Van Buren, NY - February 2009 Unapproved minutes

February 2009 Unapproved minutes


	Zoning Board of Appeals DRAFT/UNAPPROVED minutes 2/19/09 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 Joseph Kiselica present John Virginia, Chairman present Laura McBurney, Vice-Chair present Also Present: Vera Cavallaro, Secretary Brad Hunt, Attorney David Pringle, Codes Enforcement Officer MINUTES Ms. McBurney made a correction to a typo on page 2. Motion Ms. McBurney moved to accept the January minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Kiselica. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously Mr. Virginia continued the public hearing for Johnson at 7:31pm. JOHNSON 1832 Warners Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 047-03-41.1 RH Zoning District Ms. Rosemary Johnson was present to address the Board. Mr. Virginia stated that Ms. Johnson has completed everything the Board had asked for. The applicant turned in the signatures of surrounding property owners and the applicant has also asked the assessor to combine the properties. Mr. Virginia asked Ms. Johnson if the property would be cleaned up with the addition of the garage. Ms. Johnson stated that it would. Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone that wished to speak either for or against this application. No one spoke, Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing. Ms. McBurney proposed the following resolution: Rosemary Johnson of 1832 Warners Road 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 RH District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 047-03-14.1. Applicant has proposed to construct a 20’ x 24’ garage on the parcel. The Zoning Code requires 15 feet for the side yard setback in an RH District. Ms. Johnson’s proposal provides for a 5 foot setback on the east side of the property. Ms. Johnson spoke in favor of the application. She described the plan and the circumstances under which the garage is to be constructed. In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, and Notice to Surrounding Property Owners, Short Environmental Assessment Form, and a survey map prepared by Douglas Reith, dated December 17, 2008 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 side property line. Due to the lot’s topography, 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 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 20’ x 24’ garage with an east side yard setback of 5 feet. Mr. Cleverly seconded the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution carried on a roll call vote that follows: Aye Nay Other Joe Kiselica ___ _____ Robert Cleverley ___ _____ Laura McBurney ___ _____ John Virginia ___ _____ James Bowes ___ _____ DAVIS 1301 Kingdom Rd. Tax map Parcel ID# 038-01-25.0 AR-80 Zoning District There was no one present to address the Board. Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against this application. No one spoke. Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing. MARKHAM 7035 Van Buren Rd. Tax map Parcel ID# 057-01-04.3 Interpretation of outdoor storage versus parking in a PUD Zoning District. Mr. Jim Markham was present to address the Board. Mr. Markham said they received a zoning violation and it stated that they were in violation because they have outside storage and vehicle repair. They have been in business there for 10 years and their business has evolved and now it consists of 3 small businesses operating on that property. They do have some vehicles that they store out back in the winter when they are not using them but they have a new tenant in building 2 who also parks vehicles out back but until he received the violation he didn’t know that there was a restriction on storage and parking in the back. Mr. Virginia asked about the truck bodies that are being stored in the back. Mr. Markham said there are trucks parts. Mr. Markham said the point he wanted to make was that when he looked at the PUD zoning regulations. Areas A, B, and C were defined and he interpreted those permitted uses as being permitted types of businesses and under Area C number 4 it says motor vehicle repair and outdoor sales, storage and display and their business is not motor vehicles service and repair or outdoor sales or storage. No one on their property does any vehicle repair for hire and the only vehicle repair that is done is what Mr. Vinyl (tenant) does in his building on their own vehicles. Mr. Virginia said the permitted uses are retail uses, offices, religious institutions, community centers, indoor recreation, medical care facilities, undertaking establishments, funeral home, daycare centers, utility stations and closed storage. Special uses are restaurants, veterinary hospitals, and manufacturing. There is nothing in there for vehicle repair or outdoor storage. The only area that contains motor vehicle service and repair or outdoor storage is Area C and the applicant is in Area A. Mr. Markham asked if the definition is based on the use or the type of business because they don’t do any of that for hire they only store their own stuff and in the case of Mr. Vinyl, they are only doing repairs to their own vehicles but it is not the types of businesses that they have. Mr. Virginia said outside storage is outside storage whether it is a truck body or anything else. Mr. Markham said that is what the code officer told him and he was told to come in front of the ZBA to get the definitive answer to that and find out exactly what the Board would recommend they do so they can be in compliance. Mr. Virginia said from his understanding on the plot plan the parking lot was to face the front of the building only but by the pictures it shows a parking lot in back. Mr. Markham said the back parking lot was completed in 2007. The Board and the applicant discussed the plot plan that was previously drawn and what the property looks like currently. Mr. Virginia said the truck body that is stored outside is a definite violation because it is outside storage and if they are taking the trucks apart outside then that means they are working on vehicles and that is not allowed either. Mr. Virginia said he believes that the Codes Officer is correct in issuing the violations. Mr. Markham said if it is determined that the violations exist he would like to address those two items separately and the reason for that is because his business and the other business that has been there the longest don’t do any vehicle repair at all and the only reason that issue came up is because Mr. Vinyl is renting space from him until his own facility is built. Mr. Pringle said this is one parcel so even if the tenant is in violation it puts the owner under violation. Mr. Markham said the reason why he wanted to handle that separately is because other than Mr. Vinyl being there, they don’t have any need for change in zoning so he would like to know if that could be handled with some type of continuance until Mr. Vinyl gets his own property built. Mr. Virginia said that would be up to the Codes Officer and the attorney. Mr. Markham said if that is not the case then they will make a request for the permitted uses to include that. The Board and the applicant discussed the Planning Board meeting that the applicant attended. Mr. Virginia said there might be site plan issues on this parcel so any determination that this Board makes would be contingent upon getting an approved site plan from the Planning Board. Mr. Pringle said the applicant is currently approved for a warehouse and an office and anything more than that the applicant would need to amend the site plan or the zoning to include something that is not listed in the PUD. The Board discussed the different areas in the PUD. Mr. Hunt said the Board needs to determine whether outdoor storage and motor vehicle repair are permitted in Area A of this PUD and if not the remedy is to go to the Town Board for a zone change. The Board determined that as far as outdoor storage and vehicle repair are concerned the applicant is in violation according to the PUD regulations and if the applicant is going to park anything outside it needs to be a licensed operating motor vehicle. Mr. Pringle said the parking can be for customers or employees or what typically is in a parking lot. Parking lots are set up for how many employees and vehicles for the business and customers that may come and go. Mr. Pringle said Mr. Vinyl owns a fleet of trucks, it might not be trucks coming in off the road or advertisement in oil changes type of thing but it is still motor vehicle repair and service. Mr. Virginia said repairs of vehicles are not even allowed inside the building in area A. Mr. Pringle said not without a zone change because there are environmental issues that the Board would have to look at with oil, antifreeze and things like that. Mr. Markham said now that they are aware of the restrictions they can control that with future tenants. Mr. Virginia asked the Board to entertain the following resolution: Regarding the interpretation of whether Mr. Markham's uses of Tax Map Parcel ID# 057-01-04.3 that are outlined in the Code Enforcement Officer's violation notices constitute (a) parking, or (b) outside storage and vehicle service and repair, it is the finding of this Board that the Code Enforcement Officer correctly found that the uses outlined in his violation notices constitute vehicle service and repair and outside storage. The Code Enforcement Officer correctly determined that, based on the regulations governing this PUD, these uses are not allowed in Area A of the PUD as shown on the Ragonese Commercial Park map dated 03/1999 with latest revision 04/20/1999. Ms. McBurney moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Cleverly. Resolution carried on a roll call vote that follows: Aye Nay Other Joe Kiselica ___ _____ Robert Cleverley ___ _____ Laura McBurney ___ _____ John Virginia ___ _____ James Bowes ___ _____ ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowes made a motion to close the February Meeting, seconded by Mr. Kiselica, motion carried, unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Vera Cavallaro Zoning Secretary