. Slatery said why should Mr. Artese be allowed to use trailers when trailers are not allowed anywhere in the town.  Mr. Slatery said he was very unhappy with the applicant’s request to store trailers. Mr. Artese said he never said that. Mr. Virginia asked if the applicant wanted more time to meet the use variance requirements. Mr. Artese said he would try. Mr. Virginia tabled application to the February 22, 2005 at 7:40 p.m., meeting. PUBLIC HEARING – BARGAIN OUTLET 2265 Downer St. Rd., Tax Map ID #034.-04-06.1 Variance from Section #200-96B(2) non-conforming sign.  LB Zoning Distr. The public hearing opened at 8:35 p.m.  The secretary read the notice aloud. Mr. Richard Westergren, of Poyant Signs, representing Bargain Outlet was present to address the Board. Mr. Westergren said he was seeking a variance to erect a sign on the River Mall pylon sign, where the Code does not allow tenant signs on a shopping center sign. Mr. Westergren said he wanted to remove the Ames sign and replace with Bargain Outlet sign and clean and refurbish the pylon sign. Mr. Virginia asked if Mr. Libby was owner of the shopping mall. Mr. Westergren said yes Mr. Libby owns the mall and sign. Mr. Virginia said the Planning Board requested an engineering study for the pylon sign to ensure its safety from Mr. Libby. Mr. Virginia said Mr. Libby has not provided any engineering study on the pylon sign. Mr. Virginia said that he understands that the River Mall sign does not fall into the grand fathering clause since the sign was not legal before, but has existed illegally for many years. Mr. Virginia said the code doesn’t allow the River Mall sign to be changed. Mr. Virginia said he wanted a recommendation from the Planning Board. Mr. Pringle said the Planning Board got involved with signage and required a sign plan from River Mall, but Mr. Libby has not cooperated by providing any sign plans and that Mr. Libby has said he leaves signs up to the tenant. Mr. Virginia told the applicant he could ask for a zone change to change the text so that a menu of tenants is allowed, but that an engineering study on the pylon would need to be done. Mr. Westergren said that he could get an engineering study completed on the pylon sign.  Mr. Westergren said the sign is structurally sound. Mr. Westergren said he still believes the sign should be grand fathered. Mr. Abold said over 20 years has passed with illegal signs at River Mall. Mr. Pringle said the signs have always been there and no violations were issued that he knew of and that they are “non-conforming signs”. Mr. Cleverley said he thought that the signs may have been allowed and that a permit may have been issued for the signs on the pylon from the ZBA. Mr. Westergren said he isn’t changing the sign, but only the graphics. Mr. Rathbun said a change in graphics could constitute a “change in sign”. Mr. Virginia said that a change in sign is outlined in Section 200-96C & B(1). Mr. Virginia said that the applicant could apply for a zone change along with an engineering study, per Planning Board. Mr. Virginia asked the applicant to talk with Mr. Libby. Mr. Rathbun said that Mr. Westergren could make application on behalf of Mr. Libby, but Mr. Libby would need to sign off on the application or submit a letter stating he is aware of the application any exhibits submitted. Mr. Westergren asked if he could put up a temporary sign. Mr. Pringle informed Mr. Westergren that there is a provision in the code that provides for a “grand opening” sign. Mr. Virginia tabled the application, for more information, to February 22, 2005 at 7:45 p.m. INFORMATIONAL – JACOB WRIGHT (HEADRUSH PAINTBALL) 3417 Walters Rd., Tax Map ID #055-04-02.0 Applicant is seeking possible special use permit to allow for motor cross on proposed subdivided parcel. Mr. Jacob Wright was present to address the Board. Mr. Wright said he was interested in amending his special use permit to allow for motor cross activities. Mr. Wright said he did meet informally with the Planning Board and they suggested a subdivision according to the information supplied. Mr. Virginia said that outdoor recreation is allowed with a special use permit, but to go ahead with the subdivision first before any proposed amendment to the paintball permit. Mr. Pringle informed the Board that the applicant would need to comply with the Town’s noise ordinance. Mr. Virginia said the Board would also wait to hear the Planning Board’s recommendation to the ZBA. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Virginia made a motion to adjourn the meeting to February 22nd  7:30 pm, Mr. Abold seconded the motion; motion carried.  The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Aulds, Zoning Secretary