West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 07/27/2005

Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to open the Public Hearing.

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

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Price, to approve Minutes #2005-06 of June 22, 2005.

Roger Peck, 46 Cedar Ridge Road, stated that part of his fence sits on a berm which drops off at different angles. He is requesting permission for a fence 8 ft high for those sections that are at an angle in order to maintain conformity for the top of the fence all the way around. The fence would run from 6 ft to 7 ft to 8 ft in different sections. He is attempting to protect sight lines and maintain privacy for his property.

Mr. Dunn asked if the purpose of the request was for aesthetics.

Mr. Peck stated that was correct.

Mr. Bond asked if the fence was mostly in the rear of the property.

Mr. Peck stated that was correct.

Mr. Bond asked if the property falls away from the house in general.

Mr. Peck stated there is a small slope toward Dyke.

Mr. Bond asked how much lower the land was in the back than up nearer the front of the lot on Cedar Ridge.

Mr. Peck stated between 2 and 3 feet.

Mr. Bond asked if the 6 ft section of fence at the back of the Cedar Ridge address will be higher than the 7 ft or 8 ft section in the back.

Mr. Peck stated that was correct, in some sections, due to the lay of the land. That way the fence will be close to conformity all the way around.

Mr. Bond stated he needed clarification on where the fence would start and end.

Mr. Peck reviewed the survey with the Board members.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 44 Dyke Road/46

Cedar Ridge Drive to erect an 8 ft fence, as shown on the survey, 40 ft on one side and 40 ft in the rear, based on the lay of the land.

On the question, Mr. Dunn felt the applicant was requesting the variance based on aesthetic reasons only, without the showing of a hardship.

Mr. Bond felt there was a hardship shown, based on the lay of the land, and the variance would allow applicant to have uniformity all the way around.

James Allen, 7611 Southwestern Blvd., Signs Unlimited, stated the property is the United Church of Christ at 630 Main Street. The request is for a ground sign on the front lawn in front of the old church. There has been an addition to the church and the location for the sign would be in the grassy area in front of the church. The sign is similar to the one at St. John’s on Clinton Street, only smaller in size, with the Sunday service messages and the weekly messages within the main border of the sign and the main identity portion of the sign at the top with the logo to the left. The reason for the 4 ft x 8 ft size is to allow for the 4 inch copy area for the changeable message portion. A 4 inch letter is read from about 200 ft taking into consideration the speed limit. The sign will replace the existing sign and perpendicular to the existing sign.

Mr. Dunn asked how far back from the road the sign would be.

Mr. Allen stated it would be out as far as possible.

Mr. Czuprynski stated there are two type signs. A 20 sq ft sign requires 0 clearance of the property line. A sign 32 sq ft requires 10 ft from the property line. The sign being requested also needs at least 8 ft off the

ground for people to see coming out of the driveway. A variance would also be needed for the location.

Mr. Allen stated it would need to be closer to the property line than allowed due to the lay of the land and the bushes that are part of the property. There is also no driveway there. There is only a small piece of grass in front of the church.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant variances for property located at 630 Main Street for a ground sign, 32 sq ft in size (lettering face of the sign), 5 ft from the property line, with a maximum height of 7 ft from the base of the sign.

Dennis Krolzyk, 31 Mayfield Drive, stated this is the only place to erect a deck in order to make use of the back yard. He submitted letters of no objection from the adjoining property owners, together with a letter of approval from the Homeowners Association.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 31 Mayfield Drive to erect a 12 ft x 16 ft deck to rear of house, 19 ft from rear property line.

Michael Baron, 63 Harlem Road, Walden Homes, represented the applicant, and stated that applicant would like to add a mud room and

place a roof over the concrete steps in the front of the house. The existing front porch will be replaced with a 5 ft x 7 ft porch.

Mr. Bond asked if the deck in the back was existing. The application states, “and add a wood deck to the house.”

Mr. Baron stated that was a possibility and actually not a deck, but a porch. Letters of no objection were submitted from 15 Dwyer and 550 Indian Church Road.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 7 Dwyer Street to erect addition 15 ft from exterior side yard and add deck to front of house.

Charles Orlando, 75 Liberty Lane, submitted letters of no objection from Sgroi Financial Services and Schunke Insurance Agency. Schunke Insurance Agency has given permission to use its 20 ft driveway. Their parking lots are joined together. There is crumbling concrete which needs to be replaced. He has 9.52 ft of driveway and he has 5.60 which is planned. The driveways will be joined which will give him 14 ft of driveway. 5 ft on the back and 5 ft on the side will be left green area.

Mr. Bond asked if most of the rear parking area will be utilized by employees.

Mr. Orlando stated that was correct. Most customers park in front.

Mr. Czuprynski asked if the driveway was already blacktopped to the back of the building.

Mr. Orlando stated it is blacktopped to the back of the building where the concrete section is. It was dug out with a 1 ft drop, which has been

leveled to Mr. Schunke’s property. There was a garage and a tree which were taken down in the back.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 979 Union Road to allow parking in rear of building with 9 ft driveway.

Myron Heeb, 100 Marilyn Drive, submitted a letter of no objection from the adjoining property owner. He stated there is currently a small downstairs living room and he did not want to take up any space in that area. Mr. Heeb proposed putting a direct vent gas fire place 4.0 ft wide by 15 inches jutting out from the building, which would place it at about 3.9 ft from the property line. The vent would be within the existing landscaping and approximately even with the overhang on the second story.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 100 Marilyn Drive to erect fireplace bump out to 3 ft 9 inches of property line.

Charles Bolis, 186 Westcliff, stated he has already erected the carport with four posts which are on the property line.

Mr. Bond stated this was before the Zoning Board several months ago and there was a question of the easement along the property for the Ebenezer

Creek which was filled in. The applicant purchased the property from the County of Erie, subject to an easement for egress and ingress so that the County and Town could do work on the easement.

Mr. Bolis submitted a letter from the County of Erie removing the easement.

Mr. Bond reviewed the letter and noted that the letter submitted was not an official release. The letter simply states that the County would give the applicant the right to be there, but they are not releasing the easement. If the County had the need to be on the easement for any reason, it would have the right to remove whatever improvements the applicant made without any obligation to put anything back.

Mr. McCabe agreed that the letter submitted was not an official release of easement.

Mr. Bond also stated that he spoke with Mr. Bommer from the Engineering Department and while in favor of releasing the easement, the Engineering Department has not as yet done so. He also referred to a letter sent from his office at the time he was Deputy Town Attorney, advising applicant to provide documentation of the release, noting that the easement was to the County of Erie and the Town of West Seneca. The letter did not indicate that the Town was willing to release the easement, but in any event, any variance given would be subject to a written release of easement by both the Town of West Seneca and the County of Erie.

Mr. McCabe stated that the Town has taken the position in the past that a variance would not be granted without a release of easement. He stated the court matter currently scheduled will be adjourned pending the outcome of this request.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to table this item until the September meeting for applicant to obtain a formal release of easement from the County of Erie and Town of West Seneca.

John Rohe, 35 Mayfield Drive, stated he is proposing to erect a rear deck 19.5 ft from the rear property line. He submitted letters of no objection from the adjoining neighbors and stated he also had the approval of the Homeowners Association.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 35 Mayfield Drive to erect rear deck 19.5 ft from rear property line.

Steve Lipinski, 26 Mosside Loop, stated he had erected the deck without knowledge of the required variance. Letters of no objection were submitted from the adjoining neighbors, together with a sketch of the deck and layout of the property.

Mr. Bond stated the reason for the required 10 ft under the code is for fire apparatus to get between structures.

Mr. Dunn asked if all the decks are connected and if there was a gate separating the house from the pool.

Mr. Lipinski stated the deck is two-tiered and there is a stairway with a lock to prevent anyone from coming up onto the deck and there is a sliding glass door. They are planning on putting in a gate also.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 26 Mosside Loop to attach deck to above ground pool, with the stipulation that a gate be provided between the house and the pool.

Nicholas Zupkov, 52 Lind Avenue, stated there is an existing cement porch which is deteriorating causing water to enter the basement. The porch will remain with a roof placed over the porch.

Mr. Bond noted that the applicant is in line with the other neighbor’s houses on the street.

Mrs. Price asked if applicant was changing the dimensions of the porch.

Mr. Zupkov stated the porch would remain the same size, only with a roof covering it, and the porch will not be enclosed. He submitted letters of no objection from the adjoining neighbors.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 52 Lind Avenue to erect roof over existing porch, 14.36 ft from front property line.

Christopher Lorson, 3524 Seneca Street, stated his front porch collapsed due to snow and he would like to replace it with another porch with an increase of 3.83 ft in depth. He is also requesting a garage in the rear, in line with the neighboring garages. It will be concrete in front from the property line up to the garage.

Mr. Czuprynski stated that when a lot runs from street to street, it’s called a through lot. Therefore, the required front setback for the house is the same for the rear. The front of the property is zoned R-75 and the rear is zoned R-65, making the required front setback 40 ft and the back 30 ft.

No comments were received from the public.

Letters of no objection were submitted from the property owners of 3530 Seneca Street and 3516 Seneca Street.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 3524 Seneca Street to erect garage within required rear yard setback and porch within front yard setback.

Kathleen Curr, 671 Chestnut Avenue, stated their house is a corner lot and they are requesting a variance to erect an addition of a family room to the rear of the house and where they can exit from the dining room. The addition will be within the required rear and exterior side yards. Letters of no objection were submitted from 116 Pearl Street and 675 Chestnut Avenue.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 671 Chestnut Avenue to erect additon 27 ft from rear property line and 27 ft from exterior side yard.

James E. Manley, 126 Larkwood Road, stated he is requesting a variance to erect an 18 ft x 20 ft addition to the rear of the house. The addition will be 8 ft from the garage. Letters of no objection were submitted from property owners at 41 Woodmar Terrace and 120 Larkwood Road.

No comments were received from the public.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance variance for property located at 126 Larkwood Road to erect 18 ft x 20 ft addition to rear of house 8 ft from garage.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a six-month extension of the variance granted July 28, 2004 for property located at 17 Sunrise Terrace to erect covered porch in front property setback.

Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (8:15 p.m.).

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia C. DePasquale, RMC/CMC
Secretary