Minutes of the June 11, 2003 meeting of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, S4295 South Buffalo Street, Erie County
MEMBERS PRESENT: Harold Fabinsky, Chairman
John Bernard
Lorraine Biryla
Paul Bodden
William McNamara
Phillip Murray
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
EXCUSED: Michael McGuire
OTHERS PRESENT: David Holland, Assistant Building Inspector
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Wayne Bieler, Town Engineer
Sarah desJardins, Planning Coordinator
The Chairman called the meeting to order by stating that if anyone appearing before the Board has a family, financial or business relationship with any member of the Board, it is incumbent upon that person to make it known under State law and the Town Code of Ethics.
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the reading of the minutes of the Planning Board Special meeting of April 30, 2003 was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received a copy.
Mr. Murray made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to accept the minutes of the April 30th, 2003 meeting.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the reading of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting of May 14, 2003 was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received a copy.
Mr. Bernard noted the following corrections and additions to the minutes;
Page 1, Mr. David Holland attended the meeting and was not listed as being present; Page 3, paragraph 2, “Type 1” needs to be stricken, should read “Unlisted SEQR action”; Page 8, insert information referencing the fact that an addendum exists consisting of two pages into paragraph two. Also, page 8, item #1, “Type 1” needs to be stricken, should read “Unlisted SEQR action”; Page 10, second paragraph, third line, should read “4 ft. high x 16 ft. long”, not inches, for the brick base; Page 11, under #1, this should read “de-emphasized”, not emphasized; page 13, Item 1, “Unlisted” needs to be stricken, should read “Type 1 SEQR action”; page 21 the adjournment of the meeting was at 10:35 p.m., not 7:55.
Mr. Murray made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Biryla, to accept the minutes of the May 14, 2003 meeting as corrected.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. P.B. File #13 -03, Home & Office, 3555 North Buffalo Street, Zoned B-3. Requesting Planning Board approval of exterior display.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Alan Yox, owner
Mr. Yox told the members that he would like to be able to display items for sale outside. He explained that the items for sale will be furniture, gym sets and one gazebo within a 20’ x 40’ area. The members’ questions established that the time period for the outdoor display would be approximately May through October. Items will be returned each day to the inside. However, the gazebo will remain outdoors, year round, if it is not sold.
Chairman Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to GRANT outside display from June 12th to October 31st based on the site plan received 5/21/03 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is a Type II SEQR action.
2. There will be no additional outside lighting for the display or temporary structure.
3. There will be no banners or additional signage for this facility.
4. The outdoor items will be confined to an area of approximately 20’ x 40’ (800 sq. ft.) which will be set back from the road at least 40’.
5. Moveable items will be on display during day light hours only.
6. The gazebo is limited to one.
7. The location for the display will be along the south lot line and in front of the building.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. P.B. File #11-03, West-Herr Nissan, 3580 Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned B-2. Requesting Planning Board approval of directional signage.
APPEARANCE: William Eberhard, Alco Sign Service
Mr. Eberhard presented plans for 4 non-illuminated signs. Two signs will be free standing directional signs, 3’ x 4’ = 12 sq. ft. total. The other two directional signs will hang under the canopy and be 1’ x 4’, designating “Parts” and “Service”.
Mr. McNamara established that these signs will replace existing signs that will be removed.
Mr. Bernard stated that one sign appears to be 6” off of the right-of-way and another, if the Board approves the sign, would be in the right-of-way. Mr. Bernard would like this sign (“C”) placed on the petitioner’s own property, 5 ft. back from the right-of-way.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Chairman Fabinsky, to GRANT the sign permit request based on the submitted plans received 6/4/03 with the following conditions:
1. This is a Type II SEQR action.
2. Four (4) signs are approved and permitted by Section 144-38H.
3. Two signs measure 4’ high x 3’ wide with a maximum overall height of 5’. Those signs shall be located 5’ back from the road right-of-way. Two additional signs measure 1’ x 4’ and are “parts and service” identification signs.
4. The signs will not be illuminated.
5. The signs are to be located as noted on the revised plan of 6/11/03.
6. A permit fee shall be paid in accordance with Section 144-70A(1) of the Town Code.
7. The existing directional signs shall be removed and replaced by these four (4) signs.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3. P.B. File #7-03, Orchard Park Antique Mall, 3025 Orchard Park Road, Zoned B-2. Requesting Planning Board approval of outside display.
Mr. Murray stated that he has a business relationship with the Antique Mall and recused himself.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Don Frank, General Manager
Mr. Frank explained to the members that he would like to have the existing indoor flea market held outside during the summer months, one Saturday per month in an area of approximately 12,000 sq. ft in size. Mr. Bernard confirmed two future dates for the flea market will be 6/14 and 7/12. Mr. Frank submitted two letters of support, one from Mr. Pappas (Pappas Restaurant) of 1780 Orchard Park Road, West Seneca, and the other from Mr. Steve Lenegan (Southgate Lanes) of 50 Michael Road. These letters will be entered into the file. Mr. Frank also told the members that there will be fewer vendors than he indicated in his letter of intent, as the spaces provided have been increased in size. It was established that the time period required will be one (1) Saturday each month, from June through October.
Chairman Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, to GRANT Outside Display from 6/14/03 to 10/31/03 based on the site plan received 4/28/03 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is a Type II SEQR action.
2. There will be no additional outside lighting for the display or a temporary structure.
3. There will be no banners or additional signage for this facility.
4. Display will occur one (1) Saturday each month, in June, July, August, September and possibly in October.
5. The area will be along the north end of the border of the property between the exiting structure and Michael Road, having a foot print of approximately 12,000 sq. ft.
6. Additional parking, if needed, it will be available at South Gate Lanes or at Pappas Restaurant.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
4. P.B. Sub. File #1-03, Ralph & Dean Hogg, 5475 Webster Road, Zoned B-2 & I-1. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a car wash facility. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 2/19/2003.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Ralph Hogg, petitioner
Mr. Dean Hogg, petitioner
Mr. Jerry Johnson, equipment supplier
Mr. Chris Streng, Architect
Mr. Hogg confirmed for the Chairman that the operation will be open 24 hours.
Mrs. Biryla stated that an error has been made and that this case needs to be reviewed under “Special Exception Use”. Mrs. Biryla asked Attorney Michael Wolf if the members could review the case and issue a “Special Exception Use” motion first, and then follow with the request for a site plan review. Attorney Michael Wolf stated this is possible. It was
determined that the members did not want to delay the petitioner and that they would proceed with the “Special Exception Use” review first.
Chairman Fabinsky asked the petitioner how close the nearest residence is in relation to the proposed project. The petitioner stated that the nearest residence is at least 200’ from this property and that light industrial is carried on at the nearby properties.
Mr. Majchrzak established that the facility will have an attendant during certain hours, be lit and be open 24 hours.
Mr. Murray asked Mr. Bieler if there were any outstanding engineering issues. Mr. Bieler stated that a response is being awaited from the County regarding a proposed curb cut on California Road.
Mr. Bernard noted that during his review of the SEQR document, he did not find information pertaining to noise the vacuum cleaners will generate. He requests that the petitioner supply information, in decibels, for the vacuums used and the equipment used in the “touch-less” car wash. It was further established that the Conservation Board had approved the landscaping plan upon the submission of a revised plan indicating the location of a requested screened dumpster to be added and that they also requested the planting of specific trees. Mr. Streng noted that a revised lighting plan will be submitted indicating the foot-candles to be at a light level of 1.5 – 2.
Mrs. Biryla stated that she approves of the appearance of the car wash based on a photo submitted for the member’s review.
Mr. Bodden noted that a similar operation exists not far from Webster Road and he knows of no complaints regarding noise. Mr. Bodden’s questions established the pit areas will be pumped out and this waste will be removed from the site. The stacking area was discussed and Mr. Ralph Hogg indicated to the members on the plan how this will evolve.
Mr. McNamara established that there will be no problem with traffic exiting this site with regards to the grade level. The egress back to California Road rises up at least one foot. It was noted that there will be heated concrete aprons where the turn is made to leave the building.
Mrs. Biryla made a motion, seconded by Chairman Fabinsky, to recommend the Town Board APPROVE the requested Special Exception Use Permit for a car wash facility based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Full EAF Parts 1 and 2 and a Negative declaration shall be recommended.
2. Fees shall be paid in accordance with Section 144-70C, of the Town Code prior to publication of the Public Hearing Notice.
3. The recommendation is contingent upon the applicant completing the project as proposed on the development plans dated 5/30/03 and shall revert to its original Zoning Classification if the project is not completed per Section 144-67 of the Town Code.
4. The proposed project is in compliance with the Town’s long range comprehensive plan.
5. The applicant has demonstrated a need for the project.
6. The project is compatible with adjoining land uses and proposed developments and will not have a negative impact on the adjacent land value or public safety.
7. The applicant has demonstrated an orderly flow of traffic ingress and egress.
8. The applicant has provided suitable parking facilities.
9. Landscaping as indicated on the proposed plan will provide adequate screening.
10. Free area for recreation is not required.
11. The impact on schools and utilities is not an issue.
12. The health and safety of adjacent properties is not affected.
Mr. Murray noted that there is no Erie County Highway Department approval, approved lighting plan or Engineering approval.
Mr. Bernard noted that he would be voting nay for some of the reasons that Mr. Murray brought up and also because no noise levels have been provided.
Chairman Fabinsky stated that he, too, has concerns for noise levels, but he will express these concerns during the site plan approval phase.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD NAY
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY NAY
THE MOTION BEING FOUR (4) IN FAVOR, AND TWO (2) IN OPPOSITION, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
Chairman Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to TABLE this case pending clarification of the following issues:
1. Receipt of a revised lighting plan.
2. Noise decibel information for the vacuum and “touch-less” car wash.
3. Engineering Approval.
4. Erie County Highway Department approval.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
5. P.B. File #9-03, Liberty Wood & Construction Co., 3300 Benzing Road, Zoned I-1. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a 2,960 sq.ft. addition to an existing building for cold storage. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 5/1/2003.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Russell Walsh, owner
Mr. James Bammel, Architect
Mr. Bammel explained that presently, material is stored in two tractor-trailers located on the property. Mr. Bammel stated that the proposed addition will eliminate the two trailers. Also, a variance was granted for a side yard set back. The cold storage building will have electricity, but no water or machinery. The building will be built to match the existing building. Mr. Walsh stated that this building will be for cold storage only.
Mr. Bernard discussed the petitioner’s request to not put in all of the required parking. It is agreed that five existing spaces will violate the front yard parking code. There will be approximately 13 employees.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bodden, to recommend that the Town Board authorize a building permit for a 2,960 sq. ft. cold storage addition and approve the site plan dated 5/7/03 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Full EAF Parts 1 and 2 and a Negative declaration shall be recommended.
2. A landscape completion bond in accordance with the Conservation Board Minutes shall be provided for the approved Landscape Plan which includes 40% green space.
3. The site lighting plan is limited to those fixtures and poles indicated on the approved site plan. Light fixtures shall have flat lens.
4. No outside storage or display is permitted.
5. Dumpsters as shown shall be screened along with any additional dumpsters all of which shall be screened in accordance with Section 144-25 of the Town Code.
6. Town Engineering approval was granted on of 6/9/03.
7. Reduced parking of 13 spaces shall be provided with 10 additional in reserve green space. Per Section 144-29A-2 reduced parking is recommended with the reserve parking to be provided if deemed necessary by the Building Inspector and Planning Board based on building use.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
6. P.B. File #12-03, Walter Schmidt, 14.34 acres of vacant land, east side of California Road, south of Big Tree Road, Zoned R-3. Requesting rezoning from R-3 to R-3 Special Exception Use in order to construct a townhouse project. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 5/21/2003.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Douglas Bennett, TVGA Consultants
Mr. Bennett gave a brief overview of the history of the proposed project. He told the members that this is a re-submittal of the same plan, with a new date on it. The last submittal had been in the year 2000. At that time the Planning Board recommended approval of the request for Special Exception Use to the Town Board and issued a negative declaration on SEQR. However, the Town Board denied the request on 11/1/00 for five primary reasons. Mr. Bennett explained these reasons and stated since that time several of the issues have changed and he felt the remaining ones are not significant and could be mitigated.
Mr. Murray verified that the current plan submitted is the resulting plan after issues were addressed. This plan was submitted with the final findings in the environmental process. The plan layout is identical, however, more detail work has been emphasized. Mr. Murray further noted that the parcel size is not reflected on the plan and asked why it is omitted. Mr. Bennett stated that this is an oversight and he will ensure that this information is added to the plan. Mr. Murray then asked Mr. Bennett to review page 10 of the SEQR document (that Mr. Schmidt had signed) wherein, it is indicated that there will be no significant traffic impact on the area. Mr. Murray stated that he could not understand how Mr. Schmidt had come to this conclusion, based on the fact that traffic had been an issue all through the project. Mr. Bennett reviewed the document noting that it is a question of how the term “significant” is interpreted.
Mr. Bernard established that the submitted drainage plan was the same concept as the original plan, only with more detail. Noting that drainage had been one of the previous issues, Mr. Bernard further established that there had been no significant attempt to have the plan project beyond the Town minimum, to ten, fifteen, even twenty-five years storm. He asked if having a different project proposed here, such as single family home development, had been reviewed with regards to the differential of pavement run-off. Mr. Bennett stated that a single-family layout had been prepared for this site as part of the SEQR process, noting that there will be less impact with that type of project. Mr. Bernard asked if any attempt was made to improve landscaping screening along California Road for the existing residents. Mr. Bennett stated that it was agreed upon principle in the findings statement, per the Town Board’s recommendation, to provide additional landscaping. This issue will be addressed with the Conservation Board. Additionally, it was established that there are no concerns for water and that there will be no common dumpsters as this issue will be handled through the Homeowners Association. Mr. Bennett further stated that there will be no impact on the Schools. He further told the members that a market study
had been performed and the information is available for review. An elevation of the proposed project was presented to the members.
Chairman Fabinsky asked how many lots will exist if the project were to be single family homes. Mr. Bennett, noting that the information is out dated, stated that there would be 26 single-family homes. As a townhouse project there will be 51 units, ranging at a cost of approximately $129,000 to $160,000.
Chairman Fabinsky noted that the applicant has not changed the proposed plan to address the Town Board’s concerns and that he feels he would be remiss to ignore the issues expressed by them. The applicant has not come before them with answers to address the issues of drainage, landscape buffering or water detention.
Mrs. Biryla stated that she recommended approval six years ago and that she still likes the project. She further requested an artist’s rendering of the project.
Mr. Bodden stated that there is a need for this type of housing in our Town.
Mr. McNamara stated that he is sensitive to the people adjacent to this project. He believes that the project will have an impact on the area and will not be in favor of recommending Special Exception Use.
Chairman Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bernard, to TABLE
this case pending submittal of the following information:
1. Information that will demonstrate that there still demand for this type of project.
2. That the impact on the schools has not changed and will remain negative.
3. That impact on the health and safety of the adjacent neighbors be clearly established.
4. That drainage, in this drainage sensitive area be addressed, in a comprehensive way that will deal with significant weather contingencies.
5. Any proposal should include adequate screening with specific detail for berming and landscaping so as to prevent visual and noise intrusion to the neighboring residential properties.
6. Essentially, the presentation should convince the Board that this project is in the Town’s benefit and will not be a detriment to the Town or the neighbors.
7. A clear definition (artist’s rendering) of what the structure will look like is requested.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
7. P.B. File #20-00, Bierworth-Reidman Homes, 50+/- acres of vacant land, east side of Orchard Park Road, south of Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned R-3. Requesting rezoning from R-3 to R-3 Special Exception Use for the purpose of constructing a 290-unit apartment complex. Town Board approved rezoning from B-2 to R-3 on 5/21/2003. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 6/4/2003.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Tim Foster, Reidman Development
Mr. Robert Cantwell, BME Associates
Mr. Foster stated that he is requesting R-3 Special Exception Use. He addressed the remaining issues with the project, noting that there will be sidewalk access as indicated on the site plan. Photos were presented to indicate the similar type of signage that is being proposed for the front entry. A rendering of the building was presented and Mrs. Biryla noted that this was not what she had viewed or approved at the time of that presentation. The buildings were to have gable roofs and “look the same from all viewing points”. Mrs. Biryla feels that what was presented initially is what she liked and based her recommendation on. The applicants stated that they will have to review this issue with their superiors.
Mr. Murray voiced his concerns regarding this discrepancy. He noted that this area has been deemed as the “front door to our community”. He further told the applicants that following the originally approved idea would expedite their request.
Mr. Bernard’s questions established that the apartments would be developed in two phases, with a 30-month span between each phase.
Emergency access is available on a gravel road with a crash gate.
Mr. Bernard requests that pavers be used rather than gravel, as indicated on the proposed plan. He further noted that the parking spaces could be smaller and they will remain in compliance with the code. The Conservation Easement was discussed. Mr. Bernard noted that Mr. Stapell and Mr. Reidman agreed, with the Town Board, to put in place a nature trail within this easement area and that the area will be left natural for public access.
The members discussed the architectural discrepancy and how to proceed with their review for Special Exception Use. Mr. Bodden noted that this is an architectural issue and felt that it could be addressed at another time. However, the Chairman felt that the discrepancy is a issue of credibility and he explained further his feelings regarding this. Ultimately, the members decided that the request could be voted on, with a contingency, regarding the architectural discrepancy.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Murray, to recommend the Town Board APPROVE the requested Special Exception Use Permit for R-3 Multiple, a 288-unit apartment complex based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is a Type 1 SEQR Action based on the submitted findings filed 5/21/03.
2. Fees shall be paid in accordance with Section 144-70C, of the Town Code prior to publication of the Public Hearing Notice.
3. The recommendation is contingent upon the applicant completing the project as proposed on the development plans received 6/4/03, and shall revert to its original Zoning Classification if the project is not complete per Section 144-67 of the Town Code.
4. The proposed project is in compliance with the Town’s long range comprehensive plan.
5. The applicant has demonstrated a need for the project.
6. The project is compatible with adjoining land uses and proposed development, and will not have a negative impact on the adjacent land value or public safety.
7. The applicant has demonstrated an orderly flow of traffic ingress and egress including an emergency only access drive to the adjacent retail plaza.
8. The applicant has provided suitable parking facilities.
9. Landscaping as indicated on the proposed plan will provide adequate screening.
10. Free area recreation has been provided. This includes a Conservation Easement along “Smokes Creek” and a walking trail.
11. The nearness and impact on schools and utilities is not an issue as the project will be completed in two phases; 144 units in each phase with a 30 month lag between Phase I and Phase II.
12. The health and safety of adjacent properties is not affected.
13. The Planning Board requirement is for a “Gable Styled” symmetric roof plan as viewed in the originally presented photographs that showed red brick gray-sided structures.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
8. P.B. Sub. File #38-98, Eagle Heights Subdivision, Part Eight, Zoned R-1. Requesting that the Planning Board issue its findings statement regarding a proposed 78-lot subdivision. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was filed by the Planning Board on 5/14/2003.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Rob Pidanick, Pratt & Huth Associates
Mr. Shawn Hopkins, Reynaldo-Meyers
Mr. Hopkins explained that an agreement had been entered into with the neighbors. He requests that the Board issue the findings statement and set a date for the public hearing. The Board members noted that they were not prepared to issue the findings statement this evening, having just received the material last week, and additional corrections to it at this meeting. The Chairman stated several issues in the draft proposal concerned him. One being, the agreement to pay $7,500 to a citizen’s group to refurbish a Town owned park.
Chairman Fabinsky told the applicants that the Board intends to have a work session to create the Findings Statement. The
Planning Coordinator and the applicants discussed the time frame of the process. The applicant stated that he did not have a problem with allowing an extension to the process of the Findings Statement, if the public hearing for the preliminary plat plan approval request could follow at the same meeting. If the Findings Statement is not issued, this public hearing would not be held.
The members discussed the agreement made between the applicant and the citizen’s group to have $7,500 paid to them to refurbish a Town owned park, located at Old Pawtucket Row, in the Eagle Heights subdivision. The members concluded that only the Town can make improvements on a Town owned park. The applicants will contact the citizen’s attorney and discuss this issue. This issue does not have to be a part of the Findings Statement.
Mr. Bernard made a MOTION, seconded by Mrs. Biryla, to AUTHORIZE the Chairman to schedule the Preliminary Plat Plan public hearing for Planning Board File #38-98 for the July 9, 2003, as Engineering approval has been granted for this development.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
FABINSKY AYE
BERNARD AYE
BIRYLA AYE
BODDEN AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
9. P.B. File #10-03, Jim Ball Pontiac, 100 Hart Place, Zoned R-2. Requesting rezoning from R-2 to B-2 for the purpose of expanding office space. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 6/4/2003.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Jim Ball, Owner
Mr. Steve Castilone, representing Jim Ball
Mr. Mike Hall, representing Jim Ball
Mr. Murray asked the applicants to describe their intention for this property. Mr. Ball stated that at this time the house will be used as extra office space for six staff members and not be used for the public. The interior will be made ADA compliant and there will be no exterior work. At some point, the building will be demolished. The basic hours of operation will be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, with the possibility of one staff member working from 6 p.m.
to 9 p.m. Although it was not indicated on the plan presented, the applicant confirmed that there will be handicapped parking.
Mr. Bernard reconfirmed with the applicant that the exterior of the house will not be altered and that the use performed in the house will be in conjunction with the Jim Ball auto dealership. Mr. Bernard further discussed the process the applicant needs to proceed with to accomplish this request. Mr. Bernard asked if there were plans to someday put a future building on this site and Mr. Ball stated that there were none. Mr. Ball stated that someday there probably will be an addition to the “truck cente