James Peck

The Appeals Board conducted public hearings and made decisions regarding two variance requests. The first request, from Brian and Lois Allen, involved a front yard setback reduction from 80' to 55' for garage installation, which was approved unanimously without conditions after SEQR review. The second request, from Andrea and Jerry Liedka, sought side yard and front yard variance reductions to install a shed, along with a lot area reduction. This request was approved unanimously with several conditions, including limiting the shed height to 12' and requiring gutters for roof runoff. The meeting concluded with adjournment at 7:58 PM.

The Appeals Board conducted a public hearing regarding a variance request from Mr. Rathbun for his property, involving reductions to both front and sideyard setbacks. Key discussions during the hearing included environmental concerns related to protected species near Oneida Lake and the implications of new Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regulations regarding the 100' flood plane. The Board declared itself the lead agency for State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and classified the request as a Type II Action of Non-significance. Ultimately, the Board unanimously approved the variance request.

The Appeals Board conducted a public hearing regarding a variance request from Sue Lavigne for the construction of a 22'x25'x10' garage, requiring a 5' sideyard variance. The Board discussed the merits of the request, completed the necessary SEQR procedures by declaring Type II Action of negative significance, and completed the Area Variance Findings and Decisions form. The variance was unanimously approved with a condition to add a gutter on the west by north side of the garage to direct water away from neighboring properties. The Board also welcomed Byron Danis as a new Alternate Member and Brenda Mosher as the new Secretary.

The meeting included a continued discussion regarding Zoning District Dimensional standards, setbacks, and easements. A representative presented examples of dimensional requirements from similarly sized towns. Discussions focused on using the edge of pavement as a guide for setbacks and establishing minimum setback distances. The Board unanimously voted to adopt proposed changes to the dimensional table, which will be finalized for a vote at a subsequent meeting scheduled for November 12th. Regarding the Zoning Districts Matrix, the Board unanimously accepted language clarifying that any setbacks or requirements in all four zones are superseded by guidelines from the DEC or the Army Corps of Engineers. The primary remaining task for the Zoning Commission is establishing how the matrix interacts with the four zones.

The meeting involved a review and discussion of draft definitions for several Zoning Districts. The Waterfront Zoning District definition was accepted with prior suggested changes. The Commercial/Industrial Zoning District definition was discussed, along with the status of a sewer project, prompting the Board to consider inviting a county representative for further discussion, as sewer development is critical for industrial growth. The Residential Zoning District definition was found acceptable as written. An addition was agreed upon for the Rural Zoning District definition to acknowledge potential compatibility with businesses allowed in other zones. The Board also reviewed a suggestion for a "Planned Development Zone" to accommodate zoning ideas that do not fit current definitions, requiring the Chair to request electronic versions of the handouts. Discussion on Land Development Laws focused heavily on setbacks, minimum lot area (40,000 sq. ft.), and lot frontage (minimum 125'), particularly noting the impact of existing sewer and wetland regulations on lot sizes in the dense hamlet area. Specific setbacks for front, side, and rear yards were reviewed, as was the maximum building height of 40 feet. The Board also reviewed the Zoning Districts use definitions matrix and scheduled the next meeting.