06/22/2005 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes, Town of West Seneca, New York, USA

WEST SENECA TOWN OFFICES		ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1250 Union Road		Minutes #2005-06
West Seneca, NY 14224		June 22, 2005

The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of West Seneca was called to order by William H. Bond on June 22, 2005 at 7:00 PM, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL: Present -

Absent - Joseph W. Kleinfelder, II

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to approve Minutes #2005-05 of May 25, 2005.

Request of Lauren Zielinski for a variance for property located at 201 Knox Avenue to erect addition to rear of house 2.35 ft from side property line.

Lauren Zielinski, 201 Knox Avenue, stated she was unable to attend last month’s meeting due to illness. Her home currently is small and she would like to erect an addition to the rear of the house for additional living space.

Mr. Dunn asked if applicant had any intention of running a business from the residence.

Ms. Zielinski stated she had no intention of operating a business. She stated that she had spoken verbally with the neighbors and received approval for the proposed addition.

Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a varance for property located at 201 Knox Avenue to erect addition to rear of house 2.35 ft from side property line.

Request of Roger J. Peck, Jr. for review of a determination made by the Code Enforcement Officer concerning property located at 44 Dyke Road/46 Cedar Ridge Drive.

Mr. Bond stated this matter was before the Zoning Board at last month’s meeting. There was a question remaining on the issue of whether any fence could be built on the lot behind the house. It was his understanding that this question has been rectified and a building permit was issued, making any decision moot at this point.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to table this item until the end of the meeting.

Request of Ronald E. Staychock for a 6-month extension of variance granted for property located at 840 Indian Church Rd to erect attached garage 3.3 ft from side yard and 8.5 ft from exterior side lot line.

Ronald Staychock, 840 Indian Church Road, stated he had started gutting the house and realized the extent of repair would be more than adding the garage. He is discussing the matter with an architect to see what the best approach to the situation would be and requested a six-month extention of the previously granted variance.

Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and grant a six-month extension of the previously granted variance.

Request of Frank J. Myszka for a variance for property located at 23 Mayfield Drive to erect deck into rear yard setback.

Frank Myszka, 23 Mayfield Drive, stated he would like to erect a 12 ft x 14 ft deck at the rear of his patio home. The wooded area behind the residence is owned by the School District and is basically wetlands. Mr. Myszka submitted approval from the Burchfield Patio Homes Association, as well as the signatures of residents at 27 Mayfield Drive and 19 Mayfield Drive, stating no objection.

Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 23 Mayfield Drive to erect deck into rear yard setback.

On the question, Mr. Bond stated he will vote in favor of this request on the basis of the property backing up to the woods and there being no objection from the neighbors.

Request of Jeffrey Voelkl, as attorney, for a variance for property located at 667 Indian Church Road to erect 4 ft high fence in front yard.

Jeffrey Voelkl, Esq., 5672 Main Street, Williamsville, appeared on behalf of the property owner at 667 Indian Church Road. Mr. Voelkl stated the applicant is making this request in an effort to resolve an ongoing dispute with the neighbor. The survey dated in 2000 reflected that the fence existing at that time had been there since the 50’s and was .18 ft onto the next door neighbor’s property. Normally this is not an issue with the title insurance companies and ownership of the fence was never in question. The problem arose when the neighbor continued to pile snow on the fence, leading to damage and the eventual state of deterioration of the fence. His client had requested the neighbor to discontinue doing this, but to no avail. In an effort to keep the peace and clear up any title issues, the fence was moved a few inches so that it was squarely on his client’s property, leaving no basis for the neighbor to put the snow on the fence. That was the purpose for moving the fence which is identical to the previous fence.

Mr. Voelkl stated he and his client are aware of that now. At the time, however, he was not aware of that and the fence had been in its location for 5 to 6 decades.

Mr. Dunn noted that the town does not allow fences in front yards except in certain situations. It appears the applicant is taking the position that the fence, being there for the past 5 to 6 decades, should be allowed to remain. It is the town’s position that the fence has been illegal since 1964 when the zoning code was put into effect and the town now has the opportunity to correct this situation and bring the fence back into code with the rest of property in the area. He asked what special set of circumstances exist that would require a fence in the front yard when that is something that is not normally allowed.

Mr. Voelkl stated the purpose of the fence is for protection of the property boundaries. There is an existing acrimonious relationship between his client and the next door neighbor. Having a well established boundary would be in the best interest of the neighbors, this board, and the police department. The fence has been there for 50 to 60 years and by the town not taking any action in that time period, it has effectively grandfathered

this fence. A movement of a few inches should not take the fence out of the grandfather protection.

Mr. Bond stated he looked at the fence and observed stakes along the property line to show the boundaries. The fence is about 3 or 4 inches inside of those stakes.

Mr. Voelkl stated that was correct. A survey of the property was done to determine the absolute property lines to ensure that the fence was placed within the property line.

Mr. Bond stated the ordinance only allows 10 feet and everyone else in town stays back that distance. Other than the fact that the fence has been there, he asked for the set of circumstances under which the applicant feels his request is unique in nature. He understands the acrimonious relationship between the applicant and his neighbor.

Mr. Voelkl stated that would be the principal reason to clearly establish the boundary.

Mr. Bond stated the applicant appears to be requesting a permanent solution to a temporary problem. The neighbors have not lived there for the 50 to 60 years that the fence has been in place and ownership of the properties may change in the future.

Mr. Voelkl stated his client does not feel this will be a temporary problem. They had approached the neighbor to see if she would be interested in selling her property, but the neighbor indicated she intended to be there indefinitely.

Mr. Bond stated the unpainted plywood hooked against the fence was unattractive and an eyesore.

Mr. Voelkl stated the purpose of the plywood was to prevent snow from being blown onto his client’s property and cause damage to the fence and property. His client would be willing to beautify the fence with paint and proper maintenance. He has spoken with the neighbor on several occasions and she has never voiced an objection to the fence, either in its old location or the new location.

Judy Cleavor, 661 Indian Church Road, stated she is the adjoining neighbor, having purchased the property in September of 2000. They began receiving letters from Mr. D’Amato attorney concerning the snow on the fence. The fence is chain link with plywood sheets of boards on the back which make the fence an eyesore. When her attorney discovered the fence was on her property, Mr. D’Amato moved the fence to another location on his property. They have been to State Supreme Court on other issues with the applicant. Mr. D’Amato previously filed an appeal with the Zoning Board but failed to appear for the meeting and the variance was denied. She was told at that time that a letter would be sent to Mr. D’Amato to bring the fence into code but nothing has been done. She felt the applicant moved the fence in retaliation of her bringing this matter to the Supreme Court. She is concerned with the safety of herself and others with this fence projecting out to the street, with sheets of plywood, creating a visual barrier. The boards on the fence bring its height to 4 ft 3 inches, not 4 ft. She also denied the allegation of Mr. Voelkl that an offer was made by applicant to purchase her property.

Mr. Bond stated the only issue here is whether or not the applicant should be granted a variance on the fence and the other issues are immaterial to this matter.

Mrs. Price referred to the hedge along the fence on the photograph and asked who owned it.

Ms. Cleaver stated that fence was also Mr. D’Amato’s. He owns the property on both sides of her.

Mr. Czuprynski asked if there were hedges running from the front of the house out to the street on either side of her property.

Ms. Cleavor stated there were hedges on the left hand side, 3 ft 8 inches in height.

Ms. Cleavor stated the State Supreme Court deemed they had to be 4 ft in height.

Mr. Bond asked if the court had addressed the issue of whether or not the hedges were considered a fence.

Ms. Cleavor stated you could not because you would have to walk through Mr. D’Amato’s picket fence.

Mr. Voelkl stated Ms. Cleavor’s hedges constituted a fence and created just as much of a visual barrier as the fence itself. His client would have no objection to removing the plywood to make the fence transparent, but it would only be transparent to a point because of the bushes of Ms. Cleavor. He felt her motives for objecting to the fence were based on vengeance and this meeting provided an opportunity for her to get even.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and deny the request for a variance.

On the question, Mr. Bond noted that a variance is granted when the applicant shows unique circumstances and cannot comply with the town ordinance. The only hardship here is between the two neighbors and self created between the two parties. There are no unique circumstances in this case and the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship. Mr. Bond also noted the fence is an eyesore and the plywood on the fence creates a visual barrier. Even if the applicant painted the fence, there would be no guarantee that it would be maintained properly in the future.

Mr. Dunn agreed and he felt the fence would be unattractive even with a coat of paint. He failed to see any hardship on the part of applicant and this presents an opportunity to correct a wrong from the past 50 years.

Request of Gerald Burkley, Jr. for a variance for property located at 224 Schultz Road to erect addition into required front yard setback.

Gerald Burkley, Jr., 224 Schultz Road, stated the house was built in approximately 1901 and existed prior to the ordinance taking effect. There is an existing structure on the house, 6 ft off the house and 26 ft back, which he would like to replace with a structure 7 ft x 35 ft in size. The front of the new structure will be no closer than the existing structure.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 224 Schultz Road to erect addition into required front yard setback.

On the question, Mr. Bond stated he will vote in favor because there appears to be no other way to add to the structure without it appearing unattractive and applicant cannot comply with the ordinance.

Request of Chester F. Franczyk for a variance for property located at 11 Mayfield Ct to erect a deck to rear of house 18 feet from rear property line.

Chester Franczyk, 11 Mayfield Court, stated he would like to erect an open deck to the rear of the house, 18 ft from the rear property line. His builder has the approval from the homeowner association.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 11 Mayfield Ct to erect an open deck to rear of house 18 feet from rear property line, conditioned on applicant having the proper approval from the homeowner association.

Request of Joseph L. Sreniawski for a variance for property located at 240 Oakbrook Drive to erect front entrance way 27 feet from front property line.

Joseph Sreniawski, 240 Oakbrook Drive, stated the addition will be 5 ft out, the width of the foyer, and 10 ft wide. The stairs will be removed. The concrete stairs stick out a little over 6 ft and they are planning on going out 5 ft. An entry closet will also be added. There is not enough interior room to straighten the stairs.

Written consent from residents at 234 Oakbrook Drive, 246 Oakbrook Drive and 251 Oakbrook Drive were submitted.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 240 Oakbrook Drive to erect front entrance way 27 feet from front property line.

Request of John T. Wakefield for a variance for property located at 96 Sharon Drive to erect a 6 foot high fence in side yard.

John Wakefield, 96 Sharon Drive, stated he is requesting a 6 foot high fence in order to block out the property at 100 Sharon Drive, owned by Mark Bartel. This is an ongoing issue for himself and his neighbors with noise, unmowed lawn, and the disrepair of the home, among other things. The fence will be white plastic decorative style fence and will run 38 feet from the Bartel fence to his home. He will not be going down his property line, so as not to take anything away from the neighbors.

Mr. McCabe stated this is an ongoing issue with Mr. Wakefield and the town. The building department had cited this individual on a number of occasions. The owner of 100 Sharon Drive has been completely uncooperative with the town and it was only after incarceration for a period of time that he began to be somewhat cooperative. There have been a number of police calls to the address. Mr. Wakefield has been very cooperative and patient in attempting to deal with the individual. This is a complicated estate matter and the town has attempted to control the situation to the best of its ability.

Mr. Wakefield stated the Health Department was also involved. He simply wants to block out the view of the neighbor’s property. His neighbor signed a letter consenting to the fence.

Mr. Dunn stated he understood the nature of the problem, but was concerned that this will be a permanent solution to a temporary problem and suggested the applicant agree to removal of the fence in the event this individual moves out.

Mr. Wakefield stated the fence will cost $1000 and was not in favor of having to remove it once the next door neighbor moves, if he does.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 96 Sharon Drive to erect a 6 foot high fence in side yard, noting the very unique set of circumstances in this case.

Request of James Sorge for a variance for property located at 1600 Center Road to reduce number of required parking spaces from 2 per unit to 1.

James Sorge, 446 North Davis Road, Elma, stated he is requesting the elimination of 1 of the 2 required parking spaces per unit at the duplex.

Mr. Bond stated he did look at the property and was aware of applicant’s problem.

Mr. Czuprynski stated that when it came time to grade the property, it turned out to be impossible because they wanted a swale and he would have been inside the swale.

Mr. Dunn stated that having looked at the situation, it would be impossible for applicant to do this any other way without incurring substantial costs.

Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 1600 Center Road to reduce number of required parking spaces from 2 per unit to 1.

Request of Sandra Haefner for a variance for property located at 1419 Union Road to eliminate required green area.

Sandra Haefner, 6 Diane Court, stated she is requesting to cover the front green area in order to avoid salt and snow damage during the winter months. She owns another piece of property on Genesee Street across from the airport and is forced to spend a substantial amount of money to replace shrubbery each year to repair damage from salt. The State will allow her to put concrete from the street to the sidewalk. Ms. Haefner proposed putting a 2 and ˝ foot area of landscape up against the house and concrete the remaining area from the sidewalk to the building. She intends on placing pots with seasonal flowers on the concrete area. Many of the front areas down Union Road are in disrepair from damage sustained during the winter months.

Mr. Bond noted that every house along that area has the same problem since Union Road was widened.

Mr. Czuprynski stated there are areas of difference between the sidewalk and the street down Union Road. Southgate is able to take care of the silt, but this section where the applicant is, is raised from the silt.

Mrs. Rosenswie asked if this would eliminate the green space in front of applicant’s building but not the others on Union Road.

Ms. Haefner stated that was correct. The florist next door has green space, but the T & T oil change business does not have green space.

Mr. McCabe stated that if the board was inclined to grant a variance, a stipulation could be placed on it that the applicant comply with what is proposed this evening.

Mr. Dunn stated he is concerned that the applicant’s property will be different from all the other properties down toward Town Hall.

Mr. Bond stated he was concerned with the existing lack of green space in town and if this variance is granted, then there will continued requests for elimination of green space.

Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 1419 Union Road to eliminate required green area.

On the question, Mr. Bond stated he was against eliminating green space and felt there was nothing unique in applicant’s property since all the properties along Union Road have the same problem.

Mrs. Price stated the proposal by applicant would lend some charm to the area, similar to Orchard Park.

Request of Bob Laskowski for Quizno’s for a variance for property located at 1900 Ridge Road for outdoor seating.

Bob Lawkowski, Quizno’s, stated they are requesting outdoor seating in order to compete with surrounding restaurants on Ridge Road. The proposed patio area will be approximately 8 feet x 60 feet on the south side of the plaza closest to Ridge Road.

Mr. Laskowski stated the hours of operation will be between 10:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. No alcohol will be served and there will be no music.

Mr. Dunn asked what has changed since the business was opened last month to justify the need for outdoor seating.

Mr. Laskowski stated nothing has changed. He was unaware he needed a variance for the outdoor seating.

On the question, Mr. Dunn stated there are already a number of restaurants in the area and he felt that granting this type variance will open up the floodgates.

Ayes: Three (3) Mrs. Rosenswie, Mrs. Price, Mr. Bond

Noes: One(1) Mr. Dunn

Motion carried

Request of Michael J. McClure for a variance for property located at 5525 Seneca Street to erect 16 ft high accessory structure.

Michael McClure and Diane McClure, 5525 Seneca Street, appeared on their request for the requested variance. Mrs. McClure stated they are requesting 16 feet because all the family members are tall. They have gone through the process of building a garage and the top floor is almost useless as far as access the stored items.

Mrs. McClure stated they are building a garage for their cars and assorted items which they would like to store on their own property.

Mr. McClure stated it is difficult for him to bring items in and out. He would like enough room not to bump his head or hit the insulation and worry about contact with fiberglass.

Mrs. McClure stated that was correct. They had shown their neighbors what the garage would look like and also submitted written consents from residents at 5537 Seneca Street and 5521 Seneca Street.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 5525 Seneca Street to erect 16 ft high accessory structure.

On the question, Mr. Bond stated he would not normally vote for this type of request, but noted the area is not congested and there is plenty of open area.

Request of Roger J. Peck, Jr. for review of a determination made by the Code Enforcement Officer concerning property located at 44 Dyke Road/46 Cedar Ridge Drive.

Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Bond, to table this item until the next meeting.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (8:30 p.m.)

INCORPORATED 1851

"Proud Past -
Unlimited Future"

West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 06/22/2005

For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our Webmaster

INCORPORATED 1851

"Proud Past -Unlimited Future"

West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 06/22/2005

For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our Webmaster

"Proud Past -
Unlimited Future"