THE TOWN OF MACEDON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING WAS HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003, AT THE TOWN COMPLEX, 32 MAIN STREET, MACEDON NY. PRESENT WERE CHAIRMAN WARREN JEFFRIES, MEMBERS CARL ELIGH AND JOHN GRAVINO. ALSO PRESENT WAS TOWN ENGINEER SCOTT ALLEN. ABSENT WERE MEMBERS CHARLES PACKARD AND HELEN SAVERSKY AND TOWN COUNCILMAN DAVID MAUL.

Mr. Jeffries called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. He then explained the purpose for which this Board serves and read the Legal Notice as it appeared in the "Times".

Applicant Matthew Orlando was present to explain his request. He would like the additional space for the storage of a travel trailer, a car that is driven only in the summer, lawn equipment, an ATV and a pickup truck with plow. There would be no commercial use of this building. His application contained rough drawings, but a final rendition will be done by the same architect who designed his home. He is very concerned that this accessory structure match his home in appearance; i.e., roof pitch, style, etc. The rough plan shows three 12 ft. overhead doors, but it is quite likely only one 12 ft. door would be used to accommodate his travel trailer and the other doors would be standard height. Mr. Jeffries questioned this as being a second garage, and Mr. Orlando then amended his application to reflect an additional variance requested (135-61-A). Mr. Orlando had spoken to four of his neighbors with none being opposed to the project. There was no one else present to speak for or against the granting of these variances. Carl Eligh had spoken to three neighbors; none were opposed.

- Town Board – Councilman Maul had submitted written comments as follows:

"a) It's interesting that we are once again trying to classify "pole barn" as a use

when in fact it is a type of construction. In multiple places throughout the

application, the term "garage" is stricken and replaced with "pole barn". This

does not alter the spirit of the application at all. The applicant indicates he will

be storing a motor vehicle in this structure, which qualifies it as a "private

garage" as defined on page 13514. That means that relief from §135-61(a) is

also required, in both respects. (According to the attached map, this is a

second garage, and exceeds the 800 sq ft limit.) b) While this is a very large

garage, it's also a very large parcel."

- Wayne County Planning Board – No intermunicipal or countywide impact.

- Town Planning Board – No concerns

- No SEQR required

Public hearing was then closed.

Applicant Paul Medyn was present to address the Board. He has no garage at the present time and would like this building to house his RV, lawn equipment and personal possessions. There would be no commercial use of this structure. He also explained the proposed location is the only flat area on his property and has direct access to his present driveway. Additionally, the building would shield his view of a neighbor's property. The question of a garage larger than 800 sq. ft. was raised, and Mr. Medyn amended his application to include Section 135-61A. Mr. Gravino inquired about the 20 ft. easement along the property line, providing access to the adjacent parcel, also owned by Mr. Medyn. Proposed placement of the garage is 15 ft. from the property line and within the 20 ft. easement. Mr. Medyn presented letters of endorsement from two of his neighbors, Gary & Florence Guthrie, 772 Erie Street Road, and Frank & Melissa Terrore, 762 Erie Street Road. Both letters stated agreement with the requested variances providing the setback was 20 ft. No one else was present to speak for or against the granting of these variances.

- Town Planning Board – Would like to see the building moved off the 20 ft.

easement or have the two parcels combined.

- Town Board – Councilman Maul's written comments were: "a) This is a

private garage as well, per the reasoning given above (Orlando). I cannot

tell from the attached map whether one garage exists already or not, but

relief from at least the square footage component of §135-61 (a) is required.

(1184 sq. ft.) b) The map shows the applicant is also the owner of part of

the southerly parcel. It's not clear if he owns the notch in the flag lot. If

it's not him, has that landowner stepped forward with any comments?"

- No SEQR required

- County input not required

Public hearing was then closed.

Doug Merritt of Site Enhancement Services was present to speak on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Merritt explained this store is an atypical design to conform with suggestions made by the Town Planning Board. He distributed handouts showing color renditions of the proposed signs and explained the M-30 Monument Sign was being deleted. CVS will use a pylon sign in conformance with the Zoning Code. If monument sign were used, they would require two (2) monuments, one by each entrance. CVS makes a large investment when moving to a stand-alone store from a plaza location and feels additional signs are necessary to attract business. The main CVS wall signs will be internally illuminated, and there are five non-illuminated, ancillary signs for Food Shoppe, Drive-Thru Pharmacy and 1 Hour Photo. Signs on the drive-thru canopy, pickup/drop off plaque and receiving door sign will not be illuminated, but double face window signs will. Mr. Jeffries noted similar window display signs are used at the current CVS location. He then asked Mr. Merritt for the address of another CVS that has similar ancillary signs. Mr. Merritt responded there are none in the area, nor are there other businesses within Macedon using that type of sign. Mr. Jeffries had visited a comparable CVS located at Mt. Hope & Elmwood in Rochester, which does not have these additional signs. Mr. Eligh noted another CVS at Caulkins & Henrietta Roads which has only wall mounted CVS signs. Various options for monument signs vs. pylon sign were discussed. There was no one else present to speak for or against the granting of these variances.

- Town Planning Board – Would like elimination of 5 ancillary signs for Food

Shoppe, 1 Hour Photo & Drive-Thru Pharmacy. Also would like the 6.3' sign

- Town Board – Councilman Maul's written comments were: "a) The application

calls for 8 signs, including one monument sign which doesn't appear. The full

color site rendering shows 7 signs (four on the west side, three on the front), but

that excludes the sign(s) over the drive-thru lane itself. It suggests that the rear

of the drive thru would have its own "Exit" signage which would total 9 signs,

plus the monument makes ten. If you approve this, please be specific as to the

actual number or selection of approved signs. b) The monument sign is not

described at all, so it's hard to tell if any of the regulations regarding ground

signs require variance. c) Keep in mind §135-91, which will apply to this

site once the unspecified second building is decided. Will more variances be

required in order to provide signage for that building?"

- Wayne County Planning Board – ". . . recommended approval of the area

variance request with suggested modification: there should be less signage on

the building, thereby minimizing the substantial variance request. The Board

felt the proposed building-mounted "CVS" sign may be suitable, but other

building mounted signs ("Food Shoppe", "Drive-Thru/Pharmacy" and "1

Hour Photo") should be minimized or omitted."

Mr. Jeffries then stressed three points: (1) Ancillary signs – There is no other business in Town with similar signs; (2) Other CVS pharmacies do not have those signs; (3) Approval would be setting a precedent. The public hearing was then closed.

Section 135-190-A – Number of signs allowed – Motion made by John Gravino, seconded by Carl Eligh, to grant this variance. Discussion began on the pylon vs. monument signs at the highway. Mr. Merritt stated they would have one pylon sign located at the Route 31 entrance. If a monument signs were used, they would need two – one at each entrance. Scott Allen then pointed out the approved location for the pylon was at the corner of Route 31 & Canandaigua Road. An example of the proposed pylon sign was shown to the Board members. Mr. Jeffries then asked for a review of the various signs and the members' opinions on each.

42" Illuminated Wall Sign – Board agreed with this proposal.

Non-Illuminated Ancillary Building Messages – Food Shoppe (2), Drive-Thru Pharmacy (1), 1 Hour Photo (2) – Board disagreed with this proposal – Nothing similar in the town & approval would set a precedent.

Non-Illuminated Canopy Letters – This view would face Route 31. Board felt this sign would be necessary for customer direction. WCTA has similar signs.

Non-Illuminated Pick-up/Drop-off Plaque, Receiving Door Sign, Double Face Illuminated Window Display – Board agreed with these proposed signs.

Monument vs. Pylon Sign – Board consensus was a pylon sign of 24 sq. ft., maximum 20 ft. height.

Mr. Gravino then amended his motion for Section 135-190-A to approve a maximum of ten (10) signs as follows: Two (2) 42" wall signs, one (1) pylon sign, three (3) Drive-Thru Pharmacy canopy letter signs, two (2) internally illuminated window displays, one (1) pick-up/drop-off plaque, one (1) receiving door sign, and excluding the five (5) non-illuminated ancillary building signs. Motion seconded by Carl Eligh.

The five factors were then reviewed.

Roll Vote: Eligh – yes; Gravino – yes; Jeffries – yes. Therefore, this variance is granted.

Section 135-190-C – Square footage of signs – Motion made by John Gravino, seconded by Carl Eligh, to grant this variance for a maximum of 250 square feet for the ten (10) signs approved under Section 135-190-A.

The five factors were reviewed.

Roll Vote: Eligh – yes; Gravino – yes; Jeffries – yes. Therefore, this variance is granted.

Motion made by John Gravino, seconded by Carl Eligh, to grant this variance with the height not to exceed 24 feet and an 18-month abandonment clause.

The five factors were reviewed.

Roll Vote: Eligh – yes; Gravino – yes; Jeffries – yes. Therefore, this variance is granted.

Motion made by Carl Eligh, seconded by John Gravino, to grant this variance with a maximum height of 24 feet, setback not to be less than 20 feet from property line, built to dimensions submitted with application and an 18-month abandonment clause.

The five factors were reviewed.

Roll Vote: Eligh – yes; Gravino – yes; Jeffries – yes. Therefore, this variance is granted.

Motion made by John Gravino, seconded by Carl Eligh, to approve the 4/9/03 minutes. All in favor; minutes approved.

Motion to adjourn made by Carl Eligh, seconded by John Gravino. All in favor; meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan Bush

Clerk to the Board