| |
|
[ Return to HOME PAGE ] |
West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 09/23/2009
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 September 23, 2009 at 7:00 PM, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present -
Sandra Giese Rosenswie Michael Hughes Michael Harmon David Monolopolus Shawn P. Martin, Town Attorney William Czuprynski, Code Enforcement Officer Excused - None OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to open the Public Hearing.
APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION Motion by Mr. Monolopolus, 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. Harmes, to approve Minutes #2009-08, August 26, 2009.
TABLED ITEMS:
2009-046 Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to remove this item from the table.
2009-046 (Continued) Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Bond, to table this item until such time as the applicant contacts the secretary to place the matter back on the agenda.
2009-066 Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to remove this item from the table.
Ralph C. Lorigo, Esq., 101 Slade Avenue, stated this property is located at Indian Church Road and Mineral Springs Road and has been operated as a bar and grill for at least five or six decades. The applicant acquired the property a couple years ago and ran it for several months in the same manner. Because of a glitch with the Liquor License Application, the application was turned down and applicant had to re-apply. A non-conforming use is lost when the property is no longer utilized in the same manner or if the intention is not to utilize the property in the same manner, which is not the case with the applicant. The applicant did not abandon the use of the property. The financing issue with the Liquor License has been resolved and the applicant is free to make an application again for the Liquor License. Mr. Bond asked if the applicant was attempting to secure the Liquor License during the time the establishment was not open. Mr. Lorigo stated that is correct. The applicant continued to improve the interior and exterior of the property. The applicant intends on serving food and there are landscaping plans for the front area of the property.
2009-066 (Continued) Mr. Bond asked for clarification that this was an ongoing concern at the time applicant purchased the property with applicant continuing to operate it as such until the issue with the liquor license arose. Mr. Lorigo stated that is correct. He further referred to the definition in the town code as to what a side lot line is, “A side lot line is any lot line which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line.” The front lot line is defined as “where a lot abuts only one street, the lot line along the street shall be the front lot line. Where the lot abuts more than one street, the assessment role of the municipality shall determine the front lot line.” In this case, the address is 924 Indian Church Road and according to this section, Indian Church Road would be his front yard. A rear lot line then is any lot line which is opposite and more or less parallel to the front lot line, making Mineral Springs the rear lot line. This has not been a discontinued use for more than one year and the applicant has continued in an attempt to operate the business. In addition, the properties all around him are commercial or industrial. The property behind the applicant is actually zoned manufacturing. There are three residences on Mineral Springs Road across the street. The section was intended for immediate adjacent properties abutting on either side. Letters of no objection were submitted from 1300 Mineral Springs, 1288 Mineral Springs Road, and 931 Indian Church Road. The Mineral Springs Road addresses are located in the residential zone, making them either the front yard or rear yard, and not a side yard. The applicant intends to do a number of things which will be presented at site review, including showing designated parking spaces, an outside smoking area and the location of landscaping. Mr. Bond noted the County’s opposition to parking in front of the building. Mr. Lorigo responded that there will be landscaping in front of the building with no parking there. Mrs. Rosenswie asked if it was necessary to plant shrubs in front of the building in view of the visual problems.
2009-066 (Continued) Mr. Lorigo stated it would enhance the building, but will be addressed at site plan review. The applicant intends on removing the blacktop and replacing it with plants so that there will be no parking in that area. Mr. Bond read the letters of no objection from the Mineral Springs Road addresses which are zoned residential. Mr. Lorigo stated that if the Zoning Board rules that the applicant has not abandoned the use, then he would not need to obtain a special permit. The question would be whether he needs site plan approval of some changes made. This project has never been abandoned; the applicant has always been there and ran it for several months and has continued to improve the exterior and interior of the building. Mike Kopacz, 1281 Mineral Springs Road, stated his property is directly behind the bar. He moved his fence three foot in, and it is not actually on the property line. The parking berms never prevented vehicles from causing damage to his fence. He suggested a pressure treated 6 x 6 fences to block the vehicles from going through and to help with snow removal. He also questioned whether applicant plans on dumpsters or trash cans. Mr. Lorigo noted that these are issues which will be addressed at site plan review. Mr. Harmon questioned Mr. Kopacz if he was objecting to the proposed operation at the property. Mr. Kopacz stated he was not opposed. Mr. Bond stated the applicant claims not to have abandoned the property; in addition he maintained the property and was on the premises.
2009-066 (Continued) Mr. Kopacz noted that the applicant paved the parking lot and maintained the grass on a regular basis. The issues concerning him are parking spaces, grease disposal, and other matters. Mr. Bond stated the Building Inspector would determine the required number of parking spaces at site plan review. Sheila Schlager, 1314 Mineral Springs Road, stated her house is the first house closest to the bar. She has no objections to the applicant opening a bar at that location and has spoken with the applicant. She has concerns with parking as there has been past problems with patrons parking cars on their lawn. There does not appear to be any designated parking for the tenant. They are also concerned with the smoking area and would like to see that area kept clean, or the applicant apply for an indoor smoking permit. She noted concern with rodents and raccoons and felt trash cans were not sufficient. Mary Jo Williams, 929 Indian Church Road, expressed concern with the smoking area which is planned for the side of the building where she faces. There is also loud talking to 2:00 – 3:00 o’clock in the morning and litter from bottles and cigarettes. Traffic is a futher concern. Mr. Lorigo referenced the areas on the plan for smoking and landscaping but emphasized these are issues which will be determined at site plan review. Sally Becker stated her house is across from where the smoking area will be. Her concern is the noise from motorcycles at 2:00 – 3:00 o'clock in the morning. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and allow the non-conforming use to continue, based on the applicant showing that the property use has not been abandoned and the applicant has continued to maintain it, with the applicant to submit to site plan review. The property was only closed for the reasons so stated by applicant’s attorney.
2009-066 (Continued) On the question, Mr. Bond noted that abandonment is a mental process and there must be an intention to abandon something. It is not just a time lapse. The applicant has continuously maintained the property. On the question, Mr. Hughes stated that this Board needs to be supportive of businesses coming into town. This particular location has been a tavern for years and it clearly should continue as a non-conforming use. He also noted the support of the neighbors.
NEW BUSINESS: 2009-067 Charles Deppeler, stated the variance requested is for a split-rail fence, and submitted photographs and a letter of no objection from the resident at 174 Union Road. Mr. Bond stated he disagreed with the applicant’s statement on the application that the proposed split-rail fence is not a barrier, and can be stepped over, under and through. Mr. Bond noted that a fence is anything that is a barrier to people. A person in a wheelchair or an elderly person would not be able to get through a split-rail fence. Mr. Bond asked the Code Enforcement Officer the setback requirements for Union Road. Mr. Czuprynski stated the setback is 40 feet. Mr. Bond noted the applicant has 80 feet of frontage. Mr. Czuprynski stated the law defines the front yard as anything located in front of the house and nothing can project more than 10 feet from the front of the house out towards the street. For a setback, then it would be 40 feet.
2009-067 (Continued) Mr. Bond noted that if the Board allows a fence here then anyone in town can place a fence in front of their house and enclose it. He is against setting precedence for anyone else. Mr. Deppeler stated he measured the fence from the inside of the sidewalk and it is about 18 feet back to the house, and there would be no visual obstruction pulling in or out of the driveway. It extends approximately 60 feet from the front of the house to the street. The measurement was taken from the sidewalk, not the street. 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 170 Union Road to erect split-rail fence in front yard setback. On the question, Mr. Bond noted he will be voing against this because it is setting a precedant. He noted a number of other unattractive fences in the area of applicant’s house but was informed by the Code Enforcement Officer that they predated the ordinance.
2009-068 Paula Stein, 116 Treehaven Road, stated the house faces the southern exposure and the front door suffers damage due to the sun. The window panel needed to be replaced twice and they were advised to cover that. Currently, there is a concrete slab and the steps are not normal and there is no railing. They are attempting to make the deck safer.
2009-068 (Continued) Mr. Bond noted the size of the deck is not indicated on the application and cautioned the applicant it would have to stay back at least 18 feet. Ms. Stein stated the deck will not come out any farther and will be 8 feet wide to where the old step ends. Mr. Bond stated the ordinance requires a 30 ft setback and applicant has 25 and ¼ ft. Letters of no objection were submitted from the neighbors on both sides and the house across the street. 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 116 Treehaven Road to erect roofed front deck 18 feet from front property line.
2009-069 John Lydon, architect at Left Coast, appearing for WNY Federal Credit Union, stated upon evaluating the corner for an appropriate location of the sign, the applicant concluded this particular location would best meet their needs. The distance from the property line to the edge of the sign is 4.4 feet. This particular sketch does not depict the final design, but applicant will adhere to the new design being restrained to this 4.4 dimension. This request is simply for the sign location and the final sign will be submitted for approval at permit time. The distance from the proposed edge of the sign to the paved portion of the street is 16.10 feet. It will be a lighted sign and will adhere to all other criteria at the time the permit is applied for.
2009-069 (Continued) No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 1937 Union Road to erect pedestal sign 4.33 feet from front property line.
2009-070 Paul Notaro, Esq., appeared on behalf of the applicants and stated this location is an odd situation with this being a corner lot. The shed is approximately 8.9 feet and 9.2 feet from the property line on the Union Road side. There is almost a 10 foot buffer between where the shed will go and the property line and an additional 30 feet to the roadway. There is over a total of 40 feet from the edge of the roadway. There have also been trees planted in the 10 foot buffer area. The trees are already large, being almost 7 feet tall, so the total view of the structure will be almost totally obstructed from view of Union Road. As they grow, it will be further buffered from site issues. Letters of no objection were submitted from 418 Union Road and 266 Reserve Road. Mr. Desmone also has health issues and up until now has had to take all the lawn care equipment into the basement in order to park the car in the garage during the winter months and this is becoming more difficult for him to do. At 2 Timothy Court there is also a shed in a similar spot for which this Board granted a variance in 2003 or 2004, setting a precedance for the odd shaped subdivision for allowing it in that particular corner. Mr. Bond noted he viewed the property and its unique circumstances in that the house slants down and there is no other location for placement of the shed. In the past, he was denied a variance for a fence and commended the applicant for planting a number of evergreens to enhance the property.
2009-070 (Continued) Mr. Czuprynski asked if the shed would be placed over the existing pad, no bigger. Mr. Notaro stated that was correct. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 402 Union Road to erect a garden shed having a footprint of no larger than the existing 10 ft x 12 ft pad in the exterior side yard within the 40 foot setback, based on the nature of the sloping land.
2009-071 Anthony Manna, Lancaster, stated he is the owner of property at 3454 Clinton Street. At the time the property was purchased in 1997, it was used as a salon with a three-year lease. It has been vacant since then because of the difficulty in renting a 17 ft x 34 ft space. It was not his intention to abandon the use of the property but could not obtain a tenant for the space. His daughter now has a cosmetology license and operated it with one station. It originated as a barber shop in the 1800’s and then since 1968 was operated by Mr. Rizzo as a barber shop. It then continued the use as a hair salon up to the time he purchased the property. Mr. Czuprynski stated that a R-60A district allows professional offices such as an attorney, doctor, or real estate office, but does not allow a beauty shop. A petition noting no objection containing signatures of 10 adjoining and nearby properties was submitted. No comments were received from the public.
2009-071 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 3454 Clinton Street to re-establish the pre-existing non-conforming status, based on the applicant establishing that there was no abandonment of use.
2009-072 Joseph Basil, 22 Sussex Lane, Lancaster, builder for the applicant, submitted an interior design with the proposed addition and letters of no objections from 158 Hybank Drive and 172 Hybank Drive. Mr. Bond asked why it couldn’t be reduced by a foot. Mr. Basil responded that this is a family room with a fireplace. He is using 2 ft x 6 ft wall construction with additional insulation. The actual inside of the room will be 17 ft x 17.6 ft. Reducing it further would result in a small family room. Mr. Hughes noted the house is on an angle and this is an odd shaped lot. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Monolopolus, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 164 Hybank Drive to erect addition 28.90 feet from rear property line.
2009-073 Jeff Shannon, Armor Duells Road, construction manager, and Joseph Dolan, appeared on the request.
2009-073 (Continued) Mr. Bond noted applicant’s remarks on the application that the placement of the house on the lot is in keeping in line with adjacent houses and questioned if applicant was referring to the houses on Lisa Ann Lane or on East & West Road. Mr. Shannon responded it was the two houses on Lisa Ann and the corner lot on Lisa Ann. Mr. Bond noted the house across the street was able to fit. Mr. Dolan stated that house at 854 East & West Road was already existing and he lives there now. Measuring from the lot line, the distance is 18 feet from the lot line. Mr. Monolopolus suggested flipping the house. Mr. Dolan stated the lot is 140 feet deep x 83 feet. If flipped that way, there would be no back yard at all, just a side yard. Discussion followed on the size of the structure and options for shifting it on the lot. Mr. Bond referred to the original subdivision map showing a 20 ft setback when the houses were built. Mr. Czuprynski stated the setback for a subdivision is 30 feet. The exterior side lot is the street that it abuts. At the time the subdivision went in, a reduction may have been granted for the exterior side lot. Mr. Bond commented that the next properties down Lisa Lane are 20 feet. Letters of no objection were received from 3 Lisa Lane, 854 East & West Road, 850 East & West Road, and 4 Tracy Lynn Lane. No comments were received from the public.
2009-073 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 852 East & West Road to erect home 18 feet from exterior side lot line.
2009-074 Clifford Alf, 3397 Bethford Drive, Blasdell, stated he would like to replace a pre-existing concrete porch with a roofed front porch which will extend 5 feet into the setback. He will be simply covering the footprint of the current existing porch. Mr. Bond questioned if the applicant was sure he would be back 35 feet. Mr. Alf stated that was according to the survey. Letters of no objection were submitted from the neighbors across the street and on both sides. 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 5583 Seneca Street to erect roofed front porch 35 feet from front property line.
2009-075 Dan Walters, 257 Fawn Trail, stated they would like to turn the existing garage into a family room and attach a garage to that room. In doing so, he needs to extend the existing driveway to
2009-075 (Continued) vallow access to the new garage. Letters of no objection were submitted from the resident next door, two neighbors to the left, three neighbors across the street and one neighbor behind him.Mr. Bond questioned if applicant wants to add concrete in front of the new garage in order to get in and out. Mr. Czuprynski stated the reason is to keep the concrete where it is, in front of the house that is now becoming the family room which will now place the driveway in front of the house and parking is not allowed in front of the house. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 257 Fawn Trail to allow parking on the existing concrete in front of the house proper.
2009-076 Ralph Barames, Premier Sign Systems, and James Stewart, Transitowne KIA, appeared on the request. Mr. Bond asked if the sign for KIA is the standard sign. Mr. Steward responded this is the standard 62.39 sq ft sign because of the cladding around the bottom of the sign which adds to its overall exposure. It will be 5 ft from the property line which places it back 18 feet from the roadway, similar to the sign at South Transit which sign is exactly 5 feet from the property line, as well as the property Russell Christopher built.
2009-076 (Continued)
Mr. Barames clarified the 5 feet is from the edge of the sign, not the pole. Mr. Hughes questioned if this will be a scrolling sign. Mr. Stewart responded this will not be a scrolling sign. Mr. Monolopolus noted the green space on the blueprints but saw no green space in front of the building at all. Mr Stewart stated they just acquired the property at 3180 and are in the process of removing garbage and debris. They do not anticipate being able to start the greenery until sometime this spring. The sign needs to go in now because that is the direct center between both of the driveways. New greenery will be incorporated on both sides of the sign when the new facility is constructed. Mr. Bond inquired who the neighbors to this property are. Mr. Stewart stated Blossom is on one side and the Mayer Brothers storage warehouse is behind them, and they own the property on the other side. Mr. Czuprynski noted that the applicant had applied for a Special Permit for the property they owned for four years. Blossom Hardware and the building next to it were torn down and part of that involved the green area which has never been completed. Mr. Stewart assured Mr. Czuprynski that the green area would be completed in the spring. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Harmon, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 3190 Transit Road to erect 63 sq ft sign, 5 feet from property line.
2009-076 (Continued)
2009-077 David Repman, Kaz Bros, appeared on behalf of the property owner and stated there is a smaller front porch where they are proposing a new structure 19 ft wide x 7 ft out from the house which will extend into the front setback. Mr. Repman reviewed the plans with the Board members. Letters of no objection were submitted from 109 Cloverside Drive and 137 Cloverside Drive. 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 123 Cloverside Drive to erect front porch 27.95 feet from front property line.
2009-078 David Young, 484 Harlem Road, stated there was a temporary cover over the deck for a long period of time but was damaged by snow. He spoke with the Winchester Fire Co and they have no objection. Mr. Bond cautioned the applicant that the area that is roofed can never be enclosed, as this was a previous non-conforming use. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 484
2009-078 (Continued) Harlem Road to expand existing roof to cover rear deck. Pre-existing non-conforming expansion.
2009-079 Mike Marrano, Marrano Development Corp, stated there was a samll house on the property that was sold to the tenant. There will be separate driveways and separate sewers. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mr. Monolopolus, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 155 Leydecker Road to separate a 63.24 ft x 180 ft lot from existing parcel.
2009-080 Yasser Mohamed, 740 Main Street, stated he hired a contractor to do the front but the contractor never informed him that a variance was needed in order to use that portion for parking. Mr. Bond noted that he visited the property and is aware of the current situation. He asked if the applicant was able to park a vehicle in the garage now. Mr. Mohamed replied that it was difficult. The garage is too small. Pat Biddlecomb, stated she is the neighbor next door. She is aware of the history of the house. Originally, the house was supposed to
2009-080 (Continued) be built the long distance rather than across, but the people who were having the house built were on their honeymoon and when they returned the foundation was already in for the way it is now. She is aware that even previous owners parked their cars on the grass. Mr. Czuprynski stated the size of a parking space must be 9 ft x 18 ft. Letters of no objection were submitted from the adjoining neighbors on both sides, 754 Main Street and 736 Main Street. No comments were heard from the public. Motion by Mr. Harmon, seconded by Mr. Bond, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 740 Main Street to use a portion of front yard for vehicle parking. On the question, Mr. Bond stated that normally he would not vote for a situation like this, but the applicant is unable to go into the exterior side yard and there is difficulty in getting a vehicle in the garage.
2009-081 Joseph Deplato, 850 Seneca Creek Road, stated he is going through the application process to operate an on-line business for a Federal firearms license and requires a variance to do so. Mr. Bond stated there is a procedure in town more applicable than appearing before the Zoning Board. Home Occupation petmits are granted by the Town Board for an operation such as this. The applicant would need to apply for a home occupation permit to the Planning Board and then appear before the Town Board who will either grant or deny.
2009-081 (Continued) Motion by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mrs. Rosenswie, to close the public hearing and table this item for the applicant to meet with the Town’s Planning Consultant in order to move forward on an application for a Home Occupancy permit.
2008-082
Dan Garlick, Rosati Landscaping & Custom Decks, 24 Greymont Avenue, appeared on behalf of the property owner at 519 Main Street. Mr. Garlick stated they will be staying even with the existing concrete porch. The property owner simply needs a roof because the mailman will not deliver mail due to ice building on top. The upstairs was insulated but ice continues to build on top. A letter with signatures of residents at 523 Main Street, 524 Main Street, 514 Main Street and 511 Main Street was submitted. 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 519 Main Street to erect roofed front porch 15.25 feet from front property line.
2009-083 John Hobbes, architect, 443 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, stated there is an existing deck which is non-complying. The property owner would like to extend it across the entire width but it is just that existing portion that the roof is planned to cover which is the
2009-083 (Continued)
portion in the 40 foot setback. The footprint will remain the same, just wider on the section that is in the forty foot setback. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, to close the public hearing and grant a variance for property located at 4910 Seneca Street to erect roofed front porch 33.67 feet from front property line.
2009-084 Tony Scatcia, 1594 Lakeview Road, Lakeview, stated there was an existing porch with an aluminum awning. The porch was just a slab of poured concreted which is dilapidated along with the steps. He is requesting a variance to cover the front porch which is 45 feet from the front property line. 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 3606 Seneca Street to cover front porch 45 feet from front property line.
2009-085 Frank Wailand, 3922 Seneca Street, appeared on behalf of the property owner, DTM Enterprises. Mr. Wailand stated the applicant is withdrawing the request for a reduction in the side yard setback based on the letter of objection received from National Grid. This
2009-085 (Continued) is the current home for the warehouse of Carolina Furniture and also Black Hat Chimney. The owner of Carolina Furniture wants to build a new building toward the northwest part of the property. They would like to build some mini-storage facilities and to get better circulation on the site would like to reduce the front from 25 ft to 10 ft, landscape the area and have a perimeter fence with a swipe card gate entry at the front. The property is riddled with a number of easements to NYSEG and National Grid. The plan was originally before the Planning Board and the buildings were parallel to the street with greater density to the buildings. The Planning Board objected to having this long wall at the back of the storage structure so the buildings were turned, and by doing so, lost 40 to 45 units. The owner originally wanted 190; currently there are 127 on the site. Mr. Bond commented that in his opinion the applicant has failed to demonstrate where he would suffer a substantial lack of return if the variance was not granted. No comments were received 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 4155 Seneca Street to reduce front setback from 25 feet to 10 feet. On the question, Mr. Hughes stated the benefits to the applicant can be achieved by another means and the project could be reduced by 10% and be in compliance. Mr. Bond noted the variance being requested is substantial, being almost 60%.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Mrs. Rosenswie, seconded by Mr. Monolopolus, 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.
|