| |
|
[ Return to HOME PAGE ] |
West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 03/25/2009
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of West Seneca was called to order by Chairman Bond on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present -
Sandra Giese Rosenswie Michael Hughes Michael Harmon David Monolopolus Paul Notaro, Deputy Town Attorney William Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer Excused - None INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER: Chairman Bond introduced David Monolopolus, newly appointed by the West Seneca Town Board to a five-year term on the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Bond further expressed his appreciation to former member Penny Price for her contributions to the Zoning Board of Appeals and her many years of service to the Town of West Seneca. OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to open the Public Hearing.
APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, 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 #2009-02, February 25, 2009.
NEW BUSINESS: 2009-005 Chairman Bond noted this request had been previously denied by the Zoning Board less than a year ago and requested Mr. Notaro to confirm whether or not the matter could be reheard at this time. Mr. Notaro commented that because the variance request was different, it was acceptable for the Board to hear it tonight. Derek Vogenauer, 80 Diane Drive, West Seneca, stated the previous request was for three variances. This request is for one variance, to extend the fence out 9 feet on the exterior side facing the street for a gate on the side of the house. The application states 6 feet, but he is requesting 9 feet. The panels on the gate are 6 x 9. Mr. Hughes questioned the need for a 6 ft fence versus a 4 ft fence. Mr. Vogenauer responded the 6 ft fence is needed for privacy since this is a corner lot. People driving by and others walking on the sidewalk have a clear view of their backyard. His wife is expecting a child in July. A petition signed by 7 neighbors on Sharon and Diane, and amended to reflect a 6 ft fence with attached survey, was submitted, noting no objection. Mr. Harmon noted that the height of the fence and its location is basically the same as the neighbor 50 ft away on the other side of the road. The character of the neighborhood is not being changed as in the previous request which was denied. Plus, the applicant is on a corner lot with no other option as to where the fence can be located. Applicant will be 23 ft off the sidewalk and 30 ft off the street. Mr. Monolopolus asked if the fence was going around the entire property. Mr. Bond clarified that a variance was not required for the rear, only the side. Peter Tricoli, 205 Sharon Drive, stated his house borders on the applicant’s lot. The fence will interfere with his sight lines from the front window. He objects to any fence which is in violation of the town’s code.
2009-005 (Continued) Mr. Bond noted that a 6 ft fence is allowable on the rear of the property and the other side. It is only the side adjacent to the street that calls for a 4 ft fence. Mr. Tricoli also commented that the fence will block the view to the corner and photos on a camera were presented by his daughter, Lisa Solly, for review by the Board. Ms. Solly also noted where the requested fence will block the sight line on most of the property. Diagonally across from her father is a similar fence which is unsightly. Mr. Tricoli noted the safety issue with the view to the corner of Diane being blocked. Children play in the street and parents will not be able to see their children get on the school bus. Mr. Bond noted the proposed fence will be back 22 ft from the sidewalk. The applicant was asked if it would be possible to cut the southwest corner of the fence diagonally so that the view of Mr. Tricoli would not be blocked. Mr. Vogenauer felt that would be more unsightly. Mr. Harmon stated the 6 ft fence is allowed to come out to the end of applicant’s house which is roughly 10 ft in front of Mr. Tricoli’s house and he did not understand how the fence coming down the side would affect his view at all.Mr. Czuprynski stated the applicant is allowed to come out that far to the corner of the house with the fence, but no fence is allowed to project into the exterior side yard, not even a 4 ft fence. Mr. Notaro commented that this is a common problem with corner lots and has been addressed on a number of occasions by the Zoning Board. If this were not a corner lot, a variance would not be necessary. This Board has set the precedent in the past. Mr. Bond noted that on one variance previously granted in the Marrano Subdivision, the applicant agreed to have the fence at an angle so that the sight lines would not be blocked. Mr. Czuprynski noted that fence was only 2 ft back from the sidewalk where this fence is considerably farther back.
2009-005 (Continued) Mr. Harmon also noted another reason for the fence extending out is for the door. Otherwise, the applicant must enter his yard from a weird position. He visited the site and failed to see any disadvantage to the neighbors. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 80 Diane Drive to erect a 6 ft fence 9 ft into the exterior side yard, citing the privacy issues of the applicant. On the question, Mr. Bond commented that in looking at the property, the sights line is cut down. Variances of this nature have been granted in the past and neighbors have objected. Sometimes, a precedent needs to be changed. When the ordinance was written, it allowed a 4 ft fence with no intrusion into the side yard, based on safety issues. This gentleman is not going out as far as other fences in the past, but he failed to see the applicant’s hardship which is no different than other residents’ situations. The only way to adequately address the issue is to change the ordinance. On the question, Mr. Harmon noted that the applicant has been more than willing to accommodate the neighbor’s sight line by moving the request back from the lot line 22 ft. He failed to see the basis for denying the variance based on sight lines to the corner. The applicant has a growing family and simply wants to have use out of part of his lot with some amount of privacy. This is a corner lot and anyone living next door can erect a 6 ft fence all the way around the yard. He felt the applicant showed a hardship in requesting the variance.
2009-006 Robert Fitchlee, 3529 Broadway, Cheektowaga, representing Michael Serafini, appeared on the request. Mr. Bond questioned the identify of the property owner.
2009-006 (Continued) Mr. Fitchlee responded that Michael Serafini is the owner of the property. He prepared the documentation and thought he had submitted a letter of representation of the owner. Mr. Notaro noted there is no letter or authorization in the file indicating that Mr. Serafini has appointed anyone to represent him and advised this matter be tabled. Mr. Bond also confirmed that since Mr. Fitchlee is not an attorney and based on Mr. Notaro’s comments, this will be tabled until next month. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to table this item until the April meeting.
2009-007 John Zurowski, 125 Rolling Hills Drive, owner of J & B Zurowski, Inc. stated they are proposing to erect a tubular type barrier. Mr. Bond noted that is classified as a fence. In addition, applicant is requesting a second variance for the concrete pad for outside seating. The setback is 40 ft and applicant is already in violation. Applicant is requesting another variance to be 10 ft off the property line. Mr. Zurowski stated they already have a variance for the outside seating in the rear. Mr. Bond stated another variance is now needed for the front. Mr. Zurowski stated they would like to remove the rear patio to allow for additional parking. The pad planned for the front is 20 x 10 stamped concrete with a tubular type railing around the perimeter where there will be one access in. He cited the location of Jim’s Steak Out on Seneca Street across from Southgate Plaza where the distance from the street is only about 6 ft with their tables and with no protection on that corner. Applicant will have a fence in front with traffic only pulling in and out of
2009-007 (Continued) the driveway, providing more protection than the Jim’s Steak Out location. They are also planning on remodeling the exterior of the building and remove the existing entrance on the side of the building and have a double door in the front which will be the main entrance to the restaurant. The current exit on the back right hand corner will be designated a handicapped entrance with handicapped parking. Mr. Hughes questioned the seating plan for the front. Mr. Zurowski stated they will have approximately 6 or 7 umbrella tables on the front patio which is 800 sq ft. With the removal of the rear patio, there is ample parking for approximately 90 cars. Mr. Bond asked if there was any future potential for outdoor music. Mr. Zurowski stated there is currently music in the back. It will not affect any of the neighbors in the front since the sound will go across the street and not sideways in to their yards. The front patio will dress up the building and hopefully draw more patrons. Mr. Bond questioned the height of the fence. Mr. Zurowski stated the fence will be at whatever height the Town states. They anticipate investing substantial money into the building and remodeling. Mr. Harmon questioned the distance from the road. Mr. Bond stated it was 10 ft off the right of way. The right of way is 66 ft and a two-lane highway, so approximately 33 ft divided by 2, for another 16 ft. Mr. Notaro stated he will be 13 ft from the telephone pole which is already set in about 6 ft. Mr. Harmon asked if applicant would be erecting a sign. Mr. Zurowski stated there is a sign already. It may be relocated in the future and changed to a LED sign. Mr. Bond stated that the digital sign is allowed but not a flashing sign.
2009-007 (Continued) Mr. Harmon questioned the intent of applicant in the event a variance for the front patio was not granted. Mr. Zurowski responded that they would then have to work with what they have now. The intention is to replace the deteriorated brick in the front, put the patio in front and clean the entire front of the building to make it more presentable. Mr. Czuprynski noted another variance would be required if the front of the building is modified. Mr. Bond asked if the applicant had specific plans for the exterior front of the building. Mr. Zurowski stated there currently are no exact plans, but they are engaging an architect to do the work. Mr. Bond cautioned that the applicant may have to return to the Zoning Board for another variance and asked if the applicant had obtained letters from the neighbors. Mr. Zurowski stated he had been out of town for several days and has not obtained letters. Mr. Bond stated that letters of no objection are generally required but noted that the adjoining neighbors are somewhat distanced from the property. No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and grant variances for a barrier/fence not to exceed 4 ft in height; a concrete pad as shown on the plans submitted; and allow outdoor seating on the concrete.
2009-008
2009-008 (Continued)
Dennis Wilcox, Wilcox Bros Sign Co, stated Key Bank would like to install a sign on the rear of the property. He submitted photos of where the sign will be located. Mr. Bond stated the concern is that the sign would not block traffic coming in and out of the bank and Wegman’s. He asked the distance back from the road. Mr. Czuprynski noted there is a light there controlling the exit for Wegman’s and the bank. Mr. Notaro noted that the sign will be at the edge of the existing curb for the parking lot which is back more than 20 ft from the roadway as it is drawn on the plan submitted. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 320 Orchard Park Rd to install 6 ft 9 in x 7 ft ground level sign, 20 ft back from the front property line.
2009-009 Mr. Bond stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has no power to grant a variance for the above request. Mr. Notaro noted this is a special use for the use of alcohol and must go through the Planning Board and Town Board. This Board does not have the authority to grant the use originally and therefore cannot hear the request as presented. Received and filed. 2008-029
2008-029 (Continued) Mr. Bond stated this is not an agenda item, but a request for a 6-month extension of a previously granted variance. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to grant the request of applicant for a six-month extension of the previously granted variance.
2009-006 Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to remove this item from the table. Michael Serafini, 4549 Clinton Street, stated he is requesting a variance for the driveway in order to erect another house on the property.
Mr. Bond noted that flag lots are required to have 40 ft frontage and applicant is providing 66 ft. The variance being requested is a reduction in the exisiting one for applicant’s property and for the proposed lot for 33 ft. He questioned if this would normally go to the Planning Board for a subdivison. Mr. Czuprynski stated this could be handled in a couple of ways: the applicant could put a road in with 66 ft; or the applicant could get rezoned to a R-60A or C-1 and erect more than one building per lot. The Town Board, however, voted not to refer this to the Planning Board. Mr. Bond asked why the applicant could not put in one driveway and grant an easement to the neighbor. Mr. Czuprynski stated past practice has shown this never works. Mr. Serafini stated he always throught they could put more than one house on the property. The driveway was put in so that the trucks could go in that way and turn around. He owns 14 acres. Mr. Czuprynski explained that this was originally one large piece of property. Then it was chopped up and the applicant then purchased a slice of the property including some of the back property. The applicant
2009-006 (Continued) does not own any other land at the street. The applicant went to the Town Board requesting R60-A zoning so there could more than one house on the property. Mr. Bond commented that the applicant could go to the Planning Board and put in a subdivision with 4 to 5 houses on the land in the back. There are actually three different courses and requesting a variance is one of them. No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 4549 Clinton Street to reduce required frontage from 40 ft to 33 ft for proposed flag lot. On the question, Mr. Harmon noted the applicant has 14 acres of land, is off the road and has no other alternative. Mr. Czuprynski commented that it is unclear what is being approved. Mr. Notaro stated there is no demarkation where the line is going to go allowing two 33 ft frontage flag lots. There is no drawing. On the question, Mr. Bond noted that the town ordinance rquires 40 ft frontage for the flag lot and he saw no difficulty on the part of applicant other than there is not sufficient property. The applicant has the option of applying to the Planning Board for a subdivsion; the second option would be to apply to the Town Board on the rezoning which has already been denied. By the Zoning Board granting the variance they are overruling the wishes of the Town Board. It was the opinion of Mr. Bond that the Board should be looking at what is best for the town and not the cheapest way to handle the situtation. He failed to see a hardship on the part of the applicant. Mr. Hughes felt the applicant should pursue the subdivision route as the better long-term strategy.
2009-006 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to deny the request for a variance for property located at 4549 Clinton Street to reduce required frontage from 40 ft to 33 ft for proposed flag lot.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (8:15 p.m.) Respectfully submitted, Patricia C. DePasquale, RMC/CMC For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our Webmaster.
|