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
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 AT 6:30 PM.
PRESENT: Chairman
Steve Hoglin, John
Merchant, Angelo Cimo, Pat Martonis, Kathy Hedstrand
Attorney William Wright, Code Enforcement Officer Randy Woodbury, and
Secretary
Valerie Pierce
ABSENT: David Remington and Richard
Keefer
Chairman
Hoglin called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM and Secretary Pierce called the
roll.
Chairman Hoglin stated
since the minutes of the September 11, 2006 meeting were just distributed the
Board would hold them over for approval at the October meeting.
Attorney Wright swore in
everyone present that would be giving testimony. The Chairman stated that
anyone present that is not sworn in at this time would not be permitted to
speak or sworn in later.
Chairman
Hoglin reopened the public hearing for RSA No. 3 Cellular Partnership d/b/a as
Verizon Wireless for a Special Use Permit renewal for a wireless facility
originally granted January 7, 1991.
Mr. Robert
Burgdorf, from the law firm of Nixon Peabody, addressed
the Board on behalf of Verizon Wireless.
He told the Board there were five issues raised at the April Zoning
Board meeting and they had addressed the first three in a package dated June
20, 2006.
1) The
landlord contact information was supplied to the Town
2) The
requirements of the FAA lights were addressed - they did confirm with the FAA
they could be on but do not have to be – they remedied that and the lights will
be off during the day
3) the
wind loading requirements – they submitted a letter from their engineer
explaining those were EIA/TIA standards and they thought those were
satisfactory to the Town Engineer since they heard nothing from the Town
The other items were
addressed in a July 12, 2006 letter.
1) The
removal bond - it had been increased from $30,000 to $70,000. That bond was
submitted with the letter
2) The
drainage – Verizon thought the Town was looking for an extension of their offer
to create a fund to deal with some engineering for the potential drainage pond
on property near the facility – they did extend the time period that was set to
expire this November thru November 18, 2007
Mr. Burgdorf said he
thought they had addressed all the issues but understands the Town has some
additional drainage concerns. The Town had suggested the Planning Board would
be the best Board to deal with the drainage.
Mr. Burgdorf asked that
the Special Use Permit be renewed contingent on Verizon going to the Planning
Board to work on any drainage issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Board,
the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney.
If it is something that is Verizon Wireless’s responsibility they will
address it just as they have addressed issues in the past. Mr. Wright said
Verizon came in sufficiently before their permit was to expire but now have an
expired permit.
Attorney Wright asked Mr.
Woodbury if everything except the drainage had been taken care of. Randy said
his only concern was the drainage. The landlord had not answered any of his
communications. Her said Mr. Burgdorf might have to contact the landlord. Randy suggested this should to go to the
Planning Board because the site plan of 1991 does not meet the current
specifications for site plan. The
Zoning Board continues to renew the permit on old site plan standards.
Dan Evans,
Chairman of the Planning Board, said that seemed like a
reasonable request and the Planning Board would certainly address the drainage
issues.
Mr. Burgdorf asked who
would define the drainage problems. He said that it would be no problem to have
their engineer at a Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Shellhouse, along with Randy, and the Town Engineer could convey the
problems to Verizon’s engineer. Mr. Burgdorf said they might need some time to
get the drainage issue resolved.
1)
the drainage be referred to the Planning Board
2)
the special use permit will be granted until July 2008
Attorney Wright stated this is exempt form SEQR as a renewal of a special use permit that had no modification to the plan.
Pat Martonis said she would
like to add to the motion that if the drainage plan does not meet the
satisfaction of the Planning Board this permit should be referred back to the
Zoning Board for consideration. John Merchant modified his motion to add that
condition.
Carried. Ayes –5 Noes –0 Absent - 2
Chairman Hoglin reopened the
Public Hearing for Nicholas Ferreri, 560 Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY
for a perpetual renewal of his special use permit for Memory Garden.
Attorney David Stapleton said it was his understanding that the information the Board had requested at the last meeting from the Town Clerk’s Office and Code Enforcement Officer had been provided to the Board members.
Attorney Wright explained the modification that was make to section 146-64 of the Zoning Code. The language was modified to provide that “subsequent to the first two-year period the Ellicott Zoning Board of Appeals, at its sole discretion, may extend the renewal periods beyond two years”.
Brad Lawson, Operations Manager for Tanglewood, passed out some information on some of the NYS codes and regulations that show a number of items Tanglewood Manor has to comply with issues beyond what they do for the Town. He told the Board the State Health Department requires a copy of the permit and Certificate of Occupancy from the Town for any alterations. They also do have a yearly fire inspection.
Mr. Stapleton explained if the ownership of this property changes the new owners would be vetted just like Mr. Ferreri was so not only the facility but also the owner has to comply. He brought to the Board attention that in the Town code the Zoning Board could bring any granted special use permit back to the Board for hearings on any problems for modifications to the permit. There is also a Town Law section (267 A) that gives the Zoning Board the authority to have a re-hearing on any determination they have made. Even though the permit would be an indefinite perpetual permit the Board has total control because it is only indefinite and perpetual until the Board meets again. Mr. Stapleton said Mr. Ferreri is requesting a perpetual renewal so they do not have to constantly calendar for come back to the Board every two years.
Randy stated he does the fire inspection for this facility and this facility is superbly run and if there are any issues they are taken care of quickly.
Chairman Hoglin had some questions concerning:
1) If the applicant had completed all the work in accordance with the special use permit and site plan – Mr. Lawson said there were no conditions on the original approval or site plan – Randy stated that Memory Garden’s original special use permit was granted according to the copy of the minutes – they had a site plan that was approved by the Planning Board and built and was given an occupancy permit accordingly with one modification – there was a geometric problem with the alignment of the hallways that caused a mathematical impossibility that had to be solved – the required setback in a residential zone would have been 25 feet and the proposed setback of Memory Garden was 45 feet but in order to line up the hallways they had to make that setback 35 feet – they built it accordingly to the modified site plan - Attorney Wright said a multi-family in a residential district is allowed by special use permit
2) If there have been any complaints- Randy stated the Town has not received any complaints
3) If Memory Garden was a stand-alone facility - Mr. Lawson stated that Memory Garden was
part of Tanglewood Manor and attached to Tanglewood Manor - It is stand-alone as
Memory Garden but they do use the same facilities as Tanglewood as far as maintenance,
housekeeping and kitchen staff – the adult daycare is completely stand-alone – parking and
all – the daycare is a very minimal staffed unit – they have parking on the Merlin side of the
daycare – the u-shaped drive on Gifford is the drop off point for the daycare – the park has
been completed and inspected - a certificate of compliance is pending based an a couple of
small items in the maintenance garage – Mr. Lawson said there is just some electrical and
drywall to complete – the garage will house serve Tanglewood and also house the vans for
the adult daycare – the park is available to Tanglewood, Memory Garden and the adult
daycare
4) Why they are bringing this to the Board midway through their permit – Mr. Stapleton said it
was an opportune time with the law changing - the Board having recently been through
this and would know all the facts – everything that had transpired regarding development
was finished – Steve thought the intent of the legislation was to be brought at renewal time t the renewal would be up in June of July of 2007
5) if this part of a broader plan - Mr. Lawson stated the special use permit was only for
Memory Garden
There were no neighbors present for this renewal request. The Town had not received any correspondence.
Pat Martonis had concerns:
1) that if the renewal time was extended it is the Board’s and the Code Enforcement Officer’s responsibility to make sure there would not be any changes for the number of years they might grant the renewal for
2) she would like to see a yearly report - Attorney Stapleton explained that special use permits require they continue to do that particular use in the same manner and there can’t be any change in the use - if there is a change in the use it would come back before the Board.
3) she feels there is some overlapping of the facilities
Randy said that he could, at the same date of the annual fire inspection, make an annual report relative to the special use permit to the Zoning Board. The Supervisor could make a standing written order to the Code Enforcement Officer that a report be made. Randy said he does that informally now. Brad said that under the all the NYS inspections the reports have to be posted inside the facility.
Kathy Hedstrand asked if they could put a longer of time on the permit instead of making it perpetual. Chairman Hoglin said it was at the Zoning Board’s discretion. Brad said in the Town’s zoning code in section 146-64 A it states “all such uses are hereby declared to possess characteristics of such unique and special forms that each specific use shall be considered as an individual case”.
Randy said the fire inspections are always available for anyone to see. If anyone fails to meet the requirements of a fire inspection they are issued an order to remedy and if they do not remedy it goes to the Court. He said if there were any change in the use of the facility that has an impact on the conditions of the special use permit it would be his duty to report to the Zoning Board. Randy does not see it is problems, that during the time he does the fire inspection, he can make a report for the Zoning Board. He personally accepts the request from the Zoning Board to do an annual report but would like a standing order from the Supervisor to the code enforcement office.
Steve asked if when the report was made a notice could go out to the neighbors. Attorney Wright was not sure that could be done but the Town Clerk’s Office or Code Enforcement Office could always hear complaints on any permits.
John Merchant asked if the applicant would consider a time period put on the permit. Attorney Stapleton said their preference would be to have a perpetual permit but if the Board does not think that is reasonable they would like as long of a period of time as possible with the understanding they might come back and ask for the perpetual permit. John suggested ten years. Steve said he would like to see five years. There was discussion on if the five years would be from now or when the permit was renewed. Pat said since Randy had just done the fire inspection it should be five years from the time of that fire inspection.
Motion made by Pat Martonis,
seconded by John Merchant for a five year renewal of the special use permit for
Memory Garden for Nicholas Ferreri, 560 Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY
starting in September 2006 with the condition that a report is supplied once a
year concurrent with the fire inspection time giving the specifications of how
the special use permit is being used and the conditions of the facility to the
Zoning Board.
Attorney Wright stated this
is exempt from SEQR as a renewal of a special use permit without any changes in
the conditions of the permit.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent - 2
Chairman Hoglin reopened the
Public Hearing for Dawn Thompson, 3710 Ross Mills Rd., Falconer, NY for a
special use permit to operate a kennel for dog care.
Attorney Wright swore in
everyone that had not been sworn in at the beginning of the meeting because
they were not present at 6:30 PM.
Attorney Tom Rankin, with Goodell and Goodell, represented Mrs. Thompson. He briefed the Board on the agreement that Mrs. Thompson and her neighbors, David and Joan White, came to over the weekend. He said hopefully they could put into action a plan that will resolve many of the issues raised by the neighbors. He provided packets of information to the Board.
The agreement included:
1) Some land being swapped between the Thompsons and the Whites
2) A 6 foot high wood fence – kennel will be built with a tin roof – individual pens with separate running areas for the dogs - that will minimize the noise and unsightliness
3) the dogs wear bark collars to minimize the amount of barking – Dawn said she already had those collars on the dogs
4) the number of dogs will be limited to 35
Mr. Rankin said this proposal was just reach over the weekend so he does not have deeds or contractor names tonight but do have the basic agreement that would resolve any issues that the Board or public may have. They have addressed the noise and confinements are issues. He pointed out the Humane Society on Strunk Road have pens that are similar to Dawn’s. They comport with the Agricultural and Markets Law. The White’s have been very reasonable with this and Mrs. Thompson has gone out of her way to address they concerns of the neighbors.
At the last meeting the Board had asked Mr. Ted Blanchard to meet with Mrs. Thompson and a report be given to the Board. Mr. Rankin said he believed some report was given to the Police Department and they had a copy of a report dated august 12, 2006. Mr. Goodell tried to get a copy of the report from the Humane Society but they were not forthcoming. Dawn Thompson said that Mr. Blanchard did meet with her and she recorded the conversations and he basically said with the fence in place and the bark collars it would cut down on the noise. He told her she had a dog with a fly bite on his ear and asked how she was treating it. He suggested she get bigger stones so the gravel would not go into her dirt. He recommended the bark collars. Mrs. Thompson said they declined to show up for this meeting because the Humane Society did not want to be involved.
Mr. Rankin told the Board in their packet they had letters of support from Dr. Inkley from Randolph Veterinary Clinic and Teresa Di Sarno, a licensed NYS Veterinarian Technician from the Randolph Veterinary Clinic. Dawn said she asked them to come down and do an inspection.
Randy said Counsel for the applicant had a copy of a letter from the Humane Society. The Board did not receive a copy of that letter.
Attorney Wright asked questions concerning the information that was e-mailed to him from the Code Enforcement Officer. He said:
1) there was a lot of talk about the bark collars –He asked if every dog would be equipped with them - Dawn said that every dog that barks would have a collar or a total of 10 dogs - She put them on the dogs that are more reactive - She explained what a bark collar was for the Board - Mr. Rankin said Mr. Blanchard did recommended these collars.
2) there was a quote for a sound barrier – Dawn said the barriers go inside the fence – they are already installed
3) there was a plan for a kennel – 100 % of the rescue dogs be in that kennel area – they
will not be in pens throughout the property or in the barn – the barn does have a 40 foot
enclosed pen for the incubation period be enclosed
4) one of the things that was put on record two months ago was she was strongly urged to
consider setting a limit for the number of dogs – Dawn said she was willing to limit the
number to 35, which is half of what she has done – the limit of 35 dogs is the number of
rescue dogs excludes puppies that are housed indoors – Dawn does not breed dogs – these
are rescue dogs that happen to be pregnant – she does not adopt out any dogs that have not
been spayed or neutered
Mr. Rankin stated that since Mr. Blanchard was not present he could not ask him any questions. He wanted the Board to understand that it was unfair to file a report and not be at the meeting to answer questions. Attorney Wright said the Board should give it the consideration it deserves given Mr. Blanchard is not at the meeting for examination of the letter.
Mrs. Thompson said she decided on the wooden fence because she could apply some noise barriers to a wooden fence. She provided the information in the packets the Board received. Randy said he was not familiar with the audio sound barrier. Dawn said the wood fence also could be modified if the neighbors came back in a couple months and could still hear the barking.
Chairman Hoglin told the neighbors that the Board was only going to consider the aspects of the special use permit only. Any neighbor that was not present when the meeting started was sworn in.
Margaret Young, 3722 Ross Mills Rd., Falconer, NY, stated she was under the impression that Dawn was going to meet with the neighbors and propose a plan. She said Dawn has not come to her since that meeting. She understands that the Thompson’s are going to put up a 6-foot fence and feel that would correct all the problems. She has concerns about dangerous dogs. Mrs. Young read a letter from Hometown Realty (Darlene Mendrick, Broker) dated 09/22/06 that stated she viewed Mrs. Young property on 8/31/06 and it was her opinion that it would be extremely difficult to sell Mrs. Young’s property for the true value due to the extreme noise level from the adjoining property. Mrs. Mendrick said the current situation devalues this property as well as other properties that are nearby.
Joan White, 3750 Ross Mills Rd., Falconer, NY, representing herself and her husband, David E. White, said they have tried to be neighborly and understand how Dawn feels about her animals. She thinks the neighbors have been cooperative but this problem is now out of control. They have surveyed their land and noticed the majority of the dogs are on their land. They met with Attorney Goodell and tried to come to an agreement. Mrs. White provided a letter they e-mailed on 09/24/06 to Attorney Goodell. She stated three points that were addressed in the letter:
1) they want to maintain their property values and the quality of life in the neighborhood
2) they do not want to see or hear the dogs or kennels - they want to make sure the dogs are well cared for - periodic inspections
3) they want to make sure the operation has a limit on the number of animals – not just dogs
This letter contained some details that were different from what they discussed with Mr. Goodell. They want to make sure that Marge is in agreement with this. Mrs. White explained the map and the deeding of the land.
The Whites have offered to give Dawn $1000.00 toward:
1) creating a roof structure to protect the dogs
2) making the fence taller – they would like it tall enough so they do not see even the tarps or the roof – they need a noise barrier
3) helping to defray the cost of relocating the quarantine area
Ang Cimo asked if there presently are dogs on the White’s property. Mrs. White stated there were dogs on their property. Dawn explained the Whites asked her move the kennels behind their house and onto their land so they could not see them. She also had a problem with the fact that hay was going to be used to line the fence and that could create a rodent issue. They are also concerned about the health and safety of the neighborhood. Discussion followed on the maps and plan.
Attorney Rankin stated he received the report from Attorney Goodell and thought the deal was done. Mr. Goodell’s e-mail address on the White’s proposal was incorrect but he still could not have had it in time for this meeting. He requested this application be tabled for 30 days so the parties can talk.
Allison Rounds, 3676 Ross Mills Rd., Falconer, NY, provided a copy of a letter that she sent to everyone in the neighborhood and photos she took of the property and dogs. She had concerns:
1) with the care of the dogs – the buildings need to be insulated
2) pinch collars on the dogs – they are a training device – they are not to be left on unattended dogs
Ms. Rounds stated the information obtained by the Humane Society was confidential.
Chairman Hoglin said even though the Board cares about the animals that is not an issue for this Board. Pat Martonis asked if the Board can even consider this permit if it is already on someone else’s property.
Attorney Wright said comments should be on what is going to be proposed, such as building with indoor and outdoor facilities and the wooden fence with soundproof barriers. He reviewed the criteria in section 146-64 of the Town code and said the Board needs to determine, in order to allow this special use, if the operations in connection in with this special use shall not be more objectionable to near by properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibration or lights than with the operation of permitted use. The Board does care about how the dogs are being cared for, but how the dogs are being cared for in their current condition is not an element that this Board will consider. They are looking at a plan that they could consider for an application for a special use permit. Mr. Wright agreed with Attorney Rankin that this cannot be finished tonight but the neighbors can be heard. They do not need to hear about the conditions are now because there is a plan to change that. What the Board members really need to hear is if the plan goes forward, how the neighbors believe it will address the situation.
Pat Martonis asked about the height of the fence. Mrs. White said the 6-foot fence in not appropriate because they could still see and hear the dogs. They do not believe the noise barrier will happen. She is asking the Board review the letter she provided. Pat Martonis asked if the neighbors had any comments that address the proposal that is before the Board.
Troy Stimpson, 3725 Ross Mills Rd., asked if this shelter would be built in a timely manner. He also asked about the liability of any dangerous dogs. He had concerns with the safety of the children in the neighborhood. He asked if the Town brought dogs to Dawn and if the Town has any liability. The Town has not brought any dogs to her and Attorney Wright stated the Town does not have any liability. Attorney Wright said how the dogs would be contained and walked will be addressed in the plan for the safety of the neighborhood. Dawn said they were not aware of the new proposal but were ready to put up the fence.
Paul Rounds, 4381 Route 60, Gerry, NY and owner of property in Ross Mills, said he went to Dawn’s and checked to see if any dogs had pinch collars. He stated there was a pinch collar but it was not hooked to the lead. A plastic collar was holding the dog. The doghouse was a plastic manufactured insulated house. The majority of the doghouses are the same. He realizes it is a Humane Society issue but he just wanted the Board aware of the facts.
Attorney Rankin said if they need to have the fence higher they would do that. Randy stated if they would have to apply for the fence permit. If it would be over 6 foot high it would require a variance. Dawn stated they wanted a 6-foot fence so they would be within the code and they have looked at green roofing so it would look like grass.
Katherine Barone, 3386 Levant Gerry Rd., Falconer, NY, stated she has lived in Ross Mills for 40 years. She had a concern as to why the neighbors were complaining now and have not complained for 15 years.
Mr. Hoglin said that the Board could only address what was before them now.
Melody Beckerink, 3918 Gerry Levant Rd., Falconer, NY, said she sees both sides but thought in fairness to the parties involved, it should be worked out between the Thompsons, the Whites and Mrs. Young. They are the ones directly affected.
Mr. Hoglin stated that
public comment was finished.
Motion made by Pat Martonis,
seconded by Kathy Hedstrand in accordance with the applicant’s request that the
special use permit application for Dawn Thompson, 3710 Ross Mills Rd.,
Falconer, NY to operate a kennel for dog care be tabled until the October 30,
2006 meeting.
Kathy Hedstrand asked Mrs. White, since Attorney Goodell did not receive a copy of her letter, if Dawn Thompson could get a copy of the letter. A copy of the proposed agreement was given to Mrs. Thompson.
Carried. Ayes - 5 Noes – 0 Absent – 2
Chairman Hoglin reopened the
public hearing for Dan Evans, for a setback variance for an addition at 986
Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY.
Attorney Wright said the Board had went through the plans at the last meeting but needed to get the County approval. The Board members did get a copy of the County letter in their packet. County Planning indicated they did not see any inter municipal issues.
Dan Evans said that the plans had not changed since the last meeting and provided the site plans approved by the Planning Board.
Attorney Wright stated that this is exempt from SEQR as lot line setbacks variances.
Mr. Wright said the area variances required are:
1) a sideline setback variances from 20 feet to 10 feet 4inches
2) a front line variance from the required 50 feet to 38 feet 6 inches
This will allow Mr. Evans to remove the current temporary structure and add a dry storage building and give him a 4-foot staircase.
The Board reviewed the plans with Mr. Evans. Attorney Wright told the Board that at the Planning Board meeting Mr. Evans agreed to take the porch that was shown to a lesser width. Randy said at that width he would classify it as a sidewalk and therefore it did not need approval.
Mr. Wright reviewed section 146-36 of the Town code and section 267 B of the Town Law.
Gary Marowski, 30 Wicks Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY, asked if the property could be identified. Mr. Evans told him it was Alfie’s Restaurant.
There was no correspondence to the Town concerning this application.
Kathy Hedstrand asked if there was an outside entrance associated with this addition. Mr. Evans said there is a fire exit on the side coming out where the staircase is. There is also an existing exit from the bar. There will be two exists to the concrete sidewalk out to the main sidewalk.
Motion made by John
Merchant, seconded by Pat Martonis to approve the setback variances for Daniel
A. Evans, 986 Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY. The front setback is for a variance of 11’ 8” to the front and
the variance for the sideline setback would be 9’ 6”.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent – 2
Chairman Hoglin opened the
public hearing for Greater Buffalo Savings Bank, 870 Fairmount Ave., W.E.,
Jamestown, NY for one additional wall sign on the west elevation.
Mr. Chris McCaffrey, Ulrich Sign Co., presented the application on behalf of the Greater Buffalo Savings Bank. He told the Board members the Bank is requesting an additional set of non-illuminated letters on the side street elevation that will be the same size as the existing sets. He provided pictures for the Board. He said one of the issues is that the Bank is having is that as you travel west on Fairmount Ave. you cannot see the pole sign because the American Legion is blocking it. The Bank wants to increase visibility. The wall is 34 feet long and the total length of the letters is 13’ 6” so they do not feel it is a significant because according to the code they are allowed 100 SF and if this is granted the total of all their signs is 140 SF. The Bank wants to have exposure as you are traveling west so you can see the Bank clearly and turn unto Jackson Avenue. The sign is not invisible for the entire time but the closer you get the more it is blocked. Mr. McCaffrey said the pictures were taken from Jackson Avenue. He stated a sign was never proposed for that elevation. They did eliminate some signs in the back. The application requested a sign on the west elevation and should have requested one on the east side.
Ang Cimo asked why they are requesting more signage. Mr. McCaffrey said the Bank in trying to increase their business, they will be closing the downtown Jamestown branch this November and hope the people will utilize this branch. They are also opening a branch in Dunkirk.
Pat Martonis asked why there was no one from the Bank at the meeting. Mr. McCaffrey said the sign companies have represented the Bank at meetings in several municipalities.
Mr. McCaffrey asked if the Town has had any complaints from neighbors that this branch is offensive in any way. He does not think an additional non-illuminated sign would detract from the neighborhood.
Pat Martonis commented that her concern was applicants do not ask for the full package when they apply and come in again for more signs. When the Board makes their decision they consider the full package. Mr. McCaffrey said they do not ask for any more variances than they think are necessary but once it is open if they receive comments and see they need more signage they ask for the additional variance. He stated signage is a less costly form of advertising.
Steve asked if they would be willing to remove the signage on the west side of the building. Mr. McCaffrey said he did not think the Bank would be willing to do that because it is clearly visible from a distance and they have already put the holes in the building for those letters. Steve asked if they have any smaller signs. Mr. McCaffrey said the “savings bank” letters are only 4” to 6 ½” tall. If the sign were too small it would not have the visibility.
There were no neighbors present and the Town had not received any correspondence.
Attorney Wright reviewed section 146-67 4(E) of the code. He explained this applicant already has an area variance for a ground sign and two wall signs. He said what this Board has done, when considering area variances for additional signs, is look to the total sign square footage. The variance is under 267 B of the Town Law, which is the balancing test where the Board looks at the benefit to the applicant as weighted against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. He said he would consider this almost like the Monroe Muffler situation and said they had a particular problem with approaching their building from a direction and they gave this Board an entire sequence of pictures taken from both lanes of traffic as it approached. He suggested the applicant show the particular problem before the Board considers the additional sign. Mr. McCaffrey did not have any other documentation from the Board of Directors at the Bank. Attorney Wright said maybe there would be someone at the Bank that could take the additional pictures and provide them to the Board.
Gary Matowski, 30 Wicks Avenue, W.E., Jamestown, NY stated the building is not at grade level and if the Legion sign covers the front sign it will cover the back as well.
Kathy Hedstrand said that she did know if the sign would be much of a benefit as you are driving down Fairmount Avenue. Ang Cimo said that advertising would bring more customers. Mr. McCaffrey said signs are the least expensive form of advertising. He said if the sign were offensive to the neighbors they would be here.
Randy went to look if he had any photos of the sign and if he if did not have them he would be willing to take photos as you approach the Bank.
Mr. McCaffrey said he would wait until Randy checked to see if he could find the photos. The Board continued with the next application.
Chairman Hoglin opened the
public hearing for Starbucks, 944-956 Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY for
sign and setback variances for a coffee house.
Attorney Wright swore in the applicant and his engineer since they were not sworn in at the beginning of the meeting.
Chairman Hoglin said that when Randy returned the Board would like to complete the application for Greater Buffalo Savings Bank. Mr. Petru said that would be fine.
Mr. Kevin Petru, Development Manager for Starbucks Coffee Company, said they are proposing to develop a Starbucks retail store on Fairmount Avenue. The site is approximately 30 acres. They will construct an approximately 1800 SF building with 28 seats on the inside and parking for 22 cars. The property that is undeveloped has had several proposals over the last several years. Some of those were “pushing the envelope” in terms of developing because there are some topographical attributes that put constraints on how the property can be developed.
Paul Potter, P.E., RJR Engineering, has developed the site plans for Starbucks.
Mr. Petru said they are requesting several variances and there have been changes to the plan that was presented at the last meeting. They have pushed the building back and realigned the parking spaces to make it a less impact. They also moved the pole sign back from the road to conform to the setback. Mr. Petru said Starbucks is asking for:
1) setback variances for the front building setback from 50 feet to 31’ from the property line
2) variances for signs on three elevations of the building – the signage they are requesting is in line and compatible with what they are building around the country – the size of the letters are not significant – on the east elevation they are proposing 16” letters – on the south elevation they are proposing 24” letters – and there are two logo disks that are being proposed – one on the west elevation and one on the south elevation
3) parking lot setbacks variances - he asked Mr. Potter to explain the parking setback because of the way the site is laid out and why they are requesting those variances
Mr. Potter explained the topography of the lot. It drops off severely on the backside of the lot. In order to keep the building set back and get plantings along the front and to prevent the headlights from blinding the other people they have slanted the parking to get as much setback as they could. There will be a retaining wall on three sides. It is a decorative wall and will be done in tiers. The retaining walls will be up to 10 feet in the back. They plan to preserve as much green space as they can. All entrance and exit will be unto Green Street. There are two driveway openings on Fairmount but those will be closed off. The snow would have to be removed if it gets to be too much because of the space they have it store it.
Attorney Wright stated they would need a variance for the wall because it will be over 6 feet.
Gary Matowski, 30 Wicks Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY, had concerns about:
1) who would maintain between the wall and the street - he said no one maintains it now
and he has been cleaning it just to get onto the street - the reason for the plantings on the
retaining wall is to make it more attractive
2) if there was enough room for the fire equipment – Mr. Potter said it was designed with that in mind.
3) about the dumpsters - the dumpster will be fully enclosed and will be built with materials that will match the building.
Mr. Petru said about 60 % of their business occurs between 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM.
Pat Martonis asked if the Planning Board had approved this. Attorney Wright said they had only been into the Planning Board for a sketch plan conference in order to get comments from them as to whether they saw any issues.
Kathy Hedstrand asked if there would be a stop sign at the exit from Aldi’s. Mr. Potter said that the street is two lanes wide on that side and is striped for left hand and right hand turning lanes.
There was discussion on the signage. Steve asked if these signs are corporate issue and if they have different sizes. Mr. Petru said there are different sizes – the more normal size signs are 24” and 36” There were architectural and aesthetic reasons for these signs. The signs inside of the building do not have to be considered.
The Board returned to the application for Greater Buffalo Savings Bank. Randy showed the board pictures of the Bank he had taken.
Mr. McCaffrey said they could offer a compromise. He said they could move the letters toward the front corner and decrease the size by 20% so the overall size would be 2’ 11’ instead of 30”. He thinks the Bank could live with that compromise because they would still have exposure on that elevation. The total square footage would be 123 SF. They could leave the tree where it is by moving the sign forward.
The Board members did not have any other questions and were comfortable with the pictures that Randy provided. Attorney Wright asked if the applicant wanted to request this be tabled. Mr. McCaffrey said that he hoped the compromise would help and did not want to table the request.
Motion made by Ang Cimo,
seconded by Pat Martonis to deny the 22 SF additional sign on the east
elevation sign for Greater Buffalo Savings Bank at 870 Fairmount Ave., W. E.,
Jamestown, NY because there is enough visibility with the ground sign and it is
excessive.
Carried. Ayes –5 Noes –0 Absent – 2
Mr. McCaffrey asked if he had any recourse to come back before the Board with an alternative if he researches cases where there is a lot more then 23 SF granted.
Attorney Wright said if Mr. McCaffrey believes the determination was made in error they could file an Article 78 preceding against the Board on the basis it has violated the law in some way or they can re-modify the plan and make a new application.
The Board continued with the
application for Starbucks.
Mr. Petru stated they are requesting these variances because the topography and property itself, in terms of the shape and size, impact their ability to conform within the zoning ordinances.
Discussion followed on the pre-menu board, clearance sign and a menu board on the Wicks Avenue side. Mr. Petru said the menu board identifies the products. The pre-menu board effectively gives the customers advanced notice of what is on the menu so they can be ready when they get to the ordering point. The clearance bar is to keep tall vehicles from driving around the drive-thru and crashing into the building. Randy said the clearance bar is a directional sign but is greater than the 4 SF.
Attorney Wright reviewed section 146-36, which is the bulk regulations for mercantile. The front line setback in a mercantile is 50’ and if the building is under 7500 SF, which this one is, the side and rear setback lines are 20’ to the building. There are also parking lots set backs, which are under section 146-36 D. Regardless of the size of the building the parking lots are required to be setback at least 30’ from the front line and 30’ from the side and property lines. The Board has typically considered that a driveway, where cars are not left, is not parking lot for the purpose of this code.
The applicant is requesting
a variance of 18’ 7” in the front and a variance 17’9” on the west side and 20’
2” on the north side.
There was discussion on the parking. There will be 22 spaces. They will have 4 to 6 employees during any one time.
Attorney Wright stated that each of the area variances are considered under 267 B of the Town Law, which is the balancing test looking at the benefit to applicant weighted against the detriment to the neighborhood. For each of the variances the applicant needs to establish their benefit and the Board needs to consider the five criteria as weighted against that benefit.
Kathy Hedstrand asked if there was minimum number of parking spaces for the size of the building. Mr. Potter said it goes by the square footage and number of seats in the building. Attorney Wright stated the Town does not have any criteria for the number of parking spaces. Mr. Potter uses the criteria from the City of Jamestown.
Randy stated the Planning Board would handle some of the issues that Mr. Matowski had.
Motion made by John
Merchant, seconded by Kathy Hedstrand to approve a variance of 18’ 9” front
line setback on the south elevation of the building for Starbucks at 944-956
Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY.
Attorney Wright stated this
variance is exempt from SEQR as an area variance.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent – 2
Motion made by John
Merchant, seconded by Ang Cimo to approve the parking lot setback variances on
the west side of 17’ 9” and a variance on the north side of 20’ 2” due to the
uniqueness of the property layout.
Carried. Ayes –5 Noes – 0 Absent – 2
Attorney Wright reviewed section 146-70 B, which are the regulations of fences and walls. Its states under B-1, a fence or wall shall have a maximum height of not more than 6 feet. Randy determined the retaining wall even though it is in two five-foot sections it the overall height is in excess of 6 feet and they need a variance of 4 feet.
Motion made by John Merchant, seconded by Ang Cimo to approve the retaining wall variance for Starbucks to exceed