Welcome to the Village of Pittsford. Photo courtesy of FrontierPages and Randall Tagg, Tagg Photography. Close Banner
HomeBoardsStaffHistoryBusinessesNewsLetterNewsLetterRelated Links

Village of Pittsford
PLANNING and ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting - May 29, 2001 at 7:30 PM

PRESENT:
  Chairperson: Remegia Mitchell
  Members: Harold Danko
Linda Lanphear
Ted Weniger
Mary Bodem
  Attorney: John C. Osborn
  Building Inspector: Edward Bailey
  Recording Secretary: Anne Hartsig

CChairperson Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM

Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing

1. Robert Pierce - 71 North Main Street - 3 area variances - continuation
Present:

Andrew Moll, Moll Enterprises, general contractor
Proposed: To enclose and finish existing first floor porch and second floor porch and to add a third floor dormer
Discussion: Mr. Moll presented a revised plan, which addressed concerns the Board had last month. He has changed the roofline of the sleeping porch. The revised dormer on the back will be similar to the front dormer matching the details of window style, balance and roof pitches. Regarding fire safety concerns, Mr. Moll said there would be a permanently installed interior chain ladder. The third floor would be sprinklered as will the access to the third floor from the front door.

The Board asked about the chimney height. Building Inspector Bailey stated chimney height is exempt from the zoning ordinance. However, it can be only as high as necessary.

Board members were satisfied with the plan revisions.
Public Hearing Closed: There being no further public comments, Chairperson Mitchell closed the Public Hearing.
SEQR: Chairperson Mitchell stated this is a Type II Action under SEQR 617.5 C #7.
Motion: A motion was made by Member Weniger, seconded by Member Danko, to approve this application as shown on revised plans dated 5/21/01 and to grant the three variances sought by the applicant.
Vote: Weniger - yes, Bodem - yes, Mitchell - yes, Lanphear - yes, Danko - yes. Motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
  1. There will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
  2. The variance requests were not substantial.
  3. The variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the conditions of the neighborhood.
  4. With the revised plan, the applicant has met the requirements of the Pittsford Fire District.
  5. The applicant has conditional approval from the Department of State.
Motion:

A motion was made by Chairperson Bodem, seconded by Member Lanphear, to approve this application for a six (6) square foot sign on the west face of the building at 19 Monroe Ave. The sign shall state "PARKING" with a directional arrow and shall not contain a company logo. There shall be no extra lighting except lighting from the fixture within the shrubbery and that light shall be shielded from adjacent properties per the Village Code. This sign is in lieu of signs that Mr. Messner would be entitled to in Section 119-7 (f)(5).

 

The decision was filed in the Office of the Village Clerk on May 29, 2001.

 
2. Richard and Melissa Holahan - 38 Rand Place - area variance for a fence
Present:

Richard and Melissa Holahan
The Secretary read the legal notice that was published in the Brighton-Pittsford Post on May 16, 2001: "Please take notice that a Public Hearing will be held before the Village of Pittsford Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:30 PM on May 29, 2001 at the Pittsford Village Hall, 21 North Main Street, Pittsford, NY to consider an application made by Richard Holahan, owner of property located within an R-2 Residential District at 38 Rand Place, for the following area variance: to construct a 6 foot high fence, where a 3 foot high fence is allowed, with a set back of 7 feet, where a setback of 30 feet is required where a property is located on more than one street pursuant to Chapter 66-1A, Height restrictions. Fences, Hedges and Structures of the Code of the Village of Pittsford." The legal notice having been read, the Public Hearing was opened.
Proposed: To erect a 6 foot high fence with a setback of 7 feet where a setback of 30 feet is required on a lot located on more than one street.
SEQR: Chairperson Mitchell stated this is a Type II Action under SEQR 617.5, #10 and #12. No further review is necessary.
Discussion: Mr. and Mrs. Holahan stated they would like the proposed six foot fence for reasons of privacy from Jefferson Road, to mitigate the noise of traffic on Jefferson Road and for their dog's safety. They said the fence would be inside the existing plantings and that the fence will look visually level inspite of the substantial difference in the grade of the property. Board members recalled other applications for fences along Jefferson Road that were denied in the past. However, they commented that the topography of this lot is very different from previous applications.

David Bishop, 8 East Jefferson Road: stated that as a neighbor, he has no objection to the fence. He did not think it would detract from the Village.

Building Inspector Bailey reminded the Board that if this property was not a corner lot, the fence would be allowed without a variance.

 

Public Hearing Closed: There being no further public comments, Chairperson Mitchell closed the Public Hearing.
Motion: A motion was made by Member Weniger, seconded by Member Bodem to approve the fence application as stated on the application submitted and date stamped May 1, 2001 with the following stipulations; that the top of any portion of the fence that is within thirty (30) feet of a lot line must be no higher than three (3) feet above the grade of the sidewalk, the vegetation on the Jefferson Road side shall be maintained and appropriate vegetation shall be planted and maintained along the back (south east) side on the exterior of the fence to soften the fence line.
Vote: Weniger - yes, Bodem - yes, Mitchell - yes, Lanphear - yes, Danko - yes. Motion carried.
The decision was filed in the Office of the Village Clerk on May 29, 2001.
Findings of Fact:
  1. The circumstances are unusual due to the topography of the lot.
  2. There is existing vegetation between the street and the side yard.
  3. Visually, a precedent will not be set for exceeding the three feet height limit.
  4. The yard is substantially below the grade of the sidewalk on the Jefferson Rd. side.
  5. The fence will not adversely affect vehicular safety at any intersection.
  6. If the lot were not a corner lot, the fence would be allowed at six feet high without a variance.
 
3. Del Monte Lodge - 41 North Main Street - area variance for free standing sign
Present:

John Tengeres

The Secretary read the Legal Notice that was published in the Brighton-Pittsford Post on May 16, 2001: "Please take notice that a Public Hearing will be held before the Village of Pittsford Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:30 PM on May 29, 2001 at the Pittsford Village Hall, 21 North Main Street, Pittsford, NY to consider an application made by the E.J. Del Monte Corporation, owner of property located within a B-2 General Business District at 41 North Main Street, for the following area variances: to install an internally lighted sign [Chapter 119-5B], to install a free-standing sign at a hotel, said sign identifying the hotel restaurant [Chapter 119-7E (1)] and to install a free-standing sign 4 feet from grade where a minimum of 7 ½ feet is required [Chapter 119-7E (1)] pursuant to the Chapter 119, Signs, of the Code of the Village of Pittsford."

The legal notice having been read, the Public Hearing was opened.
Proposed: To erect a free standing sign 4' high above grade and to internally light the sign
SEQR: Chairperson Mitchell stated this is a Type II Action under SEQR 617.5 #7. No further review is necessary.
Discussion: The Erie Grill is located in the back of the property and is not seen from the street. A sign is needed to give direction to restaurant patrons. The sign will be six feet from the sidewalk and will not obstruct the view for vehicles entering and exiting. A hotel is allowed one freestanding sign. This sign would advertise the restaurant and not the hotel. The applicant would like the sign to be internally lighted because it is close to the sidewalk and the sidewalk plow might hit lights that are installed on the ground shining upward. The sign will be half the size allowed, which is 12 square feet. Board members expressed concern about the lighting of the sign. Internally lighted signs have not been permitted in the Village and are not in keeping with the historic nature of the Village.
Public Hearing Closed: There being no further public comments, Chairperson Mitchell closed the Public Hearing.
Motion: A motion was made by Member Lanphear, seconded by Chairperson Mitchell to approve this application for installation of a free standing monument sign at a hotel, said sign identifying the hotel restaurant, four feet from grade, the size to be as shown on the plan dated and stamped 5/29/01 and the location to be as submitted on the site plan received and date stamped 5/1/01.
Vote: Weniger - yes, Bodem - yes, Mitchell - yes, Lanphear - yes, Danko - yes. Motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
  1. This monument sign is an alternative to two pre-existing pole signs and is more to scale
  2. The sign is more conforming to Village character than a pole sign
  3. The restaurant is not visible from the North Main Street entrance.
  4. The restaurant is associated with the hotel and one free-standing sign is allowed for a hotel
  5. The approval was granted in lieu of a larger free-standing sign that would be allowed at a hotel
This decision was filed in the Office of the Village Clerk on May 29, 2001.
Motion: A motion was made by Chairperson Bodem, seconded by Member Lanphear, to approve this application for a six (6) square foot sign on the west face of the building at 19 Monroe Ave. The sign shall state "PARKING" with a directional arrow and shall not contain a company logo. There shall be no extra lighting except lighting from the fixture within the shrubbery and that light shall be shielded from adjacent properties per the Village Code. This sign is in lieu of signs that Mr. Messner would be entitled to in Section 119-7 (f)(5).
Vote: A motion was made by Member Danko, seconded by Member Bodem to deny the request for the proposed sign to be internally lighted.
Findings of Fact:
  1. Allowing an internally lighted sign would set a precedent.
  2. An internally lighted sign is not in keeping with the character of this historic village.
  3. Internally lighted signs are prohibited by statute 119-5 B.

 

This decision was filed in the Office of the Village Clerk on May 29, 2001.

 

Planning Board

1. Aladdin's Natural Eatery - 8 Schoen Place - Site Plan Approval
Present:

John Crawford, Manager
The Secretary read the legal notice that was published in the Brighton Pittsford Post on May 16, 2001: "Please take notice that a public hearing will be held before the Village of Pittsford Planning Board, Tuesday, May 29, 2001 to consider an application made by John Crawford, Manager of Aladdin's Natural Eatery, 8 Schoen Place, Pittsford, NY for Site Plan Approval, which site plan includes the extension of a lower level outdoor patio pursuant to Chapter 145-65, Site Plan Approval of the Code of the Village of Pittsford."
The legal notice having been read, the Public Hearing was opened.
Proposed: to seek approval for the extension of a lower level outdoor patio
SEQR: Chairperson Mitchell stated this is a Type II Action under SEQR 617.5 #7. No further review is necessary.
Discussion: Mr. Crawford explained to the Board that the patio was added to accommodate patrons who like to sit outside during the nice weather. He said the restaurant would not be adding table service or seats. They will move tables from the inside to the patio as weather permits. Building Inspector Bailey said the total number of allowed seats for the entire restaurant, including the upper and lower decks, is 112 seats. The Special Permit granted by the Trustees allows for more space but does not allow for more seats. Board members commented that a building permit had never been issued to build the lower patio. The procedure was not correctly followed on the part of the applicant. No public comment has been received.
Motion: A motion was made by Member Danko, seconded by Chairperson Mitchell, to approve the change in the use of the site as shown on the site plan submitted to the Village Office having an issue date of 4/25/01 and a submittal date of 5/1/01.
Vote: Danko - yes, Lanphear - no, Mitchell - yes, Bodem - no, Weniger - yes. Motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
  1. A maximum number of seats was set at 112 when the Special Use permit was granted. Therefore, additional space does not allow increased seating.
 
2. Mark Johnson - 61 North Main Street - possible subdivision
Present:

Mark Johnson, contractor
Proposed: To divide the lot at 61 North Main Street into two residential lots, one fronting on Grove Street extension. A residential home would be built on the Grove Street lot.
Discussion: Board members said this seemed to be a logical use of this deep property lot. The North Main Street lot is a non-conforming lot but the Grove Street lot could be conforming. Attorney Osborn said Grove Street extension is not a dedicated road but it is public by prescription. Building Inspector Bailey said the procedure for subdivision would involve filing a map with the County Planning Dept., and a public hearing would be required for sub division approval and for site plan approval. Mr. Johnson said he is planning to build a three-bedroom house in keeping with other Village homes in the area. The APRB would review the house plans. Preliminarily, the Board did not foresee problems with this proposal. Mr. Johnson thanked the Board for their input.
 

BUILDING INSPECTOR'S REPORT
Building Inspector Bailey did not have anything to report.

MEMBER ITEMS
Chairperson Mitchell thanked Member Danko for writing comments to the Board of Trustees on behalf of the Planning/Zoning Board regarding SEQR for Brad and Dad's Ice Cream.

MINUTES
May 14, 2001: A motion was made by Chairperson Mitchell, seconded by Member Danko to approve these minutes as amended.
Vote: Weniger - yes, Mitchell - yes, Bodem - abstain, Lanphear - yes, Danko - yes. Motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairperson Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 10:40 PM.

Mary Marowski, Recording Secretary

 
Copyright ©2006, Village of Pittsford