7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
February 2007
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
James Bowes present
Ronald Abold absent
John Virginia, Chairman present
Laura McBurney, Vice-Chair present
Also Present: Vera Cavallaro, Secretary
Ted Spencer, Attorney
MINUTES
Motion
Mrs. McBurney moved to accept the January minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Bowes. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Virginia and the Board discussed the training that is mandatory for all Board members and types of training that are available.
Mr. Virginia opened the Public Hearing for Headrush, Inc.
Ms. Cavallaro read the Public Hearing notice aloud.
Mr. Spencer had a discussion with the Board about the draft resolutions that he has prepared and stated that the resolutions are conditioned upon the applicant’s receiving final subdivision and site plan approval from the Planning Board and the filing of the Operating and Easement Agreement at the County Clerk’s office.
Mr. Virginia told the applicant that the Board has received County comments which will be reviewed by the Planning Board.
ACTION SPORTS – HEADRUSH, INC
3417 Walters Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id # 055-04-02.1 PUD Zoning District
Mr. Jake Wright and Ms. Kristen Stephens were present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Special Use Permit was for Lot 1 to have off site parking on Lots 6 and 1.
Ms. Stephens said yes, they are proposing parking on Lot 6 and 1 for Lot 5 and for Lot 6 to park on Lot 1 and there will be no parking on Lot 5.
The Board discussed the proposed parking arrangement and viewed an illustration of the parking brought in by the applicant.
Mr. Virginia asked if any one in the audience wanted to speak for this matter.
No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia asked if any one wanted to speak against this matter.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing.
Mrs. McBurney proposed the following resolution #07-04:
Headrush, Inc. of 3417 Walters Road, Syracuse, New York 13209, applies for a Special Use Permit pursuant to the Town of Van Buren Code Section 200-68 to allow for off site parking for the benefit of Lot 5 to be located on Lot 6 and Lot 1 of the Walters Road subdivision.
The property is zoned PUD and is known as Tax Map no. 05-04-02.1. Off site parking is a use allowed upon the grant of special permit by the ZBA.
Applicant has submitted, and the ZBA has reviewed, an application, agricultural data statement and SEQRA short form environmental assessment form and site plans prepared by Plumley Engineering dated November, 2006. Applicant has also submitted a proposed Operating and Easement Agreement that addresses the reciprocal parking rights for Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the subdivision.
Notice of public hearing on the special permit and application was duly published. Jacob Wright and Kristen Stephens appeared and spoke in favor of the application. There was no opposition to the off site parking proposal at the public hearing.
Based on the above referenced documents 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, located in a PUD Zone for the coordinated development of six lots has adequate overall space to accommodate the proposed parking. Additionally, the proposed project poses no significant impacts on water, air, agricultural resources or community character and growth.
2. A special use permit is required pursuant to Code Section 200-68 for the proposed use of off site parking.
3. Pursuant to Section 200-26 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 proposed use has minimal effect on the surrounding properties; the proposed use relates to change only with respect to the coordinated parking arrangements of adjacent lots;
(d) The proposed design of the site provides for efficient vehicular movement given the size of the site and its access to public roads;
(e) The site is adequately served by public utilities;
(f) Drainage on the site will not be significantly affected by the proposed use;
(g) Regarding aesthetics, there will be no significant change to the area as a result of the proposed use and it will be consistent with the proposed site plan;
(h) Emissions from the site will be minimal.
4) The Special Use Permit is granted pursuant to Code Section 200-68 and all applicable provisions of the Code, so as to allow for off site parking pursuant to the Operating and easement Agreement subject to:
(a) Final site plan approval by the Planning Board;
(b) Final subdivision approval granted by the Planning Board;
(c) Approval of the Operating and easement Agreement by the Planning and Zoning Board’s attorney’s and filing of the agreement at the Onondaga County Clerk’s Office. Dated: February 21, 2007. Mr. Virginia seconded the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution passed on a roll call vote as follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
Ronald Abold v
Robert Cleverly v
Laura McBurney v
James Bowes v
John Virginia v
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent
ACTION RESTAURANTS – QUAKER STEAK AND LUBE
3417 Walters Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id # 055-04-02.1 PUD Zoning District
Mr. Virginia opened the public hearing for the Quaker Steak and Lube.
Mr. Jake Wright and Ms. Kristen Stephens were present to address the Board.
Ms. Stephens stated that this is basically the same proposal as the previous Headrush proposal except that it is Lot 6 instead of Lot 5.
The Board discussed the proposed Lot 6 parking arrangements.
Mr. Virginia asked if any one in the audience wanted to speak for this matter.
No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia asked if any one wanted to speak against this matter.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing.
Mrs. McBurney proposed the following resolution #07-05:
Action Restaurants, Inc./ Quaker Steak and Lube of 3417 Walters Road, Syracuse, New York 13209, applies for a Special Use Permit pursuant to the Town of Van Buren Code Section 200-68 to allow for off site parking for the benefit of Lot 5 to be located on Lot 6 and Lot 1 of the Walters Road subdivision.
The property is zoned PUD and is known as Tax Map no. 05-04-02.1. Off site parking is a use allowed upon the grant of special permit by the ZBA.
Applicant has submitted, and the ZBA has reviewed, an application, agricultural data statement and SEQRA short form environmental assessment form and site plans prepared by Plumley Engineering dated November, 2006. Applicant has also submitted a proposed Operating and Easement Agreement that addresses the reciprocal parking rights for Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the subdivision.
Notice of public hearing on the special permit and application was duly published. Jacob Wright and Kristen Stephens appeared and spoke in favor of the application. There was no opposition to the off site parking proposal at the public hearing.
Based on the above referenced documents the Board resolves as follows:
4. 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, located in a PUD Zone for the coordinated development of six lots has adequate overall space to accommodate the proposed parking. Additionally, the proposed project poses no significant impacts on water, air, agricultural resources or community character and growth.
5. A special use permit is required pursuant to Code Section 200-68 for the proposed use of off site parking.
6. Pursuant to Section 200-26 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 proposed use has minimal effect on the surrounding properties; the proposed use relates to change only with respect to the coordinated parking arrangements of adjacent lots;
(d) The proposed design of the site provides for efficient vehicular movement given the size of the site and its access to public roads;
(e) The site is adequately served by public utilities;
(f) Drainage on the site will not be significantly affected by the proposed use;
(g) Regarding aesthetics, there will be no significant change to the area as a result of the proposed use and it will be consistent with the proposed site plan;
(h) Emissions from the site will be minimal.
5) The Special Use Permit is granted pursuant to Code Section 200-68 and all applicable provisions of the Code, so as to allow for off site parking pursuant to the Operating and easement Agreement subject to:
(a) Final site plan approval by the Planning Board;
(b) Final subdivision approval granted by the Planning Board;
(c) Approval of the Operating and easement Agreement by the Planning and Zoning Board’s attorney’s and filing of the agreement at the Onondaga County Clerk’s Office.
Mr. Virginia seconded the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution passed on a roll call vote as follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
Ronald Abold v
Robert Cleverly v
Laura McBurney v
James Bowes v
John Virginia v
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent
Mr. Virginia opened the public hearing for Mylene Hayes.
MYLENE HAYES
6706 Pottery Rd. Warners, Tax Map Parcel ID# 055-08-9.0 R-40 Zoning District
Variance from Section 200-45
Ms. Mylene Hayes was present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia asked Ms. Hayes if she was asking to add 8ft to the front of her home for an addition which will result in a front yard setback of approximately 38ft.
Mr. Hayes said yes.
The Board discussed the dimensions of the addition and the setback that the applicant was asking for.
Mr. Virginia asked if any one in the audience wanted to speak to this matter.
No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia asked if any one wanted to speak against this matter.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing.
Mrs. McBurney proposed the following resolution #07-02:
Mylene Hayes of 6706 Pottery Road seeks an area variance from Section 200-45 of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the setback requirements for a proposed front addition. The property is located in an R-40 District and is identified as Tax Map Parcel 055-08-9.0. Applicant proposes to construct an addition to the front of the existing structure. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 50 feet for the front yard setback in an R-40 District. Ms. Hayes proposal provides for a front yard setback of 38.0 feet.
Ms. Hayes spoke in favor of the application. She described the plan and the circumstances under which the addition was constructed.
In support of the applicant, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners and a survey map showing the location of the front 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 38.0 feet from the front yard line. Due to the lot’s topography, size, existing improvements 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 this variance.
3. A variance is granted to allow for the location of an addition with a front yard setback of 38.0 feet. Dated: February 21, 2007. Mr. Bowes seconded the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution passed on a roll call vote as follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
Ronald Abold v
Robert Cleverly v
Laura McBurney v
James Bowes v
John Virginia v
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent
Mr. Virginia opened the public hearing for Mark Kratz.
MARK KRATZ
132 Leopold Blvd Syracuse, Tax Map Parcel Id# 062-04-08 R-10 Zoning District
Variance from Section 200-45
Mr. Kratz was present to address the Board.
Mr. Kratz said that he wanted to put a 24ft wide garage so he can put his boat and truck inside; he said that at the moment he has his boat in a temporary structure that he thinks looks like an eyesore and he would rather have it in a more permanent structure.
The Board and applicant discussed how long the proposed garage was going to be and determined that it would either be 26 or 28ft. with the width staying at 24ft.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Board had any questions.
Mr. Virginia asked if any one in the audience wanted to speak to this matter.
No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia asked if any one wanted to speak against this matter.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing.
Mrs. McBurney proposed the following resolution #07-03:
Mark Kratz of 132 Leopold Boulevard seeks an area variance from Section 200-45 of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the side yard setback requirements for a proposed garage structure. The property is located in an R-10 District and is identified as Tax Map Parcel 062-04-08.0. Applicant proposes to construct a garage on the parcel. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 10 feet for each side yard setback and a total of 25 feet for the side yard setbacks in an R-10 District. Mr. Kratz’s proposal provides for a 5 foot setback on the east side of his house.
Mr. Kratz spoke in favor of the application. He described the plan and the circumstances under which the garage is to be constructed.
In support of the applicant, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners and a survey map prepared by Hal R. Romans, dated July 18, 1997 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 garage will be located 5 feet from the east 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 within the site. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Neighbors expressed no objection to the variance. The benefit to the 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 garage with an east side yard setback of 5 feet. Dated: February 21, 2007. Mr. Bowes seconded the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution passed on a roll call vote as follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
Ronald Abold v
Robert Cleverly v
Laura McBurney v
James Bowes v
John Virginia v
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent
CLEARWIRE WIRELESS BROADBAND
7463 Canton St Baldwinsville, Tax Map Parcel Id# 032-06-7.2
Interpretation of a prior approval for the use of a tower.
Mr. Allen Hinckley was present to address the Board.
Mr. Hinckley said that there is an existing 195ft tower located at this address and they would like to install three antennas and up to three small microwave dishes on the tower. There will be no construction or excavation on the site and the equipment will be located within the existing building and the antennas will not be any higher than the top of the towers and they will be placed at approximately 190ft. They will not be extending the height of the tower.
Mr. Virginia said that this tower was approved under the old code and the new code has a lot of other restrictions and the old tower was approved only for noncommercial use.
Mr. Virginia said that the Town has hired Municipal Solutions that the Town relies on for instances like this where people are looking to put in cell towers and for coexisting on other towers. There is another tower right around the corner that is a commercial tower.
Mr. Virginia said that there has been an interpretation back in October 1999 and Mr. Gummer who owns this tower explained it as an amateur use and that there would be no commercial use on it. So in order for the applicant to be considered for going on this tower the process needs to be started all over again under the new code Section 200-32.
The Board and the applicant discussed the section of the code that they would need to be following.
Mr. Spencer said that from his recollection and looking at the notes when it was approved it was approved for amateur use and under the circumstances where it was constructed it was done so without any permits being issued or any inspections being done. At this point the Town has no documentation relative to what is there other than what can be observed.
Mrs. McBurney asked if that was because it was a noncommercial tower or because the owner didn’t do it.
Mr. Spencer said that it was a little bit of both. Because it was being proposed for noncommercial use the standards were less stringent than if it had been for commercial use and Mr. Gummer kind of got ahead of himself and had the tower partially completed before the code enforcement officer realized what was going on and then he appeared before the Board.
Mr. Spencer discussed the lay out of the property with the Board.
Mr. Virginia said that he doesn’t know if the fall zones were defined on that tower and there is a fall zone requirement for towers and to bring this tower to commercial use in his opinion is not going to be an easy thing to do.
Mr. Hinkley said that in his review of the regulations that he has it appears that the regulations do include a use on an existing structure more than building a new structure and that was one of the reasons for looking at this tower.
Mr. Spencer said that he doesn’t think a special use application is needed for an additional antenna on this tower but given the background of this tower the Board would have to take a giant step backwards and do the tower the right way where in the past it was done on an expedited modified procedure.
Mr. Hinkley said that he can provide the Board with a structural certification that the tower is built to withstand and hold up to whatever they propose to put up there signed by an engineer.
Mr. Virginia said that as it stands right now this Board will not entertain it because it is a private tower, noncommercial use and it was approved that way so they would have to start over again.
Mr. Spencer said that they would have to put in an application for a special use permit requiring that this tower be considered for commercial use and then section 200-32 spells out what else the Board will be looking for.
Mr. Virginia said that he believes that the Town will want them to go see Municipal Solutions.
Mr. Spencer said if the applicant wants to proceed and submit a special use application the next thing the Board would have to do is check with the Town supervisor and see if she would like to utilize the consulting firm that the Town has a contract with for these types of things.
Mr. Virginia asked why the Cingular tower that is already set up was not usable.
Mr. Hinkley said that he believes it is owned by Time Warner.
The Board and the applicant had a discussion about who owns the tower and where the tower is located.
Mr. Hinkley said that the RF engineers looked at the other towers and they are closer to the population center. Clearwire is not a cellular carrier they provide a wireless broadband internet product and they operate at different frequencies than the other wireless carriers. They operate at a 2.5 Gigahertz frequency which is a much higher frequency than wireless.
The Board and the applicant had a discussion about frequencies.
Mr. Hinkley said that he needs to know what the process will be and what he needs to submit to the Board as far as what type of application or a decision stating what will be required to make this commercial.
Mr. Virginia said that they are going to need everything in Section 200-32 a thru e and talk to the codes officer and supervisor.
Mr. Hinkley asked if there was ever a site plan review done for this existing tower.
Mr. Spencer said that it was never done and that this existing tower was proposed for noncommercial use which short circuited by and large the review process. At the time it was proposed as an accessory use to a residential facility and what the applicant is proposing is definitely for commercial use. The code enforcement office will have a file on the prior application which Mr. Gummer provided and they have access to that but if the applicant is hoping Mr. Gummer had done any of the leg work, he didn’t.
Mr. Hinkley said that the secretary already has the site plan that they plan on providing and the other thing that could be provided is a certification on the structural.
Mr. Virginia said that they would have to go to the Planning Board also.
The Board and the applicant had a discussion about the application process for both the Planning Board and ZBA.
Mrs. McBurney said that Municipal Solutions is supposed to be looking for acceptable areas so they may already have something in mind or may have ruled that one out or maybe it is worth pursuing, they might want to look into that.
The Board told the applicant to start with the Town Supervisor.
Mr. Spencer said that one of the issues becomes the question of why they selected this site as opposed to other sites.
Mr. Hinkley said that he can provide information from their engineers as to why they selected that site.
The Board discussed the distance between the towers that they discussed earlier.
Mr. Hinkley asked Ms. Cavallaro if they were to go to the Cingular tower would that be a permitted use.
Ms. Cavallaro said that it would be much easier to go on the Cingular tower because it is an approved tower for commercial use.
Mr. Hinkley asked if it was approved for more than one carrier.
Mr. Virginia said that most of them are.
Mr. Hinkley said that he will go back and see if they would want to go with the Cingular tower.
Mr. Virginia and the applicant had a discussion about the Cingular Tower.
Mr. Spencer said that the Board’s reservation is that this tower that they are talking about tonight is a big unknown so people are going to be relatively reserved and concerned about the tower itself. The towers that the Board has offered as possible alternatives have been through a much more extensive site approval process so things would presumably go quicker.
Mr. Virginia said that if he remembers right this tower that Mr. Gummer has is not a new tower and he thinks that Mr. Gummer bought the tower and moved it there.
Mr. Cleverly said that Mr. Gummer assured the Board that this was going to be for his own personal use.
Mr. Hinkley said that they are interested in being able to operate in the area and this is one of approximately 60 sites that are being built in the Syracuse area.
After~the discussion about the history of the existing tower located on Mark Gummer's property and the circumstances under which the tower was constructed John Virginia proposed a resolution #07-06:
With respect to the requested interpretation submitted by Clearwire US LLC~to place antennae on the Gummer tower on Canton Street any proposal would require the applicant to submit~special use and site plan applications and proceed in accordance with Section 200-32 to obtain the necessary approvals to co-locate antennae for commercial purposes. Mrs. McBurney seconded the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution passed on a roll call vote as follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
Ronald Abold v
Robert Cleverly v
Laura McBurney v
James Bowes v
John Virginia v
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs. McBurney made a motion to close the February Meeting, seconded by Mr. Virginia; motion carried, unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Vera Cavallaro
Zoning Secretary
| ||
