| |
|
[ Return to HOME PAGE ] |
West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 10/22/2008
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 October 22, 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 Excused - Michael Hughes Absent - William Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to open the Public Hearing.
APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to approve Minutes #2008-09, September 24, 2008.
TABLED ITEMS: 2008-061 Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to remove this item from the table.
2008-061 (Continued) James Mossop, 89 Larkwood Road, stated he would like to maintain a fence that has been in his yard in excess of five years. His mother who is now in a nursing home had the fence installed in 2003 and the contractor failed to obtain the required building permit at that time. This is a life estate and his name is on the deed as a remainderment. Signatures indicating no objection were submitted from 22 neighbors as well as photographs of the existing fence. Mrs. Price asked who is currently residing on the property. Mr. Mossop responded he resides there with his family. Mr. Bond asked if Mr. Mossop resided on the premises when the contractor was hired. Mr. Mossop responded that was correct. His mother hired the contractor, assuming that the required permit was obtained from the town. His mother is 80 years of age and currently confined to a nursing home, although she still maintains the life estate. 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 89 Larkwood Road to maintain fence in front yard. On the question, Mrs. Rosenswie stated she was in favor of granting the variance based on the age of the applicant and the amount of time it has been in existence. Mr. Bond noted his general objection to a fence in a front yard, but in this case the fence has existed for five years and applicant submitted the signatures of 22 neighbors which he feels is a determining factor.
OLD BUSINESS: 2008-032
2008-032 (Continued) allow reduction in required parking spaces from 50 to 36 spaces and reduction in required stacking from 8 stacking per booth to 6.Mr. Bond stated this item will be heard at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 2008-070 Dorene Casselberry, 1201 Seneca Creek Road, stated the walls are 12 ft and require the additional height. Mr. Bond noted that the Building Department only allows for 10 ft walls and it is the mid point of the roof that is measured. The building is 30 ft x 40 ft and he questioned the need for a building of that size with 12 ft walls. Ms. Casselberry stated there is a garage apartment and they have four-wheelers, toys for the grandchildren, tractor, and a rototiller. There are actually two sheds on the property which will be torn down. Mr. Bond stated that still does not explain why a pole barn with walls this size is needed. Ms. Casselberry stated they planned on storing items that are currently in the house. Mrs. Price asked if there will be an attic. Ms. Casselberry stated there would be an attic. Mrs. Price asked if the applicant was planning on using this for an apartment. Ms. Casselberry stated there were not. Mrs. Price asked the distance back from the road.
2008-070 (Continued) Mr. Casselberry stated the distance was easily 250-300 ft. There is an underground gas line right of way. Letters of no objection were submitted from adjoining neighbors. Mr. Bond noted that the language of the letter does not adequately explain the height of the pole barn. Mrs. Casselberry stated she did explain the exact size to the neighbors. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and deny a variance for property located at 1201 Seneca Creek Road to erect pole barn 14.5 ft high (12 ft allowable by formula). On the question, Mrs. Price stated she saw no reason why this pole barn could not be erected within the guidelines of the code and still have room for an attic. Mr. Bond agreed, and noted there was no hardship shown in complying with code.
2008-071 Anthony Fischione, contractor for Ebenezer United Church of Christ, stated the Church would like to erect a 10 ft x 16 ft prefab storage shed which will be placed in the parking lot approximately 5 ft away from the side lot line. Mr. Bond asked if the proposed shed will be placed on the concrete in the parking lot. Mr. Fischione stated that was correct, next to where the adjoining neighbor has a garage.
2008-071 (Continued) Mr. Bond noted there is parking behind the education building and behind the church is green area and questioned why the shed could not be placed there.Mr. Fischione stated about a year and a half ago the house in front of the building was demolished along with the garage where the snow removal equipment was store. They would prefer the storage shed to be closer to the front of the building where it will be easier to access in the winter months for cleanup of the sidewalks. Mr. Bond noted there was sufficient room behind the church and the building, and it seems the only reason for the shed to be closer on the side is for convenience reasons. He also questioned the need for it to be located in the parking lot. Mr. Fishcione stated it would be next to the lot line where the neighbor has a garage. Plenty of parking still remains. Mr. Bond stated this appears to be pure convenience. Mrs. Rosenswie asked the hardship on the part of the church in having to locate the shed in that spot. Mr. Fishcione responded that several people had fallen last year because they could not get the area cleaned quickly enough with the snow blowers. Mrs. Price asked who is responsible for maintaining the sidewalks. Mr. Fischione stated the sidewalks are done by the custodians and they need some place to store trash cans with salt rather than leaving them in the front vestibule. There is also a garage in back but it is already filled with snow removal equipment, mowers, hand tools, and tables and chairs. A letter of no objection was submitted from the adjoining neighbor at 604 Main Street. The shed will be on boards on a skid. Mr. Bond asked if the applicant advised the Code Enforcement Officer that the shed would be on skids.
2008-71 (Continued) Mr. Fishcione stated he had. For convenience purposes, they wanted to keep the shed in the requested location. Mr. Bond stated the Code Enforcement Officer is not present this evening. Normally, unless it is a permanent structure no building permit is necessary and if a building permit is not necessary, then there is no need for a variance. Town Attorney Edwin Hunter questioned whether the applicant submitted a letter of no objection. Mr. Bond stated a letter of no objection was submitted from the adjoining neighbor at 604 Main Street. Mr. Hunter noted that the Code Enforcement Officer had reviewed the plans and apparently it was his opinion that the proposed structure was permanent. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond to close the public hearing and deny the variance. Motion lost for lack of second. Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 616 Main Street to erect 10 ft x 16 ft storage shed in required side yard.
On the question, Mr. Bond stated he is voting against this item because there are other possibilities where the applicant could comply with the ordinance. This may be the most convenient location for the applicant and many residents would also like a shed close to their house, but the request fails to meet the criteria of a hardship as required for a variance. On the question, Mrs. Rosenswie stated she is voting in favor of the request because it does not appear to be a permanent structure.
2008-071 (Continued) Mr. Bond clarified that with three members present tonight, approving a motion requires all three members voting in the affirmative. 2008-072 Mr. Bond noted the application reflects “less than 3 ft on the side and 20 ft on the front”. By letter dated October 6, 2008, the Building Department has advised the Board that “the concrete parking pad distance from side property line was incorrectly noted on the appeal application using information supplied by the builder. After review of the survey supplied and a field measurement the distance should be noted as 1 ft 4 inches or 1.33 ft.” The request would be for a reserve parking spot 1.33 ft from the side and 20 ft from the front. Michael Griebel, contractor, 685 North Star Road, Elma, stated that was correct. There is a side door to the garage and when the driveway was poured, they followed the walk out on an angle to the street for an extra parking spot in the driveway and it is too close to the property line. They were looking at the walk and not the pad. Mr. Bond stated the survey shows the driveway to be 21 ft wide. Mr. Griebel stated the garage opening is 16 ft wide. Aesthetically, they would like to follow the walk. It will not encroach on any drainage on the side. There are a number of similar driveways in the neighborhood. Mr. Griebel explained the exact location of the work which has already been completed. This is a corner lot. 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 65 Morris Crescent to place reserve parking space 1.33 ft to side property line and less than 20 ft from front property line.
2008-073 Raymond Funk, 47 Lein Road, and Dennis Rich, 31 Main Street, appeared on the request. Mr. Funk stated the applicant would like to demolish the existing 14.25 ft x 20.25 ft one-car garage and erect in its place, a two-car garage, 24 ft x 24 ft in size, but which would be entered from Newell. Mr. Bond noted the next house is set back and this would not interfer with their sight line. 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 31 Main Street to erect garage 24 ft x 24 ft, 10 ft from front (exterior side yard) property line.
On the question, Mr. Bond noted this is an odd shaped lot with no alternative site for placement of the garage. The entrance as it exists is in a less than preferable location. Motion carried 2008-074 William Vogel, 870 East & West Road, stated he erected a privacy fence to shield a gazebo, hot tub, fire pit and patio. They also have a small dog that barks whenever anyone walks by. Mr. Bond noted this is an odd shaped house in the sense that the garage is located in front of the house. He questioned if the items described by applicant are within the area designated as a concrete patio. Mr. Vogel stated there is a concrete patio with a hot tub. The gazebo comes off the concrete pad toward the neighbor’s yard on the right hand side. The fence is for privacy. Mr. Bond noted that the existing fence could use some repair.
2008-074 (Continued) Mr. Vogel stated the wind has knocked part of the fence down, but he intends to repair it. Ray Dolan, 854 East & West Road, stated he has resided at his address for over 40 years. This is a six foot fence with a 1 ft opening at the bottom, making it actually 7 ft high. He does not care to look out his window and see this fence. Mr. Bond noted that the applicant can have the 6 ft fence from the rear of the house back. It’s only the 27 ft along the side of the house that is in question. Mrs. Price asked the applicant if there would be problem moving the fence to start at the back of the house and then reducing the fence to 4 ft along the 27 ft alongside the side of the property. Mr. Vogel stated he would comply with the wishes of the Board. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and deny the variance for property located at 870 East & West Road to erect a 6 ft fence in side yard. On the question, Mr. Bond noted his general objecton to this type of request. In this case it is an odd shaped lot in having the garage in front and the house in the back but the statue is clear and he saw no reason to vary from it, especially with the adjoining neighbor in opposition.
2008-075 Greg Szymanski, 31 Woodcrest Drive, stated his proposal is to remove the old concrete front porch and build a new porch with a roof. The existing porch is 3.3 ft wide and the new porch will be 4 ft. Mr. Bond noted that even though the applicant’s porch is in the front setback, all the neighboring houses are in the front setback as a result of the change in the ordinance.
2008-075 (Continued) No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 31 Woodcrest Drive to erect roof cover into required front yard setback.
2008-076 Mr. Bond noted this item has been withdrawn. 2008-077 James Pyszczynski, 102 Southgate Drive, stated he has lived in his house approximately 4 ½ years. The garage is too small to accommodate two vehicles. He is also disabled and it is difficult for him to maneuver in and out. He had intended on adding an addition to the garage, but was advised that would not be possible and the garage had to be demolished. Letters of no objection were submitted from the adjoining neighbors on both sides. The elevation of the adjacent funeral home is so high that it caused some rotting from snow. Mr. Bond noted the application reflects an addition to the detached garage and asked if the same foundation would be kept. Mr. Pyszczynski stated the foundation would be removed along with the entire garage. Mr. Bond noted the reason the variance is required is because the one corner of the existing garage is about 1 2/3 ft too close to the property line. If the existing garage is being demolished, the applicant can simply turn the new garage a foot and a variance would not be required.
Mrs. Price noted it would also be aligned better with the driveway. The Zoning Board reviewed the plans with the applicant and offered the alternative suggestion that the new garage be turned in such a manner as to not require a variance. Mr. Bond suggested the Board table this item until the applicant has an opportunity to discuss with the contractor the possibility of staying 3 ft off the one corner and turning the garage. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to table this item until the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (8:10 p.m.). Respectfully submitted, Patricia C. DePasquale, For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our Webmaster.
|