| |
|
[ Return to HOME PAGE ] |
West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 08/27/2008
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 August 27, 2008 at 7:00 PM, 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 Absent - William Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Price, to open the Public Hearing.
APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Price, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to approve Minutes #2008-07, July 23, 2008.
TABLED ITEMS: 2008-035 Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to remove this item from the table.
2008-035 (Continued) Mr. Bond noted this item was tabled from last month. Mr. Mager is requesting additional parking on a piece of property adjacent to the current property, and expanding the parking. Mr. Mager stated he submitted a copy of the survey showing the additional parking to Mr. Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer, as requested by the Zoning Board at the last meeting. Mr. Bond noted that the Board did not receive a copy and Mr. Czuprynski is not present this evening. Mr. Bond asked how many parking spaces were being requested. Mr. Mager responded there was room for 10-12 spaces, depending on the size of an actual parking space. There is already handicapped parking and the photo previously submitted shows employee parking, tenant parking, restaurant parking and additional parking. Mr. Bond noted this is a non-conforming use and commercial in a residential zoning. The most a non-conforming use can be expanded is 25%. Mr. Notaro confirmed that was correct and according to New York State law. Mr. Mager asked for clarification on the expansion issue. Mr. Bond responded the expansion is based on the dimensions of the property. There was discussion previously whether it was the building itself or the total area. It was his opinion it was the total area including the building. Mr. Mager stated the property is not attached to 3373 Clinton Street, but a separate piece of property. Mr. Bond responded that it still is expanding the use. The property is zoned residential. The intention is to use it for a commercial purpose by attaching it to the property, so in a sense the property is being expanded and over the 25% expansion which New York State law allows over and above the original building that was non-conforming.
2008-035 (Continued) Mr. Mager stated the only reason the property was purchased was for the purpose of additional parking. Prior to the purchase of the property, he came before this Board to advise what he was intending to do and was informed he could do what he is now requesting to do. Brian Doster, 3361 Clinton Street, stated the only item applied for before the Zoning Board of Appeals at a previous meeting was the driveway. The property was purchased later and not part of the building purchased for the business. Mr. Doster stated he failed to see where the applicant has shown a hardship for the granting of a variance. Joseph Gogan, Esq. on behalf of Paul Rudnicki, counsel for Mr. Doster, stated the building has not been expanded any more since the original variance was given for the patio. When the patio was placed on the property, it should have included sufficient parking at that time. Mr. Bond stated that with the patio addition and the parking expansion, it was expanded to the 25% and any further expansion would take it beyond the 25%. Mr. Doster also disagreed with Mr. Czuprynski’s measurements on the parking and felt there was not enough parking at the time of the patio addition. Mark Kalinowski, 4144 Seneca Street, stated the applicant would like to expand his business which in turn will pump more money into the economy and did not understand why he should not be allowed to do so.Mr. Bond clarified the issue of expansion, noting that the area talked about is zoned residential. The applicant’s business was existing prior to the property being zoned residential. When the town changed the zoning to residential, he was allowed to continue his business and expand it up to 25%. The Zoning Board of Appeals is now saying the applicant has expanded it in excess of 25%. When the Zoning Board granted the variance for the patio the question of parking was not brought up. Mr. Doster disagreed, stating that the parking issue was brought up by Mr. Dunn at that time. The applicant stated there was adequate area for parking, but there was not. He also stated that there was an erroneous parking plan submitted with the previously granted variance.
2008-035 (Continued) Mr. Mager stated there is flood plain on the back side of the building and the parking lot cannot be expanded there. The property to the side is a vacant lot with plenty of room for green space and parking spaces. It is not an eyesore and will not cause a hindrance to Mr. Doster’s lifestyle. The reason the variance was applied for is because Mr. Doster expressed his concern to the Building Inspector about the lack of parking spaces. Mr. Bond stated that this now raises another issue. If the variance is denied and the Building Inspector may determine that the patio cannot be used based on the lack of parking spaces for the patio. Mr. Notaro stated that determination on the patio stands with the initial action. The parking plan as it existed when it was approved is valid for that structure. What the Zoning Board must determine now is whether that is expanding parking into a residential non-conforming area where there has already been expansion. Mr. Hughes inquired if it has been established that the applicant is over the 25% and asked if the Board should determine that first. Mr. Notaro stated that is up to the Zoning Board. He believed that calculations would show the applicant is at, or over, the 25%. The expansion refers to the banquet room in the back which didn’t exist previously and the patio addition which was approved a few years ago. Looking at those two expansions and what the original structure was, the 25% has been reached. This Board cannot undo past actions. Mrs. Price questioned the square footage of the building. Mr. Mager stated he was unsure. He noted that he did take down a 10 ft x 50 ft shed from the back of the building twenty years ago. The patio replaced that. Mr. Bond noted that the Building Department must make those calculations. Mr. Notaro also noted that a shed is not a serving area.
2008-035 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Price, to table this item until the September meeting, and request that the Building Department provide a calculation on the expansion of the non-conforming use since the Ordinance came into effect.
2008-049 Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to remove this item from the table.
Heidi Sheiber, Heritage Fence, 2700 Transit Road, appeared on the request. Mr. Bond noted that the Board has received the letter from the property owner giving consent for the applicant to apply for a variance. He also noted that this is technically not a fence. Ms. Sheiber agreed, noting that it is a fence display. Mr. Bond agreed that it is a display and just happens to be a fence. One fence happens to be 6 ft high. Mr. Bond stated he did not agree with the determination of the Building Department that because one section of the fence is over 4 ft, it is in violation. One section of fence that is on display does not make it a fence in terms of what the code is talking about. A fence can be a line of trees. Mr. Bond stated he was unsure if the applicant may be in violation of another ordinance that prohibits displays in the front yard. Mr. Notaro stated that would depend on what the Building Department would interpret as signage. There could be a possible issue faced by the Board with creating a new issue. It was his opinion that the fence display was not a sign and would be allowed to remain, similar to a business with a wooden playground as displays. No comments were received from the public.
2008-049 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and rule that the sections of fence for display are not fences in the sense that the height requirements are abridged in the Code and further, are not signs as forms of advertisement, and therefore a variance is not required, and that the sections of fence as currently erected are an appropriate use.
2008-050 Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Price, to remove this item from the table.
Mr. Bond noted that the parties were to attempt a reconciliation of this matter and that the Zoning Board of Appeals was not in favor of this type fence for the reasons outlined at last month’s meeting. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and deny the request for a variance for property located at 329 Angle Road to erect 4 ft high chain link fence in front yard.
NEW BUSINESS: 2008-062 Karen Rozuk, 5015 Seneca Street, stated the property is 4.1 acres in size, of which 2 ½ cover the top of Seneca Street and the remainder is at the base of the creek. She has two small nieces which visit her home, as well as two small dogs. The fence does not go to the entire realm of the property; it merely wraps around the patio to the garage. Their back yard is their side yard. She also presented photos which show the extent of the fence and a letter of no objection from James Pace, 4985 Seneca Street, who is their only neighbor. Mrs. Rozuk reviewed the survey and set of plans with Zoning Board members to give an exact location of the
2008-062 (Continued) proposed fence. She noted there is a set of trees that the fence will be in front of. There have been no changes to the 1981 survey submitted, other than a brick patio. Mr. Hughes questioned the hardship on the part of applicant. Mrs. Rozuk stated the hardship was based on a safety issue with her young nieces that come to visit, as well as confinement of her two dogs. 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 5015 Seneca Street to erect 6 ft stockade fence. On the question, Mr. Bond noted the reason he is voting in favor of this variance is because the proposed fence is 100 ft from the neighbor’s property line and the property is an odd sized lot.
2008-063 Danielle Shainbrown appeared on behalf of AFDP, LLC, which is seeking permission to place a ground level sign on the corner of Union Road and Woodbine Avenue to advertise businesses located in that building. Mr. Bond stated the question which always arises in a situation such as this is the distance from the right of way. Ms. Shainbrown stated they are receptive to whatever distance the Zoning Board wishes. Mr. Bond inquired of the Deputy Town Attorney if Union Road is 66 ft wide. Mr. Notaro stated he believed that was correct. There is also a sidewalk. Ms. Shainbrown stated that is correct, there is also a sidewalk.
2008-063 (Continued) The Zoning Board reviewed the plan for distances and the sight line for Woodbine Avenue. Mr. Bond suggested a distance of 15 ft back from the paved portion of Union Road. 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 2177 Union Road to allow ground sign in front of property, 15 ft from the paved portion of the Union Road setback, or at the setback line, whichever is greater.
2008-064 Mark Kalinowski, 4144 Seneca Street, stated his property goes back 200 plus ft off Seneca Street. There is currently a 3 ft section of roll-out fence between his property and the adjoining property. The existing fence is old and cannot contain his dogs, one of which is a shepherd boxer mix, weighing about 80 pounds, and the second is a pit bull lab, weighing about 50 lbs now. He would like to erect a 6 ft stockade fence from a point on the side yard where there is already a chain link fence and going back to the chain link fence on the northerly line of his property. He requires a variance for an area of 20 ft next to the house for that portion of the 6 ft fence. He submitted letters of no objection from 4134 Seneca Street and 4154 Seneca Street, noting both are adjoining neighbors. Mr. Bond stated a 6 ft fence can be located in the back yard, as of right. The section requiring a variance is approximately 28 ft x 22 ft. The applicant would like to go out to the front of the house, but not the enclosed porch. Mr. Kalinowski stated he would like to go out to the enclosed front porch. There is already a 4 ft chain link fence from the enclosed porch to the property line.
2008-064 (Continued) Mr. Bond stated the 4 ft fence was allowable. It is the 6 ft section from the chain link fence to the back of the house that requires the variance. He noted the entire back yard can be 6 ft and the only section gained would be the 28 ft x 22 ft area and asked the applicant what hardship he was claiming for this small area. Mr. Kalinowski stated that currently they have to be out with the dogs with the 3 ft roll out fence. The 6 ft fence is merely to block the dogs’ vision. Mr. Notaro felt this was a safety issue to prevent the dogs going after anything, with this piece of property being sandwiched in between the surrounding commercial uses. No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 4144 Seneca Street to erect 6 ft fence in side yard. On the question, Mr. Bond noted that the only reason he is voting in favor of this variance is because the property is surrounded by commercial property.
2008-065 Bruce and Crystal Schunke, 55 Eldred, appeared on the request. Mr. Schunke stated that the variance is being requested to allow them privacy from the adjoining Hog Farm that has motorcycles going in and out, and the gas station where people cut through their yard. This past Sunday was the third time in two weeks he found kids in their pool at 2:00 in the morning. They are planning a family in the near future and are concerned with traffic from the intersection and the nearby Tops. The front fence is not coming past the side of the house, just up to the front, 4 ft in height with a 2 ft lattice. The side yard is where the 6 ft
2008-065 (Continued) fence is being requested. A letter of no objection was submitted from the adjoining neighbor on Mineral Springs. Mr. Hughes questioned if the applicants would be amenable to 4ft across the front on Eldred and then 6 ft along the side. Mr. Bond noted that the lattice would make the fence 6 ft. He asked if applicants felt it was necessary to go all the way out to the front of the house with the 6 ft fence. Mr. Schunke stated the 4 ft fence could be scaled by kids. Mr. Bond reviewed the applicants’ plan and survey and identified where he was suggesting the 6 ft portion of the fence to be erected. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 55 Eldred Avenue to erect a 6 ft fence, with the stipulation that the 6 ft portion of the fence on the side yard not extend more than half way down the length of the north side of the building. 2008-066 Dennis Walczynski, F & D Construction, 3020 Clinton Street, contractor, appeared with Louise Ziccardi, 11 Pleasantview Drive, East Aurora, property manager. Mr. Bond stated it appeared the request was to take the cooler and place it outside. One angle is 40 ft and the other is 30 ft. Mr. Walczynski stated that was correct. One corner of the cooler falls inside the required 40 ft line. Mr. Bond stated the previous owner built some concrete pads along the Seneca Street side which are actually accesses that do not go anywhere.
2008-066 (Continued) Ms. Ziccardi stated they had attempted to fill that spot in with grass but she did not think it would hold the dirt because of all the underlying blacktop. Mr. Bond noted that he was contacted by the State DOT which has requested this be made a condition of the variance. The concern on the part of the DOT was with people turning in, thinking it was a driveway. Mr. Walczynski suggested they plant some bushes along that area. Ms. Ziccardi stated she had a contact person with the DOT and would resolve the problem. Mr. Bond asked if the cooler would be fenced in. Ms. Ziccardi stated the cooler would be sided to match the building. No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 5700 Seneca Street to move inside cooler to outside location 30 ft from front property line.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Bond, to adjourn (8:15 p.m.)
Respectfully submitted, Patricia C. DePasquale, RMC/CMC For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our Webmaster.
|