01/23/2008 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes, Town of West Seneca, New York, USA

WEST SENECA TOWN OFFICES		ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1250 Union Road		Minutes #2008-01
West Seneca, NY 14224		January 23, 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 January 23, 2008 at 7:00 PM, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL: Present -

Excused - None

Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.

Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to approve Minutes #2007-10, December 12, 2007.

Erminio Liberatore & Maria Hanley for a variance for property located at 3242 Seneca Street to reduce required density from 125,000 sq ft to 83,199 sq ft to erect a 24-unit apartment building.

Ralph C. Lorigo, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and stated the applicant is actually seeking 16-units, rather than the 24-units incorrectly listed.

Mr. Bond noted that the 16 units would then require 86,000 sq ft and the applicant is providing 83,199 sq ft; applicant is 2800 sq ft short of what is required under the ordinance.

Mr. Lorigo stated this matter was before the West Seneca Town Board on May 22, 2006 and also before the Planning Board. At the Town Board meeting, the density issue was discussed. The request had been reduced from 24 units to 16 units. The special permit was approved, changing the property’s classification for two 8-unit apartment buildings and it was noted at that time that a variance might be required if the proper setbacks could not be met, and with the stipulation that the ditch be cleaned. The Planning Board had also recommended two 8-unit apartment buildings. There are two parcels indicated on the handout submitted, and the more irregular parcel is the one being discussed this evening and containing 1.6 acres. The other parcel is also 1.6 acres. That parcel contains three existing buildings with 24 units. The parcel now before the Board is the same size, 1.6 acres, with 16 units proposed, which he believed was instrumental in obtaining approval from the Planning Board and Town Board.

Mr. Bond noted a previous comment by Mr. Lorigo before the Town Board that the number of units is not being approved, but simply the special development plan for an apartment complex.

Mr. Lorigo stated that did happen recently, but when this project was approved, it was approved for 16 units. The question was raised whether it was then necessary to go through the Zoning Board process and it was decided that it was necessary to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals if a variance was required. The Town Board gave permission in May of 2006 for the 16 units and did discuss density, but was looking for a variance if there was a

problem with the setback because of the creek in the back and the irregularity of lots. The applicant does not have that problem and is here requesting a variance for the 16 units.

Mr. Bond noted there is an adjoining ditch on one side of the property and the applicant owns the property on the other side so letters from adjoining neighbors are not necessary.

Mr. Bond noted the discussion at the Town Board meeting about the maintenance of the ditch.

Paula Minklei, Orchard Park Road, stated she recalled discussion on density because some of the land was across the road, the road floods, and there was also a problem with traffic from the school.

Mr. Bond referred to previous minutes and stated there was some discussion on flooding and traffic situations when exiting from the Royal York apartments, but there was not extensive discussion on density.

Ms. Minklei asked if the land below along Seneca Street and on the other side of Seneca Street is part of what constitutes the entire parcel.

Mr. Bond stated the parcel does include the property across the street on the other side. The applicant originally applied for 24 units. The Planning Board recommended 16 units and the Town Board approved 16 units. The only issue before this Board is density. The applicant has 3% less than the required density for the proposed project and any issues of storm water must be taken care of according to the specifications of the Town Engineer.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to grant the request for a variance for property located at 3242 Seneca Street to reduce required density from 86,000 sq ft to 83,199 sq ft for two 8-unit apartment buildings, with the stipulation that applicant comply with all stipulations as set forth by the Town Board.

Request of Catholic Charities for a variance for property located at 36 Flohr Avenue to install two wall signs larger than allowed.

Fr. Jim Bastian and David Catelano, Catholic Charities, appeared on the request for two wall signs. Catholic Charities maintains two offices at the Church rectory for marriage counseling and signage is necessary as an indicator for people using that service. There is also a sign proposed for the front that faces Flohr Avenue that indicates Catholic Charities as well as the St. Bonaventure and St. Williams administrative offices.

Mr. Bond noted that the Church is the adjoining neighbor on one side as well as the side the sign will face, so the issue of letters from the neighbors in this case is similar to the last application heard.

Mrs. Rosenswie asked for a clarification on the parking and whether there will be signs indicating the parking.

Fr. Bastian responded that the parking will be shared with the Church and there are markings on the ground to indicate handicapped parking. Most of the activities for the counseling center will occur after hours, once the Rectory is closed.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 36 Flohr Avenue to install two wall signs larger than allowed.

Request of Christian General Contractors for a variance for property located at 29 East Avenue to erect addition 3 ft from side property line (5 ft required).

James Jozwiak, Christian Contractors, 1404 Mill Street, Springville, stated the applicant is proposing an addition to the property. The existing house is 3 ft from the lot line and the proposed addition will be on the same foundation. Letters of no objection were submitted from residents at 35 East Avenue and 23 East Avenue.

Mr. Jozwiak stated the garage will be torn down and replaced with a room on a new footer. It will be the same footprint as the previous one.

Mr. Dunn asked if it would be possible to meet the code requirement by bringing the wall in.

Mr. Jozwiak responded that the driveway will be moved to the other side and eventually a garage will be built. The existing driveway will be removed.

Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 29 East Avenue to erect addition 3 ft from side property line.

On the question, Mr. Bond noted he is favor of approving the request because the addition will be over the existing footprint.

Request of Patricia J. Arnold for a variance for property located at 114 Brookside Drive to erect porch roof into front yard setback (30 ft front yard setback required).

Judith Arnold, appeared on behalf of her mother-in-law, Patricia J. Arnold. Her father-in-law had begun to repair cement steps in the front but passed away and they are now looking to complete the project so there is a safe entrance to the house. The deck is build over the existing concrete steps and will stick out an additional six inches. Instead of a metal overhang there will be a wooden framed roof. Letters of no objection from residents at 110 Brookside, 118 Brookside and 120 Brookside were submitted.

Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mrs. Price, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 114 Brookside Drive to erect porch roof into front yard setback, 20 ft from the front property line.

Request of FRA Engineering for a variance for property located on Angle Road for a reduction in required density of 172,000 sq ft to 113,866 sq ft.

Ralph Lorigo, Esq., 101 Slade Avenue, appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lorigo stated that Bryan Young owns a substantial amount of property in this particular area. Mr. Young was before this Board on another project, Fox Trace, on Southwestern Boulevard. The buildings proposed here are exactly the same as in that project. The Planning Board recommended and the Town Board approved six 8-unit apartment buildings for the Fox Trace complex. That project provided density of 186,340 sq ft as opposed to the 243,000 sq ft required under the code and was approved by this Board for a variance. The project before the Board tonight is Fox Trace West. Next to the apartments on Southwestern Boulevard is the property on which Mr. Young is constructing mini-storage units and he also purchased the Benderson Plaza which is situated in front of the Southwestern Boulevard property. The property here is zoned C-1 and Mr. Lorigo cited other uses available to applicant under its current zoning. A meeting was held with the neighbors prior to the Planning Board meeting at which time certain changes suggested were incorporated into the plan. A number of people appeared at the Planning Board meeting in favor of the project and there was little opposition. The project was recommended for approval on the basis of the project, but not on the basis of density. Mr. Greenan suggested approval for 23 units which was what the density would allow; however, 23 units cannot be built in 8-unit buildings. It was then modified to recommend 24. The project went before Town Board and a number of people appeared who were not in favor of the project, arguing against the project itself and density. The Town Board approved the project on the basis that it is a less intrusive use than other uses for which the property could be utilized and that it is a textbook transition from commercial to residential. The density issue was referred to this Board.

Mr. Bond noted that the Town Board approval was for an apartment complex, without reference to the number of units.

Mr. Lorigo agreed, noting that the Board was only approving the C1-S use without indicating the number of units. Mr. Lorigo stated that in his view of density under the code, it is meant to accomplish aesthetics, how the project will look with green area in proportion to blacktop. The second aspect of density is the availability and utilization of the land. Historically, people living in apartment complexes used the land for recreation. That is not true today where, for example, there are no children living in the 48 units of Fox Trace. Aesthetically, the proposed project is a pleasing sight with a great deal of landscaping. Mr. Young is a businessman who is aware of the requirements and attempted in the balance to provide additional landscaping. There are 29 trees, 8 – 10 ft in height, located along the 16 units. The buidings are turned so that the rear of the buildings are not facing the houses. There is more green space rather than the backs of buildings and people will not be looking out the rear windows of their houses into the rear windows of the apartments. The proportions of variance needed here for Fox Trace West are similar to what was needed at Fox Trace. 76% was provided for Fox Trace and 70% is being provided here for the density requirement. Mr. Young has agreed to add additonal trees, two trees for every house, and 3 lilac bushes for every house that are 4 ft high, for a landscaping buffer between the neighborhing people and the land that will be utilized in some fashion. Mr. Lorigo submitted the FRA Engineering mini-traffic study which concludes that traffic will not have any substantial impact. The financial aspect of the project was reviewed with Planning Board members, with Mr. Lorigo noting that the cost of the land and site stay the same whether for 24 units or for 32 units. Construction costs can be divided by the number of units for the actual hard construction numbers. There is a soft cost number which is also static for 24 units or 32 units. When costs are amoratized for a 32-unit project over 25 years at 7%, the cost per unit per month is $566.68. Taxes on the property amount to $150.00 per month, bringing the total cost to $716.68 for 32 units. That is a fixed 10-year cost and presumably, rents go up. For 24 units, with exactly the same financing, the cost per unit is $638.00,

plus $150.00 taxes, for a total of $788.02. The rent for a unit is $760.00. This project must also proceed to site plan review.

Mr. Bond noted that the applicant is holding back other vacant land for another project.

Mr. Lorigo stated that was correct. There is another parcel alongside of this which is a useable commercial piece of property on Southwestern and there would be no entrance from Angle Road. The Fox Trace project is 100% rented and only took several months to fully rent. The golf course located across the street and the utilization and easy access of Southwestern Boulevard have made this an attractive site. There was a time when apartments in West Seneca were not being built because a developer was better off paying more for the land in Orchard Park or Hamburg because the rents were substantially greater and the town didn’t receive the tax base. In this case, the project will add well over 2.5 million dollars to the tax base without any reductions or tax benefits to Mr. Young.

Paula Minklei, Orchard Park Road, stated the project appears attractive and the proposed plantings alleviate some of her concerns with ground water and storm water runoff. She noted, however, that the area is wetlands and still represents one-third less density than what is required. She understood that other things could be built there but remains concerned with other issues, including density.

Mrs. Price asked for clarification on the ability of a fire truck to access the project.

Mr. Lorigo responded that the property went to the Engineering Department prior to going to the Town Board. Mr. Montz looked for the curve there and set it up in the fashion shown on the plan. There was discussion about paver blocks and a break-away gate. He did not feel it was attractive but if required, they would provide

it. Mr. Lorigo also noted that there is no density requirement for commercial, and if this property were utilized in its other capacity, there are numerous uses not requiring density. There is substantially more green space provided for this project than what would be required for a plaza.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Dunn, to close the public hearing and deny the request for a variance for property located on Angle Road for a reduction in required density to allow for a 32 unit apartment complex.

On the question, Mr. Bond noted that the test on the issue here is whether there are practical difficulties on the part of applicant in conforming to the ordinance. There was no practical difficulty presented by the applicant in reducing the number of units from 32 to 24. An argument was made on the monetary aspect of the reduced number of units, but the only constant figure is the land; the other figures go up accordingly to what is built. Even though applicant may be at the breaking point, taking into account depreciation and taxes, he failed to see a substantial financial hardship. The applicant is entitled to a reasonable return on his investment and 24 units would more than satisfy the requirement for a reasonable return.

On the question, Mr. Hughes noted that a precedent has already been set on another project further up the road. Also, the applicant has made good faith gestures to change the landscaping to the satisfaction of residents and is willing to work on access for emergency vehicles as well.

On the question, Mrs. Price felt this was a good project in light of what the zoning allowed.

Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to grant a variance for property located on Angle Road for a reduction in required density to allow for a 24-unit apartment complex.

On the question, Mr. Bond stated the applicant had demonstrated a practical difficulty in complying with the ordinance based on the 24-unit project.

Request of Anthony Serafini for a variance for property located at 49 Emporium Avenue to erect house 15 ft from front property line (30 ft required).

Anthony Serafini, 49 Emporium Avenue, stated he owns this property which is 60 ft x 122 ft with an existing garage 36 ft x 25 and existing driveway. At the time a permit to build the house was applied for, he was advised that a variance was needed because 30 ft frontage was required. He would like to stay even with the existing structures on both adjacent sides and is requesting a variance for 15 ft, instead of having to recess the house back 30 ft from the property line and then be uneven with the adjoining structures. Letters of no objection from residents at 57 Emporium Avenue and 43 Emporium Avenue were submitted. The Town also requested an engineering survey for water runoff which is being stamped now.

Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 49 Emporium Avenue to erect house 15 ft from front property line.

Motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (8:15 p.m.)

[ Return to HOME PAGE ]

West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 01/23/2008

For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our Webmaster.

[ Return to HOME PAGE ]

West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 01/23/2008

For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our var contact = "Webmaster" var email = "webmaster" var emailHost = "twsny.org?subject=Comments,%20Suggestions" document.write("<a href=" + "mail" + "to:" + email + "@" + emailHost+ ">" + contact + "</a>" + ".") // Webmaster.

For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our Webmaster.