Canandaigua City Zoning Board of Appeals September 23, 2026

Canandaigua (city), NY · · More Canandaigua (city), NY meetings · More New York meetings

View original source →

Transcript

Download: Text · SRT
SOURCE TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is downloaded from the source you provided but we haven't reviewed it for accuracy. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record. You can also request an AI-transcription of the audio file with the button to the left.

[3:09] Candidate for Zoning Board of Appeals for September. Um.
[3:13] First item on our agenda is the approval of minutes from
[3:16] August. Is there a motion to approve the minutes?
[3:20] No, no I moved. I have I have a question. Yes. Um.
[3:25] Yes.
[3:25] Carol? Yeah. On the. Second.
[3:33] Uh, the variance to construct a nine foot high privacy fence. I
[3:37] thought we did not approve that.
[3:40] We did. We? Julie, you wanted to go on to Julie. Caught the
[3:44] error. I am.
[3:46] It did not. We didn’t. It was denied.
[3:49] So.
[3:50] Yeah, there was a typo. It said. It said approve. It
[3:52] should read deny.
[3:53] We will.
[3:54] Okay. Make that correction.
[3:56] Yes.
[3:56] Only thing I am going to question. is okay, maybe
[3:59] numbers one five or different.
[4:02] Two. Because this all seems being approved. I mean.
[4:08] Flip the language in each of the reasons why.
[4:11] So.
[4:11] Yep. Right. We need a motion.
[4:12] Is there a motion to approve the minutes with those
[4:14] corrections?
[4:15] Yes.
[4:15] I’ll move that.
[4:16] Is there a second? Second.
[4:19] Okay. Any further corrections?
[4:21] Additions? If not. All in favor?
[4:24] Do we have to re approve the minutes with the corrections?
[4:26] Nope. She made the motion correction. Okay.
[4:29] So what do we have? Harris and Henshaw?
[4:31] Yep. Any. All in favor? Aye.
[4:36] Any opposed? Okay. All right.
[4:38] First item on our agenda is application 262 30. 263 a 267
[4:48] South Main Street. 267 South Main Associates, LLC, seeking
[4:53] an area variance variances necessary to construct a
[4:57] parking lot within five feet of the property line in accordance
[5:01] with chapter 850 Dash 58.6, there shall be a ten foot
[5:07] buffer between the parking lot and the adjacent residential
[5:12] residential use. Further, the site provides 45 parking spaces
[5:17] where the zoning ordinance requires 145 spaces.
[5:20] Modifications to project.
[5:22] Approved on February 8th, 2023.
[5:25] See the applicant is here.
[5:27] Yep. Good evening. My name is James Criticos. I’m with BME
[5:30] associates. Uh, here with me this evening is Fred Rinaldi
[5:33] with 267 South Main Street LLC.
[5:35] The applicant. Um, as you mentioned, we’re here for two
[5:39] variances requests as part of some site plan approval updates
[5:42] that we’re doing with the planning Commission. Um, I
[5:45] don’t remember how many of you guys were on the board probably
[5:48] three years ago or last year.
[5:49] So I’ll just give you guys a little quick update. Uh, so the
[5:51] project we’re in front of you is 267 South Main Street. This
[5:54] is where the old gas station sat on the corner of
[5:57] Saltonstall and 332. Uh, the project, when we went through
[6:01] approvals, uh, three years ago, also included 11 Saltonstall,
[6:05] which is the beverage drive through center that hasn’t been
[6:07] active at the time. The plan was to consolidate those two
[6:10] properties and develop that with a new, um, commercial
[6:14] mixed use building there. When we came in front of you guys at
[6:18] the time, we had requested two variances for that project. One
[6:22] was to allow for a zero foot front setback on Saltonstall
[6:25] and 332. Um, obviously the we’re in the mixed use
[6:30] district. This starts at Saltonstall. So we’re trying to
[6:33] match what would be the business district north of us,
[6:36] which is why that variance was granted. We’re still going to
[6:38] be utilizing that variance. The facade and the fronts along
[6:43] 332. And Saltonstall really haven’t changed at all with the
[6:47] project updates. Um, so we’ll still be using that. We also at
[6:51] the time had requested a parking variance. Um, the
[6:54] project you see in front of us did not include the connection
[6:59] down to Foster Street to the south. When we got that parking
[7:02] variance from you guys three years ago, we had a 115 parking
[7:06] spaces required. We only had 25, so we had a relief of about
[7:09] 90 parking spaces from you. Um, since that time, the applicant
[7:13] has been successful in acquiring 19 Saltonstall, which
[7:16] is the single family residence that sits along that 47 foot
[7:21] wide parcel that’s behind us.
[7:23] That is also in the mixed use district. We’re not rezoning
[7:26] that. But as part of the project, now that we’ve
[7:28] acquired it, we will be consolidating it with the other
[7:31] two parcels into a singular, uh, parcel for this
[7:35] development, as well as making the connection down to Foster
[7:38] Street and being able to increase our parking from what
[7:41] we had a couple of years ago.
[7:43] So what we’re here for tonight are two variants requests. Um,
[7:47] the first is a request to reduce the buffer to the
[7:50] residential district. For the code. There’s a ten foot buffer
[7:54] requirement that includes requirements of a fence and
[7:56] landscaping. We’re requesting that to be reduced down to five
[8:00] feet. This allows us to fit a 20 foot drive lane with
[8:05] perpendicular parking spaces, while still providing that five
[8:09] foot buffer area for landscaping and a fence. This
[8:11] is consistent with what we had approved, um, three years ago,
[8:16] except for the property that we acquired was in the mixed use
[8:18] district, so we weren’t trying to provide that ten foot buffer
[8:21] to that. So same kind of configuration. So the code
[8:25] speaks specifically to um, the ten foot buffer is required
[8:28] when the parking lot is adjacent to a residence or
[8:32] residential zone district. And so it wasn’t in play before and
[8:37] now it is.
[8:37] 19 was mixed use.
[8:39] Uh, 19 was mixed use in the next house down is if it’s 21
[8:44] or 25. But that’s then in a residential district. Yeah. So
[8:48] that’s the first request we’re here for. And then obviously
[8:50] we’re up here for an update on the parking variance, some of
[8:54] the uses. And the tenants changed a little bit. We have a
[8:57] couple more restaurant square footage space in the building
[9:00] now. So our parking requirement went up to about 145 per code.
[9:05] And and now we’re about 47 with that configuration. So we’re
[9:09] still asking for about 99 spaces of relief. Again, the
[9:12] board granted us 90 spaces of relief. Um, about three years
[9:16] ago. And our argument for that, Ricky, if you want to pull up
[9:19] the other exhibit and we cleaned this up from last time,
[9:22] but this is an exhibit that shows our property in relation
[9:26] to all of the public parking and the downtown area. Uh,
[9:31] basically every parking field out there is within
[9:34] approximately a third of a mile at the most. So, well, within
[9:38] walkable district, if this was in the central business
[9:41] district, we wouldn’t have any parking requirements. So if we
[9:43] were just one street up, we wouldn’t need to do this.
[9:46] However, parking is important to the project. Since we’re in
[9:49] the mixed use district, we are required to provide it. Since,
[9:52] uh, hence the request for the variance. But with the addition
[9:56] of 19 Saltonstall, we are excited to be able to expand
[10:00] the parking at the site, you know, in close proximity to it.
[10:03] It will be very beneficial in support of all these new
[10:07] businesses and things that are going to be coming to the
[10:10] downtown area.
[10:13] Okay. Anything else you want to add before.
[10:15] I know that’s it. I think I pointed out my notes too. I
[10:19] think James just said that, um, properties north of Salt and
[10:24] South Street are in the C-2, and there’s no parking
[10:27] requirement in the C-2. And this is the first property on
[10:30] the south side of Saltonstall where there is a requirement
[10:34] for On-Site parking.
[10:35] Okay. At this time, I would open the public hearing. Is
[10:40] there anyone here to speak to this project? Any written
[10:47] comments?
[10:47] So you did receive the email from, uh, Zachary Wilhelm, who
[10:53] is the adjacent property owner, and he did speak in in
[10:57] opposition. He’s at. Yeah, 27, 29, 25, 27 and 29. So he owns
[11:04] the two Jason properties. Um, landlord for those properties.
[11:08] And he would be opposed to having the, uh, the parking
[11:12] within five feet of his property.
[11:14] Okay. Um, is there anything about a fence?
[11:18] Well, I think, um, that’s certainly a factor. And, um,
[11:24] the buffer space does, um, you know, typically include some
[11:28] plantings. In this case, the buffer is accomplished. How?
[11:33] Um, so what we’re proposing is obviously per code, we are
[11:35] required to provide a fence. We were proposing to do just a six
[11:39] foot high board on board fence to match the building materials
[11:43] currently on the site today.
[11:45] Um, that residence is a couple feet off the property line.
[11:48] They have already have a six foot high board on board fence
[11:50] that runs, you know, 30 to 40ft in their backyard, and then it
[11:53] transitions to a four foot high chain link fence. Um, so that’s
[11:57] coming in there. We would, you know, site, locate all the
[11:59] trees right along that property line. Do our best to save all
[12:02] that vegetation. Uh, install a six foot high board on board
[12:06] fence and then augment that on our side with some additional
[12:09] plantings and things that get some vertical, um, screening
[12:13] over time. Once they fully mature.
[12:15] Okay.
[12:15] All right. Did you close it here?
[12:17] Oh, yes. Um, anything else for.
[12:20] And at this time, I’ll close the public hearing.
[12:23] Um, I don’t know if you want to take them one at a time. Might
[12:27] be easiest. At least. I don’t know if you need separate
[12:29] motions, but if if it comes to that, after you get all your
[12:33] issues on the table, and actually.
[12:35] We do. the what should we do?
[12:37] Uh, please do the buffer first because obviously that will
[12:39] dictate the parking. If you guys, for some reason don’t
[12:42] want to grant us the full variance, we’d have to ask for
[12:45] additional relief on the parking counts.
[12:47] Okay.
[12:47] That’s fine.
[12:50] Um, then we’ll do these one at a time. Then, uh, we’ll just do
[12:53] the buffer. We’ll go through the test on the buffer. That’s
[12:57] all we’re looking at right now.
[12:58] Okay. And making its determination, the Zoning Board
[13:03] of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to
[13:05] the applicant. If the variance is granted as weighed against
[13:08] the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
[13:11] neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such
[13:14] determination, the board shall also consider the following
[13:16] factors. Number one, show that the granting of the variance
[13:20] will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
[13:22] neighborhood, or create a detriment to nearby properties.
[13:28] What do we think on that?
[13:34] My initial thought would be you’re still doing a six foot
[13:37] fence between you and the properties behind you, so yes,
[13:41] it’s not ten feet of space, it’s five. But you’re still
[13:44] providing the screening coverage. So the goal of having
[13:48] that buffer is still being accomplished as far as not
[13:54] having a parking lot like up to your front door, but.
[13:59] Yeah, yeah, I had kind of a question on that. I tried to
[14:02] take a look at it today and, and yesterday, and I couldn’t
[14:06] quite tell obviously, where the property line is to the
[14:09] adjacent owner is, is that, um.
[14:11] If you go on back to the color rendering, the, the rendered
[14:14] part basically shows the property line. The house does
[14:16] sit pretty close to the right, so they are pretty close to
[14:20] that. Their funds kind of ends there. I wouldn’t be surprised
[14:23] if that’s a 1 or 2 foot setback.
[14:26] But they do have a fence on their side of the property line
[14:29] as.
[14:29] Well, extending from the back of their house through the
[14:32] backyard. But we would obviously come in and we would
[14:34] put a full for the rest of the fronts the whole way just to
[14:36] make it consistent. You know?
[14:39] Okay, good.
[14:41] Good evening. Frederick Aldi I’m the property owner and I
[14:45] just wanted to extend on a point that James had made
[14:50] moments ago, the portion of the neighboring parcels fence that
[14:55] transitions to chain link. I’d be willing at my expense to
[14:59] convert that at their wish to a board and board to provide
[15:03] double, you know, to be redundant. Buffer. And I would
[15:06] do it at the election of mirror. The design or mirror.
[15:10] Our design, the materials that would be used for the board on
[15:13] board fence would match in mirror the the aesthetic of the
[15:18] main building. We also own 5256 Center Street, and my goal is
[15:22] to build a design theme that carries through those parcels.
[15:26] And so everything would be contiguous. It would meet the
[15:29] standards of, of everything else, a part of the project,
[15:31] and at my expense, if the homeowner so choose, I would, I
[15:36] would, uh, pay to convert the chain link to a board on board
[15:39] at whatever material they wish.
[15:46] And else have anything on number one.
[15:49] Yeah, I do, I guess this would be a question for Mr. Rinaldi
[15:52] or if you have to go back to the ten foot where what’s your
[15:59] contingency plan for the diagram in the parking of what
[16:04] you can do, seeing how you purchase the additional lot.
[16:07] So the the net impact, uh, ranges between 7 and 10 parking
[16:15] spaces. The, uh, my my goal here and and I’m happy to
[16:20] expand on it at the board’s desire is to very specifically
[16:26] remove the seasonal impact to the businesses. Not only that
[16:30] we’re bringing to this building, but the entire Main
[16:33] Street district. And I want to prove that by way of concept, I
[16:35] do a lot of this style of specialty retail, and I study
[16:39] the essential elements that we use to make success for these
[16:42] businesses. I am very focused to become a great neighbor and
[16:48] partner to the Main Street businesses. I this is what I do
[16:52] every day. I know the stress points. I also operate a
[16:55] seasonal business within Canandaigua. Candidate YSL
[16:58] board at 11 Lakeshore, and my dream is to eventually be able
[17:02] to keep that open year round.
[17:03] And and so this is part of a larger vision I have. It sounds
[17:08] funny, but the absent even five spaces, you know, my my now
[17:14] role to subsidize becomes quite significant. And and so it
[17:19] doesn’t seem like a lot, but I would hate to not be able to
[17:22] restore and make beautiful to 56 Center Street to add
[17:25] beautiful residential offerings there. Uh, Kurt from Thiel’s
[17:29] Auto is doing such great work in there. He’s converting these
[17:32] radical cars to electric and fixing all types of of new and
[17:37] old vehicles. And I want to support him as well. So surface
[17:42] surface area. There is, you know, of great utility. I have
[17:46] similar buffer situations across Ontario County and
[17:49] Monroe County. I have found great success in the style I
[17:53] own and manage the property.
[17:55] You’re stuck with me for life, and so if there is an
[17:57] operational deficiency there that doesn’t match what I
[18:00] promise here, or any expectations I’ve set, I’m not
[18:03] going anywhere. And I will testify that I will find
[18:06] resolve if if I haven’t met that, met that goal.
[18:08] But to to that point, if, if you had to pull, pull back the
[18:14] parking lot from the property line, would you go to diagonal
[18:16] or.
[18:17] So? Um, it would depend if we have to if the boards, uh,
[18:22] request us to comply with the full ten foot, we can’t fit
[18:25] diagonal parking spaces either because of it’s only 4746ft
[18:29] wide. So if we have a 20 foot drive lane, even with the
[18:33] diagonal, you’re still 1516ft of depth.
[18:35] I think.
[18:35] Um.
[18:36] So one of the issues is, I mean, it’s a big improvement to
[18:39] have access to, to both Saltonstall and Foster.
[18:42] Correct. If you go to diagonal, then you’re going to lose the
[18:45] can we go to diagonal?
[18:46] We lose. I think about, um, 7 to 8 parking spaces. If we go
[18:51] to comply with the full ten foot buffer, we could
[18:53] technically fit in parallel parking, but we lose about 13
[18:56] to 14 spaces.
[18:57] So you’d go parallel?
[18:58] Yes.
[18:59] And these are standard nine. By 19, you can’t go any smaller
[19:03] than.
[19:03] Uh, for the for the angled one.
[19:05] It’s approximately nine by 19.
[19:06] But for the parking that’s shown on this plan.
[19:08] That’s correct. That’s all nine by 19. Yep. So we could we
[19:11] could go, you know, to an 18 foot depth, which is standard
[19:15] in a lot of towns. And save a lot. But we’re still six feet.
[19:18] Six feet. And it’s a two lane.
[19:20] It’s a two lane travel lane right north south.
[19:22] Correct. Right now we have 20ft.
[19:23] And that’s pretty important.
[19:25] Yes. It’s very important for us to to maintain that. For access
[19:27] to Saltonstall or to foster just for the site circulation.
[19:32] And, and one way.
[19:32] To get to the site.
[19:34] Remind me what the buffer was on the previously approved
[19:37] plan.
[19:37] Was still five feet, correct?
[19:39] Correct. Yeah. We were five feet from the property line.
[19:41] Okay. So you’re looking at what would this. So this is going to
[19:45] be like oh it’s hard to tell.
[19:47] But what is the buffer going to be with your proposed plan.
[19:50] It’ll be five feet from basically the curb line to the
[19:54] property line. So we’ll have a fence that will be a foot off
[19:56] that property line, and then we’ll have four feet of lawn
[19:59] area to do landscape plantings.
[20:01] And is there is there a curb there.
[20:03] There will be curb along our home.
[20:05] So no one’s going to roll into the grass and take up even the
[20:08] five foot. No. You’d have a curb, a solid stop curb, then
[20:12] the full five and then the fence.
[20:14] Yep. And that’s to help also stop the drainage and stuff
[20:16] from running off into their property and collect it.
[20:18] So well, then I would say for me that this isn’t too
[20:21] dissimilar to what this board previously approved three years
[20:24] ago. Um, as far as creating a change to the nearby property
[20:29] and you’re still going to have a buffer and there is going to
[20:31] be a fence put in.
[20:33] Yeah. And I think just just struck me now, if we if we
[20:37] think about our a lot of our downtown parking lots that are
[20:39] adjacent to residential districts, I don’t think any of
[20:41] those are fenced.
[20:42] No. So honestly.
[20:44] I mean, this isn’t fenced over by council to pass to their
[20:47] parking lot just runs right against.
[20:48] The house. Honestly, as far as that’s concerned, this actually
[20:50] might be an improvement over over that.
[20:52] Well, there would be at least a privacy. Fence. Yeah. Yes. That
[20:55] would keep the car lights and stuff out.
[20:57] In uh, in terms of the, the plantings which you mentioned,
[21:01] which hasn’t been talked about yet between my house and my
[21:04] neighbor’s house, we have some rather tall arbor vitis, which
[21:09] pretty much block the view from one house to the other,
[21:12] something like that might, you know, help out the, uh, the
[21:17] person that lives next door in terms of not only
[21:19] visualization, but in terms of noise. It provides a very nice
[21:23] damper. My other question is.
[21:25] How, in addition to the fence.
[21:27] Yeah, yeah, I think the code allows if you have a ten feet,
[21:31] you go with fence or plantings, but plantings obviously aren’t
[21:34] as solid as a fence, right. But in your proposal you would you
[21:38] would have plantings in the five foot strip.
[21:40] Yeah.
[21:41] In addition to the fence or instead of.
[21:43] Yeah, you we’re going to involve.
[21:45] The uh, the other.
[21:47] That’s important to mention because I didn’t see that.
[21:49] That’s what I heard.
[21:49] I didn’t see that in the plan.
[21:50] Okay.
[21:51] We still owe the planning commission our, uh, detailed
[21:54] site plans, including landscape and lighting plans. So we’re
[21:57] going to have a focus on providing additional
[21:59] landscaping within proximity to where that house is, to try and
[22:02] provide as much buffering within, you know.
[22:05] Yeah, that was my other question. One other question
[22:07] was, how’s the parking lot lit?
[22:09] I mean, if the lights are on the area where in the front of
[22:12] where the car is parked, are they going to shine towards the
[22:14] building so as not to disturb the neighbors?
[22:16] No, the parking lots will all be facing, probably from that
[22:20] rear line back into the site with rear yard or rear side
[22:24] shields, you know, dark sky compliant lighting and they’ll
[22:26] obviously be controlled, um, time controlled after business
[22:30] hours are closed. You know, we can turn those down to, you
[22:32] know, reduce impacts and just keep what we need on for safety
[22:34] and security.
[22:35] I understand. Thank you.
[22:37] Anything else? Number one. do you know.
[22:39] At this point you said there’s a couple of restaurant uses
[22:42] coming in? Are they. I know the ones. The bagel shop based on
[22:44] the sign is, is the other one going to be a later night
[22:47] operation or do we know yet?
[22:50] So, uh, the only the only full sit down white tablecloth,
[22:57] restaurant is it’s fine dining, okay. And they, they typically
[23:03] I have, I have a location with them right now. I couldn’t be
[23:07] more excited to be bringing them to Canandaigua. Um, and
[23:09] their patronage, typically, uh, tones down around around 10
[23:13] p.m.. Um, I, I eat out in Canandaigua often, and I even
[23:20] though I do wish for a day where there’s some later night
[23:23] options and fine dining. Um, the what we have proposed
[23:27] would, would, would term out, uh, roughly between 930 and
[23:30] 10:00. Um, we have word we have an executive property
[23:34] management team. Uh, the the properties managed meticulously.
[23:40] Uh, and, uh, Councilman Robert’s point, uh, we use our
[23:43] herbs quite often, especially with how we sell and maintain
[23:46] our our our the safety of our our our parking fields. And
[23:51] that would be an awesome introduction to the landscape
[23:54] offer. But but we have we have no borrowers coming in.
[23:58] Everything’s specialty retail and, uh, and the tendency of
[24:02] the mix of the tenants I’m very excited about, they all have
[24:04] kind of a, a purpose when put together as one, one catalog.
[24:08] Would you, would you turn the parking lot lights off when
[24:11] the, when the building is closed.
[24:13] Down?
[24:14] Certainly. Well the, the the ones any the ones closest to
[24:18] the residential. Yes. Uh, safety is is so very important
[24:22] to us when this this is what typically happens, especially
[24:26] in a dense city environment.
[24:28] Typically the lit safe looking structure is a place of safety
[24:32] and solace. Uh, my goal here, because of all the awesome
[24:36] community features, is that when people are, um, moving
[24:40] rhythm across the lakeshore in the main street trade areas,
[24:45] you know, I want to I want to be that that feature to to the
[24:48] community. I want them to rely on us. I’d like there to be
[24:51] some common, uh, a blue box or some equivalent. I’d like
[24:53] people to be able to rely on, on, on our facility. So I’d
[24:56] like to keep the perimeter lighting in the ones closest
[24:59] to. The other thing is for, uh, for, uh, employees who might be
[25:05] working the later shift or coming in early, it’d be nice
[25:08] to, to be able to keep them illuminated and safe, and then
[25:11] they would move their car when the business opened. But the
[25:14] ones closest to the building, I’d like to be able to keep on,
[25:16] if at all possible.
[25:19] Okay. Anything else on that one before.
[25:21] I move? Um, just. Yeah, I would just point out that it was kind
[25:23] of mentioned this is going to go back to the planning
[25:25] Commission for site plan review. If, you know, you make
[25:27] the dimensional variances, okay. And they could they’re
[25:31] going to probably have to follow up on the planting plan.
[25:33] Specifically landscaping plan was talked about. They always
[25:36] have a lot of concerns about dark sky compliance and hours
[25:40] of operation and things along those lines. I mean, it’s not
[25:43] that it’s certainly your issue as well with regard to the the
[25:46] adjacent property, but there’s some overlap there.
[25:49] Okay. Continuing to look just at the buffer, I will move on
[25:52] to number two, show that the benefit sought by the applicant
[25:56] cannot be achieved by some other feasible method that
[25:59] would not require a variance.
[26:02] Correct.
[26:03] What do you mean by that?
[26:05] I don’t see any other way of doing it.
[26:08] He just said they’d have to go to parallel. It would lose.
[26:10] Well, they would lose. They would lose parking spaces,
[26:13] which would then require a variance. Right?
[26:15] So this is it.
[26:19] I mean, I don’t think there’s any way for them to provide 145
[26:21] parking spots by like reconfiguring the lot.
[26:24] So no, there’s not I’m plus the fact that although again, this
[26:31] is not looking at the parking because we’ll do that next.
[26:32] But by by denying one variance you then increase the other.
[26:37] I mean they go together really honestly, no matter how you
[26:40] look at it. But, um, you’ll get Foster Street added as a as a
[26:44] it didn’t have that previously, so that’ll be another access
[26:46] point. Um, I mean, you can’t you lose parking spaces even
[26:54] though that’s I know they go together whether you like it or
[26:57] not. Yeah. Okay. Anything else on number two? Number three
[27:01] show that the requested area of variance is not substantial.
[27:08] What do.
[27:09] We think? I think with the introduction of the fence, I
[27:11] don’t think it’s substantial.
[27:12] Personally, I think the difference between 5 and 10ft
[27:14] is is is just me. It’s not much. Um, so.
[27:19] And and plantings.
[27:20] And plantings.
[27:21] Exactly. Yeah. Still have you’ll have, you’ll have uh,
[27:24] you’ll have some shielding from the neighbor.
[27:27] I think when you consider, as we mentioned, that other
[27:31] parking in Kanagawa doesn’t even necessarily always provide
[27:36] this, I think that helps it not feel substantial in that, yeah,
[27:41] they’re still providing that buffer, even if it might not be
[27:46] the full ten feet.
[27:48] Yep. I think that’s the number three. Number four show that
[27:53] the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or
[27:57] impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
[28:00] neighborhood.
[28:04] This probably be a point to jump in with regard to the
[28:06] speakers that the, um, the Planning Commission has
[28:08] requested lead agency status to review the seeker for this
[28:11] project. And they had a lot of questions about the drainage
[28:14] and lighting. And so they’re going to be doing the
[28:18] environmental.
[28:18] Okay. So we will not be doing that. Yeah. Okay.
[28:20] I mean you could you can you probably should go on the
[28:23] record to see lead agency status to the Planning
[28:26] Commission.
[28:26] We can do that right. Once I get through the number five.
[28:30] I’ll break it. This could technically be a type two
[28:32] action. It is on.
[28:35] Yeah. Through the variance.
[28:37] Single variance. There’s two variances I. Yeah. You’re not
[28:41] reviewing. You know the fact that it’s related to the site
[28:44] plan. And really the planning commission’s is the unlisted
[28:47] action and the the zoning board’s, you know not. Well it
[28:52] could be a type of action either way that the zoning
[28:54] board is not going to be doing the the environmental review,
[28:57] the planning.
[28:57] Commission for the planning, they’ve requested. And I don’t
[29:01] want.
[29:01] To I mean, to the extent that it is part of the test, though,
[29:04] I think you need to talk about it.
[29:05] Yes. Um, what do we think on number four?
[29:11] He already said they’re going to be doing appropriate curbs,
[29:15] and they’re still keeping a five foot buffer that’ll help
[29:17] with drainage and any basic concerns that could be
[29:21] affecting the physical or environmental.
[29:24] Impact of going from 10ft to 5ft. There would be like less
[29:27] room for drainage, but it’s curbed. So it really shouldn’t
[29:30] be an issue, right? Lighting safety, things like that, that
[29:33] could fall into seeker.
[29:34] Yep. Um.
[29:36] I think you address some of those under the first part.
[29:38] Yes. And I don’t I mean, the building is a little bit bigger
[29:42] than the previously what this board previously allowed, but
[29:45] it’s not.
[29:46] The building isn’t requiring a variance though. Yes. So it’s
[29:49] the environmental impact of going from 10ft to 5 foot on
[29:51] the far, far.
[29:53] No, I don’t see a huge difference with that at all,
[29:57] especially not with this board previously approved.
[30:00] Well, I think at this point you do have to take into
[30:02] consideration, uh, the property owners, uh, I’m not really sure
[30:08] what they were talking about because they don’t have
[30:10] standing for because they don’t want them to tear down. 19 if I
[30:14] read the email correctly. But that’s.
[30:15] Really.
[30:15] Not they’d.
[30:15] Like to have. That’s not an.
[30:17] Offer of a full property.
[30:18] Correct.
[30:18] But and obviously he did make, uh, Mr. Wilhelm, uh, didn’t
[30:24] make mention of there is a negative he, he has a perceived
[30:28] negative on the physical. Uh, condition of his property, of
[30:34] the impact that’s going to do.
[30:35] So they should probably at least. Yeah, that’s at least
[30:38] where the email should come in.
[30:39] Yeah.
[30:39] That’s that’s that is that is a valid point. Um, doesn’t want
[30:45] to see that torn down. And he wants a full buffer. But I
[30:47] mean, the code requires a ten foot buffer. And this is going
[30:51] to be five feet. So I mean, I don’t.
[30:55] Know, the applicant made the point also that it is in a
[30:58] different zone district.
[30:59] So it is because, um, this is uh, what is what is this?
[31:04] This is the mu I mean, in the next door properties in R2 or
[31:08] in R3. Um, yeah. You know, for, for whatever reason, that the
[31:11] house, which was a residence was not in the residential zone
[31:14] district.
[31:15] Yeah, it’s right on the border of a mu. And.
[31:17] Uh, so the property that has concerns is, is, you know, the
[31:21] first property in the residential zoning district,
[31:23] which is always going to be a transition.
[31:24] You’re always on a border, right? I mean, we’ve dealt with
[31:26] this before with, uh, short stress creep, you know, what’s
[31:31] what’s what’s the term creep, right. You know, it’s where
[31:33] does that start? Where does that end? Right. Although I
[31:35] will also mention that one street over, um, there’s a big
[31:42] parking lot right next to, um, you know, you have the dental
[31:46] office there, and you have the fire department right there.
[31:48] And.
[31:49] Then you go down Phelps Street, there’s the Big Ravine parking
[31:51] lot.
[31:51] Yeah, you’ve got that too. So it’s not really necessarily out
[31:55] of character. I probably would look more towards number one,
[31:59] but you know, I don’t think it’s significantly different
[32:03] now.
[32:03] And I think when you live that close to Main Street, you’re
[32:06] that’s part of the being that close to Main Street is you’re
[32:09] going to.
[32:09] Yeah. You’re right.
[32:10] I’m integrated with commercial basically.
[32:12] And it almost looked like with the diner that’s there right
[32:16] now, it’s not. Yeah. It’s not really changing the makeup.
[32:19] It’s really not changing the current makeup of the corner.
[32:22] No, no.
[32:24] And judging by what the corners are in rough shape. So this.
[32:27] Is it used to be a gas station.
[32:29] And there’s the old Pizza Hut right there. And it’s now a
[32:31] diner. And it’s it’s not really significantly different what it
[32:34] was historically. Right. Yeah.
[32:35] I would think commercial property, um, I think it’s
[32:40] number five shows that the alleged hardship is not
[32:43] self-created.
[32:48] They didn’t make the parking requirement or the buffer
[32:51] requirement in the code. I guess.
[32:54] I mean, what you’re seeing is, you know, a balancing, you
[32:58] know, they could have avoided this variance but had to make
[33:00] the other one more significant.
[33:01] So they’re basically balancing the the impact of or
[33:06] significance of the two variances.
[33:08] If the you had to comply with the buffer of the parking lot
[33:11] weapons smaller.
[33:12] Yeah.
[33:12] Yeah, it is self-created, but it’s also being self corrected
[33:15] by the moves that are making.
[33:17] So yeah, correct. Okay.
[33:21] Should we do a motion on that one and then.
[33:24] Go for discussion here.
[33:25] Okay. Is there any discussion on on this one. Nope. On the
[33:28] buffer only. Not I would invite a motion on the buffer.
[33:36] All right I will make a motion.
[33:38] Oh wait. Should we see the status for acre.
[33:42] They want you to make that note.
[33:44] Yeah. Make that in your motion.
[33:45] Okay.
[33:45] Uh, so I’ll make a motion with respect to application 26 to
[33:50] 63, a, uh, 267 South Main Street. Um, this is just with
[33:56] respect to the buffer, uh, variance being requested. Um, I
[34:00] would make a motion to approve that, um, based on items one
[34:08] through three, we will cede item four to the Planning
[34:12] Commission, and, um, and then item five, um, as well.
[34:16] Second.
[34:19] Okay. Any further discussion?
[34:21] Not. Mr. Brown, would you call the roll, please?
[34:23] Mr. Fallow? Yes, Mr. Roberts?
[34:25] Yes, Miss Harris? Yes, Miss Tomsic? Yes, Mr. Burger? Yes,
[34:30] chairman. Willmar.
[34:31] Carol.
[34:32] Oh, Carol’s on.
[34:35] Yes.
[34:36] Yes, She is. Thank you. Ryan. Uh,
[34:39] motion carries all voting. Yes.
[34:40] Sorry. Carol. You were there.
[34:43] It’s always a problem. Assume.
[34:45] Yeah, I know, um, okay, now let’s go to number. The second
[34:49] variance will be for the parking lot.
[34:51] The total count?
[34:53] Yes. Total count for the parking lot. Uh, we previously
[34:56] had approved. Um, what was it?
[34:58] 90 difference. And this will be 100. Yeah. Trying to.
[35:03] So the.
[35:04] My memory is right.
[35:05] On that. Yeah. I had before.
[35:07] Yeah. That’s here..
[35:09] Right. Difference between, uh, 115 and 25. And now the
[35:13] difference is between 145 and 45.
[35:17] Okay.
[35:18] Um, did you say 46?
[35:20] Yes. And what we’re playing now.
[35:22] Okay. Uh, I’ll just read the whole thing just for fun again.
[35:26] And making this determination in the Zoning Board of Appeals
[35:28] shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant.
[35:31] If the variance is granted, is weighed against the detriment
[35:34] to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
[35:36] community. By the grant. In making such determination, the
[35:39] board shall also consider the following factors. Number one.
[35:42] Show that the granting of the variance will not produce
[35:44] undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood,
[35:47] or create a detriment to nearby properties. So what do we think
[35:53] about the count of the parking lot in relation to number one?
[35:59] It feels pretty fair to me based on the neighborhood.
[36:03] When you think of I like the character. Um, think of the
[36:08] character of 145 car parking lot on this property.
[36:10] That would. Right? It would be horrible.
[36:12] To me. It would be a massive impact.
[36:15] And then the other part of the impact would be, you know, kind
[36:19] of the always in my mind with the variance, what’s the harm?
[36:23] Um, a lot of communities are getting away from parking
[36:26] requirements to try to encourage, you know, higher
[36:28] density, walkable communities.
[36:31] Um, but historically, you know, codes have required on street
[36:35] parking. And so what what’s the harm of having it under parked
[36:40] those people that are going to see parking elsewhere, are they
[36:43] going to be, you know, illegally parking the
[36:46] neighbor’s property? Or is there other impacts other than
[36:48] the fact that they’re just going to have to walk farther
[36:51] from their municipal parking lot, which is more of a
[36:54] business model issue, I think, than.
[36:56] Uh, how many times have we said during the comprehensive plan
[36:59] changes, you know, we want a vibrant downtown. And, you
[37:03] know, this is kind of part of it, right? You know, it’s there
[37:06] will never be enough parking or anything, right? You know, you
[37:09] can’t necessarily have private I mean, that’s why you have
[37:11] municipal lots. I mean, I think they outlined.
[37:13] Well, that’s that’s why we did that. Downtown is the creation
[37:16] of municipal lots so that all the businesses didn’t have to
[37:19] provide their own parking. This is not within that district.
[37:22] But again, it’s adjacent to that district. So to your point
[37:25] about like the creep, if this was proposed, you know, a half
[37:29] a mile away, it would be different than adjacent to the
[37:31] district. So what is the kind of close enough to downtown to
[37:35] be?
[37:35] Right?
[37:36] There is also public parking relatively close to. So the,
[37:39] uh, if you go on, uh, the west side of Main Street, there is a
[37:45] underused city parking lot that would be walkable from.
[37:48] The ancestry lot would be the closest lot, and that is the
[37:51] least used spot. And, um, I think for quantum has started
[37:55] using that more. And anyone that, you know, if there’s any
[37:58] partnership between you and for quantum, which I think you
[38:01] spoke about at the Planning Commission meeting, that’s
[38:02] going to kind of help that connection.
[38:04] How many residential are going.
[38:05] In to that location.
[38:08] Into 267? That there is no residential proposed. The
[38:13] second floor is class A office designed specifically to lowest
[38:16] to lower density. I do have plans to take the exact same
[38:19] architecture, which is a a uh, shingle nautical inspired
[38:26] design. I’d like to carry that to 256 Center Street, where by
[38:31] which we’ll either create a resurrected with the two units
[38:35] or just one single family. So we’re not I’m not looking to
[38:39] add any residential. I’m looking to improve the
[38:42] residential.
[38:42] So everything would be a relatively business from 6 a.m.
[38:45] to 10 p.m.. Absolutely.
[38:46] What the other thing is that this this is the straight
[38:49] parking count. Um, they didn’t do a lot of I don’t think they
[38:54] did any calculations with regard to shared parking and
[38:56] whether or not shared parking makes sense, because I assume
[38:58] the offices are going to be closing out at five, about the
[39:01] time the restaurants would get busy. So in some sense, some
[39:04] sense that 145 is double counting some spots.
[39:07] Yes, exactly. So.
[39:08] So have you done kind of a calculation of, you know, how
[39:12] many of those are office and how many of those are
[39:14] restaurant. If you were going to do just the restaurant,
[39:16] would that count drop to.
[39:21] That is actually a very valid point.
[39:22] Uh, we have so 87 of the parking spaces are for the
[39:26] restaurant users, and then 58 are for the office space. And
[39:29] then as we kind of talked about with the Planning Commission,
[39:31] the tenants and the users he’s bringing in are really
[39:34] complimentary to each other because they have, you know,
[39:36] the bagel shop, the fine dining shop, and then there’s a sub
[39:40] shop, too. So you kind of hit breakfast, lunch and dinner
[39:43] when the peaks of those three businesses going, um, obviously
[39:46] there’s a couple of retail space left over, um, with the
[39:49] office spaces being primarily used during the day Monday
[39:52] through Friday. So these uses really do complement each
[39:54] other. You know, when the restaurants get busier at
[39:56] night, the office people generally won’t be there.
[39:58] And we would anyone that’s been downtown knows that there’s not
[40:01] a lot of other stuff open in the evenings.
[40:03] No. And I was going to say, honestly, in my brain, it’s
[40:06] helpful to the other businesses that are open because if you
[40:08] have to park a block away, stop and get a drink or an
[40:12] appetizer. or something somewhere else on your way to
[40:15] whatever, like that’s helpful.
[40:16] Yeah. If you force people to stroll around a little bit, I
[40:19] don’t see that as being a negative.
[40:21] So really it’s not under 45.
[40:23] It’s nowhere near that really, because there’s the over
[40:26] there’s there’s there’s not really a lot of overlap between
[40:29] an office and a restaurant or when they get I mean.
[40:31] If they’re.
[40:32] But they’re.
[40:32] Busy lunch and yeah, lunch and breakfast would overlap.
[40:35] Evening probably would not.
[40:36] It’s I mean, it’s it’s not an exact science.
[40:39] No it’s not, but at least for dinner when they would probably
[40:41] be busiest Friday, Saturday.
[40:43] , maybe something to be considered under significance
[40:46] is, you know, it might not be the full no. Hundred variance.
[40:50] Oh, I don’t think it would be.
[40:51] Yeah.
[40:52] Although that’s more appropriate for number three.
[40:54] But, um, anything else on number one? Number two show
[40:58] that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by
[41:01] some other feasible method that would not require a variance.
[41:09] Not in the present space time continuum. I don’t see it,
[41:11] that’s for sure.
[41:12] Moving on.
[41:13] Right. It would just it would become it would become a much
[41:16] smaller building, which is not arguably the same benefit.
[41:20] We’ve talked about this before, but in a perfect world, they
[41:22] would have the Pizza Hut. But, you know, life didn’t always
[41:25] work out right. Yeah, I’ve talked about that many times
[41:28] before. Um, no, I yeah, I don’t think it would be a in a
[41:36] perfect world.
[41:38] Parking structure.
[41:39] Not feasible.
[41:40] In a perfect world, you would have everything, but.
[41:42] Probably need some variances for that too.
[41:43] Yeah, yeah.
[41:44] Yes. Um, anything else on number two? Number three show
[41:49] that the requested area variance is not substantial. So
[41:53] that kind of goes with that.
[41:54] Right.
[41:55] As far as the hours of the businesses that will be there.
[41:58] Um, there is some overlap.
[41:59] Probably not a lot.
[42:01] But 100 is a big number.
[42:02] It is mathematically, although mathematically it’s not. It’s
[42:06] only what, about 10% bigger.
[42:09] Than the previous variance.
[42:10] , previously approved variance by this board.
[42:12] So that’s that’s an entire discussion I think we had
[42:14] previously just to get that on the record. Um, if you look at
[42:18] it as 100, that that’s a big number. The previous variances
[42:22] was offered for 90, which is now the permitted number.
[42:26] Yeah.
[42:26] Right. So you’re, you could you could argue this, that it’s
[42:29] only like a 10% increase of the current variance.
[42:32] Correct. Mathematically it’s like 10% bigger from what this
[42:35] board.
[42:35] And then then again it’s you know, at what point does the
[42:38] straw break the camel’s back then.
[42:39] But this is true, right. It’s all it’s all it’s all a
[42:42] balancing act as we are doing in this test. So we have to
[42:45] balance well outweighs the other. Yeah. Um, anything else
[42:51] for substantial no number for show that the proposed variance
[42:58] will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
[43:02] environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Although we
[43:06] talked about that. We’re seeding that to the Planning
[43:08] Commission. So maybe we should.
[43:11] And again, the impact of providing less parking.
[43:14] Gets better and not.
[43:16] Worse on the environment.
[43:17] Yeah.
[43:17] So traffic may be., but.
[43:21] Um, is this going to be.
[43:23] Well.
[43:24] It’s not going to be a lot bigger than what we previously.
[43:26] Allowed, because I was thinking more on the like runoff and
[43:29] permeable surface. I was thinking more from that point.
[43:31] Of view. Right. And you didn’t see any of that. And that’s
[43:33] that’s going into the Planning Commission, the engineer’s
[43:35] report for drainage.
[43:36] Okay.
[43:38] That’s more for their use.
[43:40] Anything else on number four?
[43:42] Oh, number five show that the alleged hardship is not
[43:45] self-created.
[43:50] Not not if they want to accomplish their business goals
[43:54] in this specific area.
[43:55] It would be a very small building to if it was provided.
[43:58] All the parking was provided on site.
[44:00] Right. Would also be a very tiny parking one. Possibly, um.
[44:10] Anything else on number five?
[44:13] Okay. Anyone want to make a motion on parking space? Count
[44:18] and with the we’ll add the thing about the the the sugar
[44:22] also in there.
[44:23] Sure. I’ll go for it. I’ll take control of this one, I guess,
[44:26] if that’s okay with everybody.
[44:28] Go for it. All right. Uh, for application 26 to 63 a 267
[44:34] South Main Street. Uh, seeking an area variance for. A parking
[44:40] variance, um, seeking 45 spaces instead of 145. I would make a
[44:46] motion to approve that as well, based on, again, items one
[44:50] through three, we’re going to cede four to the Planning
[44:53] Commission. And then item five as well.
[44:56] Second okay. Any further discussion?
[44:59] I, I just want to be clear, because I think you said the
[45:03] same thing for the last one.
[45:04] You’re not going to include five in the motion. You’re just
[45:07] going to include one through three.
[45:08] Oh that’s okay though right.
[45:09] Yeah.
[45:09] Well no I mean it’s either way, but yeah I mean are you going
[45:12] to are you going to say that this is not a self-created
[45:14] hardship, or are you saying that.
[45:16] It is it self create or is it not.
[45:17] Oh are you I mean having just one through three it’s fine.
[45:20] But yeah, I know you’re saying four is not in the motion.
[45:23] Yeah. And I’m not sure if.
[45:24] Five for what I’m doing with five.
[45:25] Um, either of the previous motions because you said you
[45:27] said it the same way.
[45:28] I did say it the same way. I was trying to be consistent. No.
[45:31] Good.
[45:31] I just want to make sure I have your.
[45:33] I would say. I mean, that’s a hard one.
[45:35] I self-created hardship is, is Carol will tell you. I mean,
[45:40] they’re.
[45:40] All self-created. I guess I’ll leave that one out. I’ll go one
[45:42] through three on both. Please.
[45:44] If it pleases the committee.
[45:46] Okay. Any other discussion.
[45:48] You got? Robert’s with a second again? Yep.
[45:50] Okay.
[45:51] Good to do, sir.
[45:52] Would you call the roll.
[45:53] Please, Mr. Balbo?
[45:54] Yes.
[45:55] Mr. Roberts? Yes, Miss Harris?
[45:57] Yes, miss burger? Yes, Miss Tomsic?
[46:00] Yes.
[46:02] Miss Hanshaw.
[46:03] Yes, chairman.
[46:04] Willmar.
[46:05] Yes.
[46:05] Motion carries all voting. Yes.
[46:07] Thank you.
[46:08] Thank you very much.
[46:10] Thank you. I really appreciate it.
[46:12] Thank you.
[46:13] Okay. See you in a couple of weeks.
[46:15] Yeah.
[46:16] Yes. She’ll be back here out of again.
[46:18] Be back to the Planning Commission.
[46:19] Well good luck.
[46:21] Do you? Dual purpose. Okay.
[46:23] Item number two, application 262642 50 Gorham Street. Josh
[46:30] and Carrie Coon seeking area variances necessary to operate
[46:34] a private event center in accordance with chapter 851
[46:38] 10.4. Um, number one, minimum lot size of ten acres. With the
[46:44] setback of 100ft from all property lines. Number two, the
[46:49] use shall appear to be single family residents. The number
[46:53] three parking must be visible from the public right of way..
[46:58] And before we get into it too far with the applicant, just
[47:01] let me explain what we have going on here. This this is an
[47:04] applicant, a use that is permitted by special use permit
[47:06] to the Planning Commission, but it doesn’t meet many of the
[47:09] standards of that use. So, um, this is not the final approval
[47:13] of the project, but this just gets allows them to present to
[47:17] the Planning Commission. Um, in that, as I noted, the, the the
[47:23] vision of what an event center would look like is based kind
[47:26] of on the concept of, of a home with a lot of property around
[47:30] it. And, um, this is a unique vision of doing an event center
[47:35] in, in what is more of a, of an urban structure with, um, a
[47:39] commercial appearance.
[47:42] Okay. This doesn’t have a secret as it.
[47:46] No.
[47:48] Okay. Here, you see your present. So you want to talk
[47:52] about name for the record and address for the record.
[47:55] My name.
[47:56] Is Mike Giunta.
[47:56] Uh, Josh and Kerry.
[47:58] Could not make it tonight, so I’m here representing them.
[48:01] Okay.
[48:01] Tell us what you’re looking to do.
[48:03] So we are looking to seek three variances. Um, as previously
[48:07] stated, uh, the first variance is to make or to allow parking
[48:12] to be visible from the public right of way. Um, the existing
[48:16] 40 space lot is already built and cannot be relocated. The
[48:21] second variance is the parcel is, uh, it’s 0.6 acres. Um, not
[48:29] it’s not the ten acres required. Um, building setbacks
[48:33] are 20ft, not the required 100ft. These are pre-existing
[48:37] conditions. The lot was plotted long before, uh, the code was
[48:42] enacted.
[48:43] And if I could just jump in right then. I mean, if you read
[48:46] those, I mean, those are describing, like, a big house
[48:50] on a big property and not impacting the other residential
[48:53] neighbors. Um, you know, obviously this property was
[48:58] never a house, could never be a house, and it has always had a
[49:01] much more intensive commercial use.
[49:04] Correct? Yep. And then the last variance is the the building
[49:10] does not appear to be a single family residence. Um, is a
[49:13] fully renovated two story professional building. Um, it’s
[49:17] been that its entire history.
[49:20] Um, so we’re seeking a variance to allow that.
[49:27] Um.
[49:29] And I would just point out one more thing that, um, because
[49:32] this is obviously a commercial building in a residential zone
[49:35] district over the last 30 years, I think there’s been 6
[49:40] or 8 use variances that have been issued for this, trying to
[49:44] trying to find a use for this property most recently used as
[49:48] a as a gym and then a wellness facility. Um, so without, you
[49:55] know, going to a much harder test of, of establishing a use
[49:59] variance, this is kind of an interesting case where, you
[50:02] know, a permitted use can be allowed, um, with some area
[50:07] variances instead.
[50:08] Interesting.
[50:09] Mhm.
[50:10] Um.
[50:12] And yeah, just the other thing, if it, I noted in my review,
[50:18] the building was modified by the previous previous owner,
[50:23] um, removing the second floor.
[50:25] So you know, a lot of the uses that the building could be used
[50:28] for have been limited by the fact that you now have this in
[50:33] the photo, you see this large two story space which, um, is
[50:38] rather unique.
[50:39] Yeah.
[50:39] So a little bit industrial looking at this, um.
[50:43] We’re going to do all three of these.
[50:44] At once. Well, I was going to ask that. Well, I was gonna
[50:47] I’ll get to that in a minute.
[50:48] Uh, anyone have any questions before I open the public
[50:50] hearing? Okay, I’ll open the public hearing. At this time.
[50:54] Is there anyone here to speak to this? I’ll see anyone in the
[50:57] room. Any written comments online?
[50:59] No comments.
[51:00] And I don’t know if there’s anyone online, is there?
[51:04] Yeah. And, well, I mean, for what it’s worth, we’ve had, as
[51:07] I said, 4 or 5 different commercial uses in this
[51:09] property. And we’ve never had complaints from the neighbors.
[51:13] Okay.
[51:15] And again, there’ll be another public hearing at the Planning
[51:17] Commission with, you know, more details on on the use.
[51:20] Okay. And I will close the public hearing. Okay. So do we
[51:25] want to tackle this as a package deal of all three at
[51:28] once, or do we want to take this separately?
[51:29] I think it’s appropriate.
[51:30] You need you need to hit them all. So I guess it’s up to you,
[51:33] right? Oh, wait. Someone there’s someone present. Um.
[51:37] Oh, there. Yep. Kim. I’m sorry.
[51:40] Okay. Yep. I will reopen the public hearing.
[51:44] Sorry. I was trying to get myself off mute. Can you hear
[51:47] me?
[51:47] Yep. Can I hear you now?
[51:48] Know my address. For the record, please.
[51:50] Um, I’m at 257 Gibson Street.
[51:52] My property actually backs right up. So from my back
[51:56] porch, I can see that building.
[51:58] So I’m on more. Just curious about what it looks like and
[52:02] what that type of parking lot is going to look, because my
[52:05] entire back yard is right behind that.
[52:09] Are there any changes to the parking lot?
[52:12] No existing changes.
[52:13] As is.
[52:14] So is it. Is that giant grass area all going to be a parking
[52:17] lot? Is that the plan where there’s the building and then
[52:20] there’s like a small parking lot that’s back there. It’s not
[52:22] a huge parking lot. Um, but then you’ve got all that grass
[52:26] area. Is that grass area what’s going to be a parking lot?
[52:30] No.
[52:31] So it’s just going to remain the same spots that are there
[52:34] currently.
[52:35] That’s correct.
[52:36] There’s there’ll be an application to the Planning
[52:39] Commission if there’s a changes to the site, that would be a
[52:42] site plan review, which again, the neighbors would be
[52:45] notified. Um, I had talked to.
[52:48] Josh and.
[52:49] Carrie, the owners, and they said there wouldn’t be any
[52:51] change to the site plan. So we’re just looking at using the
[52:54] existing building on the existing site without any
[52:57] changes.
[53:00] Okay.
[53:04] Anything else you want to say?
[53:05] Oh, no, I’m just trying to understand what it would look
[53:08] like and kind of what traffic would be back there.
[53:10] Yeah. So so the variances as proposed are as is um, any
[53:15] changes to the property. Um, regarding the use and the
[53:19] traffic would probably be better served at the Planning
[53:22] Commission meeting and you’ll be notified of that meeting as
[53:24] well. Sorry to call you out twice, but that will be, um,
[53:28] second weekend in October. And traffic and site plan changes
[53:33] and hours of operation and those kind of things related to
[53:35] the use would be discussed at that meeting. Okay. This is
[53:39] just, um, basically allowing the building and site as is to
[53:43] make application to the Planning Commission.
[53:45] Gotcha. Okay.
[53:46] Thank you. And just one note, they they will be present at
[53:49] that meeting so they can speak further on the specific
[53:52] details. As far as that question.
[53:54] If it makes any difference to anyone, they, um, they, they
[53:59] let me know they were going to be out of town, but they did
[54:01] want to proceed because they need to close on the property
[54:04] and they can’t close on the property if they don’t have the
[54:06] variances. And they were afraid they might lose the property if
[54:09] they had to wait a month. So they decided to go ahead under
[54:12] difficult circumstances and ask someone else to to represent.
[54:16] It’s not that they they didn’t care enough to be here.
[54:20] Okay.
[54:20] Thank you. Host the first party.
[54:22] Thank you, and I will.
[54:24] I will.
[54:24] Thank you. I will close the public hearing now. Okay. Um,
[54:31] okay. Just get to the.
[54:34] balancing test. Yes. It’s that page in making its
[54:38] determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into
[54:41] consideration the benefit to the applicant of the variances.
[54:43] Granted, it is weighed against the detriment to the health,
[54:46] safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by
[54:49] such grant and making such a determination. The board shall
[54:52] also consider the following factors. Number one. Show that
[54:55] the granting of the variance will not produce an undesirable
[54:58] change in the character of the property, or create a detriment
[55:01] to nearby properties.
[55:03] It doesn’t sound like it’s going to change anything.
[55:06] Yeah.
[55:07] It seems to be about the same.
[55:12] There’s going to be no changes to the outside of the building
[55:17] as being.
[55:17] Taught, right? So a lot of times when we deal with
[55:19] variances, it’s because you’re modifying the property to a way
[55:24] that it’s not permitted in this case.
[55:26] Continue as.
[55:27] It is by changing, you’re changing it to a use that the
[55:31] building is not currently set up for. That’s maybe it’s a
[55:35] better way to see it. They’re not getting any closer than not
[55:37] expanding the parking.
[55:39] Well, the second variance would be the use up here as a single
[55:42] family residence. I mean, this is a very industrial looking
[55:44] building.
[55:45] You can’t it was never a single. Was it built initially
[55:47] as an office for list though?
[55:49] So it was literally never that great.
[55:51] There’s the two office buildings on the north side of
[55:53] the street there. They probably should have bumped the zone
[55:56] district up to to create those in the the manufacturing
[55:59] district to the south, but kind of just drew the line down the
[56:02] middle of the street. And these two properties kind of got
[56:04] orphaned into a residential zone district.
[56:06] And also, number one, minimum lot size, ten acres. I don’t. I
[56:11] mean, I don’t think a ten acre lot exists in the city.
[56:13] Well.
[56:13] There’s there’s very few.
[56:15] There’s at least one. Yeah.
[56:16] Tiffany’s probably trying to figure out what house it is.
[56:19] I can’t imagine.
[56:20] And, uh, um, right next to the cemetery.
[56:24] That’s what.
[56:24] I want to three.
[56:26] So, yeah, there’s only a couple of properties in the city that
[56:29] they could do this. So, I mean, the city council kind of
[56:31] crafted this ordinance to limit how often we could have event
[56:35] centers popping up next to residential neighborhoods. Um,
[56:39] not thinking that there were nonresidential buildings in
[56:43] residential zone districts.
[56:45] Yeah.
[56:46] Yeah.
[56:48] Yeah, I don’t think it’ll be any different. Carol, do you
[56:51] want to say something? I thought I heard.
[56:53] We’re good.
[56:54] Okay. Anything else on number one? Number two show that the
[56:59] benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some
[57:02] other feasible method that would not require a variance.
[57:07] It’s about as self-evident as anything I’ve ever seen.
[57:11] Oh, yeah. You can’t have it.
[57:13] Yeah. Sorry. Do you want to.
[57:14] Yeah. There’s. There’s no way to, uh, make this look like a
[57:18] house or, um.
[57:21] The setbacks.
[57:22] Or make the parking right. The parking non-visible will be
[57:25] putting it back further away towards other people’s houses.
[57:27] And, um. Yeah, ten acres is is quite substantial.
[57:32] Stipulated it wouldn’t be feasible to move the parking
[57:36] lot. It wouldn’t be physical.
[57:37] And in order to cover the parking lot, you’d have to
[57:39] expand the building. Yeah, that would work.
[57:41] So, no. Yeah.
[57:43] Um, yeah. And it doesn’t look like a single family house
[57:48] because it was never built as a single family house originally.
[57:50] Exactly. Yeah.
[57:51] Can’t change what’s already been there. Um, anything else
[57:55] on number two? OOP. Number three shall show that the
[57:58] requested area variance is not substantial.
[58:05] We think nothing’s changing. So how could it be substantial?
[58:09] Yeah.
[58:09] We’re going to say.
[58:11] There’s always, you know, ways to look at substantial you know
[58:14] impacts substantial mathematical substantial.
[58:16] Yeah I guess that’s true.
[58:17] Whatever. But yeah there’s several variances. And they are
[58:21] large in maybe mathematical dimensions, but none of them
[58:25] require any change.
[58:26] To the based on scope. Right.
[58:27] They’re gigantic, almost farcical, but based on
[58:30] practical application, they’re literally invisible. It’s
[58:33] interesting..
[58:35] Uh.
[58:35] Large but invisible.
[58:38] Step back.
[58:39] Over the concept.
[58:40] Yeah, I don’t know. Um, no, there’s no way you would be
[58:44] able to achieve any of that without any significant.
[58:48] Although it is substantial mathematically. Right. Because,
[58:51] I mean, I don’t know how big is this? How many acres is this
[58:53] property?
[58:54] I think it says.
[58:54] .6.6. Yep.
[58:56] Okay. Oh, yeah. Okay. So mathematically, maybe it is. I
[59:02] mean, uh, but I don’t really think.
[59:06] It’s and again, to think of the, uh, I always question, you
[59:10] know, the purpose of a zoning ordinance and shooting
[59:12] question. The purpose of zoning laws. But when I was involved
[59:16] in the writing and the idea was, you want to keep it far
[59:19] away from the adjacent homes and, uh, you know, it’s not I
[59:24] mean, this has always been a commercial building.
[59:25] Yeah.
[59:26] There is a six foot fence surrounding the entire parking
[59:29] lot as well. That backs right up to the homes.
[59:31] Um. That got good marks on the last one. So that’s a good
[59:36] sign.
[59:36] Yeah, right.
[59:37] It looks like Kim has a question.
[59:39] Oh, you closed the hearing.
[59:41] Oh, yeah. Well, you can.
[59:43] It’s up to you if you close it Oh, that’s right. Uh.
[59:48] We could do more at the Planning Commission meeting,
[59:50] too. I believe most of our concerns are functional today,
[59:53] but the use.
[59:54] Of the property. Anything else?
[59:55] Number three. Number four, show that the proposed variance will
[1:00:00] not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
[1:00:03] environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
[1:00:06] They’re not changing any.
[1:00:07] So this is the granting of the variance to the granting of the
[1:00:09] variance cause any environmental impacts. No no.
[1:00:15] Use. No.
[1:00:16] Because this an area variance.
[1:00:17] Now this.
[1:00:18] Also maybe back to your.
[1:00:21] Yeah. Right.
[1:00:22] It’s no change.
[1:00:23] No change means. Yeah. It’s hard to say a substantial. And
[1:00:25] nothing’s changing.
[1:00:27] Did I hear your voice, Carol?
[1:00:29] I’m chuckling.
[1:00:30] Oh, okay. I just wondered if you want to say anything.
[1:00:33] I say that that is her agreement.
[1:00:36] Um. Anything else at number four? No. Number five show that
[1:00:42] the alleged hardship is not self-created.
[1:00:47] In this case, I might actually.
[1:00:49] Ah, yeah. Can we do that this time? I know I was thinking the
[1:00:51] same thing.
[1:00:51] Carol can’t wait to hear this one.
[1:00:56] Uh, well, because there are so few things that you can do with
[1:01:01] this building without a variance. It’s kind of plus the
[1:01:11] the requirements are kind of extreme. Uh, as you said,
[1:01:16] farcical. Yeah. Okay.
[1:01:22] I mean, they didn’t write the right the, uh, ordinance.
[1:01:28] Yeah.
[1:01:29] I know you said you don’t like to dunk on ordinances, but, you
[1:01:33] know, you are. You’re part of the writing it. Right? So, I
[1:01:36] mean, when they wrote that ordinance.
[1:01:39] Uh, it was involved. Yes.
[1:01:40] So I think it makes excellent sense in any building except
[1:01:45] for this one, basically, as a homeowner in the city as well,
[1:01:48] I would not. I think those are great rules. But on this
[1:01:51] building specifically, they don’t obviously make any sense.
[1:01:54] No, I don’t.
[1:01:56] So yes, we want can.
[1:01:58] Um, anything else at number five? Okay. Any further
[1:02:03] discussion? If not, I would invite a motion.
[1:02:08] Motion to approve.
[1:02:11] Yeah. Do you want to go through it?
[1:02:13] Sure. Um, motion to approve.
[1:02:17] Application 262642 50 Gorham Street. Um, request for an ER.
[1:02:24] Seeking an area variance necessary to operate a private
[1:02:28] event center. Um, in accordance to 851 10.4, minimum lot size
[1:02:36] of ten acres. Uh, the use shall not appear. Shall appear to be
[1:02:41] a single family residence, and the parking must not be visible
[1:02:44] from the public right of way.
[1:02:45] Um, based on, uh, for once, actually, one through five, I
[1:02:53] think they meet all standards.
[1:02:55] Okay. Clean sweep. Is there a second?
[1:02:58] Second.
[1:02:59] Second. By Mr. Burger.
[1:03:02] Um.
[1:03:03] Any further discussion? If not, Mr. Brown, would you call the
[1:03:07] roll, please?
[1:03:07] Miss Tomsic? Yes. Mr. Burger?
[1:03:09] Yes.
[1:03:09] Mr. Felber?
[1:03:10] Yes.
[1:03:11] Mr. Roberts? Yes, Miss Harris?
[1:03:13] Yes. Miss Henshaw?
[1:03:14] Yes.
[1:03:16] Chairman. Willmar. Yes. Motion carries all voting. Yes.
[1:03:19] Okay. Thank you. Thank you guys.
[1:03:22] All right.
[1:03:23] Thank you. Any miscellaneous?
[1:03:26] Uh, no, I have no miscellaneous. I was just
[1:03:28] looking. The, uh.
[1:03:29] You did send out a, uh, training.
[1:03:32] Training is is a really good one because it’s, I mean, I, I
[1:03:35] mean, as far as training goes, it’s free. It’s local. It’s
[1:03:39] four hours. So long, so exactly. Hits all the all the
[1:03:42] requirements. And I’ll even give you dinner. Uh, so we have
[1:03:46] to go up to Rochester. You don’t have to go down to
[1:03:48] Albany. Yeah.
[1:03:49] I already signed up.
[1:03:50] Online is always good, but, I mean, this is one where you
[1:03:52] actually get to to see other planners and maybe do.
[1:03:55] Some providing a meal and you get to hear about affordable
[1:03:58] housing.
[1:03:59] Nice.
[1:03:59] That sounds good to learn about different aspects.
[1:04:02] What’s on the menu?
[1:04:03] I don’t know. That that will be the tipping point.
[1:04:08] Okay.
[1:04:08] Dinner will be. It’s a dinner will be provided. So I’m not
[1:04:11] sure what’s on the menu.
[1:04:13] I could ask if that makes a difference. It’s being run by
[1:04:16] Ontario County, which is, you know, also good because there’s
[1:04:19] a lot of good local feel. And sometimes we go up to
[1:04:22] Rochester. They talk about things that aren’t as
[1:04:23] practical.
[1:04:24] As we’re. trying to get.
[1:04:25] All of the local, um, you know, all the people that serve on
[1:04:29] the planning boards and CPAs of the different towns, they try
[1:04:33] to get them together and do a training.
[1:04:34] And that’s very helpful because it’s sometimes difficult for
[1:04:38] people to, to travel.
[1:04:39] A lot of us on the county planning board don’t
[1:04:41] necessarily always what we’re supposed to do is like communal
[1:04:44] communicate back, kind of be their representatives to our
[1:04:47] towns. And there’s what, 16, 17 towns and two county?
[1:04:51] Yeah. And you guys might not know this, but, um, so the
[1:04:54] county planning board is, is required. Some referrals are
[1:04:56] required to the county planning board if they occur within
[1:04:58] 500ft of state roads or county roads or county facilities, uh
[1:05:02] municipal boundaries. And they make recommendations to the
[1:05:05] Planning Commission. Very rarely, the zoning board. And
[1:05:09] we pick a local representative.
[1:05:11] And Ryan is the representative, the county planning board from
[1:05:14] the city?
[1:05:14] Yes. Each town in the county gets a representative. So in
[1:05:19] the two cities. Nice. So it’s, uh, the villages don’t get one.
[1:05:24] They get the towns. Cities are a little a little bit more
[1:05:27] special, I guess. Yeah. Um, okay. Anything else? Anyone
[1:05:30] want to bring up? It’s time. If not, motion to adjourn.
[1:05:33] I always in order.
[1:05:35] If I could just pause. Sorry.
[1:05:36] One more thing. I just, um, our next meeting is on the 18th.
[1:05:40] That’s the week before Thanksgiving, so that should be
[1:05:43] okay. I mean, this is November meeting. I’m sorry. We had some
[1:05:46] issues. Uh, the planning commission meeting falls on
[1:05:48] Veterans Day. We’re going to have to move that. But your
[1:05:51] meeting is on the 18th of November, so, you know, look at
[1:05:54] your calendars. Hopefully, you know, everyone’s. still around.
[1:05:57] So we closer to the holidays.
[1:05:59] Um, we’ll look at when the meetings fall will be December.
[1:06:02] Looks like we’re falling on the 16th. Nice and early.
[1:06:06] That should.
[1:06:06] Be fine. So.
[1:06:07] Um, October.
[1:06:09] We went. We won. December.
[1:06:10] Wouldn’t want to fall in the 23rd. Um, so that’s good that
[1:06:13] we’re early. Um, October.
[1:06:18] 21st.
[1:06:19] Right? Right.
[1:06:20] Yeah. 21. Yeah.
[1:06:21] Okay.
[1:06:22] And then in December, we’ll be looking at the six. Just
[1:06:25] planning ahead the 16th.
[1:06:26] Yep.
[1:06:27] So it’s pretty early in the month. So that’s nice. And then
[1:06:30] onward okay. But just as you know if you can try to check
[1:06:33] your calendars as soon as possible.
[1:06:34] Are we currently at the rescheduled meeting? I’m just I
[1:06:36] thought there was one coming up. Is that right now.
[1:06:38] This is.
[1:06:38] The current.
[1:06:39] Okay. So we’re they’re.
[1:06:40] Always the third one. Stay. We just, you know, look ahead. And
[1:06:43] if you find the third Wednesday falls in the holiday or, um,
[1:06:47] you know, your wife’s birthday, you might need a miss or
[1:06:50] something like that. Um, no, just check your calendar. So,
[1:06:53] you know, we’re not scrambling the day before.
[1:06:55] Yeah.
[1:06:55] For sure. Yeah. We are always able to move. At our initial
[1:06:59] meeting in January, we usually set the schedule for the year,
[1:07:03] although it is flexible.
[1:07:04] We do two things. We set that.
[1:07:06] We set the meeting, and then we empower the chair to call
[1:07:09] special meetings so we can we can call. But Finger Lakes
[1:07:12] Television, uh, always likes to know when our meeting schedule
[1:07:16] is so they can plan accordingly.
[1:07:19] Okay. Anything else? Not motion to adjourn.
[1:07:22] Always in order.
[1:07:24] Mr. Roberts, is there a second?
[1:07:26] Second?
[1:07:27] All in favor?
[1:07:28] Aye aye.