| |
|
[ Return to HOME PAGE ] |
West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 05/27/2009
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of West Seneca was called to order by Chairman Bond on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present -
Sandra Giese Rosenswie Michael Hughes Michael Harmon David Monolopolus Shawn Martin, Town Attorney William Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer Excused - None OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, 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 #2009-04, April 22, 2009.
TABLED ITEM: 2009-015 Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus to remove this item from the table.
2009-015 (Continued) Ralph C. Lorigo, Esq., stated that this item was previously granted a variance in January of 2001 to erect the 6 ft chain link vinyl fence, preferable green in color, along Reserve Road with the condition that there be some shrubbery planter boxes. This was also supported with a petition by the neighbors. The property was previously the site of Best Dodge and has been improved upon since Best Dodge occupied the location. The fence was later found to be in the right of way and an easement was obtained from the County of Erie to erect the fence. The petitioner is requesting permission to remove the shrubbery boxes and any other requirement of the town to put a green space alongside the fence. Mr. Bond noted the reasoning previously stated by applicant to remove the planter boxes was based on salt destroying the plantings. He was at a meeting in Sanborn recently where there was discussion about salt resistant plantings and suggested this be looked into in the event the variance was denied. Mr. Lorigo pointed out that snow from the plows is forced through the fence into the planter boxes. The petitioner did comply with the request for planter boxes originally but they simply did not survive. Mr. Monolopolus noted that he observed the site and found it to be an eyesore. Weeds are 4 feet high and the sidewalk has not been swept. The fence is torn up and off the post in a couple places. Mr. Lorigo agreed that the site should be cleaned up and maintained properly. The fence is a different situation, but is legally there and the applicant does have an obligation to maintain it. The planter boxes do not add anything to the situation and probably make it worse. Mrs. Rosenswie suggested artificial plants and also noted the weed situation and potential problems with rats. Mr. Harmon suggested that a different style solid fence would be more attractive and would eliminate the need for any planter boxes on the other side. Karen Lucachick, 61 Greenmeadow, stated she lives in that area and noted the whole corner is disgusting. It is not maintained at all. There was another situation on Transit Road near the Blossom Hardware where
2009-015 (Continued) The applicant was directed to put green space between the sidewalk and where the cars were parked. It has never been done. The neighboring people do not want to look at the situation. Mr. Bond stated that Best Dodge was a non-conforming use at one time and probably should have had green area, but the concrete and fence were there in 2001 and the Board allowed them to maintain it. Mrs. Lucachick stated a 6 ft white picket fence would be attractive. Paula Minklei, Orchard Park Road, questioned whether the fence even conforms to code in its present dilapidated condition. Mr. Czuprynski noted the fence is actually on the County right of way. Mrs. Minklei commented that tall evergreen trees and a repaired fence would be aesthetically pleasing. She also felt the master plan should be reviewed by a committee. Mr. Lorigo agreed that the area needs to be maintained better and the petitioner has no objection to cleaning up the area immediately. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and deny the request to amend the variance previously granted in 2001. On the question, Mr. Bond stated he saw no change since then. To do away with the planting boxes would be detrimental to the neighboring properties and cause a change in the character of the neighborhood. The desired results can be achieved through evergreens or fertilizing or salt resistant plants. An adverse effect would result in the loss of green area. Mr. Lorigo stated there was an issue with the Building Department as to whether or not there was supposed to be a 5 ft green space. The green space was eliminated and replaced with the planter boxes. He felt this should be clarified. The request was for an interpretation of the code with regard to the 5 ft and the modification. He understands the planter boxes are being required but would not want to see another issue with regard to the interpretation.
2009-015 (Continued) Mr. Harmon stated that the application mentions nothing with regard to an interpretation.
Mr. Bond stated the request is to deviate from the norm. It is not being stated the Building Inspector is wrong. Mr. Lorigo stated the decision on the CO now from the Building Inspector is that the fence is in the right of way which has been resolved with the County and that there should be a 5 ft green area inside the fence. It was his opinion that in 2001 the green space was eliminated and replaced with the planter boxes. Mr. Bond disagreed. That is not an interpretation of the ordinance, rather an interpretation of the 2001 decision. He failed to see that stated in the application. Mr. Bond requested a letter outlining the argument of the applicant and that this item be tabled until the next meeting for a decision. The 2001 letter from the Zoning Board does not mention the green area. Mr. Lorigo stated the application before the Zoning Board today requests elimination of the green space on the grounds that the property is blacktopped all the way to the fence. In 2001, the Board was not looking for planter boxes in addition to a planting strip. Mr. Czuprynski stated he would like to see as much green space as possible. The applicant has never followed the plan to start with. There was supposed to be green space there anyway, but he just blacktopped the entire area. He has been trying to get a survey since 2001 but only received it last year. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to table this item until the June meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: 2009-021 Anne Marie Tryakowski, 44 Barnsdale, stated she has made improvements with vinyl on an existing white picket fence which is out of code. She presented packets to the Board showing the survey at the time of her purchase 16 years ago and photos of the old and current improved fence. She was unaware that a variance was required when she purchased the property. The fence has been repaired and maintained over the years, but the fence has continued to rot and she chose to use vinyl. Letters of no objection to the fence were submitted from 50 Barnsdale, 45 Barnsdale, 40 Barnsdale and 41 Barnsdale. Mr. Bond understood that the applicant has made improvements over the years to the existing illegal fence, but stated his problem with granting a variance is that everyone else would then want the same type variance. Mr. Hughes also noted that the applicant needs to present some type of hardship. Ms. Tryakowski felt her hardship is based on the money invested to purchase and install the new fence. Mr. Bond stated that does not meet the criteria. This is a substantial change, asking to come out 12 feet to the sidewalk and across. It would not be considered detrimental in the sense that the neighbors have no objection, but that does not necessarily mean someone in the future may not object. Ms. Tryakowski noted that she has continuously made repairs to the fence over the last 16 years. She felt this was simply the next step. Mr. Bond suggested having the fence come out without going all the way across in front. Ms. Tryakowski noted the fence is 3 feet high and about 3 inches shorter than the original fence, and on the same line as the old fence. Mr. Czyuprynski noted that a 4 ft fence is allowed alongside the house but no fence is allowed at the front of the property.
2009-021 (Continued) Mr. Harmon stated he did not feel the fence changes the nature of the neighborhood since it has been there for 60 years. Carrie Weston, 41 Barnsdale, stated she lives across the street from the applicant who has been meticulous with her property and is full support of the variance. Paula Minklei, Orchard Park Road, questioned whether there would have been an issue if the fence was simply replaced with the current fence. Mr. Bond clarified a non-conforming use, noting some items that existed before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted are considered non-conforming, but not a fence, especially one that is being replaced. Once something is removed, it cannot be replaced. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 44 Barnsdale Avenue to erect 3 ft high fence in front yard. On the question, Mr. Bond stated granting a variance for this item will make it difficult to deny another similar request in the future. Mr. Hughes agreed, and noted that although the applicant has done a wonderful job on the property, he failed to see the hardship. Mr. Harmon stated he was in favor of granting a variance. Since the previous fence had existed for 60 years, he did not feel the new fence changed the character of the neighborhood. This appears to be a continuation of the same style fence and applicant has the support of the neighbors. He viewed this as more of a change to a previously existing fence.
2009-022 Alexander Baker, 110 Elmsford Drive, stated that when he purchased the property there was an existing awning and the porch was 22 feet from
2009-022 (Continued) the street. A February wind storm completely tore the awning away from the roof and ripped out part of the roof and damaged the home. The aluminum awning was completely destroyed, leaving an unsafe condition. He attempted to clean up the property and erected a roof over what was existing. The dimensions and integrity of the house were not changed. Letters of no objection were submitted from neighbors at 116 Elmsford Drive and 104 Elmsford Drive, as well as a sketch of the proposed changes. Mr. Hughes asked the length of time applicant has owned the property. Mr. Baker responded that he has owned the property a year and a half. He also noted that in replacing the roof, the existing awning was not mounted properly onto the house which caused water damage. He is attempting to now update the house. Mr. Bond noted for the record that this property is directly across the street from him and he has no objection. 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 110 Elmsford Drive to erect roof over existing porch deck, 22 ft from front property line.
2009-023 Matthew J. Rutski, 3680 Seneca Street, stated he is proposing to erect a 40 ft x 40 ft 4-car garage. He owns a double and would like to provide 3 spaces for himself and 1 space for his tenant, as well as a carpenter’s shop in the rear and a Florida room on the far side of the garage behind the 2-car garage. Letters of no objection were submitted. Mr. Bond questioned why the applicant needed to exceed the Town’s height limit of 12 feet. Mr. Harmon noted with a building that size, it would probably have to pitch at that height.
2009-023 (Continued) Mr. Rutski stated he would probably have a problem with the 13.5 feet height with a 40 x 40 garage as he would like to have an area for storage. Mr. Hughes questioned whether Mr. Rutski plans on operating a business. Mr. Rutski responded that the carpentry work was a hobby and he would not be operating a business. He was unaware the variance was for the height; he thought the variance being sought was for the size of the garage. He currently has a 2-car garage. He planned on using the distance between the neighbor, 15 ½ feet, and starting from there going 40 feet across, which still leaves him close to 12 feet from the next door neighbor. Mr. Harmon stated the applicant needs to find out the exact height he needs. Mr. Bond stated the only reason the height of 13.5 feet was needed is because of the size of the garage. If this was a 3-car garage, the applicant could probably build the garage within code. This is in a residential area with houses all around. Mr. Rutski noted the neighbor to his left has a frame garage with a little apartment above the garage. Mr. Bond also noted that the letters from the neighbors do not say anything about the height of the structure. He would rather see the applicant determine if the building can be built with a 12 ft height, or if not, exactly what the height will be. Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Rosenswie, to table this item until the next meeting for the applicant to return with the specific height of the proposed building and drawings.
2009-024
2009-024 (Continued) June Russo, 21 Village View, Lancaster, stated she purchased the property at 1364 Union Road two and a half months ago. She relocated from a rental property in Depew with the intention of opening a small salon on Union Road. She was told by the Building Department that the property was zoned correctly and she moved forward with the purchase. She then learned there was a regulation for three parking spaces per chair. She is requesting a variance for ten parking spaces. The back parking space has been rearranged to accommodate that number of spaces and she has also a handicapped ramp which made the driveway narrower than what the town allows. Mr. Harmon stated 25 feet is required for ingress and egress and applicant has 23 feet. Ms. Russo stated she contacted her adjoining neighbors and presented a letter signed by the next door neighbor at 1350 Union Road supporting her request. Mr. Hughes noted that there are six chairs proposed for the salon and asked if that number of chairs included the applicant. Ms. Russo stated the number of chairs included herself. Mr. Bond stated he felt the only detriment with respect to the request would be to the applicant in the event she falls short of parking spaces and business is lost as a result. No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 1364 Union Road to decrease required width of side yard to 23 feet and to reduce the required parking spaces to 10. On the question, Mr. Bond stated the requested variances will not change the character of the neighborhood. The only adverse effect will be upon the applicant in the event she loses business due to inadequate parking.
2009-025 Brian and Kelly Leeb, 122 Crofton Drive, appeared on the request for a variance. Mr. Leeb stated they would like to erect a 6 ft fence around the house, almost 30 feet on one side and 17 feet on the other side, so that they can utilize their yard. They have children and a dog that can jump over a 4 foot fence. Mr. Bond questioned if the applicants have a letter from the neighbor to the rear of their property. Mrs. Leeb stated that neighbor has not gotten back to them.
Mr. Bond stated he was not in favor of a fence in the rear of property such as this because the person to the rear sees only a 6 ft fence all the way out to the corner when looking out their window to the left. If the house was down the street 30 yards or so, it would not affect it. This is a corner lot so the applicants need to stay off the same distance as in the front. On Crofton, the fence has to stay 30 feet off, and the applicant is requesting to extend the 6 ft fence into the side yard where only 4 ft is allowed. Mr. Czuprynski added that whether a 4 ft or 6 ft fence, it cannot be erected in the exterior side yard. The Board reviewed the applicant’s diagram to show where the fence would be allowed. Deborah Szymanskii, 11 Crofton Court, stated she has an objection to a 6 ft fence since they will be staring at a wall. The Board then reviewed the proposed placement of the fence with Ms. Szymanski. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 122 Crofton Drive to allow a 6 ft fence on the north corner of the property at an angle from a line drawn from the rear north corner of the house to the rear lot line and at an angle from there to a point 1 ft behind the shed on a straight line to a point on the Crofton Court side of the property 3 feet from the right of way, and the fence is allowed where it normally would be allowed to the rear of the house, as shown on Exhibit A, signed and initialed by Chairman Bond, and filed with the Building Department.
2009-026 David J. Rambino, 512 Mill Street, and contractor Jason Kemski, appeared on the request. Mr. Kemski stated the applicant is requesting a variance to erect a sun room on the rear deck since the property line is currently 21 feet off the existing deck. Mr. Bond questioned why this has to go behind the furtherst point of the house as opposed to the side. Mr. Kemski stated that is where the sliding doors and the existing deck are located. Mr. Bond noted the letters of no objection submitted from adjoining neighbors failed to indicate the exact nature of the variance, rather for installing a sunroom on the existing deck. Mr. Kemski stated the neighbors were informed of the details and were shown a sketch. The deck is 10 ft x 12 ft and is being extended 2 ft. No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 512 Mill Road to erect structure 21 ft from rear property line.
2009-027 Shelly Spadone, 1 Cam Court, stated they are actually requesting a 4 ft high chain link fence 12 feet from the house. She submitted letters of no objection from neighbors at 681 Cindy Lane, 7 Cam Court, 13 Cam Court, 25 Cam Court, and 669 Cindy Lane. They are looking for extra space for the children to play and would like to add an addition in the future. The Board members reviewed the survey and sketch with the applicant. Mr. Harmon noted the applicant only required the side yard variance.
2009-027 (Continued)
No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mr. Monolopolus, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 1 Cam Ct, as amended, to erect a 4 ft chain link fence around the property and extend the fence into exterior side yard by 12 ft and remain 13 ft off the sidewalk, as shown on Exhibit A, signed and initialed by Chairman Bond, and filed with the Building Department.
2009-028 Georgette Rush, 155 Waltercrest, stated they are applying for a 6 ft variance in the side yard that is approximately 6 feet from the neighbor’s house and 30 feet from the side of their house. A letter of no objection was submitted from the neighbor at 161 Waltercrest Terrace. Mr. Bond noted that the applicant is allowed to have a 6 ft fence in the back and 4 feet along the side and then 4 feet from the property line to the house, but noted the applicant is requesting 6 feet all the way around and thought it would appear unattractive. Mrs. Rush stated she has dogs that jump and the 6 ft fence would contain them. Mr. Bond questioned where the cars would be parked. Mrs. Rush stated there will be a gate to pull in and then the gate will be closed. Mr. Bond questioned the need for a 6 ft fence in that area. Mrs. Rush stated the 6 ft fence will be in the rear and the 4 ft fence on the side. Mr. Bond questioned applicant’s reasoning based on containing the dogs with the 6 ft section of fence while there will be a 4 ft fence on the side. Mrs. Rush noted safety reasons and the neighboring unsightly yard.
2009-028 (Continued)
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 155 Waltercrest to erect 6 ft fence on north side of property in side yard. On the question, Mrs. Rosenswie noted her vote was based on the applicant’s need to contain the dogs and an unsightly neighbor’s yard. Mr. Harmon noted the adjoining neighbor has no objection. Mr. Bond was not in favor. Theoretically, the neighbor on the side is the one who is affected, but in reality everyone is affected. What the applicant is attempting to achieve does not need a 6 ft fence on the side. He also noted the substantial nature of the variance in that the distance is 80 feet.
2009-029 Eugene Piotrowski, 77 Hillview, presented a copy of the subdivision map and stated that switching the driveway on this corner lot to the opposite side of the lot will make the house more attractive. Mr. Czuprynski stated that in this situation with a corner lot, it works out better with the driveway coming out on the left. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at Sublot #73, Connor to switch driveway to opposite side of lot.
2009-030
2009-030 (Continued) Jim Kavanaugh, 58 Almont Avenue, stated he is seeking the variance to replace the existing front porch entrance to the house with an 8 ft x 6 ft deck with a roof tied into the existing roof. Applicant submitted letters signed by neighbors at 52 Almont, 61 Almont, 49 Almont, 64 Almont and 55 Almont Avenue. 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 58 Almont Avenue to erect roof with new deck over existing concrete pad, 29 ft from front property line.
2009-031 Mathew & Tomi Jindra, 33 Paxford Place, appeared on the request. Mr. Jindra stated the house was purchased approximately 8 years ago. There was an existing addition to the left of the property which was 23 feet from the road. He would like to put a new concrete porch on the front and bump out on the right side of the property with a 6 ft x 12 ft addition with a dormer on the front to dress up the house and provide added closet space. Mr. Bond noted that the triangle shape of the property prevents the applicant cannot go out the side and there is no room in the back. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 33 Paxford Place to erect addition and roofed porch 23 ft from front property line.
2009-032
2008-032 (Continued) Susan Collins, 735 Union Road, stated she would like to enclose the yard with a 6 ft fence in the exterior side yard. The fence is 5 ft and the top is lattice. She reviewed the location of the proposed fence on the survey with the Board members. Mr. Bond noted that the applicant is staying 18.63 feet from the property line. Ms. Collins stated that was correct. She has no letters from the neighbors. The neighbor behind her on East & West Road has been moved to a nursing home. However, he was granted a variance 23 years ago for a 6 ft fence which would be behind her property extending to the road, and this proposed fence would not affect him at all. The neighbors on the other side have no objection; the husband has been moved into assisted living. The wife, according to the daughter, would appreciate the fence. Ms. Collins will be going out 6.6 ft from the end of the house to the ridge. Mr. Bond noted that there is also a signal at the corner. No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 735 Union Road to erect 6 ft fence in exterior side yard.
2009-033 Thomas and Marian Alf appeared on the request for a 6 ft fence in the side yard. Mr. Alf stated there is a pizzeria next door with an existing chain link fence. The parking is directly alongside of their driveway and headlights shine into their dining and living room. The pizzeria is open until 11:00 pm or 12:00 pm, and later. There have been 6 or 7 operators there in the past 10 years and they have to continuously talk to the operators of the business about keeping the property maintained. Mr. Bond questioned if this was a pre-exisitng business.
2009-033 (Continued) Mr. Czuprynski stated the property was rezoned and the Town Board prescribed the type of fence. Mr. Bond stated when a piece of property is rezoned commercial and it abuts a residential district, a fence is required. Mr. Czuprynski stated the ordinance reads that the Town Board will direct the type of fence to be erected. The building started out as a laundromat and was then operated as a pizzeria several times. Mrs. Alf submitted letters of no objection from Christal Waits at 554 Harlem Road and John Mordeno, the neighbor on the other side. She noted that the current tenant in the pizzeria notified her recently that there will be a new tenant coming in. Mrs. Alf stated she maintains the property grounds on the side of the business to keep peace but has found pizza dough in her yard and other debris. Mr. Alf stated there would be a transistion from 4 ft to 6 ft. Mr. Bond noted this situation is different from previous requests and he felt there should have been a fence erected originally. 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 564 Harlem Road to erect 6 ft fence 24 ft from front property line and 4 ft fence to front property line, as shown on the attached Exhibit A, initialed and signed by Chairman Bond, and filed with the Building Department.
2009-034 Thomas Fisher, 4367 Clinton Street, stated the height is 14 feet within inches, so the overall height will be 20 feet to the peak. Mr. Bond stated the request was to have the pitch of the garage match the pitch of the house roof and questioned why that would matter if they were not attached and the garage is 50 to 60 feet away.
2009-034 (Continued) Mr. Fisher responded that he intended to have them line up with one another. Mr. Bond questioned whether the extra height is for storage. Mr. Fisher stated he would be storing some items, but it was mostly for aesthetics. Mr. Bond stated it sounded more like this is intended for storage over the garage. The garage could be built with a 12 ft height. Mr. Fisher agreed, but he wanted to match the house. Letters of no objection were submitted from neighbor at 4373 Clinton and 4361 Clinton Street. Mr. Bond noted that what the applicant wanted to achieve, could be achieved with a 12 ft height. A variance is granted when an applicant cannot comply with the ordinance. No comments were received from the public. Mr. Harmon noted the request would be an extra 4 feet high and was not objectionable in his opinion. Mr. Fisher stated there were other large garages in the area. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 4367 Clinton Street to erect detached garage over the height restriction. On the question, Mr. Harmon stated he did not see any difference visually at 200 feet from the road. Mr. Bond stated the applicant has failed to show any valid reasoning for the reqeust and he did not like to see the precedent being set by this variance.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting (9:15 p.m.) Respectfully submitted, Patricia C. DePasquale, RMC/CMC For additional information, suggestions, or problems, please contact our Webmaster.
|