The Town of Clay Zoning Board of Appeals approved area variances for three residential projects during their October 13 meeting, including requests for deck construction and structural additions.
Typeset from the official record — motions and recorded votes are detected automatically. The official copy governs.
APPROVED
October 13, 2025
The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clay, County of Onondaga, State of New York, was held at the Clay Town Hall, 4401 New York State Route 31, Clay, New York on October 13, 2025. Chairperson Mason called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. and upon the roll being called the following were:
PRESENT: Vivian Mason Chairperson
Karen Liebi Deputy Chairperson Ryan Frantzis Member David Porter Member Mary Lou DesRosier Member Michael Becker Alternate Member
ABSENT: None
PRESENT: Robert Germain Zoning Board Attorney
Chelsea Clark Zoning Board Secretary Brian Bender Planning & Development Commissioner Terry Karousos Code Enforcement Officer Russel Mithcell Planning Board Chairman Michelle Borton Planning Board Deputy Chair Karen Guinup Planning Board Member Hal Henty Planning Board Member Marie Giannone Planning Board Secretary All present participated in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOTION made by Deputy Chairperson Liebi that the Minutes of the meeting of September 8,
2025, be accepted as submitted. Motion was seconded by Mr. Frantzis. Unanimously carried.
MOTION made by Chairperson Mason for the purpose of the New York State Environmental
Quality Review (SEQR) all new actions tonight will be determined to be a Type II, and will be given a negative declaration, unless otherwise advised by our attorney. Motion was seconded by Mr. Porter. Unanimously carried.
Case: #1986 – David Meleski, 4764 Norstar Blvd., Apt. 228, Tax Map #096.-01-01.0.:
The applicant is seeking a Special Permit pursuant to Section 230-13 H.(2)(d)[1] – Home Occupation, and Section 230-27 I.(2)(a) – Standards of Review, to allow the transfer of ammo and firearms to purchasers of on-line firearm items. The property location is in R-APT Apartment Zoning District.
Chairperson Mason stated the applicant requested to withdraw the Special Permit application.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
Chairperson Mason advised that the board would be hearing the three residential applications first (Cases: 1992, 1993 & 1994)
The applicant is seeking Area Variances pursuant to Section 230-13 E.(4)(b)[1] – Lot and Structure Dimensional Requirements, a reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet; Section 230-20 B.(2)(b) – Fences, for an increase in height of fence in a front yard from the maximum of 2.5 feet to 7 feet to allow installation of a fence. The property location is in the R-7.5 One-Family Residential Zoning District.
The proof of publication was read by the secretary.
The applicant was present.
Chairperson Mason asked the applicant to explain his request for Area Variances.
Mr. Metz explained that he built an addition, and his property is located on a corner lot. The existing fence went to the addition, now he would like to pull the fence out ten (10) feet, perpendicular to the addition. Mr. Metz provided the board with a photo for the case file.
Chairperson Mason asked the applicant to address the Standards of Proof.
Mr. Metz addressed the Standards of Proof:
1. The applicant does not believe the requested Area Variances will create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.
2. The applicant does not believe there is any feasible method other than the requested Area Variances.
3. The applicant does not believe the requested Area Variances to be substantial. 4. The applicant does not believe there will be any adverse effect to the neighborhood. 5. Yes, the need for Area Variances is self-created.
Chairperson Mason asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board.
Deputy Chairperson Liebi thanked the applicant for staking out the proposed fence line.
Chairperson Mason asked Planning Commissioner Bender if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
Chairperson Mason asked Code Enforcement Officer Karousos if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
Chairperson Mason asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments and there were none.
Chairperson Mason asked for those who would like to speak in favor of granting the Area Variances and there were none.
Chairperson Mason asked for those who would like to speak against granting the Area Variances and there were none.
The hearing was closed.
MOTION was made by Deputy Chairperson Liebi in Case #1992 to approve the Area Variances
as requested with the condition they be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”. Motion was seconded by Mr. Frantzis.
Roll Call: Mrs. DesRosier - in favor
Mr. Porter - in favor Mr. Frantzis - in favor Deputy Chairperson Liebi - in favor Chairperson Mason - in favor Unanimously Carried.
The applicant is seeking Area Variances pursuant to Section 230-13 A.(4) – Lot and Structure Dimensional Requirements, for the reduction in the required front yard setback from 75 feet to 33 feet; a reduction in the side yard setback from 25 feet to 17 feet, and a reduction in the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 13 feet; Section 230-19 A.(5) – Designated Highway Setback (Accessory Structure), a reduction in the Designated Highway setback from 65 feet to 57 feet to accommodate additions to existing home and pole barn. The property location is in the RA-100 Residential Agricultural Zoning District.
The proof of publication was read by the secretary.
The applicant was present.
Chairperson Mason asked the applicant to explain his request for Area Variances.
Mr. Caves explained he is looking to add an addition to his existing home, close to the property line and do the same with a pole barn.
Chairperson Mason asked the applicant to address the Standards of Proof.
Mr. Caves addressed the Standards of Proof:
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
1. The applicant does not believe the requested Area Variances will create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and believes it will make the property more desirable.
2. The applicant does not believe there is any feasible method other than the requested Area Variances.
3. The applicant does believe the requested Area Variances to be substantial. 4. The applicant does not believe there will be any adverse effect to the neighborhood. 5. Yes, the need for Area Variances is self-created.
Chairperson Mason asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board.
Deputy Chairperson Liebi asked the applicant if the pole barn would also be closer to the property line.
Mr. Caves confirmed, the pole barn and addition would both be closer to the property line.
Deputy Chairperson Liebi asked the applicant why he cut down so many trees.
Mr. Caves explained they cut trees to create more useable yard space.
Chairperson Mason asked Planning Commissioner Bender if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
Chairperson Mason asked Code Enforcement Officer Karousos if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
Chairperson Mason asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments and there were none.
Chairperson Mason asked for those who would like to speak in favor of granting the Area Variances and there were none.
Chairperson Mason asked for those who would like to speak against granting the Area Variances and there were none.
The hearing was closed.
MOTION was made by Mr. Porter in Case #1993 to approve the Area Variances as requested
with the condition they be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”. Motion was seconded by Mr. Frantzis.
Roll Call: Mrs. DesRosier - in favor
Mr. Porter - in favor Mr. Frantzis - in favor Deputy Chairperson Liebi - in favor Chairperson Mason - in favor Unanimously Carried.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
The applicant is seeking Area Variance pursuant to Section 230-19 A.(5) – Designated Highway Setback, a reduction in the designated highway setback from 140 feet to 95 feet to allow for the construction of a wrap-around deck with a roof system over it on the front/west facade of the residence. The property location is in the R-10 One-Family Residential Zoning District.
The proof of publication was read by the secretary.
The applicant was present.
Chairperson Mason asked the applicant to explain his request for an Area Variance.
Mr. Ziparo explained he would like to build a deck around the front and west side of his home with a roof.
Chairperson Mason asked the applicant to address the Standards of Proof.
Mr. Ziparo addressed the Standards of Proof:
1. The applicant does not believe the requested Area Variance will create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.
2. The applicant does not believe there is any feasible method other than the requested Area Variance.
3. The applicant does believe the requested Area Variance to be substantial. 4. The applicant does not believe there will be any adverse effect to the neighborhood. 5. Yes, the need for Area Variances is self-created.
Chairperson Mason asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board.
Deputy Chairperson Liebi asked the applicant if the deck would interfere with the business at the pole barn.
Mr. Ziparo confirmed it would not interfere.
Chairperson Mason asked Planning Commissioner Bender if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
Chairperson Mason asked Code Enforcement Officer Karousos if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
Chairperson Mason asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments and there were none.
Chairperson Mason asked for those who would like to speak in favor of granting the Area Variance and there were none.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
Chairperson Mason asked for those who would like to speak against granting the Area Variance and there were none.
The hearing was closed.
MOTION was made by Mr. Frantzis in Case #1994 to approve the Area Variance as requested
with the condition they be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”. Motion was seconded by Mr. Porter.
Roll Call: Mrs. DesRosier - in favor
Mr. Porter - in favor Mr. Frantzis - in favor Deputy Chairperson Liebi - in favor Chairperson Mason - in favor Unanimously Carried.
Interpretation of a definition pursuant to Section 230-16 B.(2) – Highway Commercial Uses Allowed and Interpretation of a definition pursuant to Section 230-11 C. – Definitions (Shopping Center). The Interpretation concerns use in an HC-1 Highway Commercial Zoning District.:
The proof of publication was read by the secretary.
Kathleen Bennett, Attorney for the Town of Clay Planning Board, was present on behalf of the
applicant.
Attorney Bennett presented the Planning Board’s request for interpretation as shown in ZBA Case 1979/1991: Exhibit 1 (attached). Attorney Bennett noted that
Corey Auerbach of Barclay Damon, was present on behalf of Mirabito.
Mr. Auerback presented opposition to the Planning Board’s second interpretation appeal as shown in ZBA Case 1979/1991: Exhibit 2 (attached).
Chairperson Mason asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board and there were none.
Chairperson Mason asked Planning Commissioner Bender if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
Chairperson Mason asked Code Enforcement Officer Karousos if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
Chairperson Mason asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
Scott Arnold, 5568 Wyandra Drive, stated that the proposed Mirabito would border his property in the HC-1 Zoning District. He added that he agreed with Attorney Bennett, adding that if this use is allowed, it would bring neighborhood concerns, including traffic, safety and environmental. He also believes it would decrease his property value.
Yvonne Arnold, 5568 Wyandra Drive, presented a PowerPoint (Exhibit 3) that included Town Code, Definitions in Town Code, Mirabito franchise information from their business webpage. Mrs. Arnold does not believe that Mirabito should be defined as a Shopping Center but believes it is a Convenience Store, asking the question if the proposed Dunkin’ and Bank would be able to operate independently or if they would close when the convince store closed. She also brought forward the below concerns:
• Increased congestion on Barcaldine, Lawton and Crabtree Roads • Safety risks for pedestrians, school buses and neighborhood access • Lawton Road is unreasonably narrow for the intensity of traffic this proposal would generate. Its limited width cannot safely accommodate two-way traffic when passenger cars are parked or maneuvering, let alone the turning radius of a full fuel tanker. • Cars often drive onto the wrong side of Lawton Road due to its narrow width and disrepair, creating daily safety hazards for residents and compounding risks from tanker deliveries and overflow traffic.
• Lawton Road is already in a state of disrepair, with uneven pavement, deteriorating surfaces, and inadequate maintenance. These conditions make it difficult for existing neighborhood traffic to navigate safely and amplify the risks posed by overflow vehicles from the proposed development.
• Heavy delivery trucks and fuel tankers would accelerate the road’s deterioration, compounding safety hazards for residents, pedestrians, and local drivers. • The plan does not illustrate the required 38 parking spaces (6,900 sq. ft. x 5.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.).
• Two existing residences within HC-1 underscore its residential nature • Fueling Stations, noise, lighting, and 24-hour operations incompatible with residential communities • Increased emissions and noise from fueling/traffic • Light pollution affecting nearby residences • Loss of residential tranquility and property value concerns • I sited "230-16 B (1) Intent (a) It is the intent to maintain in this district the quality of environment that is usually found in areas of commercial use often located near, but generally not immediately adjacent to, residential neighborhoods. The intensity and scale of the uses, lots and structures are intended to be commensurate to moderately concentrated business areas." and that classifying a convenience store with 'fueling stations' as a 'shopping center' is not in the best interest of the residential community and should not move forward.
Mr. Auerback stated they would operate independently.
Erika Rossman, 5515 Tobin Path asked if the proposed bank would be full-service.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
The applicant advised yes, the bank would be full-service with the option to walk in or use a drive- thru, but the bank will determine hours of operation.
Sara Villnave, 5556 Wyandra Drive, presented the board a petition with +/-300 signatures opposed to the proposed Mirabito Gas Station. Petition was given to Attorney Germain for the record.
Resident from Bingley Drive, stated that the project has been disguised through the whole application and stated he would not invest the $150k improvements to his home if this is allowed.
Attorney Germain advised the public that the questions and concerns presented would be addressed by the Planning Board as the Zoning Board of Appeals case is simply to interpret the Town Code.
The hearing was closed.
MOTION was made by Mr. Frantzis, whereas the Town of Clay Planning Board requested an
interpretation of the Town Code to determine if, according to the Clay Town Code, a gasoline service center is an allowed use in the HC-1 Zone Classification if it is part of a proposed Shopping Center, and,
Whereas we heard from representatives of the Town Planning Board and Mirabito Energy on
July 14th, 2025, and again on October 13, 2025, and considered written materials presented by the Town Planning Board and Mirabito, and we HEREBY FIND AND RULE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 230-16 B(2)(b)(6) of the Code states Highway Commercial-Uses Allowed include a “Shopping Center.” The Code then refers to the Definition section of the Town Code to determine how a Shopping Center is defined.
2. The relevant portion of the definition of a Shopping Center contained in the Code is “Land planned, improved and managed to accommodate a grouping of two or more commercial uses in one or more buildings designed to share parking, access, signage and other site services: uses commonly included within a shopping center are: retail stores, restaurants, drive-in services, gasoline service stations, indoor recreation and office.”
3. The plain language of the definition of a Shopping Center contained in the Code lists “gasoline service stations” as a use commonly included within a shopping center. 4. Applying the rules of strict construction and ambiguity interpretation against the drafter, we find a gasoline service center is an allowed use in the HC-1 zone if it is part of a Shopping Center.
If the Town Board wishes to change or amend the Code to remove any ambiguity or allowed use change, it is encouraged to do so.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
MOTION was seconded by Mr. Porter.
Roll Call: Mrs. DesRosier - in favor
Mr. Porter - in favor Mr. Frantzis - in favor Deputy Chairperson Liebi - opposed Chairperson Mason - in favor Unanimously Carried.
Case: #1988 – Micron New York Semiconductor Manufacturing, LLC, 5171 State Route 31, Tax Map #046.-02-05.2.:
The applicant is seeking Area Variances pursuant to Section 230-17 D.(4)(b)[1][a] – Front Yard Minimum, for a reduction in the front yard setback from 200 feet to 125 feet to allow for the placement of a monument sign; and a reduction in the front yard setback from 200 feet to 61 feet to install security fencing; Section 230-20 B.(2)(b) – Fences, for a height increase of the said fence from 2.5 feet to 8.5 feet in the required front yard; Section 230-19 A.(4)(b)[1] – Highway Overlay Zone District Requirements, for a reduction in the lot frontage from two times minimum frontage to one time the minimum frontage; Section 230-21 E. – Parking and Loading Spaces, for a reduction from the required minimum of 29,568 parking spaces (per fab) to 2,900 spaces with 2,400 of these to be contained in a parking garage; and a reduction from the required minimum of 252 loading spaces per fab to 36 loading spaces (docks) to accommodate development (Micron Semiconductor Manufacturing Project) at the White Pine Commerce Park. The property location is in the I-2 Industrial 2 Zoning District.
The proof of publication was read by the secretary.
Jeffrey Maidment from Micron Technology was present as well as Micron Attorney, Katie Birchenough and Jacob Raketich of Jacobs Engineering were present on behalf of the applicant.
Chairperson Mason asked the applicant to explain their request for Area Variances. The applicant presented a PowerPoint slideshow, shown below as “ZBA Case 1988: Exhibit 1,” providing details regarding the applicants’ requests.
Chairperson Mason asked the applicant to address the Standards of Proof for each Variance.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
The applicant addressed the Standards of Proof, and the responses were the same for all requested Area Variances:
1. The applicant does not believe the requested Area Variances will create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood as they are requesting a reduction. 2. The applicant does not believe there is any feasible method other than the requested Area Variances.
3. The applicant does not believe the requested Area Variances to be substantial as they will be reducing the footprint.
4. The applicant does not believe there will be any adverse effect to the neighborhood as they will be creating more greenspace.
5. Yes, the need for the Area Variances is self-created.
Chairperson Mason asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board and there were none.
Chairperson Mason asked Planning Commissioner Bender if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
Chairperson Mason asked Code Enforcement Officer Karousos if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
Chairperson Mason asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments and there were none.
Chairperson Mason asked for those who would like to speak in favor of granting the Area Variances and there were none.
Chairperson Mason asked for those who would like to speak against granting the Area Variances and there were none.
The hearing was closed.
MOTION was made by Mr. Frantzis in Case #1988 to approve the Area Variances as requested
with the condition they be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”. Motion was seconded by Mr. Porter.
Roll Call: Mrs. DesRosier - in favor
Mr. Porter - in favor Mr. Frantzis -in favor Deputy Chairperson Liebi - in favor Chairperson Mason - in favor Unanimously Carried.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
Case: #1989 – RailWorks Track Services, LLC, 8625 Caughdenoy Road, Tax Map #046.-02- 03.2 and 046.-01-19.1.:
The applicant is seeking Area Variances pursuant to Section 230-17 D.(4)(b)[1][a] – Front Yard Minimum, for a reduction in the required front yard setback from the Caughdenoy Road right-of- way from 200 feet to 18 feet to install seven (7) structural supports for a raised conveyor, and a reduction in the required front yard setback from the Caughdenoy Road right-of-way from 200 feet to 8 feet to install a chain-link fence; Section 230-20 B.(2)(b) – Fences, for a height increase of the said fence in the front yard from the allowed 2.5 feet to 10 feet to accommodate the placement of a Rail Spur and supporting components at the White Pine Commerce Park. The property location is in the I-2 Industrial 2 Zoning District.
The proof of publication was read by the secretary.
Gary Hurta of B&B Engineers and Geologists was present on behalf of the applicant.
Chairperson Mason asked the applicant to explain their request for Area Variances. Mr. Hurta explained that RailWorks is requesting three (3) Area Variances to allow for construction and operation of a rail spur for material for the Micron Campus adjacent to the CSX Railroad line.
Chairperson Mason asked the applicant to address the Standards of Proof.
Mr. Hurta addressed the Standards of Proof:
1. The applicant does not believe the requested Area Variances will create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood as it is in an Industrial Zoning district. 2. The applicant does not believe there is any feasible method other than the requested Area Variances.
3. The applicant does believe the requested Area Variances to be substantial. 4. The applicant does not believe there will be any adverse effect to the neighborhood but rather have a positive impact allowing preservation of three (3) acres of wooded area providing both a visual and noise buffer and would maintain natural habitat for local wildlife.
5. Yes, the need for Area Variances is self-created.
Chairperson Mason asked if the rail spur would go over the road.
Mr. Hurta confirmed it would go over the road and have concrete pillars on each side of the road with concrete foundations to support the structure. They would also have a chain-link fence to prevent vandalization.
Chairperson Mason asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board.
Deputy Chairperson Liebi asked if they would be hauling material 24/7, 12-hours, or off-hours.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
Mr. Hurta stated the operating hours would be from 6 A.M. to 10 P.M., then weekly off hour maintenance from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M.
Deputy Chairperson Liebi asked if the off-hour maintenance would be quieter than the daily material transportation.
Mr. Hurta confirmed it would be quieter.
Mrs. DesRosier asked if Caughdenoy Road would remain open.
Mr. Hurta stated Caughdenoy Road would be temporarily closed for construction of the rail spur but remain open once construction was complete and the rail spur is operating.
Mrs. DesRosiers asked if the traffic would through the area normally, without disruption.
Katie Birchenough, Micron Attorney, confirmed traffic would flow normally with no disruptions and added that there would only be one additional train going through the area per day.
Chairperson Mason asked Planning Commissioner Bender if he had any questions or comments.
Commissioner Bender added that the rail spur and Main Campus are concurrent with the Planning Board and is applicable to site plan review.
Chairperson Mason asked Code Enforcement Officer Karousos if he had any questions or comments, and he had none.
Chairperson Mason asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments.
Janet Rathburn, 4760 Freestone Road, asked if the Area Variance would stay with the property if/once the rail spur is no longer used or needed.
Chairperson Mason confirmed, Area Variances stay with the parcel.
Chairperson Mason asked for those who would like to speak in favor of granting the Area Variances and there were none.
Chairperson Mason asked for those who would like to speak against granting the Area Variances and there were none.
The hearing was closed.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – October 13, 2025 Town of Clay
MOTION was made by Mr. Frantzis in Case #1989 to approve the Area Variances as requested
with the condition they be in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”. Motion was seconded by Deputy Chairperson Liebi.
Roll Call: Mrs. DesRosier - in favor
Mr. Porter - in favor Mr. Frantzis -in favor Deputy Chairperson Liebi - in favor Chairperson Mason - in favor Unanimously Carried.
There being no further business, Chairperson Mason adjourned the meeting at 7:32 P.M.
Chelsea Clark, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Clay
ZBA CASE 1979/1991: EXHIBIT 1
END OF ZBA CASE 1979/1991: EXHIBIT 1
ZBA CASE 1979/1991: EXHIBIT 2
END OF ZBA CASE 1979/1991: EXHIBIT 2
Presented by: Yvonne Arnold, Homeowner and Concerned Resident Submitted on behalf of myself and fellow concerned residents of the Lawton Valley Community
ZBA CASE #1979/1991: EXHIBIT 3
HC-1 Parcel Reality:
Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt
Community Presentation to the Town of Clay Planning Board & Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) - October 13, 2025 (ZBA) (6:00 PM ET) - October 22, 2025 (Planning Board) Case #2025-026 – Mirabito Shopping Center
Date: October 22, 2025
Introduction: Lawton Valley Hunt Community Concerns
We are here to ensure zoning accuracy and protect the residential character of our neighborhood.
• Who we are: Homeowners and residents of the Lawton Valley Hunt Community. • Why we’re here: To present evidence of zoning misclassification and its impacts. • What we bring: Factual analysis and petition signatures.
• Our request: That the Planning Board and ZBA board members uphold zoning intent and protect residential integrity for our community.
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 2
Context & Background
Parcel Location & Zoning • Tax Map ID: 077.-34-17.1 NY Route-31 & Lawton Road in Clay, NY 13041
Applicant’s Proposal • Applicant depicts the site as a 9.57-acre shopping center
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 3
Applicants Proposal – Mirabito Development
• Includes:
• Fueling station • Convenience retail • Electric vehicle charging • Dunkin’ with drive thru • Subway counter • NBT Bank (full-service?) with drive thru • Marketed as a “shopping center” classification under HC-1 zoning. • Suggests site can accommodate traffic, parking, and drive-through stacking. 10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 4
Mirabito’s Business Model • Fueling Operations – Gasoline & diesel sales as primary revenue driver • Convenience Retail – In-store sales (food, beverages, household items) • Energy Services – Heating oil, propane, natural gas, and energy distribution • Emerging Additions – Electric vehicle charging stations and expanded service offerings
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 5
Source: Business Model
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 7
Convenience Stores – Maps
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 8
Convenience Stores – Hours & Services
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 9
Convenience Store Mirabito #69 in Oneonta
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 10
Front view Convenience Store • Front view • Electric charging stations
Electric charging stations 10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 11
Side view Front view Convenience Store • Side view • Back view
Electric charging Back view stations
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 12
Mirabito Convenience Store #69 • Inside views Question: What happens to the Subway and Dunkin’ Donuts when the convenience store portion is closed for maintenance, renovations, or even just overnight?
Inside view
Inside view Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 13
Convenience Stores
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 14
Convenience Stores Circle K CITGO 8578 Henry Clay Blvd. Clay, NY 13041 Provides a Cliff’s Local Market & SUBWAY (Across from Clay Marketplace)
Byrne Dairy – Fulton, NY Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 15
Shopping Centers
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 16
Shopping Centers
Clay Marketplace
Glenn Crossing Plaza
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 17
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt Loading Space 18
Impacts
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 19
Traffic & Safety Impacts
• Drive-through stacking exceeds site capacity • Increased congestion on Barcaldine, Lawton and Crabtree Roads • Safety risks for pedestrians, school buses and neighborhood access “Where will overflow traffic go if Dunkin’ and NBT Bank drive-throughs peak at the same time?” 10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 20
Lawton Road ‘Conditions’ taken October 2025
Approaching NY Route-31 from Lawton Road
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 21 10/16/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt
Lawton Road ‘Conditions’ taken October 2025
Lawton Road is unreasonably narrow for the intensity of traffic this proposal would generate. Its limited width cannot safely accommodate two-way traffic when passenger cars are parked or maneuvering, let alone the turning radius of a full fuel tanker.
Cars often drive onto the wrong side of Lawton Road due to its narrow width and disrepair, creating daily safety hazards for residents and compounding risks from tanker deliveries and overflow traffic. 10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 22 10/16/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley
Lawton Road Conditions taken 10/19/2025 Lawton Road is already in a state of disrepair, with uneven pavement, deteriorating surfaces, and inadequate maintenance. These conditions make it difficult for existing neighborhood traffic to navigate safely and amplify the risks posed by overflow vehicles from the proposed development.
Heavy delivery trucks and fuel tankers would accelerate the road’s deterioration, compounding safety hazards for residents, pedestrians, and local drivers.
10/22/2025 23 10/16/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt
Parking & Loading
• The plan does not illustrate the required 38 parking spaces (6,900 sq. ft. x 5.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.). • Overflow traffic will spill onto Lawton Road, impacting adjacent residences, undermining zoning protections and degrading neighborhood character. • Pedestrians may need to cross the drive-through lane to reach the store entrance, increasing the risk of collisions, especially when drivers are focused on the queue rather than foot traffic.
Mirabito’s Business Model HC-1 Zone Operates as a regional convenience store and fueling hub, Applies to modest parcels where intensity must requiring high-volume deliveries and customer traffic. not overwhelm adjacent uses. 10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 24
Neighborhood Character
• Parcel is adjacent to homes in a Residential R-7.5 zone where fueling stations are PROHIBITED • Two existing residences within HC-1 underscore its residential nature • Fueling Stations, noise, lighting, and 24-hour operations incompatible with residential communities
Mirabito’s Business Model HC-1 Zone Operates extended hours e.g., 24-hours, with Envisions low-impact commercial activity that respects lighting and noise impacts. nearby residences. 10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 25
Environmental & Quality of Life
• Increased emissions and noise from fueling/traffic • Light pollution affecting nearby residences • Loss of residential tranquility and property value concerns Mirabito’s Business Model HC-1 Zone Seeks parcels to Applies to modest parcels where accommodate fueling, retail, intensity must not overwhelm and stacking. adjacent uses.
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 26
Alternate View
Picture (above): Perspective from the bedroom Picture (above): Perspective from the deck at the rear window of the residence within the HC-1 zone, of my residence, illustrating its direct proximity to the illustrating its direct proximity to the proposed proposed ‘shopping center’ with fueling stations. ‘shopping center’ with fueling stations.
10/22/2025 27 10/16/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt
Community Voice Petition # Signatures Change.org 169+ Hardcopy 134 Total 303
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 28
Evidence of Incompatible Use 10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 29
230-16 B (1) (a)
Two residences within the HC-1 zone
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 30
Aerial View: Source via Maps
Proposed Project
Location
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 31
Aerial View: Source via Maps
Proposed Project
Location
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 32
Aerial View: Source via Maps
HC-1 Site Plan
Proposed Project
Location
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 33
Aerial View: Source via Maps
HC-1 Site Plan Proposed Project
Location
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 35
Aerial View: Source via Maps
HC-1 Site Plan
Proposed Project
Location
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 36
SOURCE Key Fact: Misrepresentation of Parcel Size • Proposal depicts 9.57 acres by combining HC-1 and Residential zones
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 37
SOURCE Key Fact: Misrepresentation of Parcel Size • Proposal depicts 9.57 acres by combining HC-1 and Residential zones • Actual usable HC-1 area is only 4.85 acres for the intended use • Even within that, the proposed site plan covers only a portion of the HC-1 zone 10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 38
Applicant Claim vs. Verified Fact
Applicant’s Claim Verified Fact Parcel totals 9.57 usable acres Misrepresentation of Parcel Size — Proposal combines HC-1 and residential zones. Only 4.85 acres are usable for commercial purposes, and the plan covers only a portion of that area.
Proposal is a “shopping center” HC-1 zoning is for limited highway commercial uses; a shopping center classification is consistent with HC-1 inconsistent with parcel size and context
Applicant has yet to provide sufficient binding documentation for multiple independent businesses occupying alleged ‘shopping center’ 230-11 C: Two or more separately owned commercial units shall not be deemed a shopping center solely by virtue of the fact that they share a common access to adjoining highways and/or parking facilities
Site is suitable for full Parcel is 100% surrounded by residential zoned and developed properties and contains two development residences with Certificates of Occupancy within the HC-1 zone.
Traffic, parking, and stacking The plan does not illustrate the required 38 parking spaces under §230-21(B). Overflow traffic can be accommodated will impact Lawton Road’s residential area.
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 39
Ask
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 40
A 1,500 SF bank addition does not reclassify a convenience store as a shopping center.
It remains a single retail use with an accessory service. To classify it otherwise would understate traffic and parking impacts, bypass the stricter standards that protect this community, and set a dangerous precedent. We respectfully request that the Board reject the misclassification of this proposal as a shopping center, based on the statutory and factual distinctions we have presented.
This proposal is a convenience store + an accessory Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 41 use, not a shopping center.
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 45
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 46
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 47
230-21 Parking and loading A (1) (2) (3)
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 48
230-21 Parking and loading A (1) (2) (3) (cont’d)
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 49
Thank You
END OF ZBA CASE #1979/1991: EXHIBIT 3
10/22/2025 Protecting Residential Character in Lawton Valley Hunt 50