Minutes March 23, 2004 A meeting of the Village of Horseheads Planning Board was held on the above date at 6:00 p.m. Present were Chairman Bob Skebey, Board Members,,, and, Alternate Members Denis Kingsley and Mike Stenpeck, Village Manager Vincent Azzarelli, Village Attorney John Groff, Code Enforcement Officers Tom Skebey and Don Coates, Village Trustee Howard Miller, and Manager s Assistant Rachel Johnson. Also present were James Lynch, Van-Buskirk Lynch Funeral Home; Atty. Tom O Mara, representing Mr. Lynch; Michelle Locey, Locey Real Estate; John Emanuel, 147 Sunset Drive; Atty. Don Coyles, representing Mr. Emanuel; and Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Call, 103 Laurel Lane. noted that this Planning Board is only a recommending body for variances. The final decision is before the Zoning Board of Appeals Motion by, seconded by, that the minutes of the February 10, 2004 meeting be received and approved as submitted. Referral from Board of Trustees, Application of James Lynch, Zoning Amendment - Allow Funeral Homes as a Special Use in R-2 Residential Zones Mr. Lynch came forward. Wants to purchase the abandoned American Legion property at 318 W. Broad St. When that is purchased, we d remove the asbestos, demolish it completely and start over. It will be a one-story building, handicapped accessible. noted that the Village has to amend code to add funeral home as a special use to R-2 district before he can even begin. That is what is before us tonight. - I don t see any problem at all. I think it would be a definite asset to that neighborhood. - So this would mean a change for all the R-2 districts. - Yes. Motion by, seconded by, that this Board recommends to the Board of Trustees approval of the application by James Lynch for a Zoning Amendment to Allow Funeral Homes as a Special Use in R-2 Residential Zones.
March 23, 2004 Page 2 Referral from Zoning Board of Appeals, Application of John Emanuel, 147 Sunset Drive, for an Area Variance to Construct a Detached Garage (Carriage House) Mr. Coyles, representing John Emanuel came forward. He reviewed the survey plan, etc. This area is an R1A, probably the most unique area in the Village. Its residential but the lots are very large. Dr. Emanuel lot is 3.5 acres. Currently the house is situated almost 100 feet back from the road. His house is the only house built at an angle. Rest of the homes sit straight on the lots. There is no other place to put the carriage house. Other problem is that for many years, this lot has been professionally landscaped. Significant number of mature trees, etc. Engineer took time to set location of carriage house in such a way to minimize the impact of taking out as few of mature trees, etc. that are there. The location of the carriage house violates the 40 foot setback. Our proposal sets the carriage house 49 feet from the pavement. You should consider the rationale for the 40 foot setback. You want uniformity. As i said before, this is a unique neighborhood. Nearest house is 200 feet away. To the south it s the same. I ve driven out there to see what is between the properties. This is not self-created. The house has always been at this angle. He s really limited to where he can put the carriage house. The request we are asking we do not consider to be substantial. We will be 49' from the pavement. The house as well as the proposed carriage house would be above where the road is. We have heard nothing from neighbors objecting to the proposal. - What is the purpose of this carriage house. Atty. Coyles - to store vehicles as well as have an area to work on motorcycles, etc. His garage is already full. Right now he s parking cars in the driveway. This will get the cars off the driveway into an enclosed building. - how about going around to the south side. Atty. Coyles - the current location of the house and driveway wouldn t allow it. You d have to run the driveway across the entire front of the house. That would destroy a lot of mature landscaping. Mr. Emanuel - This carriage house is not to work on cars, its to store 3 vehicles. I ll never be working on cars in that carriage house, just to store them in there. Mike Stenpeck - referring to map, asked about moving landscaping. Mr. Emanuel, bottom line is we want the variance. Its actually the corner of the building that violates the setback. Discussion ensued. - I was up there today. Didn t see a lot of houses that set straight to the road.
March 23, 2004 Page 3 Mike Stenpeck - how much will it cost to build. Mr. Emanuel - $75,000. - I think its important for this Board to understand that you have to weigh judging the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the community. You have to look at the total picture. I would recommend it be approved because of the particular nature of the residential area, the site, and the impact on the neighborhood. - you don t have a problem with it sitting closer to the road than the house? - Aesthetically if it were in another neighborhood, I would. But its an R-1A, and weighing those factors it seemed to me that it would end up being a positive rather than a negative as far as the neighborhood is concerned. - will it be a two story? Mr. Emanuel - no, but might have an attic for wife to have sewing room. Motion by, seconded by, that this Board hereby recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the application by John Emanuel for an Area Variance to construct a detached garage (carriage house) at 147 Sunset Drive, due to the unique nature of the lot, the size of the lot, and that the change which will not have a negative impact on the community. Referral from Zoning Board of Appeals, Application of Edwin Call, 103 Laurel Lane, for an Area Variance to construct a carport Edwin Call came forward. Carport is already constructed. We had issues with the contractor who did a lot of construction before getting the permit. Next step now is to come and hopefully get the variance for the carport. We had a one-car attached garage with driveway on front. We converted the garage into living space. When we bought the house we didn t have any children, so we had to have the extra living space. Rather than keep the driveway in the front, we wanted to swing it around to the side and park the vehicles on the side. The garage was only 1 car, and we have 2 vehicles. This carport will give coverage for both vehicles. Had to extend the carport because when he first built it, it was too short. Mr. Call distributed pictures of carport, before and after. It looks better having the driveway come to the side of the house. The house sits diagonally on the lot. I really didn t see any other place
March 23, 2004 Page 4 to put the carport. The farthest the house is on each side is 32 feet. The front is setback is 30 feet. I was not aware on the corner that both roads are considered frontage. Its been brought to my attention it could be possible to name one of the streets as the front street and have the 30 feet setback, then only get a side variance. - you actually have more on the carport than the pics show. Mr. Call - yes, there is 5 more feet added on. - does he have to tear it down? Don Coates - if this doesn t get approved, yes he has to tear it down. Mr. Call - had I known it would have been an issue, I would have looked at other ways of expanding the house. Our contractors never once gave us any indication of this. Our contractor was Steve Brockway of Brockway Roofing. They never said anything about this being a problem. They were the 3 rd contractor to give us an estimate. The first question we asked was about permits, they said they would take care of all that. Discussion ensued. - If the ZBA rejects it then it does have to come down. Atty. Groff - yes. Right now technically he could be ordered to tear it down now because its been violation, but inasmuch as there is a pending application before you, the Code Enforcement Officer has elected not to pursue removal of it until this is all over. - is there an appeal process from the ZBA?. Atty. Groff - yes, the supreme court. - If you were coming before us earlier, before it was already built, we wouldn t have approved it. We are dragging our feet because you ve already built it. - Does contractor have any liability here. Atty. Groff - yes. They say the contractor accepted responsibility for this. That may be, but as far as between you and the property owner what they agreed upon is really not relevant. The burden is still there for code compliance. There may be recourse against the contractor, but they would have to pursue that in civil court. Mrs. Call - we have seeked legal advice already. Mr. Stenpeck - This is such a large variance, just about cutting the setback in half. If it was just a matter of a few feet I could see it. Mr. Call there is a row of trees, bushes between my house and the neighbors house. Had to take out a tree to built this. But I will be replacing this. Discussion ensued.
March 23, 2004 Page 5 - I agree with Patti, but I just don t see how in conscience this Board can approve even though its already been constructed. It seems to me to be too much of variance. I think your remedy needs to be sought elsewhere. - i agree, its too much to the detriment of the neighborhood.. - I agree. Motion by, seconded by, that this Board hereby recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals denial of the application by Edwin Call, of 103 Laurel Lane, for an Area Variance to construct a carport, due to the size of the variance needs. Referral from Zoning Board of Appeals - Application by Michele Locey, 2840 Westinghouse Road, for a Use Variance to use property as a Real Estate/Insurance Office Mrs. Locey - I don t own it yet, but I submit a letter from Dr. May giving permission. I currently own a real estate office on Westinghouse Road. When the overlay zone went in, they didn t not allow real estate and insurance offices in the professional zone. So now at this point, I would like to try to move to that building, but apparently it s a problem. The problem that I have is that there is a quirk in definition of professional offices. There are 3 businesses on that strip that have moved in and have not come before the Board of Trustees. They aren t considered under professional offices. Exit Realty moved in after the overlay zone was approved, and now its an insurance office. They haven t come to the board for any kind of approvals. - what s across the street. Ms. Locey -A computer business. Just further up in a brick building there are two businesses - one insurance and one real estate. I don t believe they came before you. Tom skebey - I didn t know anyone was renovating this. - what was our rationale in defining a professional office. Atty. Groff - It was learned professions. lt references the State Board of Education as the licensing agency for purposes of example. The rationale at the time that this Board and the Board of Trustees took action was to tighten the definition of professions. Prior to this the definition was broader and was inclusive of many licensed and recognized bodies like real estate sales, insurance, etc. The environment at the time was that the Board was considering the impact of
March 23, 2004 Page 6 commercializing Westinghouse Road. Recognizing that there have been significant encroachments in this area over the years. The Board wanted to preserve residential areas from offensive encroachment on the sacred residential areas by business uses. They wanted to distinguish certain professions from other professions. Essentially what they did was to recognize that there were certain professions that have a long standing as being professional ike doctors, lawyers, etc. Over the last few decades the State has seen fit to regulate and license a lot of these types of business activities, like realtors, insurance, etc. So there was a desire on the part of the BOT to make a distinction between the two to avoid commercial business offices from being able to locate in that particular area. - as you recall, we were concerned about that application for a dentist office. We decided then that Westinghouse has become a commercial strip and we wanted to limit that to the buildings immediately on Westinghouse Road. Atty. Groff - the other part was you didn t want to see the other uses that go along with commercial. Take a look of your definition of C-1. If you rezoned that corridor to a commercial zone, your opening it up to a lot of uses. You and the Board chose not to do that. In fact you went in the other direction and became more restrictive. - I don t see any problem with this. It already was an insurance office in there. This seems to be rather odd that we would agree that Ms. Locey can have her business on one side and not on another side. - I recommend we change the definition of professional office. I think it ought to be such that we don t have things on this road like convenient stores, or liquor store, etc. I think professional offices apply. Would it cause a significant problem if we tabled this for a month so we can look at this. Atty. Groff - what you have pending is an application for a use variance. There are other alternatives as to addressing her issue. But what s in front of you is a use variance. Your obligation is to review it as such. If you want to change the definition of a professional office, she should withdraw her application for a use variance. - As I look at the use variance criteria, it seems to me that in this instance it would be logical for us to grant the use variance because there are no hardships involved. The requested variance will not alter the neighborhood. Atty. Groff - If you feel the application meets criteria for use variance, you can make that recommendation. If you feel that the definition of professional office is overly restricted, you could recommend that the Board of Trustees reexamine that. Ms. Locey - so the easiest way is to change definition. Atty. Groff - Neither is really easier. All takes a period of time. Ms. Locey - regarding the proof of hardship, that would have to be by Peter May. He is the one who has the hardship.
March 23, 2004 Page 7 - she should go ahead with use variance, and at the same time recommend to the Board they change the definition of professional office. Motion by, seconded by, that this Board hereby recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the application by Michele Locey for a Use Variance to operate a real estate/insurance office at 2840 Westinghouse Road. Motion by, seconded by, that this Board hereby recommends to the Village Board of Trustees that it reexamine the definition of professional office as stated in Chapter 245 of the Village Code. Discussion ensued on what changes should be made. It was agreed to discuss this at the next Planning Board Meeting. Village Manager Azzarelli noted that it would be better if the Planning Board met on the 4 th Tuesday of each month, instead of the last, in order to bring action taken in front of the Board of Trustees at its second meeting. Discussion ensued. It was agreed to change the meeting of the Planning Board to the 4 th Tuesday of each month, same time, 6:00 p.m. As there was nothing further to bring before the Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned. /rmj