Meeting Minutes : Zoning Board of Adjustment

TOWN OF PITTSFORD

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

September 8, 2014

 

Zoning Board of Adjustment Members Present – Stanley Markowski – Chairman, Clarence Greeno, Jack Orvis and John Mitchell.   Recused:  Rick Conway – Vice Chairman

Others Present – Atty. Gary Kupferer, Colleen Conway, Al Maxham, Kellie Becker, Ernie Clerihew, Peter Senatorie, Ken Niemczyk – Zoning Administrator, and Kelly Giard – Recording Secretary.

S. Markowski, Chairman, called the Zoning Board of Adjustment to order at 7:00 PM.  S. Markowski introduced the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by J. Mitchell to approve the agenda as presented.  Motion passed unanimously 4 – 0.

S. Markowski explained that this was an application for a Conditional Use presented by Albert Maxham to construct 2 buildings for self-storage units on property located at 2874 US Route 7, Parcel ID #1003.

K. Niemczyk indicated that the permit was posted in the required three (3) public places on August 21, 2014; published in the Rutland Herald on August 21, 2014; and posted on the Town website on August 21, 2014.  C. Greeno clarified that the 3 public places were the Municipal Office, Keith’s Country Store and Kamuda’s Market.

S. Markowski swore in:  Ken Niemczyk, Colleen Conway, Albert Maxham, Kellie Becker, Ernie Clerihew, and Peter Senatorie.

K. Niemczyk explained that Mr. Maxham has applied to construct 2 self-storage units within the Village Zoning District and the Village Zoning District requires a Conditional Use approval.  The Zoning Board of Adjustment also must review the Site Plan Review section of the Zoning Ordinance as part of the Conditional Use process.

Mr. Maxham stated that he has been in contact with the Zoning Administrator who recommended the permit process.

S. Markowski inquired if Mr. Maxham has reviewed the Conditional Use criteria, to which Mr. Maxham stated in the positive.  Mr. Maxham indicated that the project would have no impact on the town water or sewer as there would be no restrooms or water, school system and there would be no electricity at the structures.  Mr. Maxham stated that the buildings would be constructed of steel buildings on a concrete slab.  Mr. Maxham stated that the hours of operation would be daily from 8:00 AM – 8:00 PM.

S. Markowski explained that in Article B, a color of the structure needs to be identified.  Mr. Maxham stated that he is looking at something that would blend in with the surrounding structures, which are red or brick.

S. Markowski inquired if there would be any landscaping at the site.  Mr. Maxham stated that he would be planting cedar or balsam trees or shrubs on 2 sides.  Mr. Maxham explained that the 2 sides would be on the side of the Church parking lot and the front of the buildings.

S. Markowski inquired if there were any active businesses at the location currently.  Mr. Maxham denied any active businesses.  Mr. Maxham indicated that there was a fire in the barn in the recent years and he is trying to decide whether to remove the structure or remodel to house self-storage units.

S. Markowski inquired if there would be any impact on traffic access to the location.  Mr. Maxham stated that the first constructed structure would house 12 bays on each side ranging in size from 10’ X 15’ to 10’ X 20’.  Mr. Maxham stated that in the past, there was a child care center, restaurant and antique shop at the location and that the self-storage units would have far less traffic than when these other businesses were active.

S. Markowski inquired how many vehicles would be at the location at any given time.  Mr. Maxham stated 3 – 5 at a maximum.

Atty. Kupferer inquired if the set-backs were met.  K. Niemczyk stated that the proposed structure shows 40’ in the front and 30’ on the sides and rear of the structures, therefore there is adequate frontage.

Atty. Kupferer inquired what the driveway access construction would consist of.  Mr. Maxham stated that this is a gravel drive.

Atty. Kupferer inquired how the hours of 8:00 AM – 8:00 PM would be controlled.  Mr. Maxham stated that there was no way to gate the access as there are apartments in the other buildings on the property.  Mr. Maxham stated that he would post a sign and lives on-site.

K. Niemczyk inquired where the apartments were located.  Mr. Maxham stated that they were in the brick building.

Atty. Kupferer inquired how the apartment tenants access the property.  Ms. Conway stated that the existing drive is the access.

Atty. Kupferer inquired what material the roof would be constructed.  Mr. Maxham stated that it would be a steel roof.  Atty. Kupferer inquired what material the sides would be constructed.  Mr. Maxham stated that the sides would also be metal.  Mr. Maxham stated that the pitch of the roof would be similar to a garage.  Ms. Conway stated that the buildings would look similar to the buildings that are currently at the site of the former Sea Shell City in Leicester.

J. Mitchell inquired if there would be lights at night.  Mr. Maxham stated that the Church lights are pretty bright and light up the area nicely, however, there would be solar lights on the solar side and they are motion activated.  Atty. Kupferer inquired if each individual unit would have separate lights.  Mr. Maxham stated that the lights are on the roof and that the entire area would not light up when activated.

J. Mitchell inquired if the access between the buildings would allow for fire apparatus to be on-site if necessary.  Mr. Maxham stated that he believes there would be enough room to turn a small van around, therefore, probably enough room for a fire truck.

J. Mitchell inquired the distance between the barn and the smaller building.  Mr. Maxham stated 20’ +/-.

J. Mitchell inquired if the ‘ADD’ that is indicated on the drawing was for another project.  Mr. Maxham stated that this addition currently exists and is not an additional project.

C. Greeno stated that he has researched other storage units and they allow 24 hour access.

K. Niemczyk inquired if there were 26 units in the 120’ building, how many would be in the 80’ building.  Mr. Maxham stated that he is not sure of the exact number for either building as there may need to be some retrofitting to meet renters’ needs.

S. Markowski inquired if the area would be police accessible.  Mr. Maxham stated in the positive.

C. Greeno inquired if there would be a performance bond necessary.  Atty. Kupferer stated that one is not required.

Atty. Kupferer inquired the neighborhood characteristics.  Mr. Maxham stated that there is a Church, the Mobil station, residences, plumbing business and a brook in the area of the property.

Mr. Clerihew, Ms. Becker and Mr. Senatorie were present representing the Parish Council of St. Alphonsus Church.  S. Markowski inquired if there were any concerns from the Parish Council.  Mr. Clerihew stated that they were attending to gather more information for an upcoming Parish Council meeting.

K. Niemczyk stated that there is a possibility that the Zoning Board of Adjustment would come to a conclusion and make a decision at this hearing.  S. Markowski stated that the Church has a right to know and that the records and decisions are public knowledge.  S. Markowski explained the various timelines that must be adhered to by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.  Atty. Kupferer explained that if an abutter wishes to appeal, they must do so at the hearing prior to Environmental Court.

Mr. Senatorie inquired if the town or state had control of the buffer zone.  Atty. Kupferer stated that the concerns are heard through the Zoning Board of Adjustment and that the Town has jurisdiction to proceed, if no Act 250 permit is required.  K. Niemczyk inquired if Mr. Maxham has consulted anyone regarding the Act 250 requirements.  Mr. Maxham and Ms. Conway were given the information to contact regarding Act 250.

Mr. Clerihew inquired if the Zoning Board of Adjustment could require a buffer zone.  S. Markowski stated that no buffer zone is required, however, one is shown on the application drawings.  Ms. Becker inquired where the landscaping would be done.  Mr. Maxham stated that shrubs would be on the Church parking lot side.  Atty. Kupferer stated that the intent of the shrubs would be on the lawn side between the property and the Church.  S. Markowski stated that one of the conditions of approval could be to require buffers.

S. Markowski read the Site Plan Review from the Zoning Regulations.

Atty. Kupferer inquired the width of the lane access to the property.  Mr. Maxham stated that it is wider than 2 lanes.

S., Markowski inquired the speed limit in the area.  Mr. Maxham stated that the speed limit is 35 mph in the area and lowers to 25 mph just up the road.

S. Markowski inquired how long Mr. Maxham has owned the property.  Mr. Maxham stated that he purchased in 1997 or 1998.

S. Markowski inquired if there have been any accidents at the location of the driveway.  Ms. Conway stated that there is a blinking light that slows people down.

S. Markowski inquired the type and amount of trees that would be planted.  Mr. Maxham stated that he is not looking for a solid hedge as people would not know that this is a business.

S. Markowski inquired if there would be a sign placed.  Mr. Maxham stated that there is a current sign and he would just change the wording.

Atty. Kupferer inquired the height of the building from the ground to the peak.  Mr. Maxham stated 14’.

Atty. Kupferer inquired the landscaping preferences from the Church representatives.  Mr. Clerihew stated that cedar or spruce would be nice, however, he can not speak for the entire Council.  Mr. Maxham and Ms. Conway currently allow for the Church to utilize their parking area in the event of large events.

Ms. Becker inquired how the access and buffers would be effected in the event of snow and snowplowing.  Mr. Maxham stated that the landscaping would be completed accordingly.

Mr. Senatorie felt that the Act 250 permitting process should be completed prior to the Zoning permit.  S. Markowski stated that the property owner is responsible for confirming all other required permits prior to construction.

J. Mitchell inquired if a color scheme has been chosen.  Ms. Conway stated either a red or slate would be the likely choices as they want it to “fit in” as they live there as well.

The members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment agreed that there is no need for Deliberative or Executive Session.

Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by J. Orvis to close the evidence taking portion of the hearing.  Motion passed unanimously 4 – 0.

Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by J. Orvis to approve the application as presented with the conditions that the Zoning Board of Adjustment approve the color scheme prior to construction and that the landscaping be done on the Church side for 20’ and the front for 20’ or less and that the landscaping be of an evergreen variety.  Motion passed unanimously 4 – 0.

S. Markowski instructed the Atty. to submit the decision and explained the remaining steps of the process to Mr. Maxham and Ms. Conway.

K. Niemczyk stated that the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment is scheduled for October 6, 2014 and that the Zoning Board of Adjustment could discuss the color scheme for this project at that time.

Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by J. Mitchell to adjourn at 8:14 PM.  Motion passed unanimously 4 – 0.

Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by R. Conway to adjourn at 7:15 PM.  Motion passed unanimously 5 – 0.

 

Respectfully Submitted

Kelly Giard, Recording Secretary

_________________________________

Stanley Markowski, Chair

__________________RECUSED______

Richard Conway, Vice Chair

_________________________________

Clarence Greeno

_________________________________

Jack Orvis

________________________________

John Mitchell