MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ELLICOTT PLANNING BOARD HELD AT THE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 215 SOUTH WORK STREET, FALCONER, NY 14733 ON NOVEMBER
8, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Evans, Gary
Swanson, Dave Carlberg, Phyllis Belin, Paul
Shanahan, Robert Thomas, Attorney William Wright, Code Enforcement
Office Randy
Woodbury and Secretary Karyn Okerlund
ABSENT: Ron Calanni
Chairman Evans opened the meeting at 7:05 PM.
Motion made by Dave Carlberg, seconded by Robert
Thomas to approve the minutes of October 11, 2006 meeting.
Carried. Ayes – 6 Noes – 0 Absent –1
Chairman Evans reopened the Public Hearing for continuance
for the Town Board for recommendation for modification of shopping center
district on Fairmount Ave. and Fluvanna Ave.
Since the last meeting, there has been an agreement
signed by the Town Board and the Planning Board to extend the sixty (60) day
period to review the plans to ninety (90) days. Both attorneys were involved and the applicant has pulled his
plan, as presented, to revise it. The
board doesn’t have to act on it tonight. They now have an additional thirty
(30) days plus to act on it. This
decision was made after all the comments were made at the Town Board meeting on
Monday night. The Planning Board has
been asked to consider a change in the classification of zoning on Fluvanna
Ave. from shopping center to mercantile tonight. The applicant, Mr. Roller has asked that the Planning Board hold
off on a decision so he can modify the plans and the Town Board has agreed to
extend our time period, so the Town Board can’t act now if the Planning Board
doesn’t make a recommendation.
The Planning Board will hear comments on the
Fairmount Ave. rezoning, if anyone has anything new to discuss.
Sheila Webster of 45 Elmwood Ave. asked what difference does
it make if this Planning Board has an actual Site Plan to look at tonight or
not in terms of the zoning. The Site
Plan and the zoning are two different pieces of the puzzle.
Dan Evans stated it is all in one. If Mr. Roller pulls out his request for a project, there will be
no rezoning. There is no project
pending in the Fluvanna area.
Mrs. Webster: What is the
process, from here on out and what is the anticipated timetable?
Mr. Evans stated that the Planning Board’s recommendation to
the Town Board has to be done at the Planning Board’s next board meeting on
December 13, 2006.
Mrs. Webster: Does the
Planning Board know when to expect a new proposal from the developer?
Mr. Evans
answered, no. Mr. Roller contacted
Atty. Wright and the only statement he made was that after attending Mondays
night’s Town Board meeting, and listening to the neighbors, he did not want to
come to the Planning Board with the same project that he had Monday night. He wanted the opportunity to redraw the
project, taking into account some of the neighbor’s concerns. He wanted to present a different project. He was told that the only issue was that
once the Town Board had made a request for recommendation to the Planning
Board, they had sixty (60) days to act unless he could establish that the time
frame be extended. The Planning Board
had no choice, but to make a recommendation based on what they had seen. That is the reason a letter was written and
signed by the Town Supervisor and Dan Evans as Chairman of the Planning Board,
extending the time for the Planning Board to make it’s recommendation so that
we and you could be acting upon whatever the modified plan is.
Mrs. Webster: What would
be the latest date that he could bring in a plan to get on the agenda for the
December meeting?
Mr. Evans: Ten days
before the meeting. December 1st. The Board can request that Mr. Roller
present several copies of the plans for the public to review before the next
meeting.
Mrs. Webster: The
rezoning requests come up on a regular basis and she would like to encourage
all public officials, who are elected or appointed, to press for a
comprehensive plan for the Town of Ellicott to take us out of the developer
coming in and then we look at rezoning.
We are overdue for a comprehensive plan. There is grant money available through New York State through the
Quality Communities Initiative. A
consultant could be hired and the Planning Board could oversee that
process. She feels strongly that it is
past time to take a pro-active approach to set a course for our future in terms
of new development.
She hopes that the Boards will act as our
representatives and listen to what the people of West Ellicott are telling you.
Rich Digilarmo, Glidden Ave. WE: If the developer comes back and says, I will
build this in the confines of the current Century Plaza, the area would not be
rezoned, is that correct?
Mr. Evans: No, they
will still need to be rezoned.
Rich Digilarmo: If
the contractor extends the project or shortens it up by another 100 feet and gives
the people on Elmwood Ave. and Avalon Blvd. another 100 feet or 300 feet, does
he still need to come before the Planning Board?
Mr. Evans: If he stays
within the confines of where the plaza is now, it would depend on the project
he brings in and the store he is bringing in.
As long as it is something considered shopping center he doesn’t need to
come in.
Mr. Wright: There are two issues here. One is the type of development, the use of
what it is, and the second is how large it is.
The Board has been asked to look at the actual size of the zone and
changing its classification from shopping center to mercantile. Even if you fit it into the area it is in
right now, from what we hear, the type of use would determine if they need to
consider changing the zone.
Mr. Digilarmo: If
he keeps it within the confines of what is there right now, and the board
decides to change the zoning to mercantile, how far is the mercantile zone
going to be going?
Mr. Evans: It will
stay in the Shopping Center district the way it is now.
Bruce Herron, 815 Fairmount Ave. WE: Stated he was one of the
residents that lost a lot of property when Fairmount Ave. was widened. He lost 25 feet of property. He wasn’t compensated for what he felt the
property was worth. He has tried to
sell his home numerous times since with no success since the road was
widened. The neighborhood is no longer
residential. He realizes that is the
price he has paid for progress. He
argued the same point when Sam’s Club came in an he still believes that this is
in the name of progress and that everyone has to “kick in”. None of the property on Fairmount seems to
sell. He feels it is because the
widened road changed the residential feel of the neighborhood. In the name of progress, everyone had to
live with this fact. He is for the
project coming into the plaza area.
John Jablonski, Executive Director of Chautauqua
Watershed Conservancy, 413 North Main St. Jamestown: He left copies of written comments with the
Board. The conservancy is concerned
about the stream corridor that flows through the property to be rezoned. He asks that the Planning Board and Town
Board consider conserving that stream corridor to a depth of 100 to 300 feet on
either side of it to protect the streams, either by zoning or by the Town
actually purchasing these corridors. He
suggests the boards jointly utilize the SEQR process and do a coordinated
review of the zoning change through the SEQR process involving all the Town
Boards and agencies that have a roll in this zoning change.
John Vanstrom, 55 Plummer St. WE: He questioned if the proposal by the contractor was actually
withdrawn because he understands that the written request should go to the Town
Board first and then be referred to the Planning Board. Is that agreement still pending and what was
the agreement between the Zoning Board as far as extending it from 60 to 90
days?
Atty. Wright: The Board
is unclear as to what the contractor is planning to do. They may come back with the exact same plan. He doesn’t believe that they have actually
withdrawn their request. We are not
acting on their request. The Planning
Board only acts on the request of the Town Board for rezoning. The agreement
with the Town Board was to extend the 60 days for a response from the Planning
Board to 90 days.
Mr. Vanstrom: When the
Town Board referred it to you, are they making that on their own recommendation
or are they passing along the application of the individuals?
Atty. Wright: When it
came to us, they asked us to reconsider a certain zoning. Maps were provided
along with a written request for the change in zoning from shopping center to
mercantile. At the first meeting when
we considered it, which was last months meeting, the applicant explained the
project to us. We could have acted
without that because we are acting on the Town Board’s request. We do not have an explanation of the
project.
Mr. Vanstrom: Where does
SEQR fall into this, and is the Town Board acting as the lead agency?
Atty. Wright: There has
been no discussion on that and part of our recommendation would be a
recommendation on how the Planning Board believes that the SEQR should be
handled. Since the rezoning is being
done for a specific action. SEQR has to
follow that action and the environmental review has to be done prior to the
Town Board making the action to change the zoning.
Mr. Vanstrom: If the
Planning Board can’t make a recommendation within the 90-day period, the Town
Board can act as though no recommendation had been presented and proceed. This is a concern to a lot of people. What happens if that isn’t enough time?
Mr. Evans: We extended
that to protect ourselves. We didn’t do
this for the Town Board. We initiated
it because we needed that time.
Atty. Wright: This
board’s recommendation to the Town Board is not a formal action under
SEQR. A full SEQR needs to be done
before that recommendation is made.
Mr. Vanstrom: Has the
Town of Ellicott at any time opted for a comprehensive zoning plan?
Mr. Wright: From my
understanding, there is an old comprehensive plan from the 1970’s. If you are asking if anything is in the
works, you are asking the wrong board.
Terry Truver, 55 Avalon Blvd. WE: My biggest concern is that
the neighbors need to be properly notified.
The property owners, in this instance, were not properly notified. The contractor had been in the area since
early spring, contacting neighbors and gathering information about purchasing
property.
Mr. Evans: No one on
this board was notified until we got our notice in the meeting. We had a recommendation from the Town Board
and we received that recommendation with our minutes. We did not see a project, or anything on a schedule, until you
folks saw it at the same time. We are
reacting to that recommendation and doing the best job that we can. We are doing a very good job and everyone on
this board has spent a lot of time working on this.
Cindy Orlando, Willard St. Ext.: Mrs. Orlando was read the description of the mercantile zone from
the Code Book section 146-33 and she had several comments regarding the STEL
home on Fairmount.. She wanted to know
the intentions of the developer regarding the STEL home.
Atty. Wright: Her comments
were above the level of understanding of this board. There was no talk of the
STEL home or easements or paper streets.
Mr. Truver thought the Planning Board was misinformed because
he had information that the STEL home was to be moved 400 feet back. Also,
there is a paper street at the end of Elmwood that would be opened as a private
drive for the STEL home.
Atty. Wright: That would
be a Town Board matter.
Mr. Evans: That wasn’t
on the plans we saw. We can’t open up
streets.
Colleen Orlando,
48 Elmwood Av: The plans could come in after it gets
rezoned. Once rezoned, they can do what
they want. Homes could be moved if the
owners wished.
Atty. Wright: That is
correct if the developer wants to make such a deal. We wouldn’t know about that or have the ability to control it.
Mr. Truver: How can you
make a recommendation to the Town Board when you do not have all the facts
pertaining to the whole project?
Gary Swanson: All we can
do is make a recommendation to the Town Board.
They will do what they feel is right.
Mr. Evans: This board
is not looking at a developer’s project.
We are looking at the neighborhood, at the area, the infrastructure that
is already there or could be there, we are looking at the SEQR and what the residents
want. We are not looking to zone
something specifically for a certain developer. We are trying to protect the neighborhood and to see if the
project is feasible in that area. We
work for the Town. We regulate
lighting, noise, traffic, hours of operation, street signs, and boundaries, not
access roads. We cannot open or close
access roads. The Site Plan has a
28-point check list.
Brian Orlando, 48 Elmwood Ave.: His concern is the STEL house on Fairmount Av. The developer did not give any information
to the residents on this house and it doesn’t appear that the Planning Board or
Town Board has any information either.
He owns two properties that would be directly affected by it. He believes that the developer plans to put
the STEL house directly behind his home.
Sheila Webster: The
plan presented Oct. 25, 2006 clearly shows relocation of the STEL home. It is different than the one viewed
previously.
Gary Swanson: Can anyone
tell me what a STEL home is?
Cindy Orlando: It
is a group residence for adults that have problems such as drug, rehab,
handicapped. It is assisted
living. It is a wonderful project for
people with those needs.
Mr. Evans: We
understand the concerns. And the
concerns will be addressed.
Mr. Orlando: When a
developer comes in with a request to rezone, who O.K.’s the request? The Supervisor or whole Board?
Mr. Evans: The request
has to be submitted to the Town Board.
By law, they have to consider it.
They would have to vote on it to send the recommendation to rezone to
the Planning Board.
Colleen Orlando, 48 Elmwood Av, WE: She cannot understand why Mr. Herron would wish the
same thing he has gone through on others.
She feels he is probably asking too much for his home. It is absurd to put this development in the
middle of three neighborhoods. She
feels we are struggling to keep the present businesses. The mall is a ghost mall. K-Mart is a ghost town. We can’t support what we have. It’s all-pointless and logic should state
that we don’t need this new development.
They bought the house because “we want our woods behind us”.
Mr. Orlando: He feels
the surrounding neighborhoods will become low-income neighborhoods with the new
development.
Mrs. Colleen Orlando: Feels we have reached a limit for new development. They welcome new development, but, somewhere
else.
Jim Carlson, 301 Sylvia Dr., Chardon OH: He has commercial property on N. Main St. in Ellicott. Is it the Planning Board’s responsibility to
take into consideration the drainage, earth moving, and the size of the
project?
Mr. Evans: Yes, it is
all of our concerns. We have to look at
what could go into that area.
Mr. Carlson: When you
address those issues, how do we learn about your decision?
Mr. Evans: The whole process
begins after the applicant comes in and has to go through a NYS SEQR
process. That is where all the above
concerns are addressed. We look at the
drainage as how it is today. What can
be done and what can be handled on the five-lane highway. The State will look at the traffic
study.
Mr. Carlson: He has been
talking to various developers across the country that are interested in
developing this area. They too
mentioned that in moving forward that they needed the blessings of the Town
Board and it could be a two-year process.
Mr. Evans: It could
take six months to a year, or it could take longer. Each project is site specific.
The larger the project, the longer it takes to do a SEQR.
The SEQR needs to occur first, then, the Town Board
gives public notice to act on rezoning.
The SEQR will be extensive for a project this size.
Mrs. Webster: Does anyone
know why the extension was granted?
Mr. Evans: The
extension, (from 60 to 90 days), was requested by the developer by letter. The letter came by e-mail to the Town.
Mrs. Webster: She questioned if granting the extension was legal.
Mr. Evans: We have to
legally act within 60 days. We were not ready to do that. The developer heard
that there were concerns and wanted to address the concerns.
Atty. Wright: It was
absolutely legal for the developer to ask for and be granted the extension.
Lynn Hodgins, Lakewood NY: What would it take to put a comprehensive plan into motion?
Mr. Evans: You would
need to talk to the Town Board about this.
Motion made by Bob Thomas and seconded by Phyllis
Belin to table the rezoning of the Plaza area on Fairmount Ave. until December
13, 2006.
Chairman Evans opened the public hearing for Craig Hefright
for Site Plan modification for a storage building on 2663 Second St. Falconer,
NY.
Mr. Hefright presented the plans and photos for his new storage building, identical to the existing one.
He expressed concern for the lack of work yet to be done on drainage for the road. The area around the storage building is gravel. He agreed to asphalt the area within 15 months of construction. If he does another building, he may ask to extend that period another 15 months. Both buildings have access to Second Ave. Total acreage is about one half acre. This area is zoned industrial. He may build a third building on the property pending approval. He expressed concerns that the road and road drainage haven’t been improved, as yet, as promised. There is no electric service yet. The first building is filled to nearly 90 percent. Because of the poor condition of the road, he is forced to charge less for storage than his competitors. There are no signs. The Board could extend the time needed for paving if needed. The engineers noted on the plans, that Mr. Hefright is having difficulties not knowing what the Town’s plans are to repair the road. Mr. Hefright would like to get the foundation in before it gets much colder.
Mr. Woodbury stated that Mr. Shellhouse has been busy and he has no doubt the road will be completed.
Paul Rounds, from the Town Highway Dept., said that he and John Piazza have done the transit work on the road about 8 weeks ago and they have the pipe at the shop for the project. It is in the works. There will be a 12-inch pipe underground for drainage.
Phase III of the project (constructing the third building) can’t take place until storm water is taken care of and paving of the storage area within the original 15 months is completed. Mr. Hefright will need a new SEQR.
Three sides of the property have been fenced in. The Board had previously stated he needed security fence all the way around for protection for the applicant and to not be a nuisance for the Town.
To continue with Phase III Mr. Hefright would have to have the drainage problem addressed.
Motion by Paul Shanahan to
execute SEQR with negative impact declaration.
Carried. Ayes – 6 Noes – 0 Absent
- 1
Motion to approve Phase II
with stipulation that we need a drainage plan to execute Phase III. Also, the paving of Phase I and II is to
take place 15 months from May 1st, 2006
Carried. Ayes –6 Noes –0 Absent
–1
Chairman Evans opened the public hearing for Bush
Industries, 1 Mason Drive, Falconer, NY for a covered unloading area.
There was a discussion of the project and it’s impact on the environment. Atty. Wright read a letter from Ralph Wilson stating the project is under the storm water requirements, on one acre; therefore additional storm water requirements are not required. There will be no sidewalks and no outdoor storage. No fences or retaining walls. The only new lighting will be on the man doors on the existing parking lot.
Motion by Paul Shanahan to
execute the SEQR with negative impact declaration.
Carried. Ayes –6 Noes –0 Absent
–1
Motion to approve plans as
presented by Robert Thomas, seconded by Phyllis Belin
Carried. Ayes
–6 Noes –0 Absent –1
Chairman Evans opened the public
hearing for Dawn Thompson, 3710 Ross Mills Rd. Falconer NY for construction of
dog kennels.
A Special Use Permit was approved with conditions that the number of dogs housed would be limited to those that can be housed in the kennels contained under the roof section of the building. No dog area between the White’s and Mrs. Young’s house. Also admitted is Mr. Carlson’s sealed survey. A portion of the current barn is to be enclosed and used a dog isolation area. This will usually have two to four dogs at a time. The isolation period will vary. The deeds are not yet recorded. There is no issue regarding the transfer of property. The fence has been put up, is substantial and built according to code.
Mr. Woodbury: The plans have changed from one large roof to many individual roofs. The cages are 10’ x 10’.
Atty. Goodell: The reason for the individual kennels is to enable them to be pulled out to work on the ground underneath or make repairs. The fenced area is 50’ x 110’.
Mrs. Thompson: I have 15 kennels.
Mr. Woodbury: The roof area was intended to be 30’ x 50’ or 1500 sq. ft. so 15 10’ x 10’ kennels would be the same square footage.
Atty. Wright: It was presented to the Zoning Board that there was going to be one roof. Five kennels would be on one side and five on the other with a walkway between. There was talk of insulation and sound proofing on the roof.
Mrs. Thompson: There is still going to be all of that. She made the kennels individual after visiting another rescue. Because she has no electric, this works best for better light and air circulation. The roof can be changed to fiberglass instead of tin to reduce the sound and improve the light.
Atty. Wright: The Zoning Board did not limit the number of dogs because it didn’t make sense when there is such a variation of sizes of dogs. The Board created a limit to the number of dogs that would fit under your roof. The Board contemplated 10 kennels under a roof.
Mrs. Thompson: Two kennels have her own personal dogs in them. Ten kennels have rescue dogs in them. The remaining two are spares.
Mr. Woodbury: At any one time, there would only be 10 rescue kennels.
Mrs. Thompson: I have the same square footage, the same roof square footage. They will all be kept in one area, where as before they were not.
Atty. Wright: There are no dog zones that would include her own personal dogs. Her own personal dogs could not go into the zones.
Atty. Goodell: The fenced in kennel area is 35 feet from the property area. The rescue dogs and Mrs. Thompson’s own dogs will be inside the fenced in area. Using a map supplied by Mr. Woodbury, Atty. Goodell showed the boundaries and landscape to the Planning Board. Visits are by appointment only so they do not expect any impact on traffic. He feels that the change in roof plans has very little impact. The plans have been reviewed by a sound engineer. He pointed out the sound is not directly proportional to the number of dogs. The number of dogs, with the changes that are being made should not have an adverse effect. A certified, professional appraiser evaluated the impact on the neighborhood and property values and came to the conclusion that the kennels would not have and adverse impact. The fence with sound proofing materials and bark collars and additional soundproofing near the cages and buildings helps in this matter. If something happens to one of the buildings, Mrs. Thompson would replace them.
Mrs. Young: Feels there should be a limitation to the number of dogs. Either per kennel or overall.
Atty. Wright: Both Boards have the authority to impose conditions. The Zoning Board accepted the argument that the number of dogs that the rescue operation can take care of relates to the size of the dogs that can be housed in the kennel.
Mr. Evans: Originally we were on the track of four dogs per kennel.
Mrs. Thompson: I have two dogs per kennel.
Atty. Wright: In the minutes of last months meeting, it stated that Dawn would self impose a limit of 35 dogs, not including her own dogs or puppies in the house. Strictly rescue dogs.
Mrs. Thomas: I want to stay between 20 and 35 dogs. She wants to graduate from this program within the next ten years. That is why she wants the temporary roofs.
Mr. Woodbury: A fifty-pound dog would normally be comfortable with two dogs inside one kennel.
Mrs. Thompson: That is correct, it is all based on size. Four beagles at 15 pounds apiece could be housed in one kennel. Her average is two dogs per kennel.
Atty. Goodell: The sound proofing material that Dawn will be using is designed specifically for this type of application. It’s efficiency rating is 19-31 or 37%. The higher frequencies have a much higher efficiency.
Mrs. Thompson: You can’t overcrowd without health issues. There is a NYS law that mandates that the dog has to be able to lay down and to extend it’s legs from toe to toe and it has to be able to stand up and turn around. The dogs are very quiet during the night. The bark collars are on from just before she leaves for work until 7 at night after they are fed and boarded. They are more active during the day. There is also an anti bark frequency that goes off when the dogs bark.
Mrs. Young: How high are your kennels?
Mrs. Thompson: Six feet. The fence is six feet.
Mrs. Young: If the fence is six feet high, and the kennels are six feet high, how come I can see your kennels from my house?
Mr. Evans: You will see them from a distance because of the natural slope of the land.
Mrs. Young is still concerned that she will hear the dogs. She was under the impression that there was going to be a roof completely covering the kennels.
Mrs. Thompson: That would not be able to happen until I got electric and heat. All I asked for at the Zoning meeting was tin roofs. We wanted to take the tarps off because Mrs. White didn’t want to see the tarps. I am still planning on using the same type and amount of material for the roof; it will just be unitized instead of one. I need to get light into the kennel. I cannot put the dogs in the basement. The fence is not yet completed, it’s only been two weeks and my husband and I have not been able to do more on weekends.
Mrs. Young: At the Zoning Board meeting, you said that the roof was going to be tin and insulated.
Mrs. Thompson: We are going to insulate the fence and roofs and put Cellutex between the kennels. I am here to cut down on noise and have cut down the noise by 100%.
Atty. Wright: Mr. Woodbury, in your opinion, do you feel that the change in the roof structure would require us to go back to the Zoning Board for confirmation that the Special Use Permit would apply giving the change in roofing? The variance was given considering all the factors presented. This has changed as to what the applicant originally stated.
Mr. Woodbury: The Zoning Board had a certain vision when the decision was made. This vision is going to be changed. He hadn’t put the new vision together in his head yet.
Atty. Goodell: We did not present plans for trenches for electricity. Mrs. White’s husband offered that. We didn’t present diagrams for a picture of how we propose to enclose the kennels. I brought a copy of our submission. We did say there would be a roof over all the kennels. That is still our position. Originally we envisioned one roof truss supported by beams across the whole thing. When we moved the fencing away from the neighbors, there was no concrete base. As a result, you need to move the kennels periodically to clean off the ground and put down lime under the gravel. Can you design it with a free span large enough to pull the cages out? That is how the separate roof theory came about. In an aerial photo of the two types of roofs, I’m not sure you would see any difference.
Mrs. Thompson presented photos of the kennels that she is now proposing. The fence will stop the snow from blowing into the kennel area. She is looking into what type of insulation to use on the roof to let light in.
Mrs. Young: I can see how one roof can protect the kennels from the weather, but I can’t see how individual roofs can do that. I would think that the open area between the rows of kennels could become a muddy mess. If it were covered completely, it would eliminate problems from the adverse weather conditions.
Mr. Woodbury: This is a change in the original plans. He spoke with Mr. Thompson about building a monolific roof. It was similar to a picnic pavilion. He suggested that he could get Dawn some plans for such a building that she could copy. She would be free to move the kennels around in the covered area and there would be air movement. A pavilion structure inside fenced in walls would be dark. A pavilion structure could be done attractively. The vision I see from the photographs is not the vision that I had at the Zoning Board meeting.
Mr. Wright: That would be my feeling as well. If you were to do anything other than a single roof with insulation that we talked about, you need to get confirmation from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mrs. Thompson: If I go to the single roof, I will need electricity. This was all to be built before the snow flew. That was the reason for all of this.
Atty. Goodell: You have a choice, you can ask the board to proceed with the concept of a free standing roof or you can go back to the Zoning Board and ask them to approve the individual units with individual roofs.
Mr. Evans: We had plans for ten pens, one single roof for no more than 35 dogs. That was this board’s vision and you would be going back to the Zoning Board with that proposal in mind and then bringing it to us. That is why you were here for the Sketch Plan. The Site Plan can’t be approved at this point with the unitized roof plan. You can go forward with a 30 x 50’ pavilion style roof covering all of the kennels, or go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask for permission to change to a unitized roof structure.
Motion by Paul Shanahan to
declare negative impact on the environment.
Carried.. Ayes
–6 Noes – 0 Absent –1
Motion by Robert Thomas and
seconded by Dave Carlberg to approve construction of a 30 x 50’ pavilion like
structure over the dog kennels.
Carried. Ayes –6 Noes –0 Absent –1
Discussion on the rezoning of Fluvanna Ave. from Shopping to Mercantile. It was discussed that the zoning shouldn’t be piecemeal or by individual requests and that a comprehensive plan would be valuable. There is a committee already formed to reconsider the zoning and will meet Nov. 16th.
The Planning Board recommends starting a comprehensive master plan for zoning, which was last done in the 1970’s.
Motion by Phyllis Belin,
seconded by Paul Shanahan to direct the Chairman to write the Town Board
stating:
1. The Planning Board will not recommend rezoning because of the committee already formed to study rezoning.
2. The Planning Board does not want spot zoning or individual zoning changes.
3. Time is not of the essence. There is no project pending in this area.
Motion to adjourn by Gary Swanson, seconded by Dave Carlberg.
________________________________
Karyn E. Okerlund, Secretary