| |
|
[ Return to HOME PAGE ] |
West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 04/22/2009
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 April 22, 2009 at 7:00 PM, 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 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 Mr. Hughes, to approve the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Bond, to approve Minutes #2009-03, March 28, 2009.
OLD BUSINESS: 2009-008 Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to reopen this item.
Mr. Bond stated that the applicant measured the distance for the sign location after leaving the last meeting and discovered 8 ½ feet was needed off the road, as opposed to the originally stated 20 ft. The Code
2009-008 (Continued) Enforcement Officer has noted that the distance back does not matter because the red light at Wegmen’s controls the exit. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to amend the variance granted March 25, 2008 and grant a variance for property located at 320 Orchard Park Rd to install 6 ft 9 in x 7 ft ground level sign, 8 ½ ft back from the front property line. NEW BUSINESS: 2009-010 Sean Hanley, 3266 Seneca Street, stated he is proposing to erect a garage. A mistake was made when the foundation was poured prior to the winter and it was later then realized through a spot survey that the setback was missed by about a foot. In speaking with the Building Inspector, he was informed he needed a 50 ft setback for parking in front of the garage which was the plan in the original site plan. There is 38.2 ft provided and he requires 40 ft and he is requesting to park in front. He is required to have 24 parking spaces and will have 25 or 26 parking spaces if allowed to park in front of the garage. Mr. Bond noted that is the reason for the extra 10 feet. Mr. Czuprynski stated the applicant needs 1.25 spaces per unit. Mr. Hanley stated he has 16 units and with parking in front, he will have 25 or 26 parking spaces. There are 5 garages but they cannot be counted as parking spaces because they are rented out. Mr. Bond felt that the applicant must agree not to park in front of the garages. The Board looks to see as much green area as possible. Mr. Hanley stated the area is already blacktopped with a sub base. If the parking is not allowed, he will have to use it for snow storage or something else. No comments were received from the public.
2009-10 (Continued) Mr. Harmon asked if there was any other space available to create parking. Mr. Hanley responded that there is always space available, but they are attempting to keep as much green space available and there sub base is already down. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 3242 Seneca Street reducing the required front setback from 40 ft to 38.2 ft to erect garage on existing pad, with the provision that no parking be allowed in front of the garage.
2009-011 Jim Callahan, 53 Greenbranch, West Seneca, stated this is actually a stoop. The house is not straight across and comes across and over. The portion sticking out on the drawing is where the porch will go. Mr. Bond questioned if there were any other covered porches in the neighborhood. Mr. Callahan responded there is an uncovered porch next door. Letters of consent were submitted from neighbors at 47 Greenbranch, 54 Greenbranch, and 59 Greenbranch, with no objection to the request of the applicant. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 53 Greenbranch Road to allow front covered porch in front setback (30 ft required; 27.25 ft provided).
2009-012 Melissa Meyer and Jennifer Baetzhold, 54 Dirksen Avenue, owners of the property, appeared on the request. Ms. Meyer stated her daughter has a 2 ½ year old son who is already 3 feet tall and for safety reasons, they would like a 6 ft fence. He is a climber and is also partially deaf and cannot hear a person behind him. There are also problems with children in the neighborhood who use the side yard as a through pass to Klas Avenue, even with a 4 ½ ft high fence in the rear of the yard. There is also a sex offender who lives .2 miles from their home. Mr. Bond commented that a 6 ft fence is allowed at the back of the property, right up to the rear of the house. He noted the diagram has a fence drawn on a dotted line. Ms. Meyer stated that was incorrect. The fence was drawn on the property line, but is in from the property line. Ms. Meyers reviewed her drawing with the Zoning Board and the exact placement of the allowable 6 ft fence was discussed with applicant. She indicated their preference was in front so that a gate could be erected across the driveway for the grandson. Mr. Bond noted that it appeared applicant was looking to gain extra area. He also commented on the letter of consent from the neighbor at 56 Dirkson Avenue, but it fails to indicate the fence is going out to the front of the house. He also noted that the fence may block the windows of the house on the left of applicant. Donald Wiess, 48 Dirkson Avenue, presented a petition signed by a number of neighbors in opposition to the request, and a packet outlining his objections. On his side, the fence would be a hardship and decrease the value of his house. His house is an original Victorian and gave a history of the applicant’s house and yard. A six foot fence will block the side entrance of his house and will cause a hazard in case of an emergency. Mr. Weiss stated he was willing to work with the applicant to make the yard secure. He offered to remove various shrubs necessary and allow the applicants use of that area and is willing to make compromises so that a 6 ft fence is not erected. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and deny the request for a variance for property located at 54
2009-012 (Continued) Dirksen Avenue to erect 6 ft high fence in side yard, noting that a 6 ft fence along the side yard will infringe on whoever lives in the adjacentat house to their right to enjoy their property and with freedom to access in and out and further, lighting was an issue. On the question, Mr. Bond felt the requested variance would cause a change in the character of the neighborhood and be detrimental to the nearby property. What the applicant is attempting to accomplish can by achieved in another way. The length requested, 52 ft, is also substantial. Mr. Hughes noted the medical condition as cited by the applicant, but there are other avenues available to protect the safety of the child and there is overwhelming objection from the neighbors.
2009-013 Mr. Bond noted the application states the driveway is existing and applicant would like to line the garage up with the driveway. Daniel O’Connell, 168 Dirson Avenue, stated that was correct. Letters of no objection were submitted from neighbors at 132 Dirkson, 174 Dirkson and 165 Klas Avenue. No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 168 Dirkson Avenue to erect detached garage 1 ft from side property line.
2009-014 Ralph Lorigo, Esq., 101 Slade Avenue, representing Young Development, stated the applicant recently purchased the building at 4060 Seneca Street which was the former site of Carolina Furniture. There is a tenant,
2009-014 (Continued) Home Furniture, for two-thirds of the building. The requested sign is actually smaller than the sign which had been there. The same poles will be used. The size of the sign was calculated to be 64 sq ft on each side, for a total of 128 sq ft, but less substantial than what was there before. This is an inside lit up side. Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 4060 Seneca Street for replacement of sign with a 64 sq ft two-sided sign.
2009-015 Request of Ralph C. Lorigo, Esq. for a variance for property located at 1510 Orchard Park Rd to eliminate required green space and planting strip.
Mr. Bond cited the previous variance granted on July 25, 2001 to install a 6 ft chain link fence in the setback along Reserve Road to fence in storage buildings, with the stipulation that the fence be vinyl coated, preferably green in color, with shrubbery filled containers on the inside of the fence.
Ralph Lorigo, Esq., 101 Slade Avenue, representing the property owner, stated the plantings did not work. Elimination of the green area along the inside of the fence where the property is across the street from the residential side of Reserve Road is also requested. Initially, the fence happened to be in the right-of-way and the Building Inspector would not issue a certificate of occupancy. As a result, the County of Erie was contacted and agreed to an easement for the placement of the fence. They would like to now eliminate the green space and the planters which do not work due to the salt thrown by the trucks in the winter. Mr. Monolopolus commented that the plantings would not be affected in the summer months and there would not be plantings in the winter. Mr. Lorigo stated the property owner, Mr. Monohan, was supposed to have planters year round under the previously granted variance. The areas referred to were reviewed on the survey with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
2009-015 (Continued) Mr. Czuprynski stated he has been attempting to get a survey of the property because the property owner had put up some storage buildings. The fence was then erected on County property. Mr. Lorigo then went to the County for the easement. Vehicles are parked along where the fence and shrubs are supposed to be and people can view them from across the street. It was his opinion that there was no hardship shown and did not believe salt from trucks could reach the plantings. Mr. Lorigo stated it was his opinion that the ZBA variance eliminated the green area. It would not make sense to require the property owner to have a green area and plantings. In practical experience, the plantings do not work for seven to eight months during the year due to the close proximity of the space to Reserve Road where plows throw salt. Mr. Hughes questioned if green slats could be placed in the fence. Mr. Lorigo stated the vehicles were not actually visible from across the road. Mr. Bond commented that his only concern was the effect upon the residential area and would prefer tabling this item until next month. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to table this item until the May meeting.
2009-016 Ronald Morrow, 38 Roycroft Drive, stated he would like to construct a two-level deck from the house directly to the pool. Mr. Bond commented that a 10 ft distance is required as a safety measure. In the past, a pool alarm and a locked gate were required to allow the house to be connected to the pool with the deck. Mr. Morrow stated he would conform to those requirements.
2009-016 (Contined) Letters from neighbors at 44 Roycroft, 32 Roycroft and 37 Naples Drive, stating they have reviewed the plans and have no objection to the request of applicant were submitted. 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 38 Roycroft Drive to connect house to pool with deck, with the provision that a locked gate be provided.
2009-017 Mark Molloy, Esq., 919 Main Street, representing Mark and Margaret O’Brian, stated the applicants are requesting a use permit to allow a second kitchen to exist in their home which is currently classified as a single residence. The second kitchen is utilized by an elderly parent who lives with them. There is a common entrance to the house and this is not a separate unit. This condition was pre-existing when they moved into the home. Mr. Bond questioned how this situation came to the attention of the Building Department. Mr. Molloy stated there is a contract for the sale of the house and the perspective owners have the same set of circumstances with an elderly parent. The home was advertised as a single home with an in-law unit and Mr. Pinnavaia from the Building Department visited the homeowners and brought to their attention the second kitchen was not allowed. The sale of the house is contingent upon the granting of a variance. The owners are willing to stipulate that this variance would prevent them or any future homeowners from not being permitted to segregate this unit into a separate unit so that there would be no detrimental effect on the neighborhood.
2009-017 (Continued) Mr. Czuprynski commented that there is currently an ordinance in effect stating that a certificate of occupancy will be required for every sale in the Town of West Seneca. No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 5 Treehaven Road to allow second kitchen and remain classified as single family dwelling, with the stipulation that the owner provide a statement that will prevent them or any future homeowners from segregating this unit into a separate unit in the future.
2009-018 Richard Flett, 1851 Center Road, stated he would like to replace the existing planter box in the main parking lot with additional parking spaces due to the increased need for more parking. Mr. Bond commented that the application states for display of products and provide additional parking. Mr. Flett stated it would be only for parking. The green area in the front will remain. Mr. Bond noted there was additional land on the side where parking could be provided. Mr. Hughes questioned the hardship requiring a variance. Mr. Flett stated they would like to put parking on the side but that is a much bigger project. Mr. Bond stated the criteria for granting a variance is whether the applicant cannot provide parking by some other method and it appears that the applicant is able to do so, although it may be more expensive.
2009-018 (Continued)
The applicant reviewed the survey and the requirements for parking spaces with the Zoning Board.
No comments were heard from the public.
Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and deny the request for a variance for property located at 2250 Transit Road to eliminate required front yard green area, noting that the applicant has failecd to show that the benefit sought cannot be achieved by some other method. In this case, it might be more difficult to provide parking elsewhere but it is possible.
2009-019 Ralph Lorigo, Esq., 101 Slade Avenue, representing Young Development, stated three variances are needed for the property: one for density; one for the side setback for the maintenance garage and one allowing the dumpster in the front yard setback. In terms of density, this project is basically the same as the Schultz and Transit Road project. This is a two-story senior project with 670 sq ft per unit. Normal apartments are 1100 sq ft. The Schultz Road project had 50 senior apartments on the site. The code in terms of density does not make any reference to anything except units. The town consultant has strongly recommended amending the code eliminating density and replacing it with the percentage of green space. The code does not take into account the type or size of the units. This Board unanimously approved the density for Schultz Road which was approximately 60% of the required square footage and this project is also roughly 60% of the required square footage. If the footprint of this type of building was 1100 sq ft units, the percentage of green space would be substantially less and the applicant would more than meet the density requirements. Senior units are substantially one-person units, 670 sq ft in size, and offer pull cords, recreation rooms and garbage drops inside. The typical type of tenant leaves the complex at 10:00 in the morning and returns at 3:00-4:00 in the afternoon, and therefore does not generate traffic.
2009-109 (Continued) Mr. Czuprynski questioned how the Board can be assured this will remain a senior complex in five years or more. Mr. Lorigo responded that approval of the project was given as a senior project, 55 years or older. 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 1320 Southwestern Blvd to reduce required bulk area, noting the footprint is similar to the previous project.
Mr. Lorigo reviewed with the Zoning Board members the modifications to the plan which were made based on recommendations from the Planning Board for locations of the dumpster and maintenance building. Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to close the public hearing and grant variances for property located at 1320 Southwestern Blvd to reduce required side yard and allow dumpster location in front yard setback.
2009-020 Ralph Lorigo, Esq., 101 Slade Avenue, representing Young Development, stated Mr. Czuprynski informed him that 30 feet of pavement was required for the driveway to the hydrant. Mr. Lorigo suggested moving the five-car garage back 6 more feet so that the variance is actually 10 ft off the line and they will install the 30 feet of pavement requested by the Building Inspector. The site plan was then reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals members and Mr. Lorigo for the location and suggestions as outlined by Mr. Lorigo. No comments were heard from the public.
2009-020 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance as amended for property located at 2880 Transit Road to allow for a 30 ft wide road in the back yard and side yard and to reduce the setback to 10 feet for the garage and 10 feet for the dumpster area.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (8:45 pm).
Respectfully submitted, Patricia C. DePasquale, RMC/CMC For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our Webmaster.
|