Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-05-25 ZBA Minutes E TOWN OF LANSING Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday , May 25 , 1993 ; 8 : 00 p . m . PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC PRESENT (' Denotes Members Present) David Dittman Robert Brown Roger Hagin , Chairperson Rick Cowles Wayne Lucas Sue Magnosi James Tucker Steve White George Totman , Code Enforcement Officer Chairperson Roger Hagin called the meeting to order at 8 :00 p. m . PUBLIC HEARING, Robert Brown , Auburn Road Tax Map #37.-1 =2=4 Roger Hagin -read : the public notice , opened the public hearing , and invited any questions from the public present. Dr. Robert Brown read through the sign ordinance and pointed out that he was unclear as to where " 10 feet from the road right of way line" would be located . He agreed that he was in error for not clarifying this information before placing his sign . Dr. Brown also commented that to place the sign 45 feet from the right of way would be to place the sign behind two apple trees , and he does not want to cut the trees down since they add to the character of the neighborhood . Dr. Brown indicated that according to the sign ordinance , due to the type of his business he is limited to a nine square foot sign . Sue Magnosi was concerned about the various sizes of signs for different categories . George Totman acknowledged her concern and informed her that he has brought this issue before the Town Board asking them to update the entire sign ordinance, which was originally written in the early 1970s . George Totman stated that a request from business people in the town presented to the Town Board to make a change may make it a more pressing issue before the board. Sue Magnosi , as a member of the Economic Development Committee of the Planning Board, will raise this concern to her committee to take action . Dr. Brown commented that there are many signs in the town that are closer than 45 feet from the center line. George Totman stated that he doesn 't look for violations , but if concerns are brought to his attention he does examine them . George stated that the reason this particular violation of the sign ordinance was brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals is because Dr. Brown applied for a sign permit and was given instructions for the size and placement of the sign , but didn 't follow the ordinance . George Totman commented that he has questioned the highway superintendent whether they would have a problem with signs placed beyond the ditch where they plow or clean the ditches. The response he received was that as long as they didn 't have to hit the signs or be responsible for them , they wouldn 't have a problem with it. Roger Hagin would like to take into consideration pre- existing conditions , such as the. widening of the road . Another comment made was that there are a lot of trees in the right of way. r Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 Tuesday, May 25, 1993 Dr. Brown pleaded hardship due to the fact that the sign is already placed in concrete and there are underground electrical lines used to light the sign . Steve White made a motion to close the public hearing ; David Dittman seconded . VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Discussion Roger Hagin felt this case would fall under unique circumstances . Steve White questioned Dr. Brown how far the sign is from the center line now ; Dr. Brown responded 35 feet. David Dittman questioned Dr. Brown if his business would be materially affected if it didn 't have a sign . Dr. Brown didn 't see how people would know where his business was located . David Dittman felt they would be able to look the address up in the phone book. Dr. Brown feels that a number of people come to his business because they see the sign . Steve White questioned George Totman as to the alternate route he discussed with Dr. Brown . George Totman indicated that he had informed Dr. Brown that there are a number of business people in the area with similar concerns , and they should get together and come to the Town Board and ask for a revision of the sign ordinance . George also added that the Town Board is agreeable to the task of revising the sign ordinance and have asked George to take a study of the revision and return to the Town Board with information . Steve White felt that if a use variance was allowed in this case, others will want the same privileges. He suggested issuing a temporary use variance with time limit, until the Town Board had completed the revisions of the sign ordinance. George Totman responded that each case is different from the other, and didn 't feel that if a use variance was issued for this sign that everyone else in the town would request the same variance . David Dittman felt that if the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a use variance, Dr. Brown would need to prove that the house couldn't be used for anything other than his chiropractic business . To apply under the use variance guidelines , Dr. Brown would need to prove that he would not be able to practice his profession without the sign . David Dittman felt that although Dr. Brown would be able to continue to practice without the sign , it may hurt his business . Steve White made a motion to table discussion until after the next public hearing on the agenda; David Dittman seconded . VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (8:30 p. m.) Return to Discussion at 9:05 p. m. David Dittman didn't feel that this issue falls under the use variance . Steve White again suggested issuing a use variance with a time limit to give the Town Board an opportunity to revise the sign ordinance . George Totman informed the board members that if they don 't make a decision , within 45 days the variance is automatically granted. If they make a decision conditional , then there is no time limit. Roger Hagin read through a list of the two types of relief that the Zoning Board of Appeals can provide : ( 1 ) the board may approve , modify, or reverse the decision of the enforcement r Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 Tuesday, May 25, 1993 officer based on the evidence and testimony placed before the board ; or (2 ) the board may grant or deny a variance based on a specific showing of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The board members agreed that this could fall under the category of practical difficulty since the sign wouldn 't be seen if it were placed 45 feet from the center line , nor can it be seen because of the size of the sign , as well as the fact that the road right-of-way has been changed over time . Steve White questioned what is the legal right-of-way of state highways . George Totman informed that board that state highways are 75 feet, county roads are 70 feet, and town roads are 60 feet. For example , the center line of a state highway would be at 37 .5 feet plus 10 feet for the right-of-way . Steve White 's point is that part of Dr. Brown 's sign is actually on the state right-of-way . Findings 1 . Reasonable Return _ , 2 . - - Unique Circumstances 3 , Essential Character of the Locality David Dittman made a motion to grant a variance based upon a practical difficulty involved in complying with the sign ordinance due to unique circumstances . The unique circumstances are the existence of two pre-existing trees which would block the sign if Dr. Brown were to comply with the ordinance . In the judgement of the Zoning Board of Appeals , the sign doesn 't alter the unique character of the neighborhood by permitting the sign to continue where it is currently placed . Steve White seconded . VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY PUBLIC HEARING, Layette Development Corporation , Autumn Ridge Circle, Tax Map #42-1 -22 Roger Hagin read the public notice , opened the public hearing at 8 :30 p. m . , and invited any questions from the public present. Rick Cowles , representing LaVette Development Corporation ( LDC) , appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals to provide information regarding this project. He stated that approximately four years ago , LDC had gotten approval from the Planning Board for 25 building lots on Autumn Ridge , Roger Hagin commented that LDC originally had applied for 49 lots , but reduced the total number to 25 based on discussions with the Town and Village. LDC proceeded with construction of the road, building it to sustain the 25 lots . At that point the Planning Board asked LDC to put a spur off of the side that would be either a future connection to the Butler farm , if that is developed , and also would serve as a turnaround point of this project. LDC then started the dedication process of the road , which took a long period of time particularly since the first 900 feet of the road is in the Village and the other in the Town . Throughout this lengthy period of time , LDC had entered into a number of contracts with people for lots . Consequently, several lots were finalized with contracts , then approximately ten months later the road was dedicated. The night of the dedication , the Town Board , on the advice of the town attorney and the town engineer, shortened the dedication portion back because they didn 't want the school bus or snow plow to have to back down to the spur that they had put in the circle . They thought it was too far. Because of the Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 Tuesday, May 25, 1993 shortening of the dedicated road , Lot #22 was past this new dedication point. At that point, LDC thought 280-A was the acceptable law to use to provide the Metzgars ( Lot #22) an easement on the remaining 60 feet that they were unable to dedicate until the date that Phase II of the project was completed and then the whole circle would be completed and would be a big loop. The Metzgars ( Lot #22 ) didn 't build on the lot for approximately one year, but applied for a building permit and received it. Mr. Cowles stated that George Totman had never been given the information that the Town Board had shortened the dedicated road ; he was working from the information from the Planning Board . The town attorney approached LDC concerned that there was a house on Lot #22 , and that the use of 280-A was insufficient. Roger Hagin felt that the request for a variance wasn 't necessary, and that an opinion from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be sufficient. He felt that what the Zoning Board of Appeals should be discussing is whether George Totman was correct in issuing the building permit. Mr. Cowles stated that the Metzgars purchased the lot in good faith and are currently building their home , and he doesn 't want them to be penalized for an oversight. Mr. Cowles indicated that he is providing a deeded easement to the Metzgars from the end of the dedicated road to their property. He stated that he has spoken with the highway superintendent indicating that they don 't have to work on the road past the dedication point and also requesting that the drivers of the snow plows don 't create a wall of snow blocking the MetzgarIs driveway. This was agreed upon , and wasn 't questioned until the blizzard in mid- March when the snowplow drivers were actually plowing up to the Metzgar's driveway. George Totman clarified that he was not aware of the cut back to the dedicated road , but that Mr. Cowles , Mr. Thaler, Mr. Larson , and the Town Board were all informed . He stated that if everyone was informed and the Metzgars had come to him for a building permit, he would have asked that they show him at least 15 feet of access to a public highway (State Law Section 280-A) . In their deeds , they have a 20 foot easement access to the public highway until such time that highway comes around the corner, then that deeded access goes back to the road . George Totman feels that he was legal in giving the permit. Mr. Cowles felt that it was the position of the town attorney and the town engineer that they didn 't want the snowplow to have to back all the way down to that turnaround . In hindsight, Mr. Cowles commented that they should have put the spur between Lots #21 and #22 instead of between #20 and #21 , then there wouldn ' t have been a problem . Mr. Cowles asked that the Zoning Board of Appeals concur that 280-A was acceptable until they build the remainder of the road . Steve White made a motion to close the public hearing ; David Dittman seconded . VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Steve White made a motion that George Totman acted correctly in issuing the building permit for Lot #22 and that no further action is needed regarding this LaVette Development Corporation project; David Dittman seconded . VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 Tuesday, May 25, 1993 FURTHER BUSINESS The board members were updated on issues surrounding the Hickory Hollow Driving Range and Pro Shop . Review of Minutes from Meeting Held March 2, 1993 Page Three, Last Paragraph, Last Sentence - Roger Hagin suggested striking the sentence which began " Mr. Hagin also requested information . . .water district. " . Steve White made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected ; David Dittman seconded. VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Review of Minutes from Meeting Held March 16, 1993 Steve White made a motion to approve the minutes as presented ; David Dittman seconded. VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY There being no further business , this meeting was adjourned at 9 :50 p. m . Submitted by Michelle Eastman