 |
 |
INCORPORATED 1851"Proud Past - |
| [ Home Page ] [ Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes ] [ Site Map ] |
|
|||
|
West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 10/26/2005
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of West Seneca was called to order by Chairman William H. Bond on October 26, 2005 at 7:00 PM, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present -
Daniel P. Dunn Penny K. Price Sandra Giese Rosenswie Dale J. McCabe, Deputy Town Attorney William Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer Excused - Joseph Kleinfelder II OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING: Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to open the Public Hearing.
APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION: Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES #2005-09: Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to approve Minutes #2005-09 of September 28, 2005.
TABLED ITEM: 2005-059 Michael Capriotto, 7123 East Quaker Road, Orchard Park, representing J.D. Properties and Capson Corp., owners of the property, stated the plan
has been revised to reduce the size of the sign from 265 sq ft to 240 sq ft. The existing sign has been in place for a number of years. In the process of redoing the entire property, the sign was reframed and it was discovered the sign exceeded the size as allowed by the zoning code. The sign was reformated to drop the top 2 ½ ft and the center opened up to allow 6 to 10 spaces. He has owned a portion of the property since 1992 and has had a new partner since May or June to rehab the property. Mr. Bond stated there are two problems with the plan in that the ordinance allows for 40 sq ft and applicant is requesting 240 sq ft. The second problem involves the location of the sign. Mr. Czuprynski stated there are two types of signs, a pedestal or free-standing. If the sign is on two poles and 40 sq ft, then it must be 10 ft from the property line. If the sign is 20 sq ft in size, then it is allowed to be up to the front property line but no more than 12 ft in height. Mr. Bond stated that the survey shows the base of the sign is 3.3 ft into the Union Road right of way. It has been that way for a long period of time. When Union Road was widened back in the 70’s, owners of property touching the roadway and made nonconforming by the widening of the highway were paid a sum of money to move the structure back. Apparently, whoever owned the property at that time accepted the money but did nothing to make the sign conforming. There is 5.4 ft from the bottom of the sign to the ground which presents a visual problem to traffic on Union Road. Mr. Bond stated that when he was on location and parked next to the sign he could hardly see down the road and asked what changes have been made. Mr. Capriotto stated that the original plan was to have that piece solid but they have since opened that area up and there are open spaces also to give more visual appeal. The bottom sign could be raised but then it would become an issue for tenants to have enough signage. Mr. Bond asked how 1.6 ft had been arrived at for the size of each sign. Mr. Capriotto stated that might be a standard size, but he was not sure. Mrs. Price asked if there was any reason the tenant signs could not be placed without any open spaces inbetween.
Mr. Capriotto stated the whole center section can be changed by raising up or down the tenant sign portions. He was under the impression that the issue before the Board was the height of the sign. Mrs. Price stated that eliminating the empty spaces would reduce the height of the sign which at this time is too high. Mr. Dunn stated that the suggestion is that the empty spaces between the signs be tightened up to allow greater vision to someone in a pickup truck or a SUV. Mr. Capriotto stated the premise behind the sign design was to use the existing sign which by rights, they did not have to change. There is another sign on the south east corner of the property which is also in the right of way. He stated he has a building permit issued in 1988 for an addition to the existing sign. Mrs. Price stated the Board is not asking for the sign to be moved, but to shrink it. Mr. Bond stated the request is for the sign itself, not the open spaces. The size of the sign being requested would still be 224 sq ft, even if the signs were adjusted to eliminate the empty spaces. Mr. Czuprynski stated the open spaces would not be counted. The square footage would be approximately 99 to 100 sq ft. The height can be no more than 25 ft over the posts. Mr. McCabe stated the Board at this point is looking for some concessions on the part of applicant. He asked if there were any letters from the adjoining neighbors. Mr. Capriotto submitted a petition with the signatures of adjoining property owners as well as one tenant. No comments were received from the public. Mr. Bond read portions of a letter from Mark Schmidt, one of the owners of Centerview Liquor Mart, in opposition to the request for the variance,
and requested the code enforcement officer to clarify what type sign this would be considered and the clearance needed from the ground. Mr. Czuprynski stated a pedestal sign 40 sq ft in size requires clearance of 8 ft from the bottom and can be no more than 25 ft in height. A free-standing sign which is 20 sq ft in size can be to the ground. The sign in question requires clearance of 8 ft from the ground. Mr. McCabe asked Mr. Capriotto if he was prepared to address the issues raised by the Zoning Board at tonight’s meeting. If not, he suggested tabling this matter until the next meeting to allow the applicant to address the concerns of the Board. Mr. Capriotto stated to an extent, he was. Mr. Bond stated there appears to be four issues.
Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant variances for property located at 1780 Union Road to erect sign 99 sq ft in size, plus the two polls on either side, as indicated by the drawing as submitted by applicant, raising the bottom sign to 8 ft from the ground level and lowering the upper sign to 20 ft; and further allowing the location of the sign as it exits; and allowing the 2nd existing sign on the property.
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to deny the original request for a variance for a sign 99 sq ft in size.
NEW BUSINESS: 2005-063 Larry Okon and Ann Okon, 5560 Seneca Street, appeared on the request for the above variance. Mr. Okon stated he has a 4 x 4 truck which is higher than normal and he needs the extra height in order to get the truck in the garage. He asked if there was a possibility of requesting an increase in the height currently being sought. Mr. McCabe stated a separate request would need to be submitted. Mr. Bond stated that every request for a variance must be publicized and therefore they could not act on a request for any additional height than what is requested tonight. Mr. McCabe stated this matter could be tabled for next month to allow the applicant to appear with the new plan. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and table this item until the December 7th meeting, noting that the applicant will need to submit amended letters from the neighbors.
2005-064 Mario Dinardo, senior partner with Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, stated a new building has been erected on the property and they would like a sign to match the building. Mr. Bond noted that although the sign does not have the required clearance, its location is back far enough from the right of way. Mr. Dinardo stated they are approximately 10 ft back from the right of way with enough room for two cars, side by side. It will be externally lit with a timer at night.
A letter was submitted by Dr. Bove stating no objection to the request. Mr. Czuprynski stated the ordinance does not allow a sign exceeding 10 sq ft in a R-60A district. The applicant is requesting a sign 40 sq ft. Such sign may be illuminated by a nonflashing indirect source of light. Mr. McCabe stated the application needs to be amended for the 40 sq ft sign. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and amend the application of applicant to include the request for a 40 ft sign, and grant a variance for property located at 1947 Ridge Road to erect a ground sign 40 sq ft in size, as per the plan submitted by applicant and at least 10.4 ft from the right of way.
2005-065 Michael Gonzalez, 3168 Bieler Road, Orchard Park, stated he would like to raise the roof on the house at 63 Wichita Road. Mr. Bond stated this is a home that was probably a non-conforming use when built, 2 ½ ft from the property line. Signatures of neighbors at 51 Wichita and 61 Wichita were submitted, stating no objection. 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 53 Wichita Road to allow alterations to house 2.15 ft from property line.
2005-066 Dennis Scholten, 188 Geary Street, Buffalo, stated he is requesting a 6 ft fence for purposes of security for a future retail store. There will be items in the yard and he would like to block them from view. Mr. Bond noted that it appears the applicant is starting back in line with the front of the building which is approximately 22 ft from the front property line and another 8 ft from the curb. Mr. Scholten stated he is coming back another 10 ft beyond the building. It will be 21 ft from the street and he will go in 30 ft. There was an existing fence when he bid on the property and the fence is no longer there. The retail store will be in the front 24 ft x 24 ft portion and part of the next building that adjoins it, for a total of 24 ft x 39 ft. He did not have letters from the neighbors. The adjoining neighbor is Fantastic Sams which also placed a bid for the property and lost. Mr. Bond stated he did speak with one of the neighbors, Michael Shea, who stated he had no problem with the request of applicant. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 2480 Seneca Street to erect 6 ft fence in side yard and front lot, with the stipulation that the fence be set 10 ft back from the front of the building.
2005-067 Eugene Piotrowski, 77 Hillview, stated the request is for lot #52. The other corners in the subdivision have a 15 ft setback and when the map was filed, there was an oversight on this lot. A variance is needed for lot #53 as well.
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 sublots #52 and #53 located at 3 Taylor Court for a reduction in the required exterior side yard to 15 ft, noting there was an error when the subdivision was originally filed.
2005-068 Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to table this item generally until the Town Board renders a decision on the special permit.
2005-069 Michael Jordon, Clover Construction Management, Inc., 1430 Millersport Highway, Williamsville, presented an overview of the concept for the senior citizen project at 2341 Union Road as given to the Planning Board and Town Board. The plan shows 128 exterior parking spaces and 27 garages, for a total of 155 potential parking spaces. The proposed new landscaping plan shows 119 trees as well as 365 shrubs and plants. All sidewalks and islands are curbed. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Czuprynski whether or not the 27 garage units could be counted as parking spaces. Mr. Czuyprynski responded that they could not be counted because they are paid for and not used for general parking. Mr. Jordan stated that the plan presented at tonight’s meeting reflects numerous revisions based on their input. To build this plan as approved,
several variances are needed. Section 120-41 of the town code requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit plus 5 visitor parking spaces per 25 units, for a total of 182 required spaces. They are requesting a total of 128 parking spaces which was determined using one space per unit, plus the five visitor spaces per 25 units. Based on a survey of the three similar projects based in Western New York, it has been determined that .67 cars per unit, which would give a total of 72 cars when compared to this unit and it is felt that the 128 parking spaces provided under the plan is sufficient. In addition, there are the 27 garage units available. Section 120-39B of the town code states fences shall not exceed 4 ft in height in any front or side yard and shall not project more than 10 ft into a front yard. They are requesting a variance for a 6 ft board-on-board wood fence in both side yards as well as the front yard to insulate this residential project from the commercial neighbor. Because they are on a landlocked parcel, they arbitrarily picked the front yard as what faces Union Road. Mr. Jordan reviewed the property lines on the plan with the Zoning Board members. Each of the neighbors were polled as to what type fence, if any, they wanted. Some have an existing fence and want their fences left alone. Some are more deteriorated. They will install new fencing where requested and leave existing fencing where requested. In the front yard, they will install a 6 ft board-on-board fence down the entire length of the property to the driveway. Section 120-26(2) of the town code requires a compact evergreen hedge which will reach a height of 5 ft within 3 years or a solid fence or an unpierced masonry wall 5 ft in height along a rear lot line or an interior side lot line which abuts an existing or future rear yard or side yard on such adjoining lots. This is a requirement between a commercial property, which the underlying zoning is technically, against a residential property. Directly behind them is the Burchfield Patio homes. They are requesting a variance not to install any type of hedge, masonry wall or fencing because these are basically two residential uses and they will not abut a neighbor’s backyard. There is a detention area which is actually a dry basin and there is a minimum 5 ft change in elevation from their parking area to the embankment. The Town Board requested a line of pine trees along the top of the embankment. Mr. McCabe asked if the suggestion to plant pine trees was a condition of the Town Board granting a special permit. Mr. Jordan stated it was not attached as a specific condition, but it was requested by the Burchfield Patio Homes Association. The fourth issue is
density. Section 120-29 of the town code requires 8,000 sq ft for the first unit and 5,000 sq ft for each additional unit. Their 5.68 acres would yield 49 units. They are requesting a variance to construct 107 units restricted to senior citizens 60 years and older. The West Seneca code does not specifically address senior housing. Other municipal codes that do address senior housing usually allow for greater density. Mr. Bond asked what the density was in applicant’s other facilities. Mr. Jordan responded that Seneca Pointe had the proper density because the parcel of property was 15 acres, with 7 or 8 acres wetland. The Lackawanna project has 109 units on 5 ½ acres and the North Tonawanda project with 106 units on slightly less than 5 acres. The Cheektowaga code has a provision for senior housing calling for 43 units per acre for a 1-bedroom density; and 29 units per acre for a 2-bedroom density. The Lackawanna code is not specific as to seniors, however they allow 30 to 40 units per acre. The Town of Amherst code has a provision for senior housing which allows 60 units per acre. The Town of West Seneca code is based on unit which assumes the typical apartment dwelling family has about 2.5 people per unit. Based on 49 allowed units, the density would equate to 122 people. Statistically, 1.02 people are generated per 1-bedroom unit and 1.55 people per 2-bedroom unit. For this project, the total people density would be 142, not that much greater than the 122 potential residents if this site was developed as traditional apartments without a variance. Mr. Bond asked, in view of the required costs associated with this site, if it were fair to say that the density variance is necessary in order to make this project economically feasible. Mr. Jordan stated this project was started at 123 units. It has since been reduced to 115 units to accommodate parking on three sides of the building and build a fire access as requested by the fire department. It was then lowered to 107 units to accommodate the road going all the way around the back of the building which was also requested by the fire department. The cost associated with site acquisition, engineering, and development does not change whether building 107 units or 150 units. This level of units is feasible, however, from an operational standpoint so the number of units requested is necessary for them to keep the costs in line. Any less would not be viable and they would have to withdraw.
No comments were received from the public. Mr. Dunn noted that the other three sides of the property are being fenced anyway and asked if it would be feasible for the applicant to meet the compact evergreen hedge under the code and safeguard that other side. Mr. Jordan stated one of the concerns was that leaving that area open between the two residential properties was more aesthetically pleasing than to put up a fence. The other concern was placing a 6 ft fence on top of a 6 ft embankment. The fence will stand there by itself and not be very attractive. Plus it would take a substantial amount of wind and cause problems in the future. Mr. Czuprynski stated that fencing being erected on the south property line in only the spots where requested by the homeowner was problematic in the event the fence became deteriorated in the future. He felt there should be a provision that the applicant would then be responsible for replacing the deteriorated fence. Mrs. Price stated her concern was that some fences may be 4 ft high and others 6 ft high. Mr. Jordan stated the only people who chose to keep a fence were those that had a relatively new 6 ft high fence in good condition. The original plan was to erect a new fence along the entire property line. This raised the issue of who would maintain that approximate 2 ft space between the new fence and the adjoining property owner’s fence. He stated Mr. Czuprynski’s concern was understandable and they were willing to live with that. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 2341 Union Road for a reduction in the required parking spaces from 182 to 128, conditioned on the 27 garage spaces being available.
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 2341 Union Road to allow a 6 ft fence on the north, south and west sides of the property, with the
exception of those owners who wish to keep their own fences, and with the provision that the applicant is obligated to maintain the fencing regardless of ownership.
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 2341 Union Road not requiring a compact or evergreen hedge fence, but requiring pine trees as screening, but only on that portion of the east property line that is 5 ft higher in elevation above the site; otherwise a solid fence is required.
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 2341 Union Road to reduce the required density to allow construction of 107 units. On the question, Mr. Bond noted the request was logical in light of the nature of the facility and the Town Board was aware of the density requirements when they approved the special permit.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (8:30 p.m.).
Respectfully submitted, Patricia C. DePasquale, RMC/CMC |
| Copyright © 2005-109 Town of West Seneca, New York, U.S.A. All rights Reserved. |