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 MAY 9,
2007 AT 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Evans, Gary
Swanson, Ron Calanni, Dave Carlberg, Paul Shanahan, Attorney William Wright,
Code Enforcement Office Randy Woodbury and Secretary Valerie Pierce
ABSENT: Phyllis Belin and Bob Thomas
Chairman Evans opened the meeting at 7:00 PM.
Motion made by Gary Swanson, seconded by Paul
Shanahan to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2007 meeting.
Chairman Evans reopened the discussion on the
request from the Town Board for a recommendation on the rezoning on North Main
Street Extension for Mr. and Mrs. Jim Carlson.
He asked if anyone had any questions for the Board.
Christine Hiller, resident of North Main St., Ext.,
Jamestown, NY, said she came tonight to get some questions answered. She thought the rezoning would involve her
property but she had not seen any drawings of the possible rezoning.
Randy Woodbury showed a detailed map of the
area.
Chairman Evans said the only proposal in front of
the Planning Board this evening was the recommendation to rezone the Carlson
property. Randy Woodbury asked if there was anything from the Town Board
meeting held on Monday that changed the request. Gary Swanson said he
understood the Carlsons wanted to rezone more then their property. Dan said the
Carlsons couldn’t request any zoning changes for other residents.
Mrs. Hiller said that is one of the reasons they are
confused. They had received letters from Mr. Carlson that this would involve
all of the neighbors’ property, which is why they are at this meeting.
Attorney Wright said the Town Board did receive some
of those replies at the meeting on Monday night. The Town Board did review them and said they were going to send
them to the Planning Board but the Planning Board did not receive a new
application
Mr. and Mrs. Carlson entered the meeting and
Chairman Evans asked if they had anything new to add to the information. Mr. Carlson said they were also requesting
rezoning for the other neighbors whose property has been divided. Dan explained they could not ask for
rezoning for other neighbors. Mrs.
Carlson told the Board they are asking for this rezoning to rectify what was
done incorrectly in the beginning when they rezoned the area. The west side was
rezoned 3500 feet back and the east side was only rezoned 750 feet, which has
divided the properties. She stated it would be nice to give everyone the same
benefit.
Mr. Carlson had provided for the Town Board on
Monday a copy of the letter he sent to all the residents that could be involved
in the rezoning. He mailed letters to the residents on April 20, 2007 and
provided the replies he had received from some of property owners. Dan reviewed
the letters and passed them to the other Board members to review. Mr. Carlson said he was asking that they be
given some equality since the properties on the west side were rezoned and the
ones on the east side were split during the rezoning. Dan explained that there was a long process done in 2001 for the
rezoning and the reason the properties were split was because there were a lot
of residences going up the hill with a lot of neighborhood character but on the
other side there is a lot of farm properties owned by single individuals that
go acres back.
Christine Leitch asked how deep Mr. Carlson wants
the mercantile district to go. Mr. Carlson said the depth of his property,
which currently is 1050 feet deep.
Attorney Wright stated that at the Town Board
meeting a resolution was made to rezone all of tax map number 53 consisting of
33.8 acres located at 2996 North Main Street Extension in the Town of Ellicott,
New York to mercantile zoning.
Presently approximately 20 acres are currently zoned mercantile and the balance
agricultural. The application is site
specific. Mr. Carlson said there is a
second letter that amends that request.
It was faxed to the Town of Monday (May 7th). Attorney Wright explained that the Planning
Board reports to the Town Board and the Town Board has not asked them to
consider an amendment. Attorney Wright suggested the Board go into executive
session to take advice from Counsel.
Chairman Evans said that the formal letter the
Planning Board received from the Town Board is for only the Carlson’s property.
Attorney Wright said the motion was to send the letters from Mr. Carlson to the
Planning Board. Mr. Carlson said he was
told he did not have to attend the Town Board meeting because it would not be
discussed. Dan explained they have to
have a request for the other properties.
Paul Shanahan said the Planning Board did not suggest what the Carlsons
do but asked what they were presenting. The Carlsons said that the additional
properties were discussed at the last meeting. It was presented both ways. The
Carlsons said they would keep the original application on the table if they
could not amendment the application because it is imperative to get approval.
Mrs. Hiller stated that her property is already
included in the property that has been rezoned. They have 1.2 acres. She said
if the rezoning goes back 1050 feet they will include some residents from Palm
Road. Mr. Carlson said they are only
asking for any properties that are split by the previous rezoning. Chairman
Evans invited the neighbors to come up and look at the map Randy had provided.
The notices that were sent were to the owners 500
feet from the whole boundary - not just the Carlsons property. Mr. Carlson did
notify the neighbors and told them he thought they should be included in this
rezoning request and if they had any questions to come to the meeting. He asked
them to sign if they were in favor of the rezoning. Those letters were presented to the Board. Discussion followed. The Board could not discuss the other properties. The Board agreed considering only the
Carlson’s property would be considered spot zoning. The Board does not have any
project in front of them. The Board
needs to make a recommendation at this meeting because their 60 days will be
over before the next meeting.
Mr. Carlson asked why the letters that he received
from the neighbors could not be considered.
Mr. Evans explained that the Planning Board could consider only what the
Town Board sends to them and the Town
Board has not requested any recommendation since the original request that was
only for the Carlsons property. Mr. Carlson said that Randy did a new map
showing the additional property. He
asked how much more specific the request from the other residents needs to be
than the forms he provided. Chairman Evans said it is not the neighbors but the
Town Board they need the request from and since the Town Board meeting was only
Monday he did not think they could get the request to the Planning Board in two
days.
Randy told the Board that the map he provided is the
original map and he has not been asked to make another map. The map he made was made in general to
describe what is now on North Main Street Ext. It was not made for this
application and does not denote Mr. Carlson’s property.
Paul Shanahan said the Board appreciated the effort
on Mr. Carlson’s part but these letters are pursuant to his original request
and they cannot consider the letters at this meeting. There should be a request with the letters. The Board can consider the request they have
from the Carlsons. Mr. Carlson said that would be important because time is of
the essence.
Chairman Evans stated that it has been the standing
of the Planning Board in the past that rezoning property on an
applicant-by-applicant basis is considered “spot zoning”. It is something they
cannot do because it only benefits a single applicant to the expense of owners
of other properties and the rest of the Town.
Mr. Carlson has advised the Board that he does have a particular project
but the Board has not seen any plans for the project. Attorney Wright stated that “spot zoning” is defined typically as
the zoning of a piece of property to the benefit of a particular applicant when
that rezoning is not done in compliance with a comprehensive master plan.
Chairman Evans asked Mr. Carlson if he had any more
comments. Mr. Carlson said they were
just asking the Board to amend what they did in 2000 to make it fair. He stated that he was the owner of the
property in 2000 but did not receive any notification when the other rezoning
was done. He would have certainly asked
for his entire property to be rezoned.
Mr. Shanahan asked Attorney Wright to explain the
proper procedure for the additional rezoning. Discussion followed. Dave Leitch asked if Mr. Carlson came to the
Town Board with a specific project the zoning could be enlarged to accommodate
that project. Mr. Wright stated that he
did not say that and explained that spot zoning is the rezoning of property
that makes it of a different character than the property surrounding it.
The Board continued the discussion on the rezoning of the Carlson’s property on Route 60. Chairman Evans asked for any final comments. The Board will have to draft a letter to the Town Board regarding their decision.
Mr. Carlson asked for a clarification of the Board’s
consideration. Would it be on his property alone or also include the two other
families involved. Attorney Wright
stated the consideration is on the original application, which was for the
Carlsons alone.
Chairman Evans summarized:
1)
there
is 430 acres in the mercantile zone that does not to be rezoned
2)
in
the past the Planning Board has not recommended to rezone property on an
applicant by applicant basis
3)
the
Town is in the process of doing a comprehensive master plan in which this would
all be incorporated
4)
this
property has been mercantile for 7 years and this is the first time anyone has
come forward for a zoning change – Randy stated in his tenure it is the first
time anyone has requested any additional rezoning
Mr. Carlson asked to address the Board and Chairman
Evans stated that final comments were over.
Mr. Carlson said he wanted to address the comments the Chairman
made. Mr. Carlson said he had been in
previously and was promised even before 2000 “that if he came forth we will
give it to you”.
Chairman Evans continued with the Board’s
considerations:
5)
the
applicant had advised the Board he had a particular project but the Planning
Board has not seen that – they have nothing stating they need more acreage
Mr. Carlson said that the developer needed all the
acreage and his letter addressed that. He wanted Mr. Evans to state the facts
correctly.
Chairman Evans said if there were any more outbursts
the Board would table this application until the end of the meeting because the
Board has a long agenda. If Mr. Carlson kept it up he would have him removed from the meeting.
Paul Shanahan said the Board had made the
recommendation in the past if there was to be rezoning they would require the
minimum possible rezoning request based on the need of a specific project. Even
though the applicant has stated he has a potential developer that potentially
wants all the acreage they do not have a specific site plan in front of them
that would indicate the acreage they are looking for. He thinks they must be consistent with their previous rulings.
Chairman Evans said they must also consider:
6)
this
project would be a type I action – there are serious flood plains on the
property -
Attorney Wright said any physical alteration over 10 acres constitutes a
type I action –
that is just a reminder for the Board that this would be a type I action
but does not be taken
into account in making their recommendation
7)
Paul
said although this request is for a specific property, if the neighbors were to
bring a
collective effort the
Planning Board would be willing to look at that and consider that in a
different light than a specific parcel – he would like to include that in the
recommendation to the Town Board
Motion made by Dave Carlberg, seconded by Ron Calanni
to table.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent – 2
The Board continued with the sketch plan conference
for Tony Payne. Mr. Payne has requested to remove the
existing fellowship hall/meeting room building and to construct a 40’ by 80’+
pole building to store 3 tractor trailers on property owned by the Am Vets at 3328 Fluvanna Jamestown, NY.
Jerry
Erickson, P.E., provided a sketch plan for Mr. Payne. He
told the Board it was a site plan. The property is in a shopping center
district. Attorney Wright stated that it is the Code Enforcement Officer’s
responsibility to determine if this project would need a variance.
Based on his discussions
with Mr. Payne, Mr. Woodbury stated that Mr. Payne’s project falls within the
shopping center district requirements because:
1) in
the shopping center district all uses allowed in mercantile zones are
allowed
this would be an area where Mr. Payne
could store trucks inside a building and there would
be minor cleaning of the trucks – Randy
told Mr. Payne he could not have any trucks stored
outside because in a shopping center
zone there can not be any no storage of vehicles,
equipment, etc. except within the premises
constructed except for agricultural products.
2) the
mercantile zone allows uses that include motor vehicle repair and maintenance
facilities, which is what Randy determined this to be
3) the
storing of vehicles inside helps to protect the shopping center district
4) Mr.
Payne told Randy that there would be no warehousing
Attorney Wright asked if they would be requesting waivers from the site plan checklist. Mr. Erickson said they are not looking for waivers and came in for a sketch plan conference to see if there was any reason they should have a problem with the site plan.
Mr. Erickson said that Mr. Payne does want to:
1)
remove
the Am Vets building
2)
construct
a pole building that will be 80’ by 40’ and have 12’ by 14’ doors the ends so
they can drive in and out. There will
be three 12’ wide by 14’ high doors in the building
3)
Mr. Payne has tanker trucks and he hauls the
additives that go into gasoline and diesel fuels
4)
there
are four or five employees
5)
there
is no sewer - Mr. Erickson said that they know they have to probably have an
oil separator and will have to take care of the storm water run-off
6)
they
are not sure how much of the existing parking lot will remain
7)
Mr.
Payne would like to purchase a little more land in the back for more buffer
Randy suggested that they:
1)
they
should try to make everything fit within the setback requirements and try to do
the project without requesting ant variances
2)
they
need to look at the amount of green space and the landscaping
3)
get
a letter from the Fluvanna Fire Department stating they can provide fire
protection for this proposed project
Thomas Woodruff requested a sketch plan conference for a lot
on the corner of Howard Ave. and Royal Oaks.
Mr. Woodruff lives in Lakewood and wants to stack firewood on the
property. He would clean up the
property. He showed the Board members a sketch of how he would buffer the
wood.
Randy Woodbury asked Mr. Woodruff to appear before
the Zoning Board of Appeals but Mr. Woodruff felt he wanted to appear before
the Planning Board and thought Randy had made some promises. Randy did not
recall making any promises.
Mr. Woodruff said when he spoke to Mr. Woodbury back
in February he just wanted to know what he would have to do. He stated:
1)
he
did not think the lot was big enough to build on - the 75’ by 200’ lot is on
the corner of Howard and Royal Oaks.
2)
this
is for Mr. Woodruff’s personal use because he can’t stack wood behind his
residence
3)
Mr.
Woodbury told him to get signatures of everyone that lives in the area and see
how they felt about his application – he provided a copy of the signatures to
the Town and has since got three additional signatures - the petition stated
that the residents have no problem with Mr. Woodruff stacking firewood and
cleaning up the property on the corner of Royal Oaks Blvd. and Howard Avenue T
4)
the
property right now is overgrown brush and Mr. Woodruff wanted to clean it up
5)
he
would put a dirt gravel driveway to back in on and then stack firewood along
the row of pine trees that are on the lot
6)
he
would plant pine trees around the stacked wood to cover it so people driving by
would not be looking at the wood
7)
he
does not plan to build anything on the property - he would not tarp it or put
any type of pole shed over the wood
8)
he
would not be cutting wood on the property - there are some dead trees there
that he would be cutting up to keep
9)
the
property is under contract.
There was discussion on whether the lot was big
enough to build on. Mr. Woodruff said the current owner, Jack Scalise, told him
it was not big enough to build. Randy stated that when there is no water and
sewer on site you need ½ acre to build. If there is water and sewer you can
build on a lot less than an acre.
Randy said that his opinion is that this would be an
accessory use to a residential use somewhere else. Attorney Wright reviewed the permitted uses under Section 146-7
and the definition of an accessory use, which is a use or building located on
the same premises and customarily utilized for a use incidental to the
principal use of the premises. If Mr. Woodruff lived there he could certainly
do it if his house were there. It would be a customary accessory use but it
can’t be a customary accessory use because it is not accessory to anything. Mr.
Wright asked Mr. Woodruff and Randy if it were possible that Mr. Woodbury had suggested
a use variance because input from the neighbors would be one of the criteria
for a use variance. Randy said that was possible but does not believe he made
any promises and would have to put future conversations in writing.
Attorney Wright remembers this came in February and
thought it had been denied. Randy asked if the Shauls had signed the petition
because they had told him under no circumstances did they want something like
that. Mr. Woodruff said Mary Shaul had
signed. The Shauls as well as the
DeMarcos were under the impression that it was going to be a sawmill and he
explained to he would not be doing that and he did not want to alter the
property.
Ron Calanni said this application was similar to the
Paterniti application that wanted to use property for an accessory use that did
not have a principal use.
Randy said that this might need a use variance. His
mind has not changed that if there is no main use so you can’t have an
accessory use. Attorney Wright asked if
he had previously rendered that decision to the applicant. Randy had not. Mr.
Wright said that if there is ambiguity of what is and is not allowed that is
really under the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals. If the Code Enforcement Officer issues a
determination that it is not an allowable permitted use in a residential area
Mr. Woodruff can file an appeal to the ZBA and the Board will make their
determination. This application should
go to the ZBA before it comes to this Board. That is the course that Attorney
Wright would recommend to Mr. Woodruff.
Randy said that if Mr. Woodruff felt he misled him
in any way he would personally help pay for his cost to appear before the
Zoning Board of Appeals. He wants him
to have a fair hearing. Mr. Woodruff said if Mr. Woodbury did not remember it
was OK. Randy said he should have
written a letter after the conversations they had. He will help Mr. Woodruff make the application because both he
and the Planning Board feel it is time to go to the Zoning Board. Randy recommended that Mr. Woodruff have an
attorney represent him because it is strictly a legal issue.
Mr. Woodruff said that it was just not worth it to
him to pay thousands of dollars to be able to stack the firewood. He felt it would help the area to get the
property cleaned up.
The Board continued with a sketch plan conference
for Ronald Frederes. Mr.
Frederes explained that his son has decided that he wanted to go out on his own
and do car repair. The name of the
business is FMS Sales and Service. He
suggested to his son, Kelly, he get help with all the applications so he has
gone through the whole procedure. They
came into Randy and requested a form that needed to be filled out, that the
property at 3240 Young Street is in a mercantile zone and that they would be
servicing cars in the garage. He made
applications to the State Department of Motor Vehicles and Randy had approved
the garage.
Kelly Frederes has heard that he may need separate
office space. He considered getting a 16’ by 10’ shed. He is looking to sell as well as service
cars at this location and in order to get a dealers license in the State of NY
he has to have a place to do business.
There is no additional building on the sketch and they do not plan on
doing anything with an additional building at this point. He understood from a conversation with Randy
about having the office in the current building they would need to have water
and sewer. They researched that and the
location is outside of City water. At
this point starting a business on his own he would struggle coming up with
$10,000 to get water and sewer to this location. Ron Frederes stated that the
bulk of Kelly’s sales would be Internet sales.
He said that in this location no one would be coming to look at
cars. It is a remote location. Kelly
asked if a portable toilet would be acceptable for the time being. Randy said that he would have to discuss
that with the Chautauqua County Health Department.
Ron Frederes stated that he has owned the property
for eight to nine years and used it to store his Corvette. Kelly said he did
not want to have a large inventory. He
plans on about a six-car inventory. It
will be a continuous flow in and out because he will service them right away
and put them on the Internet.
Attorney Wright told the applicant that the code
requires that the parking area needs to be bituminous surfaced. Kelly asked if
gravel is sufficient. Mr. Wright said
he could ask the Board for additional time to finish the paving.
The applicant will have to contact the Health
Department and then an engineer and apply for site plan. The Board will expect
the applicant to follow the code. They do have the authority under the code,
with good cause shown, to waive or modify provisions of the code.
Kelly asked if the Victory Car Care went through
this Board. They made thousands of
dollars in upgrades and they are out of business. He is worried that he could do the driveway and the septic and
then people do not want to buy cars on the Internet. Then he has a nice garage and driveway.
The applicant had no other questions for the Board.
They were told their application must be in ten days prior to the meeting.
The Board continued with the sketch plan conference
for Boyle’s Motor Sales, Inc., 2955 Struck Road, Jamestown, NY 14701 for Bio
Diesel Production.
Randy explained the process to the Board. Boyle’s wants to dispense bio-diesel fuel.
He said the big question for the Board is if this is considered a filling
station or a production facility. If it
is production it needs to be in an industrial zone but if this is filling
station it could be done at this location with a site plan.
John Fanara, Boyle’s Motor Sales, told the Board they have
approximately 12 acres and another 11 acres that are on Strunk Road, which are
all mercantile. The nature of the business is sales and service of trucks. With the new trend they are trying to break
into the potential for bio-diesel fuel. They would like to be a dispenser of
the fuel. Mr. Fanara apologized for not
having any sketch except for a picture of where they are. Mr. Fanara explained they take biodegradable
products (such as wood, chicken fat and soy beans) and convert that for
dispensing.
Vince Fanara, Boyle’s Motor Sales, told the Board there is a
machine that does the conversion so it is not like refining fuel. At the end of the conversion you have a
usable fuel and glycerin, which is a product that can be used in soaps and
salon products. Everything that is
produced can be dumped right into the ground without any violation from DEC.
They are looking to have another smaller building and some kind of station
behind their existing building where they can convert the products into
bio-fuel.
Mr. Fanara showed the Board a picture of a similar
machine. It will fit easily into a 50’ by 20’ truck bay. He said they would want to erect some sort
of structure that would house the machine. There are mixture procedures that
take place and there is ethanol involved but that is also a biodegradable
product.
There would be a lot of benefits for the Town such
as:
1)
employment
of more people
2)
more
revenue for the Town in taxes
3)
help
for local farmer
Mr. Fanara said they have a large clientele of truck
firms and could it would be a great benefit to them to be able to buy the
bio-diesel fuel.
Randy asked if they do the conversions of the diesel
engines in their facility. Mr. Fanara
said they have not yet but in the initial stages of all of this. Part of their plan would actually be able to
do that. They would be able to work
with Cummins engineers for that sort of thing. Cummins now certifies certain
engines for different grades of bio-diesel. Since 2002 they have been
compliant. Bio-diesel fuel is more lubricating to the engines so it helps with
wear on the parts. Right now they have
ultra low sulfa fuel because they are trying to take the emissions down but are
finding trouble because the fuels are not lubricating.
One of the machines can do all of the different
biodegradable products so it would be able to do it on an opportunity basis. Attorney Wright asked where they would store
the raw products. They could be stored
in the tankers.
Paul Shanahan asked if there would be any
by-products. Mr. Fanara said the only by-product would be the glycerin. Dan Evans asked if there would be any
emissions from the machine. Mr. Fanara
said that as far as they know the machine is just suppose to generate some
heat. They will know more when they actually bring the machine in. There could
be some invasive materials that could feed it but the benefit would be to go to
the farmers in the area that are struggling and make contracts with them so
they might be able to use land that is not as productive.
Attorney Wright told Mr. Woodbury that he would need
to make a preliminary decision as to whether or not this will fit into a
mercantile zone. He said he would have
a problem with it being in a mercantile zone because they are bringing in raw
products, storing raw products, converting them and then trucking them back
out. He suggested that another area
might be better, such as at the Industrial Park at the airport. Randy said he would have to have some time
to make his determination.
Mr. Fanara said as far as going out and purchasing
more land their investors will not wait too long and they want their facility
because of their ability to repair the trucks.
Because they have the trucking facility, the network of customers and
the access off of I-86 is what the investors are looking at. Randy suggested a pilot project. He said
when they talk about growing into something factory size they would not be able
to do it at this location.
Gary asked if there would be any odors. Mr. Fanara said it would smell like a
restaurant. Gary said that is what it smells like when it burns in a truck.
Ron asked how many gallons could be converted in an
eight-hour day. Mr. Fanara said it
would depend on the size of the machine and how much product they would have to
store.
Mr. Fanara said they would work with Randy on the
process when they get his decision.
The next sketch plan conference was for La’Scala
Restaurant. Michael Seagren, owner of
La’Scala presented a plan for proposed outside dining and a proposed fence.
Discussion followed on:
1)
where
the outside dining is proposed there is currently parking
2)
Randy’s
determination was that this needed full site plan review
3)
they
will not be removing any pavement when they put in the proposed fence
4)
they
will put some tables outside so people can sit there to eat and smoke
5)
this
will be for the patrons
6)
they
will need approval from the liquor authority and from the Health department
7)
they
will not have any canopy because of the smoking
8)
the
Town will need a survey to make sure the fence is within the boundaries and the
set backs are OK
9)
they
will use whatever fence the code requires
10)
there
will still be plenty of parking – the employees currently park there
Randy asked the Board to review section 121-5 of the
code. Attorney Wright stated that part
of the issue is a modification to a business use that has never been in for
site plan review. Mr. Seagren said this
would be a temporary fence that would be taken out in the fall.
Attorney Wright reviewed section 121-5 of the code
with the Board noting that one of the exceptions to the land use activity
needing site plan review is if an exterior alteration or addition to an
existing structure would not increase the square footage by more than 25% or
have a cost value of less than $15,000.
Mr. Seagren told the Board they will not redo the
surface, will use an existing door and will not change the building at
all. It will be a temporary thing for
summers. They will put up a fence that
will sit on the ground surface with some type of feet and would not be anchored
into the pavement. If they need anchors
they will put in something that you could poke in and take the bullets out so
it would be level in the winter for plowing.
Mr. Seagren said the proposed outside dining area would be 48’ by
approximately 28’. He said they could
make it smaller. Attorney Wright said they are not increasing the square
footage of a structure by putting a fence up.
He told Mr. Seagren that as long as the fence is compliant with the code
including the setbacks it would be exempt.
Randy said he would work with Mr. Seagren.
Motion made by Paul Shanahan, seconded by Dave
Carlberg to take the Carlson’s application from the table.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent – 2
Attorney Wright reviewed his notes for the Board.
They had determined that only application that is on front of them is the
request for the Carlson property. They
noted:
1)
there
were already 430 acres zoned mercantile – adjacent and across the street
2)
consistent
with previous decisions – the Board objects to rezoning on an applicant by
applicant basis – it would benefit only one person – not all the people in the
area
3)
property
has been zoned mercantile for seven years and this is the first applicant to
request additional rezoning – there has been use of the mercantile zone - they
have had some special use permits granted in the area
4)
there
is no project at hand – or developer in front of the Planning Board
5)
Board
had previously decided that applicants are to present the minimum rezoning
request necessary for a specific project
- there have been no details provided for the Board to determine what
the minimum necessary is - Board would in light of the new information from the
neighbors consider expanding the zoning but that would have to be another
request.
6)
type
I action – SEQR required
7)
have
a specific action before the Board tonight – in light of neighbors showing up
the Board may be willing to consider rezoning of a larger area if they receive
the request in the proper form from the Town Board
8)
there
is a Comprehensive Plan pending – the work on the Comprehensive Plan is not
meant to stop any development – Attorney Wright read from Dan’s letter dated
12/19/06 that stated that “the Board did not recommend the Town Board rezone
any property within the Town pending the Comprehensive Plan”. Paul said that
letter did have two statements – one was that the Board does not recommend
rezoning while the Comprehensive Plan is pending but that any rezoning request
they do consider should be of the minimum rezoning necessary to accomplish a
project. The difference is that the
rezoning request that is before the Board this meeting does not have a project
attached to it. It would be different if the request had a project attached to
it – Paul said the statement is also consistent with the Fairmount Ave. issue
in that they weren’t requesting a minimum necessary rezoning. He does not think
the two statements are contradictory. Without a plan on the table the Board
does not know if the applicant is requesting the minimum necessary rezoning.
Gary Swanson stated that they should add that they
would consider the request if it included all the properties. Attorney Wright
said the Board should realize that is a contradictory statement to their prior
letters. It is painful to both Attorney
Wright and Dan Evans to hear that the previous rezoning was a mistake or was
unfair or that residents were not notified.
It was well thought out.
Attorney Wright said if the Board decides to look at
the rezoning of the whole area then it is a completely different animal. It is done on a public hearing at the
Planning Board and also at the Town Board and done on a completely different
type of environmental review. It is done on a generic environmental review that
looks at the potential impact for changing property that was zoned for a
specific use to a property that will be zoned for a different use. Without any applicant there it will not be
site specific environmental. For the
request tonight they would need a site-specific environmental that would be for
a proposed project that they do not have. The Town would have to do the
environmental if it is done for just rezoning but if it were for a proposed
project the developer would be responsible.
The Board members decided that they would only address
the current request from the Carlsons in the letter to the Town Board.
Motion made by Gary Swanson, seconded by Dave
Carlberg directing Chairman Evans to draft a letter, with Attorney Wright’s
assistance, to the Town Board denying the Carlson’s request for the extension
of their zoning based on the points discussed.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent – 2
Motion made by Dave Carlberg, seconded by Ron
Calanni to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 PM.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent – 2
________________________________
Valerie Pierce, Secretary