Meeting Minutes : Zoning Board of Adjustment – DRAFT

TOWN OF PITTSFORD
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
October 20, 2014

DRAFT

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

Others Present – Atty. Gary Kupferer, Colleen Conway, Al Maxham, Adam Rosenberg, 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.

A. Maxham presented the proposed colors for his project to construct 2 buildings for self-storage on property at 2874 US Route 7. The proposed colors are white for the base of the building with a charcoal roof. The color samples were left for the Zoning Board of Adjustment to discuss at a later time in the meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Maxham exited at 7:05 PM.

S. Markowski explained that this was an application for a Variance to install an accessory structure, being a score board, at school property known as Taranovich Field located on Vermont Route 3, Parcel ID #1850, in Pittsford. The parcel is located in the Rural Commercial and Rural Zoning Districts.

K. Niemczyk indicated that the permit was posted in the required three (3) public places on October 2, 2014; published in the Rutland Herald on August 22, 2014; and posted on the Town website on September 29, 2014. S. Markowski inquired where the three (3) public places were located. K. Niemczyk stated that they were the Municipal Office, Keith’s Country Store and the Pittsford Post Office

S. Markowski swore in: Ken Niemczyk and Adam Rosenberg – 267 Prospect Ridge – North Clarendon, Vermont – Principal of Proctor Junior/Senior High School.

A. Rosenberg started by apologizing for the way this application has played out. The erection of the scoreboard was completed prior to the zoning process. K. Niemczyk explained the events in a memo to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Administrative Assistant (Shari Tomlenson) was contacted concerning this project and agreed on the 50’ setback for the proposed scoreboard.

A. Rosenberg stated that the contractor was contacted to construct the scoreboard closer to the fence line. The Athletic Director had been instructed to place the project on hold, however, the message was not delivered. A Pittsford Select Board member approached the contractor and said “go ahead”, however, A. Rosenberg stated agreed to remove the scoreboard, if necessary.

A. Rosenberg stated that there is a fence that currently exists and the scoreboard is 3’ from the fence on the inside and there is a power source to make the scoreboard illuminate when in operation. A. Rosenberg also stated that there is a flagpole that is approximately 5’ from the fence line and a marble sign beside the flagpole. The scoreboard is close to the fence because the stands for the fans are on the other side of the field. A concern of the Proctor School District is the cost to dig a trench to run the power to the other side of the field.

S. Markowski inquired if there is a difference in set-back as this is a state road and not a town road.

R. Conway inquired if K. Niemczyk viewed the 50’ set-back. K. Niemczyk stated that the Zoning Regulations do not address a town vs state road set-back. Atty. Kupferer stated that a town road requires a 30’ set-back.

R. Conway inquired if there was a permit for the fence. K. Niemczyk indicated that he “does not recall one”. R. Conway stated that a 3 rod road would be approximately 25’ on each side of the centerline. The Town addresses Town roads and not state roads. There was discussion as to whether the fence or the sign were located in the right of way. K. Niemczyk recommended that the State be contacted for the Right of Way location. J. Mitchell stated that this would be the responsibility of the school district.

J. Mitchell inquired if the scoreboard was considered a sign or structure. K. Niemczyk stated that this was an accessory structure and read the definition, however, what is included does not meet the definition. R. Conway stated that the field provides entertainment and activity at the field. R. Conway inquired if there was any wording on the back of the sign facing Route 3. A. Rosenberg stated that there may be a name of the manufacturer or supplier. The scoreboard was purchased from Varsity Scoreboard. R. Conway inquired if the sign was internally lit. A. Rosenberg stated that the scoreboard is only lit during games.

R. Conway inquired the thickness of the scoreboard. A. Rosenberg stated that that he believes the scoreboard is 1’ thick 4’ X 8’ in dimension. K. Niemczyk stated that this fits well within the Zoning Regulations.

S. Markowski inquired the distance from the centerline of the road. S. Markowski inquired the distance of the fence from the edge of the pavement. A. Rosenberg stated approximately 9’ from the edge of the road to the fence.

R. Conway indicated that the plan that was submitted with the application does not include the distance to the fence line. K. Niemczyk stated that it is assumed that the fence line is on the property line.

S. Markowski read the definition and description and feels that the scoreboard would be included in the sign definition. Atty. Kupferer stated that if this was being heard as a variance application, there would be no passing, however, the property is located on State highway, then the State should approve. S. Markowski inquired who would clarify the definition to the School. Atty. Kupferer stated that the State would need to clarify.

R. Conway inquired if the set-back footage on the other sides was adequate as the State has regulations. Atty. Kupferer recommended that the School contact the State for this determination and recommended that the School provide satisfactory documentation.

Atty. Kupferer inquired the illumination of the scoreboard. A. Rosenberg stated that there are only daylight games played at the field as there is no field lighting.

Motion by R. Conway and seconded by J. Mitchell that the reviewed application deems that the scoreboard is a sign by Zoning Regulation definitions and directed the Zoning Administrator to move forward, pending State approval and that the scoreboard be illuminated only during daylight games. The Variance application is mute. Motion passed unanimously 5 – 0.

S. Markowski stated that the Planning Commission should review this situation when writing the Zoning Regulations.

A. Rosenberg exited at 7:36 PM.

Atty. Kupferer stated that he would write the decision for the scoreboard discussion.

Al and Colleen Maxham Continuation:
The Maxham’s presented color scheme for their proposed storage building project.

J. Mitchell inquired the colors, which the building would be white and the roof a charcoal color.

Motion by J. Mitchell and seconded by J. Orvis to accept the proposed color scheme of the building being white and the roof being charcoal. Motion passed unanimously 3 – 0.
R. Conway reclused and C. Rider was not present at the application hearing, therefore not able to vote on the matter.

The Zoning Board of Adjustment expressed sympathy to the Allen Hitchcock family at his passing and observed a moment of peace.

Motion by R. Conway and seconded by J. Orvis to adjourn at 7:41 PM. Motion passed unanimously 5 – 0.
Respectfully Submitted

Kelly Giard, Recording Secretary
_________________________________
Stanley Markowski, Chair

_________________________________
Richard Conway, Vice Chair

____________ABSENT_____________
Clarence Greeno

_________________________________
Jack Orvis

________________________________
John Mitchell

________________________________
Cathy Rider