Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Valley View planning board approves Canal Road lot split and 4.07‑foot setback variance
Summary
The Village of Valley View Planning Board granted a 4.07‑foot side‑yard setback variance and approved a lot split for parcels at 5935, 5989 and 6001 Canal Road. Owners representing EPR Properties said leases remain unchanged and that landowners will handle private maintenance; ingress/egress and stormwater plans are required next.
The Village of Valley View Planning Board on April 15 approved a lot split for three parcels at 5935, 5989 and 6001 Canal Road (P.P.N. 571‑17‑004) and granted a variance from Ordinance Section 1254.03(b) allowing a 4.07‑foot side‑yard setback.
Robert Faulkner, associate general counsel for EPR Properties, introduced the application and said EPR has owned the site since 2019. Faulkner and Cassie Lane, director of asset management for the property, told the board they expect no change to how tenants operate under existing leases. "I don't see why they'd need signatures from tenants," Faulkner said when asked whether tenant signatures would be required for the lot division.
Solicitor Dave Lambros asked whether all property owners were on board with the proposed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions; Faulkner said the owners are on board. Faulkner also clarified the allocation of maintenance costs, saying it would be based on land square footage rather than building square footage.
Engineer Todd Sciano pushed for clarity about responsibility for infrastructure failures that affect tenants (for example, a sewer backup). Sciano described a scenario where the village inspects the street sewer and finds no issue, and asked how responsibility would be determined for repairs inside private property. Faulkner responded that landowners would be responsible for private repairs and that the owner could effect repairs and later offset costs or place a lien if needed.
Board members raised additional site questions: Jerry Piasecki asked about egress needs for The Oak Barrel, and Mike Bertovich asked whether Quaker Steak & Lube or Champps had ever owned their buildings; Faulkner said those operations have been leasing the properties and that the former Champps space is being shown to prospective tenants but has no active lease. A board member also pointed out the submitted drawings lacked a north arrow.
After discussion, the board voted to approve the variance (motion by Mike Bertovich, seconded by Joseph White; roll call: Jakubczak, March, Bertovich, White, Johnston — all aye) and then approved the lot split (motion by Julie Jakubczak, seconded by Marty Johnston; roll call: March, Bertovich, White, Johnston, Jakubczak — all aye). Engineer Sciano noted that final recording or permitting will require ingress/egress and stormwater plans to be prepared and reviewed.
The board did not require the applicants to appear before council and did not list additional conditions beyond the civil‑engineering plans and site details requested by staff.
