 |
 |
INCORPORATED 1851"Proud Past - |
| [ Home Page ] [ Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes ] [ Site Map ] |
|
|||
|
West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 05/25/2005
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 May 25, 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 -
OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING: Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to open the Public Hearing.
APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION: Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES #2005-04: Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to approve Minutes #2005-04 of April 27, 2005.
TABLED ITEM: 2005-008
Daniel Hartnett, 4551 Clinton Street, represented his mother, Dorothy Hartnett, and submitted a revised plan for the addition of an attached second apartment to the existing frame house at 45 Harlem Road, separated by a two car garage which will also be attached. The original proposal was for a separate house on the side lot. Mr. Bond asked if the apartment would be physically attached to the existing house. Mr. Hartnett stated that it would be attached in that fashion through the garage. Mr. Czuprynski stated there appeared to be a lot of parking on the front now, without the addition. He asked how many cars are currently being parked on the property. Mr. Hartnett stated there were three vehicles currently being parked on the property. The proposed garage would allow for two inside and room for three additional vehicles in front of the garage. Mr. Czuprynski suggested moving the addition back farther into the rear yard to allow for more parking in front. Mr. Hartnett stated that was agreeable. Mr. Bond suggested a distance of 10 ft back. The addition would still be connected, but allowing for an additional 10 ft of parking. In that case, there would be no need for a variance, only a building permit. Mr. Czuprynski stated he would need time to review the new proposal to see if any other variances will be necessary and suggested the matter be tabled to the end of the meeting to give him an opportunity to review the revised plan. Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to table this item until the end of the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: 2004-023 Joseph Sorrentino, 62 Pine Court North, stated he is the owner of the property. Mr. Bond stated Mr. Czuprynski informed him that no complaints had been received in the preceding year. Mr. Dunn also noted that he had heard of no complaints to the variance granted last year. Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 1537 Union Road to permit outside seating (area to be fenced in), with the stipulation that applicant provide adequate signage warning of the patio for safety purposes and supervision by the applicant’s staff to remind patrons of the parking restrictions.
2005-017 Timothy Vane, 178 Chamberlin Drive, stated his property is a corner lot with bushes along the Burch side which he would like to replace with a 4 ft fence. The bushes collect trash and are used by teenagers as a hiding place for beer, etc. His yard is also used as a cut-through and he has no privacy in its current condition. Mr. Bond asked if a fence was also being requested for the Manhasset side of the property. Mr. Vane stated that his wife had suggested that also, but his main concern is the bushes.
Mrs. Rosenswie was concerned with obstructing the view of motorists on Manhasset as they approach cars coming down Burch, if a fence was put on the Manhasset side of the property. Mr. Vane stated the guardrail runs approximately 12 ft short of the corner, leaving the entire corner open. He intended on cutting the fence back into his property and around, leaving the corner open. Right now, it is difficult to see around the corner because of the bushes. Mr. Bond agreed, and noted seeing kids cutting through the property when he was there. His concern too, however, was a person coming off Burch Avenue. There is no stop sign on Manhasset. Mr. Vane stated the intention was to run the fence along where the bushes are now and 5 ft in height. Mr. Bond stated he wanted to be sure applicant was planning on the fence along the front and wanted to see that portion cut back farther than the proposed 12 ft because of the view. Mr. Vane stated he wanted to replace the bushes and clean up that area. Weeds grow out of both sides of the guardrail and his property. He is planning on a 4 ft stockade fence to prevent garbage from blowing over onto his property. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 178 Chamberlin Drive to install a 4 ft fence along the Burch Avenue side of the property, no closer than 12 ft to the stop sign, and deny the request for a fence on the Manhasset side of the property.
2005-018 Nick Twenty-five, 166 Westgate Drive, stated his property is a corner lot and he would like to maximize enclosure of the backyard with a 6 ft fence
for privacy and wildlife protection. He has been discussing the fence issue with the neighbors and intends to install the fence 6 feet off the sidewalk and angling back 15 feet at the corner. There is approximately 1 ½ feet between the sidewalk and his property line. The applicant reviewed his survey indicating where the fence would be located. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 166 Westgate Drive to erect a 6 ft privacy fence in exterior side yard, as modified by the drawing submitted showing the fence to be 6 feet off the sidewalk along the Dennybrook Lane side of the property and angling to the back 15 feet short of the lot line.
2005-019 Michael Nigrelli, 45 Rebecca Way, stated he would like to erect a 4 ft decorative picket fence along the adjoining property on each side to prevent neighborhood dogs from entering onto his property. The front will be left open. The fence will run 8 feet short of the property line, before the electrical box and will be a picket fence in design for visibility on both sides. Written consents from residents at 35 Rebecca Way, 41 Rebecca Way, 51 Rebecca Way and 55 Rebecca Way were submitted. No comments were received from the public. Mr. Dunn did not feel the proposed fence would protect the applicant from neighborhood dogs, being open in the front. Mr. Bond noted that 4 ft shrubs are allowed to be in that same area. Mr. Czuprynski stated that was allowed as long as they don’t get too high to interfere with visibility. The town does not allow fences along an easement either.
Mr. Bond stated this was a public utility easement and the applicant should be aware that in the event digging is necessary, the area must be made accessible. Mr. Nigrelli stated he was aware of that. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 45 Rebecca Way to extend a 4 ft high fence 24 feet past the front of the house and no closer than 6 feet to the sidewalk, and limited to a picket fence in design, noting that the adjoining neighbors had no objection to the fence and it was of such a design as to not interfere with visibility.
2005-008 Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to remove this item from the table.
Mr. Czuprynski stated he had an opportunity to review the revised plan and survey of applicant and determined that a variance will be needed for the bulk area. Under town code, 13,000 sq ft of bulk area is required and the applicant is providing 9800, leaving 2300 sq ft short of the requirement. The code also requires 4 parking spaces, but applicant cannot use the required front yard setback for parking. The house will need to be pushed back a minimum of 50 ft from the front property line to allow for two parking spaces in the garage and two additional spaces in front, without using the required front setback, avoiding the need for a variance for parking. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 45 Harlem Road & side lot, reducing the required bulk area from 13,000 sq ft to 9,800 sq ft. to erect addition, noting these properties were in existence prior to the zoning law
taking effect in 1966. The both lots are owned by the same person, making it technically impossible to build on either lot under the current zoning law.
2005-020 Mark Weinstein stated he has resided at 124 Eagan Drive for 18 years and has two children, ages 22 and 20. They currently park three vehicles, and normally park four vehicles in the driveway. The current width of the driveway forces the passenger to step on the grass when exiting a vehicle and a 2 ft extension of the driveway is being requested to correct this situation and help with snow blowing in the wintertime. He would like to park two vehicles side by side in the front to facilitate exiting of the property at various times during the day. He was unaware that a variance was required as there are a number of homes in his neighborhood with widened driveways similar to what is requested. Mrs. Price noted that this particular request involves a house that is 4 feet from the driveway. She did not see a similar situation in the neighborhood to what the applicant is requesting. Mr. Weinstein stated he had already begun the project when informed of the required distance from the property line. Mr. Bond stated he failed to see what was unique in the applicant’s situation and did not understand what applicant meant in his letter stating there were a number of houses having the exact same work done. Mr. Weinstein stated he was referring to homes with widened driveways that are close to the property line. Mr. Bond stated he did not see any other homes with driveways within a half foot of the adjoining neighbor’s property as he drove through the applicant’s neighborhood. The zoning codes requires the setback to allow for drainage and green space.
Mr. Weinstein stated the adjoining neighbor’s concern was drainage. Currently, water drains from the driveway onto the grass and he felt with adding concrete, the amount of water draining will be reduced. He offered a compromise of installing a drain the entire length of his driveway which would be tied to the neighbor’s roof drain to eliminate any water problem. Mr. Bond stated the purpose of the 3 ft setback is for green space purposes and to absorb water coming off the concrete. Applicant’s proposal on drainage may resolve the one problem, but will not help the aesthetic reasoning for the setback. He stated there are a number of families in town with multiple vehicles that must be moved in and out, and failed to see the uniqueness of the applicant’s situation. Mr. Weinstein stated he has 1988 high top conversion van which does not fit in the garage. Mr. Bond stated that was a self-imposed hardship and the applicant’s children may not be residing there in the future. He also felt the pad between the walkway and house for a sitting area was not necessary and asked why that could not be located to the rear of the home. Mr. Weinstein stated that area is a dead spot of grass in the front and he felt the sitting pad would resolve that situation. Mr. Bond stated the reason it is a dead spot of grass is because the other grass was torn up. Mr. Dunn stated it appears applicant is requesting a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and further noted the number of houses in West Seneca with a similar parking problem. Lori Kane, 118 Eagan Drive, stated she lives on the other side of applicant and has no objection. There is a similar driveway that was installed over the weekend at 221 Woodcrest Drive and she felt there would be no problem with the applicant’s request. Mr. Bond stated the widening of the driveway will not affect her, but will affect the neighbor on the other side. He also noted that the consents signed by the neighbors on behalf of the applicant failed to indicate the
actual distance from the driveway to the side property line and the width of the driveway itself. Mrs. Price agreed, noting that the driveway is 24 feet from her house and only 4 feet from the property adjoining the driveway. John Kauderer, 132 Shawnee Place, stated he was representing his mother, the adjoining property owner at 130 Eagan. His mother’s concern is the side of the driveway abutting her property line. Anything that comes off the applicant’s driveway goes into her leech bed. The sump pump continuously works and she does not want any additional drainage problems. Widening the driveway would reduce the green space, possibly reducing the value of his mother’s home, and removal of snow would be more difficult in the winter. Karen Weber, 9696 Crane Road, spoke on behalf of her mother who resides at 130 Eagan. She stated the applicant came to his mother’s house today and stated he has fallen twice on the driveway. If the driveway is expanding 4 more feet, he will fall right into her mother’s house. Mr. Weinstein stated the point is to have something to stand on when exiting a vehicle. He felt his proposed drainage plan will improve the drainage problem experienced by his next door neighbor. Snow is blown out toward the front of the property and the only time snow was placed on the side of the property was during a snowstorm. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Price, to deny the request for a variance for property located at 124 Eagan Drive to install parking area in front yard and extend driveway to within .5 ft of property line, based on: 1. Applicant’s failure to show a unique set of circumstances to justify the widening of the driveway to within a half foot of the adjoining property.
2. The requested pad in front of the house from an aesthic standpoint would not be attractive and possibly reduce the value of the surrounding homes. The only time this request has been granted in the past is when residents demonstrate a hardship for lack of a driveway.
2005-021 Jerry Pacer, 129 Wetherstone Drive, stated they would like to erect a 24 ft above ground pool. There is an existing 18 ft x 23 ft deck attached to the house and would like to integrate the existing deck to the swimming pool for maximum the use of the yard. Mr. Dunn asked if the applicant intended to put a gate between one deck and the other. Mr. Pacer stated there would be a safety swing gate attached between the two decks and a safety rail around the rest of the pool. No comments were received from the public. Letters of consent from residents at 135 Wetherstone, 123 Wetherstone, and 1349 Seneca Creek Road were submitted. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 129 Wetherstone Drive to erect pool and deck next to existing attached deck.
2005-022 William Melski, 27 Bayberry Avenue, stated he would like to enlarge the north side of the garage for storage of a trailer. He was unaware of the town ordinance on storage of trailers until informed by his neighbor. He
will be removing the tree and shrubbery currently on that side of the garage. Mr. Dunn noted the applicant already has a two-car garage and asked why the trailer could not be stored in the existing garage. Mr. Melski stated the trailer is 7.6 ft high. The garage door is 6 ft high and the property slopes down so that it would be lower than the garage. It would be more costly to modify the garage because the roof line would have to be raised. Originally, he was going to install a fence but after purchasing and bringing the trailer home, the neighbor informed him of the ordinance on storage of trailers. Mr. Dunn asked if the applicant’s property was higher than the next door neighbor’s property. Mr. Melski stated it was approximately 4 feet higher but slopes down on that side and that is where the garage would be lower. He will attempt to match the roof line of the garage to make it neighbor friendly. The garage will be 11 ft wide x 20 ft long. Consent signatures of numerous residents on Bayberry Avenue were submitted. Phil Tillinghast, 39 Bayberry Avenue, stated he is the adjoining neighbor and opposed to the proposed garage 3 feet from the property line. There is room in the back for the garage rather than where planned and he will be looking at the garage every time he exits his house. The proposal does not affect the people who signed the petition, only he and his family, and the applicant should have checked with the town before purchasing the trailer. Mrs. Rosenswie asked if Mr. Tillinghast would still be opposed to a fence, rather than the addition to the garage. Mr. Tillinghast stated they would object to that as well. They don’t want to look out their door and see a fence. Mr. Bond stated the applicant can put up a fence without permission from this board.
Mr. Tillinghast agreed, but the applicant still needs to enclose the trailer in a building. It was his position that the applicant could place the garage in another location on the property. Mr. Melski stated that he needed to put the garage where the driveway is in order to back the trailer in. He also submitted a sketch which was reviewed with the board members. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 27 Bayberry Avenue to erect attached garage the minimum of 3 ft from the north property line, noting that there appears to be a practical hardship, due to having to run the driveway all the way back if the garage was placed to the rear of the property and there is an existing pool on the south side of the property.
2005-023 Mr. Bond noted the absence of the applicant. Motion by Mr. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to table this item until the June meeting.
2005-024 Simon Manka, attorney, represented Holidays Nite Club and stated that due to the smoking ban, they are requesting a 30 ft x 40 ft outdoor patio on the front of the building facing Harlem Road. Currently there is parking between the building and Harlem Road and patrons go outside to smoke, making an unsafe condition. There is no other place on the property to
locate the patio. The entrance and exit is in the front and they would have to tear the kitchen out in order to put the patio at the back. Mr. Bond asked if any of the front was needed for parking. Mr. Czuprynski stated there was sufficient parking. Mr. Manka stated there are no houses around the building and the nearest building is 250 ft away. Mr. Bond stated that in the past, the Zoning Board has placed limits on the hours of operation for an outdoor patio. Mr. Manka stated that the bar is currently closed on Sunday and Monday and it also does not open until 5:00 p.m. in the afternoon. No meals or drinks will be served on the patio and there will be no music. The Buffalo River is on one side and the only building is 250 ft away. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 935 Harlem Road to erect outdoor patio for the purposes of smoking only.
2005-025 Thomas Alico, Vice-President of Allstate Development, 31 Ransier Drive, stated the subject property is located on 2244 Union Road, the old Galley Florist property. He stated there will be a plaza on the site and they are requesting a reduction of 44 parking in order to maximize its use. There will be parking in the rear for employees. They currently have no tenants but are looking for retail businesses on the order of a small boutique type. There are no plans for a restaurant or larger scale operation. Mr. Bond noted 332 spaces are required, according to the Code Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Czuprynski stated his calculations were based on the high point of square footage so that retail operations can be incorporated for an additional wing that may be added in the future. Normally, a plaza of that size would not need the required number of spaces under the ordinance. In the event additional square footage will require additional parking spaces, then the applicant would have to return to this board. Mr. Alico stated there is an out parcel which is currently being left open, for which they anticipate nothing larger than 3000 sq ft in that parcel. 18 spaces would be required for retail and there is room for approximately 40 additional spaces. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 2244 Union Road to reduce the number of required spaces to 288 parking spaces.
2005-026 Raymond Nappa, 126 Tindle Avenue, stated he has resided on the premises for fifteen years. Mr. Nappa submitted drawings, showing the proposed addition will stay in line with the other houses on the street. The addition will be used for living space as his son will be residing with them for a period of time and he also had knee surgery and requires a bathroom downstairs. Mr. Bond noted that these houses were built before the ordinance and asked why the addition could not be moved 3 ft over to the other side. Mr. Nappa stated the proposed location gives him more room and there is a chimney on the other side. Consent signatures were submitted of residents at 122 Tindle Avenue and 128 Tindle Avenue.
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 126 Tindle Avenue to erect 16ft x 20ft addition to rear of house 1.26 ft from side property line. On the question, Mr. Bond stated he saw no practical difficulty in moving the addition over 3 ft the other way, but understands this was is a continuation of a house which has been existing for 80 plus years and prior to the zoning ordinance taking affect. Mrs. Rosenswie noted that most homes in that neighborhood could never conform to the present zoning requirements.
2005-027 David Smaczniak, 43 Larsen Lane, stated they are requesting a 6 ft privacy fence extending from the back part of the property down toward the street which is the south border of the property line. Mr. Dunn asked why applicants needed 6 ft from the back corner of the house and extending toward the front of the house. Mr. Smaczniak stated that the Northridge Nursery is behind their property and the 6 ft fence coming toward the street will act as a buffer to prevent debris blowing from the nursery onto their property. There are also a number of homes on the street that have done the same thing. Mr. Bond stated he understood the need for privacy, but noted that there is 9 feet at the maximum and about 6 ½ feet at a minimum between the house and the lot line and applicants will not be able to utilize that area. He failed to see what privacy a fence would provide on the garage side. Mr. Smaczniak stated there was a door on that side of the garage. There is a concrete pad on the side of the house and the intention was to go up to that pad so then a gate could be used to enter the house and allow storage
of firewood and garbage cans on that side, which would then be hidden behind the 6 ft fence. Written consent of residents at 44 Larsen Lane, 50 Larsen Lane, 38 Larsen Lane, 55 Larsen Lane, 37 Larsen Lane, 49 Larsen Lane and 237 Lein Road were submitted. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 43 Larsen Lane to erect 6 ft stockade fence to extend along south property line to midway of house (approximately 25 ft from back corner of house), noting that the intent appears to protect the vision of neighbors from offending items on the property.
2005-028 Glen Tangelder, 215 Knox Avenue, stated his intention is to erect an unattached 24 ft x 28 ft garage with stairs and a gable roof for purposes of storage of lawn chairs, and bikes, etc. on the upper level. There is no basement in his home and the added storage area is needed. There is no apartment intended for the upper portion and he will not be running a business from the garage. Mr. Bond noted that the existing garage is too close to the property line. Mr. Tangelder stated that the exiting garage will be taken down. The new one will be 5 ft from the line. Written consent from residents at 311 Knox Avenue, 250 Doris, 256 Doris, and 221 Knox Avenue were submitted. 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 215 Knox Avenue to erect unattached garage 14 ft in height.
2005-029 Patricia Thomas, 45 Pinewood Drive, stated there is an existing 6 ft fence on the property, running along the side of the house where there is a patio facing it. They are intending to erect an 18 ft round rubber pool, 4 feet deep. They babysit their grandchildren during the summer and there is also a young child next door. They are requesting a 6 ft fence for safety purposes and for privacy. Mr. Bond stated the applicant has the 6 ft fence already and is requesting a 6 ft gate. Written consent was submitted from resident at 53 Pinewood Drive for the 6 ft existing fence and 6 ft gate. James Thomas stated the 6 ft fence was existing when they purchased the home and goes past the back of the house approximately 15 feet and clarified with the board members the positioning of the gate. 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 45 Pinewood Drive to erect 6 ft high gate in side yard.
2005-015 Mr. Bond stated that at the April 27, 2005 meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals had denied the request of applicant for an 8 ft fence. There was
an additional issue concerning the determination of the Code Enforcement Officer that no fence would be allowed because the area designated was not part of applicant’s lot and the board did not reach a decision on that issue. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to reopen this matter for a decision by the Zoning Board at the June 22, 2005 meeting on the Code Enforcement Officer’s determination.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (9:00 p.m.). Respectfully submitted, Patricia C. Wisniewski, RMC/CMC |
| Copyright © 2005-109 Town of West Seneca, New York, U.S.A. All rights Reserved. |