Chairperson Mitchell explained that this application is the continuation of a public hearing held in June 2002. The public hearing was left open.

Mr. Waite presented a landscape site plan (labeled L4 and dated 10/22/02) showing the proposed addition. He said the plan shows a reduction of parking places to accommodate screen plantings and to make improvements for a better traffic flow for vehicles and for emergency equipment. Drive aisles will range in size from 23 feet at the Monroe Avenue entrance to 21 feet at the side of the building to 27-28 feet at the back of the building A front porch will be added on the Monroe Avenue elevation. Lighting will be changed to downcast lighting on the parking lot elevation. The drainage pattern will remain as it is.

Board members agreed that the plan more than adequately addressed most of the concerns they expressed in June. However, some concerns remain. Member Weniger questioned the maneuverability of emergency vehicles at the back of the parking lot. Chairperson Mitchell asked if the heat box on the canal side could be screened with shrubbery. All Board members concurred that a formal lighting site plan showing photometrics needs to be submitted.

There were no additional comments from the public.

Public Hearing Closed: There being no public comment, Chairperson Mitchell closed the Public Hearing.

1. the submission of a formal lighting plan
2. shrubbery screening of the heating unit on the canal side of the building
3. written approval from the Pittsford Fire Department
4. SEQR review.
   

Mitchell – yes, Weniger – yes, Danko – yes, Chamberlin – yes, Lanphear – yes. Motion carried.

This decision was filed in the Office of the Village Clerk on October 28, 2002.

Ralph explained that the bank would like to replace the two signs that are currently on the Main Street elevation because they are small and hard to see. Secondly, the Fleet logo has changed and the proposed signs reflect the new logo. New signs would be larger than present signs. Ralph stated Fleet Bank wished to withdraw the part of the application requesting internally illuminated signs.

Members discussed the issue of setting a precedent by permitting two signs where only one is allowed. Member Chamberlin reminded the Board that two signs have been allowed previous to this application. Some members said that two signs were not necessary.

1. leave the two existing signs on the Main Street façade as they currently exist
2. replace the two existing signs with one (1) sign in either of the proposed locations as meets the Code.
   

Mitchell – yes, Weniger – yes, Danko – yes, Chamberlin – yes, Lanphear – yes. Motion carried.

This decision was filed in the Office of the Village Clerk on October 28, 2002.

Ms. Latshaw explained that her home is on the corner of two very busy streets in the Village. A fence is needed for the safety of her two-year old daughter. She is proposing a fence that would have gradual transitioning in height from four feet to six feet. The fence would be stained white and landscaped on the Sutherland Street side to soften the effect.

Member Weniger stated that the desired placement of the fence is on a two to three foot rise from the sidewalk along Sutherland Street. This will cause the fence to look like it is 5 to 6 feet high on that elevation. He said the look of the fence would be out of character with the Village and would change the character of the property. This is important because the property is located near a main entrance to the Village. Member Lanphear said her concern is setting a precedent. She has reservations about the look of the fence because of the height of the yard.

1. the fence must be 50% open
2. shrubbery is required along the three foot sections
   

Mitchell – no, Weniger – yes, Danko – yes, Chamberlin – yes, Lanphear – yes. Motion carried.

This decision was filed in the Office of the Village Clerk on October 28, 2002.

Dr. Londorf explained that he has a low volume Chinese medicine practice using acupuncture and Chinese herbs. He does not have a staff and does not plan to hire staff. He also teaches meditation to small classes. It is his intent to offer herbs for sale to his clients only, not to the general public. He presented a schedule with proposed hours of operation with his application that is submitted and date stamped October 10, 2002. Dr. Londorf uses soft music consisting of nature sounds.

Building Inspector Bailey said that 1/3 of the parking lot is empty at any point during the day. Ms. Fustanio added that the building has 93% occupancy at this time. The conclusion was that there is plenty of available parking.

1. the Center will have a low noise impact
2. there shall be no more than 25 people per class
3. the hours of operation shall be as stated on the application submitted and date stamped October 10, 2002
4. the facility will not operate as a medical practice
5. the business will remain a sole practitioner business as stated by Dr. Londorf
6. the Special Exception Use permit will be subject to review in one year (October 2003).

Mitchell – yes, Weniger – yes, Danko – yes, Chamberlin – yes, Lanphear – yes. Motion carried.

1. Ample parking exists on this site.
2. Trip generation for Chinese Healing Art Center is expected to be low.
   
3. Larger classes will be infrequent and generally held at off-peak hours.
   
4. Indoor instructional facilities with low noise and traffic impact are an appropriate use in the M-1 District.
   

Mr. Jewett stated that this is his 7th year of selling trees at this location. He is not planning any changes from past years. Board members asked if Mr. Jewett was agreeable to the same conditions set forth in past approvals. He stated he was.

1. the site shall be restored to its original appearance by January 3, 2003
2. preparation and sale shall be only on private property side yard no closer than 125 feet from all property lines
3. temporary signage shall not be placed in the public right-of-way
4. no high-pressure sodium lighting shall be installed or maintained.
   

Mitchell – yes, Weniger – yes, Danko – yes, Chamberlin – yes, Lanphear – yes. Motion carried.

This decision was filed in the Office of the Village Clerk on October 28, 2002.

Ms. Seymour said she was aware immediately after purchasing her home that the parking was inadequate for two dwelling units. Her tenant has been parking on the lawn in front of the house. This property was granted a variance in 1965 and became a legal double house. In 1965, two parking places were required. Currently, the Code says that two parking places per dwelling unit are required. She is asking the Village to allow three parking places. She would like to provide off street parking for her tenant and would like to do what is aesthetically best for the neighborhood.

Mitchell – yes, Weniger – yes, Danko – yes, Chamberlin – yes, Lanphear – yes. Motion carried.

This decision was filed in the Office of the Village Clerk on October 28, 2002.