*****
UNAPPROVED MINUTES *****
Minutes of the December 13, 2005
Meeting
A
regular meeting of the Jamestown Zoning Board of Review was held at the
Jamestown Library,
Thomas Ginnerty
Don Wineberg
Richard Boren
Joseph Logan
Elizabeth Brazil
Dean Wagner
Also
present: Brenda Hanna, Stenographer
Pat Westall, Zoning Clerk
Fred Brown, Zoning Officer
Jennifer Azevedo, Counsel
MINUTES
Minutes of the
A motion
was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Richard Boren to accept the minutes
of the
The
motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.
Thomas
Ginnerty, Don Wineberg, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, and Elizabeth Brazil voted
in favor of the motion.
Dean
Wagner was not seated and Raymond Iannetta and David Nardolillo were absent.
Minutes of the
A motion
was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Joseph Logan to accept the minutes
of the
The
motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.
Thomas
Ginnerty, Don Wineberg, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, and Elizabeth Brazil voted
in favor of the motion.
Dean
Wagner was not seated and Raymond Iannetta and David Nardolillo were absent.
OLD
BUSINESS
Cingular
Wireless
A motion
was made by Don Wineberg and seconded by Joseph Logan to continue the request of
Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC to the
The
motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.
Thomas
Ginnerty, Don Wineberg, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, and Elizabeth Brazil voted
in favor of the motion.
Dean
Wagner was not seated and Raymond Iannetta and David Nardolillo were absent.
ANDRES
A motion was made by Richard Boren and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty to deny the appeal of Frank and Magdalena Andres, whose property is located at 13 Clinton Ave., and further identified as Tax Assessor’s Plat 9, Lot 213 pursuant to Article 5, Section 503 to appeal issuance of Building Permit #B05-673 to Windridge Properties, LLC, for property located at 14 Clinton Ave., Jamestown, Plat 9, Lot 201. Said property is located in a CD zone and contains 12,605 +/- sq. ft.
This denial is based upon the following findings of fact:
1.
On
2.
The Planning Commission after many hearings and
agreed upon modifications by the applicant, voted unanimously to approve the
present application.
3.
An appeal was timely filed based upon 3 issues,
Section 82-301, Table 3.1 i.e.: not a permitted use; Section 82-704 and Section
82-1203 (minimum parking) and 82-304 (Screening of residential areas).
4.
Section 82-301 provides inter alia
any use not specifically included is prohibited, unless the zoning official
rules that such use is included in any of the general classifications set forth
herein.
5.
The zoning officer has testified that the
applicant intends an electrical contracting business, which is not a defined
use. The heading “electrical contractor”
is not specified.
6.
The zoning officer testified that if a use is
not prohibited, he would try and determine if the use is either prohibited in
some category or permitted in some category.
7.
In the opinion of the zoning official the
closest category is VI Commercial, Retail,
Subsection 2 “heating, plumbing, electrical or hardware”.
8.
Section VI Commercial, Retail, Heavy Equipment
includes not only sale of heating, plumbing, electrical, or hardware but
includes construction equipment such as John Deere, lumber sales such as Arnold
Lumber and equipment rental agency such as Taylor Rental.
9.
Each of the above businesses are defined as
Commercial Retail, but could sell Wholesale.
10.
The term retail is not defined in our Zoning
Ordinance, but retail commonly includes the definition of selling to the
ultimate consumer.
11.
Windridge Properties as an electrical contractor
will be selling to the ultimate consumer, whether it is a business or home;
therefore, they are a commercial retail establishment.
12.
Even Mr. Lachowicz could only say that the closest
“electrical contractor” comes to in the zoning ordinance is ____. Mr. Lachowicz
did not testify that “electrical contractor” definitively falls in a specific
category.
13.
Based upon the evidence presented and the
permitted use, the permit complies with sec. 82-704 and 82-1203 and 82-1207.
14.
Based upon the evidence presented and the
definition of “adjacent” as set forth in Exhibit #14 the applicant, Windridge
Properties, has complied with Section 82-304.
15.
The Andres home and the proposed use do not have
a common endpoint or border, and are not adjoining or contiguous.
16.
William Kelly, a former Planning Commission
member, testified in opposition to the appeal.
17.
The Zoning Official testified that the Town
historically has treated the construction trades as permitted uses in
commercial districts.
The
motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.
Thomas
Ginnerty, Don Wineberg, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, and Elizabeth Brazil voted
in favor of the motion.
Dean
Wagner was not seated and Raymond Iannetta and David Nardolillo were absent.
MENDELSOHN
This Board has determined that this application does satisfy
the requirements of ARTICLE 6, SECTION 600, SECTION 606, and SECTION 607,
PARAGRAPH 2.
This Variance is granted with the following restrictions:
1. Final grading and guttering of the addition should not direct run-off into the street.
2.
The exterior concrete stairs must be removed.
This motion is based on the following findings of fact:
2.
The
exterior chimney chase is minimal in size, will replace unsightly concrete
stairs and, when shingled, will improve the appearance of the house.
The
motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.
Thomas
Ginnerty, Don Wineberg, Joseph Logan, Elizabeth Brazil, and Dean Wagner voted
in favor of the motion.
Richard
Boren was not seated and Raymond Iannetta and David Nardolillo were absent.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion
was made and seconded to adjourn at
The
motion carried unanimously.