ZONING BOARD MINUTES
January 19, 2000
Posted 01/26/2000
Minutes of the Zoning Board meeting held in the Town Hall basement meeting room, 11 South Main Street, Pittsford, on January 19, 2000, and filed in the Town Clerk's office.
PRESENT
Ed Starowicz, Barbara Servé, Peter Webster, David Rogachefsky, Rufus Falk, George Dounce, Larry Magguilli
ALSO PRESENT
Richard Williams, Attorney, Jennifer Brady, Secretary, Michele Paoleschi, Planning Assistant, Karen Green, Liaison from Town Board, Bill Frohm, Building Inspector
The Board met in the downstairs meeting room at 7:00 p.m.
Chairman, Ed Starowicz, called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. He gave a summary of the procedures to be followed for each public hearing, how the Board would deliberate, how public input would be taken, etc. He indicated that written comments are welcome until the public hearings are closed.
Thomas Borshoff vs. Wegmans
3 Robin Drive
Tax Parcel #150.11-02-004.1
Michael Wolford, attorney for Thomas Borshoff, said there is overwhelming evidence that there has been a change in the facts and circumstances that were presented to the Board in June of 1996. That is the date the Zoning Board granted a variance allowing the loading and unloading of trucks during the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
He gave the following three situations which reflect the change in circumstances:
- The noises from the loading dock are dramatically louder than the background noise;
- The Erie Canal earth berm is not an effective barrier (the elevation of Mr. Borshoff's backyard is higher than the crest of the berm);
- The noises from the loading dock are louder than the projections of Dr. Sciremammano's noise report.
He said it was arrogant of Wegmans to suggest to his client, " he should learn to live with his windows shut and his air conditioning on." He said that back in 1996, the background noise was never measured at the Monroe Avenue location and the loading dock noise was projected based upon a building that didn't exist anymore. He added that Wegmans is also using non-Wegmans trucks, and refrigeration trucks sit there day after day, which is not permitted under this variance.
Eric Wood, a noise specialist, described how he measured the noise level compared to the FES EA report. He said Wegmans' report did not provide an accurate representation of the volume of anticipated truck traffic entering and exiting the loading dock area. He also said that the noise measurement standards presented in the EA are inappropriate for this situation and are oblivious to the effects of nighttime noise. Mr. Wood stated the EA report failed to present an accurate "line-of-sight" evaluation between the proposed Wegmans loading dock area and the Borshoff residence.
Mr. Wood said, "If such an evaluation had been conducted properly it would have clearly demonstrated that the berm along the Erie Canal would not provide the predicted noise level reduction. Furthermore, a line-of-sight evaluation would have presented a clear picture of the unobstructed view of the loading dock area from the first and second floors of the Borshoff residence. The content of the EA report (as it pertains to noise issues) did not present a thorough evaluation of impacts."
Frank Sciremammano responded by saying he would use the same data to calculate the noise impacts and that the measurements show that the principal source of noise comes from the traffic on Monroe Avenue. The loading dock noise is not significant relative to this traffic noise in midday.
Richard Williams explained the legal standard for this hearing. He said this is a motion for the ZBA to hold a rehearing, not to revoke a prior granted variance. Mr. Borshoff is not an applicant and does not have the right to come before the Board to make a motion. The ZBA needs to make its own motion if it sees fit, if based on what Mr. Borshoff and his counsel and his experts have presented, it gives the feeling that they may have made a mistake in granting the variance. Granting a request to hold a rehearing does not automatically deny the variance because the Board may come to the same conclusion.
If it is determined to hold a rehearing, Wegmans will have to make its application for the area variance and people can speak for or against it just like any other hearing. What is troubling in this case is that the store has been built and has been in operation for some time. And any appeal time from the original decision has long since gone. However, it can be reheard since there is no time frame. But, if it is determined that Wegmans acted in good faith (which does not necessarily mean that Wegmans was completely right) then they are entitled to the variance granted.
Mr. Williams asked if any of the Board members would like to make a motion to hold a rehearing on the previous granted area variance. He explained that a "yes" vote is in favor of a rehearing and a "no" vote is opposed to it.
Rufus Falk make the motion to hold a rehearing, seconded by David Rogachefsky.
A poll vote was taken and the Zoning Board of Appeals voted as follows: Ed Starowicz No, Barbara Servé No, Peter Webster No, David Rogachefsky No, Rufus Falk Aye, George Dounce No, Larry Magguilli No
Altier Subdivision
31 Mitchell Road
T.A. #164.110-02-013
Building Inspector, Bill Frohm, read the legal ad as it appeared in the Pittsford Brighton Post. He added that the variance in question is in the AA residential district but where the house will be located is in the A residential district.
David Panipinto, of Warren McGrail Land Surveyors, spoke on behalf of Richard & Joan Altier. He said that originally they had requested a 15-foot road frontage but, as per the Planning Board's recommendation, they have increased it to 25 feet. The application is to re-subdivide a parcel into two lots and construct a new home on the new (proposed) lot. The property will be serviced by an on-site septic system and public utilities.
David Rogachefsky motioned to close the hearing, seconded by George Dounce.
The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a 25-foot lot width at front setback to Richard & Joan Altier when Town Code Section 185-15A(2) requires a 125 foot lot width at front setback. A copy of the resolution is attached.
Amerada Hess Corporation
3055 Monroe Avenue
T.A. #150.08-1-69
Mike Bell, of the Sear-Brown Group, spoke on behalf of his client, Amerada Hess. He said his client is requesting a variance for fascia panel illumination to allow three (3) bulbs when Town Code permits only two (2). They believe the additional lights help to maintain safety on the site. They are also requesting an interpretation of the approved December 17, 1984 variance to determine the status of signage on site. The 1984 variance permitted a total of 791.59 SF. Amerada Hess currently has 660 SF of signage on site and is proposing an additional 45 SF for a total of 705 SF.
Although the individual sizes of the signs differ from the 1984 variance, the overall square footage of signage is currently less than that permitted by the 1984 variance. This additional 45 SF of signage is for a new "Gold Ring Tobacco" sign. Gold Ring Tobacco is a new marketing strategy to help increase sales in locations where full convenience stores are not possible. The new image will consist of painting the building beige, installing a new building sign and adding additional cigarette racks in the sales area of the store.
There were no public comments. This is an unlisted action because it is an area variance that does not involve residential property.
Ed Starowicz offered a SEQRA resolution, seconded by Larry Magguilli.
George Dounce offered a resolution, seconded by Peter Webster. Both resolutions are attached to these minutes.
The hearing was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Brady
Zoning Secretary
THE OFFICIAL BOARD MINUTES ALONG WITH ATTACHMENTS, IF ANY, ARE ON FILE IN THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE, LOCATED IN THE PITTSFORD TOWN HALL, 11 S. MAIN STREET, AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKDAYS.