BZA March 15 2011 Lennon

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on March 15, 2011 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock,Sr., Tezeon Wong and Glen Quigley present.

All in attendance for this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Ray Fidel read the applicants request:
Timothy C. Lennon, dba Lennon Machinery LLC, requests a conditional use permit for a vehicle sales & rentals of heavy earth moving equipment at 11180 Kinsman Rd. in the B-1 Commercial District (per Art. VI, Sec. 6.04 K) that requires Board of Zoning Appeals approval (per Art. X, Sec. 10.00).
Mr. Fidel asked Mr. Timothy Lennon to state his case.

Mr. Lennon gave a brief history of his company: moving from Bainbridge to purchased property in Newbury for world headquarters (for 3 other locations), buys low-hour-used equipment then sells and/or long term lease/rentals with turnaround time typically 6 months to one year. Only minor maintenance and replacements would be done: i.e. batteries, oil/fuel, filters, headlights etc. – no major repairs would be done on site but contracted out to equipment repair specialists.

He distributed photos showing the types of equipment he deals with. He stated he does not operate a franchise business but works as an independent dealer with operating hours: Mon thru Fri, 7 am to 6 pm, Sat 7 am till noon. At present, he is the sole employee. He intends to park the equipment within the fenced area (shown on site map).

Ms. Endres stated the current setback requirements: 25 ft. side yards, 150 ft. rear yard (adjacent to R-1 residential), 75 ft. front greenspace and 150 ft. building setback. She pointed out that expansion would be possible on the east side of the building. Discussion continued regarding upgrading office space, reusing the present signs and the limitations (max. 50 sq.ft & 10 ft. high) thereof. Mr. Lennon said he thought he could reword and utilize the present yard and wall signs.

Mr. Quigley asked the board to consider limiting the type of parking within the 75 to 150 ft. setback in keeping with the Community Vision Statement for the Rt. 87 corridor. Discussion continued referencing restricted 75 ft. greenspace, rear setback restrictions vs. school property – institutional not residential and lot coverage vs. future expansion possibilities.

Mr. Skomrock Sr. questioned the legality of adding conditions and said the board must follow Newbury Zoning law under which Mr. Lennon purchased the property.

Mr. Lennon agreed that he would rather park his equipment in the fenced area and preferred the rear for any future expansion. He acknowledged the septic location as 25 ft. in front of the building with the gas service also entering front of the building.

Mr. Quigley reiterated the township “Vision” commitment to neighboring owners to protect the 5 million investment in Newbury Center property and their plans for future expansion. Mr. Lennon assured the board that he has shown a history of improving his properties and intends to abide by all zoning rules and regulations.

Mr. Yeacker emphasized the importance of maintaining the 87 corridor image as Newbury Center has not yet been fully built-out. Mr. Lennon said that Rt. 87 has always been known for Manfredi’s trucking business. Mr. Yeacker proposed a compromise: allow only customer vehicle parking in the 75ft to 150 ft. setback area including space for semi truck turn-arounds.

Mr. Wong said that would effectively restrict parking of any heavy equipment within that space. Mr. Quigley agreed that would create the desired “Vision” uniformity. Ms. Endres stated that the allowed 50% lot coverage left only 3 acres usable. Discussion focused on office expansion, outdoor lighting (downdraft security style), positioning of dumpsters and fuel tanks to the rear of the building. Ms. Endres reminded Mr. Lennon that outdoor part storage was prohibited – he said buckets and accessories that he sells would be stored indoors.

Mr. Skomrock Sr, asked about the fuel storage facilities. Mr. Lennon said he intends to contract with Chardon Oil or Ullman Oil who will install the tanks to meet fire and safety regulations.

Mr. Yeacker said Mr. Lennon must operate under the vehicle sales and leasing regulations that do not permit major repairs on site. Mr. Lennon said he does only incidental repairs and maintenance on his own equipment.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions. There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the conditional use permit.
Tezeon Wong moved to accept Mr. Lennon’s request for a Conditional Use permit with the following 2 conditions: 1) no heavy equipment would be parked in the front 150 ft. setback and 2) only routine operator maintenance and repair would be done on equipment owned by Lennon Machinery; Mr. Skomrock Sr. seconded the motion.

Mary Lee Brezina yes
Tezeon Wong yes
Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes
Ray Fidel yes
Glen Quigley yes

Mr. Fidel then informed the applicant of the standard rules for a CU permit as listed in Art X & XII:
1) The permit would be for a five year terms with reapplication thereafter,
2) The permit would be reviewed yearly by the BZA,
3) The permit could be cancelled anytime for condition violations.

Mr. Fidel reminded Mr. Lennon that this conditional use permit was issued to him alone and was not transferrable – any new owner must reapply. Mr. Lennon agreed to abide by the stated conditions. Ms. Endres said Mr. Lennon had been most cooperative in this zoning process.

Mr. Fidel informed the applicant his conditional use permit was granted.

Mr. Fidel read to the Appellant and audience, “Based on the decision of the Board, you may proceed with obtaining your permit, once all requirements regarding this application are satisfied. You are advised if someone objects to this decision they may challenge it in court. If you choose to start operating at once, as soon as you begin your business you are bound by the conditions set forth by this Board, and all other Newbury Township zoning requirements.
Mr. Fidel informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellant’s signing receipt of the signed minutes. They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant. All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes.
Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 8:40 p.m. As the applicants left, Board members wished them good luck.
Board members resumed their meeting by establishing the conclusions of fact:
Based on the following FINDING OF FACTS for the conditional use permit:

1) The parcel could yield a reasonable return without the conditional use.
2) The conditional use is not substantial.
3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered and the adjoining property owners would suffer no detriment as a result of this permit.
4) The conditional use has no effect on delivery of governmental services.
5) The owner purchased the property with specific knowledge of these zoning restrictions.
6) The property owner’s predicament could not be obviated through some method other than the required conditional use.
7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the permit. Such other criteria, which the Board believes relates to determining whether the zoning regulation is equitable; there were no objections as there were no adjacent property owners in attendance.

The board continued discussions by suggesting to the Zoning Commission to change the vehicle definitions to limit vehicles to “licensed and road-able” – not off-road equipment.
The board adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Marge Hrabak