Lakewood Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
(Hearing recessed from 11/13/07)
Tuesday, November 27, 2007, at 7:00 PM
Lakewood Town Hall
The purpose of the public hearing was to continue the recessed public hearing from 11/13/07 regarding the conditional use permit (CUP) for Lipe Bros. Construction.
Call to order: Planning and Zoning Commission chair Bob Wolfe called the recessed Public Hearing for the Lipe Bros. Construction CUP to order at 7:05 PM on November 27, 2007, at the Lakewood Town Hall.
Present: Chair Bob Wolfe, Town Attorney Tim Strom, Inese Holte, Chris Roningen, Peter Miller, Ann Cutts, Angie Dickison Palmer, Zoning Administrator Brennan Mears, and Recorder David Gerhart. Town Board member Phil Halverson and members of the public were in the audience (see attached register).
A letter dated November 26, 2007, from Lipe Bros. attorney Steve Overom was presented to the Commission. Motion by Roningen, second by Cutts, to enter this letter into the record. Motion carried unanimously.
Wolfe brought to the attention of the Commission an email dated November 25, 2007, from Town Attorney Tim Strom that itemized changes to the “Findings, Conclusion, and Order” document. These changes had been discussed at the previous meeting on the November 13th. A revised “Findings” document was included as a PDF file attachment to the email.
Motion by Holte, second by Cutts, to approve the first change on page 5 of the “Findings” document. This change contained wording that described the historic use of the salvage yard on the Lipe property as an auto salvage yard and stated that the Commission in 2001 did not want to expand this use to other types of salvage. Roningen opposed including this wording; but Holte said that if this was not explicitly stated, there would be no limitation on the type of materials that could be salvaged on the property. Wolfe said that at the time of the CUP issued in 2001, salvage was envisioned as auto salvage. Motion carried 4-1 with Roningen against. To be consistent with this change, Strom noted that the sentence, “Existing salvage yard means an automobile salvage yard,” should also be added at the end of the paragraph on page 21 at the top and also at the end of the last paragraph on page 28 at the bottom, in both cases following the sentences on those pages that state, “Retail sales are not allowed.” Motion by Holte, second by Cutts, to include this sentence on page 21. Motion carried 4-1 with Roningen against. Motion by Holte, second by Miller, to include this sentence on page 28. Motion carried 4-1 with Roningen against.
Strom noted a typographical error on page 20, 4th paragraph: building should be buildings. Mears pointed out another typo on page 28, item #2 under Conclusion and Order: September 30, 2208 should be September 30, 2008.
The next suggested change was the paragraph containing the definition of business activity area found on page 21 of the document and continuing onto the first four lines of page 22. Motion to accept this paragraph by Holte, second by Cutts. Motion carried unanimously.
The next issue was to adequately define the business activity areas on the Lipe property on page 22 of the document. In accordance with Mears’ computer delineation of 2.6 acres on the upper lot and the Lipe survey of the lower lot, there was a motion by Holte, second by Miller, to use 2.6 acres on the upper parcel and 3.6 acres on the lower parcel as the business activity areas. However, Strom questioned whether the Commission wanted to only define acreage or whether the actual boundaries of the business activity areas should be specified. Miller said that both should be specified. Strom said that maps specifying the business activity areas should be a part of the CUP document. Mears said that on the lower parcel the Lipe survey can be used, whereas on the upper parcel the computer delineation of the 1991 map with the 2003 overlay can be used. Holte then amended her motion to include the maps specified by Mears. Strom expressed concern that the acreage might not coincide with the boundaries drawn on the maps, and suggested that the definition of the business activity areas be by maps rather than by acreage. Strom suggested the following wording to fill in blanks on page 22: In “A” on page 22 the “business activity area” shall be defined by the total area shown on the survey attached as Exhibit A which is approximately 3.6 acres. In “B” on page 22 the “business activity area” shall be defined by the total area shown on the delineation map attached as Exhibit B which is approximately 2.6 acres. Holte modified her motion to use the language suggested by Strom, and the motion was seconded by Miller. The motion carried unanimously. The other wording in paragraphs “A” and “B” was agreed to by consensus.
The next paragraph on page 22 and continuing onto page 23 dealt with the salvage yard. On page 23 the document specified that “if the property owner changes the actual use of more than one-half acre of either parcel from a construction contracting business to an automobile salvage yard use, then the property owner is hereby directed, prior to doing so, to return to the Commission for a hearing……” Wolfe suggested that the phrase “one-half acre” be changed to “one-fourth acre.” Motion by Miller to make the change from one-half acre to one-fourth acre, second by Holte. Roningen expressed opposition to the change, stating that he believes that this would create a conflict related to the grandfathered use. Miller said that the salvage yard use has lapsed, but because it is in the CUP, a trigger is needed to require the property owner to come back to the Commission to expand its use. Holte said the Lipes have not followed the rules for a junkyard, and wondered whether the Commission would be giving them the right to have a junkyard they should not have. Wolfe said that at the time of Lipe’s purchase of the property there was an existing junkyard and that the 2001 CUP assumed a grandfathered junkyard. However, even though Lipe has a CUP for a junkyard, Wolfe also thought that a trigger was needed if the junkyard was to be expanded. Holte thought that Lipe needs to show that he has met the conditions, since 2001, for continuing to operate a junkyard. Miller wondered whether the Commission can allow a junkyard if operation of a junkyard has lapsed. Strom noted that the “business activity area” is for a construction contractor business. Motion carried 4-1 with Roningen opposed. Strom noted that the change from one-half to one-fourth acre should also be made at the top of page 30, fifth line down.
The next language change was on page 24 and was related to screening. Motion by Holte, second by Palmer, to approve the change. Motion carried unanimously.
On pages 28 and 31, compliance dates were specified that were not consistent. Wolfe suggested a date of May 15th, 2008. Motion by Miller, second by Holte, to use May 15th, 2008, on pages 28 and 31 as the date for full compliance with the CUP’s conditions, with exceptions for the dates for Great Lakes Stone to vacate the property and for screening to be completed, which are specified elsewhere in the document. Carried unanimously.
Wolfe noted that on page 28 the document states that if Great Lakes Stone does not vacate the property by September 30, 2008, the Lipe Bros. CUP will be revoked, but he asked what the consequence would be if Jerry Lipe did not comply with the CUP’s conditions by May 15th, 2008. Strom wondered whether the entire “Findings” document should be filed with the CUP or only the “Conclusion and Order” starting on page 28. He said he needed the opinion of a real estate attorney on this matter. Other questions were whether the landowner must sign the CUP, what time period should be allowed for this signing (e.g., 30 days), and whether any such stipulation needs to be added at the end of the “Conclusion and Order.” There seemed to be agreement that the landowner (Jerry Lipe) be given a reasonable time to sign the document and that if he doesn’t, the CUP would be revoked. If there were an appeal to the Town Board or the courts, any further action by the Commission would await the outcome of the appeal.
Mears wanted to revisit the issue of the types of materials that Lipe can salvage. Miller said that he accepts that a certain amount of salvage that is related to the construction contractor business will occur. Roningen was concerned that the Commission is asking to get the auto salvage business back because Lipe has no other option. Strom suggested modifying the definition of the salvage yard by adding the words, “excluding salvage incidental to a construction contractor business.”
Wolfe asked about scheduling a short meeting to finalize and sign the CUP. Motion by Cutts, second by Palmer, to recess the CUP hearing until 6:30 PM on Tuesday December 18th, 2007. Miller recommended that no discussion of the document’s content take place at that meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
The next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting is Tuesday January 29th, 2008, at 7:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
David Gerhart