ontario county planning board referral list revised 2/10

Class Abbreviations AR 1: Administrative Review Class 1 1 AR 2: Administrative Review Class 2 EX: Exempt W: Withdrawn

Ontario County Planning Board - Referral List –Revised 2/10/2015 Coordinated Review Committee Meeting

Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 3:30pm 2

nd Floor, Health & Personnel Services Bldg., 3019 County Complex Drive, Hopewell, NY

County Planning Board Meeting Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 7:30pm

2nd

Floor, Health & Personnel Services Bldg., 3019 County Complex Drive, Hopewell, NY

Referral No Municipality Referring Board Applicant Application Type Class Page

12 - 2015 Town of Victor Planning Board Victor Chevrolet Site Plan 1 2

13 - 2015 Town of Farmington Town Board Town of Farmington Map Amendment 2 4

14 - 2015 Town of Farmington Town Board Town of Farmington Map Amendment 2 5

15 - 2015 Town of Farmington Zoning Board of Appeals Skylight Signs Inc. Area Variance AR-2 5

16 - 2015 Town of Farmington Planning Board Tiffany Transportation Services

Special Use Permit 1 6

16.1 - 2015 Town of Farmington Planning Board Tiffany Transportation Services

Site Plan 1 6

17 - 2015 Town of Gorham Planning Board Naramore, P. Scott Special Use Permit 1 7

18 - 2015 Town of Victor Town Board Town of Victor Text Amendment 2 7

19 - 2015 City of Canandaigua Planning Commission Marathon Engineering for KFC

Other 1 8

19.1 - 2015 City of Canandaigua Planning Commission Marathon Engineering for KFC

Site Plan 1 8

20 - 2015 Town of Hopewell Zoning Board of Appeals Pascazi Sr., Nicholas Use Variance 1 9

21 - 2015 Town of Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals Dawson, David & April Area Variance AR-2 9

22 - 2015 Town of Canandaigua Planning Board Finger Lakes ACE Hardware Site Plan AR-1 10

23 - 2015 Town of Canandaigua Planning Board Finger Lakes Glass Special Use Permit 1 11

23.1 - 2015 Town of Canandaigua Planning Board Finger Lakes Glass Site Plan 1 11

24 - 2015 Town of Canandaigua Town Board Town of Canandaigua Text Amendment 2 11

25 - 2015 Town of Richmond Zoning Board of Appeals Iorio, Carmine Area Variance 1 14

25.1 - 2015 Town of Richmond Zoning Board of Appeals Iorio, Carmine Subdivision 1 15

26 - 2015 Town of Geneva Zoning Board of Appeals Emmi, Joe/ Tricia Area Variance AR-2 15

27 - 2015 Town of Geneva Zoning Board of Appeals Paillard-Elkin, Sophie Special Use Permit 1 16


12 - 2015 Town of Victor Planning Board Class: 1

Referral Type: Site Plan

Applicant: Victor Chevrolet

Property Owner: Victor Auto Group, LLC

Representative: BME Associates

Tax Map No(s): 15.00-1-28.100

Brief Description: Site plan approval for construction of a 34,600 sq. ft. building to be used for sales, service, parts and office space. Upon completion of the new building, the existing building will be removed. Project is located at 7200 SR 96 in the Town of Victor.

SITE CHARACTERISTIC

Acres: Property = 17.9 acres.

Land Use: LI

ADJOINING LAND USE / LAND COVER North: Commercial / Residential South: Commercial East: Commercial / Residential West: Commercial

WATER RESOURCES Major Watershed: Lake Ontario Subwatershed: Irondequoit Creek Stream/Lake: None present Aquifer: None present Well Head Study: N/A

WETLANDS / WETLAND SOIL TYPES (HYDRIC SOILS) NWI: None present DEC: None present Hydric Soil: No Potentially Hydric: No

DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS Soil located in proposed construction area is Palmyra Fine Sandy Loam; Slope: 3-8% Soil permeability: High Erodibility: Medium (Soil located further north on the site is characterized as Palmyra & Howard Soils which exhibit 25-45% slopes, high permeability and medium erodibility).

AGRICULTURAL SOILS / DISTRICT Soils: Palmyra Fine Sandy Loam / Palmyra & Howard Agricultural District: No Within 500’ of District: No Importance: Palmyra Fine Sandy Loam = all areas prime farmland.

SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL RESOURCES National/State: No details provided Local: No details provided

IMPORTANT / DESIGNATED VIEWSHEDS None present

INFRASTRUCTURE


Public Water: Yes Public Sewer: Yes Septic/Onsite: None noted Subsurface Drainage System: None noted

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SWPPP: Preliminary Stormwater Management Report & Sheet Details Provided Green Infrastructure: None detailed

TRANSPORTATION Adjoins railroad: No State Road: Yes - SR 96 County Road: No Public Sidewalks: None present

HIGHWAY CORRIDOR Corridor Study Completed/Name: None CPB Priority Highway: State Route 96

ACCESS MANAGEMENT Vehicular/Pedestrian Access: Vehicular access via two driveways off of SR – 96 Internal Circulation/Linkages:

Vehicular: Paved vehicular access to building and proposed inventory lots. Gated access to eastern lot for duplicate inventory. Pedestrian: Walkway around building Bicycle Parking: None noted

OPEN SPACE/ RECREATION Borders/proximity to public recreation: None noted Dedicated open space: None noted Linkages: None noted

COMMUNITY CHARACTER Lighting (Full cutoff of off sight light spillage): A combination of 20 pole and building mounted lights proposed. Signage: No new signs noted. Landscape Plan: 3 trees and 12 shrubs proposed along the southern property line. Retention of Natural Vegetation: Buffering: Wooded area to remain along the eastern property line. Streetscape: Plantings proposed along the SR-96 property line and lot entrance. Building façade: N/A

COMMENTS: Previous approval for construction of a 2.7 acre inventory parking lot for Victor Chevrolet was granted by the local board in 2014. The proposed front lot contains 188 spaces for customer inventory. The proposed back lot contains 192 spaces for duplicate inventory; access to this lot will be controlled by a gate. An area variance was also granted to allow a reduced front setback to SR 96. The project is located at 7200 SR 96 in the Town of Victor and was previously reviewed by CPB as referral #26-2014 & 26.1-2014. The applicant now wishes to construct a 34,600 sq. ft. building for sales, service, parts and office areas. Upon completion of the new building, the existing building will be removed. Given the separation of the projects the referring board should determine if SEQR segmentation is an issue. The proposed building will impact steep slopes on the Northern portion of the property. As proposed the back of the building will serve as a retaining wall to mitigate the impacts to the surrounding slope. SWCD:

Dust control will be crucial during the demo phase.


The limits of clearing (especially on the hillside) should be clearly marked PRIOR to demo/construction. Also any trees that will be saved should be marked and protected.

The sequence of construction on page 05 should be revised. Silt fence and other erosion and sediment control BMPs should be installed and functioning PRIOR to mass earth work.

Silt fence should be installed on the contour. However, on page 05 it’s shown going up/down the slope instead of on the contour.

Step 4 on page 05 lists BMPs that are not shown on the plans.

The SPDES general permit number for stormwater is incorrect in step #7 on page 05 and also on note #1 under the construction and erosion control notes.

Note # 5 on page 05 calls for fertilizer application. However, soils tests should be done to ensure that fertilizer is even needed.

Make sure that details listed on page 08 match the BMPs shown on page 05.

Make sure that the symbols used on page 08 match the symbols shown on page 05 to avoid confusion during construction.

13 - 2015 Town of Farmington Town Board Class: 2

Referral Type: Map Amendment

Applicant: Town of Farmington

Property Owner: Ackerman, Ernie

Representative: D.S.B. Engineering & Architects, P.C.

Tax Map No(s): 41.00-1-24.000 41.00-1-22.110 41.00-1-22.120

Brief Description: Map amendment to the Town's official map to change the zoning designation of a 52 acre parcel from RR-80 to IZ Incentive Zoning for the Monarch Manor Incentive Zoning Project. Project is located along the northeast corner of New Michigan Road and Canandaigua/Farmington Town Line Road in the Town of Farmington.

COMMENTS: Project Site

Hydrology There are three parcels totaling 52 acres. All soils on the parcels are constrained by the presence of shallow water table and very limited for dwellings without basements according to U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service soil data. This data is from parcel soil reports available on ONCOR.

Parcel Number/Acres

Soil Type/Development Suitability #41.00-1-24.000 #41.00-1-22.110 #41.00-22.120 Total

Odessa (Oa):

Depth to water table: +/-14inches/38cm

Partially hydric1

Dwellings without basements: Very limited

11 4 27 42

Fluvaquents-Udifluvents (Flood plain soil NRCS taxonomy)

Depth to water table: 0” inches

2 0 5 7

1 The definition of a hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to

develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. (NRCS)



Partially hydric

Flooding frequency: Frequent

Lakemont (La)

Depth to water table: 0”


Partially hydric: 0” inches

0 0 3 3

Total 13 4 35 52

FEMA Floodplain/way Delineation: There are no delineated floodplains anywhere along Beaver Creek. It appears that this may be a stream which was not studied by FEMA. Most of the site is relatively level (<0-5% slope) which would indicate the presence of a floodplain or floodway. Agricultural Surface/Subsurface Drainage: This parcel receives surface and subsurface drainage from large areas of farmland to the south in the Town of Canandaigua. Disruption of the agricultural drainage system can have long term adverse consequences on the viability of farmland. The farms in this area are considered important to the Town of Canandaigua’s farmland protection initiatives. Rezoning The Town is encouraged to consider an update of the zoning code based on their comprehensive plan rather than undertaking parcel by parcel rezoning in response to specific development proposals.

14 - 2015 Town of Farmington Town Board Class: 2

Referral Type: Map Amendment

Applicant: Town of Farmington

Property Owner: Philippone, James

Representative: LaBella Associates, D.P.C.

Tax Map No(s): 029.011-2-72.000 029.011-2-73.000 029.011-2-74.000 029.011-2-75.000

Brief Description: Map amendment to rezone four parcels from R-7.2 Planned Subdivision to GB General Business. Project is located along the north side of SR 96, between Glen Carlyn and Fairdale Glenn in the Town of Farming ton.

Proposed Rezoning The Farmington Town Board is considering rezoning 12 acres across from the racino to General Business to allow construction of an auto dealership. The current zoning would allow retail sales and services in a plaza like setting. COMMENTS: Travel/Tourism SR 96 is a major travel/tourism corridor. The proposed rezoning will preclude development of visitor services uses that are complementary to this prime travel destination. From OC Visitor Connection (Val Knoblauch) The Town of Farmington is encouraged to consider the type of customer (more transient, traveler types) that are using the Finger Lakes Gaming and Racetrack and the nearby Comfort Inn, etc. A car dealership does not offer the same type of retail opportunities for the visitors that the OC Visitor Connection is welcoming there. Rezoning The Town is encouraged to consider an update of the zoning code based on their comprehensive plan rather than undertaking parcel by parcel rezoning in response to specific development proposals.

15 - 2015 Town of Farmington Zoning Board of Appeals Class: AR-2

Referral Type: Area Variance

Applicant: Skylight Signs Inc.

Property Owner: G&A Development and Construction Corp


Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 29.00-1-19.100

Brief Description: Area variance for the installation of a second sign at an existing Sterling Optical location. Project is located at 6081 SR 96 South in the Town of Farmington.

COMMENTS: Policy AR-7: Signs

The County Planning Board has long taken an interest in supporting local efforts to limit excessive signage. The Board has identified SR 96 and SR 332 as primary travel corridors for tourists visiting Ontario County: The intent is to protect the character of development along these corridors by encouraging local boards to adhere to their adopted laws as much as possible.

A. All applications for signs located on property adjoining primary travel corridors that do not comply with local limits on size and or number.

Final classification: Class 2

Findings: 1. The proposed sign is on land along a corridor identified by the Board as being a primary travel corridor for tourists visiting Ontario

County. 2. Protection of the community character along these corridors is an issue of countywide importance. 3. Local legislators have standards for signage that allows for business identification sufficient to safely direct customers onto the specified

site. 4. It is the position of this Board that the proposed signage is excessive. 5. Excessive signage has a negative impact on community character.

Final Recommendation – Disapproval.

16 - 2015 Town of Farmington Planning Board Class: 1

Referral Type: Special Use Permit

Applicant: Tiffany Transportation Services

Property Owner: FAE Holdings

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 41.00-1-13.121

Brief Description: Special use permit for the sale of pre-owned automobiles. Project is located at 5763 Duke of Glouchester Way (& SR 332) in the Town of Farmington.

COMMENTS: The applicant wishes to use a currently vacant restaurant building lot for the sale of pre-owned automobiles. The applicant will not be modifying the site layout other than to add 3 specialty display spots closer to the road. The existing landscaping and lighting will be maintained. According to ONCOR data;

No State or Federal wetlands are present on the property.

The property is not located within a FEMA floodplain.

The property is not located within 500 ft. of an Agricultural District.

16.1 - 2015 Town of Farmington Planning Board Class: 1


Applicant: Tiffany Transportation Services

Property Owner: FAE Holdings


Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 41.00-1-13.121

Brief Description: Site plan approval for renovations to an existing restaurant building lot to accomodate the sale of pre-owned automobiles. Project is located at 5763 Duke of Glouchester Way ( & SR 332) in the Town of Farmington.

COMMENTS: See referral #16-2015 for project description and comments.

17 - 2015 Town of Gorham Planning Board Class: 1


Applicant: Naramore, P. Scott

Property Owner:

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 113.07-1-14.000

Brief Description: Special use permit for approval to operate a construction and excavation home based business. Project is located at 3688 SR 364 in the Town of Gorham.

COMMENTS:

Property is 0.59 acres.

Property is located on SR 364 which is considered a primary travel corridor for tourism within the County.

According to ONCOR data; o No State or Federal wetlands are present on the property.

o The property is not located within a FEMA floodplain.

o The property is not located within 500 ft. of an Agricultural District.

18 - 2015 Town of Victor Town Board Class: 2

Referral Type: Text Amendment

Applicant: Town of Victor

Property Owner:

Representative:

Tax Map No(s):

Brief Description: Amendment to Town zoning code section "Light Industrial District Regulations" to permit appropriate not-for-profit uses.

Proposed Text Amendment

“Section IV. Amendment. Section 21 1-24A entitled Light Industrial District Regulations· shall be amended as follows: Appropriate not-for-profit uses. Any public or institutional uses of an educational, recreational, religious or cultural nature, such as churches, parish houses, schools, colleges, universities, libraries, museums, cemeteries, parks and playgrounds of a noncommercial nature. This class excludes correctional institutions.”

The proposed text amendment creates “Appropriate not-for profit uses” as “as of right uses”. No site plan or other approval is required. COMMENTS:

The term “appropriate” is not defined. Since no site plan or other approval is required, it will be up to the code


enforcement officer to determine what is “appropriate”. This puts the officer in the position of making discretionary judgments which is generally considered outside the scope of the ministerial functions appropriate for that position. The Town is encouraged to eliminate the word “appropriate” if it wants to retain them as “as of right” uses. Uses such as parks and playgrounds or other institutional uses have the potential to create user conflicts with light industrial uses that have accepted customary impacts such as truck traffic, noise, dust, etc. The Town may want to consider allowing institutional uses subject to receipt of a special use permit. Such an option would require that the standards be established that the institutional use must meet so that it is compatible with adjoining light industrial land uses. The applicant and the planning board would then have clear direction for determining “appropriateness” rather than leaving it to the discretion of the enforcement officer. A special use permit is a typical requirement for uses that can pose land use conflicts.

The Town is encouraged to review and update the purpose statement for the LI district if it enacts the proposed text amendment. Current text:

“LI Districts are districts created for light industrial use. It is the intent of this district to provide areas for research or development of materials, methods or products and for compatible high technology and light manufacturing uses that are environmentally compatible with the physical and natural environment of the neighborhood. It is the intent of this district to permit industries which are compatible with those industries and businesses located in various industrial neighborhoods. The integrity of the Town's industrial base will be maintained by restricting the district to land uses which are strictly industrial in nature or which provide a service directly related to the primary administration of the industrial organization.”

19 - 2015 City of Canandaigua Planning Commission Class: 1

Referral Type: Other

Applicant: Marathon Engineering for KFC

Property Owner: Parkway Plaza LLC

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 84.18-1-6.11

Brief Description: Planned Unit Development review for construction of an approx. 3,000 sq. ft. KFC restaurant on a pad site within the existing Parkway Plaza. Project is located at 39 Eastern Blvd in the City of Canandaigua.

COMMENTS:

Proposed KFC location is within the existing Parkway Plaza.




19.1 - 2015 City of Canandaigua Planning Commission Class: 1


Applicant: Marathon Engineering for KFC

Property Owner: Parkway Plaza LLC

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 84.18-1-6.11


Brief Description: Site plan approval for construction of an approx. 3,000 sq. ft. KFC restaurant on a pad site within the existing Parkway Plaza. Project is located at 39 Eastern Blvd in the City of Canandaigua.


20 - 2015 Town of Hopewell Zoning Board of Appeals Class: 1

Referral Type: Use Variance

Applicant: Pascazi Sr., Nicholas

Property Owner:

Representative: Schuppenhauer, John

Tax Map No(s): 100.00-1-17.000

Brief Description: Use variance to allow multiple family use in an agricultural district. Project is located at 2951 SR 5 & 20 in the Town of Hopewell.

COMMENTS:

Property is approx. 2.5 acres

According to the referral documents, the property was once utilized/developed as a motel.



o The property is located within 500 ft. of an Agricultural District. An Agricultural Data statement should be provided and reviewed prior to any determination of the referring Board.

21 - 2015 Town of Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals Class: AR-2


Applicant: Dawson, David & April

Property Owner:

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 113.05-1-18.000

Brief Description: Area variance and site plan approval to construct a 2 story garage addition to existing dwelling. Proposed garage would have a 8.8 ft. right side setback and a 0.0 ft. left setback when 12ft. is requi red by code. Total lot coverage would be 22% when a maximum of 15% is allowed by code. Project is located at 3692 CR 16 in the Town of Canandaigua.

COMMENTS: Policy AR-5: Applications involving one single family residential site, including home occupations.

The intent of this policy is to: - Address residential development that may infringe on County ROW’s or easements for roads and other infrastructure. - Address traffic safety along intermunicipal corridors by encouraging proper placement of residential driveways along

County roads. - Address impacts to ground and surface waters

B. The following applies to all development on parcels with lake frontage that require; variances pertaining to lot coverage or, variances pertaining to side yard setbacks or,


variance pertaining to lake shore setbacks

The CPB’s role of reviewing and making recommendations on county wide development has provided a unique perspective on the trend of more intensive development and use of lakefront lots. Of particular concern are the incremental negative impacts to water quality and the character of our lakefront neighborhoods. The following policy is a result of discussion and debate spanning 18 months as well as consultation with outside agencies directly involved with water quality issues in Ontario County. The intent is to address over development of lakefront lots and support the clearly stated interest by local decision makers to do the same.

Final Classification: 2

Findings:

1. Protection of water features is a stated goal of the CPB.

2. The Finger Lakes are an indispensable part of the quality of life in Ontario County.

3. Increases in impervious surface lead to increased runoff and pollution.

4. Runoff from lakefront development is more likely to impact water quality.

5. It is the position of this Board that the legislative bodies of lakefront communities have enacted setbacks and limits on lot coverage that allow reasonable use of lakefront properties.

6. Protection of community character, as it relates to tourism, is a goal of the CPB.

7. It is the position of this Board that numerous variances can allow over development of properties in a way that negatively affects public enjoyment of the Finger Lakes and overall community character.

8. It is the position of this Board that such incremental impacts have a cumulative impact that is of countywide and intermunicipal significance.

Final Recommendation: Denial

22 - 2015 Town of Canandaigua Planning Board Class: AR-1


Applicant: Finger Lakes ACE Hardware

Property Owner: Genecco, Frank

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 55.02-3-117.000

Brief Description: Site plan approval for the installation of 2 building mounted internally illuminated signs at the existing ACE Hardware location. Project is located at 1802 SR 332 in the Town of Canandaigua.

COMMENTS: Policy AR-7: Signs The County Planning Board has long taken an interest in supporting local efforts to limit excessive signage. The Board has identified State Route 332 as a primary travel corridor for tourists visiting Ontario County: The intent is to protect the character of development along these corridors by encouraging local boards to adhere to their adopted laws as much as possible. Applications for signs complying with local limits on size and number. Final Classification: Class 1 Findings Signs that comply with local dimensional requirements will have the minimal practical level of impact on community character.


Final Recommendation: The CPB will make no formal recommendation to deny or approve applications for signs that comply with local limits on size and or number.

23 - 2015 Town of Canandaigua Planning Board Class: 1


Applicant: Finger Lakes Glass

Property Owner: Pelusio Canandaigua LLC

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 84.00-1-26.120

Brief Description: Special use permit for an auto repair shop (windshield repair). Project is located at 4406 SR 5&20 in the Town of Canandaigua.

COMMENTS:

Special Use Permit to allow a windshield repair business within the existing Raymour and Flanigan Plaza.

No alterations to the building are proposed.

All repair work will be done indoors, utilizing a garage door in the rear of the plaza.

No other automotive repair services will be offered.

According to ONCOR data; o No Federal wetlands are present on the property.

o State Wetlands and part of the FEMA flood plain is located on the western edge of the property. The proposed

project is located outside of these areas.


23.1 - 2015 Town of Canandaigua Planning Board Class: 1


Applicant: Finger Lakes Glass

Property Owner: Pelusio Canandaigua LLC

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 84.00-1-26.120

Brief Description: Site plan approval for an auto repair shop (windshield repair). Project is located at 4406 SR 5&20 in the Town of Canandaigua.


24 - 2015 Town of Canandaigua Town Board Class: 2

Referral Type: Text Amendment

Applicant: Town of Canandaigua

Property Owner:

Representative:

Tax Map No(s):

Brief Description: Proposed amendments to the Town code: General Provisions, Zoning, Animals, Uniform Dock & Moorings, Subdivision, and Flood damage prevention chapters.


COMMENTS

Code Change There are a number of references to proposed changes for special permit requirements for commercial signs in the CC Community Commercial District that conflict regarding whether a special use permit is required or not which need to be addressed.

Because of the glare of internally lit signs creates a potential visual hazard to motorist, lighting is recommended to be external and down cast with the luminaire not visible from the road. If internally lit signs are allowed the background should be required to be dark to reduce glare and improve sign visibility.

Special Use Permit for Signage in CC Community Commercial Zoning District (§220-63,§220-83, §220-35, §220-62a.

§220-73 I. Off Street Parking The planning board is allowed to modify the number of required spaces if the applicant demonstrates the use routinely requires fewer spaces than code requires, adequate public off street parking is available with 400ft. of the use, or evidence of satisfactory off street parking.

The planning board should be given the discretion to require land banking for parking should the applicant’s estimates be proven inadequate to meet the real level of use.

Before credit is given for use of public parking areas, the planning board or Town should document the current level and time of use of any existing public lot(s). It is easy for public spaces to be double or triple counted as applicants ask to be credited with public spaces and overcrowding can result. The level of employee vs. customer parking should be considered as well. If private businesses are allowed to be credited for publicly provided parking, consideration should be given to the assessment of a fee to defray the cost of parking lot maintenance since they are shifting that cost to public sector where other businesses cannot.

§220-33 Mixed Use Overlay Districts

Three areas of the town are covered by the mixed use overlay which allows a landowner to submit a petition to the town board to rezone a parcel to a Mixed Use District. If the town board considers the request, to refers it to the planning board for review and comment. Upon receipt of comments, the town board can allow preparation of a preliminary site plan that must be approved by the planning board. After approval, the town board may take final action of the rezoning. Dimensional requirements are established and only one use is allowed unless the parcel exceeds the dimensional requirements and the remaining land is rezoned as Mixed Use.

The Town Board makes the determination of the District’s boundaries. An aggrieved party can appeal the determination to the ZBA. Since the town board is the elected board that determines the boundaries of zoning districts and has the final word on this decision, the ZBA cannot override a town board action. The can overturn the determination/interpretation of a ministerial official or another appointed board but not the town board. Relief from a town board action comes through an Article 78.

Virtually all land uses allowed in the Town are allowed in the Mixed Use Overlay District from residential to industrial.

o The dimensional requirements address building height, height above grade, gross square footage and building foot print. There are no setback requirements which would allow placement of a light industrial use in close proximity to a residential use, as an example.

o When almost all uses are allowed, there is virtually no coherent vision for the future. Each decision but whatever town board is in place becomes the next vision for a particular part of the town. Any landowner who has invested in the MU is only assured of uncertainty.

This approach to providing flexibility of uses becomes very close to spot zoning. Of the seven


items in the Intent section, the planning board is to minimize land use conflicts between adjacent sites to “the greatest extent practical” implying the adjoining landowner may have to accept adverse changes if the mitigation is not practical. To maintain community character and the quality of life of adjoining residents or compatibility with existing businesses, the reverse approach should be taken that gives priority to the impact of a change in use to the existing residences and businesses who have made a personal and financial commitment to a particular location.

Alternate members of the planning and zoning boards

The changes allow participation of the alternate when a member is absent after the Chair of the board makes a finding on the record that the member was notified of the scheduled meeting, aware that a vote would be taken, and the alternate was present for all relevant public hearings.

§176-16 Conservation Easement B. Applicability

Application of the NYS Town Law §278 cluster subdivision is limited to parcels where the road frontage of the parent parcel will not be reduced by more than 50%.

Fragmentation of farmland in rural areas is one of the greatest threats to maintaining viable farmland. It is a loss that occurs by a thousand seemingly little cuts. One of the best planning tools to prevent the fragmentation of rural agricultural land is the use of §278. A landowner who intends to sell a frontage lot off a farm field is most often forced to create lots that are unnecessarily large and/or meet setback requirements that leave the remainder of the farmland no longer agriculturally viable due to high operational costs of working around a structure or concern about homeowner complaints about smells, pesticides, noise, etc. even with a local right to farm law is in place.

The proposed change combined with the existing limitation in (a.) that does not allow §278 to be applicable to subdivisions of four or fewer lots is denying the planning board a powerful planning tool to protect the long term viability of agriculture in the town of Canandaigua. To preserve this option the Town Board should consider specifically modifying the language to:

o “B. Applicability These regulations shall apply to all subdivision of property in all zoning districts and in land included in a NYS certified Agricultural District unless: ….”

This change would be in keeping with §174-16 A. Purpose to limit the impact of development….on agricultural resources… . The planning board would have the ability to say no to a cluster provision request if it was not for the purposes of retaining viable agricultural land.

§220-21 RLD Residential Lake District The proposed zoning creates setback requirements for preexisting nonconforming lots that are less than 20,000 sq. ft. adjoining or in close proximity to Canandaigua Lake.

Residence Principal Building Accessory Building Coverage

Lot size Width Front setback

Rear setback

Side setback

Rear setback

Side setback

Current 20,000 sq.

ft. 125’ 60’ 60’ 12’ 15’ 10’ 15%

Proposed for non-

conforming lots

<10,000sq 125’ 50’ 30’ 5’ 15’ 5’ 40%

10,000 to 20,000

125’ 55’ 30’ 9’ 15’ 9’ 30%

+20,000sq. 125 60 60 12 15 12 25%


Based on RPS parcel and GIS shapefile data for 433 residences within 50’ of Canandaigua Lake:

1. 53% of all lots do not meet the minimum lot size. 2. Only 18% of existing lots have widths that are greater than or equal to 125 feet and are conforming. 3. The median lot width is 75 feet. 4. 110 lots are less than or equal to 50 feet (30% of all lots). 5. Of the 235 nonconforming sized lots, only 10 meet the 125’ frontage requirement.

Comments: It appears that the town is trying to address the problem of nonconforming lots and reduce the number of area variances. Unfortunately, the current dimensional requirements have little resemblance to the vast majority of existing lots on Canandaigua Lake. Five (5) feet side setbacks are extremely small and leave little room for access for emergency response or stormwater management facilities (green infrastructure). The Town has very few undeveloped parcels. Consideration should be given to creating dimensional standards that reflect existing conditions rather than creating new dimensional standards that do not reflect an achievable standard. Techniques are available to allow setbacks that are in keeping with the existing pattern of adjoining parcels. This allows the planning board the flexibility to maintain the existing development pattern when conformity is not possible and minimize the number of variances. Tear downs and rebuilds should not retain the existing development pattern. Lot coverage issues and water quality are not addressed at this time but are also very important.

96-5 Uniform Docks and Mooring Law Any change to the uniform local docks and mooring law requires adoption by all six Canandaigua lakeshore localities as is required by State Navigation Law.

25 - 2015 Town of Richmond Zoning Board of Appeals Class: 1


Applicant: Iorio, Carmine

Property Owner:

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 136.00-1-50.000

Brief Description: Area variance to allow a parcel to be subdivided and have only an accessory structure (no primary residence) on one of the parcels. Project is located at 8441 SR 20A in the Town of Richmond.

COMMENTS:

Property is approx. 4.5 acres



o The property is located within 500 ft. of an Agricultural District. An Agricultural Data statement should be provided

and reviewed prior to any determination of the referring Board.

If access to the created parcel is going to be via the adjacent parcel (also owned by the applicant), the property should be

subdivided to include that parcel or a cross access easement should be included with the subdivision.


25.1 - 2015 Town of Richmond Zoning Board of Appeals Class: 1

Referral Type: Subdivision

Applicant: Iorio, Carmine

Property Owner:

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 136.00-1-50.000

Brief Description: Subdivision of one residentially zoned parcel into two. Subdivision would create a non-conforming lot. Project is located at 8441 SR 20A in theTown of Richmond.


26 - 2015 Town of Geneva Zoning Board of Appeals Class: AR-2


Applicant: Emmi, Joe/ Tricia

Property Owner:

Representative: David L. Pearce, Architect

Tax Map No(s): 147.12-1-18.000

Brief Description: Area variance to replace an existing cottage with a year round home. Planned orientation of the new home would result in a side setback of 6'-3" when 12'-6" is required by code. Project is located at 4663 Whites Point in the Town of Geneva.

COMMENTS: Policy AR-5: Applications involving one single family residential site, including home occupations.

The intent of this policy is to: - Address residential development that may infringe on County ROW’s or easements for roads and other infrastructure. - Address traffic safety along intermunicipal corridors by encouraging proper placement of residential driveways along

County roads. - Address impacts to ground and surface waters

C. The following applies to all development on parcels with lake frontage that require; variances pertaining to lot coverage or, variances pertaining to side yard setbacks or, variance pertaining to lake shore setbacks

The CPB’s role of reviewing and making recommendations on county wide development has provided a unique perspective on the trend of more intensive development and use of lakefront lots. Of particular concern are the incremental negative impacts to water quality and the character of our lakefront neighborhoods. The following policy is a result of discussion and debate spanning 18 months as well as consultation with outside agencies directly involved with water quality issues in Ontario County. The intent is to address over development of lakefront lots and support the clearly stated interest by local decision makers to do the same.

Final Classification: 2

Findings:

9. Protection of water features is a stated goal of the CPB.

10. The Finger Lakes are an indispensable part of the quality of life in Ontario County.

11. Increases in impervious surface lead to increased runoff and pollution.


12. Runoff from lakefront development is more likely to impact water quality.

13. It is the position of this Board that the legislative bodies of lakefront communities have enacted setbacks and limits on lot coverage that allow reasonable use of lakefront properties.

14. Protection of community character, as it relates to tourism, is a goal of the CPB.

15. It is the position of this Board that numerous variances can allow over development of properties in a way that negatively affects public enjoyment of the Finger Lakes and overall community character.

16. It is the position of this Board that such incremental impacts have a cumulative impact that is of countywide and intermunicipal significance.

Final Recommendation: Denial

27 - 2015 Town of Geneva Zoning Board of Appeals Class: 1


Applicant: Paillard-Elkin, Sophie

Property Owner:

Representative:

Tax Map No(s): 147.00-1-14.112

Brief Description: Special Use Permit to operate an existing home as a Bed and Breakfast. Project is located at 4988 SR 14 in the Town of Geneva.

COMMENTS:

Property is approx. 1 acre. But applicant owns adjacent properties totaling approx. 250 acres available for guest outdoor activities.

Applicant wishes to use existing second floor west bedroom as a B&B unit. If the activity is sustainable the intent would be to open the remaining rooms. The applicant currently has a total of 4 bedrooms.



o The property is located within 500 ft. of an Agricultural District. An Agricultural Data statement should be provided

and reviewed prior to any determination of the referring Board.


General Information

The Ontario County Planning Board was established by the Ontario County Board of Supervisors under the provision of

NYS General Municipal Law Article 12-B Section 239-c. County Planning Boards. The state legislature determined in

§239-c. 1. (a), (b), (g) & (f):

1. Legislative findings and intent. The legislature hereby finds and determines that:

(a) Significant decisions and actions affecting the immediate and long-range protection, enhancement, growth

and development of the state and its communities are made by county planning boards.

(b) County planning boards serve as an important resource to the state and its localities, helping to establish

productive linkages between communities as well as with state and federal agencies.

(f) The great diversity of resources and conditions that exist within and among counties requires consideration

of such factors by county planning boards.

(g) It is the intent of the legislature therefore, to provide a permissive and flexible framework within which

county planning boards can perform their power and duties.

Note: I, (d), and (e) refer to the county comprehensive plan.

The CPB membership consists of one representative from each of the 16 towns and 2 cities who are selected by the

town board or city council and formally appointed by the Board of Supervisors for terms of 5 years. Members

representing a town, also represent any village(s) located with the town.

General Summary of CPB Review Responsibilities

This section provides a general summary of the CPB’s roles and responsibilities. The specific responsibilities of a county planning

board are found in §239 l, m, & n and the CPB Bylaws approved by the Ontario County Board of Supervisors. (Links: Complete §239

text Page151: Guide to NYS Planning and Zoning Laws and Ontario County Planning Board Bylaws under “Quick Links”

The Ontario County Planning Board reviews certain zoning and planning actions prior to the final decision made at the village, town,

or city level and makes a recommendation to the municipality. Although CPB review is required, the action is advisory in nature and

can be overridden at the local level (super majority if a denial).

NYS law spells out the types of actions reviewed by the CPB:

Adoption or amendment of zoning regulations (text and/or map)

Comprehensive plans

Site plan approvals

Special use permits

Variances

Any special permit, exception, or other special authorization which a board of appeals, planning board or legislative body is authorized to issue under the provisions of any zoning ordinance

Subdivisions NYS law specifies that CPB is required for the above actions to occur on real property lying within a distance of 500 feet from any:

Boundary of any city, village, or town boundary

Existing or proposed county or state park or other recreation area,

Right-of-way of any existing or proposed county or state parkway, thruway, expressway, road or highway, existing or proposed right-of-way,

http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Guide_to_Planning_and_Zoning_Laws.pdf

http://www.co.ontario.ny.us/index.aspx?nid=516


Stream or drainage channel owned by the county or for which the county has established channel lines, or

Existing or proposed boundary of any county or state owned land on which a public building or institution is situated.

General Procedures

The Ontario County Planning Board meets once each month to review referred local actions for intermunicipal and countywide

impacts. They are separated into two categories: Class 1 & Class 2.

Class 1s are applications that the CPB has formally decided have little potential intermunicipal or countywide impact. For Class 2

applications, the CPB has determined that there will be potential impacts before voting to approve, modify or deny.

Legal Obligations for Referring Agencies

Class 1: If an application has been returned to the referring agency as a Class I, then the only requirement is that they consider any

Board comments forwarded to them by the CPB. Referring agencies are asked to read any Board Comments into the minutes of a

meeting or hearing held for the subject application.

Class 2: If the CPB has voted to deny or modify a referred application then the local board needs a majority plus one vote of their full

board to act contrary to that decision. CPB approvals without modification require no extraordinary local action. However, in all

cases, the referring agency is still required to consider CPB comments as they would for Class 1 applications.

Incomplete Applications

Referrals need to meet the definition of “full statement of such proposed action” in NYS General Municipal Law. The CPB’s

determination regarding the completeness of a particular application is supported by factual findings and is made, whenever

practical, after consulting with the submitting official or the chairs of referring agencies. The CPB will not make a recommendation

on an application that they have determined to be incomplete. NYS General Municipal Law, Article 12-b Section 239-m I

Reporting back to the CPB

Report of final action – Within thirty days after final action, the referring body shall file a report of the final action it has taken with

the county planning agency or regional planning council. A referring body which acts contrary to a recommendation of modification

or disapproval of a proposed action shall set forth the reasons for the contrary action in such report.”

NYS General Municipal Law, Article 12-b Section 239-m, Part 6.

19

Administrative Reviews

The Ontario County Planning Department prepares administrative reviews of referrals as authorized, in accordance with the CPB

bylaws. The bylaws include criteria that identify applications that are to be reviewed administratively and specify the applicable

recommendations that are to be made to the municipality. AR-1 is an administrative review that is a Class 1 and AR2 is a review as a

Class 2 and require local board action if disapproved. The following table summarizes the administrative review policies specified in

the bylaws.

Administrative Review (AR) Policies:– Ontario County Planning Board By-Laws Appendix D

AR-1 Any submitted application clearly exempted from CPB review requirements by intermunicipal agreement

AR-2 Applications that are withdrawn by the referring agency

AR-3 Permit renewals with no proposed changes

AR-4

Use of existing facilities for a permitted use with no expansion of the building or paved area (Applications

that include specially permitted uses or the addition of drive through service will require full Board

review)

AR-5 A. Class 2 Denial Applications involving one single-family residential site infringing on County owned property, easement or

right-of-way.

AR-5 B. Applications involving one single-family residential site adjoining a lake that requires an area variance

AR-5 C. All other applications involving a site plan for one single-family residence.

AR-6 Single-family residential subdivisions under five lots.

AR-7 A. Class 2 Denial Variances for signs along major designated travel corridors.

AR-7 B. Applications involving conforming signs along major travel corridors.

AR-8 Co-location of telecommunications equipment and accessory structures on existing tower and sites

(Applications for new towers or increasing the height of an existing tower will require full Board review)

ontario county planning board referral list revised 2/10

Documents