MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ELLICOTT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD AT
THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 215 SOUTH WORK STREET, FALCONER, NY 14733 ON
JANUARY 30, 2006 AT 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman
Steve Hoglin, Dave Remington, John Merchant, Angelo Cimo, Pat Martonis,
Rick Keefer, Kathy Hedstrand, Attorney William Wright, Code Enforcement
Officer
Randy Woodbury and Secretary Valerie Pierce.
ABSENT: None
Chairman Hoglin
opened the meeting at 7:30 PM and Secretary Pierce called the roll.
Secretary Pierce noted
that Steve Hoglin found some corrections in the minutes of the January 9, 2006
meeting. FFA should have been FAA and
on the second page of the minutes the allowable square footage in a residential
zone for a 3-car garage is 1000 SF not 100 SF. Secretary Pierce had made the
corrections on the minutes of 01/09/06.
Motion made by
Rick Keefer, seconded by John Merchant to approve the minutes of the January 9,
2006 meeting as amended.
Carried. Ayes 7 Noes 0 Absent 0
Attorney
Wright swore in all present that would be giving testimony at this public
hearing.
Jerome
Erickson PE, representing William Farr, requested variances for an insurance
office at 471 Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY on property owned by Floyd
III and Pamela Helfrey.
Mr. Farr stated he has
this property under contract and it is contingent on the approval of the Zoning
Board. Mr. Woodbury has seen that
contract.
Mr. Erickson said he had
been to the Planning Board and was told he would need to go to the Zoning Board
for setback variances. He told the Board members this property is on the
southeast corner of South Hanford and Fairmount Avenue and provided photos and
a survey of the existing property.
Mr. Erickson told the
Board:
1) there
is a 122 by 50 lot that is in the professional zone and a 100 by 50 lot in
the
residential zone
2) the
existing house is 22.4 feet from the front line, 10.6 feet from Hanford, 7.7
feet from the east side and 44.1 feet from the professional zone line in the
back
3) the
50 by 100 lot in the back is landscaped and will act as a buffer zone
4) the
parking will be off Hanford and the parking lot is more than enough for three
cars but not enough for four
5) there
is a power pole and a guy wire just south of the parking and if the Board of
Public Utilities would move the guy wire there would be room for 5 cars by
making the lot just a little bigger
6) Mr.
Erickson thinks it is better for the neighborhood to allow businesses with the
existing architecture to stay
Mr. Erickson had photos of
the house across the street that was made into a professional office and they
did not meet the required setbacks and required variances. They have parking
that exits onto a side street.
Mr. Erickson said the
changes to this property would be:
1) the
parking will become 12 feet wider if the BPU is willing to move the guy wire
2) there
would be a handicapped ramp that would go from the driveway up along the side
of the house to get to the existing
front porch - there is only an eight-inch rise that is necessary in the ramp so
it would be like a wooden walkway from
the parking lot
3) the existing structure will have some changes
inside - they will construct some walls to
create offices and the kitchen will be
used as a break room
4) the front porch will not be changed and
nothing will change in the front of the building
5) the metal stairway on the side of the house
will be removed
6) the upstairs will not be used for the
business
7) there will be a sign in the front yard or on
the building that will comply with the code Mr.
Farr showed the Board a picture of the
signage at his present location
8) there will be no more lighting than on a
residence there will be a light on the porch and
one on the garage there is no reason
for major lighting in the parking area because the
cars normally would not be there when
it is dark there will be a timer on the lights
9) the 50 by 100 lot in the back is in a
residential zone and will stay as is.
10) there
will be access from Hanford Avenue but not Butts Avenue
11) the
normal hours of operation will be from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday
and occasionally on Saturdays but there might be some evenings appointments
There are currently three
employees and Mr. Farr but there will be no more than three employees there at
the same time. Mr. Erickson said five
parking spaces would be sufficient for the three employees and two clients. Ang
Cimo thought they would need more parking.
Mr. Erickson said two employees could park in the garage if that was a
problem. The traffic and hours of coming and going for this office could be
less than a residence with two or three children.
Secretary Pierce said the
neighbors were notified and there was one phone call. When the notice was
published the address was published as 417 Fairmount instead of 471 Fairmount
Avenue because that was what was on the application. Randy Woodbury stated the application did have the correct
section, block and lot so the correct people were notified. The call was for
clarification.
Mr. Woodbury said Mr. Farr
was not asking for a variance for his sign and the lighting requirements are
spelled out. The sign could be lit according to the code.
Attorney Wright said that
this is a property that is grandfathered with a residential use and it is the
change from a residential use to a commercial use that triggers the need for
process in front of this Board and the need for the area variances. They would
have the right to continue this as a residence without coming in and asking
permission for the setbacks.
Mr. Wright reviewed the
setbacks covered in section 146-20 of the Town of Ellicott Zoning and Planning
code. The applicant is requesting a
total area variance under 146-20 A, which states you are not allowed to occupy
more than 15 % of the total ground area. Depending if they consider all the
property, which is partially in the professional office district and partially
in the residential zone, they still exceed the 15%. If the Board just considers
the professional office district, which is what they have done in past, there
is 28% ground coverage. In section
146-20 B the front yard setback is required to be 50 feet and it is 13.4 feet
to the porch so they are looking for a 36.6-foot front yard setback
variance. There are setback
requirements on both sides of 20 feet so they need a 9.4-foot side yard setback
variance setback from Hanford Avenue and a 12.3-foot setback variance from the
east side.
Pat Martonis asked if they
could approve the variances just for this building or if they tear down the
existing building and put a new building could they use these variances. Attorney Wright said that the Board could
impose under 267B conditions and restrictions.
They could impose the condition to the variances of applicability to the
existing building only.
The applicant also needs a
20-foot buffer between the commercial and residential uses under 146-20 C but
Attorney Wright thought that could be met. There appears to be 31 feet to put
in a buffer zone between the parking and the residential lot. The parking area
will not go into the residential zone.
The final variance
required is under 146-20 F is that the driveway has to be 30 feet from the
front and 25 feet from the side and rear property lines. They need an area variance because they are
not 25 feet from Hanford Avenue. Mr. Erickson stated the front, rear and east
side setbacks are sufficient.
Attorney Wright reviewed
the criteria for area variances in 267B of the Town law. It is the balancing test considering the
benefit to the applicant weighed against the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community. Mr. Wright went over the five considerations and
said the same test is applied to all five identified variances.
Rick Keefer asked if this
property were to go back to residential after being commercial would you break
the grandfather and have to come back to the Board. Mr. Woodbury said you couldnt make any preexisting nonconforming
more nonconforming. If they abandon this professional use and go back to
residential it would not need process but if they were to go back to the
residential use and again want to go to the commercial use they would have to
come back before the Board.
Attorney Wright said that
when these properties were rezoned it was not the intent that these houses on
Fairmount Avenue would become office buildings. They thought people would combine the properties and put in
professional offices but Mr. Erickson did make the point that the neighborhood
is better off by allowing the architecture of the neighborhood to continue and
use the existing buildings.
Chairman Hoglin reviewed
the criteria with the Board.
1) The
Board discussed if the an undesirable change would be produced in the character
of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties
Kathy Hedstrand said the only change
would be an increase in the traffic which has
already been increased on Fairmount Avenue
Dave Remington said they would be encouraging
more growth closer to the highway and
the Board has been requiring the 50 feet with
little variance Rick Keefer said if they keep
the residential look of the property and there is
not going to be a huge change then it would
not change the character of the neighborhood
there was a discussion on the sign Mr.
Farr had stated he would comply with the sign
code
2) The
Board said there would be no other feasible way to achieve this on this
property without purchasing another property Mr. Erickson said even if Mr.
Farr were to buy another adjoining lot and build a new building he would not be
able to meet the setbacks and still have room for a building Mr. Erickson
said the other side of the street is all professional offices - Mr. Wright
stated the properties are much larger and much deeper so they can be farther
off Fairmount Avenue
3) The
Board agreed that this variance is definitely substantial Pat Martonis said
the building is already preexisting and that would not change John Merchant
said he had concerns with how many more of the properties are going to be
turned into businesses and need variances Rick Keefer asked if the Board sets
a precedence and grant variances that close to the line could the Board put on
a condition that they keep the character of the building Ang Cimo said that
might be a good stipulation but asked how that would be defined Kathy
Hedstrand said they need to look at each individual property and Attorney
Wright agreed and said every property stands on its own and the Board must
look at the totality of the project Mr. Wright said that it may be hard to
impose a condition that they keep the residential character of the neighborhood
4) The
Board did not feel that the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or
impact on
the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood Kathy said that she would
have more concerns if the neighbors were here and
had concerns and feels the location is
unique because people are not going to want to
move into that house that is that close to the
road Dave said he felt that this would be the
best use for this building at this time and it
has been on the market for some time and would
not sell as a residence
5) The
alleged difficulty was self-created because he does not have to buy the
property
Kathy asked Mr. Farr if he
has considered any other properties. Mr. Farr said he has had some other people
come to him but since he is under contract for this property he needed to get
the Boards decision before pursuing other properties.
Pat Martonis asked Mr.
Farr how many clients he gets in a month.
He told the Board he had about thirty people in and out of the office
today but they are in and out in five minutes. Steve Hoglin asked how many
people Mr. Farr insures. Mr. Farr said he has approximately 2500 accounts. Ang said they could have quite a few cars
parking on the street to run in and it could create congestion. Dave said that
a lot of his business could be mail in and clients would not even come to the
office.
Attorney
Wright stated this is exempt as a type II action under SEQR.
The Board agreed that the
variances could be looked at as a package.
Pat Martonis
made a motion, seconded by Dave Remington to approve the application of William
R. Farr, 471 Fairmount Avenue, Jamestown, NY for a variance of 30% of a maximum
coverage with a 12.3-foot variance on the east and a front variance of 36.6
feet with a parking lot of 0 variance with the following conditions:
1) the building be retained as is
2) the second floor will not be used for the business
3) they will have 5 parking spaces
4) the buffer zone established by the residential zone be maintained
5) cars will enter and exit on Hanford Avenue
Denied. Ayes-3 Noes 4 (Hoglin,
Merchant, Cimo and Keefer) Absent-0
Motion made by
John Merchant, seconded by Ang Cimo to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 PM.
Carried. Ayes-7 Noes-0 Absent 0
_________________________________________
Valerie
Pierce, Secretary