Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 06/23/2010
WEST SENECA TOWN OFFICES WEST SENECA ZONING BOARD
1250 Union Road Minutes #2010-06
West Seneca, NY 14224 June 23, 2010
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of West Seneca was called to order by Chairman Bond on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: Present - William Bond, Chairman
Sandra Giese Rosenswie
Michael P. Hughes
Michael P. Harmon
David Monolopolus
Shawn P. Martin, Town Attorney
Robert Pinnavaia, Asst Code Enforcement Officer
OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to open the Public Hearing.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION
Motion by Mr. Monolopolus, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Mr. Monolopolus, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve Minutes #2010-05, May 26, 2010.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
OLD BUSINESS:
2010-020 Request of Rane Nite club for a variance for property located at 3036 Seneca Street to allow outdoor events.
Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to table this item until the July 28, 2010 meeting.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
NEW BUSINESS:
2010-030Request of David Kaiser & Bethanne Smith for a variance for property located at 15 Mosside Loop to erect 6 ft fence in required exterior side yard.
David Kaiser and Bethanne Smith, 15 Mosside Loop, appeared on the request. Mr. Kaiser stated what could be fenced in legally has been completed and they would like to finish off the remainder with a 6 ft high pressure treated fence. They are on a side lot with no neighbor next to them and the rest of their lot is cut off where it ends.
Mr. Bond noted the rear lot is vacant and on a cul-de-sac that curves in. The setback is 30 feet and his concern is that the fence may block out any vision to the right.
Mr. Kaiser responded that if they go 16 more feet, or two more sections, there remains 32 feet to the street from that point.
Mr. Hughes questioned the reason the fence could not be 4 feet high.
Mr. Kaiser said they are attempting to block the wind due to that area being windy and they experience garbage cans blowing across their yard.
Mr. Monolopolus reviewed the applicants’ survey with Mr. Kaiser to determine the proposed location of the fence as it related to the sections of driveway concrete.
Letter of no objection were submitted from resident at 21 Mosside Loop.
No comments were heard from the public.
Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 15 Mosside Loop to erect 6 ft fence in required exterior side yard.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-031Request of Emese D'Ostroph for a variance for property located at 3 Davis Road to erect 6 ft fence in exterior side yard.
Emese D’Ostroph and Paul D’Ostroph, 3 Davis Road, appeared on the request for a 6 ft wooden fence. Emese D’Ostroph stated she has 10 feet
of yard in the back and a larger piece of land to the left. They would like to utilize the land to the right for purposes of a potential ramp for her elderly husband. She also has small dogs that would continuously bark at passersby with a chain link fence. There were a number of trees and dead bushes which were cleared to remove any visual obstructions at the stop sign. A drawing was presented showing the area to be fenced. The distance to the sidewalk is 26 feet and it is their intention to fence up to 24 feet, two feet back from the sidewalk.
Letters of no objection were submitted from Carl & Marcia Vizzi, 54 Barnett Drive, and Jeffrey Bonk, the adjacent properties, and Phillip Kane at 77 Barnett Drive.
Mr. Harmon asked the applicant to clarify the need for a 6 ft fence.
Mrs. D’Ostroph stated she has two dogs that can jump 3 feet and cannot tolerate a chain link fence. The fence is also for privacy.
Mr. Harmon noted this is not the back yard.
Mrs. D’Ostroph stated they use the side yard as a back yard because the actual back yard is only 10 feet deep.
Mr. Hughes noted the Board’s concern with a 6 ft high fence obstructing the view of someone coming around the corner on Barnett.
Mr. Harmon noted the fence is parallel in line with the stop sign.
Mr. D’Ostroph stated the stop sign is farther ahead at the end of the street where the fence actually stops. He drove the street to make sure there was no obstruction.
Mr. Harmon commented that it will look like a barricade on the corner.
Mr. D’Ostroph stated there were giant bushes and trees prior to the fence being erected. She also noted similar 6 ft high fences on other corner lots.
Mr. Harmon stated they were allowed in some situations, but a 4 ft high fence would be sufficient to keep the dogs in.
Mrs. D’Ostroph stated a 4 ft fence does not provide privacy.
Mr. Bond stated his concern was not based on the height of the fence but the potential to block the vision of traffic coming up Davis. He questioned if the applicant would have any objection of coming out 22 feet Instead of 24 feet.
Mr. Monolopolus emphasized the safety issue because the fence ends where the stop sign is. He also referenced piles of snow in the winter.
Mrs. D’Ostroph questioned if planting a row of arborvitaes would be allowable.
Mr. Bond explained that bushes or arborvitaes would also be considered a fence.
Mr. Pinnavaia agreed that moving the fence back 2 feet would be helpful.
No comments were heard from the public.
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 3 Davis Road to erect 6 ft fence in exterior side yard, with the restriction that the 6 ft fence extend out no farther than 22 feet to the Barnett Drive side.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-032Request of Terry Wendt for a variance for property located at 174 Main Street to erect front overhang to detached garage 7 ft from house and 1 ft 9 1/2 inches from side property line.
Terry Wendt, 174 Main Street, stated he tore down the canopy overhang which had been in existence a number of years and deteriorated due to its shallow pitch. The Building Inspector’s office informed him that once it was taken down, he no longer can meet the 3 ft requirement from the side property line. The supporting posts are on concrete footers and he would like to raise the peak of the new canopy for a greater pitch to avoid the decaying situation.
Mr. Bond stated he understood applicant’s reasoning for wanting to stay in line with the existing garage, but a second variance is needed since a
10 ft separation is required between the garage and house, and special materials may have to be used in the construction of the canopy.
Letters of no objection were submitted from 160 Main Street and 176 Main Street, both adjacent neighbors to the subject property.
No comments were heard from the public.
Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 174 Main Street to erect front overhang to detached garage 7 ft from house and 1 ft 9 1/2 inches from side property line.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-033Request of Kenneth Bachara for a variance for property located at 113 Woodcrest Avenue to erect detached garage addition 6 ft 3 inches from house.
Kenneth Bachara, 113 Woodcrest Avenue, stated he has lived on the property for 35 years and would like to replace the existing garage which is 1 ft from the property line with a somewhat larger garage. His neighbor directly affected has no objection. There will be 7 feet for access by any emergency vehicle.
Mr. Bond noted the application refers only to the 10 ft separation and questioned if the applicant planned to go to the property line.
Mr. Bachara stated he would remain on the 1 ft distance from the property line. There was an 8 x 8 storage shed behind the garage which will be taken down with the garage.
Mr. Hughes noted that is not what is stated on the application.
Mr. Pinnavaia stated he believed it to be a misunderstanding at the time of the application.
Mr. Bachara stated the existing garage is approximately 12 ft x 20 ft and the new garage will be 16 ft x 30 ft, extending the back another 10 ft and over another 4 ft.
A letter of no objection was submitted from Edward Hoffman of 102 Woodcrest Drive.
No comments were received from the public.
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus to close the public hearing and grant variances to allow the garage to be 1 ft from the side property line and 7 ft from the existing structure.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-034Request of Gary & Susan Pawlik for a variance for property located at 169 Laurelton Drive to erect 6 ft high fence past front of house.
Susan Pawlik, 169 Laurelton Drive, stated the house on the property was vacant fro 2 ½ years prior to her purchase of it and the fence had not been maintained. There is an inground pool in the backyard which needs to be secured. They would also like to utilize some of the side yard.
Mr. Bond noted the fence would still be 12 feet off the property line plus the 2 to 3 feet to the side lot line. Letters of no objection were submitted from residents at 215 Laurelton Drive, 202 Laurelton Drive, and 218 Cranwood.
No comments were received from the public.
Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 169 Laurelton Drive to erect 6 ft high fence past front of house.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-035Request of Lisa Colern for a variance for property located at 161 Collins Avenue to erect 4 ft high fence in required exterior side yard.
Lisa Colern, 161 Collins Avenue, stated she would like to replace an existing chain link fence with a new chain link fence. There is no way to repair the existing fence which has holes and a broken bar. There is a pool in the yard and she has a dog.
Mr. Pinnavaia stated the existing fence is a pre-existing non-conforming fence and had advised the applicant she would need a variance to replace it.
Mr. Hughes questioned the applicant if she spoke with her neighbors.
Ms. Colern submitted a letter of no objection from the resident at 173 Collins Avenue who would have vision of the fence. She has no contact with the resident on the other side.
Mr. Monolopolus asked if the fence was extending any farther than its present location.
Ms. Colern stated it would be in the same location.
No comments were heard from the public.
Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 161 Collins Avenue to erect 4 ft high fence in required exterior side yard.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-036Request of David Smielecki for a variance for property located at 103 Kirkwood Drive to relocate existing garage 1 ft from side property line and 2 ft from rear property line.
Mr. Bond referred to the code’s requirement for 3 feet from the rear property line and 3 feet from the side property line. There appears to be ample room to meet those requirements.
David Smielecki, 103 Kirkwood Drive, stated he is moving the garage because its foundation is deteriorated. When the garage door closes, it’s about two inches down on one corner, meaning he would have to lift the garage in order to put the foundation in. The garage is so close to the house that when he parks the vehicle in front of the garage, he has to squeeze sideways to get to the house. With the major construction on the garage, he would prefer to move it back which would match the next door neighbor’s garage which is also 1 foot from his property line and the rear property line.
Mr. Bond noted that the application states 2 feet and the diagram says 2 ½ feet from the rear. It appears there is 40 feet between the new location and the house and he failed to see how 1 foot would make any difference.
Mr. Smielecki stated the measurement he took showed the fence is 9 or 10 inches away from the property line and he would like enough space to get the lawnmover through. If he has to move the garage 3 feet over, the driveway would no longer be straight and he will have to veer off to the left in order to get into the garage.
Mr. Bond stated the applicant’s situation is no different from any other garage or house in town. Every detached garage has the same situation and he felt the applicant’s situation was not unique.
Mr. Harmon questioned what the applicant planned for the 1 foot between the driveway and the fence.
Mr. Smielecki stated the fence ends and the neighbor cuts the grass on that side and he cuts his between the garage and the fence to the rear of the yard. The fence abuts the front of the garage and then extends from the back of the garage to the rear of the property. There is no fence on the side of the garage.
Mr. Bond noted that this situation is not unique and if a variance was granted then there would be no need for anyone else in town to meet the same requirement.
Mr. Smielecki stated he would like to have his garage match the next door neighbor’s; the garage is currently 1 foot away now and simply move it straight back. The existing garage is 14 ft x 20 ft and he will be adding 6 feet on to the side which will make the garage 20 ft x 20 ft. Letters of no objection were submitted from residents at 99 Kirkwood and 109 Kirkwood.
No comments were heard from the public.
Mr. Harmon stated the applicant will be moving an existing garage straight back. If it were a new garage, he would not be in favor but in this situation, the applicant has agreed to stay 3 feet from the rear property line.
Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 103 Kirkwood Drive to relocate existing garage 1 ft from side property line and 3 ft from rear property line.
On the question, Mr. Bond stated he will be voting against this in light of whether it is a new garage or existing garage, the applicant intends on moving the structure 20 feet on an entirely new footprint.
On the question, Mr. Hughes stated the applicant has ample room in his backyard in order to comply with the town code.
Ayes: Three (3)Mr. Harmon, Mrs. Rosenswie, Mr. Monolopolus
Noes: Two (2) Mr. Bond, Mr. Hughes Motion Carried
2010-037Request of Dawn Nowak for a variance for property located at 60 East & West Road for permission to be included in description of licensed professionals.
Dawn Nowak, 189 Davis Road, East Aurora, stated she is in the process of purchasing the property at 60 East & West Road. The purchase is contingent on receiving a variance from this Board.
Mr. Bond noted the applicant’s licensed profession was not included in the ordinance when enacted in 1960 to allow a home office on the property. He asked the applicant if she was aware of the limitation on the number of employees allowed to work there.
Ms. Nowak stated she was aware of the limitation. The business would be similar to what is listed in the ordinance for a physiotherapist. Letters of no objection were submitted from residents at 50 East & West Road and 72 East & West Road, in which the nature of the business was outlined, together with her licensing certificates. She has no intention of having a sign.
Mr. Bond cautioned the applicant that any future sign will be subject to limitations under the code. He also noted that the applicant’s description of her business was well outlined in the notification given to the adjoining neighbors.
No comments were received from the public.
Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 60 East & West Road for permission to be included in description of licensed professionals.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-038Request of Michael A. Pasquale, Sr. for a variance for property located at 924 Indian Church Road for erect 6 ft high fence in front yard setback.
Michael Pasquale, 270 Indian Church Road, stated his establishment is a bar and grill. Currently, customers do not have a designated smoking area and he would like to erect a 6 ft fence on the Indian Church side for that purpose.
Mr. Harmon asked if this was also intended for an outside patio with tables and chairs.
Mr. Pasquale stated there may be a few chairs, but no tables. There will also be a sign indicating that no alcoholic beverages are allowed in the area designated for smoking. He would need to apply to the Liquor Authority for any future serving of alcohol in that area. Letters of no objection were submitted from residents at 931 Indian Church Road, 921 Indian Church Road and 917 Indian Church Road.
Mr. Harmon inquired if there would be a gate for access from the outside into the smoking area.
Mr. Pasquale stated he would place a lock on the gate.
Mr. Pinnavaia stated that if that was a required exit, he could place a latch where it was only accessible from the inside.
No comments were heard from the public.
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 924 Indian Church Road for erect 6 ft high fence in front yard setback.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-039Request of Trinity Christian Church for a variance for property located at 146 Reserve Road to erect oversized pedestal sign with zero ground clearance.
Dale Bielicki, Angle Road, Orchard Park, representing Trinity Christian Church, stated that the Church would like to increase the size of the existing 4 ft x 8 ft sign with the addition of some masonry brick and make it a pedestal sign. The Church added an addition over the last 3 years and would like to update the front of the church to match the back. The proposed sign will be 6 ft high x 12 ft overall with addition of brick. The existing sign can be moved closer to the building if necessary.
Mr. Bond stated the concern of the Board with a pedestal sign is its potential to block the view of traffic coming out of the driveway to the road. The current location of the sign is acceptable.
Mr. Bielicki suggested building it closer to the building rather than closer to the road with the farthest point of the brick to the farthest point of where the sign is now.
Mr. Pinnavaia commented that brick is 16 inches, or it could be 8 inches, and if turned sideways, it’s half a brick, making it a foot on each side. A church is allowed 25 sq ft for a sign because a church is allowed in a residential district.
Mr. Monolopolus questioned the color of the sign and if it would be flashing.
Mr. Bielicki stated it would be one color, most likely red, and possibly off at 8:00 or 10:00 at night. The letters are 2 inches high and difficult to change frequently.
Mr. Pinnavaia stated an upcoming change for the revised ordinance is that electronic signs will have a limit of 30 seconds for copy change to avoid a Las Vegas type appearance.
Mr. Bielicki stated this would work off a texting type procedure. He spoke with the two neighbors across the street and the two neighbors flanking the Church and there was no objection. Letters of no objection were submitted from residents a t 147 Reserve and 137 Reserve Road. The two properties flanking the Church are owned by the Church.
The resident of 119 Reserve Road, stated his objection to the proposal. The existing sign is lighted all night. LEDS are a highly intensified light and similar to highway detour signs which are bright and constantly lit. He has lived at his residence for 36 years and has observed close accidents with people coming out of the Church. He referred to similar churches in town, such as the West Seneca Christian Church on Union Road, which do not have a sign as obtrusive, as large, or lit, as this proposed sign for Reserve Road.
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to table this item until the July meeting to give the Board members an opportunity to view the sign during the evening hours.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-040Request of Mark Minnuto for a variance for property located at 55 Ansley Court to erect pool changing room 1.5 ft from side property line.
Mark Minnuto, 55 Ansley Court, stated he would like to erect a 4 ½ ft x 5 ft deep x 5 ft high changing room in the back yard for recreational purposes. There is an existing pool house but it has windows and affords no privacy. This is the only area for the changing room since the back side of the pool house is already 3 feet from the property line and the pool filter and other accessories are on the side. Signatures of residents at 28 Centerview, 20 Centerview and 47 Ansley Court having no objection to the applicant’s proposal were submitted.
No comments were heard from the public.
Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 55 Ansley Court to erect pool changing room 1.5 ft from side property line.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-041Request of Donna J. Weber for a variance for property located at 900 Reserve Road to erect porch roof 20 ft from front property line.
Donna Weber, 900 Reserve Road, appeared on the request to erect a porch roof 20 ft from the front property line. The steps will come out 12 inches farther and the porch 12 inches. Applicant reviewed the plan for
the porch and roof with the Zoning Board members. Letters of no objection were submitted from residents at 908 Reserve Road, 17 Villa Maria Road and 4 Villa Maria Road.
No comments were heard from the public.
Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 900 Reserve Road to erect porch roof 20 ft from front property line.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-042Request of Blatner & Associates for a variance for property located at 2954 Seneca Street to reduce required parking spaces and reduce 2-way driveway width.
Frank Wailand, F.J. Wailand Associates, Inc., representing the applicant Blatner & Associates, stated his client is requesting a reduction in the required parking spaces as they are not needed. They are planning on adding approximately 1600 ft of paved area for the parking lot which will be 24 ft and 25 ft is required. They are also required to have a 25 ft wide driveway for the two-way traffic but have a 14 ft wide driveway which is adequate to accommodate exit and entrance. Letters of no objection were submitted from the resident at 2958 Seneca Street and Equity Search, 2952 Seneca Street.
Mr. Pinnavaia questioned if there was drainage now on the property.
Mr. Wailand stated that everything drains toward the north. He has communicated with the Town Engineer and will be submitting a plan. The applicant is willing to install a small detention area if needed.
Mr. Pinnavia noted that reducing the parking spaces may be advantageous to the drainage. No comments were heard from the public.
Motion by Mr. Monolopolus, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to close the public hearing and grant variances for property located at 2954 Seneca Street to reduce required parking spaces from 20 to 13; reduce 2-way driveway width from 25 ft to 24 ft; and reduce entrance drive from 25 ft tp 14 ft.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
2010-043Request of Kyle Arnone for a variance for property located at 42 Pine Cove Drive to erect 6 ft to 4 ft high fence in exterior side yard.
Kyle Arnone, 42 Pine Cove Drive, stated he would like to erect a 6 ft high fence 10 ft from the side of his house and then back to the rear of the yard and across. The fence will not block anyone’s view. Mr. Arnone submitted photos of other neighboring yards and reviewed the proposed plan with Zoning Board members.
No comments were heard from the public.
Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 42 Pine Cove Drive to erect 6 ft high fence along the back property line; then reducing to 4 ft high fence to the last panel; and fence to be 5 ft from the sidewalk.
2009-031Request of Mathew & Tomi Jindra for a variance for property located at 33 Paxford Place to erect addition and roofed porch 23 ft from front property line.
Mr. Bond stated the above property was granted a variance last year but circumstances prevented the applicant from obtaining a building permit within the required time limit of 6 months. Applicant is now requesting a 6 month extension.
Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to extend the previously granted variance for an additional 6 months.
| Ayes: All | Noes: None | Motion Carried |
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (8:55 p.m.).
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia C. DePasquale, Secretary