| |
|
[ Return to HOME PAGE ] |
West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 05/28/2008
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of West Seneca was called to order by Chairman William Bond on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present -
Penny K. Price Sandra Giese Rosenswie Michael Hughes Michael Harmon Paul Notaro, Deputy Town Attorney William Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer Excused - None OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to open the Public Hearing.
APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Price, to approve Minutes #2008-04, April 23, 2008.
TABLED ITEM: 2008-018 Request of Michael Desiderio for a variance for property located at 3036 Seneca Street to allow live music.
2008-018 (Continued) Michael Desiderio stated he is the property owner at 3036 Seneca Street where he operates a restaurant and bar. He is requesting a variance to allow live music on Friday and Saturdays from 10:00 PM until 2:00 AM and occasionally on Wednesdays in the fall. The bands do three 50-minute sets. The music will be limited to the inside of the restaurant, not on the patio. The building is air-conditioned and the doors will be closed at all times. Letters of no objection were submitted from Briarwood Motors, 65 Center Road, and West Seneca Music Center, 20 Center Road. Mr. Bond noted these were businesses and the nearest residents are across Center Road on Briarhill. The applicant did not provide letters from the residents on Briarhill. 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 3036 Seneca Street to allow live music, limited to Wednesday, Friday and Saturdays from 10:00 PM to 2:00 AM, noting that the music will also be contained inside the building with the doors closed. On the question, Mr. Czuprynski suggested that the Board grant this on a trial basis to ensure that the applicant follows the conditions placed on the variance. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to amend the motion and grant a variance for property located at 3036 Seneca Street to allow live music, limited to Wedensdays, Fridays and Saturdays from 10:00 PM to 2:00 AM, with the music to be contained inside the building with the doors closed, and limiting this variance to a six-month period of time.
NEW BUSINESS: 2008-009 Mr. Bond noted this item is not on tonight’s agenda. The request for a variance was heard at the March 26, 2008 meeting, at which time letters were submitted from the neighbors indicating no objection to the fence, although it did not specifically state it was a 6 ft fence. One of the neighbors now feels he was misinformed and that he was under the impression it was a 4 ft fence. Based on that, Mr. Bond felt this matter should be reopened for reconsideration. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to reopen item #2008-009 for reconsideration.
Mrs. Judy appeared on the reconsideration. Mr. Bond noted that the minutes state the letters from the neighbors did not state specifically a 6 ft fence and “Mrs. Judy stated the neighbors who signed the letters are aware of the height and in fact the fence will be hooked up to the fence of the neighbor in the rear.” The motion made was to grant a variance for property located at 16 Country Lane to erect 6 ft fence in exterior side yard, 20 ft from the property line. Mr. Bond asked Mrs. Judy if that was her understanding. Mrs. Judy stated it was. Gary Pauly, 34 Country Lane, appeared in opposition to the previous variance granted. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Pauly if he was aware that the motion stated the fence had to be 20 ft off the property line.
2008-009 (Continued) Mr. Pauly stated he was not aware of that. Mr. Bond asked if there was an objection to the 20 feet. Mr. Pauly stated he did object. He had spoken with Mr. Judy and was informed it would be a 6 ft security fence in the back yard, but did not understand how far the fence would extend, past the front window of his house. This directly affects the resale value of his house. Mr. Bond asked the Code Enforcement Officer to clarify the setbback requirement. Mr. Czuprynski stated the setback was 30 ft. Mr. Bond noted the fence would then extend approximately 10 ft past the front of Mr. Pauly’s house. If the applicant were to stay back the required 30 ft setback, then a variance would not be required and a 6 ft fence could be erected. Mr. Czuprynski stated the fence could not extend into the exterior side yard, but their exterior side yard is in line with the front of his house. Mrs. Judy stated that when they found out about the problem, her husband attempted to appease Mr. Pauly. They do not want to cause any problems and are willing to erect the chain link fence on the other side of the yard so the children do not go in the yard with the pool. They have been neighbors for eight years and have never had a problem before. Mr. Bond suggested a compromise with the applicant extending into the setback but not all the way over to Mr. Pauly’s property line.
2008-009 (Continued) Mr. Pauly agreed that they should have a security fence for the children; his only objection is that it will extend past his front window. Mr. Bond suggested the fence go out at a 45 degree angle to a point where it would not block the view of Mr. Pauly. Mr. Czuprynski suggested this item be tabled until next month to allow all parties the opportunity of arriving at a compromise. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to table this item until the next meeting. On the question, Mr. Bond requested the applicant advise the Town Clerk prior to that time on the status of any compromise entered into beween the parties.
2008-022 Jennifer Smith, 180 Delray Avenue, stated the variance is being requested to provide additional supervision of her children in the front yard. The existing stoop and steps will be covered and the end of the deck extend out to the right up to the driveway. Mr. Bond stated for the record that letters of no objection to the proposed deck were submitted from neighbors at 176 Delray Avenue and 184 Delray Avenue, noting however that the letters do not indicate the size of the proposed deck. No comments were received from the public.
2008-022 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 180 Delray Avenue to erect front deck 17 ft from front property line.
2008-023 Mr. Bond noted that the applicant is requesting a variance to erect a house 5 ft from the exterior side yard. 30 ft is required. The applicant states that a mistake was made and he believed he had purchased the Lein Road paper street. Mr. Bond doubted that the Lein Road would be anything but a paper street in the future. Stanislaw Sajecki, 69 Southpoint, Lancaster, stated it was his intention to reside in one apartment in the proposed house. 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 29 Henrietta Avenue to erect house 5 ft from exterior side yard.
2008-024 Sal Zawistowski, 50 Pine Cove Drive, stated the requested fence is already up. He filed for the variance after the building permit was issued. The building permit provided for the fence to come off the corner of the house and straight back which did not require a variance. He then decided to go back into the setback and further down.
2008-024 (Continued) Mr. Bond asked if the house behind the applicant has been sold and whether the applicant had requested a letter from the owner. Mr. Zawistowski stated it is a vacant lot and there is a house being built. He had no knowledge of whom to request a letter from. Mr. Bond stated he was not in favor of applicant building a fence in violation of the building permit issued and this situation is the same problem as presented in the first item heard by the Board this evening. The fence will block out the view of the person, although this particular situation is somewhat different. There is a garage on the side facing Mr. Zawistowski’s house and there is a 45 degree angle at the corner but it is only one section of the fence. Mr. Zawistowski submitted a letter of no objection from the neighbor at 46 Pine Cove Drive. Mr. Harmon asked why the applicant placed the fence in violation of what the building permit specified. Mr. Zawistowski responded that within those quidelines, there was no room for the playset with the pool and shed in the back. He did meet with the Board last month to discuss this matter. Mr. Harmon asked if the house being built behind the applicant was sold. Mr. Zawistowski responded that he was unaware if the house being built was sold as yet. 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 50 Pine Cove Drive to erect 6 ft fence in exterior side yard.
2008-024 (Continued) On the question, Mr. Bond stated that he is voting in favor of this variance because the house that is being built behind the applicant’s will not be adversely affected due to the position of the window at the front and that the garage is facing the fence, and with the slight angle being provided for in the placement of the fence.
2008-025 Carol Vasbinder, 47 Mayfield Drive, stated she is requesting a deck to be erected off the rear of her house. Mr. Bond stated the Zoning Board of Appeals has had a number of similar requests. He asked if the deck backs up to a field. Ms. Vasbinder stated that was correct. She did receive approval from the Association, but she did not have that document with her. Letters of no objection from 51 Mayfield Drive and 43 Mayfield Drive were submitted. 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 47 Mayfield Drive to erect deck off rear of house in required side yard, and directing the applicant to submit the Association approval letter to the Town Clerk.
2008-026
2008-026 (Continued) Michael Grieble, 685 North Star Road, Elma, stated he is requesting live music be allowed on the patio at Strikers, 50 Michael Road, on Friday evenings until 11:00 PM and on Sunday afternoons. The music will be a one-man acoustic guitar at the present. Tom Bystryk, 14 Westview Drive, Board member of the Westview Park Homeowners Association, presented 37 letters of objection to the applicant’s request. Barbara Malyak, 49 Westview Drive, stated the owner of Southgate Lanes, now renamed Strikers, was given a variance for a patio with the understanding that there would be no outside music allowed. Mr. Grieble is now requesting outside music on the patio, the opposite of what he promised and contrary to the variance granted in 2007. Music at the Southgate Lanes has been a nuisance and presented problems in the past for the residents of Westview Park. The loud thumping coming from inside the building was heard inside the townhouses of the contiguous neighbors and she requested the board deny the applicant’s request for a variance. Mr. Hughes asked the applicant the reason for requesting the variance last year. Mr. Grieble stated the patio was requested for outside seating. Mr. Grieble stated the board had inquired whether he planned on outside music and none was planned at that time. Mr. Hughes asked if there was live music inside the building now. Mr. Grieble responded that there is. He stated the problems with music in the past involved a previous owner. The speakers were at the back of the building and the residents could hear the music. Mr. Harmon stated the concerns of the past remain concerns of the past. The Zoning Board is dealing with the present. Live music outside, regardless of the type, is being requested for Sunday afternoon and a weekend evening. This establishment is in close
2008-026 (Continued) proximity to the 48 units at Westview Park and will infringe on enjoyment of their property. They have already dealt with problems indoor and appeared before the Town Board to request that the level of the music be turned down to a certain point. There is a history of noise problems in the past which were indoor, and now outdoor music is being requested. He stated his opposition to any type of outdoor music at that location, regardless of the day or hour.Mr. Grieble responded that he has a business to run. Mr. Harmon noted that the applicant is still allowed to have music indoors and he was sure the applicant was aware of that situation before the property was purchased. Mr. Bond asked how many people the patio seats on the outside. Mr. Grieble stated they planned a “cruise night” on Friday and needed the music and ability to announce prizes, etc. Mr. Bond asked if this would then extend into the parking lot. Mr. Grieble responded that it would involve whomever is out there with a car. Mr. Bond noted that situation is even more grievous. Mr. Brystryk noted previous problems with running a “cruise night” when the West Seneca Police were called in to assist the Orchard Park Police to quell the disturbances at Duff’s and Riley’s to the point where they were posting officers at the town borders. He understood the need for the applicant to run a business, but he felt he also the right to live in his home. First it was the patio and now the parking lot is being discussed. He inquired whether a separate variance was required for the parking lot.
2008-026 (Continued) Mr. Grieble asked if a temporary variance would be possible, noting the amount of work that has been put into the establishment. Mr. Bond commented that he was not in favor of outside music in this situation. William Nagy, 17 Westview Drive, commented that his residence is directly behind the business. He had no objection to inside music, but was opposed to the outside music. Mr. Grieble stated the bowling alley was in existence at the time the Westview Drive people purchased their residences. Mr. Bond noted that there was no music at the bowling alley at that time. Cathy Conley, 30 Westview Drive, commented on previous problems years ago with the bowling alley and music indoors. She was also present at the meeting when Flappy’s requested an outdoor patio and they were required to erect a fence and provide landscaping. She felt it would be unfair to the residents in this situation if steps were not taken to ensure their protection. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and deny the request for a variance for property located at 50 Michael Road to allow outside music on patio. On the question, Mr. Harmon commented that granting the variance would open up a situation where it could become intolerable for the residents to remain there. As a property manager for a number of condominium complexes, he has observed “cruise nights” on Transit Road at Delacy Ford. It is like a burn out session when they leave. Sundays are difficult for people at home and they should be able to enjoy their property on a Sunday afternoon. On the question, Mr. Bond commented his initial feeling was that it was a small patio and felt it would not be detrimental, but after
2008-026 (Continued) learning some of the activity would be in the parking lot as well, he could no longer vote in favor of a variance.
2008-027 Derek Vogenauer, 80 Diane Drive, stated he is requesting a fence around the existing property line to contain their two dogs. He will also be putting in an in-ground swimming pool in the future. Mr. Bond noted the applicant needs three variances; one for the rear and one for the exterior side yard, and to erect a 6 ft fence on the interior side yard. There appears to be a house behind the applicant which will be affected because his sight lines will be cut off. Mr. Bond asked if the applicant had letters from his neighbors. Mr. Vogenauer responded that he had letters, except from that neighbor. Mr. Bond cited the letter provided by applicant to his neighbors which read, “At the request of the Town of West Seneca, we the residents of the above addresses request your approval for the construction of a 6 ft wooden fence located at the corner of 80 Diane Drive and Sharon Drive,” which fails to attach a diagram or provide specific details. Peter Coppoli, 205 Sharon Drive, stated he resides in the house behind the applicant. He is opposed to the granting of the variance because the proposed fence will shield his whole house, block the sun from his garden and will be hazzard to children and the school bus. He was not informed of the request for a variance. The applicant simply pointed to the lot line with his foot.
2008-027 (Continued) Mrs. Price asked the distance between the back of the house to where the fence will be. Mr. Coppoli responded there should be about 4 ft after the fence is erected because it will extend into the back yard as well. Mr. Bond noted it was 5.15 ft. He noted this will also affect the neighbor on the other side. Mr. Vogenauer referred to two other corner lots; one that is directly on the side and also one on the corner of Sharon and Diane. Mr. Coppoli responded that particular house has no one to that side of the house and is unaffected by the fence. Lisa Solly commented that Mr. Coppoli is her father and if the fence was allowed in the applicant’s back yard, it will actually be in her father’s front yard. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to close the public hearing and deny the request for a variance for property located at 80 Diane Drive to erect 6 ft fence in exterior side yard and side yard. On the question, Mr. Bond commented that the issue is the same as a previous item. An exception was made in that situation because the window was on the other side of the house. In this case, there are three variances being requested and in his opinion, too excessive. The town code states 4 ft from the side and nothing is allowed in the exterior side yard. He saw no reason for the Zoning Board to deviate from that and it would change the character of the neighborhood and would adversely affect property values.
2008-028 James Jozwiak, Mill Street, Sprinville, contractor for the addition at 29 East Avenue, stated a variance for this property to erect addition 3 ft from side property line was granted in January of this year and applicant is requesting the variance be extended to the rear. Letters of no objection were submitted from the same residents who were not opposed to the granting of the previous variance. Mr. Bond also commented on the specificity of the letters which clearly state what applicant is requesting. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 29 East Avenue to extend previously approved side yard variance 9 ft.
2008-029 Michael Pinnavaia, 78 Brantwood Drive, stated he is short 5 ft on the setback, from 30 ft to 25 ft. He is adding on to an existing room to install a bathroom. Letters of no objection were submitted from residents at 30 Sherwood Lane, 38 Sherwood Lane and 72 Brantwood Drive. 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 78
2008-029 (Continued) Brantwood Drive to erect 10 ft addition to rear of house 25 ft from rear property line.
2008-030 Richard Syracuse and Antoinette Syracuse, 331 Woodward Avenue, and property owners of 161 Ansley Court, appeared in support of their request for a variance. Mr. Syracuse stated they would like to widen the current driveway approximately 6 – 7 ft in order to fit both cars in the driveway and off the street in the wintertime. Their lot is a corner lot and extends the 6 or 7 ft beyond the house. Mrs. Price asked if this was a rental property. Mr. Syracuse responded that it will be their residence once the remodeling and repair work is complete. Mrs. Price asked if there was a one-car garage. Mr. Syracuse responded it was. Mr. Bond noted the reason for the code is to provide a sight line. If the pad is placed in that position, it would impede someone coming around the corner to see the car. He asked if applicant would be agreeable to placing the pad up somewhat further and not all the way to the street. Mr. Syracuse stated it will only extend to the sidewalk. Mr. Bond reiterated his concern with someone coming down the street and being able to see around the corner. The applicant’s plan was reviewed with the Zoning Board members and the Code Enforcement Officer.
2008-030 (Continued) Mr. Hughes asked how many cars the applicant owned. Mr. Syracuse responded two. No comments were received from the public. Letters of no objection were submitted from 174 Ansley Court and 180 Ansley Court. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 161 Ansley Court to widen driveway no further than 15 ft from the exterior side yard and no further than 9 ft toward the street in front of the house.
2008-031 Steve Janicki, Patio Enclosures, 2620 North America Drive, stated he is a contractor and a variance is being requested from the required 10 ft separation between structure and detached garage. The distance requested is 5 ft 10 inches. This is the only place for the patio because of the location of the door. The room was angled to move it a little further from the garage. Letters of no objection were submitted from 29 Morgott, 35 Morgott, 30 Morgott, 26 Bangel Avenue and 30 Bangel Avenue. Mr. Bond noted that the letters of no objection do not specifically state what the variance is for, that is, the reduction in required distance to the attached garage. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 23 Morgott
2008-031 (Continued) Avenue to erect enclosed patio 5 ft 10 inches from detached garage.
2008-032 Marie Bette, Western New York Federal Credit Union, 7 Willowdale Drive, and John Lyden, West Coast Design, Architect, 5314 Broadway, appeared on the request. Mr. Lyden stated a program study was performed ascertaining that 5000 square feet was needed for the proposed building. Parcels of land were then looked at to determine what would accommodate the Credit Union’s needs for building and parking and traffic. The footprint of the parcel at the southeast corner of Race Street and Union cannot accommodate the required 50 parking spaces. There is only a need for 30 spaces, as determined by the study. The lot can accommodate 36 spaces which will meet the needs of the Credit Union. There is a need for 3 cars in 3 lanes, as opposed to the required 24 cars, and a reduction in the required stacking density is requested from 8 to 6 per drive thru to meet the needs of the square footage of this particular parcel. Mr. Bond asked how many outside tellers there would be. Ms. Bette responded that tentatively they were planning on 3. Mr. Bond asked how many parking spaces there are at the present location. Ms. Bette responded that there are 20. The only time there is a problem with parking is on a payday. There are 36 parking spaces planned for this location, plus there will be the drive-thru tellers which they currently don’t have. Letters of no objection were
2008-032 (Continued) submitted from the current property owners who are present this evening. Mr. Czuprynski noted that the plan does not show the stacking or the green area. Mr. Lyden stated they were not planning on any further design going toward the site plan review and those requirements until a determination was made on the variance. Henry Wick, Esq., Depew, represented Lorraine Goszewski, owner of the property located on the corner of Race Street and Union Road. Ms. Goszewski lives across the street. The property was originally planned as a parking lot for the Heritage until she had a misfortune. He commented that the Town of West Seneca will see an attractive bank building and urged the granting of a variance. Gordon Brown, 3590 Seneca Street, attorney for Clarence Hopper, owner of property at 1937 Union Road, immediately to the west of the proposed bank. The proposal will be an enhancement to the corner and that area of Union Road, which is presently an empty lot. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 1937 & 1953 Union Road to allow a reduction in required parking spaces from 50 to 36 spaces and a reduction in required stacking from 8 stacking per booth to 6. On the question, Mr. Bond commented that the proposed bank will be an enhancement to the area. He also felt that the reduced parking will be adequate to meet the needs of the proposed facility.
2008-033 James Ignasiak, 33 Cheryl Drive, submitted a letter of no objection from the residents at 39 Cheryl Drive. The wall on the side of the garage will remain. There are facilities in the garage for piping for the inground pool. The bay will allow a larger garage area. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 33 Cheryl Drive to erect bay to existing garage 3.6 ft from side property line.
2008-034 Mr. Notaro noted for the record that he is a partner in a building with the applicant’s father and will abstain from any discussion. If there is a legal issue that Mr. Czuprynski cannot address then it will have to be referred to another Deputy Town Attorney. Mark Molloy, 919 Main Street, stated they are proposing to build an open air front porch on the front of the house to enhance the aesthetic value of the home and match the structure and architecture of the neighboring homes. It cannot be located at the rear of the house because the rear of the property slopes very steeply toward Seneca Street. Letters of no objection were submitted from residents at 931 Main Street and 911 Main Street and a drawing showing the 9 x 35 ft structure. No comments were received from the public.
2008-034 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 919 Main Street to erect roofed porch 25 ft from front property line.
2008-035 Charles Mager, 3373 Clinton Street, stated they are the property owners of a vacant lot at 3369 Clinton Street. It is a small parcel of land attached to the side of Mackie’s where a driveway was added two years ago and with room in the rear for additional parking. Mr. Czuprynski noted the zoning is R-50. The code does not say parking is not allowed in a residential area. The code is unclear. Mr. Mager stated they would like to finish off the remainder of the parking lot with blacktop. The next phase is to finish off the back side of it and take additional parking on the additional piece of property. Mr. Bond suggested the issue of the parking be deferred at this time for review by the Deputy Town Attorney for code clarification. If the parking is determined to be an issue, the applicant can return next month. Mr. Mager stated they would like to have a couple speakers placed on the patio with background music for everyday use, similar to what is done inside the restaurant. Meals are served on the patio until midnight but the music would be played until 9:00 PM. They would also like to put some outside live music on the weekends for Saturday or Sunday afternoon, which would consist of a two-piece duet.
2008-035 (Continued) Mr. Bond commented this is similar to the previous request and noted his opposition to outside music, other than what may gravitate from the inside. This is also a non-conforming use and the area is zoned residential. Mackie’s existed long before the zoning code was in existence and can stay, but in this case the applicant is extending a non-conforming use from when the patio was granted. This is a use that would normally be disallowed in a commercial district and in this case, there is a next door neighbor 20 feet away and residential across the street. Mr. Mager stated there is actually one neighbor on that side who has the problem. The other people are across the street and there is no other residential on that side of the street. Mr. Hughes asked if the original variance was for a patio with the understanding that there would be no music. Mr. Mager responded that was correct and asked if live music inside with speakers for the music outside was allowable. Mr. Bond stated that was not allowed because the music is still outside. Mr. Czuprynski noted that music travels much farther outside than inside where it is confined to the walls. Once a speaker is placed outside, the sound travels farther. Mr. Bond asked if the applicant had plans on selling the restaurant in the future. Mr. Mager stated he didn’t know. This is a trying time and they are trying to bring new business. It is not their intention to play loud music. No comments were received from the public.
2008-035 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and deny the request for a variance for property located at 3369 Clinton Street/3373-3385 Clinton Street to allow background music on patio (11:00 am – 9:00 pm). On the question, Mrs. Price noted that if a variance was granted for the outside music and the property sold at some point in the future, the next owner could place loud music which would not be accommodating to the neighbors. On the question, Mr. Hughes commented on the previous meeting held when the variance for the patio was granted, at which time there was opposition by the neighbors to any music being allowed.
2008-036 Steven & Tracey Gawron, 230 Michael Road, appeared on the request. Mr. Bond noted this was a flag lot. Mr. Czuprynski commented this was split zoning. In the front the zoning is R-65A. After 250 feet, the zoning goes back to R-65 which is strictly single family homes. Mr. Bond noted if this was a single family home, the applicant could erect the home without a variance. This is a use variance and in his opinion if granted, the applicant would be granted a rezoning. He questioned why the applicant is not requesting a rezoning. Mr. Czuprynski stated he has the right to come here and request a variance from the current zoning of R-65.
2008-036 (Continued) Mr. Bond noted that a two-family residence is not allowed in a R-65 district and normally the property owner would request a rezoning from the Town Board and the issue of spot zoning arises. The only time something like this is allowed involves a situation, such as the lay of the land, that prevents the property from being used for any other purpose allowed by the ordinance. Mr. Gawron stated the in-law apartment is planned for his wife’s father. The neighbors on both sides were contacted and all the neighbors whose property adjoined the property. No one had any problems with the proposal and a list of 11 neighbors’ signatures was submitted, stating they had no objection. Mr. Bond noted the letter signed by the 11 neighbors was very specific as to the applicant’s intentions and felt he would have no problem if a rezoning was requested. Mr. Czuprynski commented that it was explained to the applicants that a sitting room, a bedroom, everything except a kitchen, was allowed without the need for a variance. Mr. Gawron responded that he understood what Mr. Czuprynski was saying but in the future if the father-in-law passed away, he would need the kitchen for someone else to live there. Mr. Bond noted that the problem which then arises is that the property would be used as a double home in the future. Mr. Hughes asked if there was handicapped accessibility for the in-law apartment. Mr. Gawron stated handicapped accessibility was not necessary. Mrs. Rosenswie asked if the in-law apartment was necessary because the parent needed to move in with the applicants. Mr. Gawron stated that was correct.
2008-036 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Bond to close the public hearing and deny the request for a variance for property located at 230 Michael Road to erect home with inlaw apartment on flag lot more than 250 ft from front road. Motion failed for lack of second. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 230 Michael Road to erect home with inlaw apartment on flag lot more than 250 ft from front road, based on the hardship presented. On the question, Mr. Bond felt the Zoning Board was usurping the authority of the Town Board in providing the applicant a rezoning for the property.
2008-037 James Ingalls, 6730 Scharff Road, Orchard Park, stated he is a prospective purchaser of this building which is currently set up as a warehouse/office space. The office space is on the east side of the building and the warehouse is located on the west side with two overhead doors on the south end. To be useable for his business, he would require additional office space and is requesting an addition on the south side of the building which is adjacent to a residential district with a 75 ft setback required. The proposed addition would be in line with the east side of the existing building which is 10 ft off the building. His business is construction. No comments were received from the public.
2008-037 (Continued) Letters of no objection were submitted from residents at 167 Meyer Road and 301 Meyer Road. Mr. Ingalls noted that 167 Meyer Road is the residential property on the east side and 301 Meyer Road is the commercial property, both of which properties adjoin the subject property. Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 297 Meyer Road to erect addition 10 ft from side yard.
2008-038 Michael Yost, Yost Neo Displays, 20 Ransier Road, stated the request is for a ground sign in front of the SynchroNet business located at 3640 Clinton Street. The owner has letters of no objection from the both adjoining neighbors at 3640 Clinton Street and 3666 Clinton Street who state they have been shown photos of the sign and given details on the size and placement of the sign. Mr. Bond noted the diagram shows the sign to be 39 inches in height. Mr. Yost stated he is working with the Building Department and has requested the property owner to move the sign back farther because of snowplows and debris blowing from the road. Possible underground pipes may also have to be taken into account. Mr. Bond noted it appears to be 80 ft from the center line of the road and no farther than 25 ft from the front property line. He asked if a variance no closer than 25 ft from the front property line would be acceptable to the applicant.
2008-038 (Continued) Mr. Yost stated that would be acceptable and felt they were even farther back than that. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 3654 Clinton Street to erect ground sign 25 ft from the front property line.
2008-039 Jason Kempski, 47 Race Street, appeared on the request. Mr. Bond noted the porch extends into the Race Street right-of-way 1.5 ft. Mr. Kempski stated that porch will be completely demolished with the new porch located next to it. Mr. Kempski reviewed the plan with the Board, noting that the front door will be set back 6 ft and the front porch will actually be on the side of the house. The setbacks for the garage will be maintained. The porch will not extend past the existing house. Letters of no objection were submitted from residents at 27 Race Street and 20 Frontera Street. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 47 Race Street to erect rebuilt front porch, no closer to the street than the existing house.
2008-040 James Coster, 60 Norwood Drive, appeared on the request. Mr. Bond noted the drawing indicates the applicant will stay 17.5 ft off the front property line and the length is 16 ft. He commented there were at least two other decks on the street extending out farther than the applicant’s. The drawing and survey were reviewed by the Board members with the applicant. Mr. Bond noted there is 27.5 ft to the front property line from the house. If applicant plans on staying 17.5 ft off that and then add 14 ft, there is 4 ft short someplace, so applicant must be intending 17.6 ft to the paved portion. A letter of no objection was submitted from the resident at 54 Norwood Drive. Mr. Harmon suggested the motion read 13.5 ft from the front northwest corner of the house. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 60 Norwood Drive to erect deck 13.5 ft from the front property line with the length of the deck 16 ft.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (9:20 PM). Respectfully submitted, Patricia C. DePasquale, RMC/CMC For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our Webmaster.
|