TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 3, 2007
Members Present
|
Peter Barber, Chairman Patricia Aikens Sharon Cupoli Chuck Klaer Mike Marcantonio Susan Macri Tom Remmert, Alternate James Sumner Janet Thayer, Counsel
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Chairman Barber opened the meeting and pointed out the emergency exits to the left and rear of the room in the event they were needed.
CONTINUED CASES
MATTER OF NATIONAL GRID - 5215 WESTERN TURNPIKE
Chairman Barber stated that since the last public hearing the Board has received the following documents: a report from Boswell Engineering dated December 29, 2006 and the full Environmental Assessment form.
Rob Osterhoudt of Boswell Engineering summarized his report. (in file)
Chairman Barber asked Mr. Osterhoudt if he had reviewed the propagation studies.
Mr. Osterhoudt stated that he had reviewed them.
Chairman Barber asked Mr. Osterhoudt if he would be comfortable reviewing the structural report if it is a condition of approval.
Mr. Osterhoudt replied "absolutely".
There was discussion that this was a full build out of the structure.
Chairman Barber asked about the color of the tower.
Mary Beth Slevin replied that the color of the tower would be consistent with what is already there. With respect to the lighting, there is no lighting required for the addition to the tower.
Chairman Barber asked if there were any questions or comments from the residents. There were none. Chairman Barber made a motion to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 7 - 0.
Chairman Barber made a motion of non-significance in this Unlisted Action:
"This Board has conducted a careful review of this application to determine whether the granting of this Special Use Permit to extend the existing tower by 30' would have a significant impact upon the environment. Our review has consisted of a review of the application submitted by National Grid, comments provided to the Board by the TDE, the Town Planning Board and also the Board's review of the Full Environmental Assessment Form completed by the applicant along with the visual addendum. The Board finds that upon review of this application that there will not be a negative significant impact upon the environment and that a negative declaration under SEQRA should issue." Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 7 - 0.
Chairman Barber made a motion for approval of:
Special Use Permit Request No. 3978
Request of Karen Maxwell of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for a Special Use Permit under the Zoning Law to permit: the extension of an existing 130' telecommunications tower by 30' for a total height of 160'. A series of yagi antenna will be added to the new structure for the purpose of communicating and dispatching National Grid field resources.
Per Articles IV& V Sections 280-37 & 280-52 respectively
For property owned by Niagara Mohawk/National Grid
Situated as follows: 5215 Western Turnpike Altamont, NY 12009
Tax Map #s 39.07-1-26.21 Zoned: LB
The Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. A public hearing was duly noticed and held on 10-18-06 and again this evening. Legal notices were mailed to neighboring property owners within 750' of said property and no residents provided either written or oral comments.
2. This Board adopted a negative declaration under SEQRA by a unanimous vote.
3. The Town Planning Board's review of this application was waived.
Albany County Planning Board provided its recommendation which the Board has considered.
4. The Town Planner provided her comments regarding the application.
5. The Board appointed Boswell Engineering to review certain matters on behalf of the Board as its Town Designated Engineer.
6. The Board finds as concluded by the TDE that the propagation studies demonstrate that the proposed extension provides needed services for this applicant. The proposed antennas are part of a disaster recovery site for emergency services.
7. The Town Code in particular encourages the shared or enhanced use of existing facilities over the construction of new facilities.
8. While the proposed extension will have some visual impact, the Board further notes that there are substantial trees and other vegetation which will buffer the view of the tower.
9. The extension will bring the facility into full development with no further extensions.
10. No modifications of the existing buildings are proposed.
11. The Board further finds that the proposed extension is the least intrusive means of meeting this need.
In granting this decision, the Board imposes the following conditions:
1. Adherence to the plans as submitted by the applicant.
2. Any construction given its proximity to residential areas, shall be limited from Monday - Friday from 7am to 6pm, Saturday from 9am to 5pm with no construction allowed on Sunday.
3. The applicant has represented that there is no lighting required.
4. The finished colors shall be consistent with the existing tower.
5. Review of the structural report by the TDE and his approval.
6. Submission of the propagation studies that were reviewed by the TDE and shared with the Board at the last hearing.
The Zoning Administrative Office is hereby authorized to issue the permits necessary to implement this decision.
If this Special Use Permit is not exercised within one year of date of issuance, it is hereby declared to be null and void and revoked in its entirety.
Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 7 - 0.
NEW CASES:
MATTER OF WILLIAM KLEE - 11 ARMSTRONG DRIVE
Chairman Barber and Counsel Thayer recused themselves from this application. Sharon Cupoli was acting Chairman.
Sue Macri read the legal notice:
"Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Guilderland, New York, will hold a public hearing pursuant to Articles III & V of the Zoning Law on the following proposition:
Variance Request No. 3981
Request of William Klee for a Variance of the regulations under the Zoning Law to permit: the placement of an accessory garden structure in a side yard.
Per Articles III & V Sections 280-14 & 280-51 respectively
For property owned by William Klee
Situated as follows: 11 Armstrong Drive Altamont, NY 12009
Tax Map # 37.04-1-52 Zoned: R20
Plans open for public inspection at the Building Department during normal business hours. Said hearing will take place on the 3rd of January, 2007 at the Guilderland Town Hall beginning at 7:30pm.
Dated: December 19, 2006"
The file consists of the legal advertisement with mailing list to 19 neighboring property owners, the application, the Town Planners comments, the variance conditions application, residents letters, plot plans and pictures of the shed.
The Town Planner had the following comments: "The applicant is seeking an area variance to place a shed in the side yard. A site inspection showed that there is no site limitations to the property that would preclude the correct placement of the shed."
William Klee, applicant, presented the request. Mr. Klee stated that the structure is 24' wide and the depth is 12'. Mr. Klee stated that the shed would be behind the fence and he has quite a few trees so you would not even see the shed in the summer. Mr. Klee stated that there is a severe slope in the rear of the parcel and where he wishes to place the shed is the only area where the slope is moderate; there is a 15" drop from where the front of the shed is and the back of the shed would be. There is a swimming pool in the back yard and also the septic system and leech field are located in the rear of the parcel. Mr. Klee stated that the shed would match the house in terms of color and architecture. The shed would be insulated and also have electric in it. Mr. Klee stated
that he would be storing a lot of files and books in the shed along with some lawn equipment.
Acting Chairman Sharon Cupoli asked Don Cropsey if he had any concerns regarding the placement of this shed.
Don Cropsey replied that based on his observations it seemed like you could place a shed in the back yard; he did not see the slope that Mr. Klee had discussed. Don stated that it would not be good to place this structure over the septic system.
Jim Sumner asked what would be done with the existing shed.
Mr. Klee stated that he would be keeping that shed along with the new one.
Jim Sumner stated that he had viewed the property and was wondering why the shed could not be moved further back.
Mr. Klee replied that there is a water soaking problem and a severe slope.
Jim Sumner asked what color the shed would be.
Mr. Klee replied that it would be exactly the same color as the house and stated that it would also have landscaping around it.
Jim Sumner asked where the front of the shed would be facing.
Mr. Klee replied that the shed would be facing the house.
Chuck Klaer asked if the shed would require a foundation.
Mr. Klee stated that he preferred putting a concrete base in with footings all around and building the shed on top of the concrete base.
Chuck Klaer asked why this foundation could not be 15" deeper on one end than the other.
Mr. Klee replied that there would be more concrete in the back of it than there is in the front. Mr. Klee stated that they would cut out the soil and then you won't have the 15' difference anymore.
Acting Chairman Cupoli asked if he was going to do that why can't he just do it further back so that it is not in the side yard.
Mr. Klee stated that if he put it further back it would be more costly and it is getting close to a water problem. Mr. Klee stated that he would like it a little closer to the house.
Tom Remmert asked if the shed was going to be 5' from the property line.
Mr. Klee stated that it would be.
Sue Macri asked if there would also be windows in the back of the shed.
Mr. Klee replied that there would not be windows in the back.
Acting Chairman Cupoli asked if there were any questions or comments from the residents.
Salvatore Priore of 21 Armstrong Drive presented the Board with copies of his remarks and pictures for the record. Mr. Priore presented to the Board a petition from some of the other neighboring property owners.
Mr. Priore stated that Mr. Klee has never approached any of the neighbors regarding his request. Mr. Priore stated that Mr. Klee is using this shed for the purpose of storage of business files and he is working out of his home without a special use permit. Mr. Priore stated that a lot of the neighbors feel intimidated by Mr. Klee and did not want to come to the meeting this evening. Mr. Priore stated that this is not a shed, it is a garage; it is going to be heated. Mr. Priore felt that Mr. Klee had misrepresented himself. Mr. Priore stated that many of the neighbors had sheds and they all conform to the building code and setbacks. Mr. Priore stated that this is a self-created hardship; he has created this problem himself. Mr. Priore felt that Mr. Klee could replace his existing
shed with the new one. Mr. Priore also felt that this would decrease their property values.
Acting Chairman Cupoli asked Mr. Piore if he would be in favor of the shed if he moved it back and out of his sight and view.
Mr. Piore stated that he felt that the size of the structure was out of character with the neighborhood and urged the Board to deny the variance.
Mr. Klee stated that he had spoke to some of the neighbors regarding his shed.
Ellen Root of 17 Armstrong Drive had concerns regarding the aesthetics and felt there was no need for a shed that large. Ms. Root also stated that she was concerned that he would be conducting business from the shed and inviting clients there.
Joe Pasquarella of 7 Armstrong Drive was opposed to the shed being placed in the proposed location and the size of the shed.
Acting Chairman Cupoli made a motion to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Sue Macri. Vote 7 - 0.
Jim Sumner asked how high the shed would be.
Mr. Klee stated that the walls would be 8' but did not know the actual height.
Jim Sumner stated he asked that question because of the visibility from the road.
Mr. Klee responded that you cannot see it from the road, the trees are higher than the shed.
Acting Chairman Cupoli asked if he would be including any additional landscaping.
Mr. Klee replied that there would be trees around the shed.
Roy Swintek of 15 Armstrong Drive stated that he would prefer if Mr. Klee would move the shed back and felt that the size of the shed was not in character with the neighborhood.
Jim Sumner asked Mr. Swintek how it would affect him or his property if the shed was moved back six feet.
Mr. Swintek replied it would help some to move it back but felt that the shed was still large for the area.
Don Cropsey stated that if the shed was placed behind the back of the house, it would meet the zoning law. Don stated that based on the diagram, he would need to move it back approximately 18'.
Don Cropsey stated that the ground is relatively flat and it doesn't seem that there is any impediment to relocating the shed to a location that complies with the zoning law. Don stated that what Mr. Klee stores in the shed is really irrelevant to the case; the issue is the structure in the side yard and whether or not he can place it outside that side yard and comply with the ordinance.
Chuck Klaer stated that he is not persuaded that Mr. Klee cannot place the shed in the back yard according to the code.
Acting Chairman Cupoli stated that given the comments tonight and the facts presented, she was inclined to make a motion to deny the request.
Acting Chairman Cupoli made a motion for denial of:
Variance Request No. 3981
Request of William Klee for a Variance of the regulations under the Zoning Law to permit: the placement of an accessory garden structure in a side yard.
Per Articles III & V Sections 280-14 & 280-51 respectively
For property owned by William Klee
Situated as follows: 11 Armstrong Drive Altamont, NY 12009
This decision is based upon the following findings of fact:
1. A public hearing was duly noticed and held on January 3, 2007. The notice was supplemented by mailing of legal notice to properties within 500'. Four oral arguments were heard and two written arguments were received.
2. Neither the Albany County Planning Board nor the Town Planning Board's review was required.
3. The Town Planner stated: "The applicant is seeking an area variance to place a shed in a side yard. A site inspection showed that there is no site limitations to the property that would preclude the correct placement of the shed."
4. There was a letter received that was signed by two residents voicing their objection.
5. Don Cropsey has reviewed the area and found that there is no reason why this could not be moved to the back of the property.
Motion seconded by Sue Macri. Vote 6 - 0. (Barber recused)
The case of Lynne and Joseph Golonka was continued to next meeting. Vote 7 - 0.
The Board appointed Boswell Engineering as TDE for Nextel at Albany County Club to review structural, visual and propagation study review. Vote 7 - 0.
SIGNS:
The Board approved a 48sf sign for Guilderland Agency at 1807-1809 Western Avenue.
The Board approved a 18sf building mounted sign for Upstate Rehab Products medical equipment at Star Plaza.
The Board approved a 50sf freestanding sign for First Niagara Bank at 1973 Western Avenue with the condition that a landscaping plan be submitted and reviewed by the Department of Community Environment.
The Board approved two 15sf building mounted signs for Sprint at 1715 Western Avenue.
The Board approved two signs at 1789 Western Avenue; a 16sf building mounted sign and a 12sf face replacement for Edward Jones, Investments.
The Board approved a 32sf building mounted sign for Tuxego at 1811 Western Avenue.
The Board approved a temporary banner for Colonial Car Wash for one-week contingent upon the applicant addressing lighting concerns above the bays.
The Board denied a sandwich board application as submitted by the Unique Boutique because of the concerns regarding blocking sight line along Rt. 20 and also because of the lack of aesthetic appearance of the sign.
There was discussion regarding the Zoning Board's involvement in the Glassworks project.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10pm.
| 
